GREENSBORO, NC -- Dang raises an interesting question. Why is the city contemplating spending $7.8 million for 7 acres or so of land for a possible performing arts center when the City's redevelopment commission already owns 13 undeveloped acres on the south edge of downtown?
Is it because the area is "a little too dark?" he asks.
One wonders. Although the site was once suggested for a new baseball stadium, that idea was shot down with the excuse that the land was a contaminated brownfield. Federal dollars were available to clean it up, but the excuse stuck and the ballpark went to its present location.
Subsequently, federal funds were used to clean up the site, it has been approved for additional federal dollars to subsidize a parking deck there and it has easy access via Lee St. and Elm/Eugene to I-40 and I-85.
As I mentioned, the city already owns the land, so there would be no need to spend millions to buy property from campaign contributors.
It's a very commonsense location for a performing arts center.
What's coming instead?
Dog shit.
That's right, a proposal has surfaced to put a dog park there.
Ah, Greensboro: Spend $8 million dollars to buy and demolish private property that currently generates about $60,000 per year in tax revenue, remove that property from the tax rolls and leave free vacant land 15 years in the longing for development to the dogs.
I think we all know the reason is twofold, too dark and not enough greenbacks.
ReplyDeleteI wish that someone brighter than me would really look at this closely...it simply does not make any sense...the logistical qualities are unquestionable and funds available are numerous and already planned. Even the financing is already established.A Parking deck is planned and funded, infrastructure is planned and funded, a $26,000,000 greenway runs through it, down the street from the Coliseum, at the gates of downtown, few miles from three 40/85 exits, in a neglected community in need of a break. The upcoming financing for the redevelopment will be accomplished through tax increment financing, therefore bypassing the need for a bond altogether. TIF financing typically ends up with entire neighborhood no longer being able to afford to live where they grew up. One more thing Roch, as you clearly pointed out, we own the land...13 acres of it between the redevelopment commission, the housing authority and the city of GSO. Dawn Chaney is the chair of the redevelopment commission.
ReplyDeleteWhile I agree that the S. Elm St. site has a lot going for it, Dang, I wonder why the YWCA site suddenly got thrown out the window. It's what the GPAC citizens committee recommended and its what council approved for the public's $20M. Now, suddenly, a "new" location is announced after a closed door meeting.
ReplyDeleteThere's something fishy here.
Donors should not get to decide what goes where, otherwise they should not give! We do not need another sterile park next to the private CCpark
ReplyDeleteIf you give, we will say thank you but our city manager must advocate for what is right for our city as a whole, and i know she gets it.
The move may have something to do with the additional financing needed. The premium parking counts for a few dollars in projected revenue and may be difficult to create on the YWCA site...but what do i know?
When the new site was previously under consideration, the plan included 270 premium parking spaces. If those go for for $25 a pop and are sold out at every one of the projected 149 events per year, the City Manager's additional $10 million will accrue in 10 years. That does not include the revenue lost from the city parking currently located on that site.
ReplyDeleteRoch, do you really believe that people will actually pay $25 to park next to the GPAC after purchasing two $65 tickets.. even in NY or ATL people do not pay $25 to park for a couple of hours... and who is absorbing the cost of the new land in addition to the $1,700,000 already spent on the ymca site. The premium parking was supposed to pay for missing $20,000,000 not the additional $10,000,000 for land acquisition.
ReplyDeleteI'm sure they have it all figured out, Dang, or else the News & Record would have questioned the proposal.
ReplyDelete