Scheme to sell city parking lots

[joeDowntown]

What a terrible idea. Just another example of our inept city officials.

First, I can't believe Tormala would try to use this as a cheap shot at the mayor ("no confidentiality agreement"). I'm not a big fan of a lot of the things Heartwell does, but Tormala is doing a great job of making himself look like a dick.

Why would our city want to sell some of the last large pieces of unimproved property to a company that wants nothing more than to operate parking lots until it can get someone to cough up large sums of money to develop on it? It seems to me that this property is best held in the city's hands so they can sell it to allow the city to grow. I think selling these lots would almost create a "no growth zone" for the immediate future on the South and West side.

Honestly, is there anyone in the city that is looking out for the long-term welfare of downtown or has a good vision of the future, or are they just a bunch of rinky-dink, short-sighted preachers, electricians and journeymen?

Joe

[sfloria]

And I didn't hear it from my wife, BTW.

If you don't like the hype machine, don't take part in it.

[MAU]

some announcement about a new project at Market and Fulton. Many pages later, we find out the announcement was just an update on the project at Division and Fulton.

[torgo]

I always thought that parking services are easy money for the city. If that's true, why would we sell them? Just to make a couple bucks now? Wouldn't we just be forfeiting the income stream and economic development benefit some time down the road?

[localtalent]

What a terrible idea. Just another example of our inept city officials.

First, I can't believe Tormala would try to use this as a cheap shot at the mayor ("no confidentiality agreement"). I'm not a big fan of a lot of the things Heartwell does, but Tormala is doing a great job of making himself look like a dick.

Why would our city want to sell some of the last large pieces of unimproved property to a company that wants nothing more than to operate parking lots until it can get someone to cough up large sums of money to develop on it? It seems to me that this property is best held in the city's hands so they can sell it to allow the city to grow. I think selling these lots would almost create a "no growth zone" for the immediate future on the South and West side.

Honestly, is there anyone in the city that is looking out for the long-term welfare of downtown or has a good vision of the future, or are they just a bunch of rinky-dink, short-sighted preachers, electricians and journeymen?

Joe

[NorthEnder]

I don't know the answer to this...I'm honestly asking.

Do we know that Third Coast is pursuing this SOLELY to operate the lots for profit?

Could they perhaps think that transitioning the lots to a private developer who will operate them or develop them according to market needs might be better for overall downtown development?

If the city can get a good price and assurances that Third Coast will maintain the same number of parking spaces in the downtown area regardless of whether they decide to develop certain lots.....who loses?

Seems to me it MIGHT be a decent solution to the glut of surface lots in the downtown area.

[wingbert]

Perhaps they want to use one of the surface lots they hope to purchase to build a 10 story parking ramp with a historically significant exterior?

Where did this rumor of a 10 story building come from? Whats the point in posting about something your wife hears rumor of? Can we try and keep these hypes legit? This is so stupid. Parking lots might be sold. Wow.

[Rizzo]

I believe one of the developers of Third Coast Development Partners LLC is a member of UP. Perhaps we may here more about this if they check in?

[torgo]

Here is some propaganda: (FAQs)

http://www.thirdcoastdev.com/FAQ.pdf

[FilmMaker]

The Third Coast FAQs certainly give me all I needed to solidify my opinion about this issue... and I remain disgusted by the grand-standing and media mismanagement of stories like this... (but I am also not in any way surprised).

Which is exactly why I posted this thread - I am far too cynical to buy into the ridiculous "spin" surrounding what now seems to be an exhausting trend towards these kinds of "announcements". My intent was to give everyone here at UP an opportunity to flush out the reality of this immediately - BEFORE we all got our undies in a bunch - and before we wasted countless hours and minds pontificating about something that was really nothing.

My hunch is that this issue will simply be hanging around the periphery of unremarkable campaign speeches and press releases until we've endured another mayoral election cycle... in the meantime, we can much better spend our time pondering transit, downtown retail and other issues that have very "real" potential for positive impact in terms of creating long term success in our community.

(GRDad) As the initiator of this thread, can I humbly request that we kill it? or at least re-title or move it to a place of more appropriate (and far less noteworthy) status? (perhaps file it in the growing pile of "solved mysteries that never amounted to anything"?)

[francishsu]

I'm going to enjoy reading the debate on this proposal. Has a bit of a "Deal or No Deal" flavor. Do you take the money offered and walk away, or hold on to those lots if you believe you can get much better deals for them in the long run?

[NorthEnder]

I'm going to enjoy reading the debate on this proposal. Has a bit of a "Deal or No Deal" flavor. Do you take the money offered and walk away, or hold on to those lots if you believe you can get much better deals for them in the long run?

[GRobserver]

Haven't been here in a while, but my "TheGeha" warning just went off last night.

I'm sure you can all picture what a giant floating silhouette of TheGeha in the night sky looks like.

[DJL3CDP]

Greetings all. Thanks for the opinions. We thought posting our FAQ might clarify things but hey, can't win them all, especially with this group.

As for the proposal, it is a pretty simple idea that has been done in other cities. Read the data, there is no reason that a financially strapped city needs to be in the parking business (one only need look at what Chicago did last year to see a great model). We have no "Grand Plan" pun intended but we are willing to address any concerns. Filmmaker, there is one thing we agree about...if this thread dies fine with us.

As always, I remain an faithful UP member so fire away.

DJL

[Rizzo]

How does transit work in your business model? I was actually surprised to see that this is included in your proposal. Do you plan on operating the service as fee based by working it into the parking price?

[GR8scott]

I love how the Geha had no emotion with this story. She must have recieved some criticism over her jubilation in regards to the mystery project.

[GRDadof3]

I think it's a bad idea. I however think that the DASH lots should be disbanded and slowly phased out for development, and replaced with DASH lots out in the near burbs with mass transit into the city center. But by giving up that power to a private interest, it would be very difficult to plot any kind of course as to what happens with those lots. For instance, the city may have the ability to form a creative incentive deal of selling a particular DASH lot for development (like for $1) in exchange for a certain amount of expected tax revenue. Will a private developer be able to structure anything like that? No way. And what do we all think will happen with these lots as far as value goes, once they are put into the private sector?

Again, like the casino, our city leaders need to stop with the sawed-off shotgun blast principle of economic development and start pulling out the laser scope rifles. I'm with joedowntown, it's all very amateurish.

[krylonics]

Honestly, is there anyone in the city that is looking out for the long-term welfare of downtown or has a good vision of the future, or are they just a bunch of rinky-dink, short-sighted preachers, electricians and journeymen?

Joe

[AlexPKeaton]

If they owned those lots they'd stand to gain quite a bit if we were to build a light rail system in Grand Rapids. Private ownership may not be bad in that case as it would give them some incentive to push a rail effort along.

[GRDadof3]

If they owned those lots they'd stand to gain quite a bit if we were to build a light rail system in Grand Rapids. Private ownership may not be bad in that case as it would give them some incentive to push a rail effort along.

[tamias6]

I'm afraid I'll have to say no to privatizing. Sure the lots cost money to operate. But like GRDadof3 stated, the lots being ownerd by the city gives the city more control of the destiny of the real estates the lots sit on. Also I hear the Dash bus service would be thrown in the deal too? Alright. But what if sometime in the future, the developer one days says the Dash service is not making enough money and shuts the surface down. That means folks parking in outlaying lots affected by the deal would have to get a very nice pair of hiking boots. Lastly if the developer wants to buy the lots just to keep them lots, how will DT be able to be developed any further? Look how long the giant Wal-Mart sized surface lot over on Fulton and Market has stayed a surface lot? It's at least 20 years by my count. The land that particular lot sits on just screams to be developed into something far higher value. But I have yet to see its owner(s) sell out.

So as far as I'm concern it would be in the best interest of the long term future that the city rejects any kind of deal to sell the lots in question to private hands.

[joeDowntown]

I think the city has to remember that a quick profit is not always in the best interest of the city. Good vision for a vibrant downtown that will ultimately pay dividends in increased tax dollars is definitely more important than the short term gains presented here.

Joe

I'm going to enjoy reading the debate on this proposal. Has a bit of a "Deal or No Deal" flavor. Do you take the money offered and walk away, or hold on to those lots if you believe you can get much better deals for them in the long run?

[DJL3CDP]

Rizzo,

As far as transit goes...let me lead with this example. We have to buy our own bus to transport Mid Towne Village tenants around the city because we could not get the DASH to do that. That cost both capital and operating cost, is very real to us. As an alternative, we can pay the DASH for the service and we both end up better off. I know other building owners would agree. So, free to the riders and charged to those who want a free service for their tenants. That is our initial thought...might change as we get into the details.

DJL

[Rizzo]

I believe privatizing can be helpful where it is most appropriate. If these parking facilities operate on a profit and keep their status as asset rather than liability it only makes sense to keep operating the lots for the profits.

I can't support the move to sell these properties.

[Prankster]

Rizzo,

As far as transit goes...let me lead with this example. We have to buy our own bus to transport Mid Towne Village tenants around the city because we could not get the DASH to do that. That cost both capital and operating cost, is very real to us. As an alternative, we can pay the DASH for the service and we both end up better off. I know other building owners would agree. So, free to the riders and charged to those who want a free service for their tenants. That is our initial thought...might change as we get into the details.

DJL