|
Post by Kyle Mitchell on Jan 26, 2014 9:05:40 GMT -6
I started this new thread for dog. Although I don't see it as disrespectful to the family with the new business to point out that their branching out competitor is an entity that has advantages over them, I didn't want to have anyone not respond because it was on a different thread. Our city is competing with private business and losing taxpayer money at that? I don't see that as a good thing. Maybe our community just can not support three courses. With our continually declining population has come less schools, less churches, less stores. At some point won't it be time for less golf courses? I hope the private tax paying courses are successful. Now there is talk of the City buying vacant buildings downtown to compete with other building owners in the real estate business? In an attempt to not be Glum, at least they take better care of their golf course than some of their other real estate. Kyle, did you read the article in The Times, a couple of nights ago regarding the Little City Building in Ottawa? The city wanted to pursue getting ownership so they could get grants to pay for the removal of asbestos. Grants that wouldn't be available to a private owner. Then in turn, they could then turn around and sell it and make it usable for a private owner. As old as our downtown is, I am sure there would be environmental issues that could be cleaned up cheaper by government grants, rather than current owners or potential new owners. The Pflibsens are good people and will make a go of the Country Club, I wish them luck. They took advantage of declining property values, make an affordable investment, and made a commitment to start another business. In respect to them, I hated responding to you in this topic regarding the city. and I would prefer to continue this part of the debate in one of the other topics you started on our city government. The plan drafts are available on the Vandewalle site. If you read the draft of the downtown plan, you will see that they are not talking about being a go between to make environmental cleanup possible, only when they have a committed buyer, like Ottawa. They are talking about property banking, buying smaller parcels to combine for a larger development. It even mentions a 40 unit housing project. Big difference, IMO. I wish the course owners luck as well, it could be hard to compete with a public course that not only doesn't pay property tax but is tax payer supported on top of that. Being a big money person may make it easy to play down their investment as affordable, but to others I'm sure it would still be a big investment and risk even with the low property values here. In my opinion, vacant building owners are business owners that just don't have any customers. If there is someone that is interested in doing a larger development, they could be directed to the individual property owners and start banking the properties to be able to obtain a large enough parcel for their development. Our city doesn't need to be in the real estate business, using tax dollars to buy the property and also giving up the property tax revenue from private ownership to make it happen. Especially when you consider that they are raising our taxes and yet don't even provide us a high enough level of services to be able to have someone come take an eyewitness statement of a mugging, or reduce the number of street fights. Is our City planning to build the 40 unit housing project talked about in the downtown plan so that they can compete with local landlords as well? A City government should be more interested in fostering private business development than competing with them, in my opinion. We have individuals invested in golf courses, we have individuals invested in vacant real estate, we have individuals invested in rental housing. With the way they write ordinances that they don't follow for their own property, is it really a fair competition, private vs. our City?
|
|
|
Post by dog on Jan 26, 2014 10:08:40 GMT -6
I started this new thread for dog. Although I don't see it as disrespectful to the family with the new business to point out that their branching out competitor is an entity that has advantages over them, I didn't want to have anyone not respond because it was on a different thread. Our city is competing with private business and losing taxpayer money at that? I don't see that as a good thing. Maybe our community just can not support three courses. With our continually declining population has come less schools, less churches, less stores. At some point won't it be time for less golf courses? I hope the private tax paying courses are successful. Now there is talk of the City buying vacant buildings downtown to compete with other building owners in the real estate business? In an attempt to not be Glum, at least they take better care of their golf course than some of their other real estate. The plan drafts are available on the Vandewalle site. If you read the draft of the downtown plan, you will see that they are not talking about being a go between to make environmental cleanup possible, only when they have a committed buyer, like Ottawa. They are talking about property banking, buying smaller parcels to combine for a larger development. It even mentions a 40 unit housing project. Big difference, IMO. I wish the course owners luck as well, it could be hard to compete with a public course that not only doesn't pay property tax but is tax payer supported on top of that. Being a big money person may make it easy to play down their investment as affordable, but to others I'm sure it would still be a big investment and risk even with the low property values here. In my opinion, vacant building owners are business owners that just don't have any customers. If there is someone that is interested in doing a larger development, they could be directed to the individual property owners and start banking the properties to be able to obtain a large enough parcel for their development. Our city doesn't need to be in the real estate business, using tax dollars to buy the property and also giving up the property tax revenue from private ownership to make it happen. Especially when you consider that they are raising our taxes and yet don't even provide us a high enough level of services to be able to have someone come take an eyewitness statement of a mugging, or reduce the number of street fights. Is our City planning to build the 40 unit housing project talked about in the downtown plan so that they can compete with local landlords as well? A City government should be more interested in fostering private business development than competing with them, in my opinion. We have individuals invested in golf courses, we have individuals invested in vacant real estate, we have individuals invested in rental housing. With the way they write ordinances that they don't follow for their own property, is it really a fair competition, private vs. our City? I am having a hard time comprehending " to point out that their branching out competitor is an entity that has advantages over them". I think you are referring to the fact that they will have to pay property taxes where the city doesn't have to pay property taxes and that could be a disadvantage to the Phlibsens. I would think they would have taken that into account when they were considering their decision and they feel they can make a successful go of it. I have not read the Vandewalle plan that you have talked about, but I don't have a problem with them suggesting to the city that plan of attack. They are the professionals that were hired to create a plan to benefit the city. I can see the benefit of doing it that way. Look at a couple of scenarios: we have a business that wants to move to Streator and needs a place that would occupy 3 vacant buildings. 2 of the owners decide to sell but the third owner knows that his property is now essential to the sale and wants double what the property is worth. The new business decides that it isn't worth the cost and doesn't build here and the three buildings still remain vacant.If the city owned all three before any prospective business approached them to buy, there would not be these type of games. Do you have any evidence to support your claim that the city wants to control these properties to compete against private individuals and make the profits for themselves? I would think Vandewalle is suggesting this so the city can have the ability to use grant money to clean up any issues, and renovate and redevelop these properties and be a single contact point to allow for the sale of these properties, rather than taking the time and hassles of dealing with multiple property owners. I think the city would sell for what they had invested in the properties. Have you ever asked the city why they don't address the condition of the old surplus store property? What was their response?
|
|
|
Post by rocket on Jan 26, 2014 11:57:58 GMT -6
I don't recall the country club being in city limits. Usually when there is a fire in that area,the grandridge fire dept responds in that area,not sfd.
|
|
|
Post by Kyle Mitchell on Jan 26, 2014 20:21:20 GMT -6
I am having a hard time comprehending " to point out that their branching out competitor is an entity that has advantages over them". I think you are referring to the fact that they will have to pay property taxes where the city doesn't have to pay property taxes and that could be a disadvantage to the Phlibsens. How many acres is the former country club course? I would imagine the property taxes would be a considerable amount. What about sales tax? In addition to less expense of taxes, the city course has the advantage of tax payer funding. If it just continues losing more money, tax payers will foot the bill. If the private course loses money year after year, will it last? If they use the wrong chemicals on the greens making them unplayable, I would think(I do not know them at all) that the loss of revenue could devastate a family business, but a city course has the security of just making taxpayers pay more. If the City has to raise taxes or decrease other services to citizens to cover it, they can. How about insurance? If someone gets hurt, the private course owners could very well face a claim against them and would be wise to be insured for that. Our City is self-insured, meaning that tax payers would have to pay if it came to a judgement or settlement. Did a ball hit a car in the Kroeger lot and our City refuse to pay for the damages? I've heard before that you can't fight City Hall; our City has a tax payer funded legal team at their disposal, if anyone really wants to try. The added ability of being able to just deny liability simply because they are a municipality and less expense for insurance are advantages. Being able to enforce laws on others that they do not follow themselves could also be a big advantage for our City. They can also make public declarations against the character of other business owners, even if they are not true, but they are protected by Municipal Tort Immunity Law. Our City has many advantages over a competing private business. It doesn't seem fair to me. I'm glad this family made the investment though and wish them great luck.
|
|
|
Post by Kyle Mitchell on Jan 26, 2014 20:49:24 GMT -6
Look at a couple of scenarios: we have a business that wants to move to Streator and needs a place that would occupy 3 vacant buildings. 2 of the owners decide to sell but the third owner knows that his property is now essential to the sale and wants double what the property is worth. The new business decides that it isn't worth the cost and doesn't build here and the three buildings still remain vacant.If the city owned all three before any prospective business approached them to buy, there would not be these type of games. So our City that is raising our taxes to cover existing expenses(that doesn't even include a level of service to be able to cut down on the number of street fights or have someone come take an eyewitness statement of a mugging), has the money to purchase properties and give up more tax revenue, in case someone wants three vacant buildings? What if they need five or more? Just buy a whole bunch? What is this business that needs so much room? Does the City have any type of letter of commitment from them? The only thing I see suggested in the plan is a housing project up to 40 units. Don't we have a lot of houses for sale here that are priced low and yet not selling? This housing must be intended for people that can not afford to purchase here? If the third building owner wants to get as much as he can for his investment here, good for him; it is called capitalism. I think he could double the price and it would still be cheaper than going to most other communities around here. Real estate values are really low here. Do you really think our government needs to keep them down and not let the market set its own prices?
|
|
|
Post by Kyle Mitchell on Jan 26, 2014 21:42:43 GMT -6
Do you have any evidence to support your claim that the city wants to control these properties to compete against private individuals and make the profits for themselves? Evidence? What, are we in a courtroom now? Although a good one might help me understand, it doesn't really matter what their reason for buying is. By buying property for non-municipal redevelopment, they will be competing with other business/building owners. I would think Vandewalle is suggesting this so the city can have the ability to use grant money to clean up any issues, and renovate and redevelop these properties and be a single contact point to allow for the sale of these properties, rather than taking the time and hassles of dealing with multiple property owners. With a substantial letter of commitment from a buyer, I would not be against our City taking possession of a property to facilitate an environmental cleanup, but that is very different from what the Downtown Plan Draft is suggesting. Oh, the hassle. A company that is going to make an investment like that doesn't want the hassle of hiring a realtor and buying more than one property? Multiple sales contracts and filings on multiple properties, sounds like law firm pocket book lining that would be a hassle for tax payers. The company purchasing multiple properties here wouldn't want to negotiate for themselves to feel they are getting the best price, or would the City really be able to beat down the seller using the threat of the $750/day vacant building fines during the negotiations? Purchase and sale prices will all be made public right? When tax payers pay to renovate and redevelop these properties is it going to be built to suit the new owner, or will we just pay do whatever they think someone might want? I just don't think our city should be in the real estate business and have seen no good reason presented for it.
|
|
|
Post by Kyle Mitchell on Jan 26, 2014 21:54:21 GMT -6
Have you ever asked the city why they don't address the condition of the old surplus store property? What was their response? Why no, I have not asked why they don't address the condition of that building. I've asked them plenty of times to address the condition of that building and even donated a gallon of paint(neutral base, from Ace w/receipt, they can go get any color of their choice), but they just ignore me. Do you really think they would give me an answer for why? If there were an answer, don't you think they would have provided it? I did ask them why they would enforce a strict vacant building and sign ordinance on others when they keep a building in that condition, but as usual they just ignore my questions.
|
|
|
Post by father of two on Jan 26, 2014 22:07:31 GMT -6
Does the plan say the city will do this or does it suggest that they do it?
|
|
|
Post by Kyle Mitchell on Jan 27, 2014 8:57:18 GMT -6
At this point it is still a draft of the Plan, being shaped by input from many in the community, but more so by our City leaders.
Even when finished I don't think it can be an absolute predictor of everything the City will do in the future. It should be a series of many suggestions, but there is no sense in making a plan, if it isn't something that they do plan to follow.
Unless our City leaders really plan to compete against others invested in commercial real estate, I think they should be having that suggestion taken out of the plan.
If it is included in a plan that they vote to adopt, doesn't that send a message to anyone thinking of investing in commercial real estate to stay away unless they are ready to compete with our City, who has unfair advantages and as dog suggests may be trying to keep prices down so that a third building owner doesn't get as much as he can for his property?
We are spending a lot of money on this plan, it shouldn't be a bunch of suggestions that won't be followed, IMO.
|
|
|
Post by dog on Jan 27, 2014 12:41:05 GMT -6
and as dog suggests may be trying to keep prices down so that a third building owner doesn't get as much as he can for his property? I never said that the city may be trying to keep prices down to screw another business owner. I am all for capitalism and do believe a person should get what the market will bear when he sells his product, service, property ,etc. What I am saying if the city bought properties A,B, and C at a fair price and someone came along, and wanted all 3 properties, the city could sell all of these properties to cover their costs and get a new business in there. Now if individuals owned all these properties and A and C sold for fair market price and B found out that they needed his property to make the deal work, owner B would probably ask for way more than the property is worth because he knows the new business needs his property. The city would be more likely to not do that because they know having a new business there would increase their sales tax revenue and create jobs. The price that owner B sets might sink the deal. The city doesn't have any unfair advantage over a private realtor, since either party can only sell it for what the market will bear and when it is sold, it comes back on the tax roles and either way, the new business can receive the benefits of being in a TIF or enterprise zone. Regardless, I don't see too many of these downtown property owners pushing real hard to sell their properties. I would bet most have been paid for years ago and it really isn't costing them much to have them sit vacant. I do give you credit Kyle, you are trying to build the downtown area, but I think the vacant building owners don't make it much of a priority.
|
|
|
Post by dog on Jan 27, 2014 12:44:42 GMT -6
I did ask them why they would enforce a strict vacant building and sign ordinance on others when they keep a building in that condition. So which would be better in your opinion, remove the restrictions on the things you say they ignore on the city property, and allow everyone to keep their property in the condition the city does, or should they just keep the restrictions they have and enforce it upon themselves too?
|
|
|
Post by father of two on Jan 27, 2014 22:03:30 GMT -6
It seems this could be easier solved if the city were asked the intention of this part of the plan instead of speculating.
|
|
|
Post by Kyle Mitchell on Jan 27, 2014 22:10:21 GMT -6
I never said that the city may be trying to keep prices down to screw another business owner. I never said that you said it was to screw another business owner. You did suggest though that the city would buy the property to keep the cost to the new business down and keep one of the property owners from deciding that he wanted more for his. I am all for capitalism and do believe a person should get what the market will bear when he sells his product, service, property ,etc. Then you should have no problem with one of the property owners deciding what he thinks the market will bear in the situation and asking for more. What I am saying if the city bought properties A,B, and C at a fair price and someone came along, and wanted all 3 properties, the city could sell all of these properties to cover their costs and get a new business in there. If A and C sell theirs to the City and approaches owner B who sees that they own the properties on both sides of him, what will keep him from deciding that he wants much more for his property? Unless the City uses its power to beat the owner down, what is the difference if it is the City or the new business that is buying the property. What if the City does buy all three properties and no new business ever comes along? Properties are taken off the tax rolls, taxpayers not only do not get the purchase price back but also have to pay to maintain them or suffer with properties like 220 E. Main St bringing down values. What is the progress with the Tuscora property, has all the environmental cleanup been done or is it at least underway? How about Oakley Ave, is the mold problem taken care of with the extra cash from the other gift property? Now if individuals owned all these properties and A and C sold for fair market price and B found out that they needed his property to make the deal work, owner B would probably ask for way more than the property is worth because he knows the new business needs his property. The price that owner B sets might sink the deal. What is fair market price? Is it a per square foot value comparable to other recent sales in the area, or what the owner wants for the building? If owners A and C sell their 5,000 sq ft buildings that they have taken no interest in, for $20,000 and owner B has put $40,000 into protecting his property from the elements and still owes another $20,000 mortgage on the 2,500 sq ft vacant building, is someone supposed to be able to tell him that $10,000 is a fair market price? If owner B has so much invested in his property that he wants more than the business is willing to pay then the deal should sink. If he lets the deal sink because he is trying to get an unwarranted inflated price and he misses out on an actual fair price, then he loses out too. Either way, what difference does it make if it is a new business or the City that owner B is negotiating with? The city doesn't have any unfair advantage over a private realtor, since either party can only sell it for what the market will bear What does comparing the City to a realtor have to do with anything? The City would be acting as buyer and a seller, taking ownership of property, a private realtor generally acts only as an agent. As you said here, the private party can only sell it for what the market will bear too, so what's the difference? The price that owner B sets might sink the deal. So owner B should not be allowed to set his own price? Regardless, I don't see too many of these downtown property owners pushing real hard to sell their properties. I would bet most have been paid for years ago and it really isn't costing them much to have them sit vacant. I have seen some that have been for sale/rent for years and years with no takers, maybe there are others that have just given up because they don't sell? I know some that have been motivated to sell and they do have mortgages. I can't say that I know of any that don't have a mortgage (possibly the Murray Building or 220 E. Main St is all I could think maybe). If our City buys property and just sits waiting for someone to be interested, how is that any different than the private owners having it? How does that solve any problems? Business needs to be interested in coming here for it to ever be resold. When business is interested in coming here it will start to sell, whether private owners or the City has it, IMO. If our City were working to try to attract more business here, create an environment more conducive to business, only give requirements that are supported by our laws, etc., they would actually be doing something to solve the problem of having so many vacant blighted downtown properties. I do give you credit Kyle, you are trying to build the downtown area, but I think the vacant building owners don't make it much of a priority. Thank You for the credit. When I look at 220 E. Main St, I have to agree that vacant building owner doesn't care at all that they are bringing down values.
|
|
|
Post by father of two on Jan 27, 2014 22:21:38 GMT -6
I don't see this interpretation of the plan. I feel that it is being proposed to be used like what happened in Ottawa, as Dog stated earlier. I will call city hall tomorrow and ask for an explanation and report back.
|
|
|
Post by Kyle Mitchell on Jan 27, 2014 22:27:55 GMT -6
So which would be better in your opinion, remove the restrictions on the things you say they ignore on the city property, and allow everyone to keep their property in the condition the city does, or should they just keep the restrictions they have and enforce it upon themselves too? They don't need so many restrictions on others. Signs should not be made to come down. The professional sign on the Murray building didn't make it look terrible like the Military Surplus sign. There doesn't need to be so many requirements, expenses and then the added threat of $750/day fines put on vacant building owners. Subjecting others to it while keeping their wide open, safety hazard, blighted, value killer, is like openly giving the finger to us all, IMO. No one should be able to have a property like that downtown and let it just keep getting worse year after year.
|
|