Letters to the Editor
Vote for Dawn Hill
Dear Independent:I recently attended a gathering for Dawn Hill who is running for state representative for our area (District 149). I was very impressed with Dawn. She is a novice to politics, which I frankly find refreshing, and left me with the impression that she would do an excellent job representing all of our issues and concerns in a direct, thoughtful and effective manner. I was given her web page address (www.dawnhill.org) to review, and after reviewing it and having met Dawn in person, I have concluded that she will be my choice for state representative.
I recommend all who are interested in a person with intelligence and integrity peruse through her web page and consider her as their choice also.
Chris DeSalvo
Ogunquit
Berkshire needs scrutiny
Dear Independent,I attended the most recent meeting hosted by Mr. Plotkin of Berkshire Development concerning the York Wild Kingdom property. I had hoped to learn some things about the fate of the property and to gain some insight as to what to expect from the developer. I found the meeting very informative, even though no specifics or commitments have been defined for the property. The meeting led off with speech from Mr. Plotkin about how he is a good, honest, caring, responsible developer (he repeated this later in the meeting). I'll have to admit, this kind of statement rubs me the wrong way because any one who I know that is actually good, honest, caring and responsible, never has to go around saying it.
The meeting was advertised as wanting input from York citizens on what kind of things should be done with the property. This was only partially true. As long as your comment or question appeared to Mr. Plotkin as supportive of his project, he was congenial. There were a number of audience members present that supported Mr. Plotkin's development plans, so these statements/questions went smoothly. If Mr. Plotkin deemed your question or input as against his project, he became defensive and aggravated. Several questions/statements from audience members degenerated to point that Mr. Plotkin would not speak to them any further and this resulted in Mr. Plotkin personally apologizing to several audience members at the end of the meeting. This was a bit of surprise to me because I expected Mr. Plotkin to have the business savvy to maintain his composure in a public meeting. After all, it was Mr. Plotkin's choice to host the public meeting.
Additionally, during one of Mr. Plotkin's aggravated speeches, he got on his proverbial soapbox and declared it was his right as an American to develop property he owns in the manner he wishes and that he wouldn't let naysayers stand in his way. Mr. Plotkin has a gross misconception. I don't know who Mr. Plotkin thinks gave him this right but he is confused. Mr. Plotkin needs to spend some quality time with the concept of zoning. The premise of zoning came about because of developers and/or individuals who abuse a piece of land at the expense of neighbors or the community. Buying a piece of property is an inherent agreement to the zoning on that land. If Mr. Plotkin wants free reign over his property, then he should have purchased land in an area that has no zoning.
As I stated earlier, the meeting was informative. The most significant item was that Mr. Plotkin indicated that he was in negotiations with the abutter on each side of his property. He stated that his intent was to purchase 120 additional acres. He also stated he intended to develop the 200 acres, not just the 82 acres of the York Wild Kingdom. This represents an enormous transformation of the York Beach area. People should no longer view this project as just the York Wild Kingdom property.
Mr. Plotkin indicated that his plans for the York Wild Kingdom property included a desire to provide family activities. This included keeping the animal park in some form or another. However, he made statements that indicated that the amusement park would be closed. Even though a high percentage of the audience would have been considered elderly, I was surprised at the negative comments from the audience members in support of closing the amusement park. I would not dispute that the park needs a facelift but my children still enjoy it. I asked my 14 and 17 year old what they thought of closing the amusement park. Their immediate answer was "No". When I asked my 17-year-old "Why?" her answer was because it is a comfortable place to go with friends. I've always viewed that the combination animal park and amusement park made for a great family day and would be something to build upon.
Early in the meeting Mr. Plotkin spoke that he noted the increased activity and congestion at York Beach since he was here in April. He also recognized the seasonal nature of many of the businesses. However, several times he spoke of a possible hotel out along Route 1. He also tapped into the image of a Quincy Market kind of retail space. He also brought up several times that the 20,000 square foot zoning limit was presenting a problem. For reference, this is about the size of St. Christopher's Church on York Street. When asked about the increased traffic that this would bring, he seemed to have no plan and did not see it as problem. Have you tried to go to York Beach on a hot sunny Saturday around noon? Is the traffic not an issue? How do you plan something that is designed to attract more people and not consider the traffic? York citizens should keep in mind the traffic impact of whatever goes on this property.
I asked Mr. Plotkin, since he seemed to recognize the seasonal nature of the businesses at the beach, was he looking at bringing in stores with an eye towards the existing businesses in York? I told him that my concern was that many businesses rely on the couple of months of summer tourism and that certain stores will drive them out of business. Closing existing businesses is not a benefit to York. The answer I expected from a good, honest, caring, responsible developer was that Berkshire Development would be sensitive to the existing businesses in York to minimize any adverse impact. However, this was not the answer I received. He stated that he felt competition was a good thing. This told me he had no interest in his impact on current York businesses.
An important question of the evening was asked by several audience members. It was simply, "Have you done a project of this nature before?" This was asked amidst statements concerning the significant transformation of a rural area, wetland issues, surface drainage problems and zoning restrictions. This could provide York citizens with a reference for the quality of his work and if the affected community thought he lived up to his statements. Mr. Plotkin skirted the question and refused to answer it. I was told by one audience member that this was asked during the April meeting and he responded that he would bring examples of his work - but he had none at the recent meeting. I would have to guess that if Mr. Plotkin could face the truth, he would probably have responded "No" to the question.
From the information posted on the Berkshire Development website, their past and future projects reflect renovations or cookie cutter projects - nothing in the category of York Beach. For example, Berkshire Development renovated the Stop and Shop in Bristol, Conn. I grew up in Bristol, Conn., and the Stop and Shop was an original store in the Bristol Plaza that was built about 45 years ago. The anchors for this plaza were Bradlees, Woolworth's and Stop and Shop. Berkshire Development renovated the plaza and created a new Super Stop and Shop. It was already a significant retail area, no zoning issues, no wetlands. Berkshire Development has also done several Dick's Sporting Goods stores. These have a cookie cutter design and again only go into well-established retail areas. There is no attempt to blend these stores into the surrounding character of the community.
The worst pitch of the evening by Mr. Plotkin was something like "If you don't let a good developer like me develop the property, eventually a bad developer will!" I found this statement lame at best. This reminded me of something a sleazy salesman would say. This is not a reason to let Berkshire Development do whatever they want. York citizens need to look close at this project. The amount of land (200 acres) that Mr. Plotkin wants to develop dwarfs the current York Beach commercial area. York needs to decide if this kind of transformation is desirable and if you want the area to become a commercial area like Old Orchard Beach or Hampton Beach. This project can also have significant impact on the surface drainage and ecology of the area. It doesn't do any good to develop the land if it creates high bacteria levels and closes the beach.
Wayne Martin
York
Send your letters to the Editor at PO Box 6, York, ME 03909 or via email to editor@yorkindependent.net. Deadline for publication is 12:00 noon on the Monday prior to that week's publication
