I have been in favor of purchasing this property. But I'm having second thoughts.

1) Ridgefield should not buy the property and then have Schlumberger clean it up after the fact. The clean up should happen first. Sign no contract, hand over no money until the property is certified as clean.

Would you ever buy a house with the understanding that the seller would make changes AFTER you bought it? No way.

The seller could walk away leaving us with a huge expensive legal mess. Everything needs to be taken care of before the deal is consummated.

2) I thought this was an expense of $7 million to protect Ridgefield from having 500 condos built, which would result in an increase of our school population and a subsequent rise in our school taxes. Under these circumstances, the economics of $ 7 million makes sense to me.

But I'm now concerned this is a front. Is the real goal is to spend $50 million on a new police station, new town hall, etc.? Unacceptable! I will not tolerate us spending boat loads of money to give our municipal workers the ultimate new digs! That's absurd. The current municipal buildings are fine. People in this town already pay enough in taxes. How dare anyone suggest we should pay more to create a luxurious office environment for town workers!!

I frankly don't understand how anyone buys into the notion that "500 condos " might be built there. I was skeptical before ( a review of all of Fairfield county reveals no 500 condo complexes), but given the condition of the property, it seems even more unreasonable. Beryillium, is a highly toxic element. The fact it hasn't reached groundwater is better, but it's toxicity is in the form of inhalation. It is very difficult ( nearly. Impossible) to completely eliminate , and would pose a significant impediment to any purchases by private citizens. I don't think I have to ask most of you, but the entire crux of the argument to buy this land is to prevent development. Would any current residents be interested in buying land with a history of chemical contamination? If it were the last parcel available in ridgefield , I highly doubt it would sell. But the idea that a developer looking to sell units to low income people , would risk the publicity of selling toxic land , is beyond all reason. This would be a field day for media, intent on depicting the poor, as victims of rich real estate developers. Coupled with the fact that this land did not sell when the real estate bubble existed, has me convinced that something else is going on here.
This land purchase was announced to the public in September, by Marconi. He went over the rationale in video form. Why did he exclude the environmental issues in his pitch? Hiding things is never good.

But let's continue....
We have a tax paying ( 200k a year) Corp there presently. We have been told that s might " land bank " the property in order to reduce the tax burden. And somehow this has been twisted into a thing the town wishes to avoid. Why? If ridgefield owns the property, and the cleanup takes 3 years, how much tax will we collect? 0.
My understanding of how the conn EPA or dep works is ...you cannot allow an environmental issue fester. The fact it's not in the groundwater now, does not mean it can't reach. So the dep EPA will insist on cleanup. Which s is obligated to anyway. This " negotiation" is crap. Something is going on here. We learn more every week. Why not initial full disclosure? Makes me very uncomfortable. No private developer will touch this . The art collector is unnamed. Why? I don't believe it. All of the facts don't add up. Don't trust this. The facts don't add up...and the info has not been disseminated in a forthright manner.

David, it is bad enough how some people behave on these forums. But I absolutely will not tolerate a town worker talking to me or any other resident the way you have. I suggest you edit your post or I will seek other remedies.

I don't think David was speaking for the town or in his capacity as a town employee. Just my observation.

Also 2 much--you are a virtual person.
Stop imagining someone is actually speaking to a bunch of initials.
Its really unintelligent to get offended when all you are is a bunch of initials.
Identify your true identity, and in turn you can feel insulted. Barring that--as I said on other threads, ----no one actually gets injured in "call of duty" or any other video game. So stop warning people--it makes little or no sense. And get a sense of humor about who you are. Just respond if you have a point. Dont get offended. Its ludicrous.

Luca You Are a bore and your last comment is dull and predictable. Who are you to say what a person should use as their blog name....good for you that you want to use your own. Look at many other blogs MOST people NEVER use their own name.

As far as I am concerned her blog post is the best on here....all your ranting on what people should say, name themselves are getting old. Your pattern is all over the patch....in multiple towns.

Yes signed S

S-
What are you talking about? Nothing on here, and no comments have been deleted?
Are you ok? I guess you are sd67? On here with just one purpose--to attack?

Steven, busted.

At 3:20 SD67 posted:

"SF-
Don't think for a second I am the only person who thinks you offer nothing to our community."

At 3:25 today came the response:

"sniff sniff. Really? Please. Dont say that . I am hurt. Sniff, sniff. Are you kidding? What is it? YOu sit around starbucks …"

Only thing is, it wasn't Steven on the ID. It was someone named "Joyce Ishimata". A quick search shows that "Joyce" is a frequent contributor to the Darien Patch ... hmmm, just like Luca. In fact, Joyce had just posted on the Darien Patch website a few minutes earlier. Then golly gee, for some reason she decided to post over here as if she was Steven Fields?

Ooops, did you forget to logout as Joyce? Is that what happened Steven?

You are so busted Luca / Steven / Joyce.

Lol Charles! Yes luca deleted his lame <as always> comments. I personally do not care if they ate one person or not...but he\she\they are quite boring!

I certainly hope the voters support the schools in this upcoming budget season as well... If the board of finance gives them a chance!

It appears to be true. All of Luca's comments are deleted. I can't find any on the Patch anywhere. Not in Ridgefield nor in Darien. Ron, didn't he give you a hard time about deleting posts? Didn't he give others a hard time about using multiple names on here? Is this the end of Luca? Well I'll be!

I'm going to miss Luca. Not.

What is she going to do with all her free time, posting every ten minutes. Maybe she got a job.

I have a feeling Roger Sherman won't be back either after a similar incident on the press forum.

I removed a couple of posts but he accused me and others of having multiple listings. But even if people have multiple listings what is the difference. All i am concerned in is the info whether i agree or disagree. I have had posts removed by the moderators i guess. Reason being i guess some of the posting might not conform to their liking or they might have Bias.

I wasn't bullied and I wasn't scared. Speak for yourself.

Based on what I saw when I took the tour and the location of the property, I thought there were a myriad of opportunities for the town to do something great with it. I believe it hasn't sold because of the general malaise of the real estate market. I also believe that because the market is so low, this is the time to make investments. It may be rocky in the short term, but I plan to continue to be in Ridgefield for a long time. I think it is a prime time to begin a town wide transparent discussion about the innovative ways we can use this land. I think of how valuable the golf course is, the Aldrich is, and wonder what other jewel could we add that would make the town an even finer place to move to. I am willing to have my taxes go up a few dollars a year for that chance.

I am very sorry to see such low voter turnout on this issue. The town spends our money to set up the polling place for us and people just don't show! I think there are about 23, 000 people who live here and the turnout was only a bit over 2000. How could this represent the voice of the people? Do they even want a voice in how our town spends all our money? In addition, this town is in a great deal of debt! I don't understand how people could vote to spend so much money when the Board of Selectman/First Selectman have not presented a solid plan for getting a return on the money we are planning to spend. It makes no sense to me.

I hear some people suggesting Schlumberger will now cost us $11 to $12 million. Does anyone know where this number came from? I thought the purchase price is $6 million plus $1 million more for demolition. That's $7 million. Why are some people now saying $11 to $12 million?

It looks like we can't sell it for 8 years because the amended contract changes the protocol for the environmental cleanup. The person who wrote the post you read on the Forum explained it pretty well. I suggest you re-read it.

Okay, now I've read the Press forum post in question. Nothing there gives an explanation as to where the cost of $11 to $12 million came from. There is a carrying cost of $465,000 per year. How exactly does that turn into $11 to $12 million?

I suspect the $11 to $12 million being quoted is incorrect, which is why no one is stepping up to explain where it came from..

Awesome!
Instead of the 200k revenue-it costs 450k.
And --hmmm what happenned to the art dealer? Did Rudy forget he told everyone that?
Lets see---someone doubted that there was an art dealer. Someone said this whole thing sounded fishy. Now we have a bad contract--no art dealer-- and Oh wait, that someone was me.

Andrew, I was afraid that's what someone was doing. That would be the incorrect way to calculate the cost. The real cost is much lower than "$11 to $12 million". Hopefully whoever came up with the larger number will clear up the misinformation.

Luca, It is awesome! Instead of it costing 450k, we'll be saving millions from not having all those extra students in our schools. Buying Schlumberger was and is the right thing to do. Don't know what all this new found fuss is about. The BOS reworked the contract so half the purchase price is kept in escrow until the environmental cleanup is complete. Awesome! This is a good, no, GREAT thing for RIdgefield. This will motivate Schlumberger to get the work done. Why would any local residents be unhappy with this new development? Would you prefer we go back to the original contract where we give them all $6 million upfront? Why would we do that. This new approach is so much better for RIdgefield. The BOS came through big time.

This new approach is so much better for Ridgefield? The town still has to fund the escrow at closing, and Schlumberger is entitled to all the interest earned on the escrow. Meanwhile we get to pay for property maintenance and interest and principal repayment on the $3 million while they effectively control the property for purposes of cleaning up their mess.

year 2525
What happened to the art dealer? Was the art dealer always wanting to wait 8 years?
Thanks for your answer.
If you really have none, Id love for you to say, I dont know.
To me--this was a sales job-a con job.
The students that we are not getting? Thats all part of the con. No one was lining up at the door to buy this property. We didnt buy it when it became available. In the middle of a housing boom. We bought it after it was quite apparent that no one was interested....then somehow fooled everyone into thinking we can sell off parts of the land that had already been proven to be not in demand.
The people of this town, need to start to question things. Not to follow like sheep mr marconi.
This 8 year concept is new again---similar to the environmental issues that were not initially disclosed. The art dealer popped up out of nowhere-and vanished similarly.

year 2525--just tell me who the art dealer is-and what their plans are --and Ill shut up and accept the rest of Marconi's sales job. But--im guessing no one knows ( patch can do FOI?) and no one ever will. And the reason is--its all a sales job.

More awesome news. Schlumberger property passed the environmental tests. Do you realize what this means? Our ship just came in. Developers didn't want to touch the property for the past few years. They didn't want to get involved with a potential environmental nightmare. But now that the property has been thoroughly checked out and there is no more uncertainty about the environmental risks, the value of the property has just gone up. Ridgefield is going to make a huge profit on this investment! Awesome!

year 2525--
im waiting to find out about the art dealer. Im wondering if you could point out the articles that explained the 8 year time period --did voters know that?
The value of the property did not go up a dime. There was a contingency that the environmental work needed to be checked...and it still requires work. Any developer could have made the same stipulation--
Are you going to pretend not to be able to read my question year 2525? what happenned to the art dealer. Thats all i want to know. we heard about this art dealer 5 months ago-----so that person should be just about ready to sign papers now?
If you cant name them--at least say it seems pretty clear that the dealer never existed--and we were all duped.

Why you asking me about an art dealer? I don't know anything about an art dealer. If Mr. Marconi mentioned something on this front, go ask him.

What I do know is we locked in a price of $7 million before the environmental status was fully known and now that there is no hidden smoking gun on the environmental front, the worth of the property just went up. We are in the money! Awesome!

2525
Ahhh the famous "i dont know anything" defense, while trying to appear to be smart.
Ok--so lets conclude that you know nothing --and leave it at that. I ll agree there.
The property is not worth more--. If it was not environmentally acceptable we would have backed out of the deal.
Let me analogize. if you agree on the price of a used car and the price is 15k. And you agree based on an acceptable inspection--- Once the inspection is done--the value/price of the car does not change. You pay the 15k and you drive away.
2525 if the price of the property was on an "AS IS" basis and there was risk involved relative to the outcome of the inspection-then perhaps the property was purchased slightly below market value. that wasnt the case. Both sides agreed on the price contingent upon a successful environmental test.
if it came back negative--the town could negotiate lower. Get it? Awesome!

Joyce (luca)-
Your analogy falis because it relies on a false premise. In this case, OTHERS (not the buyer) assumed there was environmental damage thus lowering the perceived value. The town either knew something no one else did (that the defect wasn't real or that it was exaggerated), had a means of correcting the defect, or decided the defect didn't affect their usage (value) of the property.
The price the town paid was the top price at the time it was purchased. That is true for everything in the world from free agent baseball players to a sweater at Parker East. But the case of the baseball player is relevant to your faulty logic - baseball and other sports agree on a contract price contingent on successfully passing physicals.

Luca, I don't have to be defensive about anything. If you have a bug up your butt about some supposed art dealer, go talk to the source. Nothing to do with me. I'm too busy rejoicing at how well this Schlumberger deal is working out for Ridgefield! We are in the money before we have even bought the property. Awesome!

TAB: I suggest you consult with a financial professional.

So the initial vote was 5-0 and now it was 3-2 in favor or continuing the purchase.
Marconi spoke often about the art dealer being ready and willing to buy ---
what happened? Where did the buyer go? The 8 year time line. The 2 /3 year time horizon to clean up the known environmental contamination---
Come on? This purported conspiracy of developers wanting the property?
The weird thing is--we dont want any developers , correct? But we will sell the property off to developers. Go figure.... the whole thing is a scam. I wonder what is really going on.....

steven fields i noticed, left the same time roger sherman did. interesting that he was the guy who accused me.
now we have ed tyrell, the guy whose abilities seem limited to sock puppet comments bringing that topic up.
ed? do you have opinions? or just some stalker type, lurking in the background, trying your best to establish some measure of significance? but incapable on patch as you are in life? maybe you and paul d are the same? who really cares--both you guys are nobodies.

fact_check,

Let's fact check back in when we see the actual closing costs (legal, environmental, title etc.) and operating expense projections for this year's budget.

Could you be more specific on why I need a consultation? Time value of money?

In the meantime, I look forward to reviewing the Form III environmental reports filed with the state so we can better understand the property's environmental condition. The Town Attorney stated these filings can be made public on the closing date.

One example: You charge overhead for 8 years because the assumption is the land will be sold at that time. Okay. But then you have the residents paying back the bond for 20 years. Rigorous analysis doesn't work that way. If the assumption in one part of argument is that the property will be sold after 8 years, then that has to be the assumption throughout your argument. And if the property is sold after 8 years, then the proceeds from the sale will be used to pay down the remaining portion of the bond from year 8 to year 20. Yes? So the taxpayers are not on the hook for the entire bonding cost of $9.2 million. One big picture way to look at it, $9.2 million would not be leaving the bank accounts of the taxpayers. Nothing even close to that amount. Therefore the cost to the taxpayers can't be north of $9.2 million. Certainly can't be $11 to $12 million.

There are more issues I see, but again i suggest you talk with a financial professional.

Roger, it's not even worth responding to your post. It would be like saying I lent you $10 from my left pocket, and when you paid me back, you slipped $10 into my right pocket - therefore you never paid me back. I laugh.

TAB, the possibility that that you are wrong about the $11 to $12 million does change my view of the situation. For me, it makes all the claims in the original post suspect. If you (generic sense) are going to complain that officials got things so wrong, then you have to make sure you get your facts right, or the argument falls flat in my opinion.

fact_check,
I am not claiming anything. You asked where the cost estimate came from. I made an effort to show how someone could conclude to an $11MM-$12MM estimate.
I accept that the purchase is a done deal. My focus now is on how the Town manages the Property moving forward- which in the end analysis will determine how much this transaction ultimately costs or benefits the taxpyayer. I'm trying to keep an open mind about this, although admittedly I am skeptical about the town going into the real estate business.

fact check --how much will it cost? Precisely? If you know someone got it wrong, then I assume you must know the correct answer-and Id love to know the answer.
Would you agree that the cost is nearly certainly to be more than the 7 mio the town was told when the referendum vote was taken?
Roger--thanks-- Paul and ed have a similar style--incapable of intelligent thought, they set about to attack the messenger. One day perhaps one of them will offer what their opinions are on various items--without the tool of ridicule or 'gotcha' type of posts. One day--but probably not one day soon.
this forum should be about debating facts and trying to understand opposing viewpoints. Hopefully, via discussion, become more aware of the various positions. Paul thinks accusing me of being a woman is entertaining. Ok--whatever.

Does anyone know if the Town prepared more detailed demolition and operating cost estimates during the due diligence period?

Now that it's been shown the $11 to $12 million is not accurate, I look forward to seeing the post on the Press website edited and corrected. After all, there have been claims made for weeks that town officials were being inaccurate with their numbers .... so shouldn't the anti-Schlumberger crowd clear up their own inaccuracies? No? Hmmm.

fact check..assume the town doesnt sell any property.
Now the 11-12 mio is not inaccurate.
So --will you now retract your statement?
Or are you aware of buyers who are at the ready, 8 years from now?

remember--no buyers appeared in the housing boom.
With the town having imposed deed restrictions , youll have to explain why we should assume 1 dollar let alone the entire bonding will be repaid at year 8.
thanks.
I look forward to your explanation. And--if you are incapable of sound logic with clear evidence, then please adhere to your rule of dismissing the entire argument if you cannot prove that the pieces of property will sell with any signficance to warrant writing down the entire bond issuance.
And lets not forget about the loss of 200,000 a year that was being collected at that property prior to a purchase. At 20 years -thats 4 mio dollars. At 8 years thats 1.6 mio dollars. So at a minimum we shall call that cost 500,000 . Shall we? That makes for a logical change in status that schlumberger may have undertaken had the land not been purchased after a reasonable amount of time.

Nice try Luca, but I'm simply using the assumptions stated in the anti-Schlumberger post on the Press forum. Here, let me quote it for you:

"This process could take up to eight years during which Ridgefield is saddled with an additional $11-12 million dollar debt ..."

It's saying the time frame is up to eight years and in that time frame we will accrue $11 to $12 million in debt.

There it is in black and white. You can now try to wish those words away by saying the deal might not go through in eight years and that's why the debt will eventually climb to $11 to $12 million, but that's not what it says in the original post, does it? It says the $11 to $12 million will occur in the 8 year time frame.

And that's my point Luca, I don't think the original post is accurate and I think the author(s) should edit it.

If your point is to correct the author(s) of the original post wouldn't you be better served having this discussion the Press site?

fact check

Ok--so he is made the wrong assumption in saying 8 years. is that your only point?
Unless you have evidence to the contrary--then tab should simply strike the 8 year timeline-and then he is correct.
Ok--so its now back to 11-12 mio. All ok with you, fact check?

I look forward to the corrections. Thank you.

fact_check

Andrew K posted this for you a couple of days ago-best way to get in touch with the Author.

You can leave that person a message here http://www.acorn-online.com/joomla15/forums/2-town-issues/16138-schlumberger-have-we-lost-our-way.html

It's been a few days yet the incorrect information on the press forum posting hasn't been fixed. Here's what I think I'm seeing, the people against Schlumberger chide our town officials for getting numbers wrong (although I don't see any blatantly wrong numbers by town officials), but at the same time, when the people against Schlumberger get their own numbers wrong, there seems to be no urgency to correct the mistakes. Am I wrong?

fact check
Here is my question to you. Why would you not see that town officials numbers are wrong?
Its going to cost roughly 575,000 a year for the town. + clean up costs and demolition costs that town officials have said will be another mio.
There appears to be some 8 year minimum...so we were told the cost is 6 mio plus the mio. Do you think that that is correct? I dont. If no property gets sold -thats 11.5 mio +1 mio. If the bond is not paid back before 12 years in full , then its over what was stated.
So? If there is anything wrong with what I say--let me know.
This 'cost' also should include lost revenue --from the time of purchase. I didnt, but its clearly a 'cost.' 200k a year. That is not coming in because of the purchase.
So--now fact check--please give me your numbers---not just point out where im wrong. (i probably am--im just looking at very crude numbers-but its an attempt).
In return, id like to review your assumptions and cost numbers, that allow you to say that the officials are 'not wrong' . Thanks fact -check---- Hope you dont disappoint and are not the type that asks other people to support their contentions, but somehow feel that their position is only to question others

Paul--
So would I.
However--there is an agenda that our selectmen seem very intent on pushing through here.
The pieces of this puzzle seem to be continuously revealing themselves.
back In September when mr marconi revealed his plan to buy the property, there was no mention of environmental issues. Then it was leaked. Then we were informed about radioactive material. then we were told that an anonymous art dealer was interested in buying portions of the property and buildings. Now we find out there is an 8 year timetable before parcels can begin to be sold off.
Now I know you like to argue with me--and do so via character assassinations--but Im interested if you have an opinion (nothing to do with me)--about why we havent been fully aprised along the way--and why an art collector would be intersted in storing art 8 year from now on an ugly piece of property near the town dump? Actually forget the ancillary issues of aesthetics---why would anyone begin a negotiation in private for a piece of property that will only be available in 2020 ish? If you had valuables and sought a remedy for your storage problem--would 8 years seem reasonable to wait?
all those people who were positing that the art collector wanted more security than a home-- the arguments went out the window....as if you are afraid for your safety you dont order an alarm system that will arrive in 8 years.
Can we trust the officials to convey valid numbers?

I don't think 8 years is a valid number. I think it is convenient for some people's argument to insist that the property can't be sold for 8 years, but I'll bet dollars to donuts that we will see the property cleaned long before 8 years.

For one thing, the sale happened because Schlumber wants to be rid of the property. Remember, they initiated the sale. Someone in a suit said unload this thing. I'm sure they didn't say unload the property but make sure we hold it in environmental limbo for 8 years. Why would they want this to hang around that long?

Secondly, even though some people on these forums pick on the contract rewrite, I think the BOS did something very clever. They managed to get half the money put in escrow until the property is cleaned. This will motivate Schlumberger to clean the land asap. They don't want $3 million to be earning 1% interest in a bank account. They are a company who have shown they can get a 15% return on working capital. They will want that money out of escrow.

End result, the property will be cleaned by this time next year, if not sooner.

So I have asked 'fact check' to provide a set of numbers that will provide proof that the Selectman's numbers are valid and supportable.
I have yet to see these numbers revealed.
I think we have someone who demands numbers and supporting statements --yet is incapable of providing their complete and bullet proof rationale.

I think the point is fact check-- you are entitled to your opinion --as are others.
If someone writes down numbers--and you are certain they are wrong--it requires you to be put in the same position. Which is to say --you dont know . And appear to be simply wanting to support the Selectmen. ( the selectman i hope!! didnt negotiate the contract---i hope it was a lawyer that got escrow money--and not for nothing--SLB has 40 bio in sales and 3 bio in free cash flow--so to think that 3 mio is anything that will impact their performance-is stretching things. Its a rounding error. ) Your opinion that 8 years is not valid--is supported in the same way those who conjecture it is 8 years. guess work--
And just in the spirit that you play in--doughnuts are a dollar--so you should not have a problem betting that....

You miss the obvious Luca. Your 8 years is an opinion. My 1 year is an opinion. 300 condos is an opinion. The art dealer being MIA is an opinion. It's all opinions ... except... saying it will cost $11 to $12 million over the next 8 years is an opinion that has been shown to be impossible. Therefore it should be corrected in the press forum article.

Hopefully all sides are striving to define the facts. But when some group offers up a number which can't be true, then it should be fixed or in my opinion, they are guilty of doing the same thing they are accusing the town officials of doing, handing out misinformation.

Fact check
Wait-- I showed it can be true....
Ill do the numbers one more time....
465,000 a year for debt servicing. 110,000 a year for maint. thats 575k a year. loss of 200k a year in lost tax revenue thats 775 a year cost ---(money not in town treasury because of purchase.) 775k a year times 20 years =15.5 mio.
Lets take out the 200k a year lost revenue. Make it 575k a year times 20 = 11.5 mio. Now add to that 1 mio in demolition and clean up cost and if no property is sold --then the cost is anywhere from 12.5m to 16.5 mio depending on how you want to account for the lost revenue.
Perhaps not likely---perhaps someone will in fact buy some of the land--but clearly not all of the land... so while im not saying it WILL be that high--your statement that its 'impossible " is simply inaccurate.
Will you amend your pronouncement?

Luca, the article says it will cost $11 to $12 million in 8 years. Can you show me that scenario? $11 to $12 million IN 8 YEARS. If so, I'll amend my pronouncement. If not, the article should be corrected. Agreed?

Joyce- (posing as Luca)
I have an idea. Go into the town hall and ask. Mr. Marconi's office will be happy to answer your accusations of deceit, questions, and hopefully end your nonsensical math.

Ok paul
I should go to town hall and ask mr marconi why he is being deceitful. And he will then reveal that he has been deceitful? Awesome logic once again, dude. You are pretty smart!! Just like " oh my friend emailed me and said you are a woman named Joyce. He recognized me by my name "paul D." I dont know if you think anyone actually buys your stuff , because you say it---or if you realize how idiotic you look by asking anyone to just accept what you say.
Paul --can i ask why you are lying all the time? Will you give me a straight answer? Give me your address and Ill come over and ask you why you lie. (this is your thought process--- and dude, you are one unintelligent dude...... ) oh and thanks for pointing out my 'nonsensical math' of course you cant--because the math is logical. 20 year bond at X interest rate on X principal --is not that difficult to calculate. Too bad you simply want to argue with me--regardless whether my contentions are true or not.

Math does seem to throw some people into a tizzy. Look at what I see posted on the other forum. We can borrow $12 million for $650k per year. Well... no... not quite. And then in the same thread, written by the same person, we can borrow $6 million at $180k per year.... wrong again. But here's a thought, instead of borrowing the $12 million, just borrow $6 million twice! Save a fortune! LOL!

Seriously though, I find it disappointing that some posters seem to make up numbers in their arguments.

By the way Luca, got confirmation the Schlumberger art collector is real. He exists. Use your noggin and you'll figure out who he is. Also found out there's another tenant interested in renting some of the Schlumberger property. This is coming together nicely.

fact check--
If you "know" he is real--then obviously you must have some information that is public.
So could you tell me who it is, rather than play a game.
If it isnt public--and the art guy wishes to remain anonymous, then can I assume someone has defied this art dealer's demands of privacy?
And then could you also fill us in on the new potential tenant?
Thanks fact -check.....I hope you are speaking the truth-as again, this is what you ask of others. As you can see, if I misunderstand something--I am more than happy to correct myself, or change tact. Or --agree with you, if you prove your argument true. Again-our disagreement came as a result of misunderstanding--I never knew we had limited the duration to 8 years.
But again--please supply the info that you have--that obviously is apparently public info. Thanks.

Luca, looks like you are trying to set the game up so I fail no matter what I say.

"Greetings, Professor Falken. A strange game. The only winning move is not to play. How about a nice game of chess?"

Luca, find peace in knowing the art collector is real and that it will help offset the maintenance costs.

One other thing, the plan is to have tenants in there by this Fall. Excellent work by the BOS. I think the 8 year delay is nothing more than the naysayers whining that the sky is falling.

This deal is going to work! Yeah town officials!

Joyce... calling yourself Luca
Try Google "joyce Ishimata patch" check out the times of the postings, the content, and the style of the writing.
That is math I can do.

@fact check --- IF you are right, I agree, it would be great news and deserving of praise for the BOS.

Paul--
Look at me and fact check--
He wrote 10 minutes before I did. I guess Im fact check as well

Now answer my question--where is my math nonsensical on the schlumber issue.
Thanks Paul---just once show you either are capable of supporting your statements, or man enough to retract them. Otherwise, you will simply confirm my suspicion that you have little integrity.

In your 'math equation' about who I am-- why do I sign in as someone else? that I need to be agreed with? Or something else? If that is the case--and your math is consistent (math is a science --right dude) then who is my sock puppet now? Or last week , or 2 months ago? or whatever?
Thanks for your answers paul-- but ----umm let me guess--you dont know so you will pretend not to have read this.

"Can I ask you all your other posting names.....and why you change them"

I do change my online name sometimes. I see no problem in that per se. I make a point however of never trying to use the name change to dupe people. For example, I don't suddenly change to a new name and then start agreeing with something posted under my former name. Luca, wouldn't you agree that would be a manipulative thing to do?

Why do I change my online name? Simple. The internet is forever. If I post under my real name, people might look me up 10 years from now and read some words taken out of context. I try my best to never say anything regrettable. Still, people have a way of bending words to suit their purpose.

Using a single pseudonym might also backfire in the same way. For example, one day someone will publish who you are Luca, like your real name. This will forever link your real name to your Luca postings and then what, forever after people like potential employers or a wannabe love interest or your descendents 100 years from now can read things you might not have wanted to be associated with you in real life. "Gosh my great great grandfather was a _______."

My solution, change my online identity every so often. A few connections might be made, but only a few. My future New York City employment potential won't be derailed because I posted about my love of the Red Sox.

sure fact check i have no issue with changing names...but it seemed to now be a concern of yours about me.
I dont post to agree with myself. I think that is pretty clear. I did change my name once--(because i got booted for arguing.)
Other than that--I dont manipulate---i debate--raise points.....get things off my chest.
But This guy paul is delusional never have been joyce-- or steve
you can go back on any number of the hundreds of posts and see that i rarely have anyone agree with me. So, it simply doesnt stand to reason why i get accused of this. Who, for example ever agreed with me about an art dealer being a skeptical item? To my knowledge --no one. That has been my thing for 4 months now...so ?
Anyway--that all being said--
I still would love for you to operate in your own paradigm. You were insistent about unsupportable statements about schlumberger be taken down. I agree --if you cant support your statements--then why make them? When we realized there was an miscommunication on the calculations, fact check--i didnt stiffen and insist my numbers were right. I said--oh then we misunderstood each other, and allowed for your point, that the number is impossible.
So? If you think im unreasonable, please point it out-and I will address.
Not afraid to say i overstated my position. But not afraid to argue my point, if I have one. I wont let unsupportable contentions go unexplained.
And you concurred-when it came to others.

I beg Patch ---- please, please close comments on this subject!!

Good news! Newspaper reports that Schlumberger is done. Let the savings begin. I know some people have trouble with the purchase, but you will now be saving about $2 million a year because the schools will not have extra students. This also means that a school can close on schedule, saving an additional $1.5 million a year. That's $3.5 million in savings. Meaning Schlumberger pays for itself in two years.

There's more. Read in the paper the town could use Schlumberger as the new library. Love it. That's another $5 million in savings.

All this before we've even sold off any of the property. A win for all.

We should buy 7 more properties and save an extra 15 mio!! Actually lets buy 30 properties and save 60 mio a year!! or 80 properties and save 160 mio a year. if we buy up everything! we will be the richest town in the country. Lets DO IT!!
All we need to do , is imagine that someone will buy property (even though it hasnt sold for 5 years) and then spread lies about how much we will save. Lets do it!!
Any other land for sale near the town dump? That would be a good place to invest and save all that money. Then we can maybe look for property on or near chemical dumping grounds, and claim that that land is also rife for development. Lets use every illogical piece of land first----then move on to more desireable property later!!! We are going to be riiiiiiiiiiich!!

I don't think you understand. If there is another 45 acres parcel in the center of town with access to sewer lines and the water main, then yes we should buy it to keep it away from condo developers. Do you know of 7 more properties like that? I don't know of any. This one, Schlumberger, was the one and only. We bought it. Smart move. Now let's all be happy because we saved money!

ok--
so just to make sure I understand your logic, --you wanted to buy it...so that we can take on the toxic clean up---and then sell the land to developers. But, we are afraid of developers.
All I have ever wanted to know , is on what basis you or anyone has concluded that someone was about to buy the property to develop? And if you say its a potential and nothing more-- why cant you see potential in any other properties?
Here is my equation--I wouldnt buy a home on a contaminated piece of property near a dump. Maybe you would, but there are so many homes for sale --that either you have to conclude that each of these homes are capable of being developed because they are more desirable than schlumberger (see Oak Hill homes in Darien-or Nearwater Lane in Darien--where private streets have the 830-g threat) -- or you think no developers are in the market because of the depressed housing market . But if we bought this property to 'save money' then we need to do this over and over again---because this is not a good property . And its evidenced by the fact that no one bought it during the housing bubble.
If we think this place is a potential--then there isnt a place in town that doesnt have the same potential , in varying scales.
So -buy away and save all that money!! (but if you could please---tell me which developer -by name if possible would buy this and no other lots for sale. Thanks prudent.

Luca, you posted: "We all know about the fear mongering words that were employed to buy the land--but I have yet to read one solid piece of evidence."

Fear mongering to buy the property? Uhm, I didn't see any of that. What I did see were people opposed to the purchase saying there was a nuclear reactor on the site. I did see people saying there were oil barrels filled with toxic who-knows-what. And some people mentioned a cement bunker - oh my god, there was a cement bunker!!!!!!! The innuendo was clear, that there was something harmful inside. All of these suggestions proved to be unfounded.

Read the newspaper editorial. They politely called the claims of a shortage in sewer capacity nothing more than wishful thinking. Is the newspaper in on some giant conspiracy to purchase the property?

So I do feel there was wrong information floating around out there, but I don't think it was started by the people interested in buying the property.

prudent--
I havent read those claims-but perhaps they were there.
I also am not 11 years old, so I really dont care who 'started it.'
I certainly didnt. But you perpetuate the fear mongering by claiming there was some imminent or real potential to build massive condo complex.
So? Where do you arrive at such a claim? Im asking YOU to support your claim. Pretty simple.
And while you are at it--can you explain why 45 acres is the key? What about 45 as opposed to 25 or 14 etc makes 45 more dangerous and likely to build condo complexes on. A direct response, rather than some diversionary explanation would be much appreciated.
Again--why is 45 better than 49 or 29? And what leads you to believe that there was a developer waiting in the wings in 2011/2012 when there was no such buyer during the real estate boom in mid 2000's when the property was for sale? And if you know of no one, then please explain , if you will, what different economic or other factors would encourage a developer to build in 2012 vs 2006? If you are unable, would you kindly admit that this fear mongering--that was promoted by Rudy Marconi amongst others, is a tad or more irresponsible?
Thanks. I appreciate the explanation, so that I can understand the reasoning (not bomb shelter mentality of a 'potential' ) behind the purchase. In other words dont tell me that 500 kids would cost a lot. I get that. I just dont think it was ever going to happen.