Category: Berlin NH

Empty Square Windows

This is not about Berlin. Berlin has a lot of empty windows, but in some ways, those windows will be easier to fill than those just down the street.

Recognize this?

Rite Aid just moved out of Gorham, and this is what they left. I’m trying to imagine what tenant is going to move into this building, with it’s steeple and rounded corner. I can’t think of anyone, short of another Rite Aid.

How about this one?

Shaw’s was closed by the time I started working in Berlin, but I stopped by two years ago after a day of rock climbing. Now it’s a mass of a empty windows and floor space. Only a supermarket would suffice to fill it.

Here’s the problem with sprawl—when chains fail or stores close there is no one else that can fill their shoes. In Portland, Maine, where I went to college, this has become a problem. Out by the mall (actually in South Portland) there is an empty Circuit City building; just over the town line, in Scarborough, there is an empty Walmart building. It isn’t that the Walmart went out of business—right next door is the Super Walmart, which overshadowed the original store.

Imagine building a building that couldn’t be used for anything else. Imagine the shell of a city entirely made of chain stores.

You don’t have to go far to see it. Head down to North Conway, with the empty buildings spread around the US Route 16 and 302 intersection, and you’ll have a good picture of it. New developments were built as stores moved and expanded, and now the old buildings are standing vacant. The economic crisis didn’t help.

The tough part is how these big box shells pigeon-hole a place: it’s hard to think of them as anything but chain stores. There is a nice restaurant in North Conway, the Black Cap Grille (bad website, good food), in one of the new developments. It is a great place to eat, with good food and a nice atmosphere; unfortunately it looks like an Applebee’s from the outside, not a local restaurant. It’s in a space more likely to house a Payless shoe store. They did a great job transforming the warehouse-like interior into a nice place to eat, but they had to work hard to make the experience inviting.

A Gorham example: Mr. Pizza. The warehouse look doesn’t inspire confidence, no matter how the food tastes.

Places without these types of developments are in many ways so much better off. The empty buildings in Berlin are an eyesore, no doubt, but it’s not hard imagining almost every single one of them filled with just about anything. They are not, like the Rite Aid building in Gorham, so unique and quirky as to preclude a useful future. Since I’ve been there I’ve heard proposals for television stations, restaurants, casinos, theaters, retail stores, breweries and more in various properties around town, and every one of them seemed plausible. The type of development in Berlin has left it open to anything that can come its way.

Take the Gill building, which several local families rehabilitated. They stripped it to the shell and put in office space, retail space and apartments. The building that houses the daily paper is similar: it’s been rehabbed, and now supports several businesses of different stripes. Morin’s Shoe Store is in a beautiful building as well, and the old Berlin Reporter building is on its way up. Each could house just about anything; they aren’t locked in to what was there in the past.

The former Rite Aid building, which the Berlin Industrial Park and Development Authority now owns, is the closest thing Berlin has to Gorham’s Shaw’s. BIDPA has been working to renovate it, and included in that is a plan to change the facade to better fit in with the rest of Main Street. It isn’t something that will stick out for years to come, and it could easily become something besides a pharmacy.

There are a few distinct properties in the downtown. The courthouse, only recently vacated (aside from the housing coordinator and building inspector, two of the hardest working “departments” in the city) is a beautiful building that hopefully will be saved. It, like Saint Kieran’s and city hall, is a gem worthy of preserving. It has character, something the new courthouse lacks. (Of course the new courthouse is ADA compliant, safer for employees and the people using it, and has parking. Win some, lose some.)

There are warehouses out on Route 110, but they are just big. They are not so overdesigned as to only be able to provide space for one business. Try turning a Walmart into anything else. A Sam’s Club, maybe, but not a performance space.

Berlin is lucky. It missed much of the late 20th century development, with the McDonald-ization of restaurants and retail space. It’s development didn’t ever sprawl outward, in the way Gorham, North Conway and the I-93 corridor did. While in 1990 that might have seemed a liability, in 2010 it is an asset. Berlin has a jumpstart on smart development, with a walkable city and properties that can easily transition from one use to the next. There may be gaping holes on Main Street and around the city, but they aren’t gaping holes that are impossible to fill. The future of Berlin has yet to be written, but unlike many communities Berlin isn’t tied by the yoke of late 20th century car culture. It was built in the early 20th century; who knew that would put it on the forefront of development in the 21st?

Comments and Conversations

There was an interesting comment made on a post from last week that I thought was worth delving into. I wrote out a long reply, and I thought it was a good enough question/discussion to become a post. As I’ve said in the past, I appreciate contradicting opinions here, because they make me think. Berliner’s question made me think, and write, why it is I don’t come out staunchly against the Laidlaw proposal, aside from the obvious fact that my profession precludes it. I know this discussion always gets people fired up, but a lot has been happening lately, so it’s worth revisiting as the SEC review moves forward.

One more thing:

I want to thank Berliner for the question, both for its content and its tone. It was asked with respect, which often evaporates in this discussion, particularly online. My opinion may not match yours, and I may have flaws in my logic. Anyone can welcome to disagree with me, and I encourage opposing viewpoints. I don’t erase any comments (except the spam I’ve been getting lately since I moved from Blogger, not sure what that’s about), but I appreciate thoughtful discussion more than vitriolic rants. Please follow Berliner’s lead and disagree cordially; insults don’t change minds.

Berliner’s comment:

Erik,

I know you cannot admit this because it would upset your good friends (Grenier, Rozek & Danderson) but doesn’t your gut tell you that having a biomass plant in the middle of the City won’t be real conducive to tourism development efforts? Open your mind for a minute and think of the possibilities of this City without heavy industry in the downtown area. Doesn’t that seem like a wonderful opportunity to you? I know you don’t have children but if you did and if you lived on the East side of Berlin would you want your child to grow up in the shadow of a biomass plant? Do you like recreating in the woods or do you enjoy hiking through miles of clear cuts? If you try hard enough, I think you might begin to realize that the City of Berlin (and Coos County for that matter) is much better off without Laidlaw than it will be with it.

Now that I’m off my soap box I’d love to hear why you believe a biomass plant in downtown Berlin is such a great idea for this City. The Pros of the plant do not even come close to outweighing the Cons. There are only 2 benefits; 40 jobs and some added tax revenue. That is not enough for me to welcome Laidlaw to my community with open arms.

What do you say my friend? Do you have an opinion or are you simply convinced that Grenier in his infinite wisdom knows what is best for the City and therefore we should all capitulate to this car salesman while he tries to sell us a lemon?

Berliner

My reply:

Berliner —

Thanks for your thoughtful comments.

I see a bright future for Berlin with or without a biomass plant in the center of the city. Berlin’s future isn’t dependent on the success or failure of the Laidlaw proposal, or, for that matter, the Clean Power Development proposal. It is dependent on the city’s ability to diversify its economy after a century of relying on one industry. Today no single project can turn the city around, and no single project can bring it down.

Would 40 jobs help? Yes. Would 100 logging and trucking jobs help? Yes. Would cleaning up the mill site and transforming it into a productive space provide benefits? Yes. Will it be the key that turns Berlin’s future around? No.

Berlin’s future, in my mind, is a ship in mid-turn. Even if both biomass plants get built they won’t create as many jobs as the federal prison. A river-walk and cheap steam to the Cascade mill in two years won’t do as much to revitalize the city as the millions of dollars being spent to rehabilitate whole neighborhoods. The ATV park is one part of Berlin’s future, the college is another. Main Street retail shops and the state prison fill another niche. The future of Berlin is in the mix, not one industry, and that mix is still growing and developing. Someday soon Berlin may have a truly diverse economy, but the ship has to keep turning to make that happen.

A biomass plant won’t jeopardize this new path. A redeveloped mill site won’t close the prison. It won’t close the ATV park. It won’t stop the educational opportunities at WMCC, and it won’t reverse the rehabilitation the city’s neighborhoods are undergoing.

Are there legitimate concerns? Absolutely. If loggers strip the forest bare in order to feed the biomass plants it would threaten recreational tourism, a key portion of the city’s future. If either company is out to make a quick buck off Berlin instead of follow through on its commitment that would be a problem. But those concerns are not the same as to whether Berlin can survive with a biomass plant in its downtown.

Berlin can survive no matter what. Berlin residents have seen hard times, and better times are on the horizon. The biomass plants, should they be built or should they fail, are simply a bump along Berlin’s journey. They are one more possibility, one possible slice of Berlin’s future economic base.

The truth of it is I don’t exactly agree with either side. Mayor Grenier and Councilor Danderson seem to think this project will be Berlin’s savior. It won’t. But opponents seem to think it will be Berlin’s undoing. It won’t. It may or may not happen, and whether it does or not Berlin will have to continue to spread its economic tentacles for a sustainable future.

I understand the argument of both, but I agree with neither. The project won’t save the city, but it also won’t end all possibilities for other development. I know it’s in the center of town, but what do the Main Street people always say? A city’s face is it’s Main Street. Energy might be better spent supporting growth there than fighting development elsewhere.

Instead, energy has been squandered in this debate. People spend hours protesting this one project, while other projects, like Rumorz Boutique, fail. What if opponents of Laidlaw became vocal supports of Main Street? What would that do? What if supporters of Laidlaw became active opponents of slumlords? What would Berlin turn into then? I understand the ideological divide, but I lament the lost possibilities. Berlin will succeed or fail based on its overall economic diversity, which is far more encompassing than one project. A biomass plant on the mill site matters little in the long run.

If the SEC does their job the project will either be well-run or will never get off the ground—either works fine for me. Berlin’s future is based on more than just this one project, and this one project doesn’t have the ability to end the city’s rise.

Again, I do appreciate your comments and the thoughtful discussion.

Quick aside: I didn’t address Berliner’s question about kids playing around the stacks. I have never looked into questions of the safety of emissions from biomass plants. That would be an interesting conversation for the industry as a whole, not just Laidlaw, CPD. and Berlin I’ve heard some talk about it in discussions about the projects, but I don’t know about its impact overall. Hmm… I smell a story here.

How Far Gone?

I still can’t get over comparing where I just was last week to where I am now. At times, after listening to the bleak outlook during city budget sessions, it’s hard to imagine a worse situation. Berlin is facing tough choices, stuck between cutting services and raising taxes. The city isn’t going to figure its way out of this predicament easily, and neither option is appealing to anyone.

But then I remember Kentucky. That brief portrait of rural poverty struck me as so different than what Berlin struggles through that it’s hard to compare the two.

My wife heard a woman comment while we were there that summed the situation up. A mother and her grown daughter were shopping together, and the daughter picked up some canned food and toys for her cats.

“Those cats have more toys than the kids from the hills,” the mother said. The cats also eat better too, she said.

The kids from the hills–what a thought. It’s a different kind of poverty down there. I was talking to someone who is researching youth in communities facing the collapse of the mainstay industry. In Berlin roughly 40 percent of high school students qualify for reduced cost lunch, she said; in Hazard, Ky., roughly 90 percent do. That’s collapse of a different magnitude.

According to US Census data, New Hampshire has the highest average household income in the country. Kentucky is 46th. What does it mean to be the poorest city in the richest state (by one measure, surely not by every measure) in the union? What does it mean to be poor in one of the poorest?

Berlin still has its history, proudly on display at the Berlin and Coös County Historical Society and at Northern Forest Heritage Park. It still has cultural centers like Saint Kieran’s Art Center. It still has good places to eat, like the Northland Dairy Bar, Wang’s Garden, TexMex and Valley Creek Eatery. There are still stores, still a downtown, and still passionate people fighting for the city’s future. The vision of collapse Berlin is looking at is much different than what is already happening in other parts of the country.

And on top of those establishments, there are those still coming. What will the federal prison do for the region? What will the Neighborhood Stabilization Program and the Neighborhood Revitalization Program do? What will the college become in another decade? What will the New Hampshire Grand initiative be able to produce for Berlin? There are so many things moving in a positive direction in Berlin that it’s hard not to imagine them going somewhere.

Berlin is depressed when compared to its surroundings, but not on the same scale as parts of Kentucky, West Virginia, Michigan or Pennsylvania. Their future has even more uncertainty than Berlin. The mill may be gone, and with it  the promise of a steady blue collar job, but all the opportunities have not gone. Look at North Woods Rafting—they found something to capitalize on just up the road in Milan. Look at Jericho Motorsports—they too have found success. There is a future in Berlin, and creative, entrepreneurial people are making something of it. Is the glass half full or half empty? It depends on where you’re coming from, where you’ve been, and what position you’re looking from. From here, things are looking good.

Budget Line Item—$42,000

George Sansoucy has come up for three council meetings in a row now, and with each mention the cost to the city looks like its climbing higher. Tonight it was about negotiating a payment in lieu of taxes with Laidlaw and Clean Power Development; last time it was because his assessing contract cost had gone up. The state offers the same service for free, but unfortunately it results in lower tax revenues. But now it’s starting to look like the cost of collecting the taxes is going to have a significant impact on the budget.

Originally the budget line item for utility assessment was $16,000. Now it looks like it will be $42,000. The previous year was $16,000, but that number doesn’t reflect the true cost of his services.

Over the last three years the city paid Mr. Sansoucy $186,145, according to the city manager’s office. And none of those years was a full revaluation year, which the city manager said was in the range of $100,000. That $186,145 is $95,000 for FY2008, $41,255 for FY2009, and $49,890 for FY2010. It includes the cost of Mr. Sansoucy defending his numbers in court, I was told today, so it is more than just the utility assessment. In FY2009, according to this year’s proposed budget, the actual expenditure for utility assessment was zero.

I’m looking further into what this service costs the city, going back to the last full utility revaluation. It’s one of those stories that require a little more digging, but hopefully in the end they bear a bit more fruit. Sometimes these are the most fun.

SEC Speech

Update: Part two is now up. I’ll be uploading the full audio as well, since YouTube trimmed a bit off.

This is the first part of Mayor Grenier’s presentation. The second part is still making its way though my computer; processing HD video takes some time. I’ll get it up in a bit, so people who missed the meeting can see what was said. It caused a stir, so I’m hoping it’ll serve as reference for anyone who missed it.

Part One

Part Two

Danderman

It’s budget season in Berlin. I’ve been putting in my nights at city hall, listening to the discussions and pouring over my binder. The budget is the most important thing the city council does, and this year councilors a tough choice: increase taxes or cut services.

Berlin doesn’t have money to spare, largely because of contractually agreed-upon salary and benefit increases. It seems likely municipal employees will come to the table to negotiate, but those negotiations still won’t make the difference. The city needs more cuts if it is going to keep taxes flat.

Enter Councilor Robert Danderson, the city’s most effective budget scrutinizer.

When it comes to city dollars, no one is as meticulous as Councilor Danderson. He asks tough questions, examines line items and cross-references communities, all to see if he can squeeze water out of a stone.

His approach is rough, almost bullyish, and he asks the questions everyone else is too tactful to ask.

Councilor Danderson is a political lightning rod. He doesn’t stop talking, even when other people are talking, and he barges his way into conversations with controversial views. He asks whether specific services or agencies are needed at all or if the city could do without them. Such direct questioning seems harsh, but it forces departments to justify their expenses. It ensures the money is going somewhere useful. Right now, when the city is struggling, his approach becomes an asset.

It’s an asset because he doesn’t have any real power. He is only one of nine, and he plays bad cop while the rest of the council is good cop. Last night, at the police department budget review, Chief Peter Morency got ridden up one side and down the other by Councilor Danderson. But Chief Morency was well prepared, and his answers showed the department is working to control costs. The rest of the council enjoys the benefit hearing wide-ranging explanations about expenditures, without getting into political battles with the departments. The city, meanwhile, gets a well-vetted budget.

Although last night looked like it was about more than just fiscal responsibility: as I understand it, Councilor Danderson and the police commission have some history. It was before my time, but it explains the fevered pitch of his questions.

But he did the same thing with the outside agencies, without the distasteful sneer. (Actually, the sneer came back when Northern Forest Heritage Park came up.) He did the same thing with administration, and with the school department, and with every department that has come before the council. The owner of the ambulance service, which is a private entity the city contracts with, said he’d been warned about Councilor Danderson.

If his reputation as a budget hawk engenders a little fear in departments it might be a good thing. It may convince them to do their homework, to make sure all the fat is trimmed before they come to the council. It may, in the long run, save the city money, something everyone in Berlin is desperately trying to do.

While political tension builds around other issues, one thing every councilor can agree on is the need to trim budgets. Councilor Danderson is a divisive figure. His tenure as Berlin’s mayor and the political moves that won him his council seat have proved distasteful for some, but over the next three months he may be invaluable. The city needs to figure out how to save several million dollars, and Councilor Danderson is the city’s best tool for doing that. Sometimes it’s good to be needed.

SEC Heat

I’ll be posting video of Mayor Paul Grenier’s presentation to the SEC on Tuesday shortly. It’ll also go up on the Reporter’s Facebook page. It is his complete comments, from those approved by the city council to those of Burnham Judd, which he read, to his own comments, which he shared with the SEC.

There have been some grumblings about his comments, how they were presented, and the fact the other councilors from the coalition that ran together last fall also got up to speak. I’ll be delving into that in next week’s paper, but suffice to say I heard from several councilors that the relative Monday night tranquility is over.

So stay tuned for the video. I have to split it in half to get it on YouTube, so it doesn’t run over the ten minute requirement, but I’ll get it up shortly.

Subtle Splits

City council last night went late last night because they had to return to the work session to discuss what Mayor Grenier will say tonight in the council’s name at the SEC hearing. That discussion broke down along predictable lines for a time, until the speech was reduced to language that was amenable to all councilors. It was an interesting debate, one that seemed largely Mayor Grenier versus the former council members.

Not that all the former council members are opposed to Laidlaw. Councilors David Poulin, Tim Cayer and Tom McCue are pretty staunchly opposed, but Councilor Ryan Landry has a more subtle positions: he said he needs more questions to be answered before he can get behind the project.

Councilors Mark Evans and Lucie Remillard are both in favor of the project (or, to more accurately represent Councilor Evans, he doesn’t feel the city has the right to dictate what a private landowner does with their property), but they spoke up against any effort to bowl over the minority opinion. Councilor Evans even objected to the tone Mayor Grenier was using because he said it didn’t convey respect for divergent viewpoints.

Councilor Robert Danderson raised some points in favor of the project, but he also said he had concerns about how either biomass company will survive in the current energy market. He is concerned about the project, he said, but he’s more concerned no development will occur and Berlin will continue on its downward slide.

Councilor Rozak largely kept his mouth closed. He only commented that he would like to see a sheet listing the jobs and corresponding salaries Laidlaw will offer, and that he wanted to hear the council’s opinion on the revised language of the speech. He did not get caught up in the discussion, particularly when it got heated.

The exchange got my 600 words my writeup about council this week, so if you want more pick up the Reporter. What I found interesting about the night was a few hours earlier. During some routine business Councilors Cayer, Landry, McCue and Poulin voted in opposition to removing a resolution from the table. They then voted in opposition to killing the resolution. The resolution was for a grant for a local agency that withdrew their request, so I’m not exactly sure why this happened. Then, a few resolutions later, Councilors Landry, McCue and Poulin voted against another resolution. This one I could understand the opposition, but understand that every other vote was unanimous last night, and there were perhaps 30 votes.

I’m going to try to find out what’s going on. It seemed to me an opposition coalition was forming last night, but that may be completely wrong. It was an interesting chain of events, however, and hopefully I’ll be able to explain it better in the coming weeks.

SEC update

While Tuesday will likely be the big event in Berlin, the Laidlaw review started in earnest on Thursday in Concord. At the pre-hearing conference the SEC outside counsel went over the schedule and petitioners’ plans for testimony. The Reporter will have my full story (finished it earlier today, 750 words). It will likely get lost, however, as the Berlin hearings are the night before my paper comes out, but there was some important discussions there that should come out.

SEC outside counselor Michael Iacopino brought up an interesting problem for people worried about wood: fuel supply has not traditionally been part of the SEC’s mandate. When a coal powered facility opens in New Hampshire the SEC doesn’t ask where they are getting their coal, he said, and if an oil or natural gas plant were to open they wouldn’t ask then either. So it is imperative, he said, that petitioners point out why the issue they are raising falls under the SEC’s purview. Look at the law, he said, and make sure it is there.

The statute that creates and tasks the SEC does talk about “the overall economic growth of the state, the environment of the state, and the use of natural resources” when describing why the legislature created the SEC, but it is unclear how that applies to wood.

Transmission raises similar issues, since ISO New England doesn’t fall under the SEC, and therefore the committee cannot force them to do anything. There may be forces beyond the committee’s control in in these proceedings, and two of the key issues people are concerned about may be among them.

Transmission and wood supply were the most repeated concerns raised by potential intervenors. Now the attorneys are going to have to go to work, to formulate convincing arguments as to why the SEC should concern itself with these issues. Since the law doesn’t clearly include either of these in their jurisdiction it may take some legal gymnastics to make the arguments stick. I’m interested to see where that goes.

But for people concerned about the appearance of the project, the attorney representing the public, Senior Assistant Attorney General Allen Brooks, said one of his concerns was whether the project will fit within the community. He wanted to make sure it wouldn’t be an eyesore, he said. Whether it is or not depends largely on how you feel about the project overall, I imagine, so that will be a tough issue to sort out cleanly. But the public counsel has certainly heard the concerns of some Berlin residents. Now we’ve got seven more months to see where this all goes.

Thanks for 40 years, Mike

This week has been very busy, likely indicative of what the entire budget season will be like. I went to two budget hearings, and then I headed to Concord for the pre-hearing for Laidlaw’s SEC review. While I was in my car on the way down my editor called to tell me that Mike Gaydo, the sports reporter for the Reporter for the last four decades, died the night before.

There are people out there who read the paper just for his stories. He wrote more than the paper could handle, covering every team in the region. His dedication will be missed. If you have any memories or reflections of Mike feel free to post them in the comments. The Reporter misses you already, Mike, as does Berlin, I’m sure.