In other words, beer drinking duty calls. Any available pinch-hitters? Professor Erika has already published her response: Don't you take my cigarettes away, Doug England..
New Albany hopes planning makes perfect; Public hearing on New Albany’s downtown masterplan is Tuesday night, by Daniel Suddeath (News and Tribune).
It’s been kicked around development and city staff circles, but today will be the first time the public will have the opportunity to weigh-in on New Albany’s Scribner Place phase two plan.
It’s a blueprint designed to steer the city’s future development from East Sixth Street west to the Sherman Minton Bridge. Potential investors, city planners and organizations such as Develop New Albany have been involved in formulating the plan, and the measure was approved by the city’s Redevelopment Commission in July.
The Plan Commission gets its shot at the masterplan at 7 tonight in the third-floor Assembly Room of the City-County Building. A hearing will precede the vote, allowing residents to state their concerns or ideas.
With regular crowds showing up at the riverfront (weather permitting), and the success of the Y, the growing success of BSB, Conners place, along with the other businesses downtown who are turning things around, then throw into the mix Wicks, and the reality that it looks like La Rosita is moving in as well, we need to develop a plan that will create diverse venues even in the colder months, and inclimate weather.
ReplyDeleteOne look at the rear of the buildings that line the south of Main Street near the Amphitheater Parking, tells me that something needs to be done there.
Studio apartments would be nice, but a small Stage Theater would be great, a cafe or two, anything but busted windows, cracked concrete, etc.
Also, the addition of some sort of Pedway that could cross OVER the railroad tracks would be nice as well.
And one thing that I think would be nice is some sort of an open "plaza" in that area, large, flat, and open, connected to the riverfront, walking distance to downtown eateries, and such.
Tired of subsidizing what?
ReplyDeleteI’m very intrigued by this plan and I applaud the administration for its willingness to try something new. But is this type of investment good for the city as a whole? Many other cities have tried ambitious redevelopment plans; some have succeeded while others have failed. Which type of plan is this? I don’t know. I will attend tonight, listen and hopefully learn.
ReplyDeleteWhile I hope I’m wrong, I doubt there will be much discussion of the design/zoning elements of the plan. Also, I curious of the extent to which the less tangible benefits of the plan will be articulated. The debate may revolve solely around costs. Financing is an extremely important point to discuss. But it’s only half of the equation. The question should not be “Does this cost money?” The question should be “Do the benefits to the city outweigh the costs to the city?”
When it does come time for a debate, I only hope that it is an honest debate of costs vs. benefits instead of a knee jerk response that either (i) government never should make any type of investment in redevelopment or (ii) that all redevelopment programs always are good.
The cost is more or less tangible. Many of the benefits, while equally real, are less tangible and more difficult to quantify. This type of investment can benefit all city residents in several ways, such as providing additional amenities/services, increasing the tax base, reduced future infrastructure costs in other areas of the city, reduced transportation costs to residents, and an improved ability to attract new employers. Many of those benefits are difficult to calculate and not immediately visible; hopefully they are not forgotten. If the city writes a check to make this happen, there are opportunity costs to that check; hopefully those costs also are not forgotten.
It is an irrelevant question of whether this would benefit a private developer. Whether or not this is a good deal for developers does not matter. Developers will develop only where they think it is profitable to do so. If it were profitable to do so now, we would not have so many vacant lots and empty buildings along the floodwall. If you have a criterion that developers not benefit, then nothing will be developed ever. The only important question is whether this is it a good deal for the city, whether the benefits outweigh the costs.
I hope others can attend tonight. Also, instead of allowing the issue to get lost in name calling and ideological posturing, I hope others will insists that both sides of the debate focus on cost-benefit analysis and support their arguments with honest data.
Dan, I'll try and attend...
ReplyDeleteif this plan was driven by carl malysz, I would question its soundness. He is the primary reason New Albany has so many infrastructure and environmental problems because his only concern for the last 20 years is what's best for the developers, not the taxpayers and certainly not the ecology of our area.
ReplyDeleteTonight was just a vote by planning commission to recommend to council. This is a land use plan. It's only a tweaking of the existing comprehensive plan with regard to an area along the levee. It is not, nor would be an affirmative vote by the council, be authorization to fund a parking garage/plaza that is envisioned as a part of the plan. The financing needed to implement the plan, except as noted below, was not discussed tonight.
ReplyDeleteThere were maybe 70 people in the audience. Architect Larry Timperman, who developed the land use plan, gave a brief description. Next, Jack Bobo’s architect Mose Putney described the $30M Bobo project. Mose noted that they had a potential tenant interested in taking 80,000 square feet.
In all, there were maybe 5 speakers, each of whom only took a few minutes. Mike Kopp spoke, noting that if he had 10,000 square feet of leasable space, a woman’s apparel retailer from Chicago would move in tomorrow, but that space currently is not available. If these developments took place, that space would be available. Carl Malysz told the commission that the plan has the Mayor’s full support.
There were only a couple questions from the commission. One member asked for clarification on the “high rise” portion of the plan. Steve Price asked Carl if this was the time to discuss costs. Carl estimated the public costs of the parking garage roughly at $12M (800 parking spaced at $15,000/ea.). He noted that if Bobo’s project and the New Horizons project both went in, there would be $70M in direct private investment from those two projects alone. How the $12M would be financed was not discussed (TIF, etc.). Price did not ask a follow-up question.
At one point, a speaker asked for a show of hands of those in favor of the project and virtually everyone in the audience raised his or her hand. No one spoke in opposition to the plan.
The commission voted in favor of recommending the plan to the common council. All votes were in favor, except for Steve Price who abstained. No one voted against.
The commission moved to the next topic and virtually the entire audience exited the meeting.
Important to note all that spoke in favor have something to directly gain with the plan going forward. I've yet to hear from anyone that truly is non biased in this. The comission vote was basically a formality. I assume the council will follow suit but when it comes to spending money, it could be a different story.
ReplyDeleteI'm in favor of it and have nothing to gain - except a better city in which to live.
ReplyDeleteThat makes one
ReplyDeleteGina Coyle spoke for it, and she has nothing to gain from the project, other than living in a better neighborhood.
ReplyDeleteThere weren't that many speakers so I don't think you can draw a conclusion based on the sample size involved.
It was clear which way the wind was blowing. I, and I suspect several others, were prepared to speak for the project had doubts been expressed by the commission. I have nothing financial to gain from it, nor do many of the people who were sitting around me.
Daniel, you were sitting in the second row. Shirley Baird was in front of you. She raised her hand when the speaker asked who was for it. Shirley has nothing financial to gain. Had you turned around, you would have seen dozens more who have nothing financial to gain yet support the plan.
ReplyDeleteDepends on what you call financial gain. Even if not, I'm sure most were DNA members. Ms. Coyle can speak for herself, but I didn't take her comments as an endorsement of the projects. I think most people would love to see these developments spawn, not sure how they feel about spending $12 million on a parking garage without a guarantee that anybody will build anything.
ReplyDeleteFirst Daniel wrote:
ReplyDelete“Important to note all that spoke in favor have something to directly gain with the plan going forward. I've yet to hear from anyone that truly is non biased in this.”
The word “gain” was not given a modifier until Dan C used “financial.” He suggested that certain audience members obviously would not gain.
Daniel then wrote: “Depends on what you call financial gain.”
Time to define terms. Do we mean direct, personal financial gain, or indirect? Gain in the sense of the community boat being lifted for all? Personal satisfaction without remuneration?
Daniel, do you propose the city only take on projects where no one gains financially?
ReplyDeleteLet’s lay off the street sweeper. Surely he wouldn’t show up to work without the promise of a paycheck.
Let’s never enforce a code. How selfish for adjacent property owners to expect property values to be maintained through proper code enforcement.
But what do we do about potholes? If we fill them, drivers finacially gain by not having to replace tires. If we don’t fill them, Firestone financially gains selling more tires.
To ensure no one financially gains indirectly from a city action, I propose running Firestone out of town, and then not filling the potholes.
Go back and read what I said. Those that spoke have something to gain, definitely financially. There's no denying that.
ReplyDeleteNo Dan, I didn't say that either. I said we have yet to really hear from people that don't stand to gain something from this. You live in the downtown and are part of DNA, of course you're in support. Your property values will go up with each new development. Mike Kopp is devoted to the downtown, but he sells property down there, duh. But what about John Taxpayer out Grant Line Road, or Charlestown Road? Perhaps they'd like to see some improvements their way instead of paying for another parking garage.
Also, any financial expert will tell you retail is in the pits right now, the worst it's been since the recession began. Many are predicting it won't recover for several years. If the city is going to build a parking garage based on the premise that retail will spawn up around it, I'm not sure that's a wise move without guarantees from the developers that aren't tied to finances. Basically if we build this garage, you have to build your development within x amount of years or you owe us x amount on the garage.
The development plans are beautiful, my favorite is the rail system. But where does the line get drawn for using tax dollars to help out certain businesses? That's a VERY legitimate question.
I don’t think the administation is planning a “build it and they will come” financing package for the garage. There are ways to ensure the developments happen (such as bonding, binding lender commitments, etc.) before breaking ground on the parking garage.
ReplyDeleteI’m not a TIF expert, but by my rough calculations, $70M in development would be sufficient to service the debt on a $12M bond issue. That’s just speculation on my part about how it would be financed. So far, no one has asked for a financial commitment from the city. I don’t know what the financing package would look like. No one does. I’m not going to knock a proposal that has not yet been made.
You live in the downtown and are part of DNA, of course you're in support.
ReplyDeleteBull. There's lots of bad ideas that DNA has not pushed. Besides, this was ONLY a planning/landuse document. No one financially gains from a planning/landuse document. If you want to talk about financing a garage, that's a different matter, but it's not the matter that was discussed last night.
any financial expert will tell you retail is in the pits right now, the worst it's been since the recession began
I guess I won't tell the guys who just financed the $6.1M strip mall I closed last week. Retail is not homogeneous, either across industry or geography. Furthermore, no retail store will open at this site for at least three or four more years. Who knows what the retail market would look like then.
Actually, no again. The few meetings that were open to the public where this plan was vetted included comments from developers that without the plaza, the developments might not happen.
ReplyDeleteHonestly, I don't think this is anything to get in a tizzy about. These are great plans, but I don't see how financing will be available to make all of this happen within a decade or two. The zoning changes can happen, but not sure about the rest.
It's kind of like the big fuss over getting downtown parking permits for residents. A couple of weeks ago I checked and only a handful had been sold in what, six months?
"There's a lot of bad ideas DNA has not pushed"
ReplyDeleteI think this is a good idea, that's why it's a given that DNA would support it. Downtown agency + solid downtown plan = their support. I should have taught 2nd grade math.
My representative on the council, Steve Price, did not explain why he voted against the plan last night. Larry Timperman’s fee for developing the land use plan had already been paid (with help from groups like DNA and UEA). I hope Price articulates his objection in the next few days. I also hope that he refrains from taking a strong position on the financing until we know the details of what the financing would look like. If Price says that he won’t vote for anything that leaves the taxpayer holding the bag if it’s a financial flop, I’m fine with that. I wouldn’t vote for that either. But such a proposal has not been made. Let’s get the land use plan in place, and then talk about how fulfilling the plan might be financed. The developers aren’t going to pull the trigger until they know non-complimentary uses won’t go in next door, and for that, we need the plan first.
ReplyDeleteI agree, but just for clarification, he abstained. Not saying he won't vote against it in the future, but for last night it was just an abstention.
ReplyDeleteDid I mention the rail system? How sweet could that be? The guy that Mr. Timperman I believe has been negotiating with provided an instructional video on what our system could look like when it's up and running. Seems like it could be a real deal. How sweet would that be? I already said that too, didn't I? I just love subways and trains, so much easier to travel on. I can't ride a bike, but I can stand on a subway car.
Light rail would be ambitious and I’m curious to learn more. The plan only leaves a cooridor for a future light rail system should at a later date light rail be determined to be financially fesable. Who knows how much gas will cost 20 years from now? Who knows where the technology will take us with regard to cost reductions, etc. The plan only calls for leaving open a cooridor so that 20 years from now (or whenver) we can impliment light rail if and when it makes sense.
ReplyDeleteIt makes sense right now, dang it, I want my light rail! That way I can waive at the state troopers on the way back from the casino.
ReplyDeleteThe newspaper is overpaying you if you can afford to go to the casino.
ReplyDeleteOne of you(maybe both)mentioned that it is too soon to get into a tizzy. I strongly agree with that.
It's me that tendered the tizzy remarks...
ReplyDelete