Urge Town Meeting Members To Turn Down Street Issue-This Day In Norwood History-September 5, 1956

Tonight the Town Meeting Members will decide if at town expense we are to build a street through the middle of what is now private property to serve a new manufacturing facility.

We think the Issue Is clouded and that there are some Important facts which should be illuminated.

We believe everyone wants the Detroit Controls to add manufacturing facilities in this area. We know of absolutely no reason why they should not be encouraged to expand here. This area can supply the special skills and talents which they require, ^nd we believe that expansion of this type of business to be good for our town.

We do not think the town should pay to construct a street with utilities through the center of the proposed development. We would like to tell you why.

1. We believe public money should be spent for public good, not to lighten the financial load of a particular industry.
2. The majority of towns around us have not found it necessary to pay for such construction in order to attract new industry We believe the town of Norwood cannot afford to set a new policy of spending huge sums of money to attract new Indus-tn
   
3. We do not think it is necessary or good business In this case or any other in the town of Norwood.

With regard to number 1 above, we all know how badly we need schools, sidewalks, streets and other improvements. We know that our pocketbook Is so small that long after there has been a long-established public need there is just not money enough to go around. Here is an instance where three months ago there was no need (public or private) for a street through this land. Mr. Mundorff told the Planning Board that the only reason this matter came up was that his negotiations with a proposed constructor in another Norwood location had suddenly failed. He also told the Planning Board on August 6, 1956. that the only request was for a change of zoning and access to Route 1 for automobile communication north and south plus the prestige of having an entrance on U.S. Route 1. Absolutely no mention was made about the town carrying the road or utilities through. Therefore, on August 14th the Planning Board voted unant. mously to recommend construction of a road from Route 1 to the property* line to serve as a connection.

HOW MUCH MONEY?

The Selectmen were supplied with the following estimates by the town engineer.
— Street construction 2,000 ft. — $38,500
— Drainage .. …. 1,600 ft.— $10,000

600 ft. to Pleasant Street and 1,000 ft. to Route 1)
(Authors’ Note We would like to know where the drainage on Route 1 is and if it is the river, how much additional will that cost?)
— Sewer 1,600 ft.
600 ft. to Pleasant Street and 1,000 ft. to Route 1 . $10,200
— Water 2.000 ft.-12 in. pipe $18,000
Total Estimate $76,700
5 % contingency $ 3,835
Total $80,535
(Note: Connections from existing utilities at trunk line Route 1 end are not included in these costs.)

In connection with the second objection above, we have only to look around us to see that, In general, towns are not constructing streets and bringing utilities through an industrial development They do provide an access road and utilities to the property line only. The town of Needham is a typical example. There the property owners constructed all of the streets and sidewalks, provided utilities throughout the area, paid all costs to connect their streets to public Ways and even paid the cost of extending a 12-inch sewer down a public way to their property line. In general, this pattern is repeated throughout the Commonwealth except in critical areas where as a matter of survival the towns feel they must oiler inducements to industry because of mass unemployment. Norwood certainly is not in that position.

With regard to the third objection, we say it is not necessary or good business for the town of Norwood. Here are our reasons.

Norwood, like a few other towns, is In or near an excellent labor market. Transportation, communications and the climate are most attractive to new Industry, especially in electronics and the precision electro-mechanical fields. Nature and environment has supplied the greatest Inducements. A financial contribution by the taxpayers would bo superfluous.

We are confident that In the beginning Detroit Controls did not expect or want any such contribution but have come to believe that we want them at all costs.

Another point that we believe has been misunderstood has to do with the nature of the work to be done in the proposed new plant. Mr. Mundorff has said that the work is of a highly classified nature carrying a Navy priority of “Brick-Bat.” It la true that such work is very important to our national defense and we could well be proud to have another important defense business In our midst. Detroit Controls wants that business just as the Government wants the work done. We believe that if the work is important enough, it is likely that the Government will allow Detroit Controls to write off the entire cost (or perhaps 70% to 90% of the entire cost) in a five year period. One of our Selectmen has said that it would take at least ten years for the expected taxes to equal the cost of building the street with utilities.

We have been led to believe that Detroit Controls expects to construct a total of four plants of similar size within the proposed development. We, and they, of course, have no guarantee that such plans will ever materialize. We also have no guarantee that Detroit Controls would be successful in converting this special facility to civilian enterprise after the defense business has been completed. Also, we do not know that Detroit Controls actually owns the property and their plans could change at any time. For example: Under the Armed Services Procurement Regulations, the Government reserves the right to terminate a defense contract at its convenience at any time. Under the regulations signed by Congress, the contractor would be reimbursed for Its costs up to the time of termination. To our knowledge there is no projection whereby the town of Norwood could recover such costs if street and utilities were constructed at public expense and the project later abandoned.

We think it would be appropriate for Detroit Controls to rescind their request that the town of Norwood pay the cost of their service.

We sincerely hope that the voters of Norwood will contact their Town Meeting Member# promptly and express their views on this important issue. We urge that the Town Meeting Members consider carefully all of the facts, including those illuminated above when votihg on this issue.

Sincerely, John E. Bamber Harold S. Burns James J. Drummey

389 Walpole Street 66 Beech Street 41 Nichols Street
Norwood Norwood Norwood