Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
How and why is this a conversation with the bond that just passed??
We've seen now that we are apparently "short" on money needed for roads, and that the greenway construction has halted.
BOTH of which were funded at least largely in part by last year's bond.
Excellent question. To me, this is one of the bad sides to government. They spent all this time telling us exactly WHY they need citizens to pass the bond and what it was going to be used for. Now that it's passed, they want to act like they don't know what to do with the money??
The bond information on the city's website tells us where the money should go. This should already be calculated in the budget, right?
Excellent question. To me, this is one of the bad sides to government. They spent all this time telling us exactly WHY they need citizens to pass the bond and what it was going to be used for. Now that it's passed, they want to act like they don't know what to do with the money??
The bond information on the city's website tells us where the money should go. This should already be calculated in the budget, right?
I believe the Mayor is referencing the annual allocation of money for road repair...whereas the Bond is more of a special project. You need that annual allocation to keep up, so you don't have to do a Bond later. Wilmington, for example, set aside $40 million over 5 years for road maintenance, mostly re-surfacing and then had a separate Transportation Bond approved that included lots of pedestrian improvements and special projects. Again, just for reference, Wilmington is spending $8 million a year on its roads between 2015-2020 from its general fund, Greenville is listed at $1.1, where the Mayor wants about twice that...he's likely got a point.
I believe the Mayor is referencing the annual allocation of money for road repair...whereas the Bond is more of a special project. You need that annual allocation to keep up, so you don't have to do a Bond later. Wilmington, for example, set aside $40 million over 5 years for road maintenance, mostly re-surfacing and then had a separate Transportation Bond approved that included lots of pedestrian improvements and special projects. Again, just for reference, Wilmington is spending $8 million a year on its roads between 2015-2020 from its general fund, Greenville is listed at $1.1, where the Mayor wants about twice that...he's likely got a point.
Interesting decision to made here. Since the city has already committed to supply parking for the PD and a new apartment complex on part of this property (a bad location for it, IMO), it may as well buy the whole site. It's value will only go up, considering the developments in the 10th St/Dickinson area.
Jim Blount, owner of Blount Properties in Greenville, was concerned about how the council’s decision could affect a multi-million-dollar development project on Dickinson Avenue and Reade Circle.
Sidewalk Development, a real estate development firm in Baltimore, is planning to build a mixed-use development that will include a 40-unit market rate apartment complex, a 60-unit student housing project and 20,000 square feet of retail, restaurant and office space.
Blount, a local partner in the Sidewalk Development project, said developers are â€very close†to an agreement with a well-known brewery out of Chapel Hill.
“The brewery will take up a large portion of the restaurant area,†Blount said. “It will include a rooftop terrace for dining that overlooks the area of Dickinson Avenue. ... It will be the first thing developed in Greenville like this,†he said.
Blount said portions of a planned 220-space parking lot for the development are on the Imperial site. The city entered into a contract with the developers to provide parking for the project. Blount asked the City Council during Monday’s meeting to amend the contract to ensure that parking is procured.
“The ball is rolling,†Blount said. “This is expensive stuff. ... We ask that you help keep the ball rolling.â€
This. would. be. huge.
I can think of only one "well known" brewery with a rooftop bar/terrace in Chapel Hill and that's Top of the Hill. If that's the case, that would be amazing. Either way the city should not mess this up. The city should just purchase a the site, build a parking deck on a portion of it and either sell it for development or enter a public-private partnership with the unused portion.
I have mixed feelings about this property. I personally have no problem with the city purchasing the site...feel free to use my tax dollars to do it, I can think of a lot worse things to spend my money on. I'd rather uptown continue to grow than have a few hundred bucks off my tax bill.
With that said, I don't quite understand why the site can't be developed nicely by private companies. Heck - maybe Taft-Ward would be interested in acquiring the site if the city is not going to purchase it. Just for my personal understanding...what benefit is there to the city owning it as opposed to the private sector?
Regardless, the city must ensure that the parking be provided for the complex that is anticipated there, they agreed to it so they better come through or don't expect any further companies to trust the city with any contracts in the future. That complex is a huge game changer for that area of Dickinson Ave. & the businesses locating there now.
Last edited by jpirate; 05-25-2016 at 06:57 AM..
Reason: a
...what benefit is there to the city owning it as opposed to the private sector?
Regardless, the city must ensure that the parking be provided for the complex that is anticipated there, they agreed to it so they better come through or don't expect any further companies to trust the city with any contracts in the future. That complex is a huge game changer for that area of Dickinson Ave. & the businesses locating there now.
This was their reasoning for wanting this piece of land:
Quote:
Roger Johnson, manager of Greenville’s Office of Economic Development, said the city wanted to develop the property to serve as a visual and economic anchor for the redevelopment of west Greenville. Plans included:• Listing the property for sale on Loopnet (Johnson said the city has received interest from three developers since the property was listed on the website);
• Using the center portion of the property to market the city’s virtual building program;
• Entering into a public/private partnership with developers to build a three- to four-story mixed-use project.
Johnson said the city purchased about $360,000 of adjacent properties during the past two years, which would give the city more than 9 acres of land to develop.
“Our office planned to use this site to improve the economic vitality of our community,” he said.
They basically wanted the property so they could resell it to the private sector and add some profit for the city. The reasons why the council shot down fully purchasing the site now is kinda crazy,
well, after reading that^ I'm not quite sure I understand why you wouldn't want to purchase the land other than to quiet the people complaining out taxes and roads. Seems like the city could actually turn a profit on it, so I really don't see a negative in this.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
