Stew's lists $14.5M parcel

How about being a good corporate citizen and donating the property as open space or putting a deed restriction so that it can only be used for farmland. This area is already paved over. We need to stop listening to greedy real estate developers and corrupt Mayors and first selectmen. NO MORE SHOPPING CENTERS OR CONDOS!

There is state money available for farmland preservation.

However, the owners themselves have to want to keep the land under farm, rather than using it for a more lucrative landuse.

I agree with both readers, No more cONDOS there are a source of bad relation with neighbors, you don't know who's moving next to you...You have to live with drug dealers and addicted next to you. and you are screw for life....!

I got it! How about a Xmas tree store!
Is it Xmas in China Now?

You snobby Orange people, you could of had a beautiful store and brought more tax money into Orange. The best thing is for Stew to sell the land rights to the state and get money for it so nobody can build on it, it has to stay farmland. Think about it Stew, tell them all to take a hike. I myself would of loved to have your store in Orange.

Helen wrote:

I agree with both readers, No more cONDOS there are a source of bad relation with neighbors, you don't know who's moving next to you...You have to live with drug dealers and addicted next to you. and you are screw for life....!

Are cONDOS birth control devices??

Nobody could put a farm there. The machinery and cash-flow would make the farmer "rich" so CT and Obambi could tax the crap out of him. Not worth it. Farming is only done in the (income-tax)free states.

So what is it that has increased the value of these 40 acres from $2.2 million in 1996 to the asking price of $14.5 million in 2009.

Was it the payment of whatever they've paid in property taxes in those 13 years to the local community? Was it the hundreds of thousands of dollars in legal and environmental costs?

Or was it the presence of the REST of us and OUR common investment in infrastructure -- I-95.

So in a logical and just society, who should reap that windfall?

Land value is the natural public revenue source. The owners of land ought to be paying taxes in proportion to the value of the land they hold -- whether they use it as farmland, as commercial property or as residential -- and not on the value of whatever buildings they put on it.

What a deal: to be able to ask $14 million for 40 acres on which corn and pumpkins are being grown.

$12 million gain over 13 years on 40 acres. That's $23,100 per acre per year. What a return on "investment" -- an investment which didn't create a thing for anyone else, except some lawyers, land planners and tax accountants.

What a family business. I wonder how many years of operating profits the $12 million land value gain would equal, and how many years of the community budgets this would be.

Private gain, financed by public investment.

Winston Churchill called it "the mother of all monopolies." He was right.

lol...You people crack me up complaining about the guy selling his property.

You could have bought back in 1996, it was for sale to anyone.

How is this "private gain financed by the public?"...

Looks like stop & shop won..

The town of Orange will most likely regret their decision to prohibit Stew Leonard's from building on the site.
In this economy developers will be reluctant to build a retail development, hence no tax advantage to the town.
The people of Orange may rethink this when they get their next tax bill?

An exercise in duplicity...

I'm selling it - if anyone will pay my inflated price - or I'm not, and maybe I'll try again to develop it.

How decisive!

I think that James Zeoli and others who blocked this plan should now come accross with the approx $700,000.00 that the town has lost in revenue. Want to bet he will not respond to this challenge

hnelson wrote:

I think that James Zeoli and others who blocked this plan should now come accross with the approx $700,000.00 that the town has lost in revenue. Want to bet he will not respond to this challenge

Opposing a development doesn't make anyone responsible for potential tax losses.

Vox Pop wrote:

An exercise in duplicity...
I'm selling it - if anyone will pay my inflated price - or I'm not, and maybe I'll try again to develop it.
How decisive!

It is out of Stews hand. They got the darn approval that was needed from the Town of Orange. But the approval was overturned by the Supreme Court.

A bunch of residents had formed a coalition and appealed the town approval, the Superior court weighed in, someone (dunno which party) appealed the superior court decision to the Appelate court. Before the Appelate court could rule, the CT Supreme court decided to intervene and pulled the case all the way up.

Where Stew got hosed was that the Supreme Court, instead of considering the concerns of the opposing neighbors, decided that they were interested in their OWN issues - which involved a very esoteric but significant precendent dictating what studies and information is needed before a local board could make a decision.

Basically the Supreme COurt was out looking for a test case to remake CT law, and Stews blundered right into it. The Supreme Courts ruling, overturning the approval, set the bar so high up for Stews, that it is not worth them restarting the whole application procedure again to get another set of approvals. The Supreme COurt also set a precedant that now makes it difficult for ANY land use board to make an informed decision that is also legal, and this "new" issue will not be resolved for a few years, by a few more test cases and/or by the state legislature.

So basically Stews got screwed.

Interesting history, with details I had not known...

Perhaps that hasn't rung a bell in Stamford because it's a "Special Act," not a "Home Rule Act" city, whose land use board standards are unique.

Do you have any sense that the high court felt the studies in the Stew's case were inadequate, or what the hasis for its guidelines were?

Have other communities and/or land use attorneys chimed-in on this?

oops..try.."..the basis for,,,"...

The Banned One wrote:

Stew's is over rated. The food is mediocre at best.

Connecticut Sam and I agree with you, and also the food is over price.

Vox Pop wrote:

Interesting history, with details I had not known...
Perhaps that hasn't rung a bell in Stamford because it's a "Special Act," not a "Home Rule Act" city, whose land use board standards are unique.
Do you have any sense that the high court felt the studies in the Stew's case were inadequate, or what the hasis for its guidelines were?
Have other communities and/or land use attorneys chimed-in on this?

This is a hot topic in the planning profession, and in land-use law. Applicable statewide as case law, as Supreme Court decisions always are.

At issue I think was an erosion control plan. The applicant had changed the site plan numerous times to accomodate critique, and time was running out for Orange to make their decision. Since such plans are usually considered minor details, Orange approved the proposal, with a condition that such a plan be submitted afterwords. No party pro or con(except the Supreme COurt) thought this was a big deal, it is done this way all the time. However, the court felt otherwise. It is not the erosion control plan specifically that is the issue, it is that towns are now limited in what "conditions" they can levy on an approval "after the fact"- the detail needed- before a decision - is now way higher than what it was, or what common sense would dictate.

Technically all Stews needs to do is to reapply with such a plan, as it is only a technical detail, but they know the moment they do, the opposition will rehammer them with all the other issues over again, and Stews probably doesnt want to deal with the time and expense of the legal cycle again. So the opposition won, for the wrong reason.

Thanks.

But check on Home Rule Act vs. Special Act local government powers.

One aspect of Stamford's unique Special Act powers is the right of appealing Planning or Zoning Board decisions to the Board of Representatives, instead of having to go right to Court. However, that does not apply to Zoning Board of Appeals decisions.

The Brookfield provides a good source of employment for all the Mexicans. You want something you have to go find someone that se hablo inglesia!