Two years later, two more offers

Wherever Ken Lefebvre was when he heard or read about the new development proposal for Saccarappa Park, we’re willing to bet he was smiling.

The former Westbrook mayor walked away two years ago from a deal to develop the park smarting from the sting of public accusations of back room deals that arose after the city bulldozed the park amid a debate over whether to save it.

The only offer to develop the park submitted to the city by the deadline for proposals this week makes the one submitted by Lefebvre and a group of local investors seem quite handsome.

It’s not that the proposal submitted this week by Scarborough developer Terry Brown is necessarily a bad one. He’s proposing to construct a 30,000-square-foot building that would be home to medical offices, stores and condominiums – a good mix that is likely just what the city was seeking for the property.

The building size is actually scaled back from the former proposal of a 48,000-square-foot building, which would help preserve more of the park. The new proposal still falls shy of the recommendation from the mayor’s economic development committee to preserve 40 percent of the park. Brown would preserve 35 percent.

The real problem with this offer, however, is the purchase price. Brown is offering to pay the city the princely sum of $1 for the land.

Lefebvre by comparison offered the city a negotiable range of $150,000 to $180,000. Those who followed the public proceedings on that proposal closely will recall that even that purchase price was a disappointment to some city councilors because it fell short of the estimated land value.

Even former American Journal Editor Harry Foote, who doesn’t stand to make any money on the deal, offered more for it ($1,000). Foote submitted the only other proposal to the city this week – to keep the land a park for the next 100 years.

Foote lowered his offer from two years ago ($10,000) because the park no longer has the trees, bushes and benches that once resided in it. “There was a park there when we offered $10,000, and there isn’t one there now,” Foote said this week. “The cost of restoring what they destroyed is reflected in our price.”

Interestingly, Brown’s reasoning for his low offer was similar. He just has different ideas about how to improve the property. “Rather than offer monetary value for the land, we thought we’d do it with improvements,” said Brown.

The problem is, as these two offers clearly demonstrate, different people have very different ideas about what is best for this land. This is prime real estate, not just because it is on the river in downtown Westbrook, but also because it is at the center of a dormant debate.

That’s why we would urge the city not to give this land away simply because someone wants to develop it. Development is occurring in Westbrook, as a recent proposal to develop the Warren Furniture building next to the park demonstrates. That proposal, which goes before the Planning Board this week, didn’t require any subsidy from the city.

If the city were going to give the land away at such a bargain, the city should at least be looking at competing development proposals. It’s unclear why the city didn’t receive any other proposals for the land after extending the deadline for them.

Ken Lefebvre, who didn’t even consider submitting a proposal, might hold at least one answer to that conundrum. “We went through enough,” he said this week when asked why he didn’t submit anything.

Brendan Moran, editor

Copy the Story Link