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.
Indeed. They are asking the city for a massive tax subsidy to build this project. That is, the taxpayers will take all the risk if the project fails. The Bissels take all the profits if it works.
Yes, this is an astute business plan. Too bad the common small business person, who isn't connected, can't get the same kind of deal.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Carolina Blue
You're confusing the office project with the road project. They're financing the $100MM office project themselves. Its the $10MM road project they are looking for the city to participate in.
Exactly, and since it will be a public road I have no issue with that. The city is going to more than make back their investment in other ways.
Speaking of going off half cocked...
Exactly, and since it will be a public road I have no issue with that. The city is going to more than make back their investment in other ways.
I was just responding to your opinion the of the Bissels. Nobody mentioned the risk to the taxpayers until I did. So your response, along with a couple of others is to dismiss this part and insult the messenger because it doesn't fit your message. Well, I don't make any apologies, as I don't automatically fall for the Charlotte cheerleaders when it comes to tax waste.
It's a silly deal given the economic situation and it's the wrong kind of development for this city.
If the city is serious about making Charlotte a mass transit friendly city, then it needs to stop catering to developers like the Bissels who excel at making profits on sprawl on inherited land. The entire mess on I-485 was caused by the city caving into their plans, and now it seems they are back again. They are not financing this bridge. It will be the tax payers. The only thing they are doing is fronting the money. There is a big difference to this. Take away the subsidy and this bridge to nowhere won't be built.
I don't expect a serious response from you so if you want to call me half cocked or something else, then go ahead.
I was just responding to your opinion the of the Bissels. Nobody mentioned the risk to the taxpayers until I did. So your response, along with a couple of others is to dismiss this part and insult the messenger because it doesn't fit your message. Well, I don't make any apologies, as I don't automatically fall for the Charlotte cheerleaders when it comes to tax waste.
It's a silly deal given the economic situation and it's the wrong kind of development for this city.
If the city is serious about making Charlotte a mass transit friendly city, then it needs to stop catering to developers like the Bissels who excel at making profits on sprawl on inherited land. The entire mess on I-485 was caused by the city caving into their plans, and now it seems they are back again. They are not financing this bridge. It will be the tax payers. The only thing they are doing is fronting the money. There is a big difference to this. Take away the subsidy and this bridge to nowhere won't be built.
I don't expect a serious response from you so if you want to call me half cocked or something else, then go ahead.
We "insulted" the messenger because you had your facts wrong; the tax help is for the roads that will be used by the public. If you can't take a joke and laugh at yourself a little then so be it.
Do I infer a hatred of all things Ballantyne in your post? I will bet your money that this project brings FAR back to the city than any public transportation boondoggle. This project is going to be JOBS (read: more tax dollars to the city).
How's that investment in street cars and light rail working out? Is the city getting that money back? I see red ink.
How's that investment in street cars and light rail working out? Is the city getting that money back? I see red ink.
Mass transit, by its nature, doesn't turn a profit. It's a public good, which is why it is subsidized. Nevertheless, I do not see investment in Ballantyne or in mass transit as mutually exclusive. I eventually see Ballantyne being served by rail-based transit. I think any plans toward that end need to be put on a fast track.
..... I eventually see Ballantyne being served by rail-based transit. I think any plans toward that end need to be put on a fast track.
The only purpose for building this sort of development is to offer up cheaper rates to commercial customers who might otherwise locate in uptown or places where it makes more sense. (and to profiteer off of it) There will never be any trains going to Ballentyne because this sort of planning is about attracting development and housing away from the city. This is the part that people don't seem to get in this city when it comes to saying NO to developers.
If the city was really serious about building a transit friendly city, they would stop all conditional zoning on the surburban fringes and instead only offer up TIFs to business who will develop on a transit corridor. Of course this isn't going to happen because the city like the people who say they are transit friendly are more interesting in approving any growth, not matter what.
Well personally I think this is GREAT NEWS!!!
I just don't want to jump to the conclusion that affordable housing will come...because that is definitely NOT what I want!!
Ballantyne has been up and coming for awhile and has done better than other areas during the worst time of the recession. I know that Blakeney is also finishing their 4th and last quadrant which is also great news. Marvin Town Center is also moving along and Kohl's is just about built. I love Ballantyne and am all for more growth and development there. PRO Ballantyne. ANTI Affordable Housing.
Now lets move with bringing more to Marvin and Waxhaw and I'll be a happy camper :-)
Anyone know of anything coming up there? What happened to bringing a research campus there?
The only purpose for building this sort of development is to offer up cheaper rates to commercial customers who might otherwise locate in uptown or places where it makes more sense. (and to profiteer off of it) There will never be any trains going to Ballentyne because this sort of planning is about attracting development and housing away from the city. This is the part that people don't seem to get in this city when it comes to saying NO to developers.
If the city was really serious about building a transit friendly city, they would stop all conditional zoning on the surburban fringes and instead only offer up TIFs to business who will develop on a transit corridor. Of course this isn't going to happen because the city like the people who say they are transit friendly are more interesting in approving any growth, not matter what.
A couple of things that jumped out at me from your post:
- Why does it make more sense for it to be uptown?
- Why is it a bad thing to make a profit?
- Why shouldn't developers and people develop/live away from "uptown"?
- Why the need to let "transit friendly" be the tail that wags the dog?
- Why is growth away from the center city a bad thing, especially when few actually live uptown in the first place. Seems intuitive to develop businesses where people actually live, thereby actually REDUCING transit and traffic to uptown.
I just don't know that I follow your line of thinking. It seems to me to be anti-suburbs, pro-uptown, pro-mass transit.
A couple of things that jumped out at me from your post:
- Why does it make more sense for it to be uptown?
- Why is it a bad thing to make a profit?
- Why shouldn't developers and people develop/live away from "uptown"?
- Why the need to let "transit friendly" be the tail that wags the dog?
- Why is growth away from the center city a bad thing, especially when few actually live uptown in the first place. Seems intuitive to develop businesses where people actually live, thereby actually REDUCING transit and traffic to uptown.
I just don't know that I follow your line of thinking. It seems to me to be anti-suburbs, pro-uptown, pro-mass transit.
Answers to your questions:
I didn't say it made more sense to be uptown. I said if you want a transit (non-automobile) friendly city, which the city as stated it wants, then suburban sprawl has to be limited.
Not a bad thing to make a profit and like your first comment, this wasn't said either. What is bad however are business models that require the tax payers to assume the risks of private business failures.
Same as first question. Already answered.
People are being taxed for "transit friendly" and have voted twice for this preference in this county. Yet the municipal governments fail to meet their end of the bargain. (they are happy to take the tax money)
No argument on this, if this is the preference for Charlotte. I was pointing out the dual argument of being transit friendly AND sprawl friendly. The former requires sacrifices of the latter and since this isn't happening, then it's simply hypocritical to claim this project somehow benefits Charlotte. Find me a person who advocates for automobile based sprawl then you might have something. Everyone complains about high gas prices and traffic congestion on I-485 yet fail to see this connection. It boggles the mind.
I hope this clears up your confusion.
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.
