Voters reject Dreamland Theater proposal
NRTA terminal approved at special Town Meeting
Norwood Davis
BY PETER B. BRACE INDEPENDENT WRITER 113 Baxter Road
Special Town Meeting voters Thursday did not support an initiative to acquire the Dreamland Theater, but by a narrow margin of just two votes, got on the bus with the selectmen to secure the former Island Spirits property for a downtown NRTA terminal. Despite several amendments, proponents could not achieve the two-thirds vote necessary to adopt Article 1, which sought to acquire the Dreamland Theater by purchase, gift or eminent domain. A hand-count vote yielded 255 in favor of the move with 182 against - 292 positive votes were needed for a two-thirds majority.

Without discussion, the voters adopted Article 2 for the selling of 570 square feet of unused property at the corner of Sparks Avenue and Hooper Farm Road, a leftover from the construction of the new roundabout. But Article 3, the town's bid to buy less than a quarter of an acre at 10 and 12 Washington St. for a new bus terminal barely made it out alive by just two votes more than the minimum required for the mandatory two-thirds vote.

Selectman Michael Kopko, who led the signature campaign to petition the special Town Meeting, was disappointed with the Dreamland outcome.

"I think we made our pitch, [but] there was a lot of scare mongering going on - people talking about things that really didn't have anything to do with the proposal -- and I think enough people were frightened in the end," he said.

The night began with a positive motion from Kopko countering the Finance Committee's negative recommendation and its suggestion that the selectmen seek right of first refusal on the property or secure a deed restriction that would keep the movie theater use forever. In his motion, Kopko asked that voters authorize the selectmen to spend $9 million to buy the Dreamland properties at 17 South Water St. and 18 Easy St., and then sell the 18 Easy St. property currently used for parking to the Nantucket Islands Land Bank for $3 million to help offset the cost of the town's purchase of 17 South Water St.

Kopko's motion also stipulated that the selectmen could not acquire the property until $4 million was raised to renovate, maintain and operate the building. Selectmen Brian Chadwick successfully amended the amount to be raised to $7 million.

Dan Drake put forth another amendment to Article 1 - technical and housekeeping changes that included requiring the selectmen to hold a public hearing before turning 17 South Water St. over or leasing it to a private group. During Drake's amendment process, Town Counsel Paul DeRensis put the words, "all or a part of" in front of all mentions of 17 South Water St. and 18 Easy St. in sections B and C of Kopko's motion to give the selectmen some flexibility in dealing with the properties.

A third amendment, this one by Finance Committee Chairman Rick Atherton, garnered a loud enough positive voice vote to require the selectmen to get a commitment from the Land Bank to buy 18 Easy St. before the town could buy the Dreamland Theater.

Arguments for and against the town buying the old movie theater were passionate on both sides of the issue. Article 1 sponsor Flint Ranney told voters: "I don't believe in big government, but I believe that the Dreamland property is so important to downtown Nantucket - and I would compare it to the Atheneum and the Whaling Museum - that we should give the Board of Selectmen the opportunity to negotiate with the developer for 90 days."

If the article had passed, the town would have taken 60 to 90 days to formulate a plan for raising the renovation money and finding an entity to lease or transfer the building to, not exactly what Article 1 opponent Linda Williams wanted to hear. Williams said the town would take a financial hit on the renovation costs, and if eminent domain was the only recourse for securing the property, current owner Haim Zahavi would surely ask for more than $9 million and the town would rack up thousands of dollars in legal fees. She said she favored a private developer taking on the project instead.

"I'm a hundred percent behind a private developer taking on the development," she said. "I'm against the town taking this on. "The $3 million deal is off the table right now as the Land Bank has not had a formal meeting [on this yet]."

After more than an hour of discussion, at 8:43 p.m., after a call to move the question, Town Meeting Moderator Sarah Alger read the entire article amid voter protests and told the voters to read along with her so there was no doubt in people's mind's what they were voting on. Upon completing the reading of Article 1, Alger went directly to a hand count that failed to yield the necessary two-thirds vote.

Voters ruled favorably on the town's effort to buy .23 of an acre on 10 and 12 Washington St. from William and Mary L. Reith, owners of the now-closed Island Spirits, for the asking price of $3.5 million in a squeaker of a vote. By a hand count of 216 to 106, the town got its necessary two-thirds vote by two votes, as it needed at least 214.

The town will use these lots as an intown terminal for seven Nantucket Regional Transit Authority shuttle buses, moving them from where they currently park on Washington and Salem streets and freeing up 10 public parking spots. To help offset the purchase price of the property, the town will sell to the Land Bank for an estimated $2.5 million about 30 acres of lots south of the intersection of Surfside and South Shore roads, and contiguous to the ocean and existing town and Land Bank properties.

Article sponsor Selectman Brian Chadwick said demolishing the liquor store and shed on the property should cost between $60,000 to $80,000, money that is already in the town's budget.

As with the Dreamland article, and as evidenced by the slim hand count, voter opinions on Article 3 were mixed. Chadwick said the town should act quickly because the Reiths were offering the property.

"I really think this is an opportunity for the town to move forward and really look at our future in planning the downtown, and this really gives us the opportunity to do this," he said

However, citing the potential unknown variable of cleaning up soil contaminated by petroleum products from when the property was a garage and gasoline station had others worried about the deal.

"If you try to sell it, you're going to have to clean it, and cleaning it up is pretty expensive," said Curtis Barnes. "Why in the name of goodness are we having the Land Bank become a partner in buying a polluted site?"

Barnes said the seven NRTA buses pulling off Candle Street and then driving out on Washington Street would be displacing roughly 13 cars currently parking on the property, in effect, canceling out the 10 parking spots freed up along Salem and Washington streets.

Voters must approve funding at a special town election to be held within 90 days from the night of the Special Town

Meeting, July 26. I

This week The Nantucket Independent continues a series of interviews with members of the Siasconset Beach Preservation Fund to get behind the meeting rhetoric and to learn why they joined the fight to slow erosion of the Bluff in 'Sconset. Each week through early September, you will read in their words their reasons for going forward with the proposed beach nourishment project and their opinions about the environmental impacts of the erosion control project. As always, we welcome your comments and letters to the editor. Email: don@nantucketindependent.com

Where is your house in relation to the bluff?

"We live between the Sankaty Beach Club and the lighthouse. The original house was built in the 1940s. It has been renovated several times and moved once 10 to 15 years ago. We average two to three feet loss of bluff a year and our house is 140 feet from the bluff."

How long have you been a member of SBPF?

"We have been members for three years."

Why did you join?

"We joined because of the beach nourishment project. We are from Virginia. We spend the summers in Nantucket and the winters in Fisher Island, Fla.

"I am aware of the phenomenal success of beach nourishment up and down the East Coast and am personally knowledgeable of Virginia, Miami and North Carolina beaches where it has been clearly documented that the public benefits as much or more than beachfront property owners. I think the same can be said for beaches along New York, New Jersey, Delaware and Maryland. Those projects, all of which are publicly funded, are not only supported, but also praised for their public benefit."

Respond to the following statement in whatever way you feel is appropriate: You're wasting your money. Mother Nature is going to take your property no matter what.

"We only need to look to the success of other states. It's the same ocean, different storms, with nor'easters in New England and hurricanes in mid-Atlantic and southern states. Anyone who has personally experienced hurricanes (two for me) and nor'easters (many, many for me) know that hurricanes are much more violent. Citizens and authorities of all the states support beach nourishment and do not share the Act of God view.

"Can you imagine the outrage if the ConCom and Board of Selectman of New Orleans refused to permit rebuilding of dikes and levies after Katrina, citing the Act of God theory challenging the people's choice to live in 'hurricane alley.' Let the floods flow and the people leave."

"Or suppose lightning strikes a house and the fire department says, 'This was an Act of God,' or 'There is a bird's nest in the shrubbery so we can't hose the house down to put the fire out.' Is that absurd?"

Why isn't moving your house or the houses of those on the ocean side of the bluff to a new lot inland an option?

"How shortsighted is this theory? Two or three major storms without protection and parts of upper Baxter Road wash away. That's going to be a big problem and big bucks for the town and the Nantucket taxpayers. The town will be required to build a new road for upper Baxter Road by acquiring rights of way (including very high priced homes), build the road and then provide protection with public funds, which could run between $25 to $50 million. I suspect the taxpayers of Nantucket can think of a better use of $25 to $50 million. For example, social services, a new roundabout to replace the four-way stop at the high school, scholarships and, God forbid, lower taxes.

"Can you imagine reading this in a future newspaper?:

2034

A March 2009 nor'easter washed upper Baxter Road away leaving many residents without access to their homes. At October 2007 meetings, the Board of Selectmen and the ConCom denied a privately funded beach nourishment program. In an emergency meeting the town began eminent domain proceedings to acquire land for a new road to service the isolated residents. The BOS budgeted $35 million for the project, diverting funds from other road projects including the new roundabout at the high school and several social service programs."

The Patriot's Day storm this year proved fairly convincingly that terracing of the bluff is no match for wind and waves, is it prudent to stop using this form of bluff stabilization or keep going with it and why?

This is a better question for the citizens of New Orleans or Holland, both of which are below sea level.

When the terracing components get washed down the bluff, the waves scatter the timbers and jute fiber matting to beaches north of you and pretty much everywhere around the island, what do you have to say to the people who own those beaches?

"Let the authorities answer the question why permanent protection was not permitted. That said, the debris was cleaned up within days with no permanent damage."

Much of the opposition to this beach nourishment project is coming from charter and commercial fishermen concerned about losing their livelihood and from wildlife advocates who, along with the fishermen, are worried about how the dredging of sand from the shoal, construction of the new beach and longshore drift of the sand over time is going to impact shorebirds and their food. What do you say to these people?

"Vegetation of the bluff will create a major habitat for shorebirds and wildlife. Nothing grows on the bluff now and what an eyesore from the water. It does provide great front-page photos for the New York Times and the Wall Street Journal, but that's not the real Nantucket we know.

"For the fishermen there are many areas to fish for bass, as the affected area represents only approximately 10 percent of the bass fishing in Massachusetts.

"Compare the situation when a town decides to resurface Main Street and the storefront businesses on the street have to continue to operate with the inconvenience."

If the beach nourishment project works, which parts of the island should it be applied to next?

"With no public funding, it would be up to the property owners to provide financing, which would likely dictate the next beach nourishment project."

Is there anything you want to say that I haven't talked about today, anything else on your mind that concerns SBPF and its efforts?

"The authorities of other Massachusetts shore communities as well as the whole East Coast are looking at Nantucket and questioning, "You have private funding for protection of sewer beds, historic landmarks, a 17th century village and high taxed properties, and it's being opposed; are you kidding? By whom?"

"As mentioned, this project will be financed 100 percent with private funds, mostly from landowners along 'Sconset bluff. As expected, the major pledges have come from owners whose houses are most in danger. Continued delay in approval and another storm like the April nor'easter and one or two of those homes are destroyed, the major pledges for this private funding could disappear jeopardizing the entire project. It is critical that this project be approved

promptly." I