I-4, C-2 Again!

I-4, C-2 Again!

Joined: June 20th, 2007, 11:54 pm

February 26th, 2018, 6:53 pm #1

Per the Gloucester Times:

When Gloucester made its $1.5 million purchase of the so-called I-4, C-2 property at 65 Rogers St. nearly eight years ago, hopes were high for seeing the site transformed into a hub of waterfront development.
But after calls for design submissions, requests for projects from potential tenants and at least two studies, the site remains empty, serving instead as busy city parking lot, especially during the summer tourism season.
Using the site as regular paid parking space within the state's Designated Port Area was permitted by the state's Department of Environmental Protection in 2013 only as a temporary waterfront use, and the permit is due to expire in June. Now the city is asking the DEP to grant Gloucester a 10-year extension to continue the non-conforming use of the lot for waterfront parking. A letter of request to the DEP from Planning Director Gregg Cademartori is pending authorization by the City Council.

Mayor Sefatia Romeo Theken says the letter should not be seen as a sign the city wants to use the site — vacant for more than 50 years  — as a parking lot for another 10 years or more.
"My desire, like just about everyone else, is not to see it remain as a parking lot," Romeo Theken said. "But we're looking for the extension so that we can sustain it until we can decide as a city what we really want to do with it."
Since 2010, when the lot was purchased with support from the state's Coastal Zone Management agency under then-Mayor Carolyn Kirk, the city sought submissions from residents and others for potential project designs. The proposals, ranging from an outdoor fish market to a boat-building center and skating rink, never advanced beyond the talking stages. In 2013, the city put out a request for proposals seeking potential designs that would yield the city $75,000 in annual tax revenues, but failed to get any takers. Then, later that year, a second proposed RFP never made it past City Council to be issued to developers.
"I know some of the plans and designs that people had submitted in the past were actually pretty good ideas," said Romeo Theken, who was a city councilor when the city bought the lot and sought proposals for its use. "But we still need to talk as a community and decide what we want it to be."
Not priority, but not for sale

With projects such as the Fuller School sale, a pending discussion over a new East Gloucester elementary school, and needed repairs to the Lane's Cove seawall on the front burner, she said, a renewed push for redeveloping I-4, C-2  is not the city's top priority, even as the June expiration date looms for the city's five-year permit with the state.
"Let's get these other things going and done first," she said, "then we'll get back to I-4, C-2, and we will work together to do it as a city and as a community."
The lot, which sits between The Building Center and The Gloucester House restaurant and draws its name from the two parcels it covers on the city's assessment maps, has taken on other roles beyond serving as a parking lot, offering 74 main spaces and four spots set aside for drivers with disabilities.
The site — assessed for 2018 at a total value of $1.06 million, according to assessors records — hosted a gala 2010 "Celebrate Gloucester" concert featuring the likes of Charles Neville and the group Roomful of Blues. It served as home to the Cape Ann Farmers Market for a year, has hosted other occasional music and arts festivals, and has taken on a role as an outdoor movie house for a popular free Wednesday night movie series the city has sponsored with Rob Newton's Cape Ann Community Cinema & Stage in recent summers.

Romeo Theken said she wanted to assure residents there is one option she will not consider: the city will not be selling the property.
"We will not be selling it, not as long as I'm mayor," she said. "We've already given too much away," she added, citing space at the Jodrey State Fish Pier and part of Pavilion Beach. The lone remaining central waterfront properties, she said, are a site at 112 Commercial St., property along Cripple Cove, and I-4, C-2.
"We are not, and will not be, looking to let it go," she said. "But we need to time to revisit it and find its best use, and we need to do that as part of a comprehensive plan that can serve our city for 20 years and more. We're not there yet, and our (five-year) permit is almost up. That's why we need this extension."

When did the city and to whom was parts of Pavilion Beach sold?
The last thing I remember is that Beauport LLC signed their rights to the beach to the city.
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: September 3rd, 2017, 8:41 am

February 26th, 2018, 7:08 pm #2

Wow 1.5 million dollar parking lot, parcel should have been developed years ago,to many restrictions and the DPA  restrictions have stopped any kind of development.I would if I had the energy I would turn the site into a marine industry park, leasing space to marine-related business and opening up the dock space to whale watch,deepsea fishing,harbor tour vessels,maybe throw the Harbormaster. office in with showers and laundry, I would also visit what the city charges for dockage at this site and St Peters park and bring these rents up to market rates.
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: January 5th, 2008, 12:22 am

February 26th, 2018, 7:33 pm #3

Fuller  development stalled, I4 C2 still a white elephant, no new police and fire stations. Moving no where, together.
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: May 10th, 2007, 9:48 am

February 26th, 2018, 8:58 pm #4

"My desire, like just about everyone else, is not to see it remain as a parking lot," Romeo Theken said.  

Bullshit.
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: August 13th, 2005, 5:30 am

February 26th, 2018, 9:00 pm #5

I just can't even really discuss this anymore because I really just have no more words. Seven years ago under the previous administration, the City paid 21 potential developers $2,500. each to submit ideas - not proposals, just ideas.  We paid them. 

The current mayor, during campaign 2015 (long before the Fuller debacle) stated that doing something with I-4, C-2 was not a priority for her.  If we are going to pave paradise and put up a parking lot, the least we could do is pretty it up some.
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: May 10th, 2007, 9:48 am

February 26th, 2018, 9:08 pm #6

Cathy (Admin) wrote: I just can't even really discuss this anymore because I really just have no more words. Seven years ago under the previous administration, the City paid 21 potential developers $2,500. each to submit ideas - not proposals, just ideas.  We paid them. 

The current mayor, during campaign 2015 (long before the Fuller debacle) stated that doing something with I-4, C-2 was not a priority for her.  If we are going to pave paradise and put up a parking lot, the least we could do is pretty it up some.
Great view that lot has. The current mayor (depending on the situation) is just fine the way it is.
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: April 1st, 2011, 11:07 pm

February 27th, 2018, 3:52 am #7

($1,06M)/(10yrx52wkx74spaces) =
$28 per space per week over 10yr.  An I4C2 parking space averaging $28 a week would be out of the red in ten years.

In Boston I pay $43 for waterfront parking (30 years ago it was $2).  I also now pay $3.50 an hour at Boston meters.

The city needs parking and I4C2 helps.  If GPD/HQ GFD:HQ go to say Veterans Elementary - that frees up prime downtown Main Street/Rogers Street as s garage/retail  and MUST preserve Central Station for Affordable Housing rather than tearing it down.

Central Station should get a giantic historic grant to be converted to low income housing witth loft bedrooms in each of the truck bays. The historic significance is Virginia Lee Burton depicted the firehouse in her book “Katy’s Big Snow” - I saw the old track drive truck and took video in 1993.  

Quote
Like
Share

Joined: January 5th, 2008, 12:22 am

February 27th, 2018, 12:59 pm #8

I'd like to know how many don't pay the kiosk and if the city ever checks to see if they paid.
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: June 20th, 2007, 11:54 pm

February 27th, 2018, 5:55 pm #9

My 1st step would be to re-configure the dockage so all the commercial boats remain there and move the schooners there. It may require cooperation from the Building Center to use the water frontage they don't use any longer then go from there. We could call it "Schooner Park".
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: February 27th, 2018, 7:31 pm

February 27th, 2018, 7:33 pm #10

Dun Fudgin wrote: My 1st step would be to re-configure the dockage so all the commercial boats remain there and move the schooners there. It may require cooperation from the Building Center to use the water frontage they don't use any longer then go from there. We could call it "Schooner Park".
It's not deep enough for the Adventure. 
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: April 15th, 2006, 1:02 am

February 28th, 2018, 8:44 am #11

The city meter people tag at any of the kiosk lots.  the bigger problem is the kiosks not working sometimes.
No one will ever want to purchase I4C2 anyway if they can't get the water rights. And anything that isn't 'marine related' will be fought as before.
I was 5 years old when my friends and I rode our bikes down there to watch them tear down those buildings.   It's now been 60 years!!!
 
You think you know it, but you haven't got a clue!!
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: August 13th, 2005, 5:30 am

February 28th, 2018, 4:37 pm #12

I actually agree with Mayor that the City should not sell the parcel for the reason that it is one of only a couple of city-owned waterfront parcels.  (That is one way that we differ from New Bedford.  They own much more of their waterfront which makes them much more eligible for state and fed grants and funding than Gloucester.)

What is crazy is the inertia exhibited by current and former mayors and councilors about doing something with it.  There has not been a serious proposal/interest for a specific project there in decades.  Nothing has been stopped or protested against since the 80s because nothing has been seriously proposed.  Just what is up with that?

The City could petition the State to take the piece out of the DPA.

September 2013:  The Council considered filing a Home Rule Petition  to remove I4-C2 from the DPA.  The Council voted 5 in favor (Ciolino, Hardy, Tobey, Verga, Whynott), 4 opposed (Theken, Cox, LeBlanc, McGeary).  Kirk vetoed and the Council abandoned the effort by not overriding the veto because the State does not look favorably on a Home Rule Petition that does not have full Council and Mayoral support.

And so it goes.
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: January 5th, 2008, 12:22 am

February 28th, 2018, 5:18 pm #13

Cathy (Admin) wrote: I actually agree with Mayor that the City should not sell the parcel for the reason that it is one of only a couple of city-owned waterfront parcels.  (That is one way that we differ from New Bedford.  They own much more of their waterfront which makes them much more eligible for state and fed grants and funding than Gloucester.)

What is crazy is the inertia exhibited by current and former mayors and councilors about doing something with it.  There has not been a serious proposal/interest for a specific project there in decades.  Nothing has been stopped or protested against since the 80s because nothing has been seriously proposed.  Just what is up with that?

The City could petition the State to take the piece out of the DPA.

September 2013:  The Council considered filing a Home Rule Petition  to remove I4-C2 from the DPA.  The Council voted 5 in favor (Ciolino, Hardy, Tobey, Verga, Whynott), 4 opposed (Theken, Cox, LeBlanc, McGeary).  Kirk vetoed and the Council abandoned the effort by not overriding the veto because the State does not look favorably on a Home Rule Petition that does not have full Council and Mayoral support.

And so it goes.
The mayor would probably veto it, didn't she avoid voting for the change regarding Cape Pond Ice? Of course she wouldn't vote on the hotel either  because of some BS about being an officer in the  Fisherman's wives Assoc.
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: June 20th, 2007, 11:54 pm

February 28th, 2018, 6:54 pm #14

mnemosyne wrote:
Dun Fudgin wrote: My 1st step would be to re-configure the dockage so all the commercial boats remain there and move the schooners there. It may require cooperation from the Building Center to use the water frontage they don't use any longer then go from there. We could call it "Schooner Park".
It's not deep enough for the Adventure. 
Actually it is, about 15' at low tide according to my fathometer. Back in the day large lumber and coal ships offloaded at the Building Center.
Building Center lumber.jpg
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: March 30th, 2007, 12:27 am

March 1st, 2018, 2:48 pm #15

I was under the impression that the city was not allowed to charge parking there for some reason.

I also think that the city does not own the actual waterfront there.

I think again that at very high tides the place is partially flooded.

When it first "opened" a bunch of folks worked to clean it up and plant flowers and shrubs but they seem to have disappeared.

If the actual waterfront is available it should be for dockage and mooring access for residents and visitors.

Enlighten me please....those who have the facts....
You make a living by what you get. You make a life by what you give..
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: June 25th, 2007, 6:00 pm

March 1st, 2018, 3:58 pm #16

The city does charge for parking there. There is a kiosk as you drive down the slope.
Amusingly a bus pays the same as a car :)
The city owns the waterfront there but it is committed to use by commercial fishermen.
Yes, check it out at about 11 am tomorrow and you will see some salt water there.
There is enough water for schooners in front of the Building Center but I do not think they could come in to where that boat is shown in the old photo. I used to go in there with my lobster boat to pick up materials for wharf repair but that float and pier has been out of service for many years. It was not 12 feet deep in there but is a little further out.
A  lawyer for the Building Center foiled the last plan to put the I4/C2 property and the BC waterfront to use. It
might be worth another try but the other possible local business partners might be hard to reassemble.
It is entirely true that Gloucester owns far less of their waterfront than comparable port cities and I would
think long and hard before selling it.
By the way it is at St Peter's that we can not charge for parking. It is an open public park. Using it for parking at all is a bit strange.
When St Peters first opened we had not only Fiesta there but various other gatherings.
Don't you see that the whole aim of Newspeak is to narrow the range of thought?...   ..........
 George Orwell , 1984
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: January 25th, 2008, 12:11 am

March 1st, 2018, 4:15 pm #17

Damon wrote: The city does charge for parking there. There is a kiosk as you drive down the slope.
Amusingly a bus pays the same as a car :)
The city owns the waterfront there but it is committed to use by commercial fishermen.
Yes, check it out at about 11 am tomorrow and you will see some salt water there.
There is enough water for schooners in front of the Building Center but I do not think they could come in to where that boat is shown in the old photo. I used to go in there with my lobster boat to pick up materials for wharf repair but that float and pier has been out of service for many years. It was not 12 feet deep in there but is a little further out.
A  lawyer for the Building Center foiled the last plan to put the I4/C2 property and the BC waterfront to use. It
might be worth another try but the other possible local business partners might be hard to reassemble.
It is entirely true that Gloucester owns far less of their waterfront than comparable port cities and I would
think long and hard before selling it.
By the way it is at St Peter's that we can not charge for parking. It is an open public park. Using it for parking at all is a bit strange.
When St Peters first opened we had not only Fiesta there but various other gatherings.
When are we going to wake up?
Commercial fishing is not coming back.
How about tourist related business.
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: June 25th, 2007, 6:00 pm

March 1st, 2018, 4:44 pm #18

Such businesses as whale watches, boat tours, dive boats and other commercial waterfront businesses are allowable uses. However more restaurants and shops are not unless accessory uses. Certainly a shopping mall would not get a license and that wasted a tremendous amount of energy and time.
Many people presented proposals at City Hall some years ago soon after the city bought the property back from Jeff Cohen, the mall developer. I helped with two of them myself. As far as I know the city agency responsible for the property is still hoping to get their shopping mall.
Don't you see that the whole aim of Newspeak is to narrow the range of thought?...   ..........
 George Orwell , 1984
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: April 1st, 2011, 11:07 pm

March 1st, 2018, 8:01 pm #19

STOCKS NOT COMING BACK - BS! I know Damon was at the fisheries meetings with Norwegians at city hall - were you?

=============================

Sport fishing on day boats has been in the lead in Norway BUT NOW COMMERCIAL BOATS ARE ON THE WAY BACK.

Sport fishing was a way of monitoring the stocks coming back - without commercial over fishing. Twenty years ago a local Norwegian small town newspaper offered a prize to any sport angler that caught a fish greater than 60#s - a can of coffee and a certificate - about twenty succeeded that year: Today nearly 500 caught a “coffee cod” the record weighed in at 100#

“The phenomenon of massive cod is partly due to the warming climate, which has greatly expanded the area where the cod can feed, says Knut Korsbrekke, a specialist at the Institute of Marine Research in Bergen. But Norway also began to place limits on the commercial harvest in the 1980s, and this is bearing fruit, he says. In 1989, after an “extreme cooling event” in the Barents Sea when stocks declined rapidly, Norway and Russia agreed to close down the fishery altogether.
Cod's country: pensioner beats UK angling records with 42kg catch
“Try doing that in the EU,” says Korsbrekke, who compares the “huge success” of Arctic fisheries management with the North Sea, where overfishing has meant cod populations are still only a quarter the size they were in the 1970s. North Sea cod stocks are a “terrible mess”, he says, as countries haggle over quotas. In contrast, Norway and Russia have a long history of successful cooperation.

MANAGING COD STOCKS IS NOT ROCKET SCIENCE - IT IS MUCH MORE COMPLICATED THAN THAT, “ -,Korsbrekke says.”

This is the complete source:

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.thegua ... sh-bonanza
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: March 30th, 2007, 12:27 am

March 1st, 2018, 10:39 pm #20

gloman wrote:
Damon wrote: The city does charge for parking there. There is a kiosk as you drive down the slope.
Amusingly a bus pays the same as a car :)
The city owns the waterfront there but it is committed to use by commercial fishermen.
Yes, check it out at about 11 am tomorrow and you will see some salt water there.
There is enough water for schooners in front of the Building Center but I do not think they could come in to where that boat is shown in the old photo. I used to go in there with my lobster boat to pick up materials for wharf repair but that float and pier has been out of service for many years. It was not 12 feet deep in there but is a little further out.
A  lawyer for the Building Center foiled the last plan to put the I4/C2 property and the BC waterfront to use. It
might be worth another try but the other possible local business partners might be hard to reassemble.
It is entirely true that Gloucester owns far less of their waterfront than comparable port cities and I would
think long and hard before selling it.
By the way it is at St Peter's that we can not charge for parking. It is an open public park. Using it for parking at all is a bit strange.
When St Peters first opened we had not only Fiesta there but various other gatherings.
When are we going to wake up?
Commercial fishing is not coming back.
How about tourist related business.
Even if fishing does come back I would like to see waterfront apartments/condos, etc., on the harbor. If done with low, working waterfront type of buildings, it would mean more downtown residents who would help keep Main Street business alive. Tourism is fine but it tends to mean junky tourist t-shirts and stuff like that taking over store fronts when we need real butcher, baker, candlestick makers...honest commerce business there.....and tourists are here only in good weather so half the year stores really struggle to pay the rent. If someone comes along and buy a building and usually spends some money fixing it up and has to pay a mortgage and taxes they have to get a fair rent to pay it all back and make some profit too. Survival is a very tough scenario. It was different in the day when property owners lived upstairs and had their shops downstairs.
You make a living by what you get. You make a life by what you give..
Quote
Like
Share