I've asked the town to try to market the property several times to determine if there's a buyer or not. Anything else is speculation. Some on P&Z say there's no parking so the building has no approved use, and others have suggested a cut-in on the north side of the building for some diagonal spots on School Street. Beyond the speculation, the market can determine if there is or is not a buyer. Separate from that, the Library had a plan for parking when the project was approved that, I'm told, did not require elimination of the "old" town hall. Last, we've had a paradigm shift in the use of or need for book-based facilities, and I question the need for the Library's second floor as planned at all. Perhaps it could be use-redirected to space that can be leased, generating revenue for operation of the Library. Were the library to be planned today, I can't imagine the current design would have been accepted. Leaders of both parties seem convinced this is best used as parking. It should go to referendum for the voters to decide.

all I know, as an 8 year resident is, it sits catty corner from the brick Post Office and across from the brick Municipal Center, and fits. I am surprised it cannot be used as an office of some sort, with street parking or parking at the end of the bank lot next to it...

It's a dump. Once someone gets a real look at it and counts the cost, they are not going to pay $400K for it. Tear it down.

My own personel feeling is that part of any discussion of The Old Town Hall should start with a presentation of the inside and outside condition of the building. If the build is/was so sacred to save why wasn't something done back then when the Town offices moved out? The only thing that the Town ever did was to winterize it. Asbetos and lead was never addressed. It was never suitable for a Teen Center in the first place with individual office rooms,antiquated rest rooms that are not handicap and no handicap entrance. There wasn't a kitchen area (unless you call a sink a kitchen). There wasn't any room for outdoor activities. The second floor was never utilized because it wasn't safe, not even for storage. So drive by and see the rot and neglect around the roof and other areas. It wasn't worth selling back then and it certainly not worth selling now. Another question that needs explaining is that does the Hannah Seely Will (written around the 1900's) stipulate that the Bethel Free Library has jurisdiction over the property or does the Town own it?
We need proof one way or the other to resolve this question.
I urge all of you to advocate to demolish it and have a Library that meets a facility that transends all ages from pre-school to seniors. What good is it if we have a beautiful Library and no one can park and enter it?

So give the potential buyer a choice, if they want to purchas this "dump" and can turn it into an attractive building that can add money back into the tax roll...then Im all for it. I dont see why some are so dead set against it. Their arguements of it being an eyesore (which can be changed) no parking (which can be created, and did not stop the library...which by the way they insisted they could do it without needing the town hall space) and the small amount of tax revenue (that last one..well im not touching that one) doesnt seem enough of an arguement to tear down a town asset. And why does it seem the decision has already been? just go into the Town hall and listen to everyone...its almost already been done. Alot of residents I speak with agree having it on the tax roll and having a potential buyer fix it up..it just makes perfect sense. It just appears that this decision will be made for the people, by a select few. I may be mistaken but I thought since it was a town building it should be our choice as to what to do with it. I also agree the 2nd floor of the Library should be used as such that it could generate money to offset the incredibly high Library budget.

When you have a meeting, and a vote, the decision is made by a small few. When you find a buyer - and there has been chatter about people making offers - they will have to do an assessment which includes a fair market value appraisal, determine the cost for abatement and demolision, hire an architect to reconfigure the building into something usable, and as Rich Merritt stated, the bathroom don't comply with ADA, the second floor is unsafe, and does not have enough headroom, so the "quaint Cape Cod" architecture as Phil Gallagher describes it will go away, or the purchaser will need to decide if he will only be using the groung floor which will diminish the rent roll along with the value of the property, they will need to bring all of this forward to the Planning & Zoning Commission and make there case, knowing full well that the chief problem has not been remedied at all, and that is that the property has not a single parking spot. If one were to use the grass lot on the north side for parking, there is only enough room for head-in stalls, which means each car in each stall will need to back into traffic on School Street (How ugly would that be right there in downtown?) Do we see anyone stepping up to buy?

The "chatter" you mention is more than that..its a fact. In fact the interested party is more than aware of what it entails, the prospective buyer is a builder/developer, and knows exactly what needs to be done. And as far as the quaint cape cod architecture...well that went out the door when the library was built, so I think thats not the important issue here. All said and done the building should be offered for sale "As Is" and let the market decide if theres a value there and the builder deal with the issues of the building. If that were to happen then instead of a parking lot the town of Bethel would have additional money added back into the town from the proceeds of the sale and the taxes it generates.

So determined has the current administration been to demolish the Town Hall that they sat on and refused a $150,000 Grant from the State of Connecticut to renovate the building and remove asbestos. Most people don't know this because the news Media has not reported it nor has the "loyal opposition' made an issue of that or any other actions of the current administration such as illegally altering bond issues or raising the transfer station rates without a public hearing. Most who seem so determined to demolish the building seem to fear that if it offered for sale someone might buy it and demolish their arguments. Three cheers for the one member of the P & Z Commission who could see the future value of the building to the Tax Rolls and to jump starting the plan for a downtown transit district. SELL THE BUILDING AS IT just as the Board of Finance has voted for on several occasions. BETHEL DOESN'T DESTROY ASSETS. WE KEEP THEM ON THE TAX ROLLS .

It's pretty sad if you ask me that this issue has not been resolved in the Town of Bethel for over 10 years! The library addition was approved in the first place based on there being additional parking. By pushing this issue off and prolonging the inevitable, all it's going to do is cost the Town even more money to finish the Library! And the kicker is, it's completely avoidable!! I just hope it's worth it in the end to the tax payers of Bethel.

Back in Dec 21, 2009, Mr. Knickerbocker, barely in office for two weeks, decided to "table" the $ 64,000 bid from Oscar's Lead and Abatement LLC to abate the lead and asbestos in the Old Town Hall. If Mr. KNickerbocker had accepted that Bid which was initiated by Mr. Burke several months prior to his departure. Since there was over $80K left over from the $ 150K grant Mr. Burke acquired earlier that year, The Old Town Hall would have been abated and probably put in a serviceable condition for re-occupancy by now - had Mr. Burke been re-elected. But alas, that did not happen and we now see that Mr. Knickerbocker's intentions were clear from the day he took office - he was catering to the wishes of a special interest group, the friends of the library who supported him. So, fast forward over 2 years and now one of Mr. Knickerbocker's primary arguments to tear it down is due to it's neglected condition and prohibitive costs to abate and renovate. How convenient an argument to make when He Himself evidenced by documented proof caused the building to lie in disrepair. Shameful outcome. We all own that building, and we should all collectively be allowed to decide on it's fate - the decision should not rest with the very person who allwed the building to deteriorate.

May I also remind everyone that the Board of Selectman had expressed no intention of holding a "public Hearing on the issue of tearing down the Old Town Hall back in May of last year until the request was made during public comment at a first Selectman meeting. And after promising to hold a public hearing soon after, they waited 8 months to finally hold one?? From what I see and hear, it will be less of a public hearing wher they listen to voters opinions and more a public information session where we are forced to listen to a phony dog and pony show. One way or another this issue is destined to be decided by the people of Bethel who own the building - not the Board of Selectmen who allowed it to deteriorate over the last 2 years. That building could now be leased and the parking lot that Mr. Knickerbocker wants so badly could have been created by annexing adjoining commercial lots and createing municiapl parking with the balance of the remaining $ 150K grant after paying out the $64K to abate the lead and asbestos back in Dec '09'

A question to every Bethel Voter...If YOU owned that building would you
1)Sell it as-is
2)Use available grants to re-service it and lease it
3)Tear it down to put up a parking lot
Guess what,Bethel Voters you do own the building, and someone's trying to take the decision out of your hands and tear it down regradless of what you think. Are you OK with that outcome? I hope not.

It is time to correct the stream of misinformation and rumor being offered by Mr. Gallagher and others as truth:
1) There is no "standing offer" of $400,000 on the building. There is no offer of any kind, in any amount. In fact, over the past two years, my office has received no inquiries about the building whatsoever. By comparison, several years ago there were no less than five businesses interested in leasing the Old Train Station and called town hall repeatedly to inquire about that possibility. That is why the Board of Selectmen approved a Request for Proposal on renovating and leasing the property.
2) There is almost no chance that the building is marketable. It's value is currently assessed at $489,000, but that was in "2007 dollars," at the peak of the real estate market, and assumes the building is in "move in" condition, which everyone will agree it is certainly not. Renovation costs will be a minimum of $679,000 to make the building usable, and well over a million if renovation includes reconfiguration of the interior concrete walls. Even if a buyer could be found who was willing to pay twice the value to renovate (in addition to the purchase price), the building cannot be used for commercial offices without dedicated parking of its own. According to the town's planning rules, at least 30 spaces would be required. That would require to the town to sell off a chunk of the front lawn, and then would still have to provide more parking for the library.

And finally,
3) Gallagher and others are forgetting that the $150,000 grant wasn't just for removal of lead and asbestos, it was specifically to use to make the building usable as a teen center. Had the town accepted the grant, it would be required to maintain the building as a teen center only for a minimum of 10 years, plus taxpayers would have had to pay for all the other renovations that are required to bring the building up to code. The total cost of a teen center renovation proposal submitted in 2002 was $1.1 million.
The $150,000 grant is still available, but again, is restricted to use for a teen center only. The town has been given permission by the Department of Social Services to redirect that grant toward a future, permanent teen center annex.
I can assure everyone that I would like nothing more than to increase the town's grand list. I believe that tearing down that building will help us do that, by relieving some of the parking congestion that already exists along Greenwood Avenue, affecting retail businesses, and by freeing up sewerage allocation that could be used in other developments. For example, the Public Utilities Commission had to recently deny a developer who wanted to put up a very nice commercial/residential complex on the ugly vacant lot next to Burger King, because of a lack of sewer capacity. Tearing down the building and transferring that excess capacity will allow even greater grand list growth in the future.

The worse part about this situation is that the building was left to deteriorate so everyone would say its an eyesore tear it down. Anyone remember the situation with Meckaur Park? Growing up it was the place to go for swimming.....we had a beach, life guards a snack shed. Then a special interest group decided we needed a pool and apparently the majority didnt. So what happened then? The town let the park go..stopped maintaining it and it became an eyesore. It was a statement that was made...No Pool? Well if you dont have Meckaur then you will want a pool. It didnt work very well and the town suffered and Meckaur was never the same. This seems to be the same case...a special interest group wants it for a parking lot...so the town lets it go to the dilapedated condition we have now and by doing so makes the people think its best to tear it down and viola! it becomes a parking lot. I still say offer it up for sale....see if this interested buyer shows up. Instead the town seems to know exactly how it will play out...but remember this is the same group that want it torn down and turned into a parking lot. Be informed...listen to both sides..make your own informed decision. And in regards to the comment that it would require 30 spaces... how was the library able to build that size of a building with what spaces they had?

ATTN: "rich" Mr. Burke got 8 bids for the abatement job - not one, so stop spinning the facts to suit your DOGMA and your benefactor - Mr. Knickebocker.
The Building did go un used for 4 years because Mr. Burke uncovered the existence of exposed asbestos in the buuilding and closed it down. It would have been remediated sooner, but it took quite a while to get the $ 150K grant approved and issued due to a certain former representatives back pedaling - Mr. Jason Bartlett. Ignorance is democracy's greatest enemy. This administration knows that and keeps the midnight oil burning while they keep most of us in the dark.

Rich, The blame for the building's current state lies sqaurely on Mr. Knickerbocker. He had the funds to remediate that building and he rejected the opportunity to the detriment of the town. Mr. Burke did not have the funds approved until 6 months before he left office. When he got the money he went out to bid which is something your idol Mr. Knickerbocker has trouble doing over and over again. Rich, Do your homework like the rest of us. It's not my job to educate you. It is however my responsibility as a taxpaying civilc minded resident to correct the stream of falsehoods emanating from town hall.

If and when this buyer decides to come forth is entirely up to them. Either way I beleive it should be left up to the townspeople to decide and it should be made with an open mind and in the best interest of the town and its people not just the library.

The bottom line is that you, Matt Knickerbocker had the funds to remediate that building and you did NOTHING for 2 years except distract, distort and deflect blame to the previous administration. Shameful. We will decide the building's fate NOT YOU. IT's our building collectively, not yours to tear down.

Right on Laurel, you are spot on!

Why does it have to work that way? Why do we have to have it pushed on us...there are clearly alot more people than on this post that feel it shouldnt be torn down. I for one do not think its okay to just let it go....they created this problem
and now we have to keep paying for it...and its just ok?

Rich, either you can't read or you're just playing games. WHEN Mr. Burke got the funds approved he went out to bid. Thje bids were opend After he left office, and his successor, Mr. Knickerbocker tabled the winning bid and did diddly for 2 years. Please stick with the facts and stop re-inventing history.

READ THE MINUTRES OF THE BOARD OF SELECTMEN MINUTES. YOU'RE SPINNING. Mr. Morosky recomended the winning bid and the bids were not sealed. Why are you making false assumptions? Read the minutes. All bids are sealed and then opened by the procurement committee. Everything was done out in the open. What wasn't done is obviouis. The winning bid was thrown out with the bathwater because MR. Knickerbocker never intended to remediate that buiulding. It's in the minutes of the special meeting on Dec 21st. Do your homework please.

Mr. Cyrnic, I explained the issue with the grant in my first response. Accepting the grant money ($64k out of the $150k allocated) would have committed the town to making the building a teen center, and nothing but a teen center, for a decade, which, if we had done, we wouldn't be having this discussion about selling the building because we would be prevented from doing so. Also, the grant was only for removal of asbestos and lead, not renovating. Accepting the grant would have also committed the town to coming up with the next $600,000 to $700,000 to do the rest of the work to renovate and bring it up to code. Let's cut the simplistic blather. If you or anyone else reading this knows a legitimate buyer who is willing to put this kind of money down, right now, with no guarantee of approval of any plan by the Planning and Zoning Commission, please, by all means, give them my office number and I'll arrange a tour of the building. And by the way, as far as I'm concerned, the front lawn is not for sale, and that would be the only way to make this work (the bank is not interested in selling, and doesn't have enough spaces to sell, anyway). I will not support cutting down those trees and tearing up that property to MAYBE make a few bucks a year in tax revenue. Once it's gone, it's gone for good, and it's just not worth it.

Once its gone its gone for good...exactly, same with the old Town Hall. And respectfully Matt, the decision to sell part of the front lawn would be the towns, wouldnt it? As it should be with the town hall. Your statement that it is not for sale, is in effect your way of shutting down any potential offers. And again respectfully I may add "maybe a few bucks in tax revenue" everyone has exact quotes for what it costs to sell, renovate and or build the town hall but no mention of just how much (or little as its put) tax revenue comes back into the town. No one had any thoughts for the tearing up of lawn and beautiful old trees when they decided to build the library. Your right tho, once its gone its gone for good....and tearing down the town hall for a parking lot is just not worth it.

As much as Mr. Burke did no wrong in this situation, according to BOB CRNIC, the past is the past. For "lack of" arguments sake, lets say that Matt K. did make a mistake on the initial $150,000 state grant by shelving it. Still, BOB, while you say Matt K. is "guesstimating" you have no clue what the buildings worth is. Truth be told, at this point Mr. Hillman is absolutely correct, and unless we have money on the table immediately then we're all just wasting our energy, when this town could use that "people energy" in so many more productive ways. Life is not fair, and the town government (republican/democrat/or other) have the right to make these choices because that is why they were put in power in the first place... by the PEOPLE. This fact cements that people have already made their choice when they voted Matt K. back into power (by a landslide) in the first place. BAC, and any others who feel this way, please do what you need and protest, as this is what makes our country great, but please stop crying un-fairness at everything that does not go your way. My family has 3 generations of Bethel history and town participation, and it saddens me that more often then not special agendas get in the way of town progress! This is, cumulatively, all of our town, and while we will disagree with each other often the end result should be what is best for the TOWN OF BETHEL... not our individual egos.

PS. Mr Crnic please treat residents like "Rich" a bit nicer, he votes too!

The six photographs at the beginning of this article illustrate what a fine looking, New England, brick, Cape Cod building was built by Democratic First Selectman David Deakin and his administration. It was well designed and still fits in with all the other brick architecture along Library Place. In front of the building there is a stately flagpole that has sadly gone to rust. Attached to this flagpole is a plaque which states that the flagpole was a gift to the Town of Bethel from the Bethel Democratic Town Committee in 1961. The gift showed the pride that the Bethel Democrats had for the new building. The building if allowed to live on still has a lot to offer the people of Bethel who paid for it; just like the Plumtrees School, Center School, Grassy Plain School, Grassy Plain Drum Corps building, Old Train Station, Municipal Center and other structures continue to enhance Bethel and bring in tax and rental revenue
Most all of the pictures also illustrate for all to see how much ACTUAL and POTENTIAL parking truly exist on private and public property in the vicinity of the Library and the Old (newer) Town Hall!!!!