The Missing Vote

I was encouraged to see the Select Board decide this week to pause and revisit the Stanley Wasson proposal rather than immediately signing an 18-month exclusivity deal. This is a significant win for community dialogue, but we need to be clear about what is at stake.

Many of us assume that a project of this magnitude—which could define our village forever—will eventually come to a town-wide vote. IT WILL NOT.

Under our current town structure, the Select Board has the authority to enter into long-term development agreements and land leases for this parcel without a ballot vote from residents. The only time for public input is right now, before contracts are signed. Once the Exclusivity Terms / Pre-Development Agreement is inked, the door effectively "locks" for 18 months.

Ironically, the Town is asking us to go to the polls on Town Meeting Day to vote on a $4.3 million bond for the Randall Meadow flood mitigation project (Article 4). We are being asked to authorize millions in potential debt for flood relief, yet we are being denied the unredacted details for the massive private housing project planned for land in that same floodplain. The town has explicitly linked a nexus between Randall Meadow and Stanley Wasson. It is reasonable to ask, are we mitigating flood risk for safety, or are we mitigating it simply to enable housing development?

Since November, the Stanley Wasson Community Alliance has asked for the release of the redacted portions of the developer's RFQ response. As of today, these pertinent details remain hidden. We recognize the need for housing, but it must be done with stewardship and in a way that does not harm the community or contradict our resiliency efforts and hazard mitigation plans.

We deserve clarity on:
• Public Subsidy: Is public flood-mitigation money being used to offset a private developer's responsibility for "compensatory storage"? Would the Stanley Wasson development move forward if the Randall Meadow project were to fail?

• Town Commitments: What does the Agreement with DEW bind the Town to? Are there financial commitments? Has any long-term study been completed to see the impact a development of this size will have on our infrastructure (sewers already back up) and emergency services? Will the Town be penalized if there is a decision to forgo the project?

• Flood Resiliency: Resiliency should be our first goal. We have wonderful local groups working on this, yet here is a proposal to remove green space that acts as natural flood storage to build a development that requires fill. Engineering models can simulate scenarios, but they cannot predict the severity of the next flood and how water will travel around a flood-resilient building.

I also ask you to consider the facts and timeline. In 2021, when the Stanley and Wasson Halls were demolished, the site was returned to green space as part of flood mitigation for the State Office Complex. In early 2023, when our State Representatives were able to pass legislation to enable the State to sell the land to Waterbury, it seemed like a good idea. However, in July 2023 there was a material change with the land. With no buildings to block the water, this site was able to hold the water and protect the neighborhood from further damage. When we remove this storage capacity, the water will go somewhere else, regardless of the Randall Meadow mitigation project.

Carrie MacMillan