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.
Why do the citizens all across the state of Ohio need to spend $2.5M for this? Presumably, Dayton area citizens are also spending money to benefit the people of other places. ( for no particular reason )
$2.5M won't pay for the landscaping. What would be much more valuable would be for the city or county or whoever has jurisdiction, to remove red tape and allow a developer (*) to build whatever they think will sell ( what the customer will want ) and not what the city or county think is the most "socially responsible" or whatever kind of development.
(*) or group of developers
What if the developer wants to erect a 25-story tower there? Such projects always face opposition for one reason or another. What if some outside groups decide that the developer "needs" to build x-amount of "low income housing" or they will work to impede all progress? This stuff happens.
$2.5M won't seem like anything at all compared to such qualitative issues.
I hate that perfectly good projects like Uptown have to be tainted with "payoffs" like this. What took place at the state level that made this money possible?
Is it that we look like China or is it that China is looking like us? The government has a long history of thinking they are picking winners, but ...
Why do the citizens all across the state of Ohio need to spend $2.5M for this? Presumably, Dayton area citizens are also spending money to benefit the people of other places. ( for no particular reason )
$2.5M won't pay for the landscaping. What would be much more valuable would be for the city or county or whoever has jurisdiction, to remove red tape and allow a developer (*) to build whatever they think will sell ( what the customer will want ) and not what the city or county think is the most "socially responsible" or whatever kind of development.
(*) or group of developers
What if the developer wants to erect a 25-story tower there? Such projects always face opposition for one reason or another. What if some outside groups decide that the developer "needs" to build x-amount of "low income housing" or they will work to impede all progress? This stuff happens.
$2.5M won't seem like anything at all compared to such qualitative issues.
I hate that perfectly good projects like Uptown have to be tainted with "payoffs" like this. What took place at the state level that made this money possible?
Is it that we look like China or is it that China is looking like us? The government has a long history of thinking they are picking winners, but ...
(A) Dayton, the city itself, needs new life
(B) Without matching funds, developers are unwilling to assume risk of the district failing
(C) The state and city believe that this is a prime opportunity to jumpstart an underperforming part of down and a former government owned site
(D) Taxes pay for all sorts of things you don't directly use. That's how collective funding works.
(E) If we don't put restrictions on what developers do, we get uncontrolled sprawl which becomes unsustainable due to lack of planning for infrastructure, police/fire/EMS, schools, and so on. When you let developers run amok, you get coastlines with condos lining the beach a la Florida versus protected coastlines a la California.
Who's to even say the money came from anyone other than Dayton taxpayers. It is "only" $2.5 million and I'd be willing to bet more than that has been taxed from Dayton in the year. Either way, I don't care. Everyone puts money into the funding and we elect officials to spend it in the best way possible. If you don't like that, you need to move somewhere where there are no taxes on anything. If you don't like the way it is spent, you need to vote for different officials.
We have been there numerous times. I can't recall the last time we missed going to t he fair; that's how long it's been. It became a tradition many years ago to go the first day, when they had free admission. Whichever kid wasn't in school yet got to go with us. We would always go back with the whole family. Our son even worked a few demo derbies.
We've been to other events there also. Whenever my husband was in he hospital (which has been numerous times the last two years), we could watch the horses going around the track from his window.
The fairgrounds has been an awesome place with lots of history. It will be missed. I doubt if I will ever attend the fair again when they move it to Brookville.
Note that I quoted some items more than once and rearranged some text in order to make obvious, what point I am responding to. Also, most cities refer to a development like the Fairgrounds site as an Uptown, so that's the term I used.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Transitory
(D) Taxes pay for all sorts of things you don't directly use. That's how collective funding works.
OK. Great. If you were assuming that I didn't know that already then I do now.
Quote:
Originally Posted by RDriesenUD
... I don't care. Everyone puts money into the funding and we elect officials to spend it in the best way possible. If you don't like that, you need to move somewhere where there are no taxes on anything. If you don't like the way it is spent, you need to vote for different officials.
So what you are saying is to keep my mouth shut. I'm not entitled to voice my opinion. Just vote and shut up, is that it?
I don't like "collective funding" where money comes from people that don't even know that their money is being spent on these things. I also think that I have a right to voice my opinion about it. If I'm not, please report me to someone who can delete my posts right away if that's what you want.
This is a discussion. It is incumbent on you to make an argument for your position. Simply advising someone to move, as you did, if they don't like it is not the least bit reasonable. I consider you a reasonable person, so I'm surprised by your tactic I highlighted and bolded in green.
If you don't want my idea to be aired then just say so and this is my last post in the Dayton forum on anything. I waste too much time here anyway.
Quote:
Originally Posted by RDriesenUD
Who's to even say the money came from anyone other than Dayton taxpayers.?
Who's to say? I am. By DEFINITION, if it came from the state then it comes from a "collective" pool that citizens of Zansville and every other part of Ohio paid into. This was mentioned here:
Assumptions about my underlying knowledge on the subject notwithstanding, I understand how it works and I'm complaining about it. It's not a contribution. It's a collection of taxes.[RDriesenUD;40013926]I'd be willing to bet more than that has been taxed from Dayton in the year.[/quote] Well, we agree on something. I'd take that bet. Ohio has long been a state that pays more OUT to the Federal government than comes back via things like highways and WPAFB. As for paying into the state "collective" -- yup, a lot more has gone in than that $2.5M. It's a slush fund. Taxes should go to fund specific stuff. That's how government accounting works. ( Stuff is funded. )
Quote:
Originally Posted by Transitory
(B) Without matching funds, developers are unwilling to assume risk of the district failing
(C)... underperforming part of town and a former government owned site ( I assume you meant "town" there. )
This is where neither of you got the main point of my post.
As I said in my original post;
Quote:
Originally Posted by IDtheftV
$2.5M won't pay for the landscaping.
You are arguing about money that isn't enough to have any effect on the site. Claiming that this is somehow going to spur development is really reaching.
To develop the site is going to take multiple tens of $million$. If the site is done right, then it wouldn't be a bad bet that the cost would go to nine figures. That would be great for the city. I've been to many cities with a proper "Uptown" and there are tall buildings, multiple venues for dining and residences for all kinds of people. There is parking and transit and yes -- there is landscaping - way more than $2.5M of it.
There is no way the state is going to "match" anything like that. I'll illustrate it graphically:
The $2.5M <------------------> What it's going to cost in the end
---- . ----- <------------------->|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
( where money is related to the size of the green stuff - the little dot to the left is green )
Quote:
Originally Posted by Transitory
(E) ... restrictions on what developers do, ... uncontrolled sprawl ... developers run amok, ... coastlines with condos lining the beach ... versus protected coastlines ...
This wasn't part of the discussion. It sounds like you have an ax to grind that doesn't have anything to do with THIS development. .... HOWEVER .... since you brought it up, it is the restrictions that will impede progress on the development of the site.
As I said in my original post:
Quote:
Originally Posted by IDtheftV
What would be much more valuable would be for the city or county or whoever has jurisdiction, to remove red tape and allow a developer (*) to build whatever they think will sell ( what the customer will want ) and not what the city or county think is the most "socially responsible" or whatever kind of development.
(*) or group of developers
That is; to REMOVE restrictions. That is not to give the developers carte blanche, but to speed up approvals and remove red tape to speed things along. This kind of thing is hard for the pols to do, but is far more valuable than "matching funds."
Note that any office building at the Uptown site will be competition for downtown. For instance, the tallest building in Dayton - the Kettering tower - stands at 735 ft above sea level. It's top is then 1140 feet high ( 30 floors ). A building sited Uptown at 780 ft or more and only 16 stories high ( about 1,000 ft ) would have a much better view with no other tall buildings around. Even more pedestrian office space would serve to crater occupancy downtown. Residential stuff would also make downtown living a second choice.
This is the kind of thing that would cause the city pols to throw up all kinds of restrictions and things that slow down completions. That's the same as taking money away instead of matching. The city of Dayton government loves having $2.5M spent with no concrete use for it. Any actual construction will need to be nit-picked to cause things to cost the maximum amount of money.
Quote:
Originally Posted by IDtheftV
What if the developer wants to erect a 25-story tower there? Such projects always face opposition for one reason or another. What if some outside groups decide that the developer "needs" to build x-amount of "low income housing" or they will work to impede all progress? This stuff happens.
All that has to happen is to streamline approvals and regulations. A developer would drool over being allowed to make something on that site. There isn't enough space on a screen here to extol the good things about a site within view of downtown, above it and with easy access to transportation.
If the city could promise all the things about approvals and red tape I mentioned, rather than having to pay someone to develop the site, the city would be taking bids and selling the rights to develop it to the highest bidder.
If the state thinks it has to resort to paying out money to get started then that is because developers know that in order to put anything there, they would have to wade through a nightmare of restrictions and special changes in order to get approval for the smallest thing(s).
The only public money that should be spent is possible road and transit improvements as well as possible ways to improve views of the river from any residential stuff that gets put there. They could also look at getting rid of restrictions and red tape for home improvements in the old neighborhood adjacent to the East and streamlining regulations when it comes to putting commercial development on Main Street that is sure to accompany development uptown.
Sure, you are entitled to your opinion. Just like I am mine. I think you are just like all those other people who annoy the crap out of me. Complain about everything and sure as heck to complain about anything the government does. I am not telling you to keep your mouth shut. I am telling you that is how it is done, how it's been done, and how it will be done. Nothing is going to change. I just can't stand people who complain about stuff, but do nothing about it. Call people who represent where you live if you don't like it. Now, please try to keep this thread on topic. If you want to talk about taxes, start a new thread. BTW, the state is doing just fine. Better than they have in a LONG time. I'm not worried about anything the state is doing and would go as far as to say I am 100% behind those in office. Now, Dayton is another story.
I can see some of all of your perspectives, definitely.
In this respect I think we are diving into a classic national political debate between conservatism (which bizarrely enough takes the same side as progressivism/liberalism) against the populist liberatarian message on business tax incentives.
Liberatarians and populists want no business incentives, and conservatives and progressives support all kinds of business incentives.
I would go into my personal views here but it's off topic. Just as a taste though I'm much more aligned with Clinton than Sanders here.
Either way... there are better places to discuss this issue haha.
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.
