Guest Column: Foggy facts cloud L.I.S.C. takeover talk

The Riverhead Town Board recently held an eminent domain hearing regarding 111 East Main St., the planned home of the Long Island Science Center.

Many residents spoke about their long-held desire to have the science center be a keystone for Main Street’s rebirth. However, several board members were quite adamant: The cold hard facts of financial viability have put the final bullet into that grand plan. It’s now time to clear the carcass and move on.
But the public’s concerns are not purely sentimental. Many practical concerns were raised, and legitimate questions are left unanswered.

What can the taxpayers expect to pay to acquire the property? Board members could not provide any estimate. Taxpayers deserve at least an idea of how big that check will be — $1 million, $2 million, perhaps $5 million? The board’s response was that, by law, the town will simply pay whatever fair market value is.

But that isn’t really the case. As was brought up several times, there is a good chance that the current owners will sue the town to appeal the appraised fair market value. What can taxpayers expect to pay in legal fees to defend that lawsuit?

The board kept saying that this particular parcel is so integral to the success of the Town Square that the town must acquire it; words which will surely be presented as evidence in the very predictable lawsuit and give cause for the judgment in that case to increase by a few million dollars. After years of litigation the town may end up having to cut an additional check to the current owners for the underpayment plus interest. This will happen long after the town has flipped the property. That additional cost will wind up on residents’ tax bills the same way the Friars Head judgment has. The board waved off that concern and the taxpayers will bear the cost of that expediency.

Many raised concerns about the overall lack of transparency with town projects. Why do the same names keep showing up? Why do tax abatements continue to the same developers? Are negotiations going on outside of public view? When asked if she had any conversations with a prospective developer about eventually acquiring 111 East Main, Councilwoman Merrifield refused to answer. When asked again, Councilwoman Waski advised her, “Denise, I wouldn’t even answer.” Why is that? What is being concealed from the taxpayers?

After some very detailed prepared remarks by one resident, it was asked that the speaker’s name be repeated. A request that caused some unrest among board members. More questions: “Does he know anybody on the board? Is he a friend of yours?” They refused to answer. Local news later reported that the man, Peter Timmons, is Ms. Merrifield’s husband. Why the attempt to hide his identity? Is there a conflict of interest?

Three people spoke in favor of condemnation: Ms. Merrifield’s husband, Town Clerk James Wooten and a contractor who has a lien on the property. The contractor has a vested interest in condemnation so that he can receive monies he’s rightly owed. While a resident with the unquestioned right to voice his opinion, the town clerk is an elected official and not a disinterested party. Finally, the councilwoman’s husband spoke at length with conviction and data to back it up, while the board and town attorney tried to keep his identity hidden.

This leaves the taxpayers with a lot of questions that need to be answered before the town cuts a multi-million-dollar check. Full transparency is called for. The taxpayers must be given full and fair disclosure from the board. They then deserve the opportunity for public input after that is done, instead of before.

Colin Tooker is a Riverhead resident.