The public should greet with healthy skepticism the state’s plan to convert the former Seaside Regional Center into the 32-acre Seaside State Park, while preserving and utilizing its historic structures in the process. Saving the Cass Gilbert-designed buildings and assuring this shoreline gem is open to the public are goals this newspaper has long shared. The question is whether the state’s proposed plan to achieve those goals is feasible.

First, a little background. When it comes to buildings, historic is an overused adjective. Too often, it simply means old. The two main buildings at Seaside are genuinely historic.

The primary structure opened in 1934 as a sanatorium to treat those suffering from tuberculosis. Architect Cass Gilbert designed the Tudor revival-style building to make the best use of sunlight and of sea air, thought (wrongly) at the time to have curative powers for tuberculosis sufferers. Gilbert’s other works include the U.S. Supreme Court building and the neo-Gothic Woolworth Building in New York City, at 60 stories the world’s tallest skyscraper when it opened in 1913.

Also designed by Gilbert on the property is the nurses’ residence.

The buildings are historic because of the Gilbert connection and the story they tell about how the state dealt with a major health problem before the advent of vaccines and antibiotics.

After the closing of the sanatorium in 1958, the state subsequently used Seaside for the institutional care of people with mental retardation, now more sensitively described as individuals with intellectual developmental disabilities. Once again, Seaside provided a record of changing attitudes and approaches concenring the care of fellow citizens.

In the wake of Seaside’s closing in 1996, the state proved a terrible steward, doing little to secure its historic structures until time, vandals and thieves had done substantial damage.

A plan long pursued by developer Mark Steiner — to redevelop the buildings as high-end condominiums while keeping public access to the shore — had the support of this newspaper. A later version included construction of an inn. State officials alternately supported and rejected Steiner’s plan, which also faced local opposition, factors contributing to his inability to get the project past the concept stage.

In 2014, with his re-election a few weeks away, Gov. Dannel P. Malloy announced his intent to make Seaside a state park. Politics more than park policy motivated that announcement, in our opinion.

Now arrives the plan by the state Department of Energy and Environmental Protection, sounding similar to Steiner’s vision. Acting on a consulting study, the DEEP recommends the state invest nearly $10 million to address the major disrepair and clean up lead paint, asbestos and other environmental hazards.

This work would leave “remediated building shells” with the expectation that a developer would invest another $8.2 million — “building cost as required by the developer” — to create a 100-room inn within the main building and utilize the former nurses’ residence for meeting and guest support space. Maintaining the land, Connecticut would enter into a lease agreement with the hotel developer to recoup its investment.

As for the rest of the property, it would become a state park open to hikers, fishermen (and women) and for swimming. It would have rest rooms, but probably not a bath house, Susan K. Whalen, deputy DEEP commissioner in charge of parks, told the editorial board.

Among our concerns is that the estimated $18 million price tag to remediate, repair and redevelop the buildings sounds low. If the numbers do not work, then neither does this project plan.

We also question the intensity of the use plan. In addition to the hotel guests and support staff, the property would accommodate state park visitors. Deputy Commissioner Whalen told us she would not anticipate Seaside becoming a major beachgoer destination and, in any event, parking would limit that use.

Filled parking lots can create their own problems. And if parking is too limited, with hotel guests and workers provided priority, then how much of a public park will this truly be?

Steiner’s vision of condominiums, with public access to the shore for passive recreation, was arguably more feasible and held out a greater potential to generate tax revenue for the town.

The process is only now beginning. We’d love to see our doubts prove unwarranted and this plan succeed. But the state cannot afford to let the process drag on too long while those buildings waste away.