I received a letter last week from the Board of Directors of Downtown Greensboro Inc. that included three formal resolutions they consider to be vital to the continued revitalization of downtown. The three topics/requests are the following:
1. Asking the city to take over, improve, and maintain the "no man's land" alley that runs between Elm and Greene streets from Washington Street (adjacent to the Biltmore Hotel) south to the city parking lot. Photos included in the packet show an unattractive area full of garbage, dumpsters, and litter.
2. Asking for at least five additional police officers to be assigned to the downtown police squad to enhance downtown safety and security.
3. Asking that the city commission a formal task force composed of city staff, DGI and downtown citizens with the potential assistance of outside professionals to review downtown development policies and bring back one comprehensive report. This group would consolidate three different committees currently working on specific aspects of downtown development.
All three are reasonable requests that would certainly improve the downtown area and should certainly be discussed. But oh, why do I see big dollar signs flashing before my eyes?
Monday, February 27, 2006
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
12 comments:
Hate to say it, but if there are more dollars involved, why isn't downtown pitching in to help with it? Even good faith money is better than a plea to the city for sake of economic dev.
Let's play on that private-public partnerships term to its fullest. And this is the best way to start.
These requests annoy me so much that I can't even comment. Try to imagine me speechless.
Darkmoon,
I'm with you! I thought the special BID tax district money was supposed to take care of items like these.
Diane,
I've a feeling you will quickly regain your voice! {smile}
Not sure if this is a job for City Council at all, but I think that if we do venture into the public-private partnerships that apparently "everyone" is using as a buzz word, but no one is actually implementing...
Someone needs to lay out ground rules. This is just like the speech I've had with the whole "Heart of the Triad" thing. While it's getting better, the cities still compete against each other for pretty much everything and a lot less walk, a lot more talk that I've seen.
If people are truly emphatic about these types of partnerships after that trip to SC, then I think those that went to SC need to sit down and chart it out. I'll play the cynical young professional if need be. I just find that while I'm all for downtown revival etc, there needs to be some commitments by downtown also, and not just the city being the motherly type and fronting all the bills.
Darkmoon,
In addition to the money given to Downtown Greensboro Inc. for their operations and money spent in downtown Greensboro by Greensboro City Government there is a special tax on all property downtown.
All property owners in the Central Business District of Greensboro pay an additional 9 cent tax per 100 dollars of valuation. This tax was imposed by the Greensboro City Council without a vote of the taxpayers on a one man, one vote basis. The tax includes 9 cents on each $100 value of real estate, personal property, business property, automobiles, etc.
Downtown Greensboro Inc. also gets the city's cut of sales tax collected downtown.
The directors of DGI can spend this "extra tax money", which I think is expected to be a combined total of approximately $500,000 this year, any way they want to.
And one other thing. They are not elected officials.
Sandy,
You're correct. I can't stay silent for very long.
FWIW, I vote "no" on a comprehensive downtown report. Action GSO has one; it can be edited of course, but another one? Not my money, please. Police officers? Sure. Get the bike patrol the maps they need and have asked for with DGI funds. Makes sense.
The alley? Geeez, that's the ultimate public/private partnership. What can that alley do? What businesses can go there? What do the trash folks need to use it effectively for businesses? If any study is going to be done, study that or better yet, talk to developers and see what imagination could do with that spot. Alleys are hugely hard to come by in downtown; certainly, there's something it could be used for, even if that's a place for a WiFi antenna. Street signs, walking district, small shops or little food alley, pointers to anything historic, who knows?
I believe that the alley in question is still private property. The property owners put up quite a fight several years ago when the city wanted to close it and/or restrict access.
The city closed most of the lanes downtown many years ago. I personally think that it was not a good decision. Delivery options, trash pick-up and parking were severely impacted by the decision.
There has been a study of the problems of trash pick-up downtown. I'm not sure what decisions have been made. I served on a committee (Downtown Solid Waste Task Force) that has quit having meetings.
There has been a new department established that will combine several services from other departments and non-profits in areas including downtown. I have talked to several people about it but can't get much info yet.
Many of the problems downtown have been caused by such a big push to get bars and restaurants into the downtown and very little planning for the consequences of parking, trash removal, vandalism, etc.
There are also the problems of residential household trash and adequate parking for residents, employees and customers.
I am confident that most of these problems can be solved without throwing more tax money into the mix.
Darkmoon,
I agree -- too often when I hear "public-private partnership," I know there is an "ask" coming for the public's tax dollars. Sometime's it's warranted, sometimes it's not.
Diane,
I knew I'd hear from you again! And I agree, I thought the BID tax was supposed to cover the "extras" like these requests.
For the record, in today's briefing session, it seemed to be the general consensus that IF we decide to hire additional police officers, it would be for additional citywide coverage, not just downtown. (More on that in a coming post.)
Sue and Diane,
I asked Mitchell Johnson about the alley way, and he told me it is an unusual situation. Normally , each adjacent property owner owns the property in the alley up to the halfway point of the alley and is responsible for maintaining his/her part. But in this case, the actual property line is the backside of each of the abutting buildings, leaving the alley as a "no man's land" not owned by anyone -- city or adjacent property owners. Strange!
My "at no cost to the city" solution to maintaining this alley would be for each abutting property owner to assume responsibility for his/her half of the alley and voluntarily keep it cleaned up. After all, they are the ones who would benefit the most from this action. OR, assign the clean-up crews already patrolling downtown sidewalks to include this alley in their regular rounds. Let DGI or adjacent property owners assume some responsibility instead of calling on the city to do it all.
Unless I am mistaken, this alley is needed to service garbage collection, etc. so it may not be feasible to develop it into shops,eateries, etc.
Yea, I know about alley ownership. After we purchased our little building on South Elm we got a notice from the city that the closed alley space was now owned by us and was added to our taxable real estate bill. That is a good thing for us except that we cannot get to it except through our building because the owners of the building next door have added buildings behind theirs and the opening is too narrow now for an auto to pass through. It is just wide enough for the run off from a nearby private parking area and the grease and water from a restaurant clean-up operations to slip through. It was such a mess that the coffee shop on the other side of us had to raise their patio and add a curb, which leaves most of the mess behind our building. This is not a complaint, just an observation that with development and revitalization downtown we must deal with minor inconveniences.
Post a Comment