If you are a developer considering a major project in southeastern Connecticut, you would have to think twice, wouldn't you?

The list is growing longer of projects proposed over the last couple of years that started out all bright and shiny, only to have their outlook quickly tarnished when subjected to public scrutiny and criticism. The developers have sometimes walked away bruised and bloodied for the experience, their past problems having been aired and their motives questioned.

There were reasons these proposals failed. Some were seen as too large for the proposed locations. In one case there were serious concerns about a developer's background. And then there were the issues that are raised anytime a project faces opposition — traffic, parking, and impacts on surrounding neighborhoods.

But the collective takeaway for future would-be developers must be — beware. Folks here are more likely to greet your big idea with skepticism and antagonism than excitement.

In 2019 there was Smilers Wharf in Mystic. It was to transform the Seaport Marine property on Washington Street into an upscale haven featuring a hotel, apartments, townhouses and a restaurant, while providing public access by way of a small park and boardwalk.

But the public, led by residents of the adjacent neighborhood, turned out in droves to complain it would be too much and too big for the often tourist-packed village. The outcome apparent, the developer withdrew the application rather than see rejection by the Stonington Planning and Zoning Commission.

In neighboring Groton, the Town Council was once so excited by a plan to renovate and reuse the old Mystic Oral School property that they submitted a guest commentary to The Day a year ago this month, signed by all councilors, calling it an "amazing opportunity" to support smart development and grow the tax base.

But the neighbors, and others in town, saw the Mystic Rivers Bluff proposal to turn the site into its own village — with 900 living units of varied housing styles — as an amazingly bad idea. Things further soured when an attorney hired by the opponents revealed that the developer, Jeffrey Respler, had once pleaded guilty for his role in a bribery scandal in New York City.

A year after the excited council commentary, the project is — in the words of the Munchkin coroner in the Wizard of Oz — "not only merely dead (but) really most sincerely dead."

More recently in the City of Groton, developer Christopher West of GBU Capital LLC pursued plans to renovate the forlorn "five corners" site near Electric Boat with four floors of apartments and street-level commercial space, a project targeting young EB workers.

In a head-scratcher to me, the Planning and Zoning Commission there rejected the necessary zone change on a 4-3 vote. It was the second rejection. West had amended the plans after the initial denial. He said there will not be a third try.

And it is not just large-scale projects that opponents have sent packing. A plan to revitalize the former Campbell Grain property in Pawcatuck, and build 82 affordable-priced apartments, ended when voters at referendum rejected the tax break sought by the developer.

In Preston, a proposal to build a large RV resort at the corner of routes 2 and 164, owned by the Mashantucket Pequot Tribal Nation, is facing significant resistance. The tribe would sell the property to RV park developer Blue Water Development Corp. if local land-use commissions grant the necessary land-use approvals, getting the property on the town tax rolls.

Though the site is already next to one of the world's largest casinos, and the activity and traffic it would generate would hardly move the hustle-and-bustle needle a notch, some locals have decided opening the property to a bunch of glampers is where they want to draw the line.

I talked to Tony Sheridan, who has been president of the Chamber of Commerce of Eastern Connecticut since 2004, as to whether the region has become averse to development.

"We are an aging state and those who come forward to oppose these projects are mostly older homeowners who have concerns and worries about disruption of their lives — lives they're quite happy with — because of traffic or noise, about change," Sheridan said.

Sheridan was Waterford first selectman in the 1990s, a time of rapid commercial growth in that town. Along with hosting the Millstone nuclear power station — imagine how the public would greet that project these days — the commercial development has provided Waterford with a tax base that is the envy of its neighbors.

But Sheridan laments the one that got away — neighborhood opposition that sank plans for a public-private partnership that he said could have saved the historic buildings at the former Seaside Regional Center in that town, while keeping the shoreline accessible to the public. The buildings may now be beyond saving.

It may be the case that we have become a region that is happy with the status quo. That may be fine if you have settled in, comfortable with your situation. But it may not be so fine if you are in the building trades, or in need of quality affordable housing, or a young person looking for reasons to stay in the region.

It is incumbent upon developers, of course, to do their homework, to try to build public support for their proposals, to be willing to amend them, and to look beyond simply winning over the politicians.

Yet there should be a realization that stopping development has a cost, too. When only age-restricted housing and senior-assisted living facilities get approved without raising a fuss, it does not portend well for the future.

Paul Choiniere is the former editorial page editor of The Day, now retired. Reach him at p.choiniere@yahoo.com.