|
Post by Kyle Mitchell on Jan 27, 2014 22:31:45 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. I ask a lot of questions of our City, most go unanswered. Did you hear about the bogus answer I was given when I asked what the requirement for Aquaponics would be?
|
|
|
Post by father of two on Jan 27, 2014 22:41:48 GMT -6
Yes I did, many times.
|
|
|
Post by Kyle Mitchell on Jan 27, 2014 22:50:28 GMT -6
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. It must not have looked too terrible, since it was included in a picture on the cover of the Downtown Plan draft.
|
|
|
Post by Kyle Mitchell on Jan 28, 2014 0:03:22 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. Although it does mention environmental clean up of the sites that they do select to buy, it is obviously not the reason it is being proposed; "land banking", "until market conditions are more favorable" is clearly the reason behind it. When market conditions are more favorable, the owners would obviously be able to get more for their properties. www.vandewalle.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/Draft-2-Streator-Downtown-plan_11.18.13.pdf
Short-Term Redevelopment Opportunity: These are sizeable sites that are mostly vacant (e.g. parking lots) or currently for sale that could be assembled without having to relocate an existing business. If the City were to begin purchasing sites for future development, or directing prospective developers interested in the downtown, these sites should be given serious consideration. While most of these are under single ownership, some consist of two of more owners. As a result, the opportunity to assemble them to the full extent of what is shown on Figure III.2 may not exist in the future if each property owner decides to do something different with their respective property. Figure III.3 identifies several sites with short and long-term redevelopment potential. Historically, the City has not proactively acquired sites for redevelopment, but site control is perhaps the most important component of an active redevelopment strategy. As noted in the previous section of this Plan, some of the short-term opportunity sites include properties with more than one owner. Accordingly, the opportunity may disappear if each owner decides to do something different. That said, the acquisition of sites needs to be done very thoughtfully and carefully, being sure to identify and deal with issues like environmental contamination (e.g. asbestos within buildings), site access locations, and the likely type and timing of redevelopment. In addition, it is also important to note that there are ways the City can gain some form of control over a site short of an outright purchase, such as entering into a purchase option and/or a cooperative process with the owner to seek development proposals. Lastly, the City also should consider an approach whereby interim uses (such as parking or open space) are identified for acquired sites until market conditions are more favorable for a significant redevelopment project. Often referred to as “land banking,” this approach acts to acquire sites as they become available understanding that the opportunity to pursue an ultimate use may still be several years away.
We are going to take property off the tax rolls to keep owners from doing something different with it (and continue generating tax revenue) while we wait to see if someone will come looking for land for a big development? It just doesn't sound like a good idea to me, particularly considering the way that they don't take care of the property that they do have now. The plan mentions a 40 unit housing project. Is that the only large development use of multiple properties that they are considering buying these parcels for? Is downtown the only place or even a very good place for such a housing project? They need to work on creating more uses for these properties, creating an environment more conducive to business, and start trying to attract businesses here. When businesses start being interested in being in Streator, the real estate will take care of itself on the private market.
|
|
|
Post by Kyle Mitchell on Jan 28, 2014 7:45:58 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. If my interpretation is wrong and they do not plan on "land banking until market conditions are more favorable"(or as some would call it, cornering the market), would you please ask them to take that crap out of the plan? Also, would you ask them if there are any other type of large developments, other than a 40 unit housing project, that they are are planning to bank land for? TIA
|
|
|
Post by Kyle Mitchell on Jan 28, 2014 8:19:15 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. If my interpretation is right and they are planning to "land bank until market conditions are more favorable", would you also please ask them to take that crap out of the plan? TIA
|
|
|
Post by father of two on Jan 28, 2014 9:01:43 GMT -6
I called the city manager this morning. His explanation to me about this is that it is proposed that the city selectively look at strategic locations in the downtown area that would be in the best interest of the city to acquire. This could be for future development of business and/or parking. The city is not going to be buying up vacant property just for the sake of buying it. There is a proposal for a downtown housing unit included. Nothing has been decided on as this is proposed and hasn't been acted on. They are still taking input from the community and have noted your comments Kyle.
I understand why it is proposed. Part of the reason is the same as what Ottawa did, some not. Part of the reason is to allow the city the opportunity to find property that may also beade into parking for the downtown area and park festivities.
I have no problem with the Murray building being turned into a downtown housing unit depending on what kind of housing. If someone wants to pour money into it to turn it into apartments so be it. It fills another vacant building. If it were to be used as a housing project, then I may not support it. But once it is purchased the buyer can do as they want. The city owning it could guarantee that it is used for as intended. How I don't know, maybe a penalty or forfeiture if the plan is changed from what was approved. Just my thought. I did ask if they would take this crap out of the plan and was told that it would be determined at the final vote.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 28, 2014 9:04:28 GMT -6
murray buiding is not safe
|
|
|
Post by Kyle Mitchell on Jan 28, 2014 9:55:51 GMT -6
murray buiding is not safe Historic Building Reuse: There are two buildings of outstanding historic character that have the potential to be converted to new uses. One is the former Streator National Bank Building at 401 East Main Street. This is one of the larger buildings in the downtown and may have potential for residential units or a boutique hotel. However, the building is purported to be in bad shape structurally and the window of time to save it may be closing. The other is the former Church at 404 North Park Street. Although no longer used as a church, the building continues to belong to the area Diocese and is used occasionally for other functions. Discussion should be held with the Diocese about its long term plans for the building. I agree with them on the Murray building, it needs some TLC, and soon. I don't think the draft talked about the City doing anything specific to help save the historic building though. Didn't the Diocese already announce their long term plans for the other building?
|
|
|
Post by Kyle Mitchell on Jan 28, 2014 10:19:23 GMT -6
FOT, thanks for questioning it and the info. There is a proposal for a downtown housing unit included. Do you know who the source of this proposal is, a specific company the City is going to land bank for, the Mayor, or just Vandewalle? The draft does not talk about the City buying the Murray building for a housing project, rather other properties to land bank and combine. I am not against a private party buying the Murray building and turning it into housing, or a private person land banking for a housing project. As I've said before, I don't think our City getting into competition with private parties already invested or considering buying is a good idea. If the City buys properties A, B and C, and the big developer comes to Streator and has an interest in properties D, E and F, with the City also having tax payer supported economic incentives to offer, will those owners have much negotiating power? Competing with private industry is not a role our government should take, JMIO
|
|
|
Post by father of two on Jan 28, 2014 10:35:24 GMT -6
The draft, according to you mentions a downtown housing unit. The Murray building is the only one that is large enough which is why I mentioned it. Other communities buy property for future development, why not ours?
|
|
|
Post by dog on Jan 28, 2014 11:08:56 GMT -6
If the City buys properties A, B and C, and the big developer comes to Streator and has an interest in properties D, E and F, with the City also having tax payer supported economic incentives to offer, will those owners have much negotiating power? What type of taxpayer supported economic incentives could the city exclusively offer to a big developer that cant be offered to a developer buying off a private entity?
|
|
|
Post by dog on Jan 28, 2014 11:14:14 GMT -6
The draft, according to you mentions a downtown housing unit. The Murray building is the only one that is large enough which is why I mentioned it. Other communities buy property for future development, why not ours? The Murray building in my opinion would be a good one for the city to get. The upper floors could be converted to housing after the asbestos issues have been corrected. The main floor would be a nice location for a larger business and the 2nd floor was remodeled when I worked there and could provide another big office area. The middle floors could be retained as small individual offices for small businesses. Environmental issues could be addressed with grants which would make it significantly cheaper than it would cost FirstMidwest( I am assuming they are the ones that still own the building) or a private developer to address.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 28, 2014 11:41:00 GMT -6
lol there is a tunnel in there its falling in. the upper floors walls are falling in i worked there so seen with my own eyes. its construction is not safe. the main and second floor is the only safe floor
|
|
|
Post by Kyle Mitchell on Jan 28, 2014 20:19:53 GMT -6
The draft, according to you mentions a downtown housing unit. The Murray building is the only one that is large enough which is why I mentioned it. Yes, there is a section that talks about the city recruiting developers of housing projects. That is the only place that I can remember that it mentions any specific use for the sites that they designated for short term and long term redevelopment. I specifically looked through the plan to find any redevelopment suggestion that would require banking land to combine for it. Think about it though. Residential units are not allowed on the first floor of CBD buildings, so there would have to be 10 units on each floor plus hallways and alternate egress access. I hardly doubt that the Murray building is large enough for a 40 unit housing project. Do we have a shortage of housing units or an increasing population that would create a need for 40 new housing units? I've heard of situations where houses appraised for $60K, but wouldn't sell and wouldn't sell, and all they could get was about $30K. I was under the impression that there were a lot of available houses here. I keep hearing about good people leaving and see declining population figures. Is municipal land banking for a large housing development really a good idea? Other communities buy property for future development, why not ours? 1. Because it would put them in competition with private business owners with the city having unfair advantages over them, and that should not be the role of our government. 2. Because we can not afford it. Didn't they just raise our taxes just to be able to pay for the current low level of services they provide? Won't taking more property off the tax rolls and the cost of the property likely require even more tax increases? 3. Because they don't take care of the property that they do own 4. Because it could deter other private investment in our real estate. 5. Because they don't have a good use or reason for doing it. I really don't think that there are many cities our size and in our economic condition that bank property for non-municipal or institutional uses.
|
|