Jump to content

gman

Camperdown (Greenville News Building Site)

Recommended Posts

26 minutes ago, Cityplanner said:

I would have thought that people in the conservative bastion of Greenville County would assert that funding real estate development is not a proper purpose of government.  If they won't, I will.

Good luck with that endeavor.....You'll probably need  a real tall soapbox to stand on. :whistling:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


1 hour ago, Cityplanner said:

I would have thought that people in the conservative bastion of Greenville County would assert that funding real estate development is not a proper purpose of government.  If they won't, I will.

This isn't funding real estate development. It's improvements to the public space around the project. It's what has benefitted downtown since its early days of rebirth and still has a very useful purpose to this day. I generally think people are smarter than you give them credit for. Most people in Greenville County do NOT live in the city limits, so their voice (rightfully so) does not have volume on this matter. The city's voters tend to be more progressive and most can recognize the beautiful city they call home and what it takes to maintain and improve that space. 

Edited by GvilleSC
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, GvilleSC said:

This isn't funding real estate development. It's improvements to the public space around the project. It's what has benefitted downtown since its early days of rebirth and still has a very useful purpose to this day. I generally think people are smarter than you give them credit for. Most people in Greenville County do NOT live in the city limits, so their voice (rightfully so) does not have volume on this matter. The city's voters tend to be more progressive. 

Let the developer fund improvements, whether they're on the project's premises or otherwise done in connection with the project.  That's how plenty of larger cities do it; NYC, for example (while certainly not a model of taxation or proper treatment of businesses) often requires developers to improve neighboring subway stations when they build buildings.  The neighboring improvements would not be done but for this project and will enhance the profitability of the project, so let the developer pay for it.  In addition, there is a ton of available cash for investments these days, and if a private developer can't find enough private-sector funds for its projects, then it needs to re-think its business model and come up with projects that can be financed with private-sector cash.

I'm "progressive"--I favor progress towards a better future of freedom and right-sized government.  Leftists don't have exclusive use of the concept of progress, so I reject the term "progressive" when it is equated with left-wing politics.

Edited by Cityplanner

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Cityplanner said:

Let the developer fund improvements, whether they're on the project's premises or otherwise done in connection with the project.  That's how plenty of larger cities do it; NYC, for example (while certainly not a model of taxation or proper treatment of businesses) often requires developers to improve neighboring subway stations when they build buildings.  The neighboring improvements would not be done but for this project and will enhance the profitability of the project, so let the developer pay for it.

I'm "progressive"--I favor progress towards a better future of freedom and limited government.  Leftists don't have exclusive use of the concept of progress, so I reject the term "progressive" when it is equated with left-wing politics.

I hate to break it to you, but Greenville is not NYC (thank God). Developers will play that game in New York for lots of reasons. Greenville would NEVER have gotten the Hyatt hotel/Greenville Commons out of the ground without the public-private partnership that made it possible to build such a facility in a declining landscape. Thus, we would not have the showpiece of an urban core that we have today without that deal that started the ball rolling. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

CAP will be reimbursed over 25 years through incremental property tax increases generated by the project, according to the ordinance. 

In other words, the money will be paid back by the developer over the next 25 years.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, cabelagent said:

Good luck with that endeavor.....You'll probably need  a real tall soapbox to stand on. :whistling:

Will the Greenville News call this tall soapbox a tower? :D 

  • Haha 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, GvilleSC said:

I hate to break it to you, but Greenville is not NYC (thank God). Developers will play that game in New York for lots of reasons. Greenville would NEVER have gotten the Hyatt hotel/Greenville Commons out of the ground without the public-private partnership that made it possible to build such a facility in a declining landscape. Thus, we would not have the showpiece of an urban core that we have today without that deal that started the ball rolling. 

But if the government hadn't spent money helping suburban real estate development for decades before the 1980s, downtown wouldn't have died in the first place and no public funds would have been necessary to build a hotel so that downtown would have a hotel. 

It's good that the developer is repaying the funds via increased property taxes; I'd still prefer that government be neutral and let the market decide what to fund.  That is most economically efficient.

In short: real estate is something that private investors have been funding for millenia.  Real estate would be developed even if government didn't fund a cent of it.  Government should stay out of it (it shouldn't fund improvements so that suburban malls and office parks are built, either) and let the market decide.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Cityplanner said:

But if the government hadn't spent money helping suburban real estate development for decades before the 1980s, downtown wouldn't have died in the first place and no public funds would have been necessary to build a hotel so that downtown would have a hotel. 

It's good that the developer is repaying the funds via increased property taxes; I'd still prefer that government be neutral and let the market decide what to fund.  That is most economically efficient.

In short: real estate is something that private investors have been funding for millenia.  Real estate would be developed even if government didn't fund a cent of it.  Government should stay out of it (it shouldn't fund improvements so that suburban malls and office parks are built, either) and let the market decide.

In an ideal world, yes -- we wouldn't be having this discussion. However, until one can acknowledge that an ideal world doesn't exist, this is a waste of time.  I'd be intrigued to hear your thoughts on zoning since your chosen username is cityplanner... 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, GvilleSC said:

In an ideal world, yes -- we wouldn't be having this discussion. However, until one can acknowledge that an ideal world doesn't exist, this is a waste of time.  I'd be intrigued to hear your thoughts on zoning since your chosen username is cityplanner... 

I don’t view “the world is not ideal” as an excuse for continuing to accept bad public policy in all situations, but to each his own.

Also, I'll go back and contradict a statement that I made above.  If government spends $20 million in connection with this project and tax receipts go up by $20 million or more, in a sense the government is being paid back through increased tax collections.  But the developer isn't "paying the government back" because if the project and the ancillary improvements are done, tax collections would increase regardless of who paid for the ancillary improvements.  It would still have been better for private funds to have been used.

Edited by Cityplanner

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry, everybody.  I'll hush up.  I'm not looking to argue; I respect and appreciate everyone's perspective, particularly when others' views differ from mine.  Thanks for letting me vent for a bit, and I'm all done.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/29/2020 at 8:44 PM, gman430 said:

70 units now leased. 147 remain available. 

83 units now leased. 134 remain available. 

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.