CT Legislature acts in "Long" Session and Special Session 2007 to assist film/video/animation industries.  See this article  re: closing the door on Utopia - and again.  Residents favor developing the Norwich Hospital property along Route 12 in Preston to bring more jobs but not more traffic to the area (next-to-last picture).  Democrat Senate leader comes out against Utopia?

ALL ABOARD THE JOINT DEVELOPMENT TRAIN!  EVEN IF UTOPIA DIDN'T MOVE FORWARD, SOUTHEASTERN CONNECTICUT "PROGRESS" IN THE 21ST CENTURY IS STILL ALIVE...read of one good thing to come out of the Utopia experience here.

INDEX
UTOPIAN PLANNING IDEA?

FACTS & TIMELINE:  LOOKING BACKWARD.

SOME FACTS ON NORWICH HOSPITAL SITE (from the Norwich Bulletin): TIMELINE (link to other, older stuff):

2003
2004

2005

2006


State Attorney General Richard Blumenthal signed an agreement Jan. 6 giving Preston the right to own and develop the 419-acre site, which lies across the Thames River from Mohegan Sun.  Preston has three years to act on the state's offer to buy the land for $1 along with several conditions, including the responsibility of the $15 million to $30 million cleanup.  The agreement with the state is not specific to any developer.


Preston has not purchased the land, waiting instead to finalize an agreement with Utopia that requires the developer to clean up the land.  If Preston does not purchase the land by Jan. 6, 2009, the agreement dissolves.

2007 - now there were four (post Utopia)
 2008 - with two left...let the people decide.  And they did
Taxpayers debated the merits of both proposals at a special town meeting scheduled June 19 (with a third option - "neither") - this Referendum had two questions: #1 - YES victorious - 1173-223 question one (Should the town engage in any agreement to use the Norwich Hospital property?);  #2 choice of developer/proposal -Northland 805 - Preston Gateway Partners 406.

No Utopia For Bear Stearns; Fallen firm was part of Utopia story.
By The Day (editorial)  
Published on 3/18/2008

That Bear Stearns Cos. was willing in November 2004 to issue a letter offering financing for the Utopia Studios Ltd. project at the former Norwich Hospital property should have served as a warning.

At the time the letter appeared to add credibility to a proposed project that had very little of it. Utopia backers were claiming they were prepared to build a $1.6 billion Disney-scale theme park, resort and movie studio complex, along with a performing arts college, right there in Preston. But the Utopians had no track record demonstrating an ability to do such a grand project.

Then Bear Stearns came along stating it was ready to provide $900 million to underwrite phase one of the project. In April 2006, just before a critical vote at which Preston voters approved a development agreement with Utopia, Bear Stearns wrote another letter “to confirm (its) continued interest in working with Utopia Studios Ltd. to secure funding for phase 1 of the proposed Utopia Studios Entertainment Complex in Preston.”

In hindsight the willingness of the one-time investment-banking giant to get involved with the dubious Utopia project showed just how reckless Bear Stearns had become. Though it never did provide financing to Utopia, its extensive involvement in the subprime mortgage market brought it to the brink of bankruptcy.

Faced with that prospect Bear Stearns this past weekend agreed to be sold to J.P. Morgan Chase & Co. for a mere $2 per share, about $236 million, less than one-third of the money that Bear Stearns was prepared to loan to Utopia just two short years ago. And J.P. Morgan was willing to take possession of the Bear Stearns corpse only after the Federal Reserve agreed to provide $30 billion in financing for Bear Stearns' most troubled assets, such as mortgage-backed securities. That puts the Fed, not J.P. Morgan, on the hook.

The Fed continues to forge into unchartered territory to keep the financial markets afloat. It apparently felt it had no choice because a Bear Stearns bankruptcy filing would have panicked the markets. The Fed also announced that it would loan to unregulated securities dealers, essentially venturing outside its legislative-approved role of managing the money supply by working with regulated banks.

That follows last week's decision to lend up to $200 billion to investment banks, using questionable mortgage-backed securities as collateral. The intent in every instance is to provide liquidity to a market that has stalled because bankers, spooked by the uncertainty in the markets, are reluctant to loan even to one another.

Unlike the rest of us, the Fed has the power to increase the money supply, i.e. print greenbacks. But its policies, including repeated interest rate cuts, are devaluing the U.S. dollar and fueling inflation, a cure that could prove worse than the disease.

Of course, when the Utopia group had to come up with a $56 million credit line in November 2006 to prove its viability, Bear Stearns was nowhere to be found and the development deal with Preston fell apart.

In retrospect, perhaps Bear Stearns was a good match for Utopia, but certainly not for Preston. 


UTOPIA did not met these requirements in full...
The main threads of discussion on the topic of renewal in Southeastern CT...Highlights of the conditions Utopia must meet by Nov. 21:

 Provide at Utopia's expense:  Updated title to the property;  Survey of the boundaries;  All closing costs;  A dispute mediator (selected with town).

Environmental cleanup:  Make available a cleanup cost estimate;  Set aside money for the cleanup;  Insurance to cover any cleanup cost overruns;  Provide a building demolition and preservation plan;  Submit environmental report.

Deposit:  $12 million to meet tax obligations during construction phase; $1.3 million to cover town consulting expenses.

Financing:  Provide a project budget;  Identify all financing sources;  Deliver to town Utopia's most recent audit. 

Identify partners and provide proof of contracts with:  Pollution abatement firm;  Demolition contractor;  Architects;  Traffic engineers;  Master planners.

Provide project schedule that includes:  Timeline;  Completion dates for all design, planning, permitting and construction;  List of all required governmental
permits;  Plans for maintenance and security of the site during construction.

Make final decision on:  Whether to accept ash landfill portion of property;  Where public access parcel (no larger than 5 acres) will be located.


Time for action in Preston 
DAY editorial
Published on 7/3/2008 
   
The voters of Preston made a clear choice Tuesday about who they want to develop the former Norwich Hospital property - Northland Investment Corp. Town officials should now expedite negotiations with Northland to reach a development agreement for construction of “Preston Green.”

This newspaper had recommended that voters support the opposing development plan by Preston Gateway Partners (PGP), but recognized both proposals had strengths and weaknesses. There is much to like about the Northland project and we want to see it succeed.

Most important, voters decided overwhelmingly that it is time to move forward with developing the valuable property that has sat vacant for a decade. The first of three questions - should the town negotiate a development agreement -was approved 1,173 to 233.

On the second two questions, who should that developer be, Northland prevailed 805-406.

Those two outcomes give town leaders a clear mandate to get a development deal done with Northland.

That does not, however, mean rushing into an agreement without careful evaluation of all relevant issues, such as assuring the environmental cleanup is properly monitored, that financial responsibility for associated legal, consulting and oversight fees is clearly defined and that strict development deadlines are set.

But reaching an agreement should not prove difficult. The Northland proposal is an open book. Voters were well aware of the firm's plans to build a luxury resort. At full build-out, the $1 billion project will include two five-story hotels, an exclusive 18-hole golf course, 75 high-priced single-family homes, 250 senior housing units and about 1,200 condos and apartments.

Northland's goal is to attract buyers and renters who will use the housing as second homes and vacation condos and apartments. But the developer was careful not to promise all such housing, knowing it might have to adjust to changing market conditions. Voters knew that, too. And voters knew Northland was looking for a fixed tax rate (its critics preferred the term tax breaks) in order to bring more certainty to project estimates and attract needed financing.

Negotiations should center on the terms defined at the time of Tuesday's vote. The developer should not seek additional breaks, but neither should town officials demand great concessions. If at all possible, get this deal done.

Northland estimates the Preston Green project will create 4,000 construction and 1,500 permanent jobs and, in time, significant tax revenues for the cash-strapped rural town. Northland is also willing to develop a badly needed new town hall as part of a town common on the property.

First Selectman Robert Congdon, a PGP supporter, suggested that town officials urge the competing developer to stick around in the event the development negotiation fails. That comment sent the wrong message. Mr. Congdon's priority must be reaching a deal with the voters' choice, Northland, not working to get PGP back in the picture or even hoping it will happen.

Voters in Preston deserve credit for being well informed about the development choices. Their vote was a directive that should be followed.

The redevelopment of the hospital property is now closer to reality than ever before, yet there is a long way to go. Voters have made one thing clear - they want action.  
Preston Voters Pick Northland To Develop Former Hospital Site ; Luxury resort proposal prevails by wide margin over PGP 
DAY
By Megan Bard , Karin Crompton    
Published on 7/2/2008 

Preston - Voters on Tuesday convincingly chose Northland Investment Corp.'s proposal for a luxury resort on the former Norwich Hospital property, voting by a nearly 2-to-1 ratio to negotiate with the firm over rival Preston Gateway Partners' plan for retail villages.

Tuesday's referendum featured a unique, three-question ballot that allowed voters to choose between the two proposals or to reject both. On the first question, they overwhelmingly voted to proceed (1,173 to 233), an indication to town officials that townspeople prefer either plan over returning the property to the state.

After election moderators announced that Question 1 had passed - voters wanted the town to negotiate with one or the other - and moderator Ted Powell announced Northland's “yes” votes (before absentee ballots), Tom Iskra, Northland's development manager, grinned.

Northland got 805 “yes” votes to PGP's 406.

”We've completed the trifecta,” said Chuck Coursey, Northland's spokesman, referring to the firm's endorsement by the majority of the advisory committee, selectmen and voting public.

Northland Chairman Lawrence Gottesdiener, reached by phone late Tuesday, thanked residents for their support and thanked town officials for their support and “their years of extensive public service.” Gottesdiener declined to comment further on the outcome or the upcoming negotiations.

A quick turnaround

The Northland plan, “Preston Green,” calls for the state's first true luxury resort, with expensive second and third homes geared toward millionaires, five-star hotels, a golf course and boutique shops. The development team has touted it as a low-impact project that will not stress the town's emergency services, public works or schools.

However, the plan also calls for capping the taxes paid on commercial entities to $1.50 per square foot, a likely sticking point in upcoming negotiations between Northland and the town.

”I guess Preston is really excited about a country club with full tax breaks,” said John Hanselman, managing principal of Renova Partners LLC, one of the companies that makes up PGP.

After the vote, Hanselman said PGP would abide by its pledge not to sue the town over the multiquestion ballot. In recent weeks, Northland had shown up with litigation attorneys at the hospital committee and selectmen's meetings, and Gottesdiener had stated publicly that the town had opened itself up to a lawsuit with the ballot.

Gottesdiener and Congdon have become increasingly critical, almost openly hostile, of one another in the past couple of months. Now, facing the prospect of negotiating with Northland, Congdon said he would work to represent the town.

”I'm here to develop the state hospital (property),” he said. “I can't control what Larry Gottesdiener says or does.”

Advisory committee co-chairmen Michael Sinko and Joseph Biber said the group is ready to refocus on negotiating a development agreement.  Sinko, a selectman, said he is relieved this part of the process is over, but the committee won't get any rest: It begins the next leg of its journey when it meets at 7 tonight at Town Hall to plan how negotiations will take place.

”We've got to go very, very quickly,” Biber said of the work the committee must complete.

If negotiations aren't successful, the state is scheduled to resume control of the property on Jan. 4. Because of this, Congdon suggested town officials ask PGP to stick around. The first selectman, a PGP supporter, said if the vote had been different he would have suggested the same for Northland.

Hanselman said PGP would be happy to “jump back in” if negotiations between Northland and the town don't work out.

Peoples' choice

At 7:59 and a few seconds, resident David Swercewski was ushered through the throng of reporters, developers and public relations representatives and ran down the side ramp to the basement of Town Hall to vote.

Swercewski had just driven an hour and 40 minutes from Beacon Falls, where he is helping his son Robert build a house, to make sure he voted. He said he did not feel strongly about either proposal but preferred not to “see the town inundated with a larger increase in the population.”

Swercewski said he voted for Northland.

Earlier in the day, resident Tim Spanos had a similar reaction. Spanos said he didn't have time to make it to all the advisory committee meetings and he trusted that the group made its decision based on a thorough review of both proposals.

Resident Byron Lazine was critical of both proposals, saying he didn't fully support either because of the housing components - they both include more than 1,000 units. However, Lazine said he does not want control of the property to revert to the state, so he chose the lesser of two evils: PGP.





Preston grills hospital developers; Residents pepper hopefuls with plenty of questions 
DAY
By Megan Bard    
Published on 6/20/2008 
                      
Preston - If the questions and comments posed during a special town meeting Thursday are any indication of townwide sentiment, there are still several questions about Northland Investment Corp.'s proposal to develop the former Norwich Hospital site.

Most of the residents who spoke at the meeting questioned Northland's request for a tax break; whether the developer intends to sue the town if it is not chosen as the preferred developer; and whether any future negotiations would be adversarial.

Fewer residents directed questions to Preston Gateway Partners LLC, Northland's rival to develop the site.

At the meeting's outset, the developers took 30 minutes each to outline their proposals and poke holes in the other's plan. The developers addressed projected tax revenue, open space, public access and impact on the town's character, focusing on strengths and downplaying perceived weaknesses.

The two sides approached the presentations differently. Three hours into the meeting, PGP Principal John Hanselman stressed the group's core principle for its Villages at Thames Bluff: It will create a replica of a New England village center that will complement the existing town.

Larry Gottesdiener, the Northland group's principal, used other people's words - members of the hospital advisory committee, residents and newspapers - to present his argument for why his Preston Green proposal, a mix of luxury homes, amenities and retail, is the best choice.  Residents will decide which, or none, is a better fit for the town at a referendum on July 1.

On Thursday, residents took advantage of their first opportunity since the development teams' initial presentations in October to ask the groups about their proposals. Many of the roughly three-dozen people who asked questions were skeptical of Northland or its plan.

Resident Eric Congdon, the first selectman's son, asked one of the more pointed questions of the night: “Are you planning on suing the town?”

Congdon alluded to comments published by Gottesdiener that insinuated that the first selectman may have exposed the town to litigation. In recent weeks, Northland officials attending local meetings have been accompanied by attorneys specializing in litigation.

Gottesdiener did not answer the question, instead saying that Northland intends to fight to win the support of the town, which he said it has already won on three separate occasions: an informal poll of the advisory committee in February and majority votes of the committee and the town's Board of Selectmen recently.

Resident Norman Gauthier asked Gottesdiener if his tone in answering some of the questions Thursday, which Gauthier described as adversarial, is an indication of his negotiating style.  Gottesdiener said Northland is still negotiating and hasn't refused the town any of its requests.

Resident Jan Clancy told Gottesdiener that the issue is largely a trust one now, particularly because of the potential for litigation even before a vote is formally taken.  Prior to the meeting, resident Janet Harris said she is “really, totally undecided at this point.”

She went on to say, “I think there's been enough information, but whether either one is right for the town, that's what I'm concerned about.”

Harris said her primary concern is the type of housing proposed.

Resident Thomas Milne followed up on that thought and asked the developers why, if the town zoning regulations specifically prohibit residential development on the site, would the teams include a substantial amount of various types of housing.

Hanselman, of PGP, said because of the magnitude of the clean-up costs associated with the project, without a residential component the project would not make economic sense.  Milne also asked whether either developer has been promised a change in zoning for the property if they are chosen as preferred developer.

Gottesdiener said no guarantee has been given and that the developers will present their plan to the commission and hope to be persuasive.
 
THE QUESTIONS:  On July 1, Preston taxpayers will consider the following three questions on the referendum ballot:

Question 1: Shall the town approve a preferred developer for the Norwich State Hospital site and negotiate and enter into an exclusive negotiating agreement with the preferred developer?

Question 2: Shall, if question 1 is approved, the town approve Northland Development Corporation as the preferred developer for the Norwich State Hospital site and negotiate and enter into an exclusive negotiating agreement with the preferred developer?

Question 3: Shall, if question 1 is approved, the town approve Preston Gateway Partners LLC as the preferred developer for the Norwich State Hospital site and negotiate and enter into an exclusive negotiating agreement with the preferred developer?

If Question 1 is approved, the Board of Selectmen shall select, negotiate and enter into an exclusive negotiating agreement with the preferred developer that receives the highest number of “Yes” votes on Question 2 or Question 3 above.

Polls will be open from 6 a.m. to 8 p.m. at Town Hall.

SOURCE: JUNE 19, 2008 SPECIAL TOWN MEETING CALL
THE PLANS:  An overview of the conceptual plans each developer submitted in October:

Northland Investment Corp. Proposal: ”Preston Green,” a billion-dollar, 3-million-square-foot, mixed-use development with five-star hotels, retail, residential, conference center, health and wellness center, 18-hole golf course and marina. Northland plans to market it as a luxury resort.  Residences: 1,000 to 1,500 units marketed toward age-restricted, but not necessarily restricted to such. Residences will also be marketed toward the luxury, second- and third-home market.  Retail: 100,000 square feet, with no big-box or drive-through restaurants; another 1 million square feet between the two luxury hotels with condominiums, spa and conference center.  Open space: About 250 acres, including the golf course, with park and nature trails, hiking and biking paths.

Preston Gateway Partners LLC (PGP)

Proposal: ”The Villages at Thames Bluffs,” a $780 million, mixed-use development of about 1 million square feet of commercial and mixed-use retail development, including a resort, spa and conference facilities, a retail center and office buildings; additionally, an 18-hole golf course, neighborhoods, and a water taxi to the Mohegan Sun casino. Build-out estimated at seven to nine years.  Residences: 1,310 residential units of mixed types, including 150 units of senior housing.  Retail: 710,000 square feet, including 180,000 square feet of “in-line retail” and 530,000 square feet of “medium-format retail.”  Open space: About 230 acres, including the golf course, pedestrian and bike paths, and nature trails.

Preston's preferred developer having second thoughts;  Northland officials unhappy as town 'changes the rules,' plans to explore its options 
DAY
By Karin Crompton    
Published on 6/12/2008 

Preston - A spokesman for one of the two developers vying for the town's piece of the former Norwich Hospital site implied Wednesday that the firm, Northland Investment Corp., is at least considering withdrawing its name from consideration.  The implication came after a tumultuous meeting of the hospital advisory committee Wednesday night that saw some members confront First Selectman Robert Congdon over his controversial proposal to put both Northland and Preston Gateway Partners on the ballot for a townwide referendum.

”We are going to review our options,” said Northland spokesman Chuck Coursey, “but why would we want to participate in a process where, every time we win, they change the rules?”

Congdon surprised fellow selectmen, committee members and the developers last Thursday night by suggesting the town either send a choice of both developers or neither to referendum.  The advisory committee, which had met one night earlier, had worked under the assumption that a referendum ballot that included both developers wasn't a possibility, and were shocked to learn that Congdon had figured out a way to do it with some help from an attorney representing the town in its hospital negotiations.

The hospital advisory committee voted 5-2 last Wednesday to recommend the town negotiate with Northland over Preston Gateway Partners LLC. The next night, the Board of Selectmen voted 2-1 for Northland. 
Coursey said Northland had also come out ahead in a straw poll of the committee in February, though there wasn't an official or even informal vote.  In February, Northland officials had criticized the advisory committee's decision to commission a second economic report after questioning the information in drafts of the first one it received.

Wednesday night's meeting was committee members' first face-to-face meeting with Congdon since the selectmen's meeting last week where he sprung his dual-ballot plan, and most had just one question on their minds as the committee prepared to embark on its agenda: to paraphrase, “How could you do that to us?”

Prior to the vote, it merely took the introduction of an agenda item to make a recommendation to selectmen on the format for an informational meeting to provide an opening for frustrated committee members.

”What good is us taking a vote and giving our opinion to the Board of Selectmen?” asked committee member Sandra Ewing.

That spurred a 15-minute back-and-forth pitting Ewing and committee member Allyn Brown III against Congdon, with interjection from member Kent Borner in support of Congdon.  Committee members' tempers had already been stoked at the start of the meeting when they discovered that the front page of the previous meeting's draft minutes were missing and another page erroneously said the committee had recommended PGP.

”I feel that this committee has worked many years and spent lots of time volunteering … to provide time on this committee, and it would have just been common courtesy before Thursday's meeting to let us know (about the proposed change),” said Ewing, who did not attend the selectmen's meeting last Thursday, “not for me to read it the next day in the paper.”

Also at Wednesday's meeting, the committee voted unanimously to recommend that each developer's team make a 20- to 30-minute presentation at a town meeting scheduled for 7:30 p.m. June 19, and that Northland get the choice on whether to present first or second.

The Board of Selectmen will meet at 6:30 tonight in the town hall.  

POLITICS RAISING ITS HEAD HERE?  How many people do you think will vote on this multiple-choice referendum?  We think the winner will be "none  of the above."
Preston Residents Pondering: What's Next?  They will have choice of hospital site plans 
DAY
By Karin Crompton    
Published on 6/8/2008  

Preston - When First Selectman Robert Congdon surprised his colleagues with a new option for choosing a Norwich Hospital property developer on Thursday night - to give voters a multiple choice ballot rather than a yes/no vote on one recommended developer - Selectmen Michael Sinko and Gerald Grabarek were left with nothing but anguish on their faces.

Long into a protracted debate over the merits of the multiple choice ballot, Grabarek looked out upon a roomful of residents, developers' teams, advisory committee members and media.

“Now I know,” he said to no one in particular, “what Custer felt like.”

“Before or after?” Hospital Advisory Committee member Merrill Gerber shot back from the audience.

The committee had conducted its review of proposals to develop the former state facility mindful of its attorney's advice that it could not put both developers onto one ballot. The committee worked to narrow the choice to one, selecting Northland Investment Corp. in a 5-2 vote Wednesday night. The Board of Selectmen voted 2-1 also to recommend Northland on Thursday, after voting unanimously to use the multiple-choice ballot at referendum.

Congdon's move not only left Sinko and Grabarek in shock, but rattled the Hospital Advisory Committee members in attendance.

Committee member Allyn Brown III said Friday the lawyers “have done a flip” by telling selectmen on Thursday they could find a way to put both development teams on the ballot, adding that Congdon is setting the town up for a lawsuit that could jeopardize its control over the state-owned property.

Preston has until January 2009 to negotiate a development agreement and notify the state whether the town will take control of the site.

Congdon has openly supported the proposal of Preston Gateway Partners LLC. He waited until it was clear at the selectmen's meeting Thursday that the majority was going with Northland before elaborating on his suggestion to put both developers on one ballot.

He had come armed with the multiple-choice referendum questions already vetted by an attorney who represents the town in its hospital property negotiations. He also brought two other options: a yes/no question on whether to negotiate with Northland and another on whether to negotiate with PGP.

But there really wasn't a choice at all, Sinko said Friday.

“I felt I was in a corner,” he said. “Once Bob made it a point that we would be taking a vote away from the people (by not supporting the multiple choice ballot), no matter what was said after that point, you'd be taking the vote away from the people.

“That was it for me in a nutshell. I felt cornered. I wasn't going to be the one to tell people they can't have a choice.”

Some Preston insiders say Congdon damaged himself politically by ambushing fellow selectmen and the advisory committee. But the move was clearly popular with almost all of the residents who attended Thursday's meeting, many of whom expressed their support for the multiple-choice ballot and for having a choice.

“Some of the townspeople might think they would like to have a choice between the two developers, but that's not the process we set up,” Brown said. “What I'm afraid of is the developer that loses will file a lawsuit and tie it up into next year and we lose control of the property back to the state. And if that happens, there will only be one person to blame for that.”

Later, Brown said of Congdon: “He may say that he's giving the voters the chance to vote on it. But basically his ultimate goal was to give PGP another bite at the apple.”

“It was a calculated move,” said Sinko, a previous running mate of Congdon.

Congdon denied manipulating the process and pointed out that he brought alternative ballot options to Thursday's meeting. The first selectman, who participated in the advisory committee's debate Wednesday night and didn't offer the multiple choice ballot suggestion then, said he didn't think of the idea until Thursday. He also said he went into the selectmen's meeting expecting the board to choose PGP.

“Gerry Grabarek, prior to last night, has consistently said he could not support Northland,” Congdon said on Friday. “I had no idea where Mike Sinko was going to vote, but I had every reason to believe Gerry Grabarek was going to vote to support PGP or nobody. … So I was totally expecting a 2-1 vote of the selectmen to move forward with PGP.”

Grabarek has said he can't support the tax break Northland seeks, though he said at Thursday's meeting he would continue in his tradition of upholding the advisory committee's recommendation.

Congdon said he believes PGP would have failed if presented as the only choice, reiterating an argument he made Thursday night that either proposal would fail if offered solo. He said the supporters of a particular proposal would vote yes, but that there are too many other sets of “no” votes: supporters of the opposing proposal, those who want neither, and remaining supporters of the Utopia Studios Ltd. proposal for a $1.6 billion arts and entertainment complex.

Congdon said a single-option ballot would put the town through two referendums in which both choices would fail, resulting in losing control of the property. With a multiple-choice ballot, Congdon believes voters will choose between the two (or choose “neither”) and send the town a clear answer.

Advisory committee member Kent Borner, a PGP supporter, agreed with Congdon's decision to put both choices on the ballot but said he thought PGP would have won with the single-choice option. He agreed with Congdon's reasoning that voters would have rejected the Northland proposal on a single-choice ballot. But, if subsequently given PGP as an option with the clock running out, voters would choose it because they wouldn't want to lose control of the property, he said.

“If I wanted PGP, and I do, to be the developer, I would have preferred the old format,” Borner said, adding that “from a democracy standpoint and getting a real true feeling of how the town thinks,” he agrees with the new ballot.

Borner said the committee's time spent whittling the choice to one was not wasted.

“Absolutely not,” he said. “Our whole process was to come up with a recommendation, and that's exactly what the committee did. There was never any directive that we were supposed to be the ultimate chooser; it was the town that was supposed to choose. And they were going to take our recommendation with whatever amount of importance they so choose.”
Preston to send 2 development plans to voters;  Selectmen override advisory panel's choice for former Norwich Hospital property; town meeting set June 19 
DAY
By Megan Bard    
Published on 6/6/2008 
 
Preston - When they go to the polls to vote on a developer for the former Norwich Hospital parcel in the coming weeks, taxpayers in this town will have a choice between Northland Investment Corp., Preston Gateway Partners LLC, or neither.  After a nearly two-hour debate, the selectmen Thursday voted unanimously to expand the ballot to include both development teams, despite a hospital advisory committee recommendation that only Northland's luxury housing and resort development be sent to voters for consideration.  In addition, the selectmen voted 2-1 to endorse the nearly $1 billion Northland project.

Taxpayers will debate the merits of both proposals at a special town meeting scheduled for June 19, which will be adjourned to a referendum tentatively scheduled for the following week.  In a move that caught Selectmen Gerald Grabarek and Michael Sinko by surprise, First Selectman Robert Congdon proposed including both developers on the ballot as a means of giving residents the option.

Northland representatives were equally surprised by the suggestion, taking a moment after the meeting to huddle in the Town Hall parking lot to discuss how they would respond to the vote.  Chuck Coursey, spokesman for Northland, said, “quite frankly we're a bit frustrated that it appears the process has changed - changed after the advisory committee made the vote last night. We're afraid this is going to lead to voter confusion.”

John Hanselman, a principal with PGP, said he thinks it's appropriate that the legislative body - the townspeople - will make the final decision.  Regarding whether the three-choice ballot will confuse voters, Hanselman said, “I think people are pretty smart. I think people can pretty much figure out three questions.”

Prior to the vote, Congdon's true intention for the proposal was questioned by some advisory committee members.  Member Allyn Brown III said, “I find it very interesting that this option came up tonight after the committee made its decision last night.”

Congdon has openly supported the PGP proposal of residential neighborhoods and a village-style shopping center and opposed the Northland proposal, saying that a proposed tax-break package is too steep for the town. After the meeting, Congdon said he did not suggest the expanded ballot out of fear that PGP would not be given consideration.  Early in the evening, Sinko broke his monthslong silence, saying he supported Northland, primarily because the firm would own the property for at least 15 years, the proposal best fits with the town and region and that he disagrees with Congdon's conclusion that the tax plan proposed would result in the town losing $75 million in potential tax revenue.

”You can't count money you don't have,” Sinko said.

Grabarek, although he disagrees with the tax-break package proposed by Northland, said he will continue his tradition of supporting the advisory committee's recommendation. Grabarek added that he also believes the Northland proposal is a better fit for the community.  That is when Congdon lobbed his grenade, saying it would behoove the town to have each developer, and an option for neither, on the ballot.  Initially, Sinko said it wasn't an option. That was until Attorney Bruce Chudwick said it was indeed possible, contradicting legal advice that some hospital advisory committee members say they received previously.

Chudwick said that upon further review of the request for proposal document that outlined the process that governed the search for a developer, he believed it was possible.

Congdon said his fear is if one developer is rejected at a referendum and the second is sent to a subsequent referendum, and also rejected, the town will have lost its time to find a developer and will lose control of the property. Officials must notify the state by January whether they have a developer and whether the town will take control of the site.  The revelation made Sinko laugh in disbelief, saying that he has lost sleep over having to make a choice and is now conflicted. The news clearly irritated Grabarek, who said if he had been told this months ago it could have saved valuable time that could have been used potentially negotiating a development agreement with one of the developers.

”Heck, we could have made that decision months ago,” he said.

The option to choose clearly pleased residents in the audience, who encouraged selectmen to let them make the choice.

”You've advised us, now let us vote,” resident Keleigh Baretincic said.

Residents Gordan Conrad and Jan Clancy said a choice is necessary to determine the true opinion of taxpayers. It will also require a thorough presentation to voters of the positive and negative aspects of each development before the vote.  Resident Parke Spicer III asked whether former preferred developer Utopia Studios Ltd. could also seek to be included in the ballot.

After the meeting, Utopia President and General Counsel Christopher Thompson said that his development team will remain in the shadows and watch the process. Thompson suggested that adding Utopia to the ballot “at the eleventh hour” would be even more harmful to a process that Utopia has continued to disagree with.

Hoping to clarify whether the town could be subjecting itself to litigation by including both developers on the ballot, resident Walter Kornosewiz asked whether the decision is “rock solid.”

Advisory committee member Kent Borner asked from the audience whether the town could require the two developers to sign an indemnification agreement, a suggestion that was whispered by Hanselman to Borner moments before. 

Chudwick's answer was vague: “Things could be done.”

Hanselman later said his development team would be amenable to such an agreement and would not sue the committee if it chose to include both developers on the ballot.  After the meeting, Coursey, the Northland spokesman, could only shrug, saying again that the group is hearing about the option for the first time.  Regardless of whether taxpayers endorse the Northland proposal, as recommended by the majority of the committee and selectmen, Grabarek cautioned residents against putting too much emphasis on any potential revenue benefits.

”No matter which project (is chosen), it won't be the old goose that laid the golden egg for the town of Preston,” Grabarek said.

New Picture For Norwich Hospital  - Economic analysis seems to tilt the balance away from one developer 
DAY
By Megan Bard , Karin Crompton    
Published on 6/1/2008 

In early February, it appeared Lawrence Gottesdiener and Northland Investment Corp. had it.

At a meeting on Feb. 6, all but one voting member of the Norwich Hospital Advisory Committee indicated they preferred Northland's proposal for the former hospital property - with its luxury resort and high-end homes - over the Preston Gateway Partners LLC (PGP) plan, with its large-scale retail and residential components.  Then a new economic analysis of both proposals, presented Wednesday night, seemed to yank many of the “pros” away from Northland.

The report, conducted by Realty Concepts Inc. of Guilford, said PGP would pay far more taxes to the town early on; that neither plan would hurt the town's character because of the location on Preston's fringe and immediately off the highway; and that both projects could produce similar numbers of schoolchildren.  Further, it said the town would lose about $45 million over the project's first 10 years because of a tax break Northland currently requests (one of many aspects of any development agreement that may be up for negotiation, according to the Northland public relations firm).

On Friday, PGP representatives praised what they described as a thorough analysis, while a livid Gottesdiener lashed out, tearing into the report's validity and the motives behind its conclusions.

Gottesdiener said the report, authored by Stanley Gniazdowski, has “no empirical data” and “is 99 percent filler and the rest are Stanley's musings.”

”If this smoke screen works to change people's opinions, it's a combination of a smoke screen and intimidation. ... Essentially, what's happening is (First Selectman) Bob Congdon is ... deflecting from the fundamental issues that are in front of the committee and trying to just go after our vulnerabilities,” Gottesdiener said. “If that turns out to be effective, we'll move on to the many other initiatives we have.”

Northland issued a letter Saturday from its own “fiscal impact analysis consultant,” who reviewed Gniazdowski's report and pointed out what he described as errors in the methodology used.

“I'm obviously disappointed in Larry Gottesdiener's comments,” Congdon said in a phone interview on Saturday. “I have been very happy that we have two quality developers that are in the mix to develop this property, and I have a fiduciary responsibility to the taxpayers in Preston to try and make sure we analyze these proposals and show the benefits as well as the warts.”

Congdon added: “The tax package, the cap on soft costs, the fact that (Northland) will not escrow pilot payments and will not escrow soft costs, are factors when you compare the two development proposals. Are they a deal breaker or a deal changer? Maybe, maybe not. When you add up all the pieces, you make a decision.”

”Soft costs” are legal and consultant's fees and the like.

In February, it was PGP that was criticizing the process, issuing a letter suggesting that the committee had overlooked key criteria and bestowed special treatment upon Northland.  On Friday, Michael Singer, the project manager for PGP, and John Hanselman, the managing partner for Renova Partners LLC - one of the companies that makes up Preston Gateway Partners LLC - said this report supports their contention that their project will pay dividends to the town.

“From the very first submission, we've made a commitment to the town that we would pay full taxes and we would cover 100 percent of the soft costs, and we would put together a presentation we thought was conservative and candid as we could be about the numbers,” Hanselman said.

”I think we feel that Stanley did a good job going through and doing a really thorough analysis and giving the town answers that (a previous) analysis didn't,” Singer said.

The report is the second such economic analysis commissioned by the committee to help it choose between the two finalists. The first, conducted by the Connecticut Center for Economic Analysis, became mired in missed deadlines and committee wrangling over whether the information was good.  The committee determined that the CCEA report did not give it the Preston-specific data it had requested and it sought a second opinion, hiring Gniazdowski in February.

On Feb. 6 the seven voting members of the committee were ready to make a decision. They'd reviewed the developers' proposals, they'd met with their attorneys to discuss the supporting private financial documents.
Then they started to tick off the 17 critical elements listed in the request for proposal to be used to judge the developers' visions.  For the most part, committee members agreed that both developers are capable and reputable. Where they differed, in some cases dramatically, was on their own opinions of how the site should be developed and how to interpret the financial data.

That night, six members made comments suggesting that either supported Northland's vision or at least disagreed with PGP's.  This weekend, some committee members were less committal, others did not want to speculate on the decision ahead, and still others remained unswayed.

Members Sandra Ewing said all the documentation the committee has received is relevant. “What either of these developers offers is a good, solid tax base for years to come,” Ewing said. “But it isn't all about the money.”

Member Allyn Brown III said of the 17 conditions, only one focused on which would “provide the greatest long-term direct financial benefit” to the town. “We've lost our focus. There are 16 others that we should really be considering,” said Brown, an open supporter of the Northland proposal.

While member Kent Borner, a PGP supporter, agreed each of the 17 criteria must be considered, he said they can be weighed differently. For Borner, money does matter, and significantly.  He argued that PGP will pay regular taxes, like normal property owners. Northland will not, basing his assumption on a spreadsheet developed by Gniazdowski. Borner said, based the report, for the first 12 years the Northland proposal will be in the red, in terms of tax revenue.

”I'm not going to stand in front of the people and tell them that taxes are going up,” he said.

Ewing said she will consider items important to her, as a resident, and public opinion, particularly on the potential impact of new residents, schoolchildren, traffic and open space.  The committee needs to decide which development proposal best fits with the town, despite the residential components, which, as of today, is prohibited by zoning.

One area members agree on is Gniazdowski's conclusion that neither of the projects will be developed as proposed because they are vulnerable to market conditions. For this reason, it may be more important that the chosen firm be willing to work with the town in potential future negotiations.  Based on Gottesdiener's recent remarks, Borner questioned whether Northland met the requirement of someone who has willingness to work with the town.

Brown countered that Gottesdiener is who the town should negotiate with because of his first-hand knowledge of the community.

”He's from the area. He knows the area. He has relatives buried in the cemetery (next to the site),” Brown said. “I don't think people have changed their minds.”

Gottesdiener was incensed Friday that the focus was on a tax break Northland has requested and on the company's cap on what it will pay toward the town's soft costs; Northland capped it at $2 million while PGP said it will pay the entire cost, estimated in the report at $4 million to $5 million.

”I'm not going to allow anyone to frame this entire debate in the two areas where the first selectman has found what he proposed as vulnerabilities,” Gottesdiener said, later adding, “The real issues are, what is the vision, what does the town want here? That's not my decision. Do they want a resort or do they want a mall? Do they want a sea of parking or do they want open space?”

Gottesdiener said the tax deal and the cap are “not determinitive issues.” He said the $2 million cap is “more than enough to cover all the town's soft costs” and said the reason for a cap was to ensure accountability, like a budget rather than a blank check.

The company has proposed the tax break -where it would pay $1.50 per square foot of commercial space rather than market rate - “because to build a high-end resort is expensive, and this will ensure its viability.” He said he was disgusted at the notion that Northland will pocket the difference, and said the money would go toward the resort.

”I think Larry is exactly right,” Congdon said. “He said he needs a tax break to build this luxury resort - but that tax break is on the backs of the property tax payers of the town of Preston. So we are going to build a five-star hotel. And I'm not saying I disagree with that or I wouldn't support that. All of the factors fall on the table when we do our analysis. It may be in the town's interest to support a tax break.”

It's been a year since PGP and Northland were among 10 teams to submit proposals to the committee for consideration. It's been 11 months since they were identified as two of the four chosen ones to continue with the process in hopes of being named the preferred developer of the site. Two of the four dropped out of the race by failing to submit additional required information by the end of September.  The process to select a firm to negotiate a development agreement has gone on much longer than anyone anticipated.

It's time for the seven voting members - the three selectmen do not vote - to make a decision. The three selectmen will have the final say on which developer is considered by taxpayers in a townwide referendum.

”It hasn't been ideal to have this process drag out, and I don't think it's (benefited) anybody that the real estate market ain't what it used to be,” Hanselman said.

”… That being said, it's very important that this town is comfortable with the economics of their selection. If this is what it takes, to get an unbiased third-party knee deep into the numbers with us, then that's what it took,” he said.

Ewing said the committee took as much time as it could to be fair to the developers and as part of their commitment to provide residents with best choice available.  Gottesdiener said that choice is Northland.

”Is the committee going to ignore Connecticut's largest private real estate owner, three-time management company of the year, with 250 Connecticut employees and a track record of giving to 50 different charities in Connecticut, for a company that's never done anything in Connecticut?” he asked.

Hanselman was less direct. “It's the end of tunnel. We're seeing a light, and we're hoping it's not a train.”  
Preston development would test emergency services  
DAY
By Megan Bard     
Published on 5/1/2008           

Preston - The immediate impact from either of the development proposals for the former state hospital property would be significant on emergency services but less so on student enrollment, according to a consultant hired by the town.

An additional 12 firefighters and one police officer, along with the need for increased health department and emergency medical services personnel, would be necessary to support the hundreds of new residential properties and thousands of square feet of retail and commercial businesses.

In total, either project proposed for the site would have an immediate roughly $1.2 million impact on local emergency services, according to Stanley Gniazdowski, president of Realty Concepts.

On Wednesday night, Gniazdowski presented the Norwich Hospital Advisory Committee with his analysis of the two projects proposed for the 419-acre former state hospital site on Route 12.

Committee members will take the next two weeks to review the report and wait to receive a revised copy of the document after Gniazdowski has had a chance to share it with representatives of Northland Investment Corp. and Preston Gateway Partners LLC, the two firms proposing multimillion-dollar, mixed-use development at the site.

Members questioned many aspects of the report, including the amount of school-age children predicted to join local schools, and the local tax revenue to be generated from the two projects. They also asked for additional information that analyzed the impact based on the guaranteed amount of construction to be completed by developers.

It will take Gniazdowski three weeks to provide that information.

This revelation brought sighs from some committee members, already anxious about the rapidly approaching deadline for the town to choose a developer and complete a signed development agreement before the end of the year.

First Selectman Robert Congdon said if the committee makes its choice by early June, and taxpayers vote on the selection and approve it, by the end of that month the committee could still meet the state's deadline.

If not, the town could lose its ability to control the future of the site.

Gniazdowski's report focused on the projected impact on the town if either Northland or Preston Gateway Partners proposals are fully built. Gniazdowski said both development teams are capable of building what is proposed, but he predicts neither will do so.

Gniazdowski said his statement is not meant as a slight to either developer. He said any development at the site would be determined by market fluctuations and the health of the casinos.

He told the committee that the worst-case scenario might be best for the town: that the chosen developer will complete the multimillion-dollar environmental cleanup of the site but not be able to develop it.

A more likely scenario is that they will commence the development, clean the site but be back to the town to modify the original plans.

The least likely outcome, which Gniazdowski said is virtually impossible, is for the plans to be built as proposed.
 
Preston Looking for Guidance In Deciding Fate Of Ex-Hospital Site; Town May Seek Additional Time To Gauge Development Proposals 
DAY
By Karin Crompton     
Published on 2/23/2008 
 
Preston — By now, if all had gone according to plan, there would be one developer left standing in Preston.

Back when the weather was warm, the Norwich Hospital Advisory Committee looked to 2008 and viewed January as a deadline to have whittled the list of proposed developers for the former Norwich Hospital property to one. It seemed time enough to choose between the finalists and send a recommendation to the Board of Selectmen, and to have put the choice to voters in a referendum.

But here it is, late February, and the hospital committee is staring at spreadsheets and pie charts and graphs — and the likelihood of at least another month's delay.

Already, First Selectman Robert Congdon is talking about asking the state for extra time.

Congdon said Friday that he has talked informally with the state Department of Public Works about extending the town's deadline to transfer title of Preston's 419 acres of the hospital property to a developer, though a formal request has not been made.

The town has until January 2009 to complete that transfer under the terms of a purchase-and-sale agreement it has with the state. If it doesn't, the property reverts to the state.

The committee is stuck on deciding between the two finalists, Northland Investment Corp. and Preston Gateway Partners LLC, because its members can't determine whether they have the correct analysis of the economic impacts associated with each proposal.

After running into problems with the first consultant it hired to provide a report — the Connecticut Center for Economic Analysis — the committee is now trying to find another consultant, and fast.

The town must complete a number of detailed steps before it can transfer the property, including two referendums, public meetings and the process of working out a development agreement with a preferred developer.

Therefore, Congdon said, the committee probably has no more than six weeks to get through this stage of hiring the new consultant, receiving a report, and deciding on a preferred developer.

The committee hopes to find an expert who will provide insight into the impacts associated with each proposal, to help it say definitively what the revenues and expenses are, and to calculate how many new schoolchildren each proposal would bring to town.

Members had expected to receive that information from the Center for Economic Analysis in a final report by the end of November. But as of Friday, all committee members who could be reached said they still didn't have that report, and what they have received has not given them information specific enough regarding the impacts on Preston.

“We need a 'bottom up' analysis that can show us real revenues and real costs,” said committee Co-chairman Michael Sinko, who is also a selectman. “... I don't think we got what we originally asked for. We still haven't received a final analysis.”

Co-chairman Joe Biber said the spreadsheets sent by Fred Carstensen, the center's director, were difficult to read and focused primarily on the potential impact to the region. However, Biber said, “to be fair, maybe we should invite him back” to again explain his conclusions and how he arrived at the results.

Committee members Roy Beauregard, Dan Kulesza and Merrill Gerber also said they had not received what they had expected. Some members, including Congdon and Kent Borner, have been putting together their own economic analyses.

Committee member Sandra Ewing said the committee's meeting on Wednesday, during which it interviewed another potential consultant, demonstrates the difficulty in finding someone who can project the impact of a development never before seen in southeastern Connecticut.

“It's very unique for Preston and very unique for the region. Trying to find comparables won't be easy,” she said.

Borner said the committee should have acted quicker to find another consultant.

“It's easy to point fingers, but is it Fred's fault? Partly. He didn't perform as we expected, but we should have, as a group, recognized that and immediately went to another source,” Borner said. “Instead, we let him continue for a couple of months and that chewed up a lot of time ... we need to close that book and get on to the next one here and get a professional guy to do it. And do it now.”

The town's attorney, Scott Murphy, told Carstensen not to speak publicly about the process. But in an e-mail Carstensen sent to The Day prior to Murphy's instruction to him, Carstensen said he has been surprised by Congdon's criticisms of him during committee meetings.

Carstensen wrote that the center's analysis has answered every question asked of it by residents and committee members. He added that he is “not aware of any analytical tools or database that would generate answers significantly different from those CCEA has already provided.”

However, Carstensen said, the decision comes down to more than economics.

“At its heart, as I have told the advisory committee from the beginning, this is a decision as much or more about what kind of town Preston wants to be in the future,” Carstensen wrote.

Congdon, perhaps Carstensen's biggest critic, nonetheless credited the center's work with helping the committee.

“I wouldn't say we got nothing from Fred,” Congdon said. “I think we got some useful information. ... There was a fairly substantial back-and-forth with the developers as far as trying to define the projects, define the phasing of the projects, the different types of development components.”

Congdon added: “I don't know that we all are comfortable with (the center's) numbers or trust the numbers at this point, but we certainly have a start.”
Deadline Looms Large For Preston Congdon: Town Doesn't Want To Rush Hospital-Site Decision 
DAY
By Megan Bard    
Published on 2/15/2008 

Preston — For the past year the first selectman has been talking to state officials about the probable need for more time to find a legitimate developer for former Norwich Hospital site along the Thames River.

Thursday night, Robert Congdon told residents at the board's meeting that the tone of those conservations could get more serious, however, with the January 2009 deadline to secure a developer looming.

The recent decision by the Norwich Hospital Advisory Committee — to hire another consultant to review the potential impacts that two separate redevelopment proposals could have on the town of roughly 5,000 people — could make the need for more time imperative.

“We don't want to be rushed,” Congdon said after the board's meeting. “I think the request would be given serious consideration if we continue to demonstrate that we are making a good-faith effort to find a developer for the property.”

In early January 2006, Preston and state officials signed a purchase and sales agreement with the state giving the town three years to identify a development team for the property across the river from Mohegan Sun and meet certain conditions, including that first priority be given to cleaning the highly contaminated property.

Based on preliminary discussions with two separate entities that might be hired to review proposals by Northland Investment Corp. and Preston Gateway Partners LLC, Congdon said the committee might not get a report until mid-March at the earliest or mid-May at the latest.

On Saturday, members agreed they need an independent consultant to do a cost and revenue analysis of the two proposals and provide them with information, from projections new tax revenue to the number of new schoolchildren to be generated by the projects, among many other issues.

Earlier this week Congdon and other members of the committee met with Stanley A. Gniazdowski, president of Realty Concepts Inc., to discuss his qualifications. Congdon and member Merrill Gerber also met with representatives from the Connecticut Economic Resource Council, an agency that showed it is capable of doing the type of analysis requested but one that could take months longer than desired.

When asked about a previous study done by the Connecticut Center for Economic Analysis, Congdon said it had not met their expectations and did not provide the committee with the information it needs to address anticipated questions from the general public at a future special town meeting. The town has already paid the center $9,000 for its work. It is unclear whether it will pay the balance of the $14,000 contract.

While selectmen and committee members are adamant that there is a need for another independent evaluation of the projects, resident Michael Clancy told selectmen that he is frustrated by their indecision.

At the selectmen's meeting, Clancy said the committee has plenty of information to make an informed decision and that more numbers most likely will not sway members' opinions on either project. He suggested that if the advisory committee is not confident in its ability to reach a consensus on one development team, it should hold a special town meeting to get input from residents before making a recommendation to selectmen.
A TV MOVIE, PERHAPS? 
So, What Is Utopia?  Corporate officials unreasonable in the way they approach collecting public documents. 
By The Day    
Published on 2/5/2008 

What is utopia, you ask. For the first selectman's office in Preston, it would be a week or two without the nonsense imposed on this small town by the corporation's lawyer demanding this or that public document. That would be utopia.

For First Selectman Robert Congdon and other public officials, it would be that Utopia, the business, would just go away.

Instead, the first selectman's operation is forced to endure a steady stream of freedom-of- information requests from Utopia lawyer Christopher Thompson. To any reasonable person, this would appear to be a form of harassment inflicted on Preston because the town wisely turned away Utopia after its principals failed to meet the terms of their development contract.

Let's not mention the unfulfilled pledge of a $500,000 contribution to the Otis Library in Norwich and the shameless behavior that developer Joseph Gentile showed in that fiasco.

No, now the issue is that Donna Kopetz, the first selectman's secretary, didn't immediately hop when summoned by Mr. Thompson to deliver documents post haste. The request took place about 4 p.m. Jan. 30, just about 30 minutes before the office closed. Ms. Kopetz suggested, reasonably we think, that the Utopia group make an appointment.

Technically, that could be considered a violation of the state Freedom of Information Act, but only if anyone considered the matter out of context. Mr. Congdon has in writing informed Utopia principals of the availability of some 14 cartons of documents the group wants to see. But Ms. Kopetz, lacking assistance in overseeing the handing out of the paperwork and its safe return, made a reasonable request last Wednesday.

Mr. Thompson decided not to be reasonable, and his crew started videotaping the scene. The state police came and the confrontation was quieted.

What's important is that Mr. Thompson regularly, sometimes weekly, has made FOI requests to the first selectman's office. Much of the material has been made available there, but in a number of instances Mr. Thompson didn't show up to view the documents.

If Mr. Thompson wants to look at or photocopy town documents — and there are probably thousands of pages of them — he should be reasonable and arrange an appointment. After all, this is not someone, any citizen, walking in off the street and asking for one particular document. He wants virtually every piece of paper related to Utopia, the development of the former Norwich Hospital property, and the town.

Mr. Thompson and the Utopia bunch have been making life difficult for Preston officials for a long time. They're doing it again. Trying to intimidate the first selectman's secretary is no way to ask for public documents.

The group has the right to see the documents. They don't have the right to be obnoxious to public officials who are trying to cooperate.
Advisory Panel Kicks Off Preston Proposal Debate 
DAY
By Megan Bard   
Published on 1/31/2008 

Preston — Faced with reams of paperwork and the daunting task of recommending a developer for the former hospital site to voters, the advisory committee has started its public debate on the merits of both proposals and development teams.

Wednesday night, all this was done under the watchful eye of representatives from Preston Gateway Partners LLC and Northland Investment Corp., the two competing development teams, seated in the front row of seats in the basement meeting area of town hall.

Also in attendance were representatives and supporters of Utopia Studios Ltd., the previous preferred development team, who have been mainstays at each of the committee's meetings since the group dismissed the group and its proposal more than one year ago.

For nearly two hours, members of the Norwich Hospital Advisory Committee discussed the intricate details of aspects of the Preston Gateway and Northland proposals. Some members said they still need more information, such as the desire by some to know estimates for the number of school children each project could generate and the number of bedrooms included in each type of housing to be built.

Members debated how much weight should be given to the tax packages each firm is proposing and whether to consider the potential revenue to be generated based on the developer's guaranteed construction proposals or their complete intent.

Midway through their discussion, the committee's attorney reminded them not to lose focus of the town's objectives, as outlined in the original request for proposal that each developer answered.

Attorney Scott Murphy said when it comes times to negotiate an agreement with the chosen developer, the specifics, such as the amount of bedrooms, school children, and retail space, can be specified. He said while all that information is relevant now, members should also deliberate on the merits of each development team and their financial capability.

Of course, each developer contends it has the stronger, more capable team.

Preston Gateway representatives point to their track record of cleaning highly contaminated and complex sites and their partner, LNR Property Corporation's history of completing successful mixed use developments.

Stressing that it is more capable of fulfilling its goal, Northland representatives said the committee has to consider the “vision and legacy” associated with its proposal.

Toward the end of the evening, and after it was announced that the University of Connecticut woman were beating the University of South Florida by 23 points with two seconds left, members decided they would need at least another week to gather and review information regarding the multi million and billion dollar proposals. If each committee member is satisfied by the next meeting on Feb. 6, they could pick a developer that night.

The committee's choice would be sent to selectmen as a recommendation, who in turn will most likely send the issue to a town wide referendum. 
Decision Day Nears Again For Preston Development; Advisory panel favors picking one of two proposals for former hospital tract rather than let state decide 
DAY
By Karin Crompton    
Published on 1/28/2008 

Preston — Within a couple of weeks, the voting members of the Norwich Hospital Advisory Committee will make one of the biggest decisions in the history of the town.  Again.

The committee is tasked with recommending a developer for Preston's portion of the former hospital property site, a 419-acre parcel that sits across the Thames River from the Mohegan Sun casino.  Their two chosen finalists, Northland Investment Corp. and Preston Gateway Partners LLC, have each submitted plans with more than 1,000 units of housing, a golf course, marina, and hotels. Northland proposes the first true luxury resort in New England; PGP proposes a village with a substantial amount of retail.

Although the plans differ in significant ways, they each would nevertheless change the face of what used to be a sleepy rural town.

And while the decision ultimately goes through the town's Board of Selectmen and then, most likely, to a townwide referendum vote, it has been the committee's job to weed through thousands of pages of proposals and whittle down a list that began last year with 10 developers.  And the clock ticks.

The town has until January 2009 to transfer title of the state-owned property to a developer or else the state reasserts control of the land and the search.

Preston already spent more than a year of its three-year state-imposed timeline in its failed dealings with Utopia Studios Ltd., the developer that had proposed a theme park and entertainment complex but failed to meet deadlines in its development agreement with the town. The town voted to cut its ties with Utopia in May 2007 and start a new search.

Whatever they choose this time, committee members agree: this decision won't go back to the state if they can help it.

First Selectman Robert Congdon called that option a “dangerous choice” during the hospital advisory committee's meeting last Wednesday night. The next day, Congdon said he wasn't denigrating the state. It's just that the state would do what's in its best interest, not Preston's, he said.  For that reason, Congdon said, the town has worked feverishly the past few years to find a developer, doing in three years what the state was unable to accomplish in more than a decade.

“I think a lot of it is that this is very important to us,” Congdon said. “If you're sitting in Hartford, it's 419 acres down there in that other part of Connecticut and you've got a whole bunch of other fires to put out. To us, this is the big fire. It's more important to us.”

But does the committee actually like either of the proposals, or does it only hear the clock ticking? Committee member Kent Borner laughed.

“I'm a realist,” he said, “so I understand that it's one of these two or the state — and the state is not an option for me. We have no control, and that's just rolling the dice for who knows what.”

Selectman Gerald Grabarek said it's too early to tell whether either proposal is something the town will like.

“Ask me that question when we're done negotiating the development agreement,” he said, referring to the legal document that spells out specifics of a developer's plan, taking it beyond the dreamy stage of proposals into hard agreements.

“Hopefully, when we negotiate the development agreement, it'll be something the town can decide it wants to live with,” Grabarek said.

Congdon acknowledged that neither proposal represents the town's vision for itself.

“I think if you ask the committee members, to a person, if we had our choice of anything to go on the site, would either of these be it, my guess would be no,” Congdon said. “I think most people would like to see something that diversified our workforce and brought in high-paying jobs.

“But the reality is, we did a nationwide search for developer interest and we got 10 proposals and all of them were very similar. I think we got a pretty accurate reflection of what the development community's appetite is for this site, given the environment today.”

Congdon said that the town, if it had the ability, could develop the parcel piecemeal, but that option would add six to eight mills to the tax rate and not provide relief.

•••••

The hospital committee set an informal deadline for itself of Jan. 30, though members said this week it will probably take two meetings for them to decide.

Congdon said that, although there haven't been any straw polls, he thinks the committee is pretty evenly divided between the two proposals. Congdon said he'd like to see the committee reach a point where it votes decisively for one, sending a message to selectmen and townspeople that it feels strongly about the choice.

Borner, one of the voting members, said he agrees.

“We have seven voting members, so I think a 4-3 vote would be confusing to the town,” he said. “Any shift from that would be a plus; 5-2 would be better, 6-1 even better and 7-0 would be pretty dramatic. I think the stronger the majority of the vote, the stronger the message to the town that we think one is much preferred.”

Committee members have so far kept their poker faces. At Wednesday's meeting, members asked PGP about traffic and housing and Northland about its tax package (the developer currently seeks a partial tax break).

They asked each team about its financial backers and how they could be sure the developers will pay the town if their plans fell through. They asked about feasibility studies and economic analyses.

Repeatedly, committee members have praised the two developers for their proposals and work with the town. Members have also gushed over the portfolios and backers of each — a far cry from the town's previous dealings with Utopia Studios, which failed to meet a number of deadlines in its development agreement with the town, including depositing money into escrow.

Despite the current economy, Northland chairman Lawrence Gottesdiener told the committee, Northland made a $156 million portfolio purchase happen in three weeks at year's end, and already had a fund in place to pay for the first part of the hospital project. Renova Partners, which is part of Preston Gateway Partners, closed on a $50 million acquisition Wednesday afternoon, managing principal John Hanselman said.

“Isn't it wonderful?” committee member Sandra Ewing said at the meeting. “To have two such developers in this economic climate.”

Selectman Michael Sinko, committee chairman, said the town's dealings with Utopia ultimately proved fruitful.

“I think every minute we spent with them was worth it because we're that much smarter,” Sinko said. “I think we are pretty educated today, in negotiations and business and everything else. I would rather have not spent the time, but in retrospect, the time has made us wiser.”
Ex-Hospital Site's Would-Be Developers Clarify Pitches; Preston Advisory Committee Pores Over New Details 
DAY
By Karin Crompton     
Published on 12/20/2007 

Preston — The two developers vying for the right to develop the former Norwich Hospital property have submitted clarifications of their proposals, giving the town guarantees of tax payments, timelines for development and other information.

The Hospital Advisory Committee discussed most of the information at a question-and-answer session with the developers in November, and the recent submittals represent the developers' commitment to those changes in writing.

The town had asked for the clarifications in a letter sent Dec. 7 to the developers, Northland Investment Corp. and Preston Gateway Partners. The request came after two recent, confidential meetings apiece between the developers and town officials.

Northland and Preston Gateway are each proposing mixed-use developments for Preston's portion of the 419-acre property, including hotels, retail, a golf course, marina and residential. Northland's proposal focuses on the luxury market, with boutiques and expensive houses; Preston Gateway's proposal includes more retail and the claim of a regional draw.

Both developers pledged to continue paying the town what it currently receives in PILOT payments, or payment in lieu of taxes, until their projects generate revenue above that.  First Selectman Bob Congdon said Wednesday that the town receives about $300,000 a year in PILOT payments.

Congdon said Preston also receives about $600,000 a year in the Pequot/Mohegan fund, which distributes partial proceeds from slot machine revenue to city and town governments. Neither developer addressed the fund in their letters, and Congdon said Wednesday that the town will address the issue as it continues in the process.

Northland said it remains committed to building 1,500 residential units but would consider substituting some of it with commercial use if one is “viable.” Preston Gateway said it has met with “alternative users” for some of its 1,310 residential units.

“These discussions have been fruitful but are still confidential at this time,” the response said.

In a letter dated Monday and sent to Northland's project manager, John Connery, a principal with Connery Associates, described some of the “fiscal characteristics” of the Northland proposal.  The letter said the town would spend 40 to 50 cents of every dollar it receives in revenue from a regional retail center with big box stores vs. 20 to 25 cents for a development such as Northland proposes.

Northland also offered to share its savings with Preston if the environmental cleanup costs less than $30 million; the current projected cost is $40 million. Northland would pay Preston 25 percent of the savings under $30 million.

Northland also reconfigured its tax package to generate more revenue for the town, an element it discussed in detail at the November meeting.

In its response, Preston Gateway pledged to fund the first phase of the development in addition to its earlier commitment to pay for the cleanup of the entire site. That brings its financial commitment to more than $446 million, the developer said in its submittal.

Preston Gateway also described in greater detail what Phase 1 of its development would include. The first phase would include the golf course with houses surrounding it; town homes, senior housing, two hotels, including a “fractional ownership” hotel; and more than 500,000 square feet of retail, restaurant and entertainment.

After its meeting Wednesday, Congdon said the committee only briefly discussed the clarification reports, primarily because members had just received the documents and had not had a chance to read them.

Committee members will receive additional feedback on the two proposals on Jan. 9 when Fred Carstensen, the director of the Connecticut Center for Economic Analysis, is expected to present the results of his evaluation of the proposals.

High-End Homes Are Proposed For Hospital Property   
DAY
By Megan Bard    
Published on 10/19/2007 

Preston — High-end development means low impact on the surrounding community.  That was the mantra repeated Thursday night by representatives of Northland Investment Corp. as they presented their $1 billion vision for the former state hospital property on Route 12.

Illustration Of Northland Investment Corp. Plan

The firm contends that the more expansive the development and the taller the buildings, and smaller the footprint, the less of an impact there would be on the community, its infrastructure and the surrounding environment.  And possibly most important, Northland officials said, is that the firm does not have to get approval from outside financial supporters to make its commitment to the project.

“The financial decision maker is in the room,” said Larry Gottesdiener, chairman of Northland. “And that's me.”

Northland's presentation was the second in as many days for the site. On Wednesday night, Preston Gateway Partners LLC shared its $780 million vision for the property. While both plans call for a significant amount of housing and retail space to be laid out in a New England village green setting, the types of housing and philosophies behind the two projects are starkly different.

Northland is proposing high-end housing marketed primarily to people vacationing in the area or who are buying a second or third home. Preston Gateway's plan calls for a greater variety of housing types, from affordable units to single-family and townhouse-style buildings.  Both projects include a golf course, but Northland's would be a private, “very expensive” course, while Preston Gateway would be open to the public.

The two firms also offered differing projections for tax revenue to the town — $4.5 million fixed for at least the 15 years that Northland owns the property vs. Preston Gateway's tax revenue based on the value of the property, expected to be $3 million to $4 million once the project is complete.

While many of the nearly 125 people who attended the meeting said the village green concepts of each proposal were nice and appreciated the work involved, they wanted more details about the types of housing proposed and how it would affect the town, particularly regarding traffic.

They also wanted to know how many of the historic buildings on the site would be preserved and whether the two cemeteries would be protected. Both developers said the majority of the buildings were too far gone to salvage but that the former administration building would be restored. As for the cemeteries, both said they would be protected.

Gottesdiener added that Northland has a vested interest in the cemeteries' preservation because the grandparents of its principal architect, his cousin TJ Gottesdiener of Skidmore, Owings & Merrill LLP, are buried there.  While Northland pledged to own the property for 15 years, Preston Gateway said its plan is to clean the site — a task estimated to cost $40 million — and then hand it over to its development partner to build and market.

Neither developer said it would wait to build on the site for the entire property to be clear of contamination. Both said it would work better from an economical standpoint to install the infrastructure needed to support the building while the cleanup is under way, or to at least build on the uncontaminated areas.

The next questions the developers will field will come from the Norwich Hospital Advisory Committee members. The group members held back their questions Thursday night, deferring to the public.  The committee could review a report on both development proposals by an independent consultant when it meets on Wednesday. After that review, the committee will invite the developers in to address some of its members' questions.
Utopia Views Could Frame Preston Vote 
DAY
By Paul Choiniere    
Published on 10/14/2007 
         
Preston First Selectman Robert Congdon and Selectman Gerald Grabarek — Bob and Jerry — always got along just fine before Utopia Studios Ltd. came between them.

Now the two men are competing for the job of first selectman and the contest is not a friendly one. That became clear in a recent interview I had with the two men at Town Hall.  For those new to the area, or who have been living in isolation for the past several years, Utopia Studios is the development group that proposed building a $1.6 billion, Disney-scale theme park and movie studio resort in Preston.  The Utopia group planned to build its resort on the now-vacant campus of the former Norwich Hospital, an asylum for people with mental illness. The state owns the property, but after several failed attempts to find a developer (including rejecting the Utopia developers) it signed a three-year deal to give Preston a chance to find one.

The town is now nearly two years into that window of opportunity, and most of that was misspent dealing with Utopia. And Grabarek contends his old friend, Congdon, is to blame.

Grabarek, a dairy farmer who turns his cornfield into a maze every year, said wasting all that time with Utopia was a maze the town never had to stumble into. Slapping his thick-fingered, farmer's hand down on the table, he reminded me he never considered Utopia to be a viable project.  The town could have moved on seven months ago, said Grabarek, if the advisory committee had not approved sending a development agreement with Utopia to the voters. The committee approved the decision by a single vote, Grabarek voting no, Congdon yes. On May 23, 2006, voters approved the agreement at referendum.

Congdon said that if the committee had simply rejected the development deal, the Utopia group would have turned to Hartford where, using strong labor support, it had solicited political support, chiefly from Democratic Speaker James Amann. The town would have risked losing control of the development, said the incumbent.  And in the end, said Congdon, the development deal worked. Utopia was unable to demonstrate it had the financial wherewithal to take on the project, leading the town to terminate the deal last November.

Not so fast, said Grabarek. What about the $384,000 in outstanding legal fees and $92,000 owed for environmental evaluations? The town may contend that Utopia is supposed to pay that money, but good luck collecting it, he said.

Now the developer search has begun again, narrowed to two developers that both have housing as a central component, something the town did not want and zoning does not allow.  Grabarek wants to turn back to the state for help in moving forward. “We're a small town, we got in way over our heads.”

If re-elected, Congdon plans to keep the town in control. “I feel we have done an outstanding job.”

And so the election may come down to yet another referendum on Utopia. Those who think the matter was handled well are likely to support Congdon, while Grabarek should attract votes from those who consider it a boondoggle.  The future development of the Norwich Hospital property could hang in the balance.

Paul Choiniere is editorial page editor of The Day.

Grabarek To Utopia: 1st Selectman 'Fair Game'  - Candidate, though, asks firm to lay off selectwoman, resident 
DAY
By Megan Bard    
Published on 10/10/2007 

Preston — Neither incumbent First Selectman Robert Congdon, a Republican, nor Selectman Gerald Grabarek, the Democratic challenger, has much use lately for Utopia Studios Ltd., its officials or its defunct proposal to build a gargantuan entertainment complex on the 419-acre former state hospital property.

But it appears that Utopia's ongoing campaign questioning Congdon's integrity and ethics is being perceived as an endorsement for Grabarek.

Since Congdon voted last November to terminate the development agreement with Utopia and in March to withdraw from mediation with the group, terse exchanges have punctuated public meetings, and several Freedom of Information requests have been filed — including inquiries for documents detailing how much Congdon has been paid by the town during his 12-year tenure.

Utopia officials and their supporters have become a fixture at the town's transfer station each Saturday, stopping residents to talk about their development proposal. And nearly every week, Utopia President and General Counsel Christopher Thompson has distributed fliers listing the firm's promises as well as attacking town government officials and a resident who has opposed the developer.

Recently, however, a change in strategy: The fliers have focused on Congdon.  About three weeks ago, Grabarek, frustrated that Thompson continued to attack fellow Selectwoman Kristina Gregory and resident Keleigh Baretincic in the fliers, confronted Thompson.

“I told him that Bob was fair game, but as far as Kristina and Keleigh, I said to lay off the girls,” Grabarek said this week.

The comment has created a divide between the two men, who have served together on the Board of Selectmen for 12 years.

“The hardest part of this whole election is to see how far one would go for political gain or spite. I don't know what his motivation is, but it's troubling,” said Congdon, adding that until this point the men have rarely disagreed.

Congdon said he agrees with Grabarek that the written “attacks” on Gregory and Baretincic are “deplorable,” but while he didn't expect Grabarek to come to his defense, he also did not expect him to endorse Utopia's continued badgering, which has included personal attacks and questions about his honesty.

“I don't believe that anyone in town is fair game for Utopia,” Congdon said.

Grabarek said he made the comment not for political gain, but to make a point that Congdon is the first selectman, someone in a prominent public position. The two women, he said, do not have that stature.

“I'm not going to tell Chris Thompson what to do or how to do it. I was upset about what he was printing about Kristina and Keleigh. I think the more he attacks Bob, the more likely it will backfire,” Grabarek said.

Grabarek said he neither asked for Utopia's support nor does he want it.

“I think it's totally ironic ... it's a joke. I'll win on my own merits,” he said.

Grabarek has opposed the Utopia proposal from its inception. Throughout the process, Grabarek allowed anti-Utopia supporters to post signs on his property and openly talked about his distrust of the development group. Prior to the November 2006 vote to terminate the development agreement, Utopia officials suggested that if the deal fell through they would file a suit against Grabarek because of his opposition.

But Grabarek voted against withdrawing from mediation in March, saying he saw no harm in giving Utopia one more week to pick a mediator. And in August Grabarek wanted to explore returning to mediation with Utopia. “If we don't do it now, we'll do it later when we're pressed for time,” he said.

When the board actually considered the issue, however, Grabarek joined a unanimous vote to support the original decision to terminate.



Abandoned Hospital Is Lure For `Urban Explorers' - Trespassers Take Photos, Impressions; Officials Call Actions Dangerous
By AMY RENCZKOWSKI | The Day
September 17, 2007

PRESTON - The former Norwich Hospital may be abandoned, but for a dedicated group of trespassers who call themselves urban explorers, there is still plenty to marvel at.

"Each abandonment has a heartbeat, a pulse that makes it both unique and alive. Finding that rhythm is one of the purest things I've experienced," said Audrey "Drie" Gallant of Poughkeepsie, N.Y.

Gallant, 26, describes urban exploring as a way to come in contact with a location's soul.

One photo an explorer claims was taken inside a Norwich Hospital building shows a rustic bed frame alone in the center of the room. Light from four windows illuminates the moss and debris on the floor. Pieces of the ceiling are hanging down.

Other photos that explorers say they took there show a rundown bowling alley, a decaying corridor, floors ripped open, piles of rubbish and other debris in a hallway, broken windows and dangling light fixtures.

Urban explorers are national and international. Some specialize in former mental hospitals. Others make it their hobby to explore abandoned buildings, catacombs, tunnels or anywhere else that is considered "off limits" to the public.

Gallant said a former television show on the Discovery Channel, also called "Urban Explorers," left the public with a skewed view of the hobby, "creating an image of explorers as extreme sports athletes or kids horsing around."

Explorers of the Norwich site said they frown on theft, vandalism, tagging, graffiti and other crimes except trespassing, of course, which is why they are often reluctant to identify themselves for publication, although some do on their websites.

"No good explorer is into trashing their own spot," Gallant said. "There's a misconception out there that we're vandals. We're not vandals, and we're not there to break anything."

One explorer said security guards at the former hospital site years ago used to let him walk around and take photos. Lately, though, security has become challenging, he said.

Other explorers talked about booby traps: small "popper" firecrackers spread on the floors of the tunnels that pop noisily when they're stepped on.

"Harmless, but loud," one website stated.

Jeffrey Beckham, managing attorney for the state Department of Public Works, said the state is trying to keep the public out of the site. A security firm has been hired to monitor the property.

"Security has been an ongoing problem since it's been abandoned," Beckham said. "These buildings are not safe. They're dangerous."

Two people were recently arrested for attempting to steal copper pipes at one of the buildings and another six people were arrested in August. Last year, security guards were implicated in thefts.

Preston First Selectman Robert Congdon, along with Preston Fire Marshal Thomas Casey, state police and the state commissioner of Public Works toured the property last month. Casey said there would be an increase in security at the site. He declined to elaborate on the specifics.

"From a public safety perspective, I wouldn't want to see anyone get hurt in there, or our firefighters in there," Casey said.

The former residential mental health hospital - most of it in Preston, some of it in Norwich - was built in 1904 and left vacant in 1996. .

The 35 buildings on the property range from 4,000 to 250,000 square feet. Many of them are listed on the state and federal registers of historic structures.

There are agreements between the state Department of Public Works and Preston and Norwich to transfer ownership of the 480 acres. Preston has until December 2008 to close on the transfer; Norwich has until January 2010.

Michael Sinko, co-chairman of the Norwich Hospital Advisory Committee, said it doesn't matter whether the explorers are vandalizing the property or not.

"It's simply trespassing. Period. They don't belong there," Sinko said.

Gallant said she has been exploring since she was 15. She said she has explored buildings all over the United States and Canada and has visited the Norwich State Hospital site twice.

She said she is attracted to exploring by the sounds: "It's a kind of quiet I've never found anywhere else," she said.

She's also attracted by the way buildings decay - "If you visit a place often enough, the slow-motion collapse of a site becomes an art form to be watched" - and by the smells and the objects and the stories they tell. "It's like reading someone else's diary," she said.

"It's the feeling of solving a mystery, or letting something be heard," she said.

Developer With Local Plans Has Credit Woes - Tarragon's stock has fallen below $1 a share 
By Anthony Cronin, Day Business Editor    
Published on 9/5/2007 

The Tarragon Corp. on Tuesday vowed to continue pursuing development projects in eastern Connecticut, including the former Norwich Hospital, despite a growing financial crunch that has seen its stock price fall below $1 a share and forced some lenders to demand repayment of outstanding debt.

The New York City developer, which had proposals under way in Stonington, Montville and Preston, has been stung on a number of fronts, ranging from the housing slowdown to the subprime mortgage mess and a sudden tightening of the credit spigot, a vital pipeline for developers in need of cash to finance their projects.

On Tuesday, shares of the publicly traded Tarragon closed the day's trading at 89 cents a share — a far cry from just a few years ago when its shares traded in the mid-$20 range on the Nasdaq electronic stock exchange. Over the past 52 weeks, its shares have seesawed from a high of $13.50 a share to a low point of 50 cents per share.

The Nasdaq exchange has threatened to remove the company from active trading because it missed a deadline for filing a quarterly financial statement to the federal Securities and Exchange Commission. The stock continues to trade, however, and the company has asked for a hearing on the possible delisting.

Tarragon's cash crunch has led the developer to seek the advice of investment banking giant Lazard to explore strategic or financial options that would help it regain its financial footing.

Ellen Baer, senior vice president of development strategies with Tarragon, said the company's northeast development projects still remain a priority as it attempts to work out its financings.

Tarragon's operations are principally focused in the Northeast, as well as Florida, Texas and Tennessee. The company was founded in 1973. Tarragon officials said the company is experiencing “liquidity issues” caused by the sudden deteriorating real estate markets, including Florida's market. As a result, the company says it can't complete about $50 million in financing that it had hoped to wrap up this past month.

The overall housing slump is affecting developers like Tarragon across the country. Consumers are slowing down their purchases of new homes or are demanding discounts, which adversely affects those with home-building operations such as Tarragon. In addition, Tarragon has said it faces additional lease and debt-related costs with some of its apartment projects that it had hoped to convert to condominiums but will instead keep as rental units.

Nonetheless, Tarragon officials believe that their overall real estate portfolio and various developments have an equity value in excess of its existing debt load.

“We've weathered storms before, and we're hopeful to weather this one,” said Baer of the company's three decades in the sometimes stormy, often cyclical, world of h