Council Accepts Downtown Recommendations

After spending hours listening to testimony concerning a new set of recommendations that could be used to potentially redevelop downtown, the Concord City Council voted to accept the plan on Nov. 26 and move ahead with a timeline to get design plans sketched out and a finance mechanism created for approval in the spring.

The set of recommendations included accepting the $4.71 million in federal TIGER grant funds for the revitalization of Main Street, a “modified super two lane” configuration of 15 foot lanes with a median of four to six feet wide with shared bicycle lanes in both directions, angled parking to remain on the street, as well as other proposals.

City Engineer Ed Roberge said he anticipated the project would be similar to the Route 3 corridor construction project, which was a four- or five- year community initiative, with initial meetings with stakeholders and feedback about design concepts. The first steps though will be to get “fully built designs for final consideration” by March 2013, a mechanism to create funding for the non-federal side of the project, and a final vote in May 2013.

Testimony

Comments from the public, which lasted about three hours, ranged from humorous and serious to sublime and historic, with most downtown business owners approving of the concepts while others questioned higher property taxes for the project.

Gerry Carrier, the owner of Little River Oriental Rugs, spoke for a number of downtown merchants, about 85, who were originally concerned about the project but were now in favor of the effort. He said that repeatedly, they had heard from customers that parking was a problem, safer crosswalks were needed, and traffic was too fast on the street.

“As experienced merchants, we try to remember, the customer is always right,” he said. “We see this as an opportunity to resolve a number of issues in the downtown area.”

Joshua Robinson, the chairman of the Concord Young Professionals Network, spoke in favor of the proposal but noted that in an unscientific survey of nearly 100 people, only three said they were worried about parking. He said most young professionals were more concerned about changing the perception that the sidewalks rolled up at 5 p.m. and entertainment, in general. Most, Robinson said, were concerned about Concord becoming a destination, not unlike Portsmouth or Portland, Maine.

“The expectation that you can park in front of a place you’re going to downtown simply is absurd,” he said. “It’s not something that the young demographic assumes. If you go to the mall, you’re going to have to walk a half a mile to get wherever you need to go.”

Jim Baer, however, called the plan “bad public policy” and “another scheme from city hall” that will harm property taxpayers. He said the entire project was influenced by “special interest groups” like the Greater Concord Chamber of Commerce and bicyclist enthusiasts “and the real driving force is the money.” Baer said there were other, more important projects, like Sewalls Falls Bridge, instead of “feel-good projects” that the federal government was throwing money at.

“It’s very expensive window trimming,” he said. “You should table [this plan]. More time should have been allowed for the public to discuss such a large, expensive, and contentious issue. It was rushed through on the fast track for fear of losing the DOT grant.”

Jim McConaha, a member of the city’s heritage commission, said rushing projects was what brought down the historic train station more than five decades ago. He said if there was more time, the city would actually be able to be more critical and more responsible that would improve the viability of Main Street. The plan, as it currently stands, could do the exact opposite, he said.

“The prudent course of action may be to reject the federal dollars, at least under the scenario, as presented,” he said. “This would give the city time – which is the most important resource necessary to make prudent decisions, and a critical resource which is denied by the current federal offer.

Stephanie Zachary, a disability rights attorney who is legally blind, said the committee didn’t focus enough on pedestrian safety although she agreed with changes to the parking issues, in an effort to ensure that the downtown was prosperous and vital. She said not having a member of the committee with disabilities “was tantamount to not having a single merchant on the committee.”

Kevin C, a rider of the public bus system, questioned why there was money for heated sidewalks and other amenities when the city couldn’t afford to replace a broken streetlight after a recent storm, the only light illuminating the area around the bus stop just outside the Statehouse. He questioned the need for planting more trees that might grow and block street signs and instead, called on building owners to fix and repair their windows and buildings to make the downtown more esthetically pleasing.

Althea Barton, a member of the newly formed Friends of Downtown Concord group, agreed with the plan and said she hoped that the changes would make the city a destination location that might sometime land the city on the front cover of a magazine.

Robert Baker, who had spent a few days at the Concord Public Library doing research about why the old train station was torn down, said one thing he learned from the history of the community was that parking was a problem 50 years ago. He called the amount of real estate being used to store vehicles “enormous.” Instead of focusing on parking, Baker called for a re-thinking of the entire reconstruction effort towards a more livable community, part of the requirement of having the federal complete streets grant in the first place.

“It’s really about creating a space that’s for people,” he said, “so that people can live their lives in a livable sense which means you park once and you do your errands … it’s about getting out of your car.”