The Observation Deck

Here's a new civic planning term-- "detour around"---great prospectus for a potential tenant.

I doubt they have ANY tenant commitment.

I went to last nights Meeting and have the following thoughts/comments:

1) In his opening remarks, Mr. P from Carnegie referenced potential tenants indicating that there is a time constraint based on prospective tenant's existing contractual lease arrangements and that the prospective tenants are driving a hard bargain. My interpretation, reading between the lines; if the design is not approved soon, the prospective tenants will lose interest and ... there is no plan B

2) The "Phase 2" reference on Mr O'Bryan's post earlier in this thread is a reference to the well established apartment building

3) Various members of the Board expressed a number of reservations about the presented plans and designs.

I left the mtg before Public Comments were accepted.

Richard Cole wrote:I went to last nights Meeting and have the following thoughts/comments:

1) In his opening remarks, Mr. P from Carnegie referenced potential tenants indicating that there is a time constraint based on prospective tenant's existing contractual lease arrangements and that the prospective tenants are driving a hard bargain. My interpretation, reading between the lines; if the design is not approved soon, the prospective tenants will lose interest and ... there is no plan B

2) The "Phase 2" reference on Mr O'Bryan's post earlier in this thread is a reference to the well established apartment building

3) Various members of the Board expressed a number of reservations about the presented plans and designs.

I left the mtg before Public Comments were accepted.

Richard

Thanks for the update. My problems is there is always a prospective tenant. When a good part of this crew laid out "West End Mixed Use Strip Mall" they had perspective renters. When finally pushed, Cedar Lee Theater had no plans and had talked to no one. Thre of the six other businesses had filed bankruptcy, and the rest never spoke up.

And with every project in this city and others, there is always a phase 2. Again the same people said there was no Phase 2. Well it was uncovered years later and is one of the things sitting empty on Sloan.

I would say most people no have serious doubts about Carnegie pulling this off with any degree of success. But they are blaming the demolition company publicly.

The Hospital Debacle is how it will read in history books. Worst Administration went for it like country rubes.

.

Richard Cole wrote:I went to last nights Meeting and have the following thoughts/comments:

1) In his opening remarks, Mr. P from Carnegie referenced potential tenants indicating that there is a time constraint based on prospective tenant's existing contractual lease arrangements and that the prospective tenants are driving a hard bargain. My interpretation, reading between the lines; if the design is not approved soon, the prospective tenants will lose interest and ... there is no plan B

2) The "Phase 2" reference on Mr O'Bryan's post earlier in this thread is a reference to the well established apartment building

3) Various members of the Board expressed a number of reservations about the presented plans and designs.

I left the mtg before Public Comments were accepted.

One Lakewood Place is "Plan B".

The first plan was for a Recreation Center on the demolished hospital site. I have previously posted the architectural schematics that reflect that.

While I have no doubt that the City and its selected developer can complete whatever plan is ultimately selected, it has required significant public subsidies and taxation will not repay those subsidies to the public treasury for decades.

I remain skeptical of the one public planning document (by 4ward Planning) that attempts to provide quantitative business justification for the development.

However that document does not address any of the relevant public policy issues related to public subsidies and the recovery of those subsidies by taxation.

We can also reasonably assume that the selected developer has also conducted its own separate analysis of the financial return for the planned development.

Mark Kindt wrote:

Richard Cole wrote:I went to last nights Meeting and have the following thoughts/comments:

1) In his opening remarks, Mr. P from Carnegie referenced potential tenants indicating that there is a time constraint based on prospective tenant's existing contractual lease arrangements and that the prospective tenants are driving a hard bargain. My interpretation, reading between the lines; if the design is not approved soon, the prospective tenants will lose interest and ... there is no plan B

2) The "Phase 2" reference on Mr O'Bryan's post earlier in this thread is a reference to the well established apartment building

3) Various members of the Board expressed a number of reservations about the presented plans and designs.

I left the mtg before Public Comments were accepted.

One Lakewood Place is "Plan B".

The first plan was for a Recreation Center on the demolished hospital site. I have previously posted the architectural schematics that reflect that.

While I have no doubt that the City and its selected developer can complete whatever plan is ultimately selected, it has required significant public subsidies and taxation will not repay those subsidies to the public treasury for decades.

I remain skeptical of the one public planning document (by 4ward Planning) that attempts to provide quantitative business justification for the development.

However that document does not address any of the relevant public policy issues related to public subsidies and the recovery of those subsidies by taxation.

We can also reasonably assume that the selected developer has also conducted its own separate analysis of the financial return for the planned development.

I am not aware of any analysis by the city administration that presents or explains the amount of public subsidies and the repayment period for those subsidies by tax revenues associated with the development.

Council-members George and Rader voted against negotiating the development deal last May. I applaud them for the courage of their vote.