|
Post by Kyle Mitchell on Dec 8, 2013 20:21:07 GMT -6
www.mywebtimes.com/news/local/streator-to-present-first-drafts-of-comprehensive-downtown-redevelopment-plans/article_4477510e-43b4-5714-b031-004d3bd737c8.htmlThe Downtown Strategic Plan recommends the creation of the Streator Action and Revitalization Team, which would assign various city and civic entities into the following program teams: Downtown Operations and Support, New Business Development and Recruitment, New Development Programs; and Recruitment and Capital Improvements.
Each team would be responsible for priority action items, including: implementing a facade improvement program; developing joint initiatives, business hours and events; attracting additional niche restaurants; working with key partners to create an entrepreneur development and support program; assisting entrepreneurs with starting new retail, restaurant, entertainment and service businesses; purchasing vacant and blighted properties to make them available for redevelopment; assisting prospective developers in accessing financial resources; helping building owners redevelop upper floors of buildings for additional residential units; and implementing the Greenway Master Plan recommendations and promoting active use of the river and trails.Is the city going to start redeveloping properties? I don't see how their purchase of vacant and blighted properties could make them any more available for redevelopment than they are now, unless they are going to be doing the development, which I don't think should be the function of a city, particularly one in the financial condition of ours. They already have a vacant and blighted property downtown bringing down property values, and have done nothing to improve or redevelop it. Their vacant building ordinance has put pressure on owners to dump their buildings bringing property values down even more. Now they want to start buying more? I am against the city taking properties off the tax rolls. I am also very disappointed that the article didn't mention better enforcement of our laws; I think that is a big problem that contributes to the vacancies. Wanting more residential units downtown, do they expect people to want to live around the drunken street brawls, public exposure, etc.?
|
|
|
Post by father of two on Dec 8, 2013 20:36:00 GMT -6
It says purchasing to make available for redevelopment. Some buildings in town that are vacant have a big price tag on them making them unaffordable to some prospective buyers. The city may have means available to them to make it easier to get those properties cheaper and then sell them off to a buyer at more affordable costs. It does not say the city will develop the buildings. I agree that they should not. Unsightly buildings, such as the one they own, do not look good downtown. I know a couple friends who tried to buy a couple different buildings downtown but didn't because the price was too high and remodeling costs made it even worse.
This is a good start to a plan for downtown by the city.
Did you ever ask why the portion of the city's building remains on Main St? I thought the reason why was that adjacent buildings(Monroe tap and other 2) shared that wall and it remained as is for structure safety. They should maintain their own building as they require of others,
Maybe more residents downtown will bringer with it more enforcement.
|
|
|
Post by northsider on Dec 8, 2013 21:31:14 GMT -6
Perhaps you should see about getting on one of the development teams and then you can maybe do something about all of the ills you see in our downtown area instead of just ranting incessantly about them.
|
|
|
Post by Kyle Mitchell on Dec 8, 2013 22:21:32 GMT -6
It says purchasing to make available for redevelopment. Some buildings in town that are vacant have a big price tag on them making them unaffordable to dome prospective buyers. The city may have means available to them to make it easier to get those properties cheaper and then sell them off to a buyer at more affordable costs. It does not say the city will develop the buildings. I agree that they should not. Unsightly buildings, such as the one they own, do not look good downtown. I know a couple friends who tried to buy a couple different buildings downtown but didn't because the price was too high and remodeling costs made it even worse. This is a good start to a plan for downtown by the city. Did you ever ask why the portion of the city's building remains on Main St? I thought the reason why was that adjacent buildings(Monroe tap and other 2) shared that wall and it remained as is for structure safety. They should maintain their own building as they require of others, Maybe more residents downtown will bringer w enforcement. So the City would force the owners to sell for less than they want to and then resell them? That doesn't sound right to me. That would bring down property values even more, since those lower sales prices would then be used as comparable values for other buildings. The prices were too high? I've seen buildings listed very cheap here and ones in other communities selling for a lot more. No I didn't ask why that building still exists, but did ask that they take some pride in our downtown and improve it.
|
|
|
Post by Kyle Mitchell on Dec 8, 2013 22:29:57 GMT -6
Perhaps you should see about getting on one of the development teams and then you can maybe do something about all of the ills you see in our downtown area instead of just ranting incessantly about them. The article says that city and civic entities will be assigned to the development teams. I am neither of those. I believe it is my right to rant about them.
|
|
|
Post by father of two on Dec 8, 2013 23:12:43 GMT -6
Who said force them to sell?
|
|
|
Post by father of two on Dec 8, 2013 23:23:26 GMT -6
What has more value, an unoccupied rundown building or a building that has been redeveloped for business?
Remember that downtown is in a TIF district. An increase in property taxes go back to the TIF to help pay for improvements in the district and the business. The city also has low interest loans available for businesses.
I would take the article to mean that if there were a potential buyer for a building that the city would help by either purchasing the building and reselling or help negotiate for a new business. There may be some laws that allow the city some extra leverage that a private citizen may not have.
|
|
|
Post by Kyle Mitchell on Dec 9, 2013 7:35:45 GMT -6
I don't think our city should be in the real estate business.
If the building owner is willing to sell cheaper, they would do that without the city purchasing it.
If they are not willing to sell cheaper they won't. Then if the city uses extra leverage to get it cheaper, I would call that forcing them to sell for less than they want to.
There is a law that gives them extra leverage. It is called the vacant building ordinance and allows them to fine the owners $750.00/day with each day being a separate occurrence, if they don't like the owner's plan submitted for the building.
How long ago was it that your friends tried to buy buildings but thought they were too expensive? Maybe they should keep trying. The city's pressure on vacant building owners has been causing values to keep dropping.
I agree that occupied, fixed up buildings are worth more. That is why I think that it is very wrong that they gave out a restriction on use that goes against our zoning ordinance.
Keeping buildings vacant and then leveraging the owners out of them so that the city can be in the real estate business is not what a city should do.
|
|
|
Post by cityslicker on Dec 9, 2013 7:51:11 GMT -6
The city should start a DOWNTOWN DESTRUCTION TEAM. A corporation would not want to build or remodel a storefront, downtown, ghost town. Citizens going down Main Street cannot travel through the area, fast enough. Maybe that is why, the stoplights, capture motorists every light and street brawls are allowed, to hinder traffic flow. The drug store built at the intersection of rt23 and 18, will probably, be the last chain or corp to invest in the blighted area of downtown. Develop the area into section 8 housing and that will increase the city population, therefore more census population, more federal money.
|
|
|
Post by Kyle Mitchell on Dec 9, 2013 8:14:38 GMT -6
I know a couple friends who tried to buy a couple different buildings downtown but didn't because the price was too high and remodeling costs made it even worse. Maybe the city could leverage local contractors to do the work at a loss to be able to get it done within your friends' budget?
|
|
|
Post by father of two on Dec 9, 2013 8:56:05 GMT -6
Ok, I see where this is going.
Shame on you city council for getting into buying buildings. The only right opinion on what happens in Streator is kyles. Please consult him before you do anything so he can tell you if it is the best thing to do. Don't disagree with him because his opinion is the only one matters.
|
|
|
Post by rukidding (towns local troll) on Dec 9, 2013 9:07:34 GMT -6
Ok, I see where this is going. Shame on you city council for getting into buying buildings. The only right opinion on what happens in Streator is kyles. Please consult him before you do anything so he can tell you if it is the best thing to do. Don't disagree with him because his opinion is the only one matters. I've just got This to say about Our City BUYING PROPERTY. WTF Did WE NOT HAVE TO BORROW MONEY to Pay for THAT Monster of a Band Shelter in the City Park? It's EARLY that is the FIRST THING I could THINK of.
|
|
|
Post by dog on Dec 9, 2013 10:10:26 GMT -6
I don't think our city should be in the real estate business. If the building owner is willing to sell cheaper, they would do that without the city purchasing it. If they are not willing to sell cheaper they won't. Then if the city uses extra leverage to get it cheaper, I would call that forcing them to sell for less than they want to. There is a law that gives them extra leverage. It is called the vacant building ordinance and allows them to fine the owners $750.00/day with each day being a separate occurrence, if they don't like the owner's plan submitted for the building. How long ago was it that your friends tried to buy buildings but thought they were too expensive? Maybe they should keep trying. The city's pressure on vacant building owners has been causing values to keep dropping. I agree that occupied, fixed up buildings are worth more. That is why I think that it is very wrong that they gave out a restriction on use that goes against our zoning ordinance. Keeping buildings vacant and then leveraging the owners out of them so that the city can be in the real estate business is not what a city should do. I don't think it is a question of the if the owner could sell cheaper, they would. I think it might be a question of cost of repair. It might be too expensive for the owner to finance the repairs or demolition, but if it were owned by the city, maybe they have state or federal funds available to either demolish or rehabilitate the building. This vacant building ordinance, have they fined anybody or are currently fining anyone $750/day to your knowledge? I don't think the law was intended to give the city a way to keep certain businesses out, but to either make these absentee owners either sell the building or utilize it instead of leaving it vacant. I think if the cities pressure will cause some of these people to come off their high horse and sell these buildings a little cheaper, or utilize them themselves, that would be a good thing. These buildings would no longer be vacant and then property values would start to rise.
|
|
|
Post by Kyle Mitchell on Dec 9, 2013 12:17:49 GMT -6
Ok, I see where this is going. Shame on you city council for getting into buying buildings. The only right opinion on what happens in Streator is kyles. Please consult him before you do anything so he can tell you if it is the best thing to do. Don't disagree with him because his opinion is the only one matters. Just stating my insignificant opinions; it is my right and duty as a citizen who wants better for our community. If I felt like the city even listened when I voice my requests and opinions to them, I wouldn't even be on here talking about what they do. A city that has a deficit, continually decreasing property tax revenue, and property that they don't take care of shouldn't be considering purchasing more private properties.
|
|
|
Post by 1NAMillion on Dec 9, 2013 12:39:55 GMT -6
I know a couple friends who tried to buy a couple different buildings downtown but didn't because the price was too high and remodeling costs made it even worse. Maybe the city could leverage local contractors to do the work at a loss to be able to get it done within your friends' budget? LOCAL...non-union conctractors wont do the work. And WHO can afford to pay a UNION Contractor who hires any jo blow from the hall, to sit around, drink coffee and do a half assed job?
|
|