pinky-wink |
|
_______________
_______________ Recent Posts: The Great Disenfranchiser? Intellectual Conservative: an Oxymoron?
|
Tuesday, February 22, 2005
Giving it away ...
Though I don't yet know the winner of today's Mayoral primary, one thing has become clear during this election: development has become THE issue for Urbana.
Listening to the Mayoral forum on WILL last week, I was struck by the consensus on development. According to all the candidates, we need more of it and we need it NOW! But a careful look at what Urbana has been doing to attract developers has brought me to a disturbing conclusion: we don't have a clue. Take a ride east on Florida Avenue some evening and take a look at the new development out there. Bland, boring boxes slapped together with nail guns, cheap caulk and primer. I used to work on these same kinds of houses in the suburbs of Chicago. Let me tell you, they're crap. But even more disturbing is the price Urbana has paid for these developments. A recent report from the Department of Urban and Regional Planning at the U of I compared three housing developments in Urbana (Stone Creek, Landis Farm, and Fairway Estates) with similar developments in seven other cities (including Champaign). The results were stunning. While towns like ... Aurora, Normal, Peoria and St. Charles require new developments to make contributions for the construction of schools ... and require land dedication or cash contributions for the development of parks ... Urbana does not require new developments to make any contribution to off-site infrastructure. (emphasis mine)and while ... Aurora, Bloomington, Normal, and Peoria imposed fees or land dedications ... no fees or assessments were imposed on the three developments in Urbana. Urbana provided considerable subsidies for land or onsite infrastructure on two of its three developments. (emphasis mine)... to the tune of about $1.6 million ($1.55 million to Stone Creek, $40K to Fairway Estates). Yes, that's right folks we were the ONLY town in the bunch that actually subsidized developers. In fact, towns like Aurora have come to understand that they actually hold the cards when it comes to development. Currently in Aurora new developers pay impact fees for fire department coverage, public works, roads, public parks, and schools. Even with all these fees, the research suggests that Aurora will come up several thousand dollars shy of the estimated $15-30,000 cost of providing off-site infrastructure for EACH DWELLING! We in Urbana deserve a leader who will fight to make the developers pay for every inch of our land they are allowed to develop. I sincerely hope our new Mayor will take the initiative to stop the giving away of our most precious resource: our land.  
|
5 Comments:
Excellent post.
You obviously know your stuff.
I don't dispute your comments about the quality of the workmanship, but I wonder whether the particular criticism of Urbana's development policy is warranted.
One of the differences between Urbana and those other cities is the fact that Urbana has been losing businesses to Champaign for years. There are many causes for this, but part of it is that Urbana has relatively higher taxes than Champaign. Some people will tell you that this is because the Urbana city govt is controlled by Democrats, but another factor is that the largest businesses in Urbana -- the university, Carle Hospital -- don't pay taxes.
My rambling point here is that Urbana can't afford to be hostile to developers because: (a) the city desperately needs to expand its tax base; and (b) the more the population center shifts south and east, the more reason there is for businesses to locate in Urbana despite the higher tax rates (because if you live in SE Urbana, it isn't all that convenient to shop in Champaign).
I agree with the idea that Urbana shouldn't be hostile to developers. My problem is that we are not only giving away our land, but we are actually paying developers to make tons of money off of our farmland. That just seems wrong to me.
I disagree with the notion of "we should what ever is necessary to attract businesses to our town." Businesses will come to our town no matter what we do. We need to protect our land, our tax base, and our citizens from development. One way to do that is make sure that these developers pay impact fees (like Aurora).
I just try to keep in mind that the housing developers are making shitloads of money. It is in their interest to jump through our hoops. Not having any hoops makes no sense, in my opinion.
I agree that businesses will come to our town no matter what we do - but only if "our town" denotes all of Urbana, Champaign, and Savoy. The problem Urbana faces is that it's competing with Savoy and Champaign for new businesses, and those cities have some competitive advantages.
I don't think Urbana should do absolutely whatever it takes to tempt developers, but they do, I think, have to be willing to sweeten the pot.
You're right, though, that this is likely to mean that public resources are going to end up lining the pockets of developers, and I guess I don't much like that either. Still, it seems to me that limited incentives are a reasonable price to pay for economic vitality. The worry, of course, is that developers will take advantage of the city and treat the willingness to create incentives as an invitation to extortion.
Yeah, I think we're in agreement on most of this. You're right that we do need to set up an environment that is developer-friendly, but only to a certain extent. No-growth is not a good option.
I am really hoping that our new government will focus on bringing quality developments to this town. I'll confess that I come from Chicago's western suburbs, and I was just shocked at the way the town I used to live in (Batavia) was literally bowled over by developers. Before Batavia's Council knew what hit them they had every major retail chain set up on the outskirts of town, absolute abandonment of downtown, and property tax rates through the ceiling to pay for the new demands of this growth. I think Urbana can do better, and I hope that Prussing is the woman for the job.
But it's not an easy job. As you wisely point out, there needs to be a balance between being welcoming to business and being a sucker. Will Prussing be able to pull it off?
Only time will tell ...
Post a Comment
<< Home