This year’s big Town Meeting Day Issue for Burlington voters is once again what to do with the Moran Plant, the decommissioned coal-burning power plant on the Burlington waterfront.
A group called the Green Democratic Alliance of Burlington, formed by former Green Party Chair Owen Mulligan, gained enough petition signatures to get a question on the ballot asking voters if they want to tear the plant down.
“Shall the voters urge the Mayor and the City Council to have the Moran Plant completely demolished and to begin the project no later than June of 2009 so the site can be utilized as a multi-use public park?”
The Green Democratic Alliance proposal for the site is on their website, here.
The other option on the ballot is the mayor’s redevelopment plan. A proposal that will cost an estimated $21 million, with 2/3 of that coming from private partners, who will be the site’s occupants.
The question reads:
“Shall the City of Burlington be advised to move forward on the proposal to renovate and redevelop the Moran Plant to include an indoor ice and rock climbing facility; children’s museum; outdoor ice skating rink; splash water park; public park; cafe and restaurant; new skateboard park; observation deck and the retention of the Community Sailing Center, with the understanding that voters will have an opportunity in the future to approve any financing that would alter individual property tax rates?”
You can view the City’s proposal here.
I will weigh in with my opinion soon.
January 30th, 2008 at 6:40 pm
I’m amazed at the perseverance on the part the “tear it down at all costs” lobby in Burlington. As you basically said on your show recently (I don’t want to put words in your mouth)…the current idea from the city seems like the only way for the city to get back some revenue from that piece of land. I’ll bet you that with this new ballot initative on the ballot that the city plan will be defeated and this new item will win. Burlington needs an expanded tax base desperately…and round and round we go…
January 30th, 2008 at 9:47 pm
That’s funny, I wrote “and round and round we go…” in a post earlier, but I edited it out because the post was rambling. (It was a different post, though.)
You paraphrased me pretty well. It is interesting that you and I actually agree on something. I might need to rethink my position on this.
I am not sure what will happen, but I think that this new ballot question will hurt the Mayor’s proposal. I just don’t know how much.
I think the fact that a Progressive came up with it helps. If it was a Republican, there is no way it would pass. People don’t trust Republicans when they want to bring the private sector in. At least a Prog will be able to keep the accusation that he is “in bed with big business” away.
January 30th, 2008 at 11:16 pm
Well, I’m going to stick with the phrase, “Hey, I watched Charity’s Ch. 17 show, and she brainwashed me. She’s a dangerous woman!”
When I think about the proposals that I’ve heard in the past to just “knock it down”, I picture in my mind a bunch of loony lefties running around in the open space down there looking up at the sky with wide smiles on their faces…wheeeee…
January 31st, 2008 at 9:17 pm
The reason we brought forth the idea of ’smart demolition or rather decontruction is so the city would take a closer look at the cost of demolition. Instead, the city has mislead the people about the costs saying it would cost as much as $6.8 or more.
Our goal is to get other ideas out there and explore other possibilities that we have not seen brought forth before.
Unfortunately, it looks like the GDA will have to do the city’s work, and so yes, we are looking to get an estimate for deconstruction to see just how much the reduction in costs could be compared to the 2.5 estimate for traditional demolition by MERKUR Construction.
Also, remember that the city could seek grants to help reduce the cost further. Every little bit helps.
As far as the Community Sailing Center, well, they are expected to raise $3.5m as part of the city’s $21m plan.
We would suggest that if the Moran building is deconstructed, that they (the Sailing Center) raise a similiar amount for a small structure of their own that is ‘in scale with the waterfront, and use the rest of the money raised to upgrade the surrounding space, ie. park benches, picnic tables, community garden.
This would make sense as a business investment because these basic amenities would attract more people to the sailing center and surrounding site.
Green space is not bad for business or the economy.
One could argue that this is what attracts so many tourists each year to the waterfront in the first place.
I also realize if we get demolition reduced to say about $1.5m, we still have an issue. But it is far cheaper than the $7m or more that the city may get stuck with through a finance vote at a later date.
January 31st, 2008 at 11:03 pm
Dear Charity and your regular readers and lurkers
You all may want to check out Channel 17′: The Green Democratic Alliance 29 January press conference on the Moran Plant & the Smart Demolition ballot item will be broadcast on Channel 17 –
Saturday February 2: 10:25 PM
Sunday February 3: 3:25 AM
Sunday February 3: 9:25 AM
Sunday February 3: 3:25 PM
- Jay
February 1st, 2008 at 2:52 am
The city obviously has an opinion on what should be done down there on the waterfront (and you can argue about whether they should or not), but come on. Your $2.5Million figure doesn’t include building a structure for the Sailing Center does it? Who’s misleading who now?
“remember that the city could seek grants to help reduce the cost further”
You complain about the *exact same thing* when the city sez this about their plan! Hypocrisy…I would expect better from a fellow member of the Left.
“We would suggest that if the Moran building is deconstructed, that they (the Sailing Center) raise a similiar amount for a small structure of their own”
Did you get them to agree to that yet? Sounds like the city already has their ducks in a row to me.
February 1st, 2008 at 5:21 am
I think you don’t understand what we are doing. We are trying to get more ideas out there and we are also trying to get people to take a closer look at the city’s proposal. The city would seek grants for its share which is a bit over $7m, we suggest seek grants to reduce costs of demolition which is $2.5m. The cost also has the potential to be reduced with a deconstruction approach as well.
I have never said or even implied that the $2.5m includes a home for the Sailing Center. I said with the Sailing Center having to raise $3.5M out of the city’s $21m plan that the same amount of money could be raised by them to be used for the construction of a small-scale structure of their own after deconstruction. The $3.5m could also be used to renovate the surrounding site with basic things like park benches, etc. We don’t need to spend a fortune on landscaping.
The difference in our plan vs. the city’s is that the city needs to find money to cover $7m or more. Our plan needs to find money to cover $2.5m or less.
We want the city to consider this and then approach the Sailing Center with the idea if the $21m redevelopment plan fails on the ballot.
If the redevelopment plan passes then great..people had their say and we’ll see how the plan progresses.
P.S. the Sailing Center is not going to agree to our plan after agreeing to the city’s and then giving them the go ahead with a city-wide vote.
I mean come on!!! We are generating these ideas to be used down the road and for community assets like the Sailing Center to consider.
But 1st we have to see what happens on the ballot.
February 1st, 2008 at 6:07 am
I understand exactly what you’re trying to do…you want the Moran Plant gone, period. You’re apparently *not* going to give up that fight until you get what you want, which is fine. This “idea” that you want to get out there has been out there for quite some time BTW.
What if both your ballot initiative and the city’s wins? Do you think that $3.5Million dollar figure that’s in the *city’s plan* for the Sailing Center now includes money to “renovate the surrounding site with basic things like park benches, etc.”?
You’re assuming a lot if you think that the Sailing Center will foot the bill alone for it’s own site on land that it doesn’t even own…and can never own.
“If the redevelopment plan passes then great…people had their say and we’ll see how the plan progresses.”
I predict that if the city’s plan passes you guys will not go away easily.
February 1st, 2008 at 6:21 am
If the city’s plan passes, we will only ask the council to put forth a resolution to preserve the Moran Sculpture in its current location. Mayor Kiss seems to miss the significance of this sculpture, which was a result from the International Sculpture Symposium that took place on the shores of Lake Champlain in 1990. The focus of the international collaboration, which consisted of eleven established sculptors, was man and the natural environment, ecology, environmental change, cultural life and history of the region. The Moran Sculpture preserved a footprint on the waterfront in hopes that it would never be developed, as stated in the Burlington City Arts: Walking Art Tour Guide.
We think its ironic that 18 years later this unique sculpture may be removed to make room for development.
If you would like a copy of the City Arts:Walking Art Tour Guide to see this statement for yourself please email me your name and address and I’ll put one in the mail for you.
My email is: ombreath@yahoo.com
Hopefully, we can at least agree on the Moran Sculpture.
February 1st, 2008 at 6:46 am
The mayor’s not going to get rid of that sculpture…he said as much at the public meeting on the city’s Moran Plant proposal. What’s the big deal if they move it a few feet? Now we’re getting somewhere…you’re clinging to some idealized past…I see…
February 1st, 2008 at 7:34 am
Here is what the city had to say in the city proposal concerning the
sculpture, word for word:
“The future of the sculpture equinox on the north lawn will be
revisited in consultation with City Arts. Options include leaving it
in place and integrating it into the landscaping, removing and
relocating of the entire piece, or disassembling and donating the
stones for new sculptures.”
As you can see, the city has no solid plan; it could go either way….
You may also want to read the current Seven Days in which Kiss says it can be moved somewhere else in the city.
This defeats the whole purpose of the art piece.
Also, this will be my last response to you because your comments are pretty much rude as you said over on our GDA website comment section:”You are giving the Left a bad name IMO…we’re not supposed to be the ones being sticks in the mud.”
Maybe I could say your doing the same??
Anyway, you have your opinions and I have mine but at least do a better job of getting your info straight.
February 1st, 2008 at 10:13 am
Yea, cuz the real issue with the Moran Plant that absolutely *everyone* is talking about is where that piece of art will go. Don’t worry…I’m sure they won’t melt it all down and make bullets out of it. I’m not for the status quo down there BTW…being for the status quo no matter what, IMO, is being a stick in the mud.