Re: (rshsdepot) Pawtucket-Central Falls, RI

["JIMBEAR" <ribear_@_cox.net>]

- ----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Bernie Wagenblast" <brwagenblast_@_comcast.net>
To: "Rail Depot List" <rshsdepot_@_lists.railfan.net>
Sent: Wednesday, January 26, 2005 5:11 PM
Subject: (rshsdepot) Pawtucket-Central Falls, RI


> From today's Providence Journal.
>
> Bernie Wagenblast
> Transportation Communications Newsletter
> http://finance.groups.yahoo.com/group/transport-communications/
>
> +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>
> Competing Train Station Proposal to Get a Hearing
>
> Jan. 26--PAWTUCKET -- The mayor is threatening to veto an ordinance that
> would pave the way for the demolition of the Pawtucket-Central Falls train
> station and the construction of a small shopping plaza on the property.
> Mayor James E. Doyle said he would exercise his veto power if the City
> Council gives the ordinance second passage without hearing a competing
> proposal to preserve the train station and restore commuter rail service to
> the site.
>
> But a veto may not be necessary.
>
> City Council President Donald R. Grebien, who voted with four other council
> members last week to give first passage to the ordinance, said he will
> support a motion to table it when it comes up for second passage on Feb. 9.
>
> The ordinance is controversial because it would allow the mother of a city
> councilor to sell the 90-year-old train station to a developer planning to
> demolish the building and build a strip mall.
>
> The ordinance would do that by changing the zoning on part of the train
> station property from residential to commercial, one of the conditions of
> the sale.
>
> Jean Vitali, mother of newly elected City Councilor Albert J. Vitali Jr.,
> has an agreement to sell the train station to developer Oscar W. Seelbinder
> for $1.4 million.
>
> Vitali recused himself from the deliberations when the council took up the
> proposed zoning change and didn't cast a vote.
>
> Five other city councilors, including Grebien, who was elected council
> president after Vitali decided to support his candidacy, voted in favor of
> the zoning change. Grebien said yesterday he was still in favor of the
> change.
>
> But people who watched or attended the council meeting where it received
> first passage got the wrong impression, he said, concluding that he and
> Councilors David P. Moran, David Clemente, Robert E. Carr and Paul J.
> Wildenhain were fast-tracking the station deal and giving the competing
> proposal short shrift.
>
> Grebien said he hopes to correct that impression by voting to table the
> zoning change until the council has conducted a hearing on the competing
> proposal next month.
>
> The competing proposal, which is being put forth by the Pawtucket
> Foundation, involves soliciting proposals for redeveloping the train station
> after acquiring the property by eminent domain.
>
> The competing proposal is popular with preservationists and the city's
> burgeoning downtown arts community because it would preserve the Beaux Arts
> train station building and give priority to the restoration of commuter
> rail.
>
> Seelbinder, a Memphis, Tenn., developer, plans to build a mall containing a
> pharmacy, clothing store and auto parts store on the train station property,
> then explore the possibility of restoring commuter rail service.
>
> No trains have stopped at the station since the early 1970s, when the Penn
> Central Railroad went bankrupt and the station building was sold.
>
> Moran and Carr (Clemente couldn't be reached for comment yesterday) said
> they would support Grebien's plan to table the zoning ordinance, in effect
> reversing the position they took at last week's council meeting, when
> speaker after speaker urged them to table the matter until the Pawtucket
> Foundation proposal was heard.
>
> Wildenhain, the other council member who voted in favor of the zoning
> change, sounded surprised that there was a move afoot to table the
> ordinance.
>
> "There is? Well, why didn't we table it the first time?" he asked over the
> telephone yesterday. "The logic behind that -- if there is any logic -- is
> to give the other people a chance to present their case."
>
> But proponents of the Pawtucket Foundation plan had a chance, Wildenhain
> said. They testified at length about the plan at last week's public hearing,
> he said, and didn't persuade him. Wildenhain said he still believes that
> acquiring the train station by eminent domain would be the wrong strategy.
>
> =================================
> The Railroad Station Historical Society maintains a database of existing
> railroad structures at: http://www.rrshs.org

This situation is far more complex than the newspaper article would indicate.
In the first place, most of the station building isn't built on land that can be
developed. Most of the building is actually built spanning the Amtrak Northeast
Corridor which passes under the station building in a 4-track wide cut. Three
railroads still run under the station : Amtrak, the MBTA, and the Providence &
Worcester RR which has its own separate freight track next to the electrified
Corridor tracks. In addition, the station property is actually located in TWO
cities. The East entrance is on the Pawtucket side of the tracks, while the West
entrance is on the Central Falls side. I suspect that the city of Central Falls would
also have to approve any demolition plan; not to mention Amtrak, the MBTA,
the P&W, and the state DOT which has been considering restoration of commuter
service. Of course, it's hardly suprising that some recently-elected yahoo would
try a stunt like this.

Jim. 



=================================
The Railroad Station Historical Society maintains a database of existing
railroad structures at: http://www.rrshs.org

------------------------------