Decatur Property Lost $4 Million In Value Over the Past Year
Decatur Metro | May 22, 2008…and the mayor is expecting an even larger drop next year, according to GoDeKalb’s coverage of Monday’s city commission meeting.
But new development (valued at $32-$33 million) will help the city maintain a balanced budget in the upcoming fiscal year (July 1, 2008 – June 30, 2009), without raising the millage rate. However, I’m wondering what happened to CDS’ desire to up millage rate by one point to hire more teachers and give raises? Has that been added into the equation yet? Or was it already nixed?
Also according to GoDeKalb, the new budget will include these things: a pilot program for the senior community, a new geographic information system (GIS) and an arts master plan.
An arts master plan? What’s that?
Latest from Decaturish
Whoa. This suggests that pending downtown development will provide the fuel to balance our budget and maintain our level of service. But the latest ground maneuvers by those fighting the 315 W Ponce project suggest such downtown development should be shut down because we don’t have the resources to support it. But isn’t a balanced budget key to having the funds to meet service demand?
What comes first, the chicken or the egg? Oh, my aching head!
The people fighting the Wachovia project are just using that line of argument to support their cause.
The reality is that the benefits to the city would far outweigh any costs associated with that new development.
Really? What sort of additional costs would it bring the city?
And if we are going to make a stand and shut down downtown re-development to save a parking lot (maybe they’ll make the argument that the parking lot is historic and deserves protection because of its significance as a 1960’s suburban office complex?) what about all those other underutilized properties (I’m thinking Church St. between Commerce and Ponce in particular) that need re-development?
As far as CSD’s millage rate is concerned, their budget and tax rate are separate from the City’s and they set it themselves. The only involvement the City Commission has is to rubber stamp CSD’s number.
Scott,
Let me give you a some clarity that might help your aching head. As one of the people against the 315 W Ponce redevelopment, let me state that I am not against development nor am I in favor of higher taxes.
Most of us in the area want that parking lot redeveloped; just not to the scale of 220 apartments PLUS 7000 sq feet of retail while keeping the existing building AND adding only 36 more parking spaces than what’s there now via a parking deck backing up to the people’s back yards on Fairview.
The developers “anticipate” solving the parking problem with their version of shared parking which has not be tried in Decatur before; i.e. sharing residential and office parking. If they are wrong, our neighborhood loses, not them, as people WILL find a place to park.
Furthermore, this proposed development will double the size of the existing Clairemont/Great Lake neighborhood. So let’s considers schools and emergency service personnel.
The argument that these 1 and 2 bedroom units will not have a severe impact on our school system forgets that “empty nesters” have been known to move into these types of developments and selling their homes to families with children or planning to have children.
So let’s assume that this development is built.
Where are we going to build more schools?
How are we going to hire more emergency service personnel?
The issue is more than money. In both cases it’s about the law of supply and demand.
How many of those parking spaces are now utilized by the office building though? Seems like I usually see a 3/4ths empty lot currently even though the building is highly occupied.
How many apartments and/or parking spaces would be acceptable to you Wardell?
Okay, Wardell. Sounds like a healthy discourse. I’ll bite.
1. I know numbers like 220 and 7000 sound scary but — and correct me if I’m wrong here — it’s my understanding the proposed density per acre is consistent with downtown’s other projects. The Artisan is about 75 units to the acre. The Renaissance is almost 100. I don’t get how maintaining the status quo development-wise should seem so unreasonable.
2. While I don’t discount your sincerity, your concerns over shared parking are overblown. Yes, it’s essentially true that the concept has not been implemented in Decatur but it’s certainly proven effective elsewhere. Any parking specialist who works in urban contexts (as opposed to more auto-dominated suburban contexts), especially those served by transit, will tell you that a residential/office combination is the optimum scenario for shared parking and that a reduction factor of 25% is totally reasonable. Based on the numbers currently floating around, the developer is proposing about an 18% reduction. Seriously, that’s no big deal, given Decatur’s walkability.
3. When you say the project will double the size of your neighborhood, it’s a little bit disingenuous. In actuality, the site falls within the emerging Downtown neighborhood, which has totally different standards of density, than within Clairemont/Great Lakes. If you disagree, let me ask: When was the last time the tenants of the office building currently on the site were invited to your neighborhood association meetings?
4. You’ve got a crafty spin on the empty nesters w/out school-age children argument but when you suggest those empty nesters are already Decatur residents whose previous homes will subsequently be sold to child rearing families (and thus bringing unexpected new kids to our schools), the argument falls apart because it relies on the premise that if the empty nesters weren’t buying a condo in Decatur, they wouldn’t move. In reality, when people are ready to downsize, they’re ready. If they don’t move within Decatur, they’ll likely move elsewhere. Either way, their house will be sold and the healthy ebb and flow of our neighborhoods will continue.
5. Even if Decatur were suddenly swamped with unexpected new kids, the question of where to build new schools is moot. We’ve currently got two underutilized facilities waiting — Westchester and 5th Avenue. It’s a question of configuration and allocation, not construction.
6. Hiring additional emergency service personnel, when the issue isn’t pay scale, is won by offering quality of life — an area in which Decatur excels. We’d be even more competitive for staff if we could offer officers or fireman an affordable place to live. Say, in a downtown apartment for instance!
Like I said before, Wardell, I don’t doubt your sincerity for a second and mean no disrespect by offering up a counter position. But I do believe you have opportunities to work together with the developer to your advantage that are being lost in the “sky is falling” rhetoric.
Best,
Scott
I’m getting a little uncomfortable with the fact that people are beginning to tie “historic preservation” and the anti-315 W Ponce arguments together. If 315 was an argument about historic preservation, there would be a lot more talk about “compatible development”, and concern about the historic significance of the existing office tower, but there has been hardly any of that coming from the opposition.
The main arguments that neighborhood opponents cite are parking and traffic, and that has very little to do with historic preservation, unless the city were to propose turning Ponce Pl into a thoroughfare.
THough I could be described as a “preservationist”, I am generally in favor of the 315 W. Ponce plan (as much as I can be without seeing any concrete plans) as long as it maintains the 3 story step-back from Montgomery (which it does due to zoning laws). But yes, I AM concerned about the office tower. The fact that they’ve cut windows on the ATM side of the tower makes me cringe a bit, though I concede it because the developer isn’t tearing the building down. Also, I’m very skeptical about plans to build around and in front of the building. That front facade landscaping is essential to the style of the building (have you noticed that the benches echo the shape of the covered walkway? Ultimately, I guess I’m in favor the development of the parking lot only.
Many people will think I’m nuts for wanting to preserve something which many see as an out-of-place 10-story office tower, but I’m cool with it. Aesthetic tastes change with each passing year, so we can’t discriminate about what we deem “nice” now vs. in 1960.
Those are the things any preservationist would be concerned with. What I hear from the neighborhood is a very different song.
Great post Scott! I was going to try and write something similar but you did it for me and did it better than I would have.
Hasn’t the whining about the 315 project already allowed the developer to abandon the “Boutique Hotel” as part of the project? That was the was the best part! A place for my visitors to stay other than the drug dens on Church or the Holiday Inn Roach Hotel? How was that the worst part of the development? I understand that change is scary, especially to people who have lived for years across from a vast quiet empty parking lot, but we need more people to support out great restaurants, pubs and shops if we want to keep them in business.
-Rus
Bill first.
Bill, I’d be willing to accept whatever code allows. If the code needs to be changed, let’s do it through due process and public input. Not by granting variances.
Next Scott,
Scott, thank you for raising intelligent and thoughtful counterpoints. I admit, on the face they appear to have basis. Here are my counter-counterpoints:
For your #1, The parking variance is an issue. It’s a HUGE variance being sought, not just a handful of spaces.
For your #2, I fall back to the adage that a person can drown in a lake that averages 3 inches of water. OK, so it’s been shown that in some cases that residential/commercial shared parking works… on “average”. Certainly there’s no guarantee it will. What if it doesn’t? Who suffers? The neighborhood does. Then there’s traffic. For shared parking to work, that means most of the residents have to leave the parking deck during morning and return in the evening. How are they going to be FORCED to not cut through neighborhood streets to get to work, school, etc? It simply cannot and will not be done.
3) This site abuts and is adjacent to R-60. Other developments such as The Artisan don’t apply.
4) I have no statistics to prove this. I have just been told that there are plenty of people in the Artisan are Decatur residents who wanted to give up the hassles of yard work. Besides, really, who would really want to move out of Decatur!!!
5) If we have extra capacity in schools, then why are the latest reports showing Decatur schools at, near or over capacity? Why aren’t we using this extra capacity?
6) I am a huge supporter of affordable housing. That’s not the issue here. WIthout going into some confidential details, let me just say that when it comes to emergency service personnel, the issue is supply and demand.
Finally, I appreciate both of your responses to my post. Obviously this is an important issue and I welcome a healthy discourse on the subject.
Thanks to you both
Wardell
Rus,
We really have no idea why the hotel idea was abandoned. I doubt seriously if it was because we “whined” about it. These are businessmen who make decisions based on profit margins. If our “whining”, as you call it which I am mature enough to not take offense at really did any good, we wouldn’t even be having this discussion today.
Wardell
Scott,
We’ve worked with the developer as much as possible. We’ve had several meetings with him and his architects. In those meetings have seen parking experts and traffic experts. All bases have been covered in that sense.
Ever since the first meeting, we’ve said 220 is too many; primarily because this site is abuts and is adjacent to R-60. Common sense tells us that, not statistics. In our last meeting he stated he cannot budge off that 220 number. Therefore at this point we agree to disagree.
Trust me, we’ve EACH tried to be accomodating to the other party. Quite honestly, and I am speaking for myself personally, what the architect has proposed is about the best that anyone could expect. However I don’t care if the development is gold-plated. 220 in that parking lot which abuts and is adjacent to R-60 doesn’t fly.
Wardell
Understood, Wardell, but I have to liken it to the woman who refuses marriage because the engagement ring is only gold plated, rather than pure gold. If the developer has worked with you on design issues and has provided supporting evidence to suggest that his plans are reasonable (not saying you agree), it seems to me (who, admittedly, doesn’t have a dog in this fight other than a desire to see the Strategic Plan implemented effectively) that you’ve achieved considerably more than adjacent property owners normally do in similar situations.
I know the 220 is your sticking point and applaud you for at least being clear in what this issue is. But I have to say, and this includes my experiences professionally as well, the parking standards in our current code were lifted directly from regulations designed for auto dominated environments. The developer is asking for an 18% reduction off the required spaces and, in a mixed-use, walkable town with multiple mobility options, that number is not only reasonable, it’s a little tame.
Thanks for an enjoyable volley.
SD
Right on Scott! Great comment.
Wardell, I don’t think your “no granting variances” argument flies particularly when it comes to density and parking.
As Scott so eloquently stated, our codes were developed in an era when the car was king and zoning codes were designed so that everyone would have a parking place and no one was expected to park and walk. That is not downtown Decatur anymore, not to mention that there is already plenty of existing parking in downtown Decatur to take on this project.
If you want to “accept whatever code allows” then take a look at Memorial Drive or Candler Road where you see giant underused parking lots and aging strip shopping centers. How well did that work out?
Maybe the code needs to be changed to accommodate new planning ideas and $4 gasoline, but that should not stop us from granting reasonable exceptions to the code from time to time when warranted. If the strict zoning code (whatever it says) had to be followed to the letter of the law everytime that would severely limit creativity on the part of developers and individual property owners and stop some good development. That is not the city that I want to live in!
And regarding “due process,” I am sure that your troops will be out and will be allowed to speak when hearings on this project will be heard. You will get a voice.
You should remember, however, that if you want the developer to just “follow the code” they could just smack another office building back there without much city approval or public input. It has been shown that an office complex generates far more traffic than housing and the commuters who work there during the day would have very little investment in our city. I’d rather see people living there who could contribute to Decatur.
Bill,
Of course I wholeheartedly disagree with your assessment that there’s sufficient parking downtown to take on THIS project. When the parking deck is full, do you really expect the residents to drive several blocks and pay to park in the public parking spaces? Wouldn’t it just be logical for them to seek parking that is closer and free, i.e. ON OUR NEIGHBORHOOD STREETS as customers of the businesses along Ponce Avenue are already doing?
Don’t get me wrong, most of us want this parking lot developed. However the scale of 220 apartments that abut and are adjacent to R-60 is just too much for this neighborhood to sit quietly by and accept. It’s also been an issue for a long time that the City has done nothing about. So that’s why we are in this fight.
Also it is my understanding that variances should only be granted based on hardship or extreme extenuating circumstances. To me, granting a variance of 124 parking spaces so that the Wachovia parking lot can be developed doesn’t fall under that guideline.