The wonders of living in a small town
A bunch of us neighbors want a 200 – yard sidewalk installed here in Riverside between Spring Street and Weston Hill Road, to protect pedestrians walking down a blind curve. A number of other neighbors object to the project and so Lindy Lilien, a doer of the highest order, put out a call for a walk up the hill in question at 8:20 in the morning. Despite less than 15 hours notice, Lindy got about 50 parents and their kids and two of our selectman, Peter Tesei and Lyn Lavery to show up – Peter even brought his 9-month-old daughter, Carolyn, as well as his wife – if the route was as dangerous as we claim, this was daring behavior (Peter Crumbine called in his regrets but no offense taken, since everyone has a life, and this walk was called on almost no notice). Two points: it’s terrific to live in a town where, when a problem is perceived, a call to the local government produces the top officials to come see what you’re talking about; and, because a small town means that you probably know the folks on the other side of an issue, one can call those people and find out what their beef is. In this case, I called the most vocal opponent, my friend George Scott and, while I wouldn’t presume to speak for the gentleman, it seems that he and his fellow opponents agree that the hill in question is indeed dangerous: they object to a wider project, promoted by other people, to install sidewalks on every stretch of Riverside’s streets. I told George that I would side with him in opposing such an ambitious, unnecessary plan and I think a truce has been made: a modest municipal project vs. an over-reaching one. Scott is still concerned with letting “the camel’s nose under the tent” but I think we can agree on this sidewalk. And, as I said, it’s great to live in a town where you can speak personally with your neighbors and politicians and, with luck, achieve a resolution.

Which brings us to Stanwich School
Still more friends involved here. I attended a public meeting hosted by the school and, while I sympathize with my friend and project opponent Andy Healy, whose property abuts the school, I think the school has the better of the argument. This project will not impact its neighbors. Another friend, Chris Von Kyserling (freed from his police escort now that Jim Lash has retired) spoke forcefully and well as to the merits of the development, pointing out that, as presently built, the hodge-podge of buildings dumps water on the surrounding properties, looks like hell, and is a detraction to the neighborhood. The new Stanwich School will be a huge improvement, in Chris’s opinion and mine.

Demolition
A proposal soon to be introduced to the RTM will increase the delay in demolitions of 60-year-old buildings from 60 to 180 days. This is stupid. I hate it when developers tear down historic houses – see, eg, my comments re: Dennis Hatch, who demolished an 1852 Italianate home on Riversville Road – but, generally, a 60 year-old house is functionally obsolete and holds no value in today’s market. A six-month waiting period will NOT preserve the house – we have no ordinance that would achieve that – but it will affect the cost of housing. If a builder has to pay interest on, say, $1,500,000 for six months, either the price of his new project will increase or you, the seller, will receive less: simple economics. My advice to anyone who owns an older house is that, if this rule passes, apply immediately for a demolition permit. It’s good for several years and if you can offer your house with a pre-approved demolition permit, you’ll get more money for your house.

You Know your house is over-priced when…
Saw a beautiful new house the other day that was, to my mind, over-priced by $2,000,000. As I left, the lawn guy, a friend of mine, asked me what it was listed at. I told him and he paused, reflected, and said, “Gee, I figured it for $2,000,000 less than that.” I’m taking him with me on my next price opinion.