The preservation of the historic Cass Gilbert buildings as part of the plan to develop Seaside State Park is a worthy goal, but the Connecticut Department of Energy and Environmental Protection proposal to build a privately managed hotel resort inside of them is an inappropriate adaptive reuse.

DEEP’s stated desire is to create “a funding stream for its parks.” But Seaside is not the appropriate place to conduct a revenue-generating experiment that builds a for-profit resort, where the cost of restoring neglected buildings and a storm-damaged seawall will drive high accommodation fees.

First, the state’s selection of a commercial development disregards the impact on the adjoining residential neighborhood. The buffers are inadequate; two buildings are essentially in the backyards of private homes. The entrance is located on a secondary road.

The feasibility study points out that the majority of park lodges they researched were of “substantial acreage, much greater…than the subject site.” Abandonment has allowed nature to reclaim the park with meadows, diverse wildlife and bird populations. Currently, park amenities include occasional mowing and portable toilets. Visitors stroll, take photos, bike, wade, and dog walk. Occasionally, one hears the distant sound of a pick-up ball game or the bang of evening firecrackers.

Secondly, DEEP’s decision-making deviated from its assurance in a Feb. 20, 2015 letter to neighbors that “the planning team is not specifically considering commercial activity.” Yet at the May 25 public presentation, 14 months after two public meetings that included state officials and featured attractive illustrations of three park models, DEEP announced its decision to pursue a 100-room hotel. No one explained why the state had discarded the other plans.

True, during the first DEEP planning meetings officials did describe a park lodge, but one with modest housing designed to enhance recreational activities. Survey responses showed public support for this complementary use. Now those results are being presented as public support for something much different — a hotel and wedding facility.

In a reply to an email that criticized the selection process, Deputy Commissioner Susan Whalen claimed: “Our efforts have been consistently geared toward supporting priorities established by the public input we received, and I believe the preferred Master Plan meets those objectives — ensuring public access for passive recreation, park amenities such as trails and a fishing pier, restoring some of the wetlands on the property, and an appropriate re-use of the historic structures.”

What DEEP did not do, however, is distribute a final survey soliciting the public’s opinion of the chosen Master Plan.

Third, the operations of a high-end destination hotel and the mission of a state park are diametrically opposed. According to the feasibility report: “The parks studied lend themselves to a variety of (recreational) activities. While we believe Seaside State Park to be an important feature of the subject site, we do not expect this park to be the primary reason of visitation, thus, we do not recommend a park lodge project, but that the hotel integrates the park into its operations.” And thus, DEEP has made the state park incidental to the hotel operations.

DEEP has selected a model that will discriminate against park visitors in favor of paying customers. It may be acceptable to charge park goers modest fees to support upkeep, but the park, not a hotel business, must be the priority.

The fact that the public will have to compete with hotel guests for admission is foreshadowed by Whalen’s remark to the Day that parking would limit its use as a beachgoer destination.

Who will police visitor activities? Will areas be sectioned off? Will restaurant prices dissuade park goers from dropping in? Will evening campfires (Ocean House charges for beach access) eliminate the currently permitted night-time fishing activities? Will the public be required to “pay to play?”

Finally, it is irresponsible of DEEP to speculate with millions of taxpayers’ dollars in order to entice a private developer into business with them. The state should have learned its lesson from the last developer, who argued that financial viability required 135 condominiums, a resort hotel operation, and a Special Tax District to pay for it.

When the hotel investor determines the state consultant’s building restoration numbers are too low, how much more will the state have to invest? And how many more rooms might it allow? Is the state pursuing a park resort concept that is too big to fail?

Ultimately, as President Obama recently observed, “the best thing about parks is that they are for the enjoyment of everybody.”

Any plan for Seaside State Park must ensure that it meets that ideal.

Kathy Jacques lives near the former Seaside Regional Center property in Waterford.