Altered logos, Volume 1. Munchin' on Poruba.

Sloppy, but it gets the point across.

Random 2013 Platform Goals 2: Can we agree on a riverfront plan, please?

For the second installment of Random 2013 Platform Goals, we consider the current state of affairs on New Albany's downtown riverfront.

Apart from the Greenway, the YMCA (Scribner Place, Phase Only) and the new Amphitheater roof, very little has changed there in the eight years this blog has been functioning.

Today's news story (below) helps to bring the city's ongoing riverfront conceptual vacuum into sharper focus. It's tempting to roll one's eyes at another big-time development group refusing to show us the money, but at the same time, New Albany Horizons has a point of sorts.

Indeed, the planet stopped spinning for two (three?) years as we rushed to gift Mainland Properties with various keys to the city as pertains to its ever-mutable (and apparently, entirely unfunded) River View plans. Now the olive branch is withdrawn, and Horizons gets its deferred turn to convince someone/anyone there's any there, there. A bank account might be a nice first step.

To me, it reveals an even larger, perhaps congenital problem. There are numerous development plans on file, all of them addressing the riverfront's future. But there is no row-in-one-direction cohesion as to what might actually be expected to happen.

The anarchy is exacerbated by the usual small-pond turf wars. Successive mayoral administrations say one thing, councils do another, and the redevelopment commission something else again. More importantly, since the last two riverfront development plans minted by for-profit, non-governmental bodies (Mainland's and Horizons) called for condos, it might behoove us to check with the city of New Albany's overall housing master plan.

Well, is there one? If so, what's it have to say? If not, shouldn't there be a plan, or is our only strategy to lay in stocks of lubricant whenever private "partners" come calling?

And maybe is would be constructive to exercise leadership on these points -- although a return to the England administration's top-down, crony-enrichment bludgeoning is not welcomed.

Developer questions city’s aim for New Albany's riverfront corridor; New Albany Horizons granted extension on payment for property, by Daniel Suddeath (N and T)

NEW ALBANY — Developers who once proposed a $30 million project in downtown New Albany want to know the city’s vision for the riverfront area before proceeding with any investments.

On Tuesday, the New Albany Redevelopment Commission extended the due date on a mortgage note for six parcels of public property off Bank Street owed by the group New Albany Horizons LLC. In 2008, the commission agreed to sell the parcels to the group for $107,500, with final payment due by the end of this year. So far, the group has only paid property taxes on the lots.

New Albany Horizons already owns land around the public property, and eyed the parcels as part of its plan to construct residential, commercial and office space near the corridor of Bank and Main Streets.

Carl Holliday — a partner in New Albany Horizons — told the redevelopment commission Tuesday the group hasn’t started the project because of uncertainty over what will be developed around the property.

Mainland Properties circles back, trickles off, and responds to Redevelopment.

Anita Massey, project manager of the moribund River View development, is the originator of the infamous "trickle back" reference.

June 14, 2011: Trickling back: It's about gravy, not gravity.

Earlier this week, New Albany's Redevelopment Commission finally decided that "trickling forward" wasn't enough, and besides, it had become weary that the money kept not getting shown.

July 10, 2012: New Albany Redevelopment Commission rescinds agreement over River View property

Trickle Platz wasn't thrilling us, either. But you already knew that.

July 12, 2012: ON THE AVENUES REWOUND: River View's sweet dreams are not enough.

Here Massey "reaches out" to Redevelopment (and the public) in a piece wisely deemed by the newspaper as "opinion."

NEW ALBANY — Mainland Properties responds to recent NARC decision

... Mainland Properties understands that Mr. (Adam) Dickey may have questions about the development, and we invite him to meet with us to explain our progress. If he has questions about the draft option, we encourage him to work with the NARC attorney to address his concerns. Of course, we regret that Mainland Properties was denied the opportunity to speak on our behalf at the Tuesday meeting, as we very well may have been able to avoid an outcome that belittles our efforts over the years and undermines public confidence in the redevelopment approval system.

Fortunately, given the ease with which these issues can be addressed, we see no need to issue a new RFP, and encourage NARC members to reconsider their position at the next meeting. It could hardly be in the interests of the City of New Albany and its citizens to recommence a process that is likely to take years to reach fruition when a “shovel ready” project sits at their doorstep. Such a capricious decision would send a terrible message to businesses contemplating investing in the community.

ON THE AVENUES REWOUND: River View's sweet dreams are not enough.

ON THE AVENUES: River View's sweet dreams are not enough.

A weekly web column by Roger A. Baylor.

Yesterday, the Redevelopment Commission voted to rescind a River View option extension for Mainland Properties, and in light of this, I believe this column bears repeating. It originally was published here on January 23, 2012.

---

At a lazily advertised work session last Thursday evening, New Albany’s city council learned that the River View waterfront development project would no longer be coming to town as originally conceived.

That is, if it comes to town at all.

I couldn’t have been the only onlooker catching an unmistakable whiff of airborne desperation, because far from making the River View dream more palpable by openly addressing past concerns and doing pleasant touch-up work to the architectural renderings, Mainland Properties’ most recent presentation instead revealed a slew of major fundamental alterations.

These changes muddy the project’s conceptual basis, and cry out for intensified scrutiny on the part of city officials, who must yet toss a parking garage into the collection plate before the first pitch is thrown.

Mainland has now gone on record, implicitly or explicitly, as conceding virtually every objection previously voiced about River View. By doing so, it has rendered null and void the alleged toxicity of previous questioners, an obfuscation used to justify the England administration’s persistent inability to be truthful in answering queries about the development.

Improbably, the latest, revised River View build-out raises even more questions than the original version, although predictably, the city council chose to ask none of them at Thursday’s work session. I choose to believe that council members were stupefied by sheer incredulity in the face of the fantasies they were being asked to embrace, and I trust they will recover their senses when River View returns to their inboxes.

---

Critically, the revised three-phase plan for River View 2.0 utterly contradicts Jack Bobo’s oft-stated goal for his project, as stressed time and again from inception: It will enable a bold, game-changing caste of condominium owners in downtown New Albany, whose very presence will “trickle back” myriad benefits to the remainder of the community.

Doubtful in the best of times, but for the sake of argument, I’ll temporarily accept that up-market condominium occupants are capable of single-handedly shifting downtown paradigms, and ask this question:

Given the altered three-phase development plan, what is the chance of these transformational condos ever being built?

In answering, let’s first dispense with the fallacious number “three” in reference to River View’s supposedly escalating phases, each one proceeding from the presumed success of the one before.

Of course, there is a fourth phase, actually the very first phase, and without it, not one other domino can so much as consider falling into place: The city of New Albany’s essential “TIF Tithe” for the construction of a 500-unit parking garage.

Both literally and figuratively, River View is to be built atop this commitment.

We must soberly recognize that no matter the continued expediency of River View’s evolution, the city of New Albany’s founding stake cannot ever change. Without the TIF-enabled parking garage, there is nothing, because Mainland has no capital without it. The city’s opening phase is a fait accompli, and so the city must play its hand cautiously as steadily worsening odds suggest another question:

What is the chance that even with a functional parking garage, River View is ever completed as proposed?

---

Before Thursday’s River View remix, New Albany was to have been promptly rewarded for providing Mainland with the necessary parking garage collateral, in the sense that the vital condominium occupancies would be animated right out of the gate.

Now, with Mainland at long last acknowledging prevailing banking, investment, economic and cultural realities, and admitting to errors in creating so many lofty and unlikely expectations, River View’s entire reason for being – its game-changing condominiums – is being pushed all the way to project’s end, and slated to come last, if at all.

In the interim, before the condos are ever close to coming on line, there are to be rental housing units – perhaps useful to Mainland as cash-flow mechanisms, but to repeat, quite contradictory to every previous stated aim of River View as helping to create a residential ownership society downtown.

Besides, do we really need to strengthen the anti-ordinance enforcement bloc, one traditionally dominated by rental property owners, by adding another bloc of rental properties?

And yet for all of Mainland’s lofty, messianic housing aims, Version 2.0 of River View as now described hinges not on residential occupancy, but retail proliferation. Frankly, that’s a risky proposition, and as a cure, it might be worse than the malady.

Realtor and primary Mainland sales appendage Mike Kopp openly divulged to the council on Thursday that the recent merger of his Blue Sun real estate startup with Remax was for the express purpose of tapping into the latter’s commercial strengths, so as to locate a prime retail anchor tenant for River View. These usual code words reek of chain retail covetousness on Mainland’s part; what are the chances of such a retail anchor tenant being an independent local business?

Worse (better?), what are the chances that any of the coveted, cookie-cutter retail chains will occupy space in downtown New Albany prior to the proximity of new condos, their free-spending owners, and the anticipated ripple effect of their presence? Kopp surely is good at his job. At the same time, he’s no miracle worker.

Furthermore, if the “first” phase of River View (to follow the required parking garage) is about retail occupancy, and if no retail anchor tenant can be found, chain or independent, why would banks and investors mandating the phased-in approach still agree to finance the next rental and condo phases?

And, if River View stalls, how exactly does Mainland “pay” for the necessary parking garage?

---

Let’s review.

River View was supposed to benefit the community by creating a residential ownership society, which would “trickle back” benefits to downtown, justifying a $15 million publicly financed parking garage.

Now, in order to approach this goal, Mainland must create not condos, but retail, and on a scale unseen in downtown New Albany since the 1960’s.

Next, it must build on the retail upsurge by adding rental apartment housing, which already inundates the city.

Then, and only then, Mainland will be able to proceed with the condo ownership society, which from the very beginning was the confidently predicted benefit to the community, one worth a $15 million publicly financed parking garage to achieve.

To some, this revised plan for River View will appear sensible. It is difficult to see how. Speaking personally, I’ve nothing against any of the project’s originators or its acolytes, but I’m as yet unconvinced. It’s sad, because it’s such a nice dream, but River View has no clothes. Wishing won’t make it otherwise, and its time for the city to move on by addressing existing infrastructure needs downtown.

(In 2011 at NAC: Highlights & Lowlights: Picking and rewarding the River View winners)

Redevelopment Commission votes to rescind River View option extension for Mainland Properties.

This one speaks for itself. Take it away, Daniel.

New Albany Redevelopment Commission rescinds agreement over River View property; New proposals will be accepted for developing city-owned lots, by Daniel Suddeath (N and T)

NEW ALBANY — Other developers will have an opportunity to purchase the land that had been planned for the $43 million River View project after the New Albany Redevelopment Commission voted Tuesday to rescind an option extension for Mainland Properties.

The commission asked the administration to prepare a new request-for-proposals, or RFP, document and present it to the body next month for review. Commission member Adam Dickey, who was not present when the latest extension was approved by the body in May, said the project is going into its third year without much progress since gaining the option from the city.

“I’m not convinced that we’re moving ahead to the degree that we should be,” he said.

"Let's not build a stadium."

Where does the proposed River View development fit into a vision like this one?

In a way, thinking small is the next logical step in America’s urban renaissance. 

As we seek to situate the comparative "bigness" of River View within the burgeoning small + indie New Albanian context, it's worth recalling a post earlier this week, in which I opened with this thought: Mike Kopp's updates on Twitter are much appreciated."

Indeed, they are, and I was not being snarky or ironic in stating such. But with respect to River View, consider that Mike's three most recent announcements about prospective business openings all describe the adaptive reuse of pre-existing, older buildings not at all associated with River View, for whom he's been doing a fair amount of retail chain fishing in places like Las Vegas.

Remember that condominiums, once River View's sole conceptual selling point (downtown residency being the object, right?), have long since been taken off the project's front burner and placed somewhere out in the yard, near the compost heap, and about as far away from the stove as humanly possible. Now there must be retail and professional occupancy in order to reach the transitional stage of rental apartments -- all of it occurring well before condos are even contemplated.

None of it seems to have mattered to the city's bedazzled politicos, who stare entranced at the glimmering artist's renditions of River View like a 12-year-old in 1972 unearthing his Penthouse from under the mattress.

The point here is this: Given the paucity of PR emanating from the realtor (not a common phenomenon), either the River View retail fishing's been pretty bad, or the catch too embarrassingly undersized to display publicly. Isn't it about time for someone to be standing on the dock, photographed with the big one?

Just curious, that's all.

Stop thinking big

Forget stadiums: Let's build a pop-up park. Smart cities know the future is cooler, cheaper -- and smaller

BY WILL DOIG
Last week, a press release from Chicago’s Office of the Mayor proclaimed something that would have sounded like a Yes Men prank just a few years ago: Rahm Emanuel, it said, has a plan to get rid of the city’s “excess asphalt.”

It wasn’t a proposal for a big new park or recreational facility, but a plan to take little bits of public space here and there — streets, parking spots, alleyways — and turn them into places for people. It was the latest example of a municipal government taking an active role in tactical urbanism, that low-cost, low-commitment, incremental approach to city building — the “let’s not build a stadium” strategy.

"It is common for developers to argue that they are creating new public spaces where none existed before."

As Jeff reminded us last week, if the River View development comes to fruition, not only will it result in a prime piece of downtown "public space" being transferred to private interests, but the long-promised "public plaza" component of River View will have been much reduced, and lack a view of the river itself.

River View? Not from this development.

Why is it that the project's supporters, from Develop New Albany on down, never address the privatization-of-public-space angle of this proposal?

Public spaces in Britain's cities fall into private hands; Projects such as London's new outdoor space, Granary Square at King's Cross, favour business over community, say critics, by Jeevan Vasagar (guardian.co.uk)

 ... Politicians of all stripes acknowledge the importance of making people feel part of a functioning community. Boris Johnson has spoken of putting "the village back into the city".

At a public meeting last year, the mayor of London said: "It's not a concept that I find people readily grasp but what I want is an atmosphere of trust and neighbourliness and a village atmosphere in parts of our city."

But villages always included commonly owned public land, Heath said. "In the archetypal feudal village there was always that space of common land where everyone had the right to graze their pigs and behave in a sensible way. There wasn't the sense this was the feudal landlord's land. This was common land."

Coffey: “This smells of the type of government that people are fed up with."

Let's look at the glass as half-full: At least they met at a local eatery (Tucker's American Favorites) and not Subway or McDonald's. That's a plus, I think, although it probably didn't occur to any of them at the time.

Given that the city seems intent on bending over backwards to appease the penniless Levee View team, perhaps they should have brown-bagged it to a chiropractor's office.

Lunch meeting over River View under scrutiny; Coffey: Benedetti, Zurschmiede should have held meeting before commission, by Daniel Suddeath (Pop Up World Digest)

... But Councilman Dan Coffey — who sat on the redevelopment commission before resigning in 2009 due to his disagreement over the handling of property negotiations with CCE Inc. — said the lunch meeting was unethical considering the scope of the development. “If they were going to hold a meeting like that, they should have held it during the redevelopment meeting for everybody to gather the information,” Coffey said Thursday. “This smells of the type of government that people are fed up with. I’m extremely disappointed that they chose to go this route.”

River View? Not from this development.

It's easy enough to see how the breadth of the "public" plaza has been reduced from an earlier iteration of the proposed River View development to the newest one...

but what might not be as well known is its height. Note the plaza elevation at 455 feet and the levee elevation at 460 feet. Folks standing on the plaza won't be able to see the river at all, only the top of the amphitheater as they do now.

Disproportionate, multistory facades blockading the river, the loss of a significant piece of the commons, $12 million in public funding in the hole, and all the originality and authenticity of Vegas-- the next time I hear any of this touted as "public improvement" I'm going to laugh even harder.

From East Sussex to New Albany: Perfect Symmetry?

Actually, it's my hasty reworking of the band Keane's new album cover.

During the past decade, Keane has been very successful. Perhaps they can show us the money.

One reason why the choice of River View retail tenants matters.

As noted yesterday ...

Are they protesting loudly?

Previously: Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas ... and Hauss Square.

Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas ... and Hauss Square.

Did you know that $20,000 is .000465116279% of $43 million?

Skin tight, Kevin. Skin tight.

River View gets a new option; Deal would extend to 2014, requires $20K and signs of progress at site, by Daniel Suddeath (News and Tribune)

... New Albany City Councilman Kevin Zurschmiede, who is also on the redevelopment commission, said he’s voiced concerns in recent months that Mainland Properties and its head, Jack Bobo, should put “more skin into the game” in order to retain the option on the real estate.

“It sounds like the developer has heard those concerns, and is willing to step up to the plate,” Zurschmiede said.

Bobo was present with other members of the Mainland Properties team to provide the commission with an update on the estimated $43 million project, and agreed to the terms set forth by Zurschmiede and the commission.

What part of "buyer and seller may choose to extend the Option Period" isn't clear?

The relevant contract excerpt is here; using "or" instead of "and" would change the meaning, but it seems clear to this untrained eye. We're left to guess who possibly might have assured the Mainland team that Redevelopment's approval was a done deal (eyes rolling, oberek spinning), although the plain fact is that Redevelopment already was sending clearly muddled public signals of balky intent through the newspaper.

At this point, it's hard to imagine any public official forthrightly demanding that Mainland show us the money, and yet perhaps Kevin Zurschmiede will fill the role. A better bet is another carefully staged lovefest -- and another lost year before the inevitable.

Has it occurred to anyone after all this time that the reason we're not being shown the money is that there is no money? Like Occam suggests, sometimes the simplest answer is the most plausible.

Deal to extend River View property option not in place; Mainland Properties was under belief option-to-buy was good for another year, by Daniel Suddeath (News and Tribune)

NEW ALBANY — Apparently unbeknownst to the developer, the New Albany Redevelopment Commission will reconsider its options on three pieces of property that has been planned for the multimillion dollar River View project for almost two years.

In June 2010, Mainland Properties head Jack Bobo purchased for $1,000 an option on the lots with the intent that would be used for River View, which is designed to be a multiuse development with retail, office and residential space adjacent to the Floyd County branch of the YMCA of Southern Indiana, near the Ohio River. The option-to-buy was extended for a second year, but the contract expired May 1, according to New Albany Economic Development Director David Duggins.

Extending the option had been a point of discussion recently among city officials, as New Albany City Councilman and redevelopment Commissioner Kevin Zurschmiede questioned whether $1,000 was a fair price to charge to lease the property.

Since the contract expired, Duggins said the matter will have to come back before the redevelopment commission for consideration. The commission likely will accept new proposals for the property, he said.

“We hope that Mr. Bobo and his group will participate in that process,” Duggins said Thursday.

But River View project manager Anita Massey said Mainland Properties was under the belief that it had the right to extend the option-to-buy agreement until May 1 2013 after recently submitting another $1,000 check to the city for another year. She said communication between the city and developer indicated the extend was already approved, and added Mainland Properties recently funded geotechnical exploration work at the site.

Lesser known version of Edvard Munch's famous painting fetches $1.20 at that used DVD place.

Yes, "The Scream: River View" may be considered a less historically significant rendition of Munch's classic depiction of anguish, but for some reason, it has a certain enduring resonance in New Albany.

It's the First of May, and time for River View to pay.

As Jeff noted earlier today, May 1 is much more than International Workers' Day. It's also Options for the Optional Day, as in River View:

It's on page 15 of the Civic Plaza Waterfront Redevelopment (River View) packet, and if you're feeling bored, you can read the whole thing here.

The Redevelopment Commission was to have held a double secret special River View meeting for the review of River View protocols, but the commission's area at the city's web site is not up to date. Commission member (and council person) Kevin Zurschmiede told the newspaper, “I would never agree for a $1,000 option on a million dollar piece of property for a third year.”

If the much altered River View dream ends, will it be time to revive alternative plans for the Waterfront Brewery Commons? Venture capitalists, you know how to reach me.

Redevelopment to hold a special River View meeting for the review of secret protocols.

Scroll past Chris Morris's coverage of the Midtown Neighborhood Stabilization program's incremental progress, as presented to the Redevelopment Commission, and focus instead on the following passage. Amid escalating hints of desperation, Mainland Properties must come up with some real money, and quite soon.

A special meeting? I'd like to have the peanuts 'n' beer concession on that one.

Idle speculation: Given that the city of New Albany has for the most part unquestioningly endorsed various plans to keep all its eggs in the River View basket, what happens if the project expires? So many times we've heard how important it is to give Mainland every last opportunity to put out to sea, given its organizational expenses (considerable, we're always told) to date. Fair enough, but what we haven't heard is how much it will cost the city in time and potential if the past four years prove to have been wasted.

If the city has a Plan B, it has not revealed it ... and we're not advising you to hold your breaths.

In other business

• Steve Goodman, with New Albany Horizons LLC, along with his partners, asked for a status report of Mainland Properties River View project. The multiuse development along Main Street would feature retail, office and residential space supported by a $12 million parking garage that would be paid for with New Albany tax-increment financing dollars.

Jack Bobo, who heads up River View, placed a $1,000 option on the property in June 2010 and that option was extended a year. Goodman asked if another extension was given. He said his group was concerned since they own adjoining property which they would possibly like to develop in the future.

“We want to know what is going to happen next door to us,” Goodman said.

Redevelopment Commission President Irving Joshua said a special meeting will be called to review the contract and documents with River View.

“I would never agree for a $1,000 option on a million dollar piece of property for a third year,” said Redevelopment Commission and City Council member Kevin Zurschmiede.

Speaking of the riverfront, let's check the class warfare front.

Pictured above is the rear of what New Albanians long have referred to as the Reisz Furniture Building, which has been vacant for as long as most of us can remember, apart from being used by Schmitt Furniture as storage. Recently a proposal has been advanced by a Mishawaka-based firm (Sterling) to restore this long-term eyesore and replace rapidly decaying structures adjacent to it with new buildings, all for the purpose of creating affordable senior housing.

Largely at the behest of members Kevin Zurschmiede (R) and Bob Caesar (PD - Pretend Democrat), New Albany's city council rushed forward a resolution opposing affordable housing tax credits for this project, and these credits subsequently were denied by the state agency.

A half-block to the west, a sign has been erected to tout the "proper" use of governmental incentives to private developers.

For the River View development to proceed, it must be the beneficiary of -- yes, you guessed it -- various governmental subsidies and incentives, without which the utterly cashless Mainland Properties cannot so much as turn one single spade of downtown dirt.

What's more, while Zurschmiede, Caesar and four other council persons took the opportunity of their vote to rail publicly against the very possibility that the Reisz plan might someday, far in the future, be modified to permit differing uses of dwelling spaces than those originally specified in order for construction to be incentivized, not one of them has yet indicated a similar level of internal disturbance with the fact that Mainland has completely changed the nature and intent of its River View project, from enabling downtown condo ownership and residency from the outset, to pushing its ownership society to the very end, with intervening phases of retail, office and (gasp) apartment rentals all to occur first, whether they're needed or not.

Neither Zurschmiede nor Caesar have commented publicly as to what they feel might be a better way to rehab the long neglected Reisz building than the Sterling proposal. Concurrently, they both seem to approve subsidies to build something on the part of a development group with absolutely no money, rather than to incentivize another development group with money enough to a least complete plans without its open palm garishly extended.

If class warfare does not explain these attitudes, then what does?

ON THE AVENUES MONDAY SPECIAL: River View's sweet dreams are not enough.

ON THE AVENUES MONDAY SPECIAL: River View's sweet dreams are not enough.

A weekly web column by Roger A. Baylor.

At a lazily advertised work session last Thursday evening, New Albany’s city council learned that the River View waterfront development project would no longer be coming to town as originally conceived.

That is, if it comes to town at all.

I couldn’t have been the only onlooker catching an unmistakable whiff of airborne desperation, because far from making the River View dream more palpable by openly addressing past concerns and doing pleasant touch-up work to the architectural renderings, Mainland Properties’ most recent presentation instead revealed a slew of major fundamental alterations.

These changes muddy the project’s conceptual basis, and cry out for intensified scrutiny on the part of city officials, who must yet toss a parking garage into the collection plate before the first pitch is thrown.

Mainland has now gone on record, implicitly or explicitly, as conceding virtually every objection previously voiced about River View. By doing so, it has rendered null and void the alleged toxicity of previous questioners, an obfuscation used to justify the England administration’s persistent inability to be truthful in answering queries about the development.

Improbably, the latest, revised River View build-out raises even more questions than the original version, although predictably, the city council chose to ask none of them at Thursday’s work session. I choose to believe that council members were stupefied by sheer incredulity in the face of the fantasies they were being asked to embrace, and I trust they will recover their senses when River View returns to their inboxes.

---

Critically, the revised three-phase plan for River View 2.0 utterly contradicts Jack Bobo’s oft-stated goal for his project, as stressed time and again from inception: It will enable a bold, game-changing caste of condominium owners in downtown New Albany, whose very presence will “trickle back” myriad benefits to the remainder of the community.

Doubtful in the best of times, but for the sake of argument, I’ll temporarily accept that up-market condominium occupants are capable of single-handedly shifting downtown paradigms, and ask this question:

Given the altered three-phase development plan, what is the chance of these transformational condos ever being built?

In answering, let’s first dispense with the fallacious number “three” in reference to River View’s supposedly escalating phases, each one proceeding from the presumed success of the one before.

Of course, there is a fourth phase, actually the very first phase, and without it, not one other domino can so much as consider falling into place: The city of New Albany’s essential “TIF Tithe” for the construction of a 500-unit parking garage.

Both literally and figuratively, River View is to be built atop this commitment.

We must soberly recognize that no matter the continued expediency of River View’s evolution, the city of New Albany’s founding stake cannot ever change. Without the TIF-enabled parking garage, there is nothing, because Mainland has no capital without it. The city’s opening phase is a fait accompli, and so the city must play its hand cautiously as steadily worsening odds suggest another question:

What is the chance that even with a functional parking garage, River View is ever completed as proposed?

---

Before Thursday’s River View remix, New Albany was to have been promptly rewarded for providing Mainland with the necessary parking garage collateral, in the sense that the vital condominium occupancies would be animated right out of the gate.

Now, with Mainland at long last acknowledging prevailing banking, investment, economic and cultural realities, and admitting to errors in creating so many lofty and unlikely expectations, River View’s entire reason for being – its game-changing condominiums – is being pushed all the way to project’s end, and slated to come last, if at all.

In the interim, before the condos are ever close to coming on line, there are to be rental housing units – perhaps useful to Mainland as cash-flow mechanisms, but to repeat, quite contradictory to every previous stated aim of River View as helping to create a residential ownership society downtown.

Besides, do we really need to strengthen the anti-ordinance enforcement bloc, one traditionally dominated by rental property owners, by adding another bloc of rental properties?

And yet for all of Mainland’s lofty, messianic housing aims, Version 2.0 of River View as now described hinges not on residential occupancy, but retail proliferation. Frankly, that’s a risky proposition, and as a cure, it might be worse than the malady.

Realtor and primary Mainland sales appendage Mike Kopp openly divulged to the council on Thursday that the recent merger of his Blue Sun real estate startup with Remax was for the express purpose of tapping into the latter’s commercial strengths, so as to locate a prime retail anchor tenant for River View. These usual code words reek of chain retail covetousness on Mainland’s part; what are the chances of such a retail anchor tenant being an independent local business?

Worse (better?), what are the chances that any of the coveted, cookie-cutter retail chains will occupy space in downtown New Albany prior to the proximity of new condos, their free-spending owners, and the anticipated ripple effect of their presence? Kopp surely is good at his job. At the same time, he’s no miracle worker.

Furthermore, if the “first” phase of River View (to follow the required parking garage) is about retail occupancy, and if no retail anchor tenant can be found, chain or independent, why would banks and investors mandating the phased-in approach still agree to finance the next rental and condo phases?

And, if River View stalls, how exactly does Mainland “pay” for the necessary parking garage?

---

Let’s review.

River View was supposed to benefit the community by creating a residential ownership society, which would “trickle back” benefits to downtown, justifying a $15 million publicly financed parking garage.

Now, in order to approach this goal, Mainland must create not condos, but retail, and on a scale unseen in downtown New Albany since the 1960’s.

Next, it must build on the retail upsurge by adding rental apartment housing, which already inundates the city.

Then, and only then, Mainland will be able to proceed with the condo ownership society, which from the very beginning was the confidently predicted benefit to the community, one worth a $15 million publicly financed parking garage to achieve.

To some, this revised plan for River View will appear sensible. It is difficult to see how. Speaking personally, I’ve nothing against any of the project’s originators or its acolytes, but I’m as yet unconvinced. It’s sad, because it’s such a nice dream, but River View has no clothes. Wishing won’t make it otherwise, and its time for the city to move on by addressing existing infrastructure needs downtown.

(In 2011 at NAC: Highlights & Lowlights: Picking and rewarding the River View winners)

River View an example of why "urban redevelopment projects should put local businesses first."

In River View Version 2.0, the project's retail component now must be the first to succeed, before construction of any condominiums, which were the originally stated aim of the development. Retail build-out also must preface rental housing units, which were not in the previous plan. Of course, for any of these phases to begin, the city's required commitment, a TIF-enabled parking garage, must be completed.

Insofar as the anchor retail tenant is concerned, will realtor Mike Kopp be seeking local, or chain? Let's hope both Kopp and Mainland consider this link, because if their for-profit entity must utilize TIF money to even begin, doesn't the comminity have a very real stake in the type of retail being pursued?

Urban Redevelopment Projects Should Put Local Businesses First

Make Local Business the Anchor Tenant at Canal Side (Opinion), by Sarah Bishop of Buffalo First

We don't need $35 million in public money used to lure another big box store to Canal Side. However, we could always use a boost to our local economy, and great publicity for our local businesses and city. "Buffalo needs to start investing in itself. Putting anchor tenants at Canal Side that are Buffalo community members themselves helps the local economy," said Maria Fox, one of the nearly 100 signatories to date in support of local business as the "anchor" at Canal Side.

Mainland Properties releases video detailing new River View development plan.