|
Post by 1NAMillion on Dec 9, 2013 12:44:32 GMT -6
These are just recomendations...............None of what has been placed into this City Plan is set in stone!
Kyle... I'm sure you are going to the meeting Tuesday..WHY is that you couldnt wait to jump all over this until AFTER the meeting. When you can get your facts straight or crooked or how ever they come to you?
|
|
|
Post by Kyle Mitchell on Dec 9, 2013 12:46:52 GMT -6
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. If they have the state or federal funds, why haven't they done anything to demolish or rehabilitate their Main Street property? I have had other building owners tell me that they have been required to abide by the requirements of the ordinance. Whether or not they have fined any $750/day, I haven't heard and would need to file FOIA notices to find out. It is there for them to use as they want, similar to their other selective enforcement practices. The ordinance has done more than cause them to sell a little cheaper, it has them dumping properties for whatever they can get, lowering prices more than a little I agree that encouraging the building owners to do something other than leave them sit vacant is a good thing, but think there are better ways to go about it than to just make it too expensive for them to exist. Not giving out a restriction on use that goes against our laws is one. Enforcement of our laws to create a better business environment that doesn't keep people away from the area would be another. Helping the owners improve their buildings with a facade improvement grant program, etc. could also help Other communities have marketed their downtown areas to try to encourage more businesses to come there. If our City were doing some of these things to try to fill the empty buildings instead of only making it difficult on the owners, I wouldn't be so against the ordinance.
|
|
|
Post by Kyle Mitchell on Dec 9, 2013 12:51:57 GMT -6
These are just recomendations...............None of what has been placed into this City Plan is set in stone! Kyle... I'm sure you are going to the meeting Tuesday..WHY is that you couldnt wait to jump all over this until AFTER the meeting. When you can get your facts straight or crooked or how ever they come to you? They won't be set in stone after tomorrow's meeting(which I can't make because of work) either. If we wait until they are set in stone, it will be very hard to change. The ordinance to make it difficult on building owners(other than the city) is already in place.
|
|
|
Post by Kyle Mitchell on Dec 9, 2013 13:30:05 GMT -6
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. Why is it that so many buildings became vacant? Do you think it is because the owners got on their high horses long ago, or could there be other underlying issues? I think that people have to want to be here and have money in their pockets to spend in the businesses for them to be able to survive, regardless of how expensive the buildings are. If the buildings were all fixed up and free, there are still many other expenses to operate a business and be able to survive in them. If there are no customers, won't the buildings just end up being vacant again? I think there is a lot more to the equation than just getting building owners off their high horses.
|
|
|
Post by 1NAMillion on Dec 9, 2013 13:48:09 GMT -6
I'll tell you why so many buildings are vacant. Because Centuries..yes centuries, ago when these buildings were new and business was BOOMING..the 'what I call greedy' building owners didnt bother to put any money back into them. So they fell into disrepair..They didnt care enough to leave future generations a prospective venture.NOW centuries..yes centuries later. Our generation has to have at least..bare minimum..$50,000 just to fix what our past generations of business owners were to irresposible to keep up. add to that..another $50 -$100,000 inventory, to start up a new business, add to that, Lenders just arent leanding out money like they used to. The new Credit Ratings have literaly screwed everyone. a rating of 600 used to be good! Now it has to be 800. Really? with todays economy..show me 1 person who hasnt been able to pay a bill, or not been late with a mortgage payment once in the last 5 years. That doesnt mean, you cant run a productive business. Its tough out there. We dont live in the big cities, our banks dont have big city money.
|
|
|
Post by rukidding (towns local troll) on Dec 9, 2013 15:21:07 GMT -6
show me 1 person who hasnt been able to pay a bill, or not been late with a mortgage payment once in the last 5 years. I would be that ONE PERSON that HAS paid Their Bills on Time that INCLUDES MY MORTGAGE. The Mortgage has been paid on Time EVERY MONTH for the LAST 15 years. It's known as LIVING within YOUR MEANS.
|
|
|
Post by Kyle Mitchell on Dec 9, 2013 17:45:34 GMT -6
I'll tell you why so many buildings are vacant. Because Centuries..yes centuries, ago when these buildings were new and business was BOOMING..the 'what I call greedy' building owners didnt bother to put any money back into them. So they fell into disrepair..They didnt care enough to leave future generations a prospective venture.NOW centuries..yes centuries later. Our generation has to have at least..bare minimum..$50,000 just to fix what our past generations of business owners were to irresposible to keep up. add to that..another $50 -$100,000 inventory, to start up a new business, add to that, Lenders just arent leanding out money like they used to. The new Credit Ratings have literaly screwed everyone. a rating of 600 used to be good! Now it has to be 800. Really? with todays economy..show me 1 person who hasnt been able to pay a bill, or not been late with a mortgage payment once in the last 5 years. That doesnt mean, you cant run a productive business. Its tough out there. We dont live in the big cities, our banks dont have big city money. Lack of maintenance over 100 years ago? If a new roof was put on a building 100 years ago, I wouldn't expect it to still be protecting the building from water damage. Buildings need on-going maintenance, I would be more apt to think that the lack of it over the last couple of decades is more the problem with the present condition of many of our buildings. Maintaining commercial buildings requires money that generally would come form the income of the businesses in them. If people stop spending money in the businesses causing the buildings to be empty, the owners have a hard time and little motivation to maintain them. I agree though that the condition of some of them is a big factor. Every community has the problems of cost of inventory and credit requirements to have businesses, but many have much lower vacancy rates than we do. If more money were being spent here, whether from more people having jobs here or from people coming from other places, businesses would fill many of the empty buildings and they would be able to be maintained.
|
|
|
Post by dog on Dec 9, 2013 18:21:59 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by dog on Dec 9, 2013 18:27:13 GMT -6
I also found this online. Maybe there is a government program that the city knows about, that allocates grant money for areas like downtown business districts, that is similar to this program for residential neighborhoods:
Neighborhood Stabilization Program Grants Introduction
The Neighborhood Stabilization Program (NSP) was established for the purpose of stabilizing communities that have suffered from foreclosures and abandonment. Through the purchase and redevelopment of foreclosed and abandoned homes and residential properties, the goal of the program is being realized. NSP1, a term that references the NSP funds authorized under Division B, Title III of the Housing and Economic Recovery Act (HERA) of 2008, provides grants to all states and selected local governments on a formula basis.
NSP2, a term that references the NSP funds authorized under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (the Recovery Act) of 2009, provides grants to states, local governments, nonprofits and a consortium of nonprofit entities on a competitive basis. The Recovery Act also authorized HUD to establish NSP-TA, a $50 million allocation made available to national and local technical assistance providers to support NSP grantees.
NSP3, a term that references the NSP funds authorized under the Dodd–Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (Dodd-Frank Act) of 2010, provides a third round of neighborhood stabilization grants to all states and select governments on a formula basis.
|
|
|
Post by Kyle Mitchell on Dec 9, 2013 20:50:18 GMT -6
I don't think that everything that bigger cities do are necessarily the best solutions for us. I get the impression that the vacant building ordinance, building design restrictions, and the sign ordinance(prior to the last modifications) all came from some suburb, possibly where the city manager is from? It is unacceptable to me that they impose ordinances like these on others, yet do not follow them for their own property. Like I said, there are things they could be doing to try to help the owners of vacant buildings instead of just trying to make things hard on them. Since you provided information about Chicago's vacant buildings, I thought that I would also provide some information on just one of their many economic development programs: Small Business Improvement Fund (SBIF) The SBIF program uses TIF revenues to help owners of commercial and industrial properties repair or remodel their facilities for their own businesses or on behalf of tenants. Program participants receive matching grants to cover half the cost of remodeling work, with a maximum grant amount up to $150,000 for industrial properties and $100,000 for commercial properties. Grants do not have to be repaid. Grants are provided to business and property owners in eligible TIF districts after remodeling work is completed.
Eligible costs include but are not limited to:
New windows, floors or roof Sign removal and replacement Tuck pointing New heating, ventilation and air conditioning Improvements for disabled access Purchase of adjacent property
|
|
|
Post by father of two on Dec 9, 2013 21:00:30 GMT -6
Doesn't Streators three TIF's do that also?
|
|
|
Post by Kyle Mitchell on Dec 9, 2013 22:34:55 GMT -6
Doesn't Streators three TIF's do that also? Do they? I had inquired about help for some good sized projects at the Majestic years ago and was told that abatement of sales tax for materials and a portion of property tax increases as a result of improvements were the redevelopment incentives available here. If there are TIF funds to pay for upgrades to private buildings, why aren't they being used to fix them up? Why would remodeling costs stop your friends if TIF funds would pay for it?
|
|
|
Post by chevypower on Dec 10, 2013 1:05:28 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. They are fire walls between the two Buildings I believe.
|
|
|
Post by chevypower on Dec 10, 2013 1:17:19 GMT -6
This is also a good time to buy up said properties and sell them down the road for a wider profit margin, better known as cornering the market, which sometimes is done on purpose.
|
|
|
Post by 1NAMillion on Dec 10, 2013 6:04:48 GMT -6
ok..decades..not centuries...lol You get my drift. I'll tell you why so many buildings are vacant. Because Centuries..yes centuries, ago when these buildings were new and business was BOOMING..the 'what I call greedy' building owners didnt bother to put any money back into them. So they fell into disrepair..They didnt care enough to leave future generations a prospective venture.NOW centuries..yes centuries later. Our generation has to have at least..bare minimum..$50,000 just to fix what our past generations of business owners were to irresposible to keep up. add to that..another $50 -$100,000 inventory, to start up a new business, add to that, Lenders just arent leanding out money like they used to. The new Credit Ratings have literaly screwed everyone. a rating of 600 used to be good! Now it has to be 800. Really? with todays economy..show me 1 person who hasnt been able to pay a bill, or not been late with a mortgage payment once in the last 5 years. That doesnt mean, you cant run a productive business. Its tough out there. We dont live in the big cities, our banks dont have big city money. Lack of maintenance over 100 years ago? If a new roof was put on a building 100 years ago, I wouldn't expect it to still be protecting the building from water damage. Buildings need on-going maintenance, I would be more apt to think that the lack of it over the last couple of decades is more the problem with the present condition of many of our buildings. Maintaining commercial buildings requires money that generally would come form the income of the businesses in them. If people stop spending money in the businesses causing the buildings to be empty, the owners have a hard time and little motivation to maintain them. I agree though that the condition of some of them is a big factor. Every community has the problems of cost of inventory and credit requirements to have businesses, but many have much lower vacancy rates than we do. If more money were being spent here, whether from more people having jobs here or from people coming from other places, businesses would fill many of the empty buildings and they would be able to be maintained.
|
|