The Sunrise Resort in East Haddam was once a thriving summer retreat. Now, under the state’s ownership, the property has fallen into disrepair. Was this a wise investment for Connecticut?
On January 25th the Hartford Courant published an opinion piece entitled “Another State Property Falls Into Ruin”, which can be found at this link.
In the article the paper engages the topic of the former Sunrise Resort in East Haddam, a 144-acre property which the state’s Department of Energy and Environmental Protection bought for $3.2 million in 2009. The land was formerly the site of a privately owned vacation and retreat center.
The editorial describes the increasing state of disrepair on the land since the state’s purchase. A July 2011 Courant article paints a vivid picture of the decrepit property, writing:
“Vandals have ripped copper out of the walls of many of the cabins, torn the air conditioners out of the walls and smashed glass and mirrors. The office where vacationers checked in and received their room keys has been ransacked, the first-aid kit torn open in a hunt for needles.
The screaming voices of children swimming in the inground Olympic-size pool and the rhythm of pingpong balls bouncing on the all-wood tables have been replaced by the incessant buzzing of flies and the eerie sound of beeping smoke alarms whose batteries are about to die.
Obstacles at the mini golf course have been swallowed by high grass, the windows on the dining hall facing the river bank are shattered, the hall ransacked, with copies of the last breakfast menu scattered on the floor.”
Despite the property’s condition, a page dedicated to the Sunrise Resort found on the DEEP website highlights the state’s intentions to sell the property, with very stringent guidelines on future activities and environmental impacts on the site. In addition, the page states that “No state funds are expected to be available for the support of this project”.
While the editorial rightly questions how the state could have let one of its properties become a mecca for looters and vandals, the author fails to ask the most important question: Should the state have bought the property to begin with?
At the time of the purchase the department’s head, Gina McCarthy, remarked, “Purchasing Sunrise Resort is a perfect example of the Department of Environmental Protection’s Green Plan, which focuses on making more strategic land purchases targeting quality as well as quantity.”
While it may be true that the land is quite beautiful and quite plentiful, the state has done a poor job demonstrating the actual usefulness of the multi-million dollar purchase. The first rule of shopping is that a purchase is only a ‘great deal’ if it is needed and will be used. The Sunrise Resort property seems to be neither.
So, when the Courant states that “This is not acceptable”, it is absolutely correct. Where the article is wrong, however, is in exactly what act is unacceptable. The editorial calls for more proactive government involvement in cleaning up and maintaining the property, even suggesting the creation of an additional agency to deal with vacant and surplus state property.
In typical fashion this suggestion treats a symptom of the problem, but not the cause. Instead of chasing poor investments with larger government and more money, the state should consider instituting a more selective spending and buying process.
The most beneficial government agency, rather than one dedicated to managing bad investments, would be one which prevents bad investments in the first place. Such an agency, in the words of then-Governor Jodi Rell, would truly be a “win-win for all involved”.