Washington College President Mitchell Reiss gave his final offer to Chestertown this week to buy the town’s option in the Armory for $320,000, with no additional conditions on public access or a commitment from WC to help fund Rails to Trails–as sought by three Councilmen, according to WC Director of Media Relations Kay MacIntosh.
WC’s offer stands firm on a memorandum of understanding submitted to the town at the Sept. 16 Council meeting–-and agreed to prior between Chestertown Town Manager Bill Ingersoll and Reiss’s office.
The offer gives the town a deadline of mid-November to accept the offer–on the premise that the Board of Visitors and Governors want closure, and that WC is very well positioned to achieve its waterfront plans without the Armory.
Chestertown Councilman Marty Stetson told the Spy today that he holds firm on his position to get greater value from selling the town’s option on the Armory.
“I’d like to get together with Washington College and see what we can do,” Stetson said. “But I’m not ready to just hand them the Armory carte blanche for free. Washington College is part of this town and the people are part of this town; the people have to get something of value for this.”
Stetson also said that holding on to the Armory would come at no cost to taxpayers and could eventually be sold to a developer.
“If the college doesn’t want to take it, we can hold onto it. There’s somebody out there who will buy it,” Stetson said. “It is the last piece of waterfront property in the town that could be commercial. It has water and sewer, and there is a lot of value to that.”
The negotiations up to this point have been difficult, according to Stetson, because all of the negotiations had to be public.
“I think it was a way to get us to capitulate and just give them the Armory,” Stetson said.
Councilman James Gatto said he and the Council have tried to work out an agreement that benefits the Town and WC.
“The Council serves the people of this town as well as the college, and we have tried to put together a package that represents the interest of this town, “ Gatto said. “It may or may not favor the College at this point and time–because the college has clearly stated that it doesn’t need the Armory to complete its waterfront goals, which frees the town to make a broad-based decision on the future of the Amory.”
Councilman Gibson Anthony said he hoped the deal would have benefited the college.
“Initially, I hoped this was something that would add a lot of value to Washington College,” Gibson told the Spy today. “But given that the college has said they can accomplish their goals without the Armory, I’m starting to wonder if the best economic benefit for the town is for the Armory to be in other hands.”
Carla Massoni says
The long range plans initially proposed by WC for the use of the waterfront included the Armory. It is the most appropriate use for this property and in the future will ultimately benefit Chestertown by enhancing what has been a problematic stretch of real estate. I think we are being penny wise and pound foolish. Private developers do not appear to be knocking on the door. Most of the private developments on the waterfront have been suffering as of late and that does not bode well for new projects. This area would be better served by inclusion in WC plans and being part of an institutional vision.
Kevin Shertz says
Mayor and Council, if the Memorandum of Understanding doesn’t reflect what you feel is in the best interests of your citizens, please don’t do this deal.
The interests of the Town and the College are mutual, but not identical. The lack of commitment to public access of the site is very troubling. Once it’s gone, it’s gone.
Eliott Fuhrman says
the water front is the heart of kent county and this land should be put to highest best use, which is the college.The town has a first option, right to property they do not have contract or are they in title.they can not sell their option to a profit company because a non-profit{collge] is next in line from getting state property.The waterfront is too important to the whole county to let the town council of ct ,who does not represent all residents of county, to control this aset.NO ONE will buy this property because can not use land and tear down building because zoned historic. I done think college should buy it let it sit there.
Karen O'Connor says
I agree with Carla Massoni. While the issue of public access is of concern, there is access to facilities at WC, albeit on a limited basis. That should not hold up the transaction , but should continue to be part of the dialog. Chestertown , and indeed, Kent County, does not need a white elephant on the waterfront. If rails to trails cannot be funded how in the world will purchase and renovation of the Armory be funded? There is a message being sent by the college. The town has to seriously consider if it is realistic to acquire a property it cannot improve in the near term.
Kate Livie says
With all due respect to prior posters, the town has just moved on the marina property a hundred feet away. I don’t think river access, if everything continues as planned, is a real issue. The college is willing to take a problematic although scenic site and make it useful and attractive. I have a hard time seeing how entailing the purchase with multiple other (unrelated but community-beneficial) projects makes much sense. If the college passes on this deal, who will realistically take it on in the future, in the manner Chestertonians have proscribed?
In addition, I would really dislike seeing, as Marty said, “another developer.” More waterfront housing to just sit, empty? Not exactly thinking out of the box.
Cynthia McGinnes says
Excuse me if this is not accurate, but wouldn’t the college assume payment of a $320,000 loan that the town would have to pay off on the Armory? I don’t see how the college’s assumption of this loan is “getting the Armory for nothing”.I thiink we may have some new members of the Council after the election that may come to a different conclusion,
Fletcher R. Hall says
It is amazing that the town council of Chestertown can be so myopic. The offer to purchase the armory site, by Washington College. has many long term benefits for both the college and the town. There are colleges all over this nation who would be more than happy to have such an opportunity. Their communities would be both reasonable and supportative of such an offer. After over two hundred years of being good citizens in Chestertown, one might think that Chestertown officials would eagerly embrace enhancing the educational, tourism and technology opportunities the consolidation of a first rate college’s presence, on one of Chestertown’s outstanding natural assets, the Chester River, would bring to the entire area. Those who do not understand history, are doomed to repeart it. After numerous blunders, you might conjecture that Chestertown officials would recognize and reasonably support a deal that bebefits everyone. Such deals are, indeed, not easy to come by in these economically challenging times.
Jack Dorsey says
Perhaps the college has grown weary of being a “cash cow” for the town. Passing along the costs of an underfunded project as a condition of purchase was probably going too far. There is something to be said about looking a gift horse in the mouth.
Warrior Bob Kramer says
Lost in this debate is why the town council didn’t extract fees for sponsoring the Washington College’s $60 million+ bond offering… and why they now feel WAC isn’t paying their fair share.
Washington College has made a fair offer for a derelict building… as they did for the BOE building on Washington Avenue. The county commissioners made the right decision. The town council should follow their example. But… IF they think they can get a better deal from WC or someone else that’s their privilege for asking.
Yet… it’s not like this issue was just sprung upon them. Shouldn’t they have had a better understanding of the financial aspects of this deal before they negotiated the MOU?
Janice DIckson says
I certainly agree with many posters here. The town should sell post-haste the armory to the college. What this town does not need is a white elephant hanging around its neck. Once the 3 council members (Anthony, Stetson, Gatto) realize that their elected positions may be in jeopardy, they may see the sense in selling the armory to the college. Repeat: selling, not giving, the armory to the college. The college wants to continue to be a good neighbor in Chestertown; why prevent it. This deal benefits everyone. Why prolong discussion of this deal by holding the college up for the money lacking from the rails to trails project? If the college passes on this deal, who will realistically take it on in the future? I don’t see “another developer” waiting in the wings (Stetson) to bid on this property, chomping at the bit to build more waterfront housing in this terrible market, or building more overpriced dwellings sitting vacant. The waterfront is too important to the whole of Kent County to let the C’town town council who represents less than 1/3 of the residents in the county, to try to manipulate one of the largest employers in the county into coughing up more money. I hope voters in the district which is having a contested election will remember the person trying to hold up the college for more money, and vote accordingly.
Patti Hegland says
I agree with Carla.
town council: don’t cut off your nose to spite your face!
Louis G. Michael says
For the benefit of the whole region, one preservation objective for the Chestertown Armory is Community Access to the building for all manner of purposes, including emergency use in time of disaster, public and private events, and so on. In 2007 Washington College provided for essentially unlimited community access to the Armory in its detailed proposal to the State for armory acquisition. Consistent with this and with regional preservation objectives, in 2011 Washington College provided for essentially unlimited community access to the Armory in the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) before the Mayor and Council of Chestertown. Members of the Chestertown Council proposed an entirely different and highly restrictive access. Under the town plan access would only be permitted 5 times a year, would require town council approval, and would not be available to the public at large, and would be limited to certain prescribed uses. The risk now is that the sweeping unlimited community access offered by Washington College could be lost. This could happen if the town owned the Armory, or sold it to a developer. It is also possible that there would be zero community access, if a developer instituted uses that would not allow it at all — such as hotel or other commercial ventures.
Gibson Anthony says
Fact Checking:
There have been many times that I have appreciated Mr. Michael’s perspective. But in this case I feel the need to correct some information.
Mr. Michael said, “Washington College provided for essentially unlimited community access to the Armory in its detailed proposal to the State for armory acquisition.”
The college has never promised unlimited community access to the Armory.
It has been members of the Town Council that have tried to quantify a level of community access, on which the community could depend.
Regarding a sense of history, I’m hoping that everyone will remember my efforts in 2008 to provide a process for the Armory dispossession that has made it possible for the college to have it in the first place. In early 2008 the County Commissioners were on the verge of giving the property to a private developer until the Town intervened.
The property was appraised recently for about 2 million dollars. This is a debate about whether the Town facilitates a 1.5 million or a 1 million dollars savings for the college. I hope we can work it out.
Mrs. McGinnes, with a good-natured wink and a smile, I hope you are as good at predicting elections as you were in predicting that the Super Fresh would remain abandoned.
I hope that everyone will appreciate that I’m attempting to work out an agreement which provides balance and fairness for all members of the community.
Joan Smith says
I don’t understand what the council members are thinking. We don’t need more commercial development in Chestertown — we can’t support the businesses we have. And how many more empty waterfront buildings must we see to persuade you that our future is in taking care of what we have and what works here? The College works and makes the town work. It would be doing the town a favor to buy the Armory. It is almost a bad joke — and it makes the council look so incompetent and small — that it is threatening to screw this up. The College provides incalculable benefits to the town — an incredible number of free and low-cost events, a rich cultural life we wouldn’t have without it. It is the primary reason, along with the beautiful and well-preserved historic architecture, that people move here. It provides stable employment with actual benefits, including good health insurance, which most commercial development does not. The conspicuous vacancy of our “luxury” waterfront construction predated the current recession. Only a moron would pay the kind of money being demanded for almost no outdoor space, very little privacy, and tacky construction in a place that is about outdoor space and privacy and great historic architecture. And, perhaps, less distinguished, but unpretentious architecture that is actually affordable.
The Council members make it sound as if the College were some person squeezing the town for some selfish benefit. The College is a nonprofit — it relies on generous donors who want to support something that contributes to the public welfare. The good people who will make the gifts to the College which will allow it to buy the Armory are making, indirectly, a gift to the Town. Please be a little smarter about this.
Kevin Shertz says
Louis Michael wrote:
“Consistent with this and with regional preservation objectives, in 2011 Washington College provided for essentially unlimited community access to the Armory in the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) before the Mayor and Council of Chestertown.”
My question would be, what is different than this position and the Town’s position, aside from the Rails-to-Trails issue. Based on news reports, it seems to be that specifically “waterfront access” is the sticking point (according to The Star Democrat and others), but I have no idea if that’s the case, not having had the opportunity to read the Memorandum of Understanding.
IMO, the Rails-to-Trails point should not be the deal breaker. Perhaps this issue is much ado about nothing, and simply both parties are talking at each other and not with each other, so to speak.
Kevin Shertz says
One additional note… Louis Michael wrote:
“Members of the Chestertown Council proposed an entirely different and highly restrictive access. Under the town plan access would only be permitted 5 times a year, would require town council approval, and would not be available to the public at large, and would be limited to certain prescribed uses.”
I would love to know specifically how this relates to the “waterfront access” issue.
I live directly adjacent to the College, and am fortunate to call some of their staff and faculty among our best of friends in Chestertown, so my reservations are not at all anti-College… I’m just not seeing where the fractures lie in this transaction aside from the Rails-to-Trails issue. Hopefully someone can enlighten me.
Oliver Randall says
Boy, if the Town of Chestertown and Washington College can’t get this relatively small deal closed, it doesn’t speak well for the leadership for both.
Janice Dickson says
To Joan Smith: wonderful paragraph. Thank you!
This should be required reading for all council members.
Washington College is a good neighbor and helps make Chestertown a sought after venue for visitors as well as potential residents.
Memo to council members: read all these comments, most people want the town to SELL (not give) the armory to the college.
John Massey says
The College loves to make threats to get their way, when President Tipson was acquiring the houses on Washington Ave between Campus Ave and Brown St. He used the threat of placing students in the houses if the neighbors did not allow him to use them for what he wanted, The neighbors as a group rejected his threats and now three of the houses are used as housing for staff and one sits empty.
Regarding the latest threat from President Reiss, I hope the members of the town council stand tough and do what they think is best for the taxpayers of the town.
.
FD Wheelan says
I’d encourage both parties to take the long view and agree on a positive way forward.
J.M. Blakeney says
@John Massey, I know where you are coming from. Remember the deal when the town gave the college College Ave., for the pavilian? It was a gentlemans agreement, and the college didn’t give it to the town? You know I don’t live in town but ??
Joseph Holt says
@ J.M. Blakeney
For the record, the Town of Chestertown did not “give” the portion of College Avenue between Campus Avenue and Washington Avenue to Washington College. There was a sales agreement that provided for a termed, annual cash payment and the provision of a “Mayor’s Scholarship” to a Chestertown resident. In addition, Washington College agreed to construct the Lelia Hynson Pavilion on Town propertyat College expense with the College responsible for the ongoing maintenance of the structure and the College and Town sharing the facility (the College schedules the pavilion during the academic year, and the Town Office schedules the pavilion over the summer months).
You might also recall that Washington College provided the Town of Chestertown, at NO cost, a right-of-way to construct the first phase of the Chester River promenade that runs along College-owned property between the foot of High Street and Cannon Avenue.
Kelly Castro says
Could the citizens of Chestertown petition for a referendum?
Louis G. Michael says
Louis Michael said “Under the town plan access would only be permitted 5 times a year”.
This should be corrected to read: Members of the Chestertown Council proposed that Washington College will work in good faith to preserve and enhance opportunities for periodic community access, use and enjoyment of the Armory, including but not limited to, educational and recreational events, festivals, and other civic programming purposes (collectively, “Community Activities); provided, however, that the same shall not be scheduled or undertaken at such times or in such fashion as to interfere with or unduly burden the core educational mission and objectives of Washington College; and, in addition, the College will assign to the Chestertown Mayor and Council five days a year on dates annually selected by the Mayor and Council and agreed by the College, for use by non profit community groups of the area known as the Drill Room in the Armory; at no charge to Chestertown or to such designated groups, as the Christmas Bazaar, Wild Foul Festival, Chester River Choral, and so on.
Andy Vlahos says
@ Joan Smith & Kate Livey – well said!
“Stetson also said that holding on to the Armory would come at no cost to taxpayers and could eventually be sold to a developer.” Do you honestly think a developer is going to purchase this property with the condition of requiring the purchaser to provide public access on a regular basis? Would you buy a house on the condition that the public can come and use the swingset in your backyard anytime they want?
If the town wants to control the public access to the Amory then the town should take ownership, raise the funds needed to make the property usable. If not, then they need to accept that whoever purchases the property is probaby not going to allow as much public access as the council would like.
The College does a pretty good job of having open access to the public now from public access to the (absolutely stunning) dining hall, sunday night movies, library access and attendence at guest lectures. WC has always done its best to be a good neighbor in the town. And they build beautiful buildings that fit in with the architecture of the town. I don’t undesrtand how this isn’t a win-win for both the town and the college.
As far as the rails to trails project (if that is still even what this is about – frankly the council is confusing me regarding their actual list of wants), it is completely unrelated to the Armory. College kids have been walking through down town (and will continue to do so) to get to Wilmer Park and boat house forever. There is no reasonable justification for making one project dependant on the other. They could both be completed independantly of each other. And considering the current economic climate, they might have to be.
Warrior Bob Kramer says
@ Gibson Anthony: In early 2008 the County Commissioners were on the verge of giving the property to a private developer until the Town intervened.
G-Man, I kinda recall that the town got the same notice about the Armory at the same time the CC’s got it. The CC’s wanted no part of it… and were looking for someone to step up to the plate. No one from the town stepped up initially… and there was an inquiry from a developer. Eventually the town figured out the process (with a little help from Frank B Rhodes)… up to a point.
Maybe one of the commissioners can fill in the details.
Gibson Anthony says
Hi Warrior Bob,
A notice came to the town just prior to my arrival on the Council. At that point the Town was under the impression that the college wanted it and that is why the Town said they had no interest. However, the next information on the Armory was an article in the newspaper. At about the same time that the Commissioners began discussion with the developer, the college seemed to have stopped pursuing ownership.
Warrior Bob Kramer says
@ Gibson: However, the next information on the Armory was an article in the newspaper.
G-Man… weren’t you at least a little surprised (I was) that no one at Town Hall was aware of what direction the CC’s were headed and what position in the heirachy their claim to the Armory was… as the town showed no interest and the college backed away for various reasons at that time… and only a developer showed any interest. I remember sitting in the CC meetings asking whether they had heard anything from the town. Nothing… until Frank B showed up and made a presentation… as a private citizen.
In any case… so now we’re back to square one and WAC wants the Armory and seemingly would have gotten it way back when because the town had no interest in it then. H-M-M-M.
Gibson Anthony says
Warrior,
Frank definitely had a role. But you are forgetting that I was at that same meeting and voiced my concern about the process. I was also voicing my concern in Council meetings. I also made many phone calls in the background, attempting to shed light on the transaction and argue that there needed to be more community involvement in the decision. The college had stepped back from the situation at that point. We are back to square one because (on balance) the Town has provided a process with a lot of community feedback. The college’s opportunity to have the property is a direct result of those actions. As I’ve said many times I hope this works out for the benefit of both parties. We worked hard on developing that agreement tonight in executive session and we may be close to a positive outcome for everyone.
John Moag says
I have conflicting emotions on this issue…..
As a Washington College Board member, I am hard pressed to see how the purchase of the Armory is in the College’s interest. After assuming the debt, environmental liabilitiies, and rehab of the building within the construct of historic preservation requirements, the College is facing close to a $4m commitment…..money which we would need to raise from donors. The College does not need the building and has higher priorities for fundraising in the form of the boathouse, environmental center, student residences, faculty and staff salaries, and scholarships. The College Board endorsed President Reiss’ recommendations to adopt the negotiated document on the Armory with the Town’s able City Manager because President Reiss’ has earned our endorsement of his leadership and initiatives, and because his intentions for a College-Community Center on the water, linked to the High Street Landing are noble. The Board has, over the years, been supportive of the rails-to-trails initiative and, indeed, some of us spoke to the Governor about releasing state funds for that purpose. But, the two projects have nothing in common other than what some council members perceive as leverage on the College to help fix a different town financial problem. That perceived leverage, however, is non-existant in that the College’s investment in the Armory is already a stretch by any fiscal or programatic measure.
As a part-time resident of Chestertown and a “neighbor” of the Armory, for the life of me I can’t understand why the Council doesn’t rush to sign an agreement with the College and correctly proclaim it as the victory it would be. The options for the town are to take the option to purchase from the State, assume the debt and liabilities, and either use taxpayer dollars for the debt and rehab, or try to sell it. If they don’t, the State will sell it as surplus property and the town will have no control over use. At that point, the College could theoretically negotiate solely with the State if it still had an interest in the Armory; although I doubt that would be the case.
I honestly believe there is zero to no chance that a developer will have an interest in the Armory in this financial environment or the environment we can expect for the next 5-10 years of flat-to-slow growth and still depreciating property values. The issue has nothing to do with price–it’s not even worth the debt due to the high cost of environmental and building rehab and the difficulty of finding any private sector use that would be profitable under the historic preservation and environmental constricts of the site and facility..
Some have suggested that the College is “holding up the town.” Nothing could be farther from the truth. The Board has supported the agreement negotiated between President Reiss and Mr. Ingersoll because we support Mr. Reiss’ intention to breath life into what is truly a white elephant that he envisions as a lively town-gown meeting place for culture, art, and fun for all of us.
Despite my serious doubts as a fiduciary of the College that this makes sense for the institution’s mission, I selfishly hope as a part-time Chestertownian that the Council doesn’t waste any more time on unrelated and extrinsic leveraging issues and prevents me from having to consider again this issue in my role as a fiduciary of Washington College.
Janice Dickson says
Memo to councilpersons Anthony, Stetson, Gatto
Any further questions or comments after reading John Moag’s comment?
Matthew Weir says
It is difficult to articulate the issue any better than John Moag. In my mind, the history of the negotiations is irrelevant and this point. Chestertown is either going to purchase the armory or someone else will.
If the town decides to move forward, it will have to come up with the money to make the purchase, maintain the structure and do some remediation. I have no idea where these three Council Members think the money will come from. The town is already heavily burdened by debt it assumed to make the marina purchase. Property valuations for tax purposes (where the majority of revenue comes from) are lower than they were 5 years ago. If I were a citizen of Chestertown, I would be getting very interested in the budgeting process to make sure that my basic services did not go away or go up in price because the Town decided to purchase a derelict building for which there is no plan.
Gibson Anthony says
Hi Matt,
The marina purchase has not taken place yet. So, it is impossible for us to be “already heavily burdened by debt”. The analysis of the Port Committee recommended purchase because current bookkeeping showed that operations can cover the debt service without additional tax burden.
Covering the debt on the Armory will cost the Town about $3,000 in foregone interest income. That is not reason to raise taxes. The threat of tax increase related to Armory purchase is a myth.
I’m sure it’s unintentional, but continuing to mis-characterize this issue as requiring a tax increase a few days before a local election (in which I face a Republican challenger) could be construed as pressuring a local politician with misinformation.
The Chief of Staff of the college, who is also the Republicans of Kent, President of the Board of Directors, I’m sure would not want this sort of thing to be taken the wrong way, you might want to talk to him about it. One of the nice things about our local political scene is that party politics doesn’t create the kind of dysfunction that we see at the national level.
Kyle Bradford says
Are you kidding me? This is about a Republican plot???? I’m a democrat and this is plain and simple a debate about disposition of property….don’t make it into a plot to unseat you Councilman!
I am curious about what you mean about being able to handle the debt service for purchasing the marina under “current bookkeeping.”. That would imply you are going to buy the marina and do nothing with it. Im all in favor of buying the marina but not if it is not going to be improved.
I also don’t understand what you mean by saying that assuming the $300,000+ debt on the armory is only going to cost $3,000 in “foregone interest income”. Is that $3,000 a month?
In any event, whether you are a republican or a democrat, the logic is lost on me on the fiscal prudence of assuming the debt on that empty box on the Chester and hoping someone bails you out one day. But, Councilman, you are obviously a lot smarter than me.
Matthew Weir says
Gibson, my Interest in Chestertown is not politically oriented. I have a long history with Kent County and I have invested risk capital in the Cross Street improvements and am looking to invest on a continuing basis because I believe in this town and it’s future. I am disappointed that, while I do not reside in your district, you have not had time to discuss these issues personally since I requested a meeting with you back in September. I do look forward to the time when your schedule frees up for a personal conversation instead of a public one in the Spy.
Gibson Anthony says
Hi Matt,
I’d still like to get together. Knowing that you have to get back to D.C. in the afternoon has made it a bit more difficult and I do have difficulty meeting people during the day because of work. Also, my last comment was in response to your posting wrong information on the Spy, which, if it were believed, would be to the benefit of my opponent in the Nov. 1 election. Sorry I haven’t made it more of a priority to catch up with you. I’ll get in touch.
Hi Kyle,
You are right, it’s not a Republican plot. But some people in the community were offended by college’s statement in the press that the Town’s acquisition of the Armory would require a tax increase. There is no way they could have known that was the case when the statement was made.
I still hope that we can get to a point where the college owns the Armory and I’ve just been trying to find some balance in the benefit for the community and the benefit for the college. I do recognize that there is a lot of overlap in the benefits and have tried to account for that and compromise.
Given that this has to do with the last large piece of commercial waterfront in Chestertown, I’ve been trying to avoid being shortsighted on the opportunity costs. I understand why residents are impatient about this issue. But we are talking about something that will affect 100 years from now, not just the next five to ten.
I checked with the State Department of General Services yesterday, they confirmed that if the Town declines ownership, there is not a statutory structure that would give the college (or any other non-profit) priority in acquisition. In affect, that means that if the Town doesn’t help the college then acquisition would be exposed to the free market. I’ve considered whether that would be better for everyone. For the Town to just get out of the college’s way and let them acquire it through the free market. It would be one way of finding the true value of the property but I’m not sure that the college would come out ahead of working with the Town. I tend to think so, but I could be wrong. I hope not.
I know there are a lot of people who are smarter than I and I am trying to weigh all of the points being made. They are very diverse. I became a Councilman because I wanted to serve my community. I did it in spite of knowing that in exposing myself to criticism, many would think less of me. A friend from California said the other day, “In our town they say that when you get elected to the council, you only lose friends, you don’t gain them.” I’ve always liked dark humor and so I find it aptly amusing. A good solution for the college and the town is something I take seriously.
Gibson Anthony says
Please fix this sentence (just above the last paragraph), “I tend to think so, but I could be wrong. I hope not.” I mean’t to say, “I don’t tend to think so, but I could be wrong. I hope not.”
Kyle Bradford says
Well, I suspect if the College still had interest in the Armory they’d be better off buying in the free market with little to no competition for a building that is hard pressed to operate at a profit. They may be able to get it cheaper than the debt and not have to deal with the Town Council. Then again, they could lose to a developer who might pay more than the proposed agreement with the Town. The developer could do what he wanted within environmental and historical restraints. But hold it!….isn’t that exactly what the STAY movement was trying to prevent?