|
Post by Kyle Mitchell on Feb 2, 2014 8:01:19 GMT -6
Yes, pushing the vacant building ordinance on others while not following it for their own substandard properties is just one of the many unfair advantages that our City has when competing in business with others.
|
|
|
Post by dog on Feb 2, 2014 10:09:46 GMT -6
Yes, pushing the vacant building ordinance on others while not following it for their own substandard properties is just one of the many unfair advantages that our City has when competing in business with others. I can see the "whats good for the goose is good for the gander" but unless they start enforcing the fine and increasing the cost to the private entity, I don't see how it makes a hill of beans on giving an unfair advantage in selling properties. Similar to what Northsider said in a recent post, if the city property is run down, missing windows, etc, a smart businessman would look at the total picture and be most cost effective with their investment and probably wouldn't give a property like the surplus store a 2nd thought.. Sure, the price would be cheaper to buy the city property and yes, if the purchaser's main interest was to put a property back on the tax rolls to help the city, then that might be an advantage to the city. But those type of developers are few and far between.
|
|
|
Post by Kyle Mitchell on Feb 2, 2014 10:43:20 GMT -6
Did you not read where I said that they have been increasing the cost to private entities? Have you not read the vacant building ordinance that is being pushed on others? It is very long and detailed, I posted some of the highlights before and can again if you like. If you don't think it has increased costs on private entities, you are very mistaken.
|
|
|
Post by dog on Feb 2, 2014 14:20:17 GMT -6
Did you not read where I said that they have been increasing the cost to private entities? Have you not read the vacant building ordinance that is being pushed on others? It is very long and detailed, I posted some of the highlights before and can again if you like. If you don't think it has increased costs on private entities, you are very mistaken. I am not entirely sure if this is correct or not but when a friend of mine was trying to sell his house he registered it as vacant. He paid a fee but then didnt get charged sewer or garbage pickup. Basically it was a wash in terms of money out.
|
|
|
Post by Kyle Mitchell on Feb 2, 2014 17:16:01 GMT -6
If the building is using sewer and trash service, I would think they would have to be paid for. If they are not being used, I would think the accounts would just be closed. Why should anyone be made to pay for sewer and trash service if they are not being used. Paying fees to get out of paying for services that are not used is not a wash.
Her are two sentences from the long, detailed vacant building ordinance:
Register the building with the Code Enforcement Official, on a form provided by the Code Enforcement Official and pay a two hundred dollar ($200.00) annual non prorated vacant building registration fee.
Inspection: Allow a code compliance inspection of the interior of the vacant building and shall pay the five hundred dollar ($500.00) fee therefore within thirty (30) days of the inspection.
So on top of paying property taxes, private building owners have to pay $200/year and a $500 inspection fee, bring the building into condition acceptable to the City(plus other requirements). All expenses that the City doesn't have, but this does not give them an unfair advantage?
|
|
|
Post by Kyle Mitchell on Feb 3, 2014 14:27:33 GMT -6
I can see the "whats good for the goose is good for the gander" but unless they start enforcing the fine and increasing the cost to the private entity, I don't see how it makes a hill of beans on giving an unfair advantage in selling properties. There was a crane and two lift trucks with guys torching and grinding for a good part of a day. How many thousands of dollars do you think it cost the private entity to take the valuable sign off the Murray building, while the City leaves their military surplus sign? Thousands of dollars in cots to devalue their building to abide by an ordinance that our City gets to just ignore; I call that an unfair advantage.
|
|
|
Post by northsider on Feb 3, 2014 14:44:04 GMT -6
Who knows, maybe the owner got TIF money to remove the sign.
|
|
|
Post by Kyle Mitchell on Feb 3, 2014 15:42:13 GMT -6
Who knows, maybe the owner got TIF money to remove the sign. That's the best you've got, a maybe? Do you want to try to back that up with anything or should we accept that you just spew random BS? TIF money would have required council approval. I attend almost all of the Council meetings and pay attention to what they do. I'm pretty confident that it was not done with TIF money. Certainly there would be a Times article to support your claim if it were real. Here's a better maybe: Maybe they should leave building owners alone, not make them incur extra costs to devalue their buildings, and spend some TIF money to fix up their safety & fire hazard, wide open, deplorable looking, value killing property before they even think about taking more properties off the tax rolls at our expense.
|
|
|
Post by northsider on Feb 3, 2014 16:09:33 GMT -6
I like my maybe better.
|
|
|
Post by Kyle Mitchell on Feb 3, 2014 16:19:17 GMT -6
Maybe pigs will fly too!
|
|
|
Post by northsider on Feb 3, 2014 16:50:00 GMT -6
Maybe aquaponics is the same as a greenhouse.
|
|
|
Post by Kyle Mitchell on Feb 3, 2014 18:27:57 GMT -6
Maybe aquaponics is the same as a greenhouse. No, they are not the same, but Aquaponics is typically done in greenhouses and greenhouses(allowed in CBD) are the most closely related business activity that is listed in our zoning ordinance. What business activity that requires "M1 Light Industrial Zoning" do you think they could possibly have thought was more closely related, or did the purposely just not follow our laws?
|
|
|
Post by northsider on Feb 4, 2014 7:53:27 GMT -6
The CBD (central business district) is designed to accommodate a wide variety of uses in a mutually advantageous setting that will result in the most intensive and attractive use of the city's downtown area. Ground floor retail sales, personal services and restaurants are encouraged with residential uses, professional services and general offices above the first floor.
C. Manufacturing Districts Established. The following districts are hereby established primarily to accommodate enterprises engaged in the manufacturing, processing, creating, repairing, renovating, painting, cleaning, or assembling of goods, merchandise or equipment: M-1 light manufacturing and M-2 heavy manufacturing. The performance standards set per Section 17.36.030 place limitations on the characteristics of uses located in these districts. The limitations and use restrictions in the M-1 district are more restrictive than those in the M-2 district.
This is from the municipal code. Which districts do you honestly feel better describes aquaponics? As we have discussed before, if you had followed the law, you would have an explanation from the planning commission for their decision.
|
|
|
Post by Kyle Mitchell on Feb 4, 2014 9:41:15 GMT -6
The CBD (central business district) is designed to accommodate a wide variety of uses in a mutually advantageous setting that will result in the most intensive and attractive use of the city's downtown area. Ground floor retail sales, personal services and restaurants are encouraged with residential uses, professional services and general offices above the first floor. C. Manufacturing Districts Established. The following districts are hereby established primarily to accommodate enterprises engaged in the manufacturing, processing, creating, repairing, renovating, painting, cleaning, or assembling of goods, merchandise or equipment: M-1 light manufacturing and M-2 heavy manufacturing. The performance standards set per Section 17.36.030 place limitations on the characteristics of uses located in these districts. The limitations and use restrictions in the M-1 district are more restrictive than those in the M-2 district. This is from the municipal code. Which districts do you honestly feel better describes aquaponics? As we have discussed before, if you had followed the law, you would have an explanation from the planning commission for their decision. I honestly feel that retail sales in the CBD description best matches the Aquaponics project, since retail sales of the products were planned to be one of the main revenue sources of the business. The project did not include manufacturing, processing, creating, repairing, renovating, painting, cleaning, or assembling of goods, merchandise or equipment. I tried to follow ours laws but since Aquaponics is not specifically listed and the project involved such a big investment, I didn't want to take a chance of having any problems later, so I went to our City for clarification of their requirement. Isn't that what our Mayor was just whining in the newspaper that people don't do? Saying how unfair it is that people talk about the way they treat business, but that it is the businesses that don't go to the City to find out what is required? Should I post that article so that you can see that what I did is what the Mayor says should be done? Maybe I should post it so that you can see his attitude that the City doesn't need to do anything differently, it is all the fault of business owners. So now are you saying that the Mayor is full of crap, that going to City Hall goes against our laws, and I should have gone to Planning and Zoning instead? I notice that you didn't answer my question, as to what business activity requiring industrial zoning they related Aquaponics to as our laws require, instead you try to claim that I did not follow our laws. Our City not following our laws is called corruption.
|
|
|
Post by father of two on Feb 4, 2014 9:50:17 GMT -6
I'm sorry Kyle but after seeing the definitions I can see why you would have been told what you were. Having fish live in water tanks feeding off the roots of plants that are growing to be harvested and sold could have been considered manufacturing. I can see the mayors point and I can see yours. After seeing this you should have officially pursued this with a formal application to the city and plan commission. Your explanation and information may have gotten a different ruling from the commission. If not, the commission may have recommended a change in the ordinance to allow it in the downtown district.
|
|