Today we learn that the Five Rivers Resort management are "still working on finances" as the city gets ready to approve a nearly $16 million TIF (or in Orwellian terms, "redevelopment loan package").
Perhaps this project should be called the Joan Rivers Resort: Overrated, Not Very Funny, and Quite Possibly Washed Up.
Let's see if the most expensive Common Council in Oshkosh history, six of whom forced the most stringent possible crossing of every t and dotting of every i on the troop withdrawal referendum, apply that same standard to the Joan Rivers Group.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
15 comments:
Tony, for God's sake. Had they finished it a month ago you would be screaming and yelling about not spending enough time researching finances and being thorough. Now that they are doing so you complain about the time it is taking? Get over yourself.
Hold on anonymous,
When the council voted on this project there was no indication that the January 16th date was flexible. It was impossible to watch the deliberations at that time and come to any conclusion other than that if the developer did not meet strict time frames getting the financing in order, this project was not going to happen.
I would not be as agitated about this were it not for the fact that six members of this council would not budge an inch for citizens who were only trying give people the opportunity to vote on a referendum question. "If you didn't get enough signatures by a specific date, you're out of luck."
But for a developer who cannot meet his responsibilities to provide information by a specific date, we not only have to be flexible but we even agree to give him a $6.4 million "developer assistance grant."
The picture is upside down.
Let's see... a project that ACTUALLY IMPACTS (whether you believe it to be positive or negative, and most of the western world knows where you stand by now, Tony) citizens of Oshkosh vs. a non-binding and absolutely inmaterial piece of rhetoric? I'd rather my city councilors were spending their energy working towards things to impact my city, not things to further the egos of university professors and amateur protestors everywhere. If that means they have to be flexible in some cases and not in others, this is where I would want that flexibility.
"...the egos of university professors and amateur protestors everywhere."
Can you become a professional protestor? Where do I apply for that job?
Anyway, I thought "Joan Rivers Resort" was really funny.
Kay
Tony, while I agree plenty of time should be taken with a project of this magnitude, the anonymous poster has missed the key point here: that point being that the city council demands one group to adhere to every last detail and requirement on one issue - even though they have other legally afforded options avaiable to them; yet they have in the past and seem to be continuing to make exceptions for groups when it comes to other issues. Not a move that conveys a council that wishes to be equitable in how it deals with people, especialy those footing the bill.
Also of concern to me - and I know you share similar thoughts - are the following:
(1) Where are our mayor and city manager in these discussions? At the same time, why do neither Bill Castle or Dick Wollangk have a media presence in this matter? They are supposed to be the mayor and CEO, respectively, in Oshkosh. Yet their comments are glaringly absent from this morning's article while, once again, Jackson Kinney - a department head, essentially - is calling the shots and apparently the only one at city hall talking (except for some council members, of course).
(2) How in the world does a plan commission approve a plan for which no financing is in place? Inasmuch as there the most important "plan" seems to be missing, the words "plan commission" seem to be a contradiction in terms. Talk about putting the cart before the horse! Can we assume by their action that the plan commission is nothing more than a rubber stamp for any developer who dangles promises of the sun, moon and stars in front of the city in exchange for a huge chunk of public financing?
(3) Like others, including several city council members, I was under the impression that Jan. 16 was an important deadline to be met with respect to this project. Now Jackson Kinney is backpeddling on his own Oct. 6 memo and instead seems to be saying, "No, no, that's not really what I meant. What I really meant was they had to have construction started by spring." I find that not only unbelievable, but insulting. How does one move toward a goal of construction start-up in only a few months if they don't have the financing in place? It seems to me that arranging and securing financing is the first step and the only one that should be handled right now. Without it, this project is a no-go anyway, so let's get our priorities straight, shall we?
(4) If this is such a tremendous project why is the developer not putting all their own money into it? Why bring in another partner (i.e., the city and her taxpayers)?
Certainly there are more concerns and they will no doubt be discussed over time, but these are good for starters. Yet it is hard to imagine that we still have people out here who just believe this is the greatest thing since sliced bread and they know as little, if not less, about it than the city council does. That, too, is frightening.
I will take issue with simply one point, as I believe for the most part Cheryl's arguments are a difference in interperetation and philosophy from my own. My intended comment, however, was made quite clearly by Principal Planner Darryn Burrich during the planning meeting: The Plan Commission is not a financial review commission, they are a land use review body. Whether a developer comes in with money coming out of his ears or not a penny to his name does not, and should not, matter to the plan commission. They are charged with simply reviewing the compliance with land use statutes, efficacy of development goals and enforcement of zoning standards.
Cheryl, you should know this as as a member of the Zoning Review Board. I would hardly think that your decisions would be based on the ability of a petitioner to carry out intended alterations, rather simply to determine whether they comply with guidelines set to grant or deny zoning appeals.
Before you go firing around more indignant comments about "rubber stamping" and feeling personally "insulted", please back up: this board did their job as they are supposed to. Take your financial arguments to the Council when it gets there. I know you are looking for a fight, it's your nature- this is just the wrong committee to pick it with.
I think that Cheryl is right on track with some of her statements. She and Tony are questioning whether or not the requirements have been met by the deadline set forth by Mr. Kinney. They have not. The finances are not there for this project to move forward. I don't think it is wise to put several million dollars of taxpayer money in a basket that isn't complete. Don't you agree?
To the anonymous poster at 4:46 p.m., I will only attempt to set the record straight on a few of your remarks.
First, I am a member of the Board of Appeals, not Review, which is something different altogether. However, I have never served on the Plan Commission and, therefore, do not know the various nuances of that committee. If the Plan Commission had the same exact charge as the Board of Appeals I doubt we would need both. But you are 110% correct in that I base my board decisions on that which I am allowed to under the law. If that is true of the Plan Commission members, fine. Then your point is well-taken. But don't assume because someone serves on one board they automatically know the responsibilities of another.
Second, there is too much rubber stamping done and not enough questions asked - by everyone at city all, and far too often. Sorry if you think that my position is indignant, but as a taxpayer helping to foot the bills I am entitled to my feelings whether they sit well with you or not.
Also, I was not insulted by the Plan Commission's approval. I was insulted by comments from Jackson Kinney in this morning's paper and anyone reading my response can see that, especially since it was in a paragraph of its own.
Arguing is in my nature? Obviously you don't know me very well or you wouldn't have made such a ridiculous statement. What IS in my nature is asking questions and then actually questioning those things which make no sense. It is also in my nature to dig for answers toq uestions whether they make someone uncomfortable or not. That is part of my job, not to mention my responsibiity as a citizen. It's yours too. Maybe spending $15 million of our money on something that so far has not been able to get the rest of the financing sits well with you. But it doesn't pass my sniff test. And if the financing is not in place soon, it may be time to pass on this. Maybe there's a very good reason this didn't happen elsewhere.
Cheryl's right and when it gets to the council they will say they also have to approve it because it meets the land use requirements. Somewhere someone needs to stand up and take responsibility for asking questions and making sure we don't end up with a white elephant here. If the proper financing is not in place but this man moves forward, then can't do it the way he intended we take it in the shorts. Stop this thing now bfore it is to late.
That anonymous person also didn't really discuss the very first point Cheryl or Tony. He also didn't talk about any of the issues Cheryl pointed out. Except to complain about her taking issue with the planning committee. Maybe he thinks none of those other things should cause us any concern.
Anonymouse #2 said this projected "actualy impacts". Oh it will impact us all right. To the tune of $15 million or more. N exchange for that we have not seen any demonstration of how it will postiively impact us. Only a lot of pie in the sky rhetoric but no cold hard numbers to back any of it up. Could that be the reason the banks are telling the developer "no dice"?
Plan commission = land use review body.
All other issues aside, it's as simple as that. Financial issues are a purview of the council and other bodies. Feel free to denegrate this statement as much as you want, but accusing the plan commission of rubber stamping simply for doing their job (determining whether a project meets pre-determined guidelines)shows a fundamental misunderstanding of this process.
Talk about someone who likes to argue? This last comment was made by someone who sure does. Please get over yourself.
I have a question and maybe the Plan Commission=Land use only expert out there can provide an answer for us.
If the commission's sole responsibiity is to recommend or not recommend land use in the city, why did the commission hold a public hearing on the creation of a TIF district for Fiver Rivers?
TIF=tax incremental financing district. Taxes=$$$. Financing=$$$. That all sounds lie money and financing to me. So why is this commission conducting a public hearing on it instead of the council? By the virtue of them conducting such a hearing it seems plausible to expect them to consider things relative to financing. Would you not agree?
The plan commission reviews the land use regulations of the TIF district and then concludes whther or not it is consistent with the city's regulations for potential developments, smart growth laws etc. The actual TIF is created through the actions of the Joint Review Board (or something along those lines) which is made up of representatives from the various taxing authorities (City, OASD, FVTC among others I think) and final approval by the City Council. The Plan Comission isn't charged with reviewing the financial condition of any potential user within a TIF, simply whether plans for that development are in accord with standards and guidelines established by the applicable governmental authorities.
Post a Comment