Wednesday, September 16, 2009

Uncouncilman Price abstains as Plan Commission overwhelmingly recommends riverfront redevelopment plan.

Considering the fact that the riverfront redevelopment plan described below has been considered by both the redevelopment and plan commissions, and that council persons are assigned to sit on both, isn't it the case that council president Dan Coffey's twaddling about not being informed of it is disingenuous even by his colossal standards of dishonesty?

At any rate, attendee Dan Chandler left the following comment on yesterday's post, "Plan Commission considers the riverfront redvelopment masterplan tonight," and it seems the ideal response to my request for readers to provide coverage of a meeting I couldn't attend. The Wet Knob, was good, though.

Tonight 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.

There 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.

14 comments:

The New Albanian said...

Does abstaining mean that you're excused from reporting back to the council, as though you were never present?

That's meant as an existential, not a procedural, question.

Iamhoosier said...

Thanks for the report, Dan.

Jeff Gillenwater said...

I just keep thinking about a riverfront plaza connected to the amphitheater and Greenway connected to the K&I and Big Four Bridges connected to a 64-less Louisville waterfront. What a nice place to live that would be.

I wonder what Steve Price was thinking about when he abstained with no explanation.

Iamhoosier said...

"Thinking"?

G Coyle said...

existential question indeed Roger.

although we can't say for sure Mr Price doesn't have a conflict-of-interest.

or attention deficit disorder...?

even a deep philosophical objection to the rule of law....?

dan chandler said...

Gina, today’s Tribune article said you spoke against the project. For clarification, I don’t believe you spoke against the project per se, but instead wanted the planning commission to be mindful of the environmental consequences. Is this a fair take on your remarks last night?

G Coyle said...

The Tribune report was fair enough, would have been better had reporter added a qualifier to my objections which was that I fully support, at least in concept, the plan providing it's comprehensive. No one had explicitly spoken to the environmental issues so I just wanted to ask that be included.

dan chandler said...

If Mr. Price believes the proposed plan is flawed from an architectural, zoning, planning, policy or engineering standpoint, I’m all ears.

If Mr. Price believes a better land use plan is needed, I’m open to debate the issue.

Maybe Mr. Price has a better idea. But until he explains his reasoning for abstaining, we can only speculate and we cannot have a debate.

Daniel S said...

"Gina, today’s Tribune article said you spoke against the project. "

Another reason why blogs are bad for info. The report did not say Ms. Coyle opposed the project, and I wasn't going to add it, but there's no way there were 70 ppl there last night. Actually that's three errors when you consider you said Price voted against it. See, reporting ain't as easy as it looks...

"There were no objections raised outside of pleas by New Albany resident Gina Coyle that environmental strains be weighed in the plan."

dan chandler said...

Point taken on your report of Gina's comments, Daniel S. I stand corrected.

As for the number of people there, there was a large crowd.

Daniel S said...

No worries, I just like messing with you.

Jeff Gillenwater said...

I think it's nice that the developers are considering subsidizing us.

dan chandler said...

I’ll help you write some articles if you split that new pay raise with me, but the Trib better be prepared for the Sharpie graph to head into negative territory. :-)

Daniel S said...

Ha. I don't think we'd be able to buy a pack of gum between us if I have to split it. I can see the graph now though, 0 percent, Trib's approval rating before Dan Chandler. -90 percent since.
Signed,
nobody in particular