Special Board of Aldermen 12-07-2021 Page 12
private piece of property that a private owner is acting upon and people who believe that we are taking something
away from Greeley Park | think are misguided. Nothing in Greeley Park is changing with respect to the approximately
100 acres that exists there now. We had a recent Master Plan completed and that Master Plan did not identify
expanding Greeley Park at all. In fact, it identified setting up other parks in other parts of Nashua that don't have
parks available.
| walk Greeley Park a good bit and I'm very familiar with the fence area that is the Barker's property. | do not believe
that a development in that area is going to diminish the park or that somehow we have an obligation to scoop up those
13 acres to make them a park more complete. It's almost 100 acre park right now and we have other parts of the city
that don't have them. The housing study, which | read completely, did show approximately 5,000 houses that we are
short and we continue to spend money. | don't know how many people are going to speak up against spending $21
million tonight but we are a spending city and we're doing a lot of spending and somebody's got to pay the bills and
keep the lights on. When you think that the tax revenue raised by that property is insignificant, | think you're wrong. |
also think there's an absolute market for those houses to sell at $700,000. I'm pretty certain a developer would not
propose something that realistically would not sell. | think we have an obligation to let the process work the way the
process should work and everyone's opinions about what is right and wrong should be vetted through the Planning
Board and the Zoning Board if necessary. They're the entities that will be certain that the codes in the ordinances are
followed and that the property is within the right to develop itself the way it can be developed. | think it's really
important that we let that process go.
So | am not in favor of bonding this money. We have a lot of other needs and that is important housing. The unit
Alderman O’Brien
30 seconds.
Laurie Ortolano
The development down by Cherrywood was opposed by people and you're correct, the developer changed from 160
luxury units to 44 townhomes down there with a lot of asphalt space. I'm not certain the residents are going to be that
happy with that either. But this development needs to happen because we continue to spend, and we have a need for
the housing, and the housing report in the Master Plan full support development. Thank you time.
John Cathey
Can you hear me?
Chairman Dowd
Yes.
John Cathey
John Cathey, 32 Hartwell Brook Drive. | am not in favor of Resolution 21-202 for several reasons. The biggest
reason | feel passage of this resolution is a bad idea is the overall cost of the project. When we consider interest on
the debt and the lost tax revenue over the life of the bond, this product doesn't cost $2.5 million, it costs $15 million or
more over 20 years. Even if we remove the future projected revenue, it's still $3.1 million with interest. How can we
the citizens be asked to support this resolution when our Aldermen and our Mayor have not expressed to us how this
will be paid for? Currently, the resolution calls for more debt on top of the $21 million debt which will probably be
approved for the Riverwalk, on top of $20 million debt for the PAC which now puts us over $100 million a day.
Secondly, it strikes me as interesting that we have another issue or resolution being brought to the public and we the
citizens are being asked to approve or disapprove a resolution when we don't have enough information yet. It has not
gone through the proper Planning Board and other committees for recommendations and any other issues that may
arise.
Thirdly although it was stated by one of the Aldermen that they cannot interfere with the process, some have alluded
to figure out a way to interfere and or stop this. | would strongly object to any attempt to interfere or to discuss
interfering with the purchase and sale of this land as it creates a poor legal precedent for how Nashua does things
with businesses and resident’s private property. In closing, passing this resolution is extremely unproven. Currently
without proof of a plan to show us the money used will not affect the taxpayers, it's an added expenditure we cannot
