On the Chamber, the Northwestern's editorial this morning pretty much summarizes what I've been hearing all over town:
Whether the votes on this project are "yes" or "no," the city council must demand an explanation of how this move makes sense in the long-term. If the only answer is repeatedly "This is the best we can do right now" or "Who knows if something better will come along?' those answers should be unacceptable.
When just about everyone agrees that this river front redevelopment plan falls short of our community's hopes and aspirations for the Fox River redevelopment zone, taxpayers should not be asked to financially underwrite the bailout of the very agents that have not met the community's expectations.
But this we already know: The people of Oshkosh aspire to something amazing, all-inclusive and long-lasting along our span of the Fox certainly. They aren't dreaming of the plan we've got, a plan that only benefits a privileged few.
We have reached an unhealthy point in our redevelopment mission where frank self-examination of our efforts is dispelled as "negativism." We are wearing blinders, paralyzing our objectivity out of desperation for a redevelopment "win." It is the same desperation that gave us the 100 Block project.
This time around it's doubly-bad because the people calling the shots are, themselves, part of the blueprints.
There may actually be 4 votes on the council for the Chamber purchase, so if you have interest in this topic the time to contact us is now. I won't be able to attend the Redevelopment Authority meeting today, but I am looking forward to reading about that group's deliberations on this matter.
On the Water Tower (WT), we had a special workshop last night that, in spite of the fact that few people in town knew about it, still had a decent attendance.
City staff and Councilor B. Tower have made much of the fact that the council had a workshop on this matter back in July of '07 and were told that the WT would be demolished. Before last night's workshop we were given copies of the materials from last July. There is nothing in those materials alerting the council to the fact that (a.) the WT has some historical significance, (b.) a promise was made to citizens that the WT would not be demolished, (c.) the Landmarks Commission had not been asked to weigh in on the demolition.
Had the council known a, b, and c in July of '07, I dare say the tone of that workshop would have been significantly different. We're now in a horrible position where even though the city's finance director says that financing issues need not drive the decision, we are in a rush to vote next Tuesday on whether to demolish or rehabilitate the WT. Given the budget times we are in, a vote to rehab is very difficult. That's why I think we need to slow this down, initiate a landmarking process, work with preservationists, and search for possible funding sources.
I will have a resolution on the agenda on Tuesday that will ask the council to initiate the process of landmarking the WT. That would slow this entire process down and give citizens the chance to search out opportunities for funding a rehab. According to city attorney Lorenson, if the council initiates the landmarking process, here's what would happen:
The Landmarks Commission conducts the initial review which would include a public hearing on the matter, then they would make a recommendation that would be forwarded to the Plan Commission. The Plan Commission would also review and forward to the Council with the recommendations from both Commissions. The actual designation would be done by ordinance then which would require two readings before the Council.
I would find it just awful if the council votes to demolish the WT without giving the Landmarks Commission a chance to hold a public hearing. As we found out last night, the Landmarks Commission was not even apprised of the demolition plan until February of 2008. That's not acceptable, and we need to give the Commission a chance to do its job properly.
My interest in this issue is not rooted in some nostalgia for history or historic structures. Rather, I believe that it's time to start actively developing the "Historic Oshkosh" brand. Other cities have done this with great success.
Can you imagine if on Tuesday the Council decides to demolish the WT at the same time voting to allocate funds to raze the Chamber building? Perhaps at that point we could come up with a new city slogan: "Oshkosh: Razin' in the Sun."
2 comments:
I'm having a really hard time digesting the math.
$450K from the city along with $100K from the Marion Road TIF for a building with a fair market value of almost $385K. And the Chamber doesn't even own the land. The city does.
How did they get those numbers?
From strictly an cost accountablilty (not even any of the other issues associated with this proposal) how is the number justified? $550K to relocate?
Any Council member with a shred of responsibilty better DEMAND cost accountability before they even sneeze in that direction.
--------
The problem is two-fold.
1.) Lack of secured tenants to ensure the success of the project.
2.) The cost differential between the estimated cost to relocate the Chamber and the actual building value. ($550K v.s. ~$385 FMV)
--------
The solution is do-able.
-Extend or reassign the deadline to give Akcess more time to secure tenants.
-Give the Chamber FMV for the building only after 50% occupancy is acheived without factoring them into the equation. Make them earn their perk.
If they are successful the project will proceed. If not, the tax payers have not been fleeced in the process.
i can see why there is a lot of math
credit repair
Post a Comment