By Patrick Adrian Staff Writer
CLAREMONT — Topstone Mill building owner Jon Calkins said he believes a majority of Claremont city councilors acted unfairly last week in their denying a request to study the feasibility of constructing housing at the Topstone Mill building, where many councilors, sometimes unknowingly, pushed false assumptions as reasons to oppose.
Last Wednesday, July 14, the Claremont City Council, by a vote of 4 to 3, rejected a city proposal to apply for a $25,000 Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) on behalf of Calkins to study the feasibility to create 48 apartments for tenants with low-to moderate incomes at the Topstone Mill building at 101 Mulberry St.
In an interview with The Eagle Times on Wednesday, Calkins said the council majority’s decision to oppose a study was “surprising and puzzling,” as knowing the property’s potential would have benefitted the city as much as it would Calkins.
“I’m not sure how voting that down benefited the community,” Calkins said.
A feasibility study is a common planning tool used to determine the viability of a project. Calkins said the study would provide him with an estimated cost of his project, from which he could then explore his funding options.
“Maybe the project feasibility doesn’t work at all,” Calkins said. “But that’s the whole idea of the study, to push the project to that point of determination.”
Perhaps more puzzling than the council’s rejection were some of the reasons councilors gave for voting in opposition, some of which appeared contradictory or based on biases or misperceptions, Calkins noted.
In 2018, the Topstone Mill building became a subject of controversy when the city reassessed the property’s value from $670,400 to $175,000, as part of an abatement agreement, which aso resulted in erasing $220,000 of tax debt on the property.
City officials explained that the Topstone Mill building had previously been overassessed because assessors in 2014 were not aware of the property’s existing brownfield.
Public perception, whether the perception is accurate or not, carries weight with people, according to Calkins.
Calkins pointed to a comment by Councilor Andrew O’Hearne, who asserted that Calkins “was dragging his feet” to address the Topstone Mill building’s soil contamination.
“We haven’t been dragging our feet,” Calkins said. “A lot of the environmental questions get pointed at us, though it’s also important to note that the environmental contamination did not come from our property but from someplace else. But that really wasn’t fair. This is a very important project to me.
Calkins also objected to councilors criticizing him for “choosing not to attend” the meeting, when in fact Calkins was attending the meeting on Zoom.
Calkins, who lives in Connecticut, said he was “literally stuck on a bridge in traffic for two and half hours” when the meeting began. He said he had to find a safe place to stop to join the Zoom meeting but there was not a means to talk.
City officials also confirmed last week that they told Calkins his attendance was not necessary.
“I was surprised by that, but then I thought maybe my being there would be overkill,” Calkins said.
Unfortunately for Calkins, the city was not monitoring the Zoom participation nor aware of his attendance, so Calkins could not speak.
But many of the councilors’ rationale for rejecting the application request seemed contradictory, Calkins noted.
For example, why did councilors “take Calkins to task” over not attending the meeting in person but grant a $500,000 grant application request on the same night to a local organization who also did not have a representative in attendance, Calkins asked.
Similarly, if councilors had wanted action to address the Topstone Mill building issue, Calkins said, why are they now expressing disinterest when a proposal comes forward?
Calkins also disagreed with councilors who contended that he should be funding this study with his own money rather than seek a Community Development Block Grant (CDBG).
“Community Development Block Grants are a tool offered to help a community with economic development,” Calkins said. “A project like this is a lot of work and carries a lot of risk.”
Calkins also said he suspects that some councilors were averse to a “low-to moderate income” housing project. Though approving a feasibility study does not hold councilors to approving an actual project, he noted.
“Of course you are going to have that affordable housing discussion [later],” Calkins said. “But first we have to find out if there would be a benefit to do it, not just for ourselves but the community.”
Notably “moderate income” means an income that is 50% to 80% of the county’s median household income, which in Sullivan County is $61,312, according to latest census data.
A family of four earning roughly between $40,000 to $64,000 per year classifies as a “moderate income” family in Sullivan County.
Calkins said he wishes for an opportunity to meet in person with the council in hopes they will hear him and reconsider.
“They literally can ask me anything,” Calkins said. “There is nothing I wouldn’t discuss. Hopefully we can do something to clear the air and move the process forward.”
As your daily newspaper, we are committed to providing you with important local news coverage for Sullivan County and the surrounding areas.