Flagstaff Aspen Sawmill Project Not Fair To NAU Students (organic, zoning)

[Greatday]

Originally Posted by Tom Lane

I am suggesting that the Socialists in The City start allocating more land for apartments instead of for stores catering to The Rich like w/ their New Frontiers / Sawmill project.

Keep in mind that stores, restaurants etc bring in revenue (taxes) to the city.

As for "impact fees": many of those are actually mandated by the Feds (not all - but many). The EPA has been famous for some of their requirements and fees

[CCCVDUR]

FYI - The "Impact Fees" here in Flagstaff on businesses and home construction have all been passed locally by the City Council - they are specifically due to the City's policies. Hagaman ran for council in 2008 and wanted them all repealed (he was not elected). Hagaman was endorsed by one of the Realty associations.

The City is hurting for money right now (with City manager Kevin Burke slashing the budget). The most sustainable way to increase revenues over the long term is to stop focusing on tourism, auto sales, and college students as the primary sources of sales tax revenues. Tax from these three sources goes way down in recessions.

Instead, immediately provide tax incentives to recruit high tech businesses, like Boulder, CO and Albuquerque, NM are doing. Then, these businesses create high salaried jobs. The employees can afford to buy expensive homes and merchandise, and property and sales taxes both increase.

Under this scenario, if local businesses are concerned about competition (which they are!), then there's a compromise. Only bring in field offices for major companies like IBM, Intel, Biotech firms, and solar panel companies, that have absolutely NO LOCAL COMPETITORS in Flagstaff!

[poolgirl51]

Originally Posted by Tom Lane

What I AM SUGGESTING is that NAU build MORE AFFORDABLE housing for the students, so that they do not have to pay huge rates from companies like MC, DAL, RCI, and LEV.

NAU can control its own rates much lower than what occurs in the private sector in this town.

I am suggesting that the Socialists in The City start allocating more land for apartments instead of for stores catering to The Rich like w/ their New Frontiers / Sawmill project.

At SFeR, they do not charge that much for rents, neither does TGG, FPM, POL, or the ARB leasing office.

Furthermore, if The City of Flagstaff would cancel the Impact Fees, as Morgan Hagaman campaigned on, new apartments would be build, and rents would decline, due to an increase in supply.

Unfortunately, these Impact Fees are a cornerstone of the "Smart Growth" national movement.

To have a cost of living index of 120 is horrible, especially when our twin city, Boulder, has a COL index of just 103 (and only 4% unemployment as of last October, '09).

However, there is undoubtedly some price gauging going on for properties in the vicinity of NAU (the university), as propertly manager "Billybob" poined out. i.e. cabins in Kachina Village, Mountainnaire for only $700/month vs. apartments near the Riordan mansion behind "the new" Wells Fargo going for over $1000.

Anyway ... Morgan Hagaman in 2010 if he runs for Ciy Council again ! Allen Ginsberg should run, too. Let's cancel the "smart growth" policies, and bring back the middle class in Flagstaff !

Socialists catering to the rich......an interesting concept and one I am unfamiliar with. I think you may have your political/economic/social systems a bit mixed up. Socialism by definition is an "economic and social system under which essential industries and social services are publicly and cooperatively owned and democratically controlled with a view to equal opportunity and equal benefit for all" (Encarta). Hardly catering to the rich. You sometimes make good sense but your bias toward Flagstaff seems to be the primary motive for your constant negative posts. I am not really sure why you stay there. It seems that you may be happier in another location. I do wish you luck.

[CCCVDUR]

Poolgirl Wrote: "Socialists catering to the rich......an interesting concept and one I am unfamiliar with. I think you may have your political/economic/social systems a bit mixed up. Socialism by definition is an "economic and social system under which essential industries and social services are publicly and cooperatively owned and democratically controlled with a view to equal opportunity and equal benefit for all" (Encarta)."

Socialism is when there is strong centralized planning and control of the distribution of resources, like here in Flagstaff where there are huge impact fees on new businesses, and Superwallmart is not allowed.

Yes, you're correct, "good" socialists do indeed look after the needs of all people, including the poor.

However, "elite" upper-middle class socialists, like those who run Flagstaff City Hall, and other mountain towns like Ashland, Oregon, focus too much on the interests of the rich, while not helping the poor enough. Sometimes, that's NOT intentional, especially when a city has a large transient population.

Our minimum wage should be $10/hour like it is in our twin Mountain city of Santa Fe, another town that depends on tourism as one of its primary sources of revenue.

Over there, the socialists who run Santa Fe realized that there was a disparity of income between the rich artists and the poor service workers serving the tourists. So they raised the minimum wage.

Good socialists would allow Wallmart and/or Costco to come in for the poor, for cheap food, prescription drugs, and eye care. I say that the compromise between the green folks vs. others is to allow Costco to come in - they are a unionized company with "blue Democratic values" from Seattle.

"...your bias toward Flagstaff seems to be the primary motive for your constant negative posts..."

No it isn't. I'm a political guy in the communications field and love politics, debate, and controversy. I guess I should say that so I don't leave the impression you suggest! I have my opinions but love to be challenged. It's frustrating for all of us.....w/ the high grocery prices and having to drive to Phoenix to get things for cheaper....

Bring more businesses to Flag, and prices go down and wages go up.....Superwallmart, Costco, Whole Foods, Trader Joes, Vitamin Cottage, REI (recreational equip. corp.), Performance Cycles, Good Guys Electronics, Borders Books and Music, etc. etc. Flagstaff has the potential to become another Boulder, Colorado if it wants to!

I am not really sure why you stay there. It seems that you may be happier in another location.

Hmmm......could be......yes I am inquiring elsewhere....great bicycling in Flagstaff this week w/ temps in the 50's and creeks forming everywhere from the melting snow. We'll see!

[betsyvee]

Boulder huh? If you want to ruin Flagstaff completely follow Boulder's example. My husband attended CU to get his PhD. First off median home cost in Boulder before the economy crashed was $500,000. This would buy you a ranch house built in the 1950's that had NOT been remodeled. There were a few low cost housing options only for the lower class, middle class made too much money. Cost of natural food? Astronomical. Whole foods bought out Wild Oats and the Boulder Co-op closed because it couldn't compete. Vitamin cottage was better, but certainly not trader joes prices. With the exception of the people who bought in Boulder before the tech market came in, and the students, people were definitely NOT middle class. Very much upper class. The tech market destroyed the great things bouder was. People would talk to one another, the pace was slower, the community tight. This all but disappeared when it became a "town for the rich". Downtown stores became upper burgouise . No super wallmart in Boulder, proposal got shut down. No Trader Joe's, also got shut down. We ended up living 45 minutes away to actually have a roof over our head and eat. So please, oh please don't try and idolize a town that you clearly have no idea about. I do agree that there needs to be more affordable options for people and quite frankly it irks me to my core that city council members have shut down Trader Joes because of self interest. Talk about a monopoly.

[azdr0710]

oh, if only Tom and I could run the world, everything would be perfect...

Tom: please drop Boulder as a place Flag should aspire to be....Boulder is now an entirely unauthentic town that has become, in some circles, laughable....

Flag will never be anything but Flag: a second-home town for Valley dwellers, a "four years and I'm outta here" place for NAU students, a town too cold, remote, and expensive for major employers to locate here, a place for Natives to drop into once in a while, a place for a few old-liners to continue the family business, a tourist stopover, a place where everybody does each other's laundry......has been this way since day one

yes, I'm being harsh, cynical, and am over-simplifying.....

there are so many positives already: fantastic weather six months of the year, a great downtown, a well-regarded four-year university, access to four-season recreation, national chains appealing to Joe Consumer, interstate access, a healthy mix of cultural/ethnic backgrounds, and more....

[CCCVDUR]

Originally Posted by azdr0710

oh, if only Tom and I could run the world, everything would be perfect...

Tom: please drop Boulder as a place Flag should aspire to be....Boulder is now an entirely unauthentic town that has become, in some circles, laughable....

yes, I'm being harsh, cynical, and am over-simplifying.....

GREAT POSTS! -- Azdr0710 and BetsyVee !

I'm afraid I wrote way too much here again. I went to Boulder last week, and found it congested and just like being in the middle of a big city. I wrote in great deal about how I didn't like it on the Boulder forum, and how to relieve congestion. To my surprise I was criticized by Boulderites who prefer their high density.

To me, Boulder is way too dense, crowded, with too much traffic. Due to "smart growth," they have 103,000 persons in an area of only about 12 square miles. There are 6 and even 8 lane boulevards that come right into Boulder. There is a lot of air pollution when winds are from the east from Denver. The ozone and nitrogen oxides obscure the Front Range. Boulder's density is similar to Santa Cruz and Palm Springs -- probably about the same (I'd really have to check at the census tract web site).

I prefer small towns w/ lots of open space that are spread out over larger areas, such as Flagstaff, Sedona, Durango (CO), Santa Fe (NM), Corvallis (OR), Puyallup / Orting / Bonney Lake (WA). I would take ANY of these cities over Boulder.

Look at Flagstaff: you can get off I-40 on Rt. 66 and travel at least 12-15 miles in light traffic before getting back on I-40. Along that stretch there is everything from campgrounds to supermarkets to homes and bike trails. For whatever reason, Boulder doesn't really have an I-40 to take traffic around the town. You could say that Boulder has the equivalent of nine I-17's terminating within the City of Boulder, creating 10 times as much traffic through Boulder compared to Flagstaff.

For those of us who came to the Southwest from the Seattles and the Manhattans because we hated large cities, Boulder is clearly not the place for us -- too congested, just like the coasts. Flagstaff offers a much better choice. Indeed, many prominent local Flag realtors and leaders in the business community are from the East Coast and Upper Midwest!

I don't think most people in Flagstaff would like Boulder! I think what people in Flagstaff would like to see in their own city is more affordable housing for young familes, and "green" grocery store choices such as Trader Joes, a food Co-Op, and Costco. I don't think Flag needs anymore hotels or hardware stores. I do think Flag should consider canceling the impact fees -- to make it easier for locals to start new independent businesses -- that would appeal to tourists and students (newsstands, bookstores, bike/ski shops, etc.).

I don't think Flag needs infilling like Boulder is doing. This will increase traffic, since even people in loft apartments park their Subaru Outback in the underground garage. Much of downtown Boulder is what the Flagstaff Sawmill Infill project will look like. The new heavily commercialized Boulder 29th street mall is ridiculous, w/ a home depot, staples, restaurants, and movie theater right in the city center (in an area that could be parks or affordable housing).

Having seen all these places, I hereby nominate Flagstaff, AZ and Durango, CO as "sister cities," not Flagstaff and Boulder! They are both cool laid back high elevation college mountain towns, with abundant year round outdoor recreation, and thousands of miles of bike trails. If you see an oval "FLG" sticker on someone's car, that's for Flagstaff -- an oval "D" is for Durango!

In Flagstaff, there are stickers saying "Don't PHX-FLG," now there can be stickers saying "Don't BLD-FLG" (BLD for Boulder).....

Oh, and I forgot to mention that you have to pay $1.50 per hour to park at the Boulder Library, and just about anywhere near the Pearl Street Mall (and there are lots of UGLY downtown parking garages for the Subarus)

[mamassage]

Wow. I have been diligently working away on my Associates at Yavapai College in an effort to transfer to NAU. Now I'm thinking that my husband's idea of commuting from Prescott is sounding better and better. Although Prescott has a few problems of its own, none of them seem to compare to what you have all been quarreling about.

[KarmaPhx]

Originally Posted by mamassage

Wow. I have been diligently working away on my Associates at Yavapai College in an effort to transfer to NAU. Now I'm thinking that my husband's idea of commuting from Prescott is sounding better and better. Although Prescott has a few problems of its own, none of them seem to compare to what you have all been quarreling about.

Commuting from Prescott to Flagstaff on a daily bases will cost you more in gas then it would to just move there.

You get sick real quick of driving 1-2 hours just to go to work, that's 2-4 hours out of your day driving, that's like 30 days a year of just driving!

[observer53]

Originally Posted by mamassage

Wow. I have been diligently working away on my Associates at Yavapai College in an effort to transfer to NAU. Now I'm thinking that my husband's idea of commuting from Prescott is sounding better and better. Although Prescott has a few problems of its own, none of them seem to compare to what you have all been quarreling about.

There are a fair number of serious naysayers on this board about Flagstaff, some of which don't live there. If you are just going to be in Flagstaff to finish a degree, living in rented property for a few years, you will be fine. MUCH better than commuting from Prescott.

Originally Posted by KarmaPhx

Commuting from Prescott to Flagstaff on a daily bases will cost you more in gas then it would to just move there.

You get sick real quick of driving 1-2 hours just to go to work, that's 2-4 hours out of your day driving, that's like 30 days a year of just driving!

I totally agree with this.