Jump to content

Scheme to sell city parking lots


FilmMaker

Recommended Posts


  • Replies 111
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Ya' know, there's a real estate instrument called a LEASE

It's not like parking lots need a massive infrastructure to operate, so our friends from Third Coast are not going to be out wads of cash if after signing a 10 or 15 years lease and during that time someone comes along with a better use of the property. Third Coast gets a buyout cut, GR gets something useful built.

Am I missing something here?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thank you for asking the 64 dollar question, Prankster. Two brownie points for you. :thumbsup:

Now I will turn my attention to the developer. It does not take a city planner to realize what is at stake here. The city lots in question takes up a massive amount of the urban core's total real estate. Even with my budding knowledge of the ins and outs of urbanism, I can think of a near limitless amount of options of how all of those parking lots could be put use for the benefits of the city and metro area. Therefore its fairly easy to conclude that the outcome of this issue will have reverberating effects on the short and long term future of downtown and surrounding districts. Thus, I and hopefully many others want piece of mind that privatizing those city own lots is for a purpose far more noble than merely sweeting talking a cash strapped city into making a quick buck.

How about the question of locking this land up for parking, and taking away any possibility of redevelopment in the forseable future? The city can structure a deal that is financially beneficial to the city with new development. If the land is privately held, it would only be developed if it was financially beneficial to Third Coast. As someone previously alluded to, we already have property owners like Azzar that operate with this mindset.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

To add to that, the city owns all this available and developable land. Would a private developer be willing to turn over the keys like the city has been willing to do with Areas 4 & 5?

Or even more black and white, look at the lots the new GRAM is being on. The city GAVE these lots to GRAM for the better good of the city. I could not see a private developer doing that because their interests are completely in efficiently making money (not that there is anything wrong with that). The city on the other hand should always have the greater interest of the city in mind and be willing to be flexible to strenthen the core if a potential development arises.

Joe

Thank you for asking the 64 dollar question, Prankster. Two brownie points for you. :thumbsup:

Now I will turn my attention to the developer. It does not take a city planner to realize what is at stake here. The city lots in question takes up a massive amount of the urban core's total real estate. Even with my budding knowledge of the ins and outs of urbanism, I can think of a near limitless amount of options of how all of those parking lots could be put use for the benefits of the city and metro area. Therefore its fairly easy to conclude that the outcome of this issue will have reverberating effects on the short and long term future of downtown and surrounding districts. Thus, I and hopefully many others want piece of mind that privatizing those city own lots is for a purpose far more noble than merely sweeting talking a cash strapped city into making a quick buck.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

My entire point was to offend electricians everywhere. Not to point out the deficiencies of our short-sighted city commission. :tough:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Interest high if city wants to sell off lots...for parking

That right there tells me the city needs to hold, at least the surface DASH lots they own. I might be convinced that they should sell the ramps, because I doubt they are going anywhere soon since they are fairly new (Monroe Center and Fulton/Ottawa ramp).

I didn't see where anyone posted yesterday's Press article about it:

http://www.mlive.com/news/grpress/index.ss....xml&coll=6

It would include the DASH system and four city-owned ramps, but it would not include the government center ramp, Devos Convention Center ramp, or the new ramp at Cherry/Commerce.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is exactly right. In the news article, Tormala indicates that they could use the extra money to hire more firefighters, police officers and revive dormant swimming pools. It seems that the whole casino thing was tied with getting more money in the city coffers to revive dormant pools and maintain parks.

These are worthy and noble causes, but to sell out the future for the short term is negligent. These are knee-jerk reactions by impatient people. Patience is a virtue in these kind of matters.

The city is not in as bad shape as many alarmist would have you believe. We have vibrant neighborhoods that get better each year. Our downtown, while not the model we would all like to see, does have great potential (ie - it was not completely gutted). We need to continue to invigorate the core with mixed-use high density. We need to continue to cultivate and protect the neighborhoods and get more committed families moving into them.

We should not settle for short term solutions to long term opportunities. That is why we need political leaders that can do this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But this city has such a stellar reputation for making decisions that it comes to regret later on - shout out to "Urban Renewal", "City Hall", Monroe Mall", "City Center", etc. Now it's the parking lots. Hey, let's sell this prime city-owned real estate. What's the worst that could happen?

Every time I catch a city commissioner meeting on public access or see one of these commissioners interviewed in the media, I worry. This area is lurching forward into becoming a modern metropolitan area and yet the city leadership behaves like a bunch of bloviating small town nincompoops debating the timing of the only stoplight in the village. These guys suffer from the same type of myopia that has led to the struggles of the big three automakers. A backward looking, short-term focused, internal power struggle mentality that is failing to recognize the changing attitudes, needs, and desires of their constituency. If this city wants to attract young, educated residents and the type of companies that will employ them, they better grow up and start acting like it. Otherwise, GR is going to turn into a Potemkin Village of empty buildings where parking will be the least of our concerns and this unique moment in history which has led to the current revitalization sweeping through downtown will dissipate and be lost.

Whew! I feel better.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But this city has such a stellar reputation for making decisions that it comes to regret later on - shout out to "Urban Renewal", "City Hall", Monroe Mall", "City Center", etc. Now it's the parking lots. Hey, let's sell this prime city-owned real estate. What's the worst that could happen?

Every time I catch a city commissioner meeting on public access or see one of these commissioners interviewed in the media, I worry. This area is lurching forward into becoming a modern metropolitan area and yet the city leadership behaves like a bunch of bloviating small town nincompoops debating the timing of the only stoplight in the village. These guys suffer from the same type of myopia that has led to the struggles of the big three automakers. A backward looking, short-term focused, internal power struggle mentality that is failing to recognize the changing attitudes, needs, and desires of their constituency. If this city wants to attract young, educated residents and the type of companies that will employ them, they better grow up and start acting like it. Otherwise, GR is going to turn into a Potemkin Village of empty buildings where parking will be the least of our concerns and this unique moment in history which has led to the current revitalization sweeping through downtown will dissipate and be lost.

Whew! I feel better.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Downtown Development Authority Director Jay Fowler said the DDA-owned DASH parking lots Third Coast wants to buy are "deeply subsidized" as part of the agency's mission to promote downtown development.

It sounds like some city staffers aren't too keen on this idea, either.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nothing like giving up the future for a few fair-weather votes today.

I hope that the politicians that seem to have the most common sense, the ones that oppose this plan, come up with the right numbers that will show selling off city assets as a band-aide for a broken arm is a bad idea. These east coast investors aren't dummies...they wouldn't get into this unless they knew they could get 15 - 20% annual returns on their investment. Let's keep that money in-house.

Most UP'ers on here seem to understand this. Our elected officials really make me wonder sometimes. It's almost like it was back in high-school...the class president was elected because he was the cool guy - the football jock who everyone admired and wanted to be friends around, but whose fifteen minutes of fame was used up all those many years ago. I don't want the "cool" guy, the one with the suave thing to say that simply sweeps the problem under the rug for the time being, running my City. I want the glasses-toting, undersized kid that everyone picked on (but naturally was labeled "most likely to succeed in life), the one that has real business acumen now, calling the shots - who understands that short-term solutions usually only exacerbate long-term problems.

That's just my two-cents worth based on what I've read in the papers lately. This City isn't going to turn into the world-class destination we all want and envision overnight, next week, or even in the next 5 years...it takes a lot of time and adjustment, and market economics needs to (and will) determine the pace of development and growth. We can always promote it, but we can't force it, and I have the feeling the City leaders, or at least some of them, are trying to force it right now for their own legacy's sake.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nothing like giving up the future for a few fair-weather votes today.

I hope that the politicians that seem to have the most common sense, the ones that oppose this plan, come up with the right numbers that will show selling off city assets as a band-aide for a broken arm is a bad idea. These east coast investors aren't dummies...they wouldn't get into this unless they knew they could get 15 - 20% annual returns on their investment. Let's keep that money in-house.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How about the question of locking this land up for parking, and taking away any possibility of redevelopment in the forseable future? The city can structure a deal that is financially beneficial to the city with new development. If the land is privately held, it would only be developed if it was financially beneficial to Third Coast. As someone previously alluded to, we already have property owners like Azzar that operate with this mindset.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Did I miss something... Rosely is a local talent who I believe is doing a nice sized ground up project up over the hill.

With all that you said, you're still saying that government is better operating business than the private sector :thumbsup: .

Contrarian, maybe the pools would be better suited being run privately... they might be open. Who is to say these guys arent sharp and are thinking to double deck the big lots under the S curves and developing the closer in lots?? This city isnt booming because the city is building stuff, and using parking spaces as chips is sorta good ole boyish.

If these guys put a bicycle livery in the S curve lots, it'd be better than the current marathon walk to the core city...

and gee maybe they'd run a shuttle.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Agreed GRDad. It's not a matter of who is proposing this, it is the sizeable portion of undeveloped land going into the hands of one private investor. I think too much is at stake for the future of downtown if all of this available land was owned by a private company driven by profit (which is not wrong, I'm a capitalist).

Luckily, it looks like people in the city think it is a bad idea too. Tormala seems ready for a fire sale for a negligible profit. Imagine if this guy becomes mayor?

Joe

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What flogging are they getting? The only thing that I see being questioned is the short sighted-ness of Tormala for looking for immediate monetary gain versus looking at the long term ramifications. Also, would you disagree that if the deal went through, that Third Coast would not sell the lots to developers unless it made financial sense for Third Coast? IMO, the parking lots will be more readily available for future development if owned by the city. And it isn't like they are a huge financial burden for the city, they are bringing money into the city coffers.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • 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.