"Firsts" for northwest Arkansas (within the state of Arkansas)

[KJW 77]

Forgive me if this has already been started but...how many "firsts" for this state has NWA achieved this decade?

Within the past week:

- First non-stop flight to Miami, Florida in the state

- First Ruth's Chris steakhouse

I know there are many more...

[Arkansas Student 0]

Forgive me if this has already been started but...how many "firsts" for this state has NWA achieved this decade?

Within the past week:

- First non-stop flight to Miami, Florida in the state

- First Ruth's Chris steakhouse

I know there are many more...

[Mith242 70]

You could throw in a lot of restaurants depending on how you want to define it. Of course all the locals would fit that wider range. As far as chains go I could also mention Qdoba.

[Arkansas Student 0]

-First Jumbo Outdoor TV Screen (in Razoback Stadium)

-Not a first, but the LARGEST parking garage in Arkansas is @ the UA

-First city to enact a smoking ban in restaurants (Fayetteville)

There are more I'm sure. Let's keep going.

[KJW 77]

There are more I'm sure. Let's keep going.

[tim2462 0]

The first Zaxby's in Central Arkansas is in Maumelle. It's ok, but I don't see what allof the fuss is about. Chick-Fil-A is a much better chicken restaurant.

[Mith242 70]

How about Fayetteville having the first TIF district.

[mzweig 22]

How about Fayetteville having the first TIF district.

[Mith242 70]

Looks like we could also be the first to use eminent domain. Sounds like this could happen up in Rogers. But it sounds like a bad deal to me. From what I heard not only can the city of Rogers take the land they won't have to pay him for it either. Citing that because the rest of this guy's property will be more valuable after they take the land to make way for a road. I know this will be a touchy subject. I think a city sometimes might need to use eminent domain for the overall good of a city. But I really think cities should use this as a very last option. Especially if it involves the city not even paying the person for the land. I wonder if they'll end up trying to reword this because of this incident.

[Aporkalypse 1]

Any "first" that does not involve a chain restaurant is a lot more significant (if you ask me!)

[masons_dad1 0]

Looks like we could also be the first to use eminent domain. Sounds like this could happen up in Rogers. But it sounds like a bad deal to me. From what I heard not only can the city of Rogers take the land they won't have to pay him for it either. Citing that because the rest of this guy's property will be more valuable after they take the land to make way for a road. I know this will be a touchy subject. I think a city sometimes might need to use eminent domain for the overall good of a city. But I really think cities should use this as a very last option. Especially if it involves the city not even paying the person for the land. I wonder if they'll end up trying to reword this because of this incident.

[mcheiss 1]

That deal does stink. I just heard about it from some co-workers and from what they said the city will then "sell" the property to a developer. That sounds more like Nazism than "overall good of a city."

[jdevers 0]

Any "first" that does not involve a chain restaurant is a lot more significant (if you ask me!)

[Mith242 70]

I thought it was just for road realignment of 26th street. I was told that only 5 acres would be used so that the road could be aligned to Pleasant Grove Rd.

[Arkansas Student 0]

The city will be taking about 5 acres of an 83 acre tract, I believe. Mr. Claudson (I think is his name) was supposed to have been offered $633,000 for the land, but the Mayor later said in an interview that the offer was not made. So now they're headed to court.

This brings up an interesting issue of the "value of land." On the one hand, Rogers says the land will be more valuable commercially to Mr. C when the road is upgraded. On the other, Mr. C says he doesn't want to develop commercially and so the increased "value" means nothing to him. He just wants to farm his cows.

So, who's right? Who should determine the value of land in a city? And can value always be measure this way, monetarily?

In the end, I think Rogers will get the land (there's a lot of other developers and money-makers who are just waiting for this 26th Street improvement; the city is under pressure from them), but the acquisition will leave a black-eye on Rogers image. The City will have officially turned the corner from "friendly Northwest Arkansas hometown" to "corporate expansionist juggarnaut" in many people's eyes. Sadly, this whole ordeal hurts the life-long locals the most. Can they trust their city anymore?

[Mith242 70]

The city will be taking about 5 acres of an 83 acre tract, I believe. Mr. Claudson (I think is his name) was supposed to have been offered $633,000 for the land, but the Mayor later said in an interview that the offer was not made. So now they're headed to court.

This brings up an interesting issue of the "value of land." On the one hand, Rogers says the land will be more valuable commercially to Mr. C when the road is upgraded. On the other, Mr. C says he doesn't want to develop commercially and so the increased "value" means nothing to him. He just wants to farm his cows.

So, who's right? Who should determine the value of land in a city? And can value always be measure this way, monetarily?

In the end, I think Rogers will get the land (there's a lot of other developers and money-makers who are just waiting for this 26th Street improvement; the city is under pressure from them), but the acquisition will leave a black-eye on Rogers image. The City will have officially turned the corner from "friendly Northwest Arkansas hometown" to "corporate expansionist juggarnaut" in many people's eyes. Sadly, this whole ordeal hurts the life-long locals the most. Can they trust their city anymore?