Tuesday night, the city council considered a $24.9-million brownfield reimbursement plan, which would have refunded 100% of the increase in property taxes on the site over a 23-year period starting in 2018. Under that plan, the city would not generate any new revenue from the development until 2040.
Instead, the council approved a $26.2-million plan that will reimburse 80% of Convexity Properties' property taxes over a 30-year period. Under that plan, once the development was complete in 2018, it would generate roughly $160,000 a year in additional tax revenue for the city, said Mayor Mark Meadows, who introduced the amendment. It passed on a 4-1 vote.
It's crazy to me that the developer would pass on an amendment to the plan so reasonable. Their plan is the one that comes across as unreasonable. I'm now definitely of the mind that these developments even with these plans should be paying some taxes every year.
I don't get how a city with as much development as East Lansing can't seem to make this work.
Anyway, the plan isn't dead. Not yet, anyway. The city still wants to try and make it work with the developer, so we'll have to see if the developer comes back to the table and if this can be made to work. There is a game of chicken going on here at the moment.
One of the reasons they can't make it work is their residency requirements that certain percentages be owner-occupied. It will take the city to stop thinking that there are enough students downtown for these projects to succeed.
The residency requirement doesn't seem to have been brought up after the initial concern over it. This sounds like the project hinged almost entirely over the brownfield plan and the tax issue within.
The residency requirement wasn't brought up because the developers have dealt with it already in their plan. If the residency requirement wasn't there though, the project would be much more profitable and the brownfield plan and tax issues may not be such an issue.
At the root of the problem is the city government's insistence that students must not live downtown and that it would be better for the long term life of the city if students lived on the outskirts. This line of thinking is neither sustainable nor rationale. Having large amounts of students living downtown does not have to exclude permanent residents. Right now there is such little housing downtown that either only rich empty nesters or children of rich families can afford it.
I'm really just puzzled at this whole project. I remember when Michigan Museum Place was first announced. Since then Scott Chapelle has gone on to successfully start and get in to progress a different project down the road while this corner just keeps sitting.
It's kind of like the opposite corner of Grand River and Abbot. Restaurants have come and gone in that space for many years, none being able to stay the long haul. Conrad's stayed the longest but they were pushed out by their landlord.
It's really confusing to me how prime real estate can sit unused and underused in a city. It's got to be scary for any developer who is approached with the idea of a project there because they can see the negative history surrounding it and will expect to encounter many of the same issues.
What if these properties were just turned in to a large park for the city?
This fiasco has gone on for far too long, I can't even bring myself to care anymore. At the very least I hope the buildings at Abbot and Grand River are demolished within a reasonable amount of time.
Jared, it may sound weird, but I think a big part of this is the structuring of East Lansing's government. The council-manager form of government was created way-back-when to supposedly cut down on corruption by deconcentrating power from a strong mayor, but what happens is that you reduce the mayor to a figurehead and then you get too many cooks in the kitchen because decision making is now split between a mayor, the rest of the council and the manager. That's three different opportunities for a project to fail (or succeed).
I may be wrong, but I feel were something like this proposed in Lansing, this would have been done long ago. I hate to say it, but sometimes, a mayor needs enough room to cut deals without the up-front interference of every single council member.
I think the strong mayor type of local government is actually more democratic, in that a mayor has to face re-election and is more answerable to the voters than an appointed city manager. [I don't know how they do it in E.L.] I also think the opportunity for corruption is equal in both cases. For a project to take over thirty years to become a reality is really a shame. I don't understand their view on the student housing issue, it seems to me that there are already many students living downtown, and that almost every business is for students. I believe that they have been trying to save or create a place that is not there. I think allowances for low and medium income residents are what the city should be focused on not whether a tenet is student. Maybe they could leave the mix up to the market and to the owners of the buildings. I may not really like when a building designated "student housing" but I understand why they are. I think rules and living arrangements[size and set up of apartments] could keep the student mix lower if that is what the owner decides.
Comments
It's crazy to me that the developer would pass on an amendment to the plan so reasonable. Their plan is the one that comes across as unreasonable. I'm now definitely of the mind that these developments even with these plans should be paying some taxes every year.
I don't get how a city with as much development as East Lansing can't seem to make this work.
Anyway, the plan isn't dead. Not yet, anyway. The city still wants to try and make it work with the developer, so we'll have to see if the developer comes back to the table and if this can be made to work. There is a game of chicken going on here at the moment.
One of the reasons they can't make it work is their residency requirements that certain percentages be owner-occupied. It will take the city to stop thinking that there are enough students downtown for these projects to succeed.
The residency requirement doesn't seem to have been brought up after the initial concern over it. This sounds like the project hinged almost entirely over the brownfield plan and the tax issue within.
The residency requirement wasn't brought up because the developers have dealt with it already in their plan. If the residency requirement wasn't there though, the project would be much more profitable and the brownfield plan and tax issues may not be such an issue.
At the root of the problem is the city government's insistence that students must not live downtown and that it would be better for the long term life of the city if students lived on the outskirts. This line of thinking is neither sustainable nor rationale. Having large amounts of students living downtown does not have to exclude permanent residents. Right now there is such little housing downtown that either only rich empty nesters or children of rich families can afford it.
I'm really just puzzled at this whole project. I remember when Michigan Museum Place was first announced. Since then Scott Chapelle has gone on to successfully start and get in to progress a different project down the road while this corner just keeps sitting.
It's kind of like the opposite corner of Grand River and Abbot. Restaurants have come and gone in that space for many years, none being able to stay the long haul. Conrad's stayed the longest but they were pushed out by their landlord.
It's really confusing to me how prime real estate can sit unused and underused in a city. It's got to be scary for any developer who is approached with the idea of a project there because they can see the negative history surrounding it and will expect to encounter many of the same issues.
What if these properties were just turned in to a large park for the city?
This fiasco has gone on for far too long, I can't even bring myself to care anymore. At the very least I hope the buildings at Abbot and Grand River are demolished within a reasonable amount of time.
Jared, it may sound weird, but I think a big part of this is the structuring of East Lansing's government. The council-manager form of government was created way-back-when to supposedly cut down on corruption by deconcentrating power from a strong mayor, but what happens is that you reduce the mayor to a figurehead and then you get too many cooks in the kitchen because decision making is now split between a mayor, the rest of the council and the manager. That's three different opportunities for a project to fail (or succeed).
I may be wrong, but I feel were something like this proposed in Lansing, this would have been done long ago. I hate to say it, but sometimes, a mayor needs enough room to cut deals without the up-front interference of every single council member.
I think the strong mayor type of local government is actually more democratic, in that a mayor has to face re-election and is more answerable to the voters than an appointed city manager. [I don't know how they do it in E.L.] I also think the opportunity for corruption is equal in both cases. For a project to take over thirty years to become a reality is really a shame. I don't understand their view on the student housing issue, it seems to me that there are already many students living downtown, and that almost every business is for students. I believe that they have been trying to save or create a place that is not there. I think allowances for low and medium income residents are what the city should be focused on not whether a tenet is student. Maybe they could leave the mix up to the market and to the owners of the buildings. I may not really like when a building designated "student housing" but I understand why they are. I think rules and living arrangements[size and set up of apartments] could keep the student mix lower if that is what the owner decides.
A proposal for this site "only" dates back to 2006, BTW.
Yeah, this website was around before the proposals. I guess I can be happy about that