The select board has unanimously agreed to match a $50,000 grant for construction of a downtown riverside park.
www.eagletimes.com
www.vermontjournal.com
Springfield starts ball rolling on riverside park | February 28, 2018 By PATRICK ADRIAN padrian@eagletimes.com SPRINGFIELD, Vt. — The select board has unanimously agreed to match a $50,000 grant for construction of a downtown riverside park. The board voted Monday to accept a $50,000 grant from The Vermont Agency of Commerce and Community Development from its Downtown Transportation Fund. The town will add $50,000 in matching funds. The Downtown Transportation Fund helps municipalities pay for transportation-related improvements in downtown districts, which can include pedestrian and streetscape projects. Town Manager Tom Yennerell said the money will pay specifically for construction of pedestrian walkways and paved areas. The project, known as River Park, is included in the town’s Main Street Master Plan. The plan, completed in 2017, is a guide for the town’s economic revitalization of the downtown district. It envisions redesigning the downtown to include more public spaces, art, cultural attractions, retail and dining. The town plans to build River Park on the riverfront property occupied by the former VNA building, which the town purchased and plans to raze this year. The preferred design, created by design company Greenman-Pedersen Inc. in White River Junction, Vt., features a terraced walkway along the Black River, an overlook, multiple congregation areas and a deck for possible outdoor dining. The town wants to attract community gatherings and a visual appreciation of Comtu Falls. Yennerell said the park would include lighting and be visible from the road, in response to public concern about unwanted activity at nighttime. While the master plan projected a cost of $450,000 to build the park, Yennerell said that Greenman-Pedersen is preparing an estimate for the preferred design, which the company presented to the community Feb. 21. Yennerell expects the estimate to be completed this week. Acquiring the grant marks the beginning of the plan’s fundraising phase. According to Yennerell’s administrative assistant, Brian Benoit, fundraising initiatives are being discussed by the Main Street Steering Committee — an informal panel open to anyone who is interested. The committee meets once a month and includes many economic and civic leaders like Yennerell and Caitlin Christiana, executive director of the Springfield Regional Chamber of Commerce. Yennerell believes this park’s creation would play an integral, positive role in the downtown revitalization plan. He said he often hears from the community about a lack of green space. The park would also provide the public a visual access to the river, including an excellent view of the falls.
Top2018News
Excellent!
ReplyDeleteWe already have a riverside park. There's a school there. Riverside. But I guess since we have two Fellows buildings, we might as well have two riversides.
ReplyDeleteLooks great, but would rather have the sidewalk replaced on South Street. Take a walk from the top of South Street hill to the high school. It's so deteriorated that many people walk in the street. Also, more road repairs through out town are sorely needed.
ReplyDeleteglad we have all this money to throw away
ReplyDeleteHow can anyone possibly want taxpayers' money to be used for something to benefit the community? A very attractive park in the heart of downtown? A sidewalk that would be used mostly by school kids and neighborhood shoppers? We might as well submit to Communism right now!
ReplyDeleteChuck it's called prioritizing the money that is available, a "very small" park in the center of town is going to benefit very few people.
ReplyDeleteNew Orleans after Katrina had a very profitable business running a "misery tour," a bus trip around the devastated areas of the city. Springfield's too small for that; our misery tours are over in about ten minutes on foot.
ReplyDeleteSo, let's have a really attractive park in the heart of downtown to make entrepreneurs want to set up here and make their customers feel pretty good.
Attractive park? Chuck, you need better glasses. The Parks & Wilson eyesore, crumbling Odd Felllows building and plywood palace are disgusting. If all torn down, and professionally landscaped perhaps. But as is, only serve as testament incompetent town management and selfish property owners.
ReplyDeleteWant quick change? Let's start calling out these property owners by name to publicly shame them. Tax listings show Christopher V. Mason of Springfield as the owner Springfield's worse eye sore. Thanks for your contribution Chris!
Grow the hell up. You're a god damn grown up aren't you. Is it really necessary to single him Out and stupidly run your fat mouth in the public eye. Asshole
DeleteWhat do you contribute...just curious
Delete"Is it really necessary to single him Out....." (Anon 11:52)
DeleteYes it is. Christopher V. Mason stripped anything he could sell for scrap out of the building, then abandoned it foisting the blight on the community. Not content with that, he stockpiled unregistered, junk vehicles on the property just to add to the eye sore. Perhaps you'd feel differently if you had to live in the neighborhood and it impacted your home value. Your indignation only solidifies community sentiment.
Parks & Wilson is getting pretty bad from the outside. I can only imagine the state of the interior. It seems unlikely it could be rehabbed for any purpose. Is the hydro station in it (and that in the plywood palace) still functional, and is there any need to keep those facilities?
ReplyDeleteI doubt wholesale changes to Springfield can be attempted. Gradual change, fixing and improving bits and pieces, may be doable. The proposed park, despite compromising surroundings, seems to net out to a plus. Then lets get rid of the next biggest eyesore.
Work together instead if the name trashing. Kharma. I'm gonna getcha good
DeleteI'll bring the popcorn
Surely a new park will lure new businesses to town/s
ReplyDeletehow many new businesses have been brought to town because of the other little park just up the road,I've lived on my road for 15 years,the only maintenance done to it has been when they replaced a water valve,they put pavement over the 6 foot square hole they made,the rest of the road is in terrible shape,but nothing is ever down to it
ReplyDeleteThe funds squandered on Chuck's "pocket park" would be better served razing adjacent blight. This isn't Brooklyn. Springfield has ample public space. All efforts should focus on job creation. What the hell has Springfield on the Move an SRDC accomplished lately, or ever? Those alone are reason enough to vote down the down budget!
ReplyDeleteWhile I agree the adjacent blight should be addressed, building a park downtown is a great idea. If you cleaned up all the crap on that side of the river, the view from the Parks and Woolson building would be good enough for riverfront condos. THAT would attract some of the upper-crusters that this town SAYS it wants! Be careful what you wish for though; fix this town up nice enough, and those yuppies you lured here may run YOU out, instead of the other way around!
DeleteAmen, 3:43! Gentrification killed off Cannery Row, and we need to keep it from killing the humanity of Springfield
Delete3:43 again. Hate to break it to you, Chuck, but I'd welcome that change, or at least a few steps in that direction. I grew up in an area like that AND IT WAS NICE! The only problem that I had was being unable to afford to stay there! The point I was trying to make was that very few people, INCLUDING most of Springfield's "elite" could! Three bedroom ranches START at 250k, and go WAY UP from there. You'll pay between 7k and 10k per year in property taxes, too! And that's the BOTTOM of the market. You'ld LITERALLY have to be Bill Gates or one of the Koch bros. to live in the better parts! Will Springfield ever get that bad (good)? I hope not, but it could get a whole lot closer before I'd start worrying! Others around here would not be so fortunate, including some who are wishing for it!
DeleteSRDC and Springfield On the Move need new leadership, and no Chuck I'm not volunteering, and don't need any of your stats, but as has been mentioned they are neither very successful in their accomplishments. Credit for trying but I think their vision is just off.
ReplyDeleteWell, if people want job creation without spending money to make Springfield so much as look like an attractive town businesspeople would like to live in (Michael Guité, where are you living these days?), let's go the quick and dirty route!
ReplyDeleteCoal-fired power plants, nuclear power plants, tanneries, PCB manufacturers and landfills are looking for places to dump their wastes! We could easily make $4-5 million a year charging them to dump it here and use the proceeds to hire 5,000 people at minimum wage to keep it from overflowing the dump boundaries. We could even afford to provide them with the rakes for free.
Why would you pick on Micheal Guite, He lives in Hartland, but he also is providing many good paying jobs for this town, and his company also pays a fair share of tax's that support this town and others in this state. Just cause he does not live here does not mean he does not support this area.
ReplyDeleteI'm not picking on him! He can live anywhere he wants, but the fact that he chose not to live in the town where he's making his money imparts a message. We ought to think about what that message is, whether or not he happens to be the messenger.
DeleteWe had people who made their money here also live here-- Flanders, Miller, Hartness, Brown. Guité just happens to be an example of someone who doesn't. Is he one of many? An exception to the rule?
What town do you sleep in Chuck?
DeleteCareful Chuck, it's people like Mr. Guite and Companies like Vtel that enable you and your people to continue to suckle off society. Don't bite the hand that feeds you....
Deletewhichever town you're in, honey.
DeleteWhy would anyone choose to raise a family in Springfield? Be happy he is paying for your entitlements which I'm sure you take full benefit over.
DeleteWhile insulting capitalist, business owners, Chuck can be found mooching off their Wi-Fi signal to make these postings. Troll.
DeleteThe 'plywood palace' is a testament to Puggy Lanphere, former incompetent fire chief who dictated the building's facade (which was substantial, attractive and structurally sound) to be bulldozed after a relaively minor fire. So don't blame the site's current owner for being pissed off!!!
ReplyDeleteWell, as usual, the "doom-and-gloomers" of Springfield are crying. Here it is in a nutshell: If you want investors and businesses to come here, YOU HAVE TO SHOW THEM THAT THIS TOWN IS SERIOUS ABOUT MAKING A COMEBACK! I bought a house here, and risked my money, because I saw the potential for a really nice place to live. I was able to look past the blight, and some of the unsavory characters, and see what this town COULD be. I just went downtown and took a good look at the site. Where I come from, people would pay MILLIONS for a view of those falls from the window of a high-end condo. SERIOUSLY. Knock down a few of the other buildings around the area, and you would have a GOLD MINE. The old-fashioned twisty, hilly streets, and 19th century buildings are terrible for industry, but they would be big money if renovated and repurposed as residential and light commercial. The downside? THIS WILL COST MONEY! But if done right, it will be money well spent!
ReplyDeleteSorry, 12:30, but there are still too many people in town who have the shop town mentality, waiting for the local captains of industry to make all the decisions for them (just as they used to when Springfield had captains of industry). They'll go away eventually, though...
Delete@12:30 PM
DeleteRegarding, " YOU HAVE TO SHOW THEM THAT THIS TOWN IS SERIOUS ABOUT MAKING A COMEBACK!" You may want to do a search and read Amazon's requirements for a city to host their new head quarters.
High on the list is, an existing thriving business climate, available labor force with a college degree, local university system and tax concessions. Nowhere on the list is pocket parks. Point being, our failed school system, laughable Howard Dean vocational ctr., technically lacking CCV, and high property taxes negate Springfield from consideration for anything but packing rutabagas and whacking pigs.
That could change. But first we need to repeatedly vote down the town budget and school budgets in protest. It is the ONLY tool we have to affect change. Use your vote wisely.
Well, 8:17, you do make some valid arguments, although simply spending LESS on education and infrastructure is not the solution. The problems with Springfield's schools, as I see it, are at the State level; the idea that "local is better" is just a way to keep unnecessary bureaucrats in their jobs! Eliminating local school boards, and having one board for the state would save A TON of money, which could be used for tax relief or better school programs! Springfield is NOT a city, so having a job-ready labor pool is a problem; we must attract the people who will do the jobs at the same time we attract the employers! A tough task, to be sure, and the only way to do that is to make Springfield a town people WANT to move to! A pocket park downtown is only the beginning; there must ALSO be improvements in infrastructure, AND education, AND a host of other things. We need to be "shovel-ready," not "wrecking-ball ready." And, I say again, THIS WILL COST MONEY! Money WE need to come up with, not go begging to "investors" for!
Delete9:37, people are starting to pay attention to the idea of developing Springfield's school system as an asset-- make it a world-class one. In one of the very best, Finland's, the graduation rate is 96%, and 96% of grads go on to vo-tech or college education; there is recess between every class in elementary school, teachers and principals, not the national government, develop curriculum and spend much more time assessing students' progress and shaping the curriculum to individual needs; all teachers must have a master's degree (paid for by the government), and something like two-thirds of all students receive special help at some time in their schooling. The system produces the world's best students at a cost one-third less than we, #17 globally, do.
DeleteSuch a system would be a real asset to Springfield, and we would have the sort of entrepreneurs and families attracted here because of it. However, WE have to plan it ourselves. If we don't, the same people who gave us No Child Left Behind, Common Core, Race to the Top and ESSA will be more than happy to serve us more of the same baloney.
Spoken like a true bureaucrat! The Soviet Union had an excellent education system too, but I wouldn't want to copy it! The county I grew up in had nearly ONE MILLION people living in it, and had ONE school board. If it could be done there for a million people, it can be done here for 650,000!
DeleteDO NOT continue to court towns in the old-fashioned, i.e., Amazon-luring way. A study of the relocation of over 300 businesses worth over $50 million each showed that the winning municipality paid them (with tax, real estate, etc., breaks) an average of $650,000 per job moved in. Do it the way Essex Junction lured in IBM-- be a nice place with excellent skiing and a job force that is intelligent enough to learn the ropes in something totally foreign to them. This means invest in good education (not geared primarily to STEM), good streets, good water and sewerage, good views and affordable housing. Let THEM pay our price, not the other way around. Better to spend our money improving ourselves than prostituting ourselves.
ReplyDeleteHere's a way to pay for the roads and sidewalks this town needs; a one-time tax assessment on EVERY PROPERTY in town. Set the rate so that the median home pays around $1,000. They did that in one town I lived in, and after some grumbling, people liked the new roads and sewers so much they stopped complaining!
ReplyDeleteGreat deal for the disability scammers and tattooed, fat welfare moms.
DeleteI like Anonymous 2:21's idea, I would pay my share, I think we would struggle to get low end folks to pay. This is a out of the box idea I have never heard. The other issue is making sure out town folks are not giving the work to there buddy or taking a bribe and the cost of the work is outrageous, cause we know that happens with all government even local projects...
ReplyDelete