The council heard the presentation on 8/21/2007 and were in favor of the LID and very pleased with the vote on the matter from landowners. The LID is set to go forward one way or another.

I think the council should vote on whether or not to vote before voting on re-approving anything that would require a vote.

So I guess we can thank Mr. Riley on this one.

What an unfortunate result. I understand the initial discussion of what percentage of support should be needed to start the LID.

However, now after the re-vote it appears the same percentage property wise supported it on the revote as in the initial vote. Yet the council voted it down anyway.

I don’t think the community would have spent all of the time, effort and expense on the LID if the same approval percentage would be now be seen as a “failure.”

The property owners in support of the LID thought it was a done deal and likely working on their buildings. If they had thought the LID had been at risk, they would have done more. At last minute blitz by the opponents appears to have derailed a multi year project downtown.

The city still has on its website, pictures of the poor condition of the sidewalks in the area.

Where are we now?

Antique row is now nearly vanacnt from all of the businesses moving out in anticipation of the LID. The streets and sidewalks are in worse shape than ever by some of the most notable and historical buildings in the city. The utilities underground are still 100 years old. Broadway is still a one way street even though there is little traffic on it either way.

local improvement district

My question is what kind of “officials” do we have doing the math in this city? My guess is its one of those rooms filled with cigar smoking chimpanzees randomly typing at adding machines.

i just see the lid as being a way for all the condo developers to have a prettier entrance street for their million dollar condos – that currently aren’t selling. i live on broadway in a cheap old apartment building. i’m precisely the sort of undesirable people they want the lid to get rid of. for instance, i won’t be able to park my car once that project starts (and their plan virtually removes parking on that street). what am i suppose to do then? walk two blocks in an “undeveloped” (aka – “dangerous” according to thir thinking) neighborhood? seems hypocritical at best. it also seems dishonest and self-serving at worst.

anyway, getting public funds to help sell million dollar condos does not speak well of the city financing. but then when has the idea of city financing and integrity ever really lined up squarely in tacoma, eh?

Dude, Art, I don’t think there are many people in Tacoma worth their beans that would consider you “undesireable”. I mean, c’mon…you’re Art Frickin’ Chantry. I think your Tacomaness hath been proven many times over. ‘Nuff said.

I thought you were in St. Louis, Art. Did you move back? Or is that just a cool pen name?

At the MLK LID team leaders meeting yesterday there didn’t seem to be any concern about adverse affects from Broadway. I think that is due to the spectacular outreach and desire to be the best street in Tacoma. Their loss is Hilltops gain.

Eric; I think the Broadway LID was the warm up. Hopefully the powers that be have learned and will be more effective the first time around on MLK. I’d love to see it effective everywhere that it is needed.

Thanks, Derek.

Welcome back, Art.

And, finally, congratulations to Crenshaw Sepulveda, still the owner of the best psuedonym on the site. Anybody heard from him recently?

That’s a pretty fascinating e-mail. Erik B really got to the core of the issue for me: Broadway is basically in hibernation and in worse shape than if the LID had never been proposed.

Great letter Ken

We want a destination downtown. We want great places to live in and great services, restaurants and retailers we can walk to. We want a cultural center. That cannot happen without action from the city council. The developers need to know that the city council supports them.
…
Has the goal been lost to bureaucracy? It seems essential that we all keep our eyes on the goal. If we don’t have the infrastructure to support our goal, then how will we achieve it?

The ending says it all:

We have faith in the council and support their goals. The question is does the city council support us? Please tell us you do….

Another LID update from the city

Broadway LID Update

At the regularly scheduled meeting of August 28, 2007, the City Council voted 8-0 against awarding a $11.9 million construction contract to Northwest Cascade, Inc., for the construction of the Broadway LID.

The City is exploring a number of options including, but not limited to, the following:

*Repeal LID 8645

*Re-bid the project with material changes

*Create new LID with different boundaries at the request of property owners

We will also be developing policy guidelines that will aide the City in moving forward with this new type of LID.

At least something is happening. My preference is to take off a few frills and re-bid and start ASAP. Broadway and St. Helens certainly need to remain in the project.

The issue was never about whether the Broadway/St. Helen’s LID should be done – it was about how it was passed – I was at the council meeting last year when a city official said a majority of the property owners in the area had in fact voted the LID down. The city went ahead and pushed it through anyway.

The city official stood at the podium and stated, point blank, to the council that he questioned how they could legitimately push the LID through – that it fostered mistrust in city government at best and might be illegal at worst.

The real trouble began with the Broadway/St Helen’s LID planning and bidding, as recently reported in the press, when the cost of the project came in much higher than anticipated. The planning was terrible – business owners would ask the city questions regarding specific infrastructure issues such as the sidewalks in front of their shops and the city had no answers.

It went from bad to worse in the last couple of months when the council decided to put the LID back in front of the property owners for a second vote. The property owners voted it down again. The city again distorted the facts stating an even greater number of owners had passed the LID this time – this was not true!

The truth came out at the last council meeting when property owners such as Sanford & Son’s Alan and Cheryl Gorsuch called bull_ _ _ _ on the whole process and, according to the Tacoma Weekly, hinted at a potential lawsuit against the city. The city finally had to back down.

The loser again in this bungled quagmire is the Theater District. The council was right to stop and take responsibility for playing fast and loose with the property owners and trying to push something through that was voted down through the legitimate participation of Tacoma citizens.

Before any more LIDS happen the process needs to be completely revamped. The Broadway/St. Helen’s LID must be done; the Theater District desperately needs it. But it can’t be done illegally and on the backs of a few property owners. The cost of LIDs should be spread to include the developers of all the new condos downtown. If the city was smart they should have required that developers contribute to infrastructure upgrades in downtown Tacoma in exchange for their tax credits.

Laura Hanan

well when a developer is awarded a tax-break aren’t they removing themselves from the collective pool of city funds that is used for civic improvements like roads and sidewalks?

Are only the little people supposed to pay taxes?

Well all around the country local governments give tax breaks to encourage building and job growth. Why do companies (ex. Boeing, others) get breaks in order to stay in town?

Developers do pay for their share of these costs, they install necessary upgrades to the immediate vicinity of their property. I see it in other areas of the county all the time where developers pay for road widening and install traffic lights, sewers, etc. If these costs are outragously high compared to other areas, the project doesn’t get done and the land value goes down compared to other properties.

The reason nobody wants to buy/develop the Broadway area is because that immediate cost is so high compared to other areas. Thats when the government has to offer tax breaks or pay for part of it themselves. Otherwise, it sits “hibernating” until somebody comes up with the money to pay for it.

““Are there any condos going up in the LID area?”….

Are you serious?”“

I don’t know what the boundaries of a Broadway LID are… Sorry, I’m assuming that the condos I’ve seen down off Yakima and Tacoma Ave, as well as on the Thea Foss aren’t included in these sidwalk repair photos on Broadway here.

““I’m tired of people mad at condo developers.”….

I’m tired of a lame city council without adequate city planning policy or the leadership qualities to keep development mometum going in an area of the city that continues to limp along in an economic slump – e.g. stalled Winthrop Hotel, Old City Hall condos, Elks Building. “”

What do condo developers have to do with you are mad at the council and you want them to get more projects done? The developers are the only ones actually getting projects together and making them reality. Unlike these other projects, LID’s.

If you have a good base of new housing and people (some with lots of money, don’t get mad if people have money and move to your neighborhood), demand for retail will go up, and maybe somebody would want to invest more into these run down Broadway areas because demand will be there. $12M may not be as much money as it sounds if there are suddenly a ton of new residences within a few blocks and there is a ton of demand for retail.

If you want tax breaks for your projects, either do a project within the current tax break system, or continue to try to get the right people to include your projects in the current regulations.

““I own my property and developed a couple of condos myself – I also spent $20,000 on sidewalk repairs in front of my building (the city paid the other half)”“

You paid your share and now your property value probably went up a ton. The cost was only $20k. The same with the broadway property owners. The problem is the cost is $12M, the council isn’t getting it done and/or the property owners don’t want to pay that much money for it. I bet that if the requirements were to put money into a general fund the developers would do that if the project still made sense financially. If not they would not move forward with the project.

Jolly Green:

Pass GO, don’t collect $200, and re-read number 31.

does this mean the actual infrastructure upgrades for sewer/water were rejceted? what is to become of those new apartments on broadway accross from Old City Hall?

I think the City should immidietly update the critical infrastructure to at least increase the developable capacity of the area.

Laura,

How does poor planning policy have to do with what is going on at the Winthrop/Old City Hall/Elks? This seems more of a private sector flaw….

The theatre district is in transition to say the least.

Progress is never as efficient or as fast as we would like it to be. However, there have been many changes and they continue to go forward.

Can we really judge or make people spend their money the way “we” think they should???? The property owners portion of the LID being voted down, by property owners, to me makes it clear that the majority says, “we can’t swallow the package you are trying to sell.” It is time to repackage it, which is going to be done.

If you run your business reliant upon other people’s whims and suggestions…I call it the “if I were you…” ism, then you will be
chasing someone else’s bird’s eye view input with your pocketbook. The people who put the money down and do the backbreaking work to make it fly, will prevail. Other people’s opinions be damned.

Blame the process, fix the process. Don’t sit around assuming you know what the problem is. Information is power. Make phone calls, ask questions. Do the research, show up and do the work. Be part of the solution.

Ken:

That is good information – I did not know those numbers – thank you for the information; I was incorrect in my assessment/assumptions of the situation.

It does seem that determining what constitutes a pro or con vote for an LID must be defined in a democratic way before anyone can really determine the will of local property owners (e.g. “the people who don’t support just happen to own more of the vote by their parcel size”).

Maybe it is more important to remove the decision from the realm of local property owners because it is so critical that the work gets done in order to maintain economic momentum in areas of Tacoma that so desperately need it.

Maybe the best solution is to devise a new method to form and execute LIDs.

Laura Hanan

True… but the bigger parcels are also worth more and make more money, thus the reason the higher cost to the property owner. In this case anybody who invests their portion to the LID will make it back 5 fold… which begs the question, when the LID creates a better downtown for everyone and no-one actually loses money in paying for it, since they make it back in increased property value, why would anyone be against an LID like this one? It is a win-win situation for everybody. The residents of Tacoma have a nicer downtown, the owners of the property have more value, and the city gets more tax dollars so we can get more things like light rail…. nobody loses. There should not even be a debate.

dni,
So what would be the way it would work? A more transparent process certainly, but that wont lower the cost. So, what are the specifics that would make the LID work for you?

Some good ideas and questions.

Why would a property owner not approve the LID? Some options:

1) The building and business owner are one and the same & the business currently operated does not fit with the new vision of the LID area. (i.e. while it may be worth it for property values, maybe not business values.)

2) The owner has no intention of selling, ever, so they want property taxes to stay as low as possible. (Also applies to active land/business owners who feel like they can’t afford the immediate costs regardless of the long term payoff.)

3) The owner hasn’t lost any leases and doesn’t want to risk losing any during the LID.

Just some ideas. It would be great to see an acutal rundown of the reasons, rather than just pontificating. This could start by looking at who voted for or against the LID.

Johnschoppert;

What I think it would take for this to work for the majority of property owners: Trust and community involvement.

My opinion… The LID didn’t go because of a lack of communication and a loss of trust in the process.

I’ve talked to, and been in many meetings concerning this. The numbers weren’t the only things that were not clear and that did not come in as the City had anticipated. I know personally of property owners that only decided to vote against the LID (the 2nd time around) because of the lack of trust involved in the process. And, that the reality (if they voted yes) would most likely be that they would continue to face more miscommunication and “changes” to the budget, timing, etc.

My feeling is that the community involved, and affected, should be involved in the process first and foremost. Open forums with the Public Utilities to gather information, make suggestions and inform would be a great place to start. Knowledge is power. However, the cloak and dagger affect (little or no communication) scared people and made them fearful. Fear does not promote change.

Second, after public discussion, fact finding and information gathering, then put a business plan together with a schedule and cost analysis. Again, open forums and discussion with the community after a plan is put together.

Third, take the whole package before the property owners and city council. Sell it in a logical and strategic fashion. Just as I would have to do so to operate a business effectively, so should the City.

Personally, I do business in this area and would like to continue to do so. I was not informed of the complexity of this project until less than 1 year ago. The City did not inform me, nor did my landlord. I found my way thru the lack of communication, because I was afraid of what I was not hearing. Now that I know more, I would like to be involved. I find as a business person, who runs a successful business in this neighbor, I have had no voice at all in the “process”. How many other people have left the area, based on fear…only to have the process fail?

Open communication, public awareness (property owners, residents, business owners – all concerned) that is what I am asking for. Allow the neighborhood to have an educated voice. I think you’d be amazed at how many people would be for the LID, if they actually knew that it would work.

This “could” be a great model for all of the other up and coming LIDs in Tacoma.

I can say that I am more than a little surprised that more people don’t stand up and ask for more than they are receiving here. Who knows when it will come to your neighbor. And, what will you do when it does?

dni

You hit the nail on the head.

dni,
It came to my neighborhood. The Stadium LID was voted down just like yours by a minority of votes but by the majority of property owners, just like the Broadway LID. When faced with the realization that more condos and apartments were coming to my area and that upgrades were coming the choice was easy for me. Rip up the street once, lay the cables etc and all new utilities and get it over with instead of the constant re-digging that will have to go on in the next ten years, It was a no-brainer for me, and as my landlord told me, I’ll have to pay for it in increased rent. Still, one dig is better then 5 over how many years?
It would have been nice.

The result of the last Broadway LID vote is public info. I was able to obtain a spreadsheet of same from The City. If you’re interested I would be happy to share. Let me know @ RickJones@wamail.net. Interesting stuff….