Well amen to that, LMich...
One thing I have lost touch with a bit is the local politics of Lansing - which I probably should have become more interested in, as I'm in law school now... I totally agree though - no reason for fear-mongering etc. It's a bit over the top - it's not like this project is teetering on the edge or anything. I do think it will be an amazing addition to downtown, though... possibly the biggest change there has been. I think the one thing Lansing needs the most is a vibrant waterfront, and this will be a big step towards that. Oklahoma City, Cleveland, San Antonio (and a lot of others - I'm just most familiar with these), all have built districts based on the waterfront they are blessed with, and those are the areas that lead the cultural revitalization of those cities. I can't wait for the day Lansing-ites can go walk around a market, grab a coffee on the 'boardwalk', or have a bite to eat next to the river and walk down to the museum before hitting a Lugnuts game and off out to the downtown bars...
The opinion article sounds more like they are disagreeing because of who supports the project, without much consideration for the project itself. I gave up reading when I read this: "But does it have to be on what little riverfront property we have left downtown? Think about it. Except for Riverfront Park, what in-town expanse do we have along the river for everyone’s use?"
I beleive there is already too much underutilized space along the riverfront, thats besides the fact that this project is going to make that stretch of river much nicer, more inviting and it WILL be able to be used by everyone. Thats just my little rant, I think City Pulse really needs to watch what it publishes and where it publishes, mixing opinion and news stories is a bad idea.
Both articles seemed pretty negative, and almost saying 'here's the big bad market-destroyers...but what about this lovely rendering of a refurbished old market! Isn't it nice!' Ah well. What do we all think about the vote being delayed?
I thought the same - the opinion piece was what I was referring to when I said it was very skewed. I'm just impatient and want a decision now, but you're probably right that it's good for Mr. Gillespie. Especially in light of what you said - that many of the question-askers are just concerned, not necessarily against the project. This will give a chance to get some of those concerns out of the way to hopefully clear the path for this to move forward.
These people aren't just asking questions, their calling to save the existing market and nix the development. They are seriously trying to raise money to do this, and I think its dumb. The current market is defecient in many ways, its interior and site layouts are horrible, besides the utility problems. Thats not even considering the development part of the project, which technically could fall through even if the sale does occur and the new city market is constructed.
It's easy to discredit other people's opinions by saying they don't care about the other residents, or they're part of an orchestrated event to whip up histeria, or they work for the developer, and maybe I have been a little naive to buy into how the LSJ has been making the deal sound like it won't pass. I freely admit that LMich, Jared, etc. have more experience than me in following developments in general as well as knowing the history of developments in Lansing so I have no problem conceding that your opinion carries more weight than mine on this subject and I am trying to trust the rest of you guys on how unlikely it is this won't pass. But is it really that hard to understand that someone who moved here 8 months ago could be swayed by articles such as this one from today?
I will add that I do think it is a good sign for the development that the council is pushing back the vote.
I have to say I am completely missing the connection between any of the recent comments on here and the idea that what anyone was saying "attracting new residents is raised above keeping those we have"? Other than gentrification, I don't see how this would result from anything anyone has been saying...am I missing something?
Finally, who's not being "transparent and honest" here? I was advised I was being too forthcoming and RandyH stated clearly who he was representing.
I'm starting to think that maybe City Council is just dragging this out a little longer and saying it's to ask questions, as a way to appease those who are vehemently opposed. So they can eventually pass it and say that they didn't just rush to something and that they didn't just take it on face value. Maybe even to show they don't have to do things on Bernero's timeline, etc.
And to be fair, at least in small part, maybe to actually flush out some answers to the legitimate questions/details about the project. And as impatient as I am to get this going, I can't say that if this is what they're doing, that it's all bad.
You think someone from LSJ has been watching our discussion lately? I believe it was LMich who used the "Chicken little" analogy earlier and here it is in this article:
Ok LMich.... I was a bit shaky on your arguments before, but I have to say as this thing goes on you are winning me over - wtf is going on with people being so antagonistic!!!! The one thing I will say is that whoever wrote this is probably not one of the people 'in charge', so it's not like we ahve city council members going to these lengths to be divisive, but at this point I just wish it would pass and we could be done with it... if people keep talking like this it will hurt rather than help the project, and it's already hurt chances for further projects I fear... creating anger and throwing insults and threats will not smooth the way for anything.
I suggest you all read the development agreement, it's in the council packet. It's not written in legal jargon or anything, it's very clear and easy to understand. It explains all the timeline requirements, building requirements, ect... It was after reading that the first time it was in the council packet that I decided the "friends of the market" arguments are a crock, at least when it comes to saying no city market will get built, and the developer is trying to shaft the city and all that. I'll post the more significant parts of it here, for the rest look at the August 4th meeting packet.
A. Definitions, Project, and Site Description Developer shall acquire, (and design and construct in accordance with Article III of this Agreement two (2) to five (5) Mixed Use Buildings on) the Site. The Developer shall provide adequate parking spaces on the Site as set forth in this Agreement.
For this Agreement:
"City Market" shall mean the real property, structure, and improvements situated on the property described in Lansing City Ordinance 245.01.11
"Mixed Use Buildings" shall mean Two (2) to Five (5) Mixed Use structure(s) Two (2) to Ten (10) stories above grade, which are estimated to total not less than One Hundred Thousand Square Feet (100,000 sq. ft.). Said structure(s) shall include between Eighty (80) and One Hundred Fifty (150) residential housing units located above the first floor, for sale or for rent. The structure(s) may also include space for multiple neighborhood commercial uses, which may include: offices, restaurants, banking institutions, medical care, and health and beauty salons. Such use descriptions are intended to be illustrative only, and do not constitute all permitted purposes. The exterior of the building shall be brick and other acceptable urban exteriors, and designed to compliment and enhance the urban environment. The Mixed Use Buildings shall include enough parking spaces on the Site, both above and below grade to meet the Project's needs.
"New City Market" shall refer to the facility intended by the City to replace the current City Market.
"Project" shall refer to the development of the Site, Mixed Use Buildings, as described herein.
"Site" or "Property" shall be that property legally described in Schedule A which is attached hereto.
Comments
One thing I have lost touch with a bit is the local politics of Lansing - which I probably should have become more interested in, as I'm in law school now... I totally agree though - no reason for fear-mongering etc. It's a bit over the top - it's not like this project is teetering on the edge or anything. I do think it will be an amazing addition to downtown, though... possibly the biggest change there has been. I think the one thing Lansing needs the most is a vibrant waterfront, and this will be a big step towards that. Oklahoma City, Cleveland, San Antonio (and a lot of others - I'm just most familiar with these), all have built districts based on the waterfront they are blessed with, and those are the areas that lead the cultural revitalization of those cities. I can't wait for the day Lansing-ites can go walk around a market, grab a coffee on the 'boardwalk', or have a bite to eat next to the river and walk down to the museum before hitting a Lugnuts game and off out to the downtown bars...
For a better Lansing ... for all (OPINION)
Apples and oranges
The opinion article sounds more like they are disagreeing because of who supports the project, without much consideration for the project itself. I gave up reading when I read this: "But does it have to be on what little riverfront property we have left downtown? Think about it. Except for Riverfront Park, what in-town expanse do we have along the river for everyone’s use?"
I beleive there is already too much underutilized space along the riverfront, thats besides the fact that this project is going to make that stretch of river much nicer, more inviting and it WILL be able to be used by everyone. Thats just my little rant, I think City Pulse really needs to watch what it publishes and where it publishes, mixing opinion and news stories is a bad idea.
http://www.lansingstatejournal.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080808/NEWS01/808080355&s=d&page=1#pluckcomments
I will add that I do think it is a good sign for the development that the council is pushing back the vote.
I have to say I am completely missing the connection between any of the recent comments on here and the idea that what anyone was saying "attracting new residents is raised above keeping those we have"? Other than gentrification, I don't see how this would result from anything anyone has been saying...am I missing something?
Finally, who's not being "transparent and honest" here? I was advised I was being too forthcoming and RandyH stated clearly who he was representing.
And to be fair, at least in small part, maybe to actually flush out some answers to the legitimate questions/details about the project. And as impatient as I am to get this going, I can't say that if this is what they're doing, that it's all bad.
http://www.lansingstatejournal.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080810/NEWS01/808100635
A. Definitions, Project, and Site Description Developer shall acquire, (and design and construct in accordance with Article III of this Agreement two (2) to five (5) Mixed Use Buildings on) the Site. The Developer shall provide adequate parking spaces on the Site as set forth in this Agreement.
For this Agreement:
"City Market" shall mean the real property, structure, and improvements situated on the property described in Lansing City Ordinance 245.01.11
"Mixed Use Buildings" shall mean Two (2) to Five (5) Mixed Use structure(s) Two (2) to Ten (10) stories above grade, which are estimated to total not less than One Hundred Thousand Square Feet (100,000 sq. ft.). Said structure(s) shall include between Eighty (80) and One Hundred Fifty (150) residential housing units located above the first floor, for sale or for rent. The structure(s) may also include space for multiple neighborhood commercial uses, which may include: offices, restaurants, banking institutions, medical care, and health and beauty salons. Such use descriptions are intended to be illustrative only, and do not constitute all permitted purposes. The exterior of the building shall be brick and other acceptable urban exteriors, and designed to compliment and enhance the urban environment. The Mixed Use Buildings shall include enough parking spaces on the Site, both above and below grade to meet the Project's needs.
"New City Market" shall refer to the facility intended by the City to replace the current City Market.
"Project" shall refer to the development of the Site, Mixed Use Buildings, as described herein.
"Site" or "Property" shall be that property legally described in Schedule A which is attached hereto.