As if on cue, following the comments of this blog last week on the Countryside Village redevelopment we get an article in the Camera about how no one is interested in developing there. Frequent commenter Lafayette City Councilor Kerry Bensman is quoted as saying "My prognosis is that that thing is going to be dead for a long time."
The online article is followed by posts by the mysterious "Darth", who seems eerily familiar somehow... (it's not me, BTW). There is a stinging assessment: "The best thing Lafayette has going for it is its close proximity to Boulder, not its potential for big box development." Et tu, Darth? Where's the love for Lafayette's small town feel?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
12 comments:
Yeah, I found this article and Darth's posts interesting as well.
He's a little off the mark, but not by much.
One thing he missed is the reason many people chose Lafayette. Some choose Lafayette because of it's small town feel, but not specifically because there are no big box developments. Many of these same "small town" proponents bemoan the lack of local shopping.
It's a nice vision of Nirvana to think that small businesses can fill that local shopping need. Just watch how shoppers flock to the new WalMart. Shoppers aren't even loyal to the other big guys (KS and Albertson's). They're loyal to their own pocketbook.
Darth's next door neighbors, and their desire to have affordable, convenient shopping, will drive more big box stores to the area.
I do agree with his comments about poor planning. I don't understand a city who guarantees an Ace lease, but then wants to build a Lowe's across town.
For those who wonder, the WM/OA Countryside redevelopment project was kicked off on April 18, 2006.
http://www.cityoflafayette.com/Agendas.asp?Display=Minutes&AMID=505
So we're around month 15.
In early August, council permitting (there is a pun there), the new Super W*M will open. So we can discuss Countryside all we want. But W*M will close there and right now, all we can do is watch.
I don't know who Darth is but I can suspect it is one of a couple of people I know. Of course, much of what (s)he wrote is I have said before. So it can be naysaying, which seems to be the buzzword when a reality check seems to much to bear.
I won't shop groceries at W*M because they are going to get the incremental sales tax up to $2.2M about the base set. But it is a confluence of events that are going to change Lafayette for a long time.
The reality of moving 287 started it all. The 2700 new homes built in the late 90s, most west of 287. The development of the "category killer" big boxes in the past 20 years, etc. The demise of So. Boulder Road, etc. The focus on saving the "base" has also created major cracks in the base.
Why did folks move to Lafayette? It can be argued it was the relatively low cost of housing in the mid to late '90s and the easy of commuting around Boulder County, especially north and south. It wasn't for the shopping at the time. Just look at Indian Peaks, Blue Heron, South Pointe, etc. to name a few. That's 2000 homes right there.
As for the ability to change things, the city could issue Lafayette Bucks to subsidize developers or make massive infrsstructure changes. No takers right now. There have been some surprises with a new developer involved in the Lafayette Tech Center and another at Shady Acres.
For the next couple of years, the cake has been baked. The only question now is what it will taste like.
P.S. There was a "visioning" presentation given on July 11, 2006, 26 slides. The proposed park may have sprung from that. City hall went along with it since it knew it would not happen. So why not?
Nay-saying, by definition, is a form of cynicism or skepticism. As such, it's always going to be a part of this blog.
And, I'm as cynical and skeptical of government as anybody.
But, at some point true leaders move beyond the skepticism and cynicism to offer real life solutions. This is what distinquishes the true leaders from the merely elected ones.
It's time for the true leaders of Lafayette to step up.
Sorry, d-b, you can do all the wishful thinking you want. But for now, unless there is some developer out there willing to ride in on a white horse with bags full of money and a creative acceptable plan, we're on hold. At least 2 years. Possible 3.
Reality bites sometimes. Slogans aren't going to work either. You keep wanting to avoid the $$$ angle.
DB, you can't look at all decisions as if they were made at the same time. When the ACE deal happened, the perspective based on the information available was that this was the only shot we had at a hardware store. No one expected or even anticipated a Lowe's in the future, or even where they chose to locate. Note that they were not offered incentives of any kind, and I can't speak for the rest of council but I do not plan on agreeing to any if it comes up. Agree on your attitude statement.
Kerry, I never intended to avoid the $$ angle. Contrary to popular opinion, developers don't have bags of money. What they have is access to financing. Seems to me the City has access to financing as well.
Per my post on the other thread, there are things LURA and/or the city could be doing to make this parcel more attractive. The city shouldn't just sit on it's butt waiting for something to happen. That would go beyond poor leadership and fall into the category of outright lack of leadership.
Developers don't like to deal with a city government that lacks a clear vision. It's a no win situation for them.
Your words indicate you're willing to just sit back and watch it fail, so you can say "I told you so." Easy to do. Much more difficult to come up with solutions.
Frank, I'm not naive enough to believe the actions of the city took place all at once. My point on the Ace/Lowe's comparison is to point out the lack of vision on the part of the city. With all the development going on within 5 miles of the city, it wouldn't have taken too much imagination to believe there were other options for a hardware store beyond Ace.
For clarity, I'm opposed to subsidies by local government to large retailers, unless in the context of urban renewal. I would consider any franchisee, like Ace, to be a large retailer.
D-B,
The city doesn't have any meaningful financing options. The Urban Renewal Area was financially crippled when Albertsons moved to 287. The URA could at best borrow up to with $800,000 or so today and throw in the OA building. A drop in the bucket. There are still council members who want to use the money for a park.
The city can set up a Governmental Improvement District. That's about it for now and is done at the request of the developer.
As for ACE, the city guaranteed 4 years of the required 10 year lease. The developer would not build without it. If it goes out of business, at least the building may appeal to someone, just like when Vitamin Cottage took over the Eckerds building. If Albertson's goes defunct, that building is still in a good location for a non-competitor of W*M.
Now the city has spent around $100,000 and will still spend more. To date that has yielded zero results. So not being an urban planner and prone not to read a book and declare myself an expert, the property will sit or we could spend another $100,000.
Sometimes one just has to wait, especially until the dust settles. The problem with Countryside started at least 10 years ago. It is not going to get solved in a year.
I always find it amusing when folks prefer attitude to results. In the private business world, attitude without results gets one a kick out the door. In government it seems to be "we screwed up, please ignore it."
Still waiting to hear about that solution...
The Ace developer should've been sent walking if he insisted on a city lease guarantee. They no doubt questioned the franchisee's staying power. Probably looked at the market and knew a big box competitor would come soon. Too bad the city wasn't this astute.
Not that lease guarantees don't have their place. How about some lease guarantees on Public Road to fill the empty spaces, per my post on the other thread? If that was advertised, you might get a decent list of potential tenants.
The lack of direction is incredible. And, the city wonders why no one wants to play on the Countryside Village property?
I'm also still waiting for those solutions to be mentioned. Doing more of nothing is not a solution.
Wish more readers would become posters so we could get some other views.
I'll repeat the quote I put in the other post - "There is no limit to what you can accomplish, if you don't care who gets the credit."
Anyone?
Sorry Anon/D-B,
I don't have a solution. Every time I hit the stumbling block of $6M to $12M. So if you can come up with a money source, then perhaps we can move past the gridlock.
If you folks can come up with one that doesn't require that kind of subsidy, let me know. Perhaps you folks can get a consulting contract from the city.
Looks like Anon is stuck on repeat. Keep asking the question - perhaps that kind of money will materialize.
As for Public Road,D-B, that's a good idea. Plus there are a couple of others that involve financial assistance.
Blight study, declare blight, federal funds for Section 8. Diversity assured!
Chunky,
The city pulled that trick when it formed the Urban Renewal Area on So. Boulder Road. It declared the Coal Creek Shopping Center blighted to force the owner to sell to the Cheese guys. Then the city loaned the Cheese guys $2.4M to buy the building. That was done almost 4 years ago and no Cheese guys. A move in date commitment was not in the contract (duh). Now it maybe this fall.
Even blighting Countryside would still require some one to either scrape it off or fix it to use it. The city doesn't have enough money to throw at it either.
The city has received not a nickel from the deal with the Cheese guys.
Post a Comment