One Year Later: Braves Stadium Development Plans Evolve

[jsvh]

Originally Posted by arjay57

They could do it on a 99 year lease, which is not uncommon in transactions like this. The government technically retains ownership, but as a practical matter the developer gets the use and benefit of the land for longer than most of them expect to be around. Sometimes such leases are even made renewable for an additional term.

But why? I agree ground leases make sense for things like MARTA mixed-use because they need the ability to run rail lines on the property. Do you want the government to own the land under your house?

[jsvh]

Originally Posted by evannole

From what little I've seen, I think this plan makes sense, but it's no more "organic" than what the Braves are building in Cobb. Indeed, the Braves gave this area decades to develop "organically" and it failed to do so.

Moreover, despite liking the overall idea behind the plan for the Turner Field site, I'm still not sure it will help turn around that whole area. Yes, the parking lots are going away, and that's good, but now you'll have not one lightly used stadium, but two, plus large blocks of student (transient resident) housing. Hopefully it will integrate well enough with the main part of the GSU campus, despite being separated from it by several long city blocks and a wide interstate or two. Perhaps GSU will significantly expand their footprint around this new space and develop a real campus there. I think that might be helpful and could also be good for enrollment, as a real campus with greens, quads and whatnot can be a real draw. I know that I, for one, would have had no interest in going to a downtown university without a distinct campus when I was college hunting 20+ years ago.

No organic development happens in one swoop. But the GSU development is better than the Cobb plan as it will reconnect the existing grid that already exists. And the Sumerhill neighborhood was already "organically developed". The stadiums destroyed that: How a Densely Populated Neighborhood Became Turner Field: A Map Essay | University Library Blog

[arjay57]

Originally Posted by jsvh

But why? I agree ground leases make sense for things like MARTA mixed-use because they need the ability to run rail lines on the property. Do you want the government to own the land under your house?

No, personally I'd rather see them sell the land than lease it.

I actually meant to respond to SLIMMACKEY's post, not yours. But I clicked the wrong button.

[arjay57]

By the way I was up in Cobb today and they are going like gangbusters.

[RedClear55]

The Other 284 Days

I dug up this article which actually pre-dated the Braves announcement to move to Cobb. It gives the timeline from the 40s through last summer. Great, albeit lengthy, read.

Couple of thoughts... Summerhill started its decline when the more affluent residents moved out after WW2 and after the factories began to shut down operations. The creation of the highways relocated enough residents to force local businesses to move elsewhere. It appears this area was already becoming a wasteland when the first stadium broke ground.

I see the move to Cobb county a win/win. Braves get ownership and control of their product. Atlanta has a great opportunity to right a wrong made and worsened starting over 50 years ago. The potential redevelopment of Summerhill, Mechanicsville, etc. will spur more population growth within city.

[SLIMMACKEY]

Originally Posted by jsvh

Why wouldn't you want private property ownership? Also, if the property is government owned it usually means they don't have to pay themselves taxes.

Fiduciarily speaking, they can continue to bring in a tax base. Im not opposed to private ownership, never said that. But there comes a point in time where prospectors/investors become the bad guy. I'm an investor myself, but understand that sometimes investors bottom lines do not bode well for neighborhood residents. Case in point: The lots surrounding Turner Field are all mostly owned by Larry Elder. Free market, he can own them if he purchases them. But then all over this board people complain about the empty lots. The Rec Authority can have stipulations on the property if it holds it and partners with private business to develop.