Linden Meadows will be something different than what it was intended to be. Recent developments in the ongoing saga of a plan gone bad place the troubled project in a precarious position which has few good outcomes. I believe, however, it has some chance of coming to fruition.
One possible rescue plan would be for the City to acquire the property using Economic Development Income Tax (EDIT) funds. Based on news reports, the mortgage-holding bank wants a minimum of $500,000. A recent visit there shows a bleak landscape of about 18 forlorn houses in various stages of disrepair and decomposition.
Should the City, in fact, acquire the property, the houses could be sold at a price that simply recovers the City's expenditure. That figure is approximately $28,000, depending on how many of the houses can actually be offered for sale. Optimists would say the full number, pessimists would say approximately none. My position is posited from the optimistic perspective.
These cheap houses could be sold to willing buyers who would be able to take advantage of the fact that they are buying at a low price. The projected sale cost of the Linden Meadows houses was in the $80,000-$100,000 range. The difference between the purchase price and the project price would provide a significant amount of rehabilitation money which the purchaser could commit from their own funds, sweat equity, or mortgage money. In fairly short order, the houses would be in the hands of people committed to the property and able, because of the low purchase price, to dedicate significant outlays to the houses' improvement.
Buyers of these houses would need to sign a deed restriction which stipulates that the houses can only be owner occupied. If, for instance, a 15 year deed restriction were written, the original owner could live there for two or three years. If that owner decided to sell, the new owner would be subject to the deed restriction for 13 or 14 years. Whatever the time of the restriction, it should be sufficient to allow the neighborhood to become established as an enclave of owned houses. Failure to comply with the deed restriction must carry a severe penalty which must be enforced.
A further enhancement of the project would be to establish connectivity to Captain Frank Road rather than the current roundabout entrance off Linden Street.
Linden Meadows carries some additional baggage which increases its deficiency of desirability. It sits less than 100 yards off I-64. As one drives around the area in Louisville, Jeffersonville, and other locations around the country, newly installed noise barriers are becoming relatively commonplace. Mitigation of the nuisance that is the sound of interstate truck traffic would certainly increase the acceptance of the current Linden Meadows. By way of disclosure, I should mention that I would also benefit from the erection of noise barriers. As a resident of Captain Frank Road abutting the noisy interstate, I have sometimes fantasized about a scene from the movie "Steppenwolf" in which Harry Haller takes position on a precipice along a road, bazooka in hand, and proceeds to lob shells at passing cars. For Haller, the cars represented encroaching modernism or industrialism. For me, the passing trucks represent thieves of peace and quiet. The noise barriers would greatly enhance the area. They should be extended to the Sherman Minton bridge to bring quiet to residents of the West-end as well.
While the original goal of the CHDO was laudable, circumstances have intervened to place that goal out of reach. The city needs good affordable housing. It needs housing that is owner occupied. It needs to increase its tax base. It needs to help the neighbors who are burdened by the current blighted condition of Linden Meadows. Those needs should now become the City's goals.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
40 comments:
No doubt National City would be delighted to off-load it’s commercial loan mess onto the taxpayers, but since those very same taxpayers not only bailed out said bank all last year, and might at present have saving their own homes as a priority over saving the banks asses. National City has been given $610.2 million dollars under the 2009 Stimulus Package to re-modify loans. http://bailout.propublica.org/entities/672-national-city-bank The evidence suggests they’re shamelessly dragging their feet to help people in danger of losing their homes. Given that, where is the market that can get the financing to take on a rehab project such as Linden Meadows? Also the valuations you use are based on bubble math. I think the sheriffs auctions are a better place to see what local affordable fixer-upper price point is.
Bottom line, use your time to start the ball rolling on noise barriers for your corridor. It’ll take years, but you have to start sometime. Your capacity as a council-person might be perfect for starting that. But please, stay away from more bank bail-outs with taxpayer money.
To put a finer point on it - off-loading problems onto the taxpayers is business as usual here. It will take a united front to forestall more. This is just one example of the "extractors" trying to pull out with as much "residue value" as possible. We the taxpayers own their wreckage. I say see ya at the Sheriffs auction National City. Full Disclosure, National City is one of my banks and I hate them.
G. Coyle:
I'm no apologist for banks. Nor do I hope to sweep the criminal activity some banks perpetrated against the entire nation under the rug while bailing them out of bad loans.
The City has an opportunity, if not an obligation, to re-direct Linden Meadows in some direction. It will do that in some form or fashion.
My primary point was to take the steps now to prevent the clean-up crew that eventually rescues Linden Meadows from its current state, from being an opportunistic grab by bottom feeders who turn the already sad situation into a rental quagmire.
I believe the houses are still viable, and they could make nice homes for people. The neighborhood is close to amenities.
The projected price numbers were those used by the CHDO. I only meant them as comparison to what people would have in the houses post-rehab and as a comparison to what people might expect to spend on houses in move-in condition.
These would not be right for everyone but there may be 18 people who would see an opportunity there.
The idea is to make the City whole after the units are turned over to private hands, while avoiding obvious problems which could easily arise if the situation follows a basically undirected course.
Mr. Gonder you sat on that board didn't you? Please explain to us how this happen. If you think I want my EDIT $used for Linden Meadows you are flat crazy. You are part of the problem and not the solution. I heard you was for green space, well then by god, put it back to the park it once was. You need to see those rotten homes. Sell yours and buy one of them.
"...obvious problems which could easily arise if the situation follows a basically undirected course."
Undirected, do you mean the bank sending Linden Measows to auction?
Define obvious problems. Abandoned substandard housing? Yes, but isn't the government already choking on dealing with substandard housing on it's plate?
"The idea is to make the City whole after the units are turned over to private hands, while avoiding obvious problems which could easily arise if the situation follows a basically undirected course."
In the first clause here, I am suggesting EDIT funds, up to $500,000, be used to purchase the property to rescue it from its current failing situation. When people purchase the properties, the EDIT money would be returned. No EDIT money would be used to rehab the houses. And the buyers of the houses, which would, perhaps cost as little as $25,000-28,000, could put a reasonable amount of money into the house and still have a modestly priced house for their efforts.
Failing to act sets up the consequence of the second clause which would be a concentration of rental property rehabilitated on a shoestring budget which would probably never gain a viable foothold. It would also likely add to our rental housing which is not in the best long term interest of the city.
Razing everything and returning to green space is an option, but one which fails to take advantage of the sunk infrastructural costs already in place.
John, I'm saying, at what point do the people who already live and attempt to deal with the "ghetto" have to stop adding more ghetto? You're just proposing giving 1/2mil to a BFB so we can add more ghetto to our over-flowing pot? It's like everyday some big business guy in a fancy car and a fancy suit drives up to the city hall with yet another scheme to sell off a problem to the city. Could it be part of why NA is perpetually unable to move forward? If the city can not handle the crumbling historic buildings we witness daily downtown, for example the Tabernacle, or many others, why do they want to spend so much good money to buy another huge distressed commerical enterprise?!
Gina:
I don't necessarily see this a bailing out a bank.
The City bears a share of responsibility for the Linden Meadows project. Since the other parties which share in the failure of the effort won't be involved in the cleanup, it falls to the City to do so.
As far as "ghetto management" goes, I've spoken repeatedly with officials who cite incremental successes in code enforcement. Within the context of New Albany signs of renewal are undeniable. While these appear against a national backdrop of economic woe, we see them up close and we can easily spot the shortcomings of those efforts as well as the personal foibles of those executing policy. That doesn't mean the effort isn't being expended.
Off the subject, but I've been told by those who have had trouble recently, that flooding in problem areas has been lessened. One possible reason is that the stormwater crews have been out dredging creek beds on a daily basis. That's pretty much the epitome of unseen effort yielding substantial results.
All that said, Linden Meadows can be nudged along in a wide variety of directions.
If managed correctly, EDIT funds can be used to jump start the process. No other party will buy the property and shepherd it into responsible hands (yes I hear the chuckles of dismissal), while trying to balance the interests of the community against a quick buck.
I believe assuring that the property be deed-restricted to owner-occupied housing is a good way to steer out of a mess. There may well be other better ideas, but the discussion is still young.
Another option in addition to what I offered at NAC...offer the houses to bonded and insured construction companies. The approximate $28K that the city is in for will be waived until closing. The restrictions should read that the houses will be sold only to owner occupiers. This will incentivize slow builders to get in for only the rehab costs and not have to front a large chunk.
Let's face it...the houses are not worth $28K as they sit. This is still a big risk for companies. We can be creative to get this back on track.
1/2 of the town has substandard housing. I'm not yet convinced of why this one block of 18 houses is now a big priority?
There are foreclosed, 1/2 built housing developments everywhere in the country now. Every bank in town has millions and millions of crap loans like Linden Meadows on their books. When Community Trust wants to bail-out of their own sprawl-investments in Floyd County, will we again be asked to buy all their empty 1/2 built subdivisions?
This is like the CEE. inc. doondoggle.
I propose we eliminate the Redevelopment Office et al, who seem to be the bone-heads who deliver these nasty deals over and over. Other than the YMCA, what exactly has Redevelpment done for downtown in the last 40 years?
Mr. Short - thanks for the market-based idea again. With all the slack in employment in the construction industry, the right incentives would, I think, be the only shot at getting some investment going. Or like someone else suggested, give it to Prosser to use as a rehab-lab. Sure will be easier to get all these houses fixed up when people have the skills it takes.
I didn't mean to imply that a government option is the best ultimate solution. In fact, the crux of what I proposed is to hand the houses over to private citizens who would be owner-occupiers.
The City's role is simply one of acquiring title, admittedly at a cost, and then selling the un-rehabbed houses to buyers who agree to the deed rstrictions.
If the mortgage holding bank can be convinced to hold the property while that process is working, I'm for it.
You did not answer my question Mr. Gonder? I say let's audit CHDO's books. I want to know where our money went. I want to know how the council voted NO on free hook up fees, and the city gave them anyway.
I want answers.
To Mr. Gonder, please stop cutting deals with Mayor England and I sure hope you are NOT planning to run for reelection.
"The City's role is simply one of acquiring title, admittedly at a cost, and then selling the un-rehabbed houses to buyers who agree to the deed rstrictions."
Let's look at the cost part. Your reasoning, I think, is to use gov't to shepard the now abandoned houses into the hands of re-hab willing owner occupiers, as opposed to auctioning the block off to the highest bidder, presumably a developer. A worthy goal. But one the city has failed miserably to pull-off in the past.
Likewise, if proper zoning is in place, and enforced, doesn't the potential private developer already have restrictions on what can be done with the houses?
Isn't zoning the way local municipalities impact development. Buying up every failed commercial enterprise and hoping to re-sell it? What is the reason local government sees this as a role it should play? Other than we have too many people who are employed to imagine all this nonsense. How 'bout gov't get out of the development business, for now, and just try and bring a budget to the public that is sustainable.
It's unfortunate that so many who took so little interest in assembling the pieces into something constructive are now suddenly so concerned about what to do with them now.
It's almost as if their participation is predicated on failure. There's a theme there.
"something constructive" i think your assuming what i am debating.
I would think an audit of CHDO's books would be an appropriate action.
As far as my standing for re-election, that is an issue between and my threshold for obloquy.
"I would think an audit of CHDO's books would be an appropriate action.
As far as my standing for re-election, that is an issue between ME and my threshold for obloquy."
corrected version
John, I don't know what to say, but here goes. You were on the Plan Commission when we (the neighbors) told you that this was not a good location for a "subdivision" due to the flooding, due to closeness to the interstate and due to it being a dead end street. However, it was perfect for the baseball field that was there. Now you say these are some of your concerns? Even though you were a member of the Plan Commission, you got up and spoke AGAINST the residents of Captain Frank. Also, about a road to Captain Frank.....you want to tear down a house on Captain Frank to do so? Whose house would you take? We also remember you and your wife calling "neighbors" on Captain Frank Road to rally around you being against the big construction project behind your house called The Summit. There was supposed to be a road and commercial development behind your house. We have heard that the "road" is not in the plans anymore. What about the commercial development behind your house? Is that gone also? We grew accustomed to people saying this sounds like the old "not in my backyard" mentality; however, it is those same people who will yell the loudest when it hits their backyard. John, since you were on the CHDO Board and also a Plan Commission member, why would you not sit down and talk with us? We tried. We went to the Mayor's office and talked with him. It was the city/CHDO way or nothing at all...no compromise...no placing the houses on CITY OWNED land that is STILL available in the Cottom/Linden/Lincoln area. For five years we have looked at the blight on our neighborhood. It didn't have to happen this way. The park could have remained while the houses could have been placed on Linden, Cottom, Valley View, etc. Ms. Jensen, the elderly granddaughter of Ms. Fawcett, called me today. It still upsets her to read about this. She wanted no money, just the park in memory of her grandmother who unselfishly gave land to the city for a park during the depression. What a shame for this family and for this city.
Becky:
First of all this post on my blog was, and is, simply that. It reflects absolutely no City, Administration, or Council viewpoint other than my own. I frankly doubt that much support exists to bail out Linden Meadows.
Secondly, I share your frustration, although frustration directed at a different target. As you mention, we tried to stop the development atop Fawcett Hill.
Nonetheless the project sailed through the Plan Commission. The only reason it has not reached the final stage of construction is the overall state of the economy and the resulting contraction of credit. It may have died a natural death
You said, "Even though you were a member of the Plan Commission, you got up and spoke AGAINST the residents of Captain Frank."
As a neighbor of the development and a member of the Plan Commission, however, I was never allowed to participate in discussion of the Fawcett Hill project, nor was I allowed to vote on it. As amember of the CHDO board I was, likewise, not allowed to participate in discussion of Linden Meadows.
That principle of public officials removing themselves, or being removed, from discussions which may affect them or their family members is one with which I am fully willing to comply, and one which I support.
Thirdly, as I said in my blog, Linden Meadows will not be what the CHDO intended it to be.
The project may have been mishandled from the first move by the City to trade a strategy saving affordable housing with the Hospital for its expansion plans. The neighbors adjacent to the project could have been included more fully into the process. The houses could have been moved to scattered sites, but this would have doomed the original intention of saving affordable houses because of added costs. Other city poperty, as far as I know, was never offered as an alternative site.
Fourthly, now what?
Although it is difficult to leave sincerely held opposition to the project behind as well as the distaste, or bad feelings against it, I think what remains is capable of being turned into a nice collection of comfortable, affordable houses.
Again, what I wrote has no official support that I know of. Therefore my suggestion of a street connecting to Captain Frank is not even on the radar screen. Such a connection would not be necessary to make the Linden Meadows rescue plan viable.
A considerable amount of infrastructure has been added to that property. It holds a number of houses that have deteriorated and could be torn down or, I believe, rehabbed. Some financial entity will want its money out of that project. These factors add up to a recipe for a bottom feeder "slumlord" to come in and pick up the pieces for a quick buck.
I believe those houses as owner-occupied, deed-restricted homes would be an asset to the community.
I believe that is a goal which can turn this bad situation into a positive one, and that is why I wrote the piece to which you responded.
"As a neighbor of the development and a member of the Plan Commission, however, I was never allowed to participate in discussion of the Fawcett Hill project, nor was I allowed to vote on it."
Why were you not able to participate in the Fawcett Hill discussion as a member of the Plan Commission?
Did you not voice your neighbors concerns before you voted as a Plan Commission Member?
"The project may have been mishandled from the first move by the City to trade a strategy saving affordable housing with the Hospital for its expansion plans."
Who is the "City"? There are many entities that make up the "City" can you be more unambiguous?
Why does the city need to save its affordable housing dosen't New Albany have enough?
"The neighbors adjacent to the project could have been included more fully into the process."
Not only the adjacent neighbors to the lost park but the full body of New Albany Citizens as a whole.
"As amember of the CHDO board I was, likewise, not allowed to participate in discussion of Linden Meadows."
This is an attempt to reduce your own responsibility in the situation. As a board member of CHDO you are in part responsible for the situation.
The worst part of it all is Linden Meadows had opposition from the get go. The citizens of New Albany were not genuinely informed on the creation of the plan.
"It's unfortunate that so many who took so little interest in assembling the pieces into something constructive are now suddenly so concerned about what to do with them now.
It's almost as if their participation is predicated on failure. There's a theme there."
This comment gives proof that people do not understand that citizens were not genuinely allowed to participate in Linden Meadow inception.
If citizens were genuinely involved there would not have been a law suit.
PART ONE
I'm not much on one-sided conversations, so here's my take:
You: Linden Meadows will be something different than what it was intended to be.
Me: Unfortunately, what it was intended to be was a park. It was deeded to the city as such but the city found a work-around for that, didn’t they?
You: Recent developments in the ongoing saga of a plan gone bad place the troubled project in a precarious position which has few good outcomes. I believe, however, it has some chance of coming to fruition.
Me: Unfortunately, it was a bad plan to start off with: no Hearings; no Impact Studies; just shoved it down the citizens’ throats and that was that. The neighbors hated it; got scores of signatures on their petitions; and even filed a lawsuit – but, naively, learned too late that it’s difficult to fight against a petty dictatorship.
You: One possible rescue plan would be for the City to acquire the property using Economic Development Income Tax (EDIT) funds. Based on news reports, the mortgage-holding bank wants a minimum of $500,000. A recent visit there shows a bleak landscape of about 18 forlorn houses in various stages of disrepair and decomposition.
Me: You have a gift for understatement. They are, at this point, worthless, mold and mildew infested health hazards beyond nothing short of an armload of miracles to resurrect.
You: Should the City, in fact, acquire the property, the houses could be sold at a price that simply recovers the City's expenditure. That figure is approximately $28,000, depending on how many of the houses can actually be offered for sale. Optimists would say the full number, pessimists would say approximately none. My position is posited from the optimistic perspective.
Me: …and I have some beautiful lakeshore property I’d like to sell you in sunny Siberia.
You: These cheap houses could be sold to willing buyers who would be able to take advantage of the fact that they are buying at a low price. The projected sale cost of the Linden Meadows houses was in the $80,000-$100,000 range. The difference between the purchase price and the project price would provide a significant amount of rehabilitation money which the purchaser could commit from their own funds, sweat equity, or mortgage money. In fairly short order, the houses would be in the hands of people committed to the property and able, because of the low purchase price, to dedicate significant outlays to the houses' improvement.
Me: Um, have you kept abreast of news at all lately? People are losing their houses and properties in droves. Nobody in their right mind is lending money. Those who have money are holding on to it for dear life. Do you really think that, with all the properties becoming more available all the time that the debris field in Linden Meadows would really attract a buyer – or, at least, one in true control of his/her mental faculties?
You: Buyers of these houses would need to sign a deed restriction which stipulates that the houses can only be owner occupied. If, for instance, a 15 year deed restriction were written, the original owner could live there for two or three years. If that owner decided to sell, the new owner would be subject to the deed restriction for 13 or 14 years. Whatever the time of the restriction, it should be sufficient to allow the neighborhood to become established as an enclave of owned houses. Failure to comply with the deed restriction must carry a severe penalty which must be enforced.
Me: I would take any “deed restrictions” with a grain of salt, in this town. Seventy years ago, another person thought they’d crafted a nice piece of reading when they deeded said property to the “city.” In less time than you seem to grasp, any piece of paper written up in this town is easily rendered worthless.
PART TWO
You: A further enhancement of the project would be to establish connectivity to Captain Frank Road rather than the current roundabout entrance off Linden Street.
Me: …and which of the long-time home-owners is it that you have singled out for this invasion? You’re not very good at making friends, are you? Whether or not it’s your sole idea or anybody else’s, it’s a real exercise in irony (much like Linden Meadows was).
You: Linden Meadows carries some additional baggage which increases its deficiency of desirability. It sits less than 100 yards off I-64. As one drives around the area in Louisville, Jeffersonville, and other locations around the country, newly installed noise barriers are becoming relatively commonplace. Mitigation of the nuisance that is the sound of interstate truck traffic would certainly increase the acceptance of the current Linden Meadows. By way of disclosure, I should mention that I would also benefit from the erection of noise barriers. As a resident of Captain Frank Road abutting the noisy interstate, I have sometimes fantasized about a scene from the movie "Steppenwolf" in which Harry Haller takes position on a precipice along a road, bazooka in hand, and proceeds to lob shells at passing cars. For Haller, the cars represented encroaching modernism or industrialism. For me, the passing trucks represent thieves of peace and quiet. The noise barriers would greatly enhance the area. They should be extended to the Sherman Minton bridge to bring quiet to residents of the West-end as well.
Me: Wow! When you get done with that metaphorical bazooka and bong, I’m sure there are a few other neighbors who may like to borrow them. You’re bummed out about highway noises coming from more property that was deeded to the city for recreational uses? My concern is more about the eyesore and health hazard that our sole park has become. Sorry, my priorities are obviously somewhat different – and realistic!
You: While the original goal of the CHDO was laudable, circumstances have intervened to place that goal out of reach. The city needs good affordable housing. It needs housing that is owner occupied. It needs to increase its tax base. It needs to help the neighbors who are burdened by the current blighted condition of Linden Meadows. Those needs should now become the City's goals.
Me: CHDO’s goal was laudable but not their means of attaining it. I would also like to point out that you, personally, backed this ill-fated concept from the origination. It wasn’t until the neighbors aired their dismay at your stance and their attorney intervened that you began to publicly distance yourself from the fray. Obviously, what happened in the public eye and what happened behind the city’s closed doors are two very disparate things, as evidenced by the dump now in plain sight of all west-bound traffic on I-64. Forty years ago, we used to snicker at surrounding communities in southern Indiana, for their lackluster appearance and politics. Now, it appears that they’re doing substantially better than New Albany. You know, realistically, if the park could be returned to its prior condition, it may prove the “city” has some idea as to what “social responsibility” really means. Now, since there is some sewer service available, there could even be bathrooms for the ball players. That may be some small recompense for the eighth of a million dollar ball park they had to demolish for this eyesore. Also, just an aside, when it was noted that you were ‘hell-bent for leather’ trying to discourage development in your neck of the woods, I thought to myself, “What’s good for the goose isn’t necessarily good for the Gonder, is it?”
john, i had to write more on this so i've posted it to my blog: http://letterfromnewalbany.blogspot.com/
A number of factors led to the failure of the Linden Meadows project.
Part of accepting responsibility for mistakes is accepting responsibility for correcting those mistakes.
Endless re-hashing of what led to the demise of the project doesn't help bring a successful outcome.
For the record, the Fawcett Hill neighbors, including my wife and me eventually dropped our opposition to that project after changes were made to the plan. After joining the City Council, I in fact voted for the Fawcett Hill project.
And what were the changes, John, that made you change your mind? Any changes that involved the development not coming so close to your property? Or no road being built thru to Captain Frank? Please explain. I also saw where one of your neighbors who opposed the development was made a member of the Plan Commission after the Fawcett Hill project was approved.
You say, "Endless re-hashing of what led to the demise of the project doesn't help bring a successful outcome."
If we fail to learn from our mistakes, we are doomed to repeat them. Looking at the facts that led up to a problem is healthy and a good way to avoid more problems, wouldn't you say?
At least, if the neighbors are actually a part of the planning, (instead of getting bulldozed), it would help attain some faith in the outcome.
Personally, I feel it's somewhat interesting that more than one person feels there is a necessity to get on the Planning Committee in order to effect necessary changes.
I am John's wife and am responding to the questions regarding the Fawcett Hill proposed development.
As you may know, the project went through many iterations and eventually even different ownership. Obviously, as owners of a rental property on Fawcett Hill we were involved. The Savinos, whose primary residence abuts the planned development, took the lead in working with the neighbors, the Plan Commission, and the developers. They did a tremendous amount of research - more than any of the rest of us could have done, geotechnical surveys, etc.
Even though we all wanted (and would still prefer) to keep the woods intact for the wildlife, we recognized that the buyers had a right to develop their property. So with that in mind, we worked cooperatively with the Plan Commission and the developers to come to a final plan with each side making concessions everybody could live with.
The change to the ingress/egress away from Capt. Frank Road was made primarily because of costs to the developer, and because they chose to concentrate on the commercial phase of the project - off of State St. - first.
Yes, I spoke against the initial plan at a public meeting of the Plan Commission. John recused himself and stayed out in the hall during these public meetings. As he previously wrote, the Plan Commission approved it anyway. But there were several issues that the developer had not resolved to the satisfaction of the City Council, which voted against it. It lay dormant for awhile until different partners proposed an alternative, more ambitious project, which became the final approved plan. Economic problems have apparently derailed, or at least indefinitely postponed the Fawcett Hill development. However, the neighbors never sued anyone to stop it.
Annie Savino is an extremely bright and thoughtful person. She takes nothing at face value, but does the homework necessary to arrive at an informed decision or solution. She did not seek a seat on the Plan Commission, but was asked to join because her knowledge and research capability impressed members of the Administration.
The Linden Meadows project was much different in its concept, pannning, and (attempted) execution. Site selection was rushed due to the pressure from the hospital. (And John G. was not involved in that decision, as he was not on the CHDO Board at that early point.)There was also confusion about ownership rights to the land, which was never an issue with Fawcett Hill.
Please remember that we also live near Linden Meadows, and our property is also affected, if not as immediately as yours. I used to walk our dogs there, but never considered it much of a park, just some green space with a neglected ball field. The L.M. development could have been an asset to the neighborhood. Those houses were once nice homes and would have added architectural variety and value. It is a terrible shame that everything went wrong. But it is what it is and must be dealt with. Let's move forward.
Correction: "planning"
I don't know what the answers are either but we need to find answers and move forward on this issue.
All of this finger pointing is not helping anyone. Of course this is what usually happens when problems arise.
We have enough blighted housing as it is. We need to either rehab these homes if possible or tear them down. They are a danger to the community as they are as well as an eyesore.
"All of this finger pointing is not helping anyone. Of course this is what usually happens when problems arise." Shirley
How do we know what caused the problems to arise if we can't discuss it? You can't solve a problem without a cause.
Please. The neighbors on Cottom, Lincoln, Linden, Olive and Captain Frank are tired of people referring to the Linden Meadows area as a previous "neglected ballfield", a "vacant lot", etc. It was a regulation sized baseball field with LIGHTS, DUGOUTS, ELECTRONIC SCOREBOARD AND FENCING. It was kept up by the school corp and the parks dept. Ball games were played there: first by the girls when it was a regulation sized softball field, then later changed to a baseball field. The school corp spent over $100,000 for the students to have a nice place to play. It was not vacant, it was not neglected. I realize that trying to minimize its past use makes some people feel better, but it is not the truth. If you want confirmation of the ballpark and its condition, please contact the school corp and speak to Bill Wiseheart who is director of facilities. Please contact former New Albany High School principal, Steve Sipes. Please contact New Albany High School Interim principal and former athletic director, Donnie Unruh. They will all be glad to share with you how much the school used the field and what condition McLean Field was in.
FYI: I think Annie is a wonderful person also. I saw the work she put into the research because she shared it with me.
John, you said, "As a neighbor of the development and a member of the Plan Commission, however, I was never allowed to participate in discussion of the Fawcett Hill project, nor was I allowed to vote on it"...."After joining the City Council, I in fact voted for the Fawcett Hill project." "That principle of public officials removing themselves, or being removed, from discussions which may affect them or their family members is one with which I am fully willing to comply, and one which I support." This is confusing. At one point you say that you should not have been able to vote for it, but yet admit that you did? Was that a conflict?
Yes, this entire mess is a shame and didn't have to happen. Unfortunately, all of us have to look at these dilapidated houses everyday and suffer the consequences as it devalues our properties. We hope that a decision is made soon as to what needs to happen.
"It was a regulation sized baseball field with LIGHTS, DUGOUTS, ELECTRONIC SCOREBOARD AND FENCING."
I'm sorry, but I never saw the ball field in use. I had heard that girls played there, but when I took the dogs to walk over there, part of the fence and a gate were missing or broken, and it appeared to be unused. The grass around it was often too high to walk through, although I occasionally saw someone mowing. The ballfield itself must have been renovated after we stopped going there. If so, I apologize for misrepresenting it. Regardless, I realize that even an abandoned ball field would be preferable to the blight of abandoned houses in the neighborhood.
First, I would like to apologize if I caused any offense, when my angst bled through too evidently in my last posting, even it was honest. It’s obviously not the best way to make a point. My English teacher of years gone by would have berated me profusely. I am usually a peaceable and quiet-natured kind of person.
I think the best, new beginning would be for the city to actually invite the people of this community to be a part of the planning process this time; instead of deciding their fate for them, again. That would set a new and very refreshing precedent for this tired neighborhood. Trust is something that is earned, though. It would have to be more than a “flash in the pan.”
Yes, as Becky pointed out, the ball park was well maintained and had over a hundred thousand dollars worth of equipment invested into it. It was definitely not neglected. Neglected is basically what it became after the city told the school to get out.
At the risk of sounding redundant, I believe it still has to be reiterated; there is no longer a need for low or moderate income housing around here – or most anywhere in America. Actually, New Albany has never really had a shortage of that, in my opinion. There is, however, a shortage of parks in this city. One doesn’t have to travel far around here to find architectural variety but one has to travel too far to find a park.
Perhaps, as a suggestion, a middle-ground could be found. If the houses that are too far decayed were razed and the possibly salvageable ones consolidated; a park could still be made available. Personally, I still wouldn’t hold much hope for the sale of said houses but perhaps it would be a way to make the most people happy.
Well said Pete!
"I think the best, new beginning would be for the city to actually invite the people of this community to be a part of the planning process this time; instead of deciding their fate for them, again."
I agree.
I hope for a new beginning and a good outcome.
I agree with Pete the course of action needs to start with citizens input first and not just one low advertised meeting. It needs to be real genuine input. The paper needs to cover comments from those meetings before any Plan Commission or Redevelopment Commission is presented to vote on a plan.
John, you need to lead the way with this.
City government’s attitude needs to change with the relationship it has with its citizens.
Post a Comment