Permit me to say this as dispassionately as possible.
Irrespective of one's opinion about the merits of this epochal development, it seems to me perfectly fitting and natural that Develop New Albany would take a position on the issue. In fact, I applaud the organization for taking a side.
And yet, when it was suggested (primarily by yours truly) that bridge tolls are precisely such an issue worthy of principled advocacy, DNA meekly cited the imperative of avoiding politics in the context of non-profit designation as reason to evade a clear stand.
My questions: What, then, is local government's private/public partnership arrangement with the developers of RiverView, if not political? As such, how can DNA cite "politics" as the preventative when it comes to bridge tolls, and as motivating factor in this instance?
These questions are obvious, and I am serious in asking them. Shall we consider possible answers, and give the RiverView project a once over prior to tonight's work session?
Here is DNA's mailing.
---
Hi ,
If you like the idea of having more residents living in downtown New Albany, and further revitalizing our wonderful city, then WE NEED YOUR HELP!!
You may have heard that developer, Mainland Properties, LLC (headed up by New Albany native, Jack Bobo) has been working tirelessly to bring a mixed-use waterfront development to the downtown area. This is a $45 million project that will create a vibrant and exciting corridor for our City ... including 45,000 sq. ft. of office space, 45,000 sq. ft. of commercial space, and 150 residential condo units. This development will not just be a place where our local citizens can work, live and shop, but also for all visitors who come to our area.
Not only will this project bring HUNDREDS of much-needed jobs to our local area during the construction phase and beyond, but will generate approximately $1.3 million in estimated tax revenue annually to our City. WE NEED THIS!
Please ... if you are in support of this project, and able to attend next week’s City Council meeting, you are invited and urged to do so.
The Council will be taking a vote for all those in favor of the project, and YOUR VOTE COUNTS!
Downtown New Albany River View Project Photo
Upcoming Meetings - Please Attend & Show your Support!
Workshop Event: Thursday Mar 31st 6:30pm at the New Albany City County Building 3rd Floor
City-Council Meeting: Monday April 4th, 7:30pm at the New Albany City County Building 3rd Floor
Thursday, March 31, 2011
Open thread: RiverView development, a TIF-fy $12-18 million, DNA "politics" and the whole Phase Two thang.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
8 comments:
You're hardly the only person to raise issues with DNA's advocacy or lack thereof. Unfortunately, inexplicable double standards have been the hallmark rather than the exception with regard to DNA. It's why many people avoid the organization and they tend to function as a top-down, insider clique rather than a transparent community organization-- highly politicized while claiming the contrary; take all the credit and avoid accountability. If I had a nickel...
New Albany has no pressing need for more retail and/or residential space. We have the opposite problem, i.e., more spaces than we have people to fill them and/or money to renovate them. In typical fashion, this "subsidize the already wealthy" approach seeks to further dilute what's already a relatively weak market and tilt the playing field on behalf of a few rather than concentrating on empowering and creating opportunities for myriad creative, hard-working, engaged folks who are largely shut out of the current development cycle owing to lack of access to the much smaller amounts of financial capital necessary to take advantage of preexisting infrastructure in a broader, more sustainable fashion.
Public expenditure for River View has to be considered within the context of opportunity costs. What else could a nearly unprecedented $18 million public expenditure make possible? Could that amount be broken down into multiple, smaller investments that would generate just as much if not more collective benefit and revenue while diversifying risk and reward in a more equitable fashion? I think so. It's not as front page sexy, but it will ultimately be what remakes this burg in the trenches.
My oh my, where to begin....
First, the opportunity cost is nowhere near $18 million and may be closer to zero. If you don't build Riverview, then you don't get the new property tax revenue that will pay off the TIF bond. You also don't get grant money that also may be forthcoming for the flood wall cut. If Riverview isn't built, then there is no opportunity to invest $18 million elsewhere because there is no $18 million.
Second, Bobo's here ready to invest now; he's been working on it for years. To my knowledge, no one has even begun to discuss/plan/study multiple smaller projects. Jeff suggests we keep shooting down ideas of private investors who take interest in New Albany until we find a dozen or so investors who, according to his own subjective and ever changing goals, are "perfect."
Third, this project does utilize existing infrastructure. It’s not a new development serviced by new roads and new sewers in an old cornfield. It’s in the middle of town. It encourages people to drive less and possibly move closer in. Bringing up only negatives with regards to infrastructure or environment is entirely one sided.
I'm sorry Jeff, but as I see it, your hatred of DNA and of capitalism appears to override support for what's best for improving downtown New Albany.
What are the developers track records with this type of thing?
Is their financing private or public?
What value does handing over the majority of the view-space
and access to the river gain for the residents, or does it create
a big building for blocks long that visually divides blocks the city
from the river for the town?
Can the city of New Albany afford to allocate the staff resources
it would take to build a new garage and further manage this development
as regards the city?
What is the city’s track record with this sort of development?
What are the “opportunity costs”? Good question, whether they are
$5 - 18 million, it’s a lot of money for New Albany to deal with, and given
their historic lack of transparency, potentially the new “sewer drain”...
Dan, I'd be all for this project if the government had nothing to do with it. But if it's mostly publicly financed, well, their will be questions.
The project has public elements and private elements, just like the YMCA has. If the garage is publicly owned, it will not generate the $20 million in tax revenue needed to pay off the TIF bond.
This is what TIF is meant to do.
If this were a street improvement in front of a new development, instead of a street improvement under a new development, the outcome would be just about the same.
If this were pure capitalism, Bobo would be attempting to acquire the land from a private owner and secure private financing for his development. The costs of any feasibility studies, projections, financing, and construction would be his and his alone. None of those is true in this case. If it were, he'd be subject only to relevant building, zoning, preservation codes, etc.
Instead, he's seeking to acquire publicly held land and relatively massive amounts of public funding, which, as Gina points out, make many other questions relevant. Odd, then, that by suggesting that the government should be less involved in subsidizing a private development I'm pegged as anti-capitalist when what I'm arguing for is, in essence, a more level, private playing field.
Further, I do not think that TIF is meant to build multimillion dollar structures and hand them over to private interests. The street analogy actually works in my favor. We typically do not build public streets and then transfer ownership to private entities.
As I've highlighted before, the YMCA construction deal involved mostly private financial capital which delivered a publicly owned and accessible facility. This deal does the opposite, seeking unusually high levels of public capital (land, money, and other resources) to build what will be a private structure. The two aren't very similar in process or outcome though, admittedly, neither much resemble capitalism.
My argument is relatively simple: If we are to spend large amounts of public capital (land, money, staff time, view-space, access, etc), I think it would be more financially, environmentally, and culturally prudent to expend that capital on other smaller but more numerous projects to improve the city. Dan correctly points out that without River View, the tax revenue to pay off an $18 million dollar bond might not materialize. But without it, there's obviously no $18 million bond to pay off and more resources to go toward other projects.
Unfortunately, this is yet another case in which a single development is being proposed as an all or nothing, "if you're against it, you're an obstructionist against progress" extravaganza.
All politics aside, That design looks awful.
Post a Comment