The long-dreamed-of park along the Connecticut River in West Lebanon now appears tantalizingly close to realization. We urge city officials and developer David Clem to move expeditiously to close the deal.
Clem is planning to transfer 6 acres, with a half mile of river frontage just downstream from Wilder Dam, to Friends of River Park, a nonprofit he formed in 2015, which would have responsibility for oversight and improvements that could potentially include trails, a boat launch and other amenities, as staff writer Tim Camerato reported earlier this month. The Upper Valley Land Trust would hold a stewardship easement on the land, which has already been preserved as open space in perpetuity through deed restrictions.
The park site is part of a 38-acre parcel between Route 10 and the Connecticut River that Clem bought in 2007 and has been in the process since then of developing into River Park, 840,000 square feet of life science, office, retail and residential space. Groundbreaking on the first of nine proposed buildings is scheduled for April, with the land donation potentially taking place about that time.
Much of the 38-acre parcel is now enrolled in the current use program, which provides tax breaks for agricultural and forest land. When Clem withdraws the land from current use to begin development, he will have to pay penalty fees to an open space trust fund administered by the city’s Conservation Commission. Clem is offering to double the penalty fees if the commission devotes them to the riverfront park project through the Friends of River Park.
So what could possibly go wrong? Plenty. Clem has had a sometimes contentious relationship with city officials over the years. In 2010, it took a citizen-initiated petition drive to force a referendum on rezoning the land for mixed uses, the approval of which paved the way for the development. On the other hand, Clem and his company, Lyme Properties, have made extensive and largely successful efforts to engage the West Lebanon community in the planning of the larger development and now of the proposed park.
Given the history, it’s not surprising that city officials sounded a note of caution. As always, the devil is in the details. And Susan Almy, a longtime member of the Conservation Commission, told Camerato that she’s worried that having playing fields or a gazebo in the park would be too urban. “It should really just be a trail along the river. That’s what we want,” she said.
Perhaps that is what the Conservation Commission wants, but we hope its members will keep an open mind about what amenities the proposed park would contain, consistent with responsible stewardship of land so close to the Connecticut River. It may well be that there is public demand for some of those things and that they could be accommodated without changing the character of the site, as they have been in many other settings.
The Connecticut River is a jewel that remains largely hidden from public view and access in much of the Upper Valley. The opportunity to display this ornament in perpetuity, with access to all, is exceedingly rare and should not be squandered, even as the city pursues the cleanup of the old Westboro rail yard nearby with an eye to providing public access to the Connecticut. Parks along the river connected by walking trails would be a magnificent addition to the area’s quality of life.