City Rescue Mission did submit their site plan for the new property. It's nothing interesting though, just a two story addition to connect the two buildings. i heard on the radio their $9-10 million dollar renovation campaign. That's double the number I heard when they were going through the rezoning.
I won't be surprised if this makes the redevelopment of the old junior high school next door more difficult. It has been site of a LIHTC application or two. Unawarded obviously.
The 600 block was listed for sale somewhere? I think they saw the dollar signs. It would have been insane to keep those buildings when they are looking at a $10m move and they could get ~$2m from the sale.
I can't really articulate the level of pissed off I am just hearing that this is being discussed.
So it turns out there is some nefarious force within the City government that actually thinks it may be a good idea to sell off the Lansing Center, Groespeck and the Lugnut's ballpark. Somehow this is being brought up despite the Mayor not being in favor and none of the interviewed council members being explicitly in favor. Go figure. I'm sure backdoor deals and "lobbying" (bribing) efforts don't have anything to do with it.
Why are these the only assets expected to provide a direct positive net return to the city? How is it different than funding parks, or police, or roads, or any other asset that the city owns? This shows an incredibly stupid underlying thought process. The "return" that the city gets from investing in facilities and services is the overall tax revenue that the city generates. Much like a business, you have to invest to get a return, if you stop investing and improving you become uncompetitive and face decline.
I find myself with the feeling I've had too often over the past 5 or so years: If this latest dumb thing proposed actually comes to fruition, should I execute my Lansing exit strategy? The city is seeing more investment and development than ever in my life with more on the horizon while the metro's outlook is at least as positive, and yet there are forces behind the scenes trying to push some incredibly stupid things that could very well unravel 30 years of progress. It's dumbfounding.
What I get from this proposal is an effort to get the city council to stop looking at these assets as a drain on resources and maybe appreciate or understand the benefits of the assets. At least I think that is what this proposal is meant to accomplish and as it was pointed out that this will fail. Seems like an odd way to do it. I really am against privatizing our community assets that have been handed down to us by our forefathers and mothers. And also privatizing things like park maintenance have not kept the up the parks as well as when the city took care of them. I am sure that the landscaping companies do not provide their employees with the benefits a city employee would receive, and their only instruction for landscaping is get the grass mowed as fast as possible. For instance, Reutter Park looks like a forgotten piece of land on the edge of the city lately. Even with a little ghetto of under used trap shacks. If the city would treat the park like a beautiful green with more gardens maybe a real cafe/beer garden on leased income producing space in the park, and a working fountain the stays on until 11pm. I think a good thing for Lansing would be is if the leaders had more of an imagination about what makes a place that people want to visit and live. The money spent on these facilities can be "returned" with more tourist, more businesses, more housing, that will provide more tax dollars coming in and a better way of life for locals.
I definitely don't hate the idea of ditching those ridiculous shacks in Reutter Park for a nice permanent building with a patio leased out to a restaurant/bar. That could be a really great thing if done right.
I absolutely agree that the parks need to be better kept but things may have been even worse in the latter days of them being city employees responsibility. They have to stop going with the lowest bidders, spec for edging sidewalks & curbs more frequently, do more plantings/hardscaping, involve more neighborhood/community groups and actually supervise the contractors/city employees. I've seen guys in badly rusted out 30+ year old trucks maintaining city property. Not the kind of contractors they should be hiring.
I read the LSJ story where all involved talk down the proposal and I ask: Why is it on the docket then? It seems odd to me that Granger tried to propose a deal giving him first right to purchase the properties and now, several weeks later, we see this proposal? But nobody says they actually want to sell? Something fishy is going on. Maybe this proposal is partly about quashing that fishy back door dealing before it gets too far. Maybe it's a step towards acclimating people to the idea of selling these properties. I don't really know what it's about, but I don't like it.
Part of mw has wondered if privatization would improve the maintenance of some of these items, but I absolutely hate that idea. The city doesn't event maintain medians or traffic islands at this point, or at least the bare minimum. Edging sidewalks and curbs makes a huge difference. I remember parks being way more manicured as a child. Specifically, Quentin Park seemed so well kept compared to its appearance now. That's across the board though from school playgrounds to city parks.
All that said, the idea of these becoming privatized gives me a really uneasy feeling.
I was under the impression that at least some stuff is privatized, maybe I'm mistaken and thinking of the crews I've seen around quasi-governmental properties like the libraries and LEPFA facilities? Is park maintenance still done by city workers? In theory privatizing some things should be a really good idea, landscaping/yard maintenance is definitely one of those things since it's a highly competitive industry with lots of local companies. But that also means not speccing bids to just mow twice a month or something minimal like that, qualifying the bidders and holding all involved accountable.
I just want to see things better kept. There's no reason for stuff to look like it does.
There was an interesting note in the City Pulse stating that the architects for the Ovation Center have been chosen, and they are Albert Kahn Associates! of Royal Oak. I think this might be a good plan.
I saw that somewhere also. It now has me wondering if they're still going with the design that they've already shown? The renderings and floor plans they showed seemed to me to be fairly far along in the design process. The look of the building as presented had evolved into something passable imo, that being said I don't think it'd be hard to come up with a design I like better. The idea of not doing some modern glass & steel look, which I was for at first, in favor of something more colorful and/or with a classical flare, has grown on me.
I'm going to feel much better once I see some of these upcoming projects get underway.
Comments
I won't be surprised if this makes the redevelopment of the old junior high school next door more difficult. It has been site of a LIHTC application or two. Unawarded obviously.
The 600 block was listed for sale somewhere? I think they saw the dollar signs. It would have been insane to keep those buildings when they are looking at a $10m move and they could get ~$2m from the sale.
First, there's an LSJ story on BWL's impending construction of a RICE plant out on their Erikson property along with a few updates on their other plans and quotes from neighbors complaining:
https://www.lansingstatejournal.com/story/news/local/2024/04/30/bwl-gas-power-plant-lansing-delta-township/73497580007/
Second, I though it was interesting to see a retail shop back in the old Michigan Theater arcade, I hope to see the whole place lined with shops and restaurants again.
https://www.facebook.com/lansingdowntown/posts/pfbid02JFw1G9pMfr1624QVRtNKvoXqEd2sXAyNWg1YLhyk2fPznfjRQQQQHmZUuh9S757Dl
I can't really articulate the level of pissed off I am just hearing that this is being discussed.
So it turns out there is some nefarious force within the City government that actually thinks it may be a good idea to sell off the Lansing Center, Groespeck and the Lugnut's ballpark. Somehow this is being brought up despite the Mayor not being in favor and none of the interviewed council members being explicitly in favor. Go figure. I'm sure backdoor deals and "lobbying" (bribing) efforts don't have anything to do with it.
Why are these the only assets expected to provide a direct positive net return to the city? How is it different than funding parks, or police, or roads, or any other asset that the city owns? This shows an incredibly stupid underlying thought process. The "return" that the city gets from investing in facilities and services is the overall tax revenue that the city generates. Much like a business, you have to invest to get a return, if you stop investing and improving you become uncompetitive and face decline.
I find myself with the feeling I've had too often over the past 5 or so years: If this latest dumb thing proposed actually comes to fruition, should I execute my Lansing exit strategy? The city is seeing more investment and development than ever in my life with more on the horizon while the metro's outlook is at least as positive, and yet there are forces behind the scenes trying to push some incredibly stupid things that could very well unravel 30 years of progress. It's dumbfounding.
I absolutely agree that the parks need to be better kept but things may have been even worse in the latter days of them being city employees responsibility. They have to stop going with the lowest bidders, spec for edging sidewalks & curbs more frequently, do more plantings/hardscaping, involve more neighborhood/community groups and actually supervise the contractors/city employees. I've seen guys in badly rusted out 30+ year old trucks maintaining city property. Not the kind of contractors they should be hiring.
I read the LSJ story where all involved talk down the proposal and I ask: Why is it on the docket then? It seems odd to me that Granger tried to propose a deal giving him first right to purchase the properties and now, several weeks later, we see this proposal? But nobody says they actually want to sell? Something fishy is going on. Maybe this proposal is partly about quashing that fishy back door dealing before it gets too far. Maybe it's a step towards acclimating people to the idea of selling these properties. I don't really know what it's about, but I don't like it.
https://www.lansingstatejournal.com/story/news/local/2024/05/17/lansing-budget-lepfa-subsidies-groesbeck-golf-lansing-center-jackson-field/73732402007/
All that said, the idea of these becoming privatized gives me a really uneasy feeling.
Also, I love that idea for Reutter Park was well!
I just want to see things better kept. There's no reason for stuff to look like it does.
I'm going to feel much better once I see some of these upcoming projects get underway.
https://theovationlansing.com/