When is Enough, Enough?
There seems to be some confusion in regards to why petitioners are trying to stop the development of a Gilford Village Knolls 3 (GVK3). I also fail to understand why the current GVK residents are so upset. No one is advocating to get rid of GVK 1 or 2. The only question is; how much more subsidized “affordable” senior housing can the rest of the Gilford taxpayers afford? Additionally, how much more congestion can the environment on the Potter Hill properties withstand?
Let’s start with the environmental impact by asking if a private developer could ever get approval to build a 24 unit condominium complex on the Potter Hill land? Based on Library Trustee, Mr. Bill Seed’s description (on video) of why the Library chose not to build on the land, I would strongly doubt it. In two different public meetings he explained the many wet land issues that would make building a significant challenge. One GVK resident describes the current development as; over congested, significant water issues and a severe negative impact on the land. It appears those issues are only important when one is requesting the development of a chain store.
That said; let’s assume for a moment that a private developer (like the one that wanted to bid on this lot) could obtain permits to build a similar complex and we calculated the tax revenue of a possible 24 unit development. It’s important to remember the long standing argument that condos had to be assessed individually because of their total impact on the town’s resources. Using these same accepted rules of “fairness”, we could safely assume that each unit would assess for at least $100,000. A total assessed value of $2.4 million, at a tax rate of $15.83 per thousand would be $37,992 per year (and growing). If privately developed, all three GVK developments would bring the total tax revenue to $113,976. The school portion alone would be nearly $60,000. That amount would more than fully fund the much debated football program.
Gilford Village Knolls promoter, Mr. Ferruolo, is asserting the assessed value on each GVK complex (like a big house) is around $500,000, so the town of Gilford is only supporting “up to” $7,915 of total tax dollars. This is also the math he is using to establish a “payment in lieu of taxes” for some municipal services. Selectman Grant is also using this math to compare the impact of a potential one family home with three kids in school. I’m sorry folks, this is “fuzzy” math and grossly unfair to those living in all those other individually assessed condominiums in town. As stated above, GVK 1 & 2 are here to stay. I just want us to be accurate in this debate to assess the actual impact to the town of Gilford.
There was a stated concern of the highest bidder potentially building a single family home with three kids in school. I would like to take you back to last year’s Budget Committee meeting when our superintendent gave a lengthy tome on the declining student population. He stated that even though the student population is in decline, we wouldn’t see any “cuts” (meaning a real cut) in spending because of the need to support the infrastructure. Sounds to me like a family of three kids wouldn’t impact the school budget one bit. Besides, if the growth of student population was a genuine concern then Gilford should propose zoning changes to prevent that kind of growth.
An additional impact to the community is the simple fact that GVK residents are allowed by law to vote on spending that they have no responsibility for. Typically, the political landscape of contested spending items breaks down to 1/3 of the voters are strongly for the spending item because it directly benefits them, 1/3 are strongly against the spending item because it adversely effects them and the remaining 1/3 can go either way, depending on persuasion. Now I ask you; how hard would it be to persuade voters on spending they will never be responsible to pay a single dime for? We natives often joke about those folks that move up from Mass. to escape high taxes and then support all kinds of spending that raise taxes. At least those people are accountable to help pay for the spending.
Gilford residents have been more than willing to subsidize affordable senior housing for seniors, regardless of their roots. It is important to realize that Gilford residents also pay local, county and State taxes to subsidize many other benefits for seniors. Let’s not forget to mention the numerous other “causes of the day” that keep getting heaped onto the working families. In fact, more than half of the petitioners are seniors on fixed incomes who remain in their homes as long as taxes are affordable. It shouldn’t surprise anyone that nearly half of the Gilford Budget Committee has also signed the petition based on their concern for a troubling economy this budget cycle.
It is very disheartening to hear fellow citizens ridicule the very people that are stretched to the limit in paying for all these services while struggling to make their own ends meet. Quite frankly, the lack of appreciation stuns me. The petitioners are simply suggesting that a GVK 3 is too much. Gilford Village Knolls 1 & 2 are enough for both the tax payer and the environment.
