|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
October 17, 2004Spaces 'are here to save'ByRecord-Eagle staff writer TRAVERSE CITY - Rick Buckhalter will vote, a tad begrudgingly, to raise taxes so the public can purchase three recreational areas he often uses. He enjoys the waterfront and wants to ward off development, but he's not so sure about plans devised by the Traverse City-Garfield Township Recreational Authority, the body that would control the lands if voters approve two tax proposals on Nov. 2. "I am going to vote yes on the proposal because I don't think there is any way to predict what could happen if you don't vote on it now," the Traverse City resident said. Voters will be asked to approve a 20-year, 0.2727-mill bond issue to buy the former Smith-Barney property along West Grand Traverse Bay; the Oleson Field next to Hickory Hills Ski Area; and the barns at the Grand Traverse Commons. Another 20-year, 0.10-mill operational millage will raise up to $125,000 a year to run the authority and maintain the land. Both proposals must be passed by voters in the township and the city for the purchases to occur. "There seems to be good support for these three properties. It's not just a grab bag," said Eileen Ganter, a Garfield Township resident campaigning for the plan. "We feel really fortunate that these properties are here to save." Buckhalter believes there is a real "threat" the properties will be developed if they aren't secured. Still, he's troubled by the idea, included in the authority's plans for the barns, to extend Franke Road. Buckhalter fears it will be used as a traffic cut-through, disrupting the "walkable community." The significance of the properties outweighs Buckhalter's concerns, but some of his and others' questions remain. Paying for the view The Grand Traverse Regional Land Conservancy holds a $200,000 option agreement on the Smith-Barney property and will assign purchase rights to the authority if voters approve the proposal. But some aren't sure the price is right. Tim Werner, a Traverse City resident, was so troubled by the $2.6 million price tag for the .52-acre bayfront property that he obtained a copy of the appraisal and crunched the numbers himself. In 2003, the property was valued between $1.9 and $2.2 million. The price was then adjusted for future appreciation. Matt McDonough, a land protection specialist with the conservancy, said the appraisal predicted a yearly rate of appreciation between a "conservative" 4.5 percent and an "aggressive" 12 percent. That put the price at the time of sale in January 2005 at a high of $2.7 million, he said. "We worked hard, we tried to get it down, but couldn't get it down below $2.6 million," McDonough said. Werner contends that number is too high, considering the recent market for condominiums, which experts say is the best use for that property. "I think the building is overpriced," Buckhalter said, although he's still "willing to pay it." "To me, $2.6 million for a half-an-acre, if that was a good price it would have sold, and it didn't," he said. Werner points to slow sales of waterfront-area residential units and said the appreciation rate was "extremely optimistic." The price of some such condos has actually dropped, Werner said. "For full disclosure (voters) should know they are paying way more than it's worth," he said. A developer looking to make a profit couldn't afford $2.6 million for the property, Werner said. "The procedure they used, the methods, it's all valid, they did nothing wrong," he said. "They tried to look in the crystal ball, but they were wrong." McDonough said he is confident the property is not over-valued. "It's not in (the conservancy's) best interest to pay more than fair market value," McDonough said. Others look not at the cost of the property, but what the tax would cost them. "The typical person would spend that much going through a drive-in," said Laura Kilbourne of Garfield Township. Important spots The three properties are "far and away" the most important spots in the city and township to protect, McDonough said. Everybody has a pet property - one of the three to which they are especially devoted, he said. Research shows the proposal is more likely to succeed if all the properties are grouped in one measure. "People were more likely to vote for all of them. There is such a broad base of support for each of the properties that they are willing to pay for the others," he said. Oleson Field has wide support among those who live near it. Up and down Randolph and Wayne streets are signs in front lawns encouraging a yes vote on the plan. "Our children have all grown up in this valley," said Darcy Britten, who strode through the field with her dog one afternoon. "I'm excited about all of them ... all three properties. This one specifically if it got developed there is no way you could get it back," said Gary Olson, who lives next to the meadow. Neighbors say protecting it isn't just in their interest. Olson said people from all over visit the meadow, more so than some playgrounds. There is parking at the Hickory Hills gate, but if the field were to be public more access might be needed. "From everyone I've talked to, I don't sense that there's a problem with creating amenities such as parking to let people get in here," Olson said. The authority doesn't have specific plans for the meadow or uses at the barns. The plan does include the demolition of the Smith-Barney building. Those questions, and who will handle other administrative operations, will be addressed by the seven-member authority board if the proposal is approved. "More of these properties are disappearing - the combination of the urgency and the interest in it - we have a chance to really show how this thing can work," Ganter said.
|
|
