Yesterday I applied the Business As Usual Test (BAUT) to the Convention Center remodeling resolution. Today I'll apply the test to the resolution at Tuesday night's meeting that would have revised the term sheet the city signed with Akcess Acquisition Group to develop the waterfront. As a practical matter, a yes vote on the resolution meant giving the green light to Akcess to proceed with the development of an office complex and probably a hotel/restaurant.
Applying the BAUT, I voted no on the resolution. To review, the three planks of the BAUT are:
*Limited public input
*Limited public buy-in
*Questionable financing and/or development
Let's apply each plank to the Akcess situation.
*Limited public input: The Akcess developers must be given credit for being open and accessible. I pointed out at the meeting that if the developer of the ill-fated Five Rivers Resort were in the room, I would not be able to recognize him even though the city spent two years in negotiations with him. Not so with Fred and Tim Rikkers of Akcess; they have invited public comment and been open to questioning about their plans.
*Limited public buy-in: This is a key problem. Originally, the developers talked about bringing in a grocery store, retail, and possibly a "living learning community" in cooperation with the university. That was replaced with a proposal for an office building after the developers claimed that no grocers would locate on the waterfront. The office building soon became the major project that, according to the developers, must occur before anything else can happen.
I cannot speak for any other member of the Common Council, but outside of Chamber of Commerce circles the feedback I have received on the office space proposal has been about 5-1 against. The main concern expressed has been that, especially since the developers themselves admit that in all probability 95% of the office tenants will be businesses already in town, the proposal in effect creates more empty space with little likelihood of filling it. Other individuals simply think an office complex is not appropriate for the waterfront for citizen access reasons (i.e. it's really not something the average person has any use for).
At the meeting I said I could support a project that does not have public buy-in if I felt that I could sell it to the public. Unfortunately I do not feel I can sell the office complex to the citizens, at least not with a clear conscience.
*Questionable financing and/or development: I've been uncomfortable with the "Master Developer" designation given Akcess from day one, mostly because it is still not clear to me what oversight powers the City Council has as regards the projects in question. Councilor King asked some excellent questions in this regard at the meeting.
Another red flag that went up for me in the last few months concerns the proposal to buy the Chamber of Commerce building (for half a million bucks) and raze it to align two roads. It's becoming clear that if the office complex is built the Chamber of Commerce stands a strong chance of moving into it, and that will put more pressure on the Council to approve the Plan Commission's recommendation to buy the Chamber building. Other than the 4 members of the Plan Commission who voted for the Chamber building plan, I can find few people in town who want to tear down a structurally sound downtown building.
So while Ackess's more open approach to development is appreciated, in the final analysis the project(s) proposed do not have the amount of buy-in necessary to move forward, the projects themselves are difficult to sell to the public in the absence of buy-in, and the city's development plans continue to be murky (to put it mildly).
My views as expressed above did not prevail, and the resolution passed by a vote of 5-2. If I understood the discussion, there should be a formal vote on the office complex coming up at a future meeting. At this point I can't imagine why someone would vote for the revised term sheet and then vote against the office complex, so as a practical matter it looks like we'd better start developing a strategy to handle the vacated spaces that will emerge as businesses relocate to the riverfront.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
Okay, now you're just messin' with me - I can't do anything with "BAUT".
Eau Claire had a big honkin' office thing that wanted to dump itself on the riverbank. Some of the locals put up a stink, I hear environmentalist and geography professor Sean Hartnett was a ring leader in that effort. (I was in CF back then)
The council/business leaders listened and looked at the environmental impact stuff and public opinion. The large glassy building is there now. But it's back a ways from the water and ringed with abeautifully landscaped public park that follows the river. With Bike/walking path, land is terraced down to the water with native plants, subtle historialc facts about EC are carved into slabs on the walking path, there's a natural amphitheater where concerts are held at least once a week most of the summer(local bands - you sit on grass, your own chairs or big rocks sprinkled around) a large pavillion (nice looking) which covers the 3 times weekly farmer's market and is available for weddings/events/art shows. Everybody loves this park. Hippies to the elite. Honest, it's pretty and very relaxing. It was a boost for downtown moral (Downtown EC was kinda dumpy) They called it Phoenix Park to symbolize renewal etc. And now other crappy areas are being looked at for improvement.
I can't tell if that compares at all to this situation, but city councils don't have to fall over flat on their back and start counting ceiling tiles for developers at the expense of citizens, its not a requirement. I beleive the point of TIFs etc. was to give a boost to projects that would benefit the community and as a corrolary, the "risk takers" who actually construct them it can still work that way can't it? Well, I could be wrong.
"BAUT" indeed. The nerve.
p.s.
It's my understanding that The Deciders worked with the university people on the environmental, landscaping and public space aspects rather than just leaving it up to the developers alone. I put a few pix of the park that I already had on my computer on my blog. Not a full portrait of Phoenix Park and probably not applicable to this situation but I try to be nice once a year and today is the day.
Here's something I pulled off of the city of Eau Claire website regarding the redevelopment area to which you are referring:
"The conceptual plan for this area has been developed as a result of numerous telephone surveys to Eau Claire residents, surveys to downtown businesses, and other input sessions. More than 1,000 people have been involved in the process since the start of the HyettPalma downtown study in 2001."
You probably know much better than I whether or not that input gathering process was legit or bogus, but at least on the surface it seems like SOME meaningful effort was made toward determining what citizens would prefer and support for the area. (But for what it's worth, that office building in Phoenix Park sure does look out of place, at least in the picture).
Post a Comment