At the most recent City Council meeting, March 19, a development which could have resulted in the relocation of the Charlestown Road Wendy's to a site farther out Charlestown Road was nixed by the Council.
For those who don't know, the Wendy's project cuts out a portion of a large lot for the restaurant while leaving the current zoning in place for an "L" shaped piece of property surrounding the restaurant on two sides.
In an attempt to extract something meaningful from the proceedings, I would like to offer an idea that could have possibly yielded a different outcome. At least it could have changed my vote. Unfortunately I'm not holding my breath waiting for the missing ingredient, because that missing ingredient is found in such short supply among developers hereabouts. The ingredient? It goes by several names: innovative thought, creative approaches, getting ahead of the curve, anticipatory development in recognition of the changes suggested by new environmental realities.
That is, after three or four years on the New Albany Plan Commission and now starting the second year on the City Council, I have yet to see more than about two developments that might fall outside the unflattering catchall categorization of cookie cutter sameness.
Look at any of the patio home developments. These are offered as a response to a demographic change in our culture. Aging people are downsizing their households yet still want independence and convenience. So far, so good. A curbside assessment of the typical patio home,however, looks like, in Jeopardy fashion, an answer to the question "Where can my car and I go so both of us feel at home?" The street presentation is of struggle for dominance between the garage and the living quarters. From all appearances, the cars are winning out with the most prominent digs.
Are the developers stupid? the buyers? No, I don't think so. On the contrary, the patio homes I've seen from the inside appear well built and comfortable and suited to the needs of the people living there. But it would be difficult to find a current mode of housing design that more glaringly exemplifies the cookie cutter school of thought.
But the Wendy's development, ( if indeed it is a Wendy's, and there's truly no way to know that at this juncture, according to counsel ) is a commercial development, so what's that got to do with cookie cutters and patio homes? Again, it's the lack of a creative or innovative approach to the puzzle of what to do with that parcel of land. Clearly no one who holds an economic interest in the land sees doing nothing, or next to nothing, as a viable option, otherwise they might consider leasing it to an agricultural entrepreneur who could open an "in-town" small scale u-pick farm. Would there be enough customers for such a thing? Surely not in that end of town.
I just erased several paragraphs in which I suggest what the developers could do with the land. The reality is, that just like with the patio homes, the developers failed to offer anything innovative. As if to underscore the fact that they were offering nothing innovative, they weren't even offering a plan to bring in a new hamburger joint, they were simply going to move an existing hamburger joint to a new location; on the same road yet. And for this accommodation of the developers' plans, the existing neighborhood residents were being asked to suck it up in the cause of progress and free markets.
So maybe it shouldn't all be left up to the developer.
One of the best ways this type of situation could be headed off in the future is for the City of New Albany to begin a reorientation away from greenfield development and toward REdevelopment. (As was stated in the Council meeting, fast food restaurants typically use up a building in a pre-ordained period of years and then move to a new location.) Charlestown Road from Eighth Street out to Klerner Lane is showing signs of commercial and residential neglect and deterioration.
A prime example is the Colonial Manor shopping center, across the street from the current Wendy's site, abandoned several years ago by Kroger in favor of a new site across from the proposed Wendy's site. If the city were to acquire the property it could solicit proposals from developers to take that property back to the level of vibrancy needed to make a strong neighborhood. The use of Economic Development Income Tax (EDIT) funds could be used to buy the property thus freeing the developer from the carrying cost of the project during development. Direction by the Plan Commission, through the RFP, could shape the REdevelopment in ways most beneficial for the entire community. The developer would make a profit but only by producing a worthwhile, cohesive project. And when the developer is out of the deal the EDIT funds would be returned.
This would be a better way to steer the development of the community in ways that truly benefit the entire community, not simply the narrow interests of the developers. If Colonial Manor were, in fact, redeveloped it is quite possible that the entire Charlestown Road corridor would be seen as more desirable and unfortunate situations such as the one involving the Wendy's project might be avoided.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
10 comments:
Yep.
Excellent idea John. How can we get the city and the taxpayers on board?
This kind of thinking is what led me to support you. Excellent.
Now, certain Councilpersons need to have the intestinal fortitude to quit using EDIT to subsidize sewer rates.
whats needed John more than what you espoused is a set of low impact development ordinances. I do not believe the city should be in the development business as you propose to use edit funds to aquire land and speculate and bid out the land to private developers through RFPS.
Low impact development ordinances and green growth zoning will make developers more accountable in the future not a city owned piece of land and a redevelopment commission that has oversight over a bidding process where private business and political interests can taint the process.
Additionally, why should tax dollars, IE EDIT funds subsidize real estate developers? EDIT funds are best used for infrastructure or projects that will create sustainable jobs, perhaps, a high tech business incubator or research park for example.
Your idea of acquire it and they will come to the benefit of New Albany is naive, what this city has needed for 30 years is a tighter control on developers not a govt subsidized redevelopment proposal you advocate, just look at progressive communities elsewhere that have incorporated low impact development ordinances and environmental stewardship into their zoning and you will realize where New Albany needs to be. That coupled with workforce development and strategic economic development will revitalize New Albany.
Ecology Warrior:
You make some good points.
I don't think of the prposed use of EDIT funds constituting a subsidy to developers. Rather, I see it as Economic Development of rundown areas. These areas are swimming with weights and the unfortunate people are those who call the area home. I can't back this guess up, but I'd bet the level of rental housing in the vicinity of Colonial Manor is not as high as in some parts of town. I'm taking it as a given that high levels of rental concentration is a bad thing. Therefore money and effort expended to maintain high levels of home ownership before an area flips over to a high concentration of rental units is time and money well spent. That is a valid aspect of economic development.
Regardless of how well code enforcement is practiced, the best time to save an area is before it reaches a critical condition.
The only difference I have with you on this point is that the EDIT funds would be used for the common good and not as a boon for developers.
It would be absolutely imperative that the funds commited to the purchase phase of the project be returned to City coffers before any profit would accrue to the developer.
In practical terms, there are few of these large parcels of distressed property, so I don't see this as a major, on-going pursuit by any City department. It's more of a triage.
The Colonial Manor center and the Charlestown Road area I mentioned is in jeopardy but not yet beyond the beyonds. If not this action, some action needs to be taken and soon.
While I am all for the low-impact development you suggest, this suggestion is meant to retain or capitalize on sunk costs. That would also equate to low-impact development.
Shirley:
That's a good question. I will say, though, that the idea has at least been discussed with City boys higher than me.
I don't mean to suggest in the least that they are "on board."
so if you are for low impact development, why not sponsor an LID ordinance? There are plenty of model ordinances available for council attorney to utilize.
I still question the prudence of gambling EDIT funds on vacant land, what about sewer needs? Without a sizable portion of EDIT funds for sanitary sewers, rates will be much higher and if we revert to not staying on top of sewer issues and infrasture there will be no development. This administration nearly put us on the EPA blacklist in the 90's due to sewer neglect. I dont believe we can afford to risk those limited EDIT funds on land speculation.
The idea is REdevelopment, so there'd be little vacant land involved, except perhaps for infill projects in already densely built areas.
The adaptive reuse of existing buildings and infrastructure is the most cost effective and environmentally friendly way to maximize commerce, employment, the tax base, etc.
Ecology Warrior:
When I referred to low impact development I did not mean the formal usage of the term as I presume you do. My limited knowledge of LID leads me to see it as primarily concerned with watershed management and protection of water from the ill-effects of development which isn't LID, High Impact Development?
Without question that is a valid concern and a valid approach.
But I was referring to High Impact effects of development as it is all too often practiced here and, in fairness, most parts of the United States.
Over-reliance on the automobile creates a template which can only lead to urban sprawl. Ironically, the development I highlighted in this post is a remnant of an previous episode of sprawl. By today's standards it seems almost quaint.
The intent of my comment is to look at the fact that older neighborhoods, whether the quintessential redevelopment target of the downtown, or the early generation of an outward expansion represent intense commitments of resources-land, capital, labor and vision. Revitalization of those areas when they have veered toward, or fallen into dereliction is a responsible environmental policy, perhaps the most responsible step we can take.
It is seldom a step taken by local developers and it is not sufficiently promoted by the City.
That would be a less narrow definition of Low Impact Development in my book.
John B
Brilliant idea!
This is truly creative thinking on your part. It is this type of thinking coupled with desire that it takes to correct locations like this part of Charlestown Road.
Your are to be commended and do not let other negitive thinking prevent you from helping to correct this problem. I believe you are absolutly correct, they will come if you re-build it!
Post a Comment