05/19/2015
I agree with Mary on most of her points. Shadow leading to increased ice formation isn't my top concern but that's one of the neat things about this diverse and informal coalition: we are all bringing some creative and personal qualities to the discussion.
A long-standing work trip will keep me from attending tomorrow night but I have a guest opinion set to appear in the PC on Wednesday and I would like to share some of those points with you for use tomorrow night.
1. About $14.1M of TIF subsidies are needed to make this project financially viable and thus it is fiscally bankrupt by design.
2. About $2.1M of that TIF money is earmarked as a refund of the purchase price for the land.
3. This TIF is being financed by municipal debt. That is, the city will issue bonds so that they can turn around and "loan" it out again.
4. The TIF mechanism allows developers to use the property taxes (that they would normally owe to the city, county and school district) to instead pay off the TIF "loan." During that repayment those monies don't go to the city, county or school district but instead to pay off the municipal bonds mentioned in #3. The end result is less money for silly things like schools and roads but rather using what would otherwise be property taxes to create private equity.
5. The plan for workforce housing at this point seems to be that the city uses $1M in HUD funds to purchase five (5) units in this building. At that rate, the city could forgo the $14.1M TIF and just take an equity stake in the project and expect to get 70 units for workforce housing. This project will only have 66 condos and most of them will cost much more than $200K.
6. There are options for this project to be relocated to Riverfront Crossings. In fact this type of project is what Riverfront Crossings seems to have been created for. And if this project is anywhere near as good as it's supporters claim it to be, then it should be able to fund itself from the private sector and not from public subsidies.
7. Speaking of Riverfront Crossings, this is just the type of project that the district was created to house. Did I mention that option already?
8. Just as there are many options for relocating The Chauncey, there are also many options to consider for the corner of College and Gilbert that would better suit the community and provide a legitimate transition from downtown to the College Green neighborhood.
9. There are lots of options for this parcel and this project, their fates are not intertwined like Romeo and Juliet.
10. Did I mention that there are options here?
11. Let's get a better deal, a square deal for Iowa City.
Tomorrow night is very important and I really wish I didn't have to travel for work. If you care about smart, fiscally responsible development that respects the history of Iowa City then you need to show up tomorrow and speak. As I said at the top, this informal coalition has brought together a number of diverse interests around some common and important strategic ideals for our city. No one ever thought we would be in this position two years ago but we have and continue to demonstrate the power of civic participation. The other side has nothing but the power of cronyism. Everyone who has spoken in favor of this project is renting/buying from, selling for, working for or receiving patronage from the developer of this project. What we all have in common is much stronger and more resilient than cronyism.
Jon Fogarty
http://www.press-citizen.com/story/opinion/readers/2015/05/18/residents-turn-chauncey-hearing/27539003/
Iowa City Council scheduled May 19 for the Chauncey rezoning. I urge the community to turn out in force with their voter registration card in hand, and expect the following...
