Social Links

Run of Site Leaderboard

3 responsesSubscribe to comments

  1. This is obviously a very important decision. Here is one more consideration.

    The state spent $18.7 million to rent office space in FY10. Paying rent is not an investment; it simply enriches landlords (including National Life).

    If the state devoted a quarter of those funds to building new office space, it could service the debt on $60 million. If that money was spent for new construction, it would create 400 direct jobs (and another 280 from the indirect and induced effects ), as well as a fifty-year asset. It would also help save energy and control costs over the long term.

    The state should review its real estate position and analyze the costs and benefits of alternatives, including perhaps adding additional capacity at Waterbury.

  2. The state already owns the land where the the Waterbury complex is so won’t it be wise to rebuild there? I know it is a flood plain but with all these so called experts we have they should be able to come up with something and besides the new buildings they are showing above are all in flood plains except one.

  3. Thank you for the explantion of costs. I keep thinking about the values of the various alternatives. Some of those values, such as the benefit of construction jobs and the livelihoods’ benefits to Waterbury, are mentioned. It would be interesting to see how values might pay out for various alternatives. For example, what is it worth to maintain and improve the existing settlement pattern of the town? What contributions to infrastructure and other amenities (or detractions) does one alternative pose compared with another? What value is derived from re-vItalizing a historic asset? Which alternative is likely to spawn and support other desirable activities in Waterbury? I wish the added values of taking the most expensive option — work with the existing compound — could be imagined, analyzed and realized. I think the town, the state and the region would be rewarded by a full cost/benefit consideration of re-use, repair and amplification of the possibilities associated with making the old much much better.

Leave a Reply

Comment policy

VTD requires that all commenters identify themselves by first and last name. You may wonder why we don't accept anonymous comments. The short answer is: We want to keep the discourse civil.

You might rightly ask, since most online newspapers accept anonymous posts from readers, what makes VTD so special?

The long answer is: Anonymous comments don't support our mission. We are a nonprofit news organization dedicated to enhancing democracy through in-depth journalism. Our role is to foster a civil online discourse, and one very simple and effective way to do that is to require commenters to identify themselves. This isn't a new idea, of course. This is the way newspapers have treated letters to the editor since time immemorial.

As a result of our comment policy, VTD has created a safe zone for readers who want to engage in a thoughtful discussion on a range of subjects. We hope you join the conversation.

Privacy policy

VTDigger.org does not share specific information about our readers with other entities. Email addresses we collect through our subscription list and comment submissions are kept private.

We use Google analytics to generate aggregated data regarding the size and geographic distribution of our readership. This information helps us gauge how many readers come to the website and what towns they live in. It does not include addresses or other identifying characteristics about our readers.

Donate Today

We're an independent nonprofit organization, your donation helps fund the digging, and, it's tax deductible.

Thanks for reporting an error with the story, "State office complex replacement could cost $108 million to $142 mill..."