|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
May 18, 2005No need for TC to link development decisionsSee Related Stories: Traverse City: No exclusive rights to develop parking lot - May 17, 2005 Traverse City officials hear pitch on downtown development project - April 26, 2005 Downtown Traverse City redevelopment plans will be unveiled - April 25, 2005 Commissioner Ralph Soffredine put it in a nutshell Monday night: "Why would we give up that piece of property?" The question deserves a complete answer. A developer who is proposing a much-needed major facelift for several properties on the west end of the downtown shopping area wants an exclusive 18-month agreement with the city to arrange a purchase or trade for the bayfront property - currently a parking lot. The city would then use the proceeds of the sale as equity in a second municipal parking deck downtown. Such a multi-faceted plan needs careful consideration, and the City Commission correctly told the developer and the Downtown Development Authority, in essence, to take a deep breath. With the tacit support of the DDA, the developer wants to construct office, shopping and residential units on the north and south sides of West Front Street. The project would include a city-operated parking garage. To help the city finance the garage, the developer, Michael Uzelac of Federated Properties LLC, of Farmington Hills, wants to negotiate exclusively for the purchase of the bayfront property at Grandview Parkway and Union Street. Uzelac would then develop a hotel and residential units on the land, a prime piece of real estate between the bay and the downtown shopping district. Opponents argue that the property is technically park land and that it should not be surrendered by the city for commercial development. The land also is the site of the Farmers Market, a key attraction to the downtown spring through autumn. There is merit to the developer's Front Street plan, but the push for exclusivity on the bayfront property has an uncomfortable "have-I-got-a-deal-for-you" tinge. The Front Street project should be considered separately from any proposal to allow development adjacent to the bayfront. The city is completing a nearly half-century project to open the shoreline. If there is to be commercial development of the area, it should be the best deal for the city and its residents in the long run - aesthetically and financially. And if there is a need for an additional parking structure downtown, why does it have to be a government venture? If it's a viable project, shouldn't it be built and operated by the private sector? It would seem that such a garage would fit conveniently into an office/residential scheme - without the need for public involvement. Perhaps the developer's plans are beneficial for the city, but there's absolutely nothing wrong with the commission's deliberative approach. If the project is inherently sound, it will withstand scrutiny. If not, the city still wins.
|
|
