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.
Riverdale Park officials said in a letter to the Planning Board that it can support the zoning change under several conditions. They include: building a crossing, probably a bridge, over the CSX tracks to the east, which would allow for better access to the project; reconfiguring the surface parking lots and landscaping to “create a true gateway into the community”; improving the hiker and biker trails and lanes near the project; and revising the traffic impact study before any building permits are released.
Many residents and town officials have said the project should be a non-starter without a commitment to construct the CSX crossing.
A representative for the Cafritz family said the delay should not affect the developer’s plans to open the Whole Foods in late 2014. Whole Foods is the anchor in the first phase of the project.
“We remain optimistic,” said Chip Reed, an attorney for the Cafritz family. “A lot of progress has been made and everybody seems to be trying to work together.”
Not NIMBYism at all but elected officials looking out for their Town by telling developers "Your project is good, we want it but you're going to improve the Town while you're at it". If not, then the cost of those improvements is balanced on the back of the residents.
Companies/developers expect these kind of trade-offs when they're costing out projects. They may whine but, if the project is a good one and makes sense, they'll pay it.
The problem in Prince George's and Montgomery Counties is that municipalities ceded local control of Planning and Zoning to MNCPPC. They can ask for specific zoning changes or variances but there's no guarantee they'll be granted.
I'd hold out for a contribution to the recreation fund, too.
Not NIMBYism at all but elected officials looking out for their Town by telling developers "Your project is good, we want it but you're going to improve the Town while you're at it". If not, then the cost of those improvements is balanced on the back of the residents.
Companies/developers expect these kind of trade-offs when they're costing out projects. They may whine but, if the project is a good one and makes sense, they'll pay it.
The problem in Prince George's and Montgomery Counties is that municipalities ceded local control of Planning and Zoning to MNCPPC. They can ask for specific zoning changes or variances but there's no guarantee they'll be granted.
I'd hold out for a contribution to the recreation fund, too.
I'd agree, but this is what holds up developments and is a deterrent. Ideally, the municipality is supposed to have enough funds for road improvements, recreation, etc. on its own. What developer wants to deal with political begging just to do business somewhere. Ideally a municipality would bring money to the table instead of asking for handouts knowing that the contribution would pay for itself within the first few years of the development or even sooner.
But when you bring nothing and then ask the developer for money on top of funds they already need to even build the project, it can stifle a project or drag it out for years going back and forth.
I understand that there can be deals made where there is quid pro quo, but to hammer a developer to death with major infrastructure improvements can stall and even kill a project, then nobody wins.
I'd agree, but this is what holds up developments and is a deterrent. Ideally, the municipality is supposed to have enough funds for road improvements, recreation, etc. on its own. What developer wants to deal with political begging just to do business somewhere. Ideally a municipality would bring money to the table instead of asking for handouts knowing that the contribution would pay for itself within the first few years of the development or even sooner.
But when you bring nothing and then ask the developer for money on top of funds they already need to even build the project, it can stifle a project or drag it out for years going back and forth.
I understand that there can be deals made where there is quid pro quo, but to hammer a developer to death with major infrastructure improvements can stall and even kill a project, then nobody wins.
Unfortunately your attitude is what keeps many municipalities poor. Your formula, having the current residents pay for improvements for a developer is the road to the poorhouse for a municipality. Increased tax revenue very rarely covers the increased costs to the Town (read residents) which means their taxes go up (in addition to the increased assessments developments like those usually bring).
Roadwork is incredibly expensive, water and sewer is incredibly expensive (and getting more so almost daily, wait until TMDL is instituted and storm water has to be treated). In many cases the residents of an area have been prepaying the construction costs of these infrastructure facilities for years before they're used. To then turn around and give them to a developer is insanity and a slap in the face to the residents.
Cafritz is a privately held company so financials are hard to find. Ballpark I've heard about them is a $500M/year company. They can afford the improvements, which they'll roll into the price to tenants/buyers amortized over 30 years. And they'll get tax deductions the entire time for both depreciation of the buildings and interest on the constructions loans and costs.
This is all a game and every single developer out there plays. They whine and cry about how expensive things are while they're spending dimes and taking dollars to the bank.
Unfortunately your attitude is what keeps many municipalities poor. Your formula, having the current residents pay for improvements for a developer is the road to the poorhouse for a municipality. Increased tax revenue very rarely covers the increased costs to the Town (read residents) which means their taxes go up (in addition to the increased assessments developments like those usually bring).
Roadwork is incredibly expensive, water and sewer is incredibly expensive (and getting more so almost daily, wait until TMDL is instituted and storm water has to be treated). In many cases the residents of an area have been prepaying the construction costs of these infrastructure facilities for years before they're used. To then turn around and give them to a developer is insanity and a slap in the face to the residents.
Cafritz is a privately held company so financials are hard to find. Ballpark I've heard about them is a $500M/year company. They can afford the improvements, which they'll roll into the price to tenants/buyers amortized over 30 years. And they'll get tax deductions the entire time for both depreciation of the buildings and interest on the constructions loans and costs.
This is all a game and every single developer out there plays. They whine and cry about how expensive things are while they're spending dimes and taking dollars to the bank.
How do you strike a balance? You either drain the developer of any incentive to build, or you give so much that you get nothing? What is TIF then if it's not helping the developer? What's the 50 million dollar economic development fund for if it isn't supposed to lure developers to build?
How can you make incentives for a developer to draw them to your city and then make it less appealing by making external improvements?
I look at incentives for the developer as investments in the sustainability of the area. In addition, the amounts of funds I hear that these projects will bring to the city far outweigh the extra projects a city may want to get out of the developer.
I understand what you're saying, but I think there needs to be a balance. And in this economy, I don't think beggars can be choosers. Trees and grass don't bring tax revenue and jobs.
I don't advocate a developer getting away without doing ANYTHING. But there has to be some realistic expectations on both sides.
Adelphi_sky, this is one of the reasons why I do not get to excited about proposed projects. They are very complicated to figure out and it takes much more than lip service to deliver them. There are some really nice projects on the table, but the reality of them happening remains to be seen.
How do you strike a balance? You either drain the developer of any incentive to build, or you give so much that you get nothing? What is TIF then if it's not helping the developer? What's the 50 million dollar economic development fund for if it isn't supposed to lure developers to build?
How can you make incentives for a developer to draw them to your city and then make it less appealing by making external improvements?
I look at incentives for the developer as investments in the sustainability of the area. In addition, the amounts of funds I hear that these projects will bring to the city far outweigh the extra projects a city may want to get out of the developer.
Until you add in the cost to the residents of doing those upgrades. Everyone always says "Well this will bring in an additional $XXX in taxes" but then forgets to subtract the municipality's bonding cost to fund those upgrades of $XXXX. Many times it's a wash and in some cases the municipality ends up negative and has to raise property taxes on everybody.
I understand what you're saying, but I think there needs to be a balance. And in this economy, I don't think beggars can be choosers. Trees and grass don't bring tax revenue and jobs.
I don't advocate a developer getting away without doing ANYTHING. But there has to be some realistic expectations on both sides.
All these "incentives" do is shift the cost of development from the developer to the residents. Someone has to pay the cost of undergrounding utilities ($1000 to $2000 per foot), upgrade sewer plants ($11000 to $25000 per tap with ENR upgrades), signalizing an intersection (starts at $250K and can run into the millions if the intersection has to be reconfigured), sidewalks ($300 to $500 per foot if new, a bit less if replacing what's already there), parking ($10000 to $20000 per space), etc.
I'm in the middle of something like this right now, a developer wants a deal on sewer taps which, if granted, will raise the sewer bills of every resident in Town to make up the capital cost difference.
All these "incentives" do is shift the cost of development from the developer to the residents. Someone has to pay the cost of undergrounding utilities ($1000 to $2000 per foot), upgrade sewer plants ($11000 to $25000 per tap with ENR upgrades), signalizing an intersection (starts at $250K and can run into the millions if the intersection has to be reconfigured), sidewalks ($300 to $500 per foot if new, a bit less if replacing what's already there), parking ($10000 to $20000 per space), etc.
I'm in the middle of something like this right now, a developer wants a deal on sewer taps which, if granted, will raise the sewer bills of every resident in Town to make up the capital cost difference.
What's the cost/benefit analysis? What about the intangibles? For example, increased quality of life. Some people wouldn't have to hop in their cars and drive to Silver Spring to Whole Foods. They could walk. Or at least drive around the corner. What about the jobs? It would decrease the unemployment rate and relieve some of the social programs like unemployment, etc. There is a lot to consider than just costs for sidewalks, utility poles, and parking spaces. How much happier are the residents?
It is a catch 22. Our taxes are already high because we don't have any revenue streams. If we balk at every bridge we had to pay for or every sidewalk, how does that help in the long run? Other cities are doing managing to attract businesses. And still people prefer to live in those cities instead of ours.
Could this be why Maryland is labeled as the least business friendly in the area? Something has to give. The more we make it harder for developers to build here, the more they'll just pick up and build elsewhere. Meanwhile, other cities get all the tax revenue, all the jobs, and all the retail while we sit here and wonder why there's nothing to do or see in addition to our need to travel 10 miles to a city that has a pulse. Not to mention taxes increasing anyway because there's no money coming in.
Put yourself in the developer's shoes. It's already hard enough to get the financing for the project. Then you have to deal with the city asking you to fork over millions of more dollars for bridges, sidewalks, parking, parks, etc. If I'm a developer, I'll either walk away or wait until the political environment is more friendly. And so, you have empty lots dotted up and down Rt. 1 because developers are badgered to fork up extra money to help finish city improvement projects.
This is where I think the 50 million dollar economic development fund will come in handy. to solve issues like this. If University Park wants a bridge and the developer can't pay for it, use part of the fund to settle the issue and get the project built.
A bill proposed by state Sen. Douglas J.J. Peters (D-Dist. 23) of Bowie, set to be introduced during the state legislative session in January, would allow developers countywide to pay a fee in lieu of making tangible road improvements if the Prince George’s County Planning Board determines “it would not be equitable or economically reasonable” for developers to pay for the entirety of upgrades
Last edited by adelphi_sky; 12-15-2011 at 09:28 AM..
It appears that this project is just in the planning stages now. Site plan approval won't even begin until the property is re-zoned to allow mixed use. That may be a problem since MD Zoning law generally prohibits spot re-zoning, which this project appears to possibly be. Prince George's and Montgomery Counties operate under Article 28 of the MD Annotated Code while most of the rest of the State uses Article 66B. Cafritz seems to have a pretty aggressive schedule to build.
As of right now it doesn't appear the the developers are even worried about the Town's requests, which are pretty reasonable if you understand how these things work.
If the development fronts on a State highway traffic improvements will have to be done in any case.
I've seen nothing to indicate that Cafritz is contemplating stopping the project, although they are playing the developer game of buying a property and then wanting to change the zoning and allowable uses.
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.
