Proposals to strengthen cities/regions « Columbus Underground Messageboard

Columbus Underground Messageboard » General Columbus Discussion » Development

Proposals to strengthen cities/regions

[33 posts] [10 contributors]

Topic Rating:

(Total Ratings: )
Rate this topic:

Started 2 years ago by ehill27
Latest reply from ehill27

Tags:

transit

12 Next »

ehill27
Short North
Login to Send PM

Abatements should steer industry to urban centers, study suggests
Wednesday, January 13, 2010 2:53 AM

[url=http://www.google.com/search?q="Compact with Ohio Cities Task Force"]Compact with Ohio Cities Task Force[/url] looked for ways to utilize regional collaboration and make better use of existing infrastructure, rather than building on another corn field. Though larger cities typically have more resources, they often lose bids for companies because it is cheaper to build on open land where the parking is free, the report said.

"We're letting ourselves and our regions compete against each other in such a way that it's a net loss to the community," said Rep. Peter Ujvagi, D-Toledo.

Ohio urban centers also are hurt because the state spends less than 1 percent of its transportation dollars on public transit, the report said. It recommended dedicated funding "to allow for substantial funding of multi-modal and mass transit projects."

[Read More]
[Summary of Proposals]

Posted 2 years ago #
ehill27
Short North
Login to Send PM

I'm a bit surprised by the lack of responses, since this couldn't be any more applicable to the CU community. Perhaps I should have posed a question...

What are your thoughts on this "bi-partisan" study? Think anything will come of it?

Posted 2 years ago #
Walker
The KLD / Downtown
Login to Send PM

ehill27 wrote >>
I'm a bit surprised by the lack of responses...

Two words for you...

Holiday

Weekend

;)

Posted 2 years ago #
JaredThompson
Manhattan Beach, CA
Login to Send PM

There are many intellectually stimulating urban planning threads posted here in the past few days. It is intriguing, but I can't decide where to focus my attention first :)

Posted 2 years ago #
Twixlen
Westgate, Columbus
Login to Send PM

I'll bite.

It's great that such a study has been done... not only for the whole public transportation issue, but because there has long been a problem with businesses skipping one location because they can build in a new location cheaper than remodel the old. We all see it happen - the Meijer on Georgesville is allowed to become a dump, and eventually closed, only so a new Meijer can be built, literally in a former corn field, in Grove City. CVS's and Walgreens that move blocks away, only to create an unuseable vacancy.

I just hope this can go far enough --- so that some of the large-scale vacancies that are all over town (West Broad St comes to mind, since that's my 'hood) start to look better to investors. There also needs to be money for environmental clean ups, since many of the older buildings have asbestos, or there is some other abatement that needs to take place on the property (brown field, old gas/oil tanks, etc).

This is making me think of the consternation I felt over the building of that new Target off Cemetary/Fishinger in Hilliard. (I lived in Hilliard at the time.) I remember the city of Hilliard wanted Target to use either the shuttered KMart or Big Bear space - and Target investigated these options. However, it was cheaper for them to develop on the new land, and pay for the connection of Cemetary/Fishinger to Davidson Rd (about a mile of beautiful divided 4 lane road), than to remodel either of the two existing properties, due to all of the various incentives they got for buidling on vacant land.

Posted 2 years ago #
agtw31
columbus
Login to Send PM

Twixlen wrote >>

This is making me think of the consternation I felt over the building of that new Target off Cemetary/Fishinger in Hilliard. (I lived in Hilliard at the time.) I remember the city of Hilliard wanted Target to use either the shuttered KMart or Big Bear space - and Target investigated these options. However, it was cheaper for them to develop on the new land, and pay for the connection of Cemetary/Fishinger to Davidson Rd (about a mile of beautiful divided 4 lane road), than to remodel either of the two existing properties, due to all of the various incentives they got for buidling on vacant land.

the old Kmart is in a crappy location,and i believe Kroger's owns the old Big Bear at Mill Run.
Target always has to be in your face,anyway,just like Walmart.

Posted 2 years ago #
ehill27
Short North
Login to Send PM

@Tixlen

I couldn't agree more with your suggestion that business be persuaded (required) to utilize abandoned property before authorizing them to build on new land. This is a rule that can be fairly easily implemented in any city or town. The problem is, what stops the town or city next door from luring that business away? What's in it for that municipality to play nice and NOT lure that business away from their neighbor?

Posted 2 years ago #
lifeontwowheels
Highland West
Login to Send PM

ehill27 wrote >>
@Tixlen
I couldn't agree more with your suggestion that business be persuaded (required) to utilize abandoned property before authorizing them to build on new land. This is a rule that can be fairly easily implemented in any city or town. The problem is, what stops the town or city next door from luring that business away? What's in it for that municipality to play nice and NOT lure that business away from their neighbor?

Isn't the fact that a company is willing to invest in the community a good thing? I don't think it's sound to force a major corporation into using property unsuitable for their needs.

If a big box is making an investment, wouldn't it follow that a smaller company would find the area more attractive for their own investment and more willing to consider the vacancies due to their more limited budget?

Posted 2 years ago #
Columbusite
Minneapolis
Login to Send PM

The title of the article makes it sound like it's about adding more industrial areas in the city center, which if done carefully could help breathe more life into our cities, but it's not about that. The article didn't really offer anything new and innovative and we already know that sprawling development occurs because of all of the incentives at the expense of the city. Of course, it would probably help if people would contact councilman Ginther who serves as the chair of the Development Committees through his aide to take action and stop subsidizing sprawl. KCPaul@columbus.gov

Posted 2 years ago #
HeySquare
German Village
Login to Send PM

While the newspaper summaries are fine, I'd like a link to the actual text of the report. It sounds like this is a good step and that legislators are beginning to look at these policy decisions holistically. I have always had a problem with the "cheap land" in the suburbs. I've seen more than a few instances where a grocery or big box store will close its doors (opening a new store close by), but retain the property. They prevent other commercial enterprises from opening in that space, thus preventing new competition, and often petition for tax abatement on the closed property. It's sick that a company can afford to do that.
The slide show attached to this article is fun... personally I like the former Wal-mart turned into a go-cart track!
http://www.slate.com/id/2204599/

Posted 2 years ago #
NEOBuckeye
Ohio At-Large
Login to Send PM

Two Genuine Solutions: City-County Consolidated Government and Urban Growth Boundaries.

In essence, within Ohio, you would have a Charter government at the county level (see Summit County and soon in Cuyahoga County) that serves in place of all existing municipal governments within the county, which would be permanently abolished. The new Columbus-Franklin County Charter government could establish urban growth boundaries (see Portland, Oregon) that would restrict any new development to the area within the boundaries.

Obstacles: The big one is the fact that people are usually too attached to their local governments and representatives to permit mergers and consolidations to take place on any meaningful scale. (e.g. Dublin and Hilliard merging with Columbus? Fat chance!!) Also, all those mayors and councilmen and women can be very reluctant to cough up their fiefdoms... er, uh, seats. The only "forced opportunity" here would be bankruptcy, which is actually an increasing likelihood for all municipalities over the next 5 years. I'd say, keep your eyes on Cleveland and NE Ohio, however, to see what they make of this, because they'll probably get there first.

Also, preferably, in a region like Central Ohio, where the "city" essentially spills out well beyond the Franklin County lines, you might want to redraw the county lines so that the development falls within what would become the new regional government. The drawback is that you couldn't prevent additional development from taking place on the other side of the new city/county line.

One other possibility here is to establish a multi-county government, perhaps similar to New York City, which is itself an amalgamation of five counties. That might be a tough sell here in Ohio. If it happened, it would have to be a direct act of the state legislature, which is how NYC came to be.

Posted 2 years ago #
ehill27
Short North
Login to Send PM

lifeontwowheels wrote >>
I don't think it's sound to force a major corporation into using property unsuitable for their needs.

Agreed, but when there's a site that is suitable, a company should not be authorized to go elsewhere. You don't want to facilitate growth at the expense of existing neighborhoods and infrastructure. From a cost perspective, it's a drain on tax resources to develop and maintain new infrastructure while existing infrastructure is wasted.

Posted 2 years ago #
agtw31
columbus
Login to Send PM

ehill27 wrote >>

lifeontwowheels wrote >>

Agreed, but when there's a site that is suitable, a company should not be authorized to go elsewhere.

what about when they are forced to go elsewhere?

Posted 2 years ago #
lifeontwowheels
Highland West
Login to Send PM

ehill27 wrote >>

lifeontwowheels wrote >>
I don't think it's sound to force a major corporation into using property unsuitable for their needs.

Agreed, but when there's a site that is suitable, a company should not be authorized to go elsewhere. You don't want to facilitate growth at the expense of existing neighborhoods and infrastructure. From a cost perspective, it's a drain on tax resources to develop and maintain new infrastructure while existing infrastructure is wasted.

Who are you to decide what is suitable and unsuitable? Especially at the risk of losing a major investment and job center for the community? If the investor is willing to put up the cost of infrastructure as part of the development, going by the example earlier, how is it a drain on tax resources? Especially when you consider increased property, sales and income tax revenue off that new investment.

If you are going to do anything from a legislative perspective to utilize existing structures, why not work with ideas like Wonderland? Make it easier for neighborhood organizations, business groups, artists, entrepreneurs and other stake holders to create similar spaces around our city that can spur further growth and development.

Posted 2 years ago #
ehill27
Short North
Login to Send PM

lifeontwowheels wrote >>

ehill27 wrote >>

lifeontwowheels wrote >>
I don't think it's sound to force a major corporation into using property unsuitable for their needs.

Agreed, but when there's a site that is suitable, a company should not be authorized to go elsewhere. You don't want to facilitate growth at the expense of existing neighborhoods and infrastructure. From a cost perspective, it's a drain on tax resources to develop and maintain new infrastructure while existing infrastructure is wasted.

Who are you to decide what is suitable and unsuitable?

The decision would be made by those in charge of regulating development.

If the investor is willing to put up the cost of infrastructure as part of the development, going by the example earlier, how is it a drain on tax resources?

If this were on the table, then it should be factored into the decision. However, how often does this actually happen?

Posted 2 years ago #
lifeontwowheels
Highland West
Login to Send PM

I'm just not comfortable with any policy that appears anti-business or creates the perception (or very real reality) of further regulation and roadblocks. What are the qualifications of those in charge of regulating development, how transparent are the proceedings and how accountable are they to the public?

Posted 2 years ago #
ehill27
Short North
Login to Send PM

Calling this "anti-business" is a pretty harsh way to look at it, especially when the goal would be to attract business to the places it's needed most... on abandoned properties rather than corn fields.

Furthermore, these are decisions that are already handled in government, so we're really not talking about new layers of bureaucracy here.

Posted 2 years ago #
lifeontwowheels
Highland West
Login to Send PM

ehill27 wrote >>
Calling this "anti-business" is a pretty harsh way to look at it, especially when the goal would be to attract business to the places it's needed most... on abandoned properties rather than corn fields.
Furthermore, these are decisions that are already handled in government, so we're really not talking about new layers of bureaucracy here.

You're stepping into what should largely be a private transaction. It's one thing to encourage businesses to take a look at those abandoned properties and make them aware of the various incentives, it's quite another to create a regulatory body (or enhance an existing one) that would specifically authorize where a business could and could not locate. I'm all for some of the regulation we currently see that can enhance new builds and make them fit better within the community, like the new CVS across from Children's.

What you are talking about is a very different animal that does come off-if not anti-as something of a hindrance to new development. Do you honestly think a business is going to consider a site beyond 30 seconds if they know upfront they will have an uphill battle to convince a commission to let them site where they want?

ETA

This is really ignores the nature of most big box developments. It's cookie cutter plans to get the site built out timely and cheaply. They'll change the facade to match an existing strip mall, tweak the layout and products based on the neighborhood and so on.

If you want to see those properties developed, you need to work with the small, local business and creative communities that would find value in those spaces. Maybe Wonderland can become a model for that?

Posted 2 years ago #
ehill27
Short North
Login to Send PM

lifeontwowheels wrote >>
Do you honestly think a business is going to consider a site beyond 30 seconds if they know upfront they will have an uphill battle to convince a commission to let them site where they want?

Yes. They do it now.

Posted 2 years ago #
lifeontwowheels
Highland West
Login to Send PM

ehill27 wrote >>

lifeontwowheels wrote >>
Do you honestly think a business is going to consider a site beyond 30 seconds if they know upfront they will have an uphill battle to convince a commission to let them site where they want?

Yes. They do it now.

How is that even similar to your proposal?

ETA

As I said earlier, I have no issue with a commission creating regulations and guiding design so it fits better within the neighborhood. That kind of regulation won't create costs beyond the budget if the developer understands and plans for it from the beginning.

The hotel is a very different animal from what you suggest. They kept the original property and plan on developing it in addition to the move east of High to develop the hotel itself. With that kind of potential in an area like the SN for a return on the investment, you better believe I would be sticking around and jumping through the hoops.

Posted 2 years ago #