After more than a year of emotional legal wrangling, the controversial has come to an abrupt and quiet end.
The developers who had sought the 17.4 acres overlooking the Connecticut River have notified the state’s Department of Energy and Environmental Protection that they are backing out of the deal to swap 87 acres in Higganum for the river view land in Tylerville.
In a letter sent to the DEEP, , through its lawyer, said it will no longer pursue the land swap because appraisals of the two properties have shown that the state’s river land is worth $1.3 million more than the Higganum forest land. You can view a PDF of the letter above.
The letter goes on to say that Riverhouse “takes exception” to the appraisals, but that its concerns have made no difference in the appraisers’ findings.
In a statement issued today a DEEP spokesman said Riverhouse could have offered additional money or other property to make the deal more equitable to the state, but the developer opted not to do so.
"Our state-owned land was valued some $1.3 million higher than the property being offered by Riverhouse. Riverhouse has declined to offer additional land or money to make this a swap of equal value - as was called for in last year's special act - which effectively brings this matter to a close.”
Under state law any swap of private land for state land requires that the private land be at least equal in value to the state land.
The DEEP statements goes on to defend the appraisals that were conducted by two independent firms.
"Last year's special act called for the value of the two properties involved to be set through the use of two independent appraisals. Two qualified and respected appraisers were selected to do this and they followed all of the widely accepted procedures and practices for establishing the value of the two properties. Both appraisers reached the same conclusion: that the value of the state owned land was about $1.3 million higher than the property being offered to us in return."
Riverhouse’s withdrawal from the land swap brings to an end that had divided the community and set environmental groups against those who had sought development in Tylerville village.
the organization that spearheaded the initiative said of the withdrawal, "this is good for the town, good for the region, and good for the state."
"And, it is a victory for the citizens of Haddam, now the planning for the town will be back in the hands of the local residents."
Riverhouse had sought the land, which abuts their banquet facility, the Riverhouse at Goodspeed Station, to build a commercial development that would augment their banquet hall business.
One major (back) step for "politics", one GIANT LEAP for "the People"!!! Thank you to all who continued to fight AGAINST the land swap and FOR the right cause!!!
State Senator Eileen Daily is up for re-election. Ms. Daily is clearly NOT representing "the people". Lets put an end to this "career politician". Remember to vote AGAINST Eileen Daily!!
It was clearly BS. Whoever leaked that info is the real hero.
They (Daily,Riverhouse.Goodspeed) wanted to keep it a local issue to keep the issue off the radar, it is much easier to sell a bridge to nowhere to a small town than it is the entire state. The actual action they tried to do IS illegal already, you cannot trade state owned park to a developer for several reasons, the first of which was that the money used to purchase the land in the first place was Conservation Funds, which stipulate that the money cannot be used to purchase any land that will later be sold or traded. Malloy, Daily, & Esty all ignored this because they are arrogant and think that laws do not matter. I agree it would be wise to revamp Haddams local laws but State laws will have to be reinforced as well, the only issue facing Haddam was the actual building of the hotel and theater once the land was traded, they needed to get verbal approval in the backroom before getting the land.
I challenged her and stated that there has never been a State Park quit claimed to a developer, the only thing the state does is quit claim unused land like old on/off ramps, fields, unused buildings to local towns and cities, not to developers and never a park or forrest, only unused former state land. When I challenged her to show me a document showing any previous trades of a state park to a developer she stated: " I never said that".
Ms. Schlag has served the Town of Haddam well in her interest for improving Haddam and I, for one, would hope she seek the job of Select(wo)man for OUR town. I have NO doubt she could do that job well as she participates in so many town meetings and well understands the needs of Haddam. Thank you Melissa!
And a huge thank you to all CPPL members and friends, some of whom persevered for over three years. But as some of you have already stated, the precedent has still been set and until we find some way to protect our existing parks and wildlife management areas, nothing will be safe. The wording in the deed for Clark Creek Wildlife Management Area was the strongest the DEEP has on the books and if it can happen there it can happen to any other state land. Environmentalists aren't against development and/or developers and they are truly each others best friends; they can coexist in beautiful harmony. However, there has to be an open and honest forum to discuss these issues, not underhanded, back room deals.
Lu Landis Cromwell