I think this article refutes a point some are trying to make about Schlum. Namely that Schlum won't have 500 condos crammed together because there is no need. But what are we seeing on N Salem Rd? The highest density housing that anyone can remember. This is the new economics.

Louis, I feel I should clarify: "Densest" in Mrs. Mucchetti's words refers to the amount of information in the application. This is different from "density" in terms of housing units. I understand the confusion, and I'll clear that up in the headline. -MG

Louis that is a fairly huge leap from 16 units to 500 units. If the Schlumberger property was an attractive development opportunity it would already be in the hands of developers. The only real prospective purchaser is the town, which has a terrible history of buying, developing and managing properties. I don't think your scare tactics will work on informed voters.

Michael, thank you. My mistake for not reading thoroughly enough. I might be as "dense" as the application! :)

Roger, some opposed to Schlum are of the opinion that no builder wants to create high density multi-family units because there is no market for them. This is where I think the world has changed in recent years. Many potential home buyers are sitting on the sidelines, unwilling to plunk down $1,000,000 for a McMansion today, if the price might be $800,000 tomorrow. It gives rise to the new reality that multi-family rental units are proving to have a higher demand than stand alone houses. High density rentals offer a low-cost stop-gap measure for potential home-buyers to remain in a holding pattern for the foreseeable future until the housing markets stabilize. Thus the increase in demand for the high density units. And the desire for developers to cram 500 condos onto Schlum.

Voters shouldn't let their short-term desire to save money today cloud their thinking when it comes to tomorrow. Don't buy Schlum and you will save $7 million today, but you will pay out multiples of that in the future to accommodate all the new school children living in the condos.

Louis, Where is proof of this new reality? Today there are 300 units at Casagmo with around 30 school age children. Like I said if there was a demand for this type of development and the Schlumberger property was suitable for that type of development, then it would be in a developers hands. The new reality is no developer has purchased that property for a reason.

Where is the proof? What is the article about? A developer is wanting to tear down two houses and replace them with multi-family units. Why? The developer's goal is to make money and obviously he feels it is more cost effective to build condos instead of homes. He's in the business. You are not. Sorry, but he has more credibility and backs it up with money.

When it comes to Casagmo, I think you need to apply your Harvard education and think it through. Starting in 2007 the economics of our world changed resulting in multi-family units being more in demand. That doesn't mean everyone living in Casagmo was just going to up and move to make way for the new families with the new demand. Where would the residents of Casagmo go? It's their homes. They are riding out the economic storm like the rest of us. If a builder creates new units at Schlum, new families can move in. But people have been moving into Casagmo since 1970 under every different economic conditions. You can't use Casagmo as a demographic model for what will happen after the changes of 2007. Think of your source for the Casagmo comparison, you really going to take economic advice from a prison guard?

Roger--agree.
I have yet to get any good answer--let alone any answer, as to why developers were not as eager to buy this land back when real estate was part of the bubble.
Louis, the world has changed, I agree. But rather than what you portend to be a trend towards high-density housing, I think the new economy is saying that buying any housing is risky. And to that end, there simply are not many solvent developers in search of larch parcels of land who are capable of getting bank financing and who are willing to risk millions of dollars on property investments.
The Schlumberger land deal is very fishy. It defies many points of logic--. But at this point, the evolution of the information dissemination on this deal is, for me the most disturbing. When Rudy initially told us about the deal, he somehow forgot to include the reality that there was contamination at the site. Not a small thing to forget. Next, he has intimated an 'art collector' potential buyer--but one who remains anonymous. Sorry--but not buying it. Aside from the sudden interest that corresponds to the vote-- The people in the art world that I know, would never be interested in storing their masterpieces near a dump and on contaminated soil. Sorry--but Rudy lost my trust when he decided not to tell the town about contamination--and this whole deal appears to me as a scam-.

Louis the developer is asking for 16 units. What we have learned is the developer believes there is demand for 16 units in town, a far cry from 500. Also where exactly did the number 500 come from?

Roger the 500 units came from the same people who brought us "weapons of mass destruction."
Scare tactics seem to be the best alternative to reasoned logic, when reasoned logic fails to achieve your agenda.

Roger Casagmo is a bad example. I am in the process of compiling the true children count in their and Fox Hill. But remember those developments have extremely small rooms and they are basically owned by older families. I am willing to bet that the schlumbersche property will support 250-275 apartments. It depends on the builder. It will be built on that is for certain. When the housing market perks up it will go.

ron
when will the housing market perk up?

Bender

5:01pm on Wednesday, November 23, 2011

Part of the argument for the purchase of the Schlumberger property is to "control our own destiny." Could we achieve this with zoning laws or regulations w/o purchasing the property or does the state of CT effectively control this?

Basically all town zoning laws do not apply and cant apply under affordable rules. That is why the law needs to be REPEALED AS SOON AS POSSIBLE. Basically it is an unfunded mandate and SOCIAL ENGINEERING. Simply put it is busing without the buses.

I don't care if you are for or against Schlum, we should all give kudos to Ron for the most brilliant sentence in this entire thread: "Simply put it is busing without the buses." Love it! Googled it! Never been said before. Patch editors, can I suggest Ron's words as the quote of the day!

Luca, so far today you implied that if you post using your real name, people might attack you.

You then went on to suggest the BOS is using the art collector as some phoney excuse to purchase the property. Ahh, the old art collector ruse for buying a property...

Now you are saying,

"the 500 units came from the same people who brought us weapons of mass destruction."

Hmmmmm.

I don't think anyone is going to attack you. I don't think there is an art conspiracy. And I don't think George Bush is getting involved with the Schlumberger purchase. Could be wrong, but that's what I think.

One more thing...

Talk about scare tactics.... did you see the anti-Schlum letter in the newspaper saying, "I don't think even 8-30g trumps radioactivity!"

Radioactivity? Can anyone tell me where it is mentioned that the site is radioactive?

louis --
Thanks for your analysis. It goes like this. 'I dont agree." Awesome.
Let me ask you-why dont you use your real name? Your response could be interesting.
500 units--I studied the entire Fairfield County real estate market and there exist not 1 (let me repeat ) NOT 1 500 unit development. So, if you can explain why you could conjecture on 500 units Im all ears, but it would be nice if it were based on more than anecdotal evidence or your hunch or your conclusion that if a developer (not God)--builds 16 units --then there is a natural conclusion that 500 is reasonable. Im all ears...because I want to understand if there is any reasoned logic--but if its all based on some extrapolation of 16 units then I think its pretty weak. I can point out where a new house was built on 3 acres of land and sold. And I wouldnt make one data point my sole source of perspective.
The art collector? Yeah--I m guessing. But, as per the Fof information act- mr marconi should really not withhold such information. Im no expert in this field, but I can think of no valid reason to keep a buyer secret . Show us a blacked out contract for purchase and Ill totally admit im wrong. But the whole thing is fishy.

Louys Sir

At the intersection of route 35 and 7 by the Valero petrol station their is an affordable housing project. If memory serves me they wanted 70 units. The town reduced it to 25 i think and the builder Sues for 50. The builder won in court, So that parcel is 3 acres and has 50 units. Now with that said simple math will dictate the density possibilities in a large parcel of land by state regulations. (8-30g

Luca, you are trying to tell this audience that large condo developments don't exist in Fairfield County? What? Here is a fraction of the condo complexes in Danbury:

STERLING WOODS I and II 708 units
TIMBER OAK 328 units
RIVINGTON 700+ units planned or in development and still growing
WOODLAND HILLS 252 units
THE SUMMIT 235 units

And don't be fooled by the complexes with 250 units. Often what happens is the complexes are located side by side. Different developers, but combined totals of over 500 units. This arrangement could also exist at Schlum where two developers each build a 250 unit complex. There would be your 500 units.

Why do you say it doesn't happen this way in Fairfield County? It certainly does. Drive up Route 7. Just as you get to the airport, look to the northern hills above the Mall, covered in condos.

And more are coming. Just to the south of the airport, the hills were cleared of trees. There is a tentative plan to put in yet two more massive complexes, both about 300 units. Side by side. Combined total of 600 units.

The Sterling Woods community of Danbury is the spot where country living meets a suburban lifestlyle. This 130 acre community features 278 townhome style units plus an additional 70 detached country homes.

130 acres and a total of 348 units. thats not 500 its also 130 acres. Not 25. Thats from the website.
I dont know about proposals... but I didnt say there are no multi unit dwellings in fairfield county. I only said there are none that i could find that have 500.
If you want to tell me that its possible that schlumberger property has the potential for multiple dwellings --ummmm I think I agree. Haha. But I said 500--and if you cant read--Im sorry--but Im not going to retract a statement because you contend there is a proposal out there.
Just for your edification--there is a proposal to build a spaceship to mars for people. There are proposals that outline double decker highway on I-95. Im not saying that they have no shot. But, im going to stick with what is real. Your choice to decide that proposals are realities. Im not saying you are wrong--but Im not going to grant you the point.
You say that the art collector exists--fine. Again--your choice to believe someone who withheld lots of info over the course of the last several months. Id be willing to wager money that the art collector never buys the land--as you say --if Im willing to risk money--you should then totally believe me. thats your theory, right?

I don't understand your question about my name. I saw you arguing with someone else the other day about names. Please leave me out of your petty squabbles.

I just read your next post. I feel like I am trying to have discussion with a turnip. It's not even worth continuing.

To the patch editors, I read the other day where people said you should put better controls in place on this forum. I agree.

Louis Sir he posts in several sites and has the same arguments with all his postings. His name is not his but clearly the Chap needs to control himself or for that matter Herself. This person is excellent at making people mad. I would just ignore this person as i do now. Either way you are talking to someone that seems not to have a life and dwells and excels at making people mad. Now just for the record their is no town in the State of CT that welcomed in any Affordable housing of significant size without a court hearing except a hand full. So it seems to me that a great percentage of people don't like it don't want it and are willing to fight back to stop it. It is a Devastating Law that should be repealed. With that i bid you a good thanksgiving to all that celebrate it. Cheers

I never understood this little exchange:

steven fields said:
10:53pm on Saturday, November 5, 2011
We are 40 square miles...

Ron orson responded:
6:24am on Sunday, November 6, 2011
Mr Fields as usual you posted rubbish. Ridgefield is not 40 square miles ... According to the United States Census Bureau, the town has a total area of 35.0 square miles ....

Luca Abelino responded:
10:21am on Sunday, November 6, 2011
Ron,
Thanks for the facts. Didn't check the census bureau, so therefore it renders my point moot? I was saying it's a lot of spread out land. Sorry I got the square footage wrong.

Why did Luca answer as if he was Steven? Never understood that....

http://ridgefield.patch.com/articles/power-outages-rise-with-snowfall-predictions-2a4f2512

Tackman--
It was all hashed out. You posted the link. So , cant you read?
Strange, that you are a first time patch person, yet remember the exchange. Where I made a joke.
Louis or tackman or whatever you want to call yourself today, Im sorry you lost the exchange. But I suggest you just get better facts next time.

Luca, you give people a hard time so often, insinuating people are posting under multiple names. I'm never sure why that matters so much to you, other than Freud had it right and it's a matter of (imaginary) control. But in any event, shouldn't you be held to the same standard? You responded to a post as if you were Steve, even though you were logged in as Luca. Your explanation is that you were joking? If someone else had done such a thing, would you believe the explanation? By a show of hands, anyone else here believe Luca's explanation?

tackman

Sorry man--but this is the same logic that louis employs. So thats why I assume you are one and the same.
You see, you give credit to Freud on one hand, yet interestingly, you are the one who raised the issue if I have an alter ego.
See? Its just one step short on your logic ladder.

I don't see anyone raising their hand saying they buy into your explanation. You responded with the voice of Steve even though you were logged in as Luca. You're so BUSTED. But you continue to mock renzo for supposedly also using the ID of Ron. You take the cake Luca.

Why would Ridgefield want more "affordable" housing when we can't even fill the ones we have? New construction when the market is already flooded with small condos? Check for yourself on realtor.com.

Hey Wooly, To think new constuction in this economy is a good idea shows your ignoance on what is happening in the real estate market. Enjoy the pic Itchy :)

We agree Ron!
We need to move what we have on the market. Not build more. Hopefully, when the market gets back some momentum, there will once again be a need for new construction. We don't need to sit on more vacant real estate in this town. It will make the value of our homes go down. Is that what we want Wool? I'd like to see things get better. Not worse.

I agree Mama. I drove through town today and up and down Rt7. Their is so many empty houses and businesses it boggles the mind. As you point out. What the heck is more housing going to do with a glut on the market. I also researched Foreclosures. If the article i read is true 17 in this town. I was shocked to be honest. Their is something seriously wrong with this law that covers the 8-3g. I read it and if people took the time to do same it is shocking to say the least. I am with you and this madness should stop and stopped now. But State law trumps town rules so it can't de defeated on a town level. This law has to go and go fast. It also ties the hands of the town Zoning which in my opinion is disgracefulness at best. You point is well taken as far as i am concerned and correct.

The foreclosure number above should read 173. Sorry for the mistake

Outrageous. The town were given all the tools to deny this application. By approving it, they are ensuring that all the coming 8-30g applications will also pass. Watch out Ridgefield!!!!

Sally, you've made it obvious that you are quite unfamiliar with the 8-30g statute. Read the law, learn about what it is intended for and under what conditions a permit can be denied, and stop posting out of ignorance. You are taking away from the credibility of other more informed residents who may disapprove of this project. If the town could have denied this, they would have. The P&Z determined that the flaws with the site were not significant enough to deny the project (and were correctable, nonetheless). By the way, where were you very recently when several similar projects were being built in town under 8-30g? This is the first I've heard of you speaking out against this type of project. If you are going to jump on the bandwagon, please learn the law first.

Henry,
I'm not going to answer you, that was offensive. As regular readers of this site know, I am extremely familiar with 8-30g. Anything you'd like to know?

If this law is not repealed this town will suffer financial melt down. The sewer district is a disaster and if i am correct their is approximately 4 more sites being considered for cluster housing. Seems to me that towns like Redding has none and we have a glut of them. But Redding is smart they have no Sewer treatment plant and that means no affordable housing. It seems to me that the residents of this town are not informed on issues and vote in things without researching it's consequences. Basically this town is not the pristine new England town that someone would like to reside. This Law is going to destroy this town and other towns in this state. Only answer is to vote these legislatures out and have the law scrapped ASAP. This knock down syndrome will continue on any homes that are sewered and watter compatible. It is only a matter of time.

Ron- you need to check your facts. 8-30g DOES NOT require access to sewer and water. Furthermore 8-30g has been a law for 22 years and has been implemented in many towns, including ours. Last time i checked none of these towns have been "destroyed". Furthermore, the idea of tying up developers in court is not a solution. A special court hears these types of cases and are fast tracked through the system. In the cases where these projects were appealed, the result was less than desirable for the town. Just look to the former Red Lion site. I think that the developer of that project originally asked for 25 units and during the appeal, the court ruled that they had the right to build 50 units. Like it or not, this law is here to stay and the best way to minimize its effects is to work with developers to obtain better, less intense projects. Our P&Z commission has learned this lesson the hard way.

OK then tell me how a complex can develop a 50 unit or larger site without water and sewer. It can be dun but it would be to costly to treat the waste on site. And further more i believe this law is very bad and should be repealed. Basically it is social engineering at it finest and who the hell is the state to control a towns zoning laws. I would think if tested in a real court of law if someone would do that it would be found Unconstitutional as not being applied equally and fair. And if memory serves me the Red Lion builders wanted more than 50. But you may be correct. Either way these developments are a menace on this state and degrades property values. Not to mention it is an Unfunded mandate at its best. and in my view and many others. Lets see how people in this town dont go off the deep end when another 4 developments pop up in a very short time. And by the way if all of the laws coming out of Hartford are so great and people except it why are people leaving this state in DROVES? Not only are towns being destroyed the state is beyond repair and destroyed long ago. Maybe you should take a good look at this town. It is not a very pritty site any more or haven't you looked lately!!

Their you go a special court hears these cases. WOW YOU COULD KNOCK ME OVER WITH A FEATHER. Special court Rubbish. Hand picked liberal judges with an agenda. Tell me i am incorrect Sir?

I'm pretty sure that the equal protection clause is not applicable in this case. Furthermore you mention that these developments are "unfunded mandates". How so? The developer subsidizes the rent for the affordable units, not the town. Also, how are these small developments any different than regular residential subdivisions, multifamily developments or commercial developments that have been built in town without using 8-30g?

And by the way, I think that many people leave the state because of the high cost of living and the very high tax burden. I'm sure that the affordable housing law is not high on these people's minds when deciding to move.

With all respect Sir do the schools fund themselves and does the tax payers flip the bill for the extra services. I personally think if the law is challenged correctly it would be found UNCONSTITUTIONAL. People are leaving for cost reasons and affordable housing contributes to these expenses. The builder does not build infer structure to support the increased population. If for one second you don't believe this do some research. People don't like it and towns hate it Period

Sally Alexandroff

6:18 pm on Wednesday, November 30, 2011

Outrageous. The town were given all the tools to deny this application. By approving it, they are ensuring that all the coming 8-30g applications will also pass. Watch out Ridgefield!!!!

I totally agree with this. I would like to know how REDDING controls this with no issues. They have NONE as far as i can see. It just wonder how Town seem to block all of this with no issues,And ridgefield has no issues with SLAMMING IT THROUGH. Their is something here that is FOUL here. Why is the Affordable housing laws seem to only effect certain areas??? I agree with you Sally 100% Cheers

Ron,
How many affordable housing projects have been proposed in Redding? I have no idea.
But we have Democrats in our town government who appear sympathetic towards these Hartford driven initiatives.

The real focus should be on 2 things--replacing rudy marconi as first selecmen with someone who is more interested in Ridgefield's fate, than in pleasing his buddies in hartford. And second, find out what is the real reason Rudy wants to buy Schlumberger.
I read the Press, and in addition to the mysterious art collector that in my opinion does not exist -(there should be a FOI request in relation to this issue. We will find out too late, but when the deal 'falls through" we can know more--) but in the Press Rudy says something to the effect "Schlumb initially put the property for sale at 9+ mio and now its at 6mio. Marconi anticipates a tax write off." Implying that we are getting a good deal. Which is either idiotic or dishonest. You dont write off a property based on the asking price. Whatever the book value of the property is plus the value of the improvements (buidlings) which have no doubt been depreciated and already valueless. And while I cant say for certain, the accounting practices at Schlumb, it would be beyond unusal for S to realize any property gains for income purposes throughout the years. So whatever price S bought the land for, IN 1948!!- is where the land is currently valued. So, once again old rudy is full of it

Luca said, "...find out what is the real reason Rudy wants to buy Schlumberger. "

Want to know the real reason the Schlumberger conspiracy exists?

It's because parking is very difficult at Area 51 in Nevada - what with all us aliens buying oversized spaceships these days. So members of Ridgefield's secret societies are joining forces to buy Schlumberger as an alternate parking site. They will tear down the buildings housing the holy grail, move Jimmy Hoffa's body to the back of the lot, and schwing, they will be in business.

Hope that clears it up for you.

thanks louis. nice to see you are back.

or wait et--you are peter.
ha -whatever.
i guess if you cant counter my valid and logical claims of shady activity, trying to paint them in a way that makes them seem 'crazy' makes some sense.
All I need to know ET -is why an art collector that has existed now for about 2 months--wants to remain anonymous.
ET will answer _thats for hm to know.--or something similarly weak.
But, how about coming up with an answer to why rudy is keeping it quiet-but revealing all the details.
If the art collector, ET, genuinely wants to buy the land, wouldnt he want to butress the legitimacy of his existene and sincerity by revealing his name?
If it were a done deal , maybe there is no need....but this guy wants to buy , right? So, any smart business man is going to reveal who he is to give comfort to the electorate to pull that lever.
Sorry, you are not smart enough to actually debate on a more intellectual level. Thats just sad for you. But Ive been on this earth long enough to understand the dynamics of business, and there is no compelling reason to remain anonymous, and a few reasons to reveal the name.

Luca, if you had $10 million of artwork in your house and wanted to move it into an infinity more secure building with 8 foot thick concrete walls, would you announce your name to the world BEFORE the artwork is secure?

Couldn't some unscrupulous person read about you in the newspaper, kick in your front door, and steal the artwork before it is put in the vault?

Try this experiment: Call Brinks, the armored car company. Ask them for their schedule today. Tell them you are very interested to know the location of their trucks. Then tell me how that goes.

ET
Im not sure if you are serious? Are you?
So, here is what you are saying--I have (more than) 10 mio in artwork. My equation is this. I will buy a buidling for say 1 mio dollars to secure my artwork, far from my home. Because it is far from my home, I will have to hire security guards on a 24 hour basis. That level of security I will have THERE--but here in my house, I will leave my doors unlocked and not worry for a second?
Why, ET , does he , in your scenario, not have security now, but will only have it in say, 1 year from now, or more, given the time horizon for environmental cleanup?
Thanks--and see you later. Time to get a new nickname, since this one has also revealed itself as just another Peter with terrible thought patterns, and illogical and obtuse concepts.
At the very least Mr Genius, a guy with such resources can establish a LLC and negotiate with the town under a coproration name that has no ridgefield address or ties.
The art collector doesnt exist, ET. If youd like a small wager--Im certainly willing to bet that no art collector ever buys a buidling on that property.
You said in a previous post , under a different name, that if someone is willing to put their money where their mouth is, then you believe them.
Once again, Im putting my money up--so , in your less than intelligent analysis, this debate should be over. ET, phone RUDY.

I was thinking same thing. Just set up a Cayman Islands Corporation or a Delaware Corporation and do your bidding if you have some security concerns.
Ill agree that there is likely no art collector. Does anyone know if this falls outside the lines of FOI requests?
I know you can go into executive session for this type of transaction, but I dont know if that allows one to sidestep the concept of freedom of information.

So Luca, what you are saying is it's very unlikely a person would move his art collection from a less secure location to a more secure location.

And both you and Steve are saying this individual should go to the trouble of setting up a separate corporation so he can negotiate with the town. But wouldn't it make more sense that he calls Rudy and says, "Would you like to sell one of the Schlumbeger buildings to me?" Why would he go to the trouble of incorporating himself first? So the newly made-up corporation name can be told to you? That's why he would go to that trouble? To make you happy, an anonymous poster on a forum?

Okay, thanks for sharing your views.

No ET
Not for me.
But if he truly wants the property, dont you think he would want to lend some measure of legitimacy to the prospect?
And, I can agree that he may have picked up phone and said you want to sell one?" But when it progresses to an advanced level, incorporating costs about 500 dollars, so if he wants anonymity but also wants legitimacy, it makes sense.

What doesnt make sense is your scenario of a zero secure location now and a fortress sometime in the future. But since you seem to have abandoned that ridiculous notion, you have decided to try to make incorporating at an advanced stage of the process now ridicuolous.
First you try for UFO's/ Then you try for --haha sure he probably leaves the door open. Now you are saying that the first call and now should be the same.
And the funny thing is, your scenarios are all without any thought, and yet you want desperately to ridicule. Its odd...but keep trying--maybe one of your scenarios will make sense.
How about try that he wants to take a stroll through berilym and oil contaminated soil to look at Renoir's _-that also would make sense in your mind. It wont to me.

et
one other thought on the way you argue this issue.
You ridicule my idea that it seems odd to not name the art collector --or forget to mention environmental issues at the outset of this issue, or include the concept of a tax write-off by SCB that makes no sense---and that I conclude we are not being dealt with honestly. You simply condense that into a 'conspiracy theory."
Fine
But isnt it odd that the only reason --I REPEAT the ONLY reason to buy this land is based on the idea that some evil developer will buy the land now --when he didnt buy before and build hundreds of condos under 830g.
Is that reality? Or a conspriacy theory? From my vantage point, its possible that a developer will buy--but highly unlikely. And certainly there is a chance that 830g will be repealed before the real estate market turns up --if it ever turns up.
But in terms of imagining the worst-and then acting on it--this is the only reason this issue exists at all. So sort of a strange angle to take. There is no REAL THREAT--only a potential/imagined threat. So, if you are against conspiracy theories, you may want to rethink why you want this property bought.

Please keep the conversation civil and on subject or comments will be deleted -- several have been already. If a commenter continues this behavior, he/she will be suspended. -MG