Reader not happy with historical house situation
To the Editor:
I have been reading in your paper about the controversy over the Sanford-Bristol house on North Street and I would like to comment as a Milford resident who is looking at the economic and not the historic situation.
It seems to me that Mr. Farrell was able to buy a super prime piece of Milford real estate for $150,000 because of his political connections – to be exact, to the city Historic District Commission and the Historic Society.
Here’s how it looks to an unprejudiced citizen: Mr. Farrell was able to purchase this property dirt cheap because, according to the rules of the historic district, he would be forced to spend a lot of money to make this valuable historic house livable.
Then, all of a sudden, he discovers to his horror that it’s impossible to fix the house. His pals on the two boards that govern this situation, say: “Poor guy. He can’t fix the house. Let’s allow him to tear it down and build a new one.”
I have read all of the many letters and articles from people who deal with historic houses all the time and it seems perfectly clear to me that it is possible to restore this house.
It will be a huge job, and very expensive, but it’s possible.
Well, that’s what Farrell signed on for. That’s why he got prime Duck Pond property, in a protected zone, for $150,000.
If he puts even a half a million into building a new house, he will have a brand new house, right on Milford’s Duck Pond, that will be worth a lot more than the $650,000 he put into it.
You know what? It sounds to me like a dirty, back room deal. It sounds like a scam. It sounds like Milford runs on who you know, not what the rules say.
Shame on everyone who allowed this to happen.