The two pictures above were presented to the council from Lora Petso. On the left, Lora showed the impact of a fully developed “Skipper’s” site and compared it the undeveloped site on the right. The view impact is stunning. Lora was warning the council of the impacts of doing nothing.
Skipper’s is a “Gateway site”: a site folks see when they enter or exit our town. A private developer which seeks to gain as much profit as possible will develop the site in a manner as Lora as shown. This hardly benefits the community as a whole.
The debate over the city purchasing the “Skipper’s site” is NOT an issue of fiscal responsibility as opponents have claimed. That’s just the excuse D.J Wilson has used to defend his inaction.
This clearly IS a debate over the citizens’ vision over the waterfront.
On one side are the folks that say the city needs taller buildings and numerous condos on the waterfront, or the city will be unable to “sustain” itself. They claim the city needs more “revenue”.
On the other side, folks claim that taller buildings undermine our historic small town charm, and hurt the city’s economic future in the long run. They point to the arts, our views, our parks, and our charm as the future of Edmonds. Taller buildings hurt, not help, the Edmonds economy. This is where I stand.
Purchasing the “Skipper’s property” allows the city to control the future of that gateway site. It guarantees that the building that Lora Petso wisely warned us about will not be built. Such a building hurts our economic future, it doesn’t help it. With bond financing, the city can easily afford it. Depending on the use, the city may be able to use off budget resources to pay for it as well.
The city also enjoys costs advantages by purchasing the property now. The real estate market has dropped prices on land and the city is getting a good deal. If the city waits, the price goes up, and the city looses the ability to shape the development of the waterfront. Waiting makes no economic sense.
I am proud of my vote to purchase the “Skipper’s site.” Our historic small town charm is our best economic asset. The city must take a direct role in shaping the development of the waterfront to insure that citizens’ vision of Edmonds' future becomes a reality.
13 comments:
Dave:
Thank for elaborating on your reasoning for the Skippers site purchase. Your explanation is about the clearest of all of the released statements thus far. However, I had hoped that you would avoid the Plunkett-ism of painting every disagreement as "DJ Wilson and his cabal vs. the good people of Edmonds". That's absurd.
The entire country has already rejected the "You're either with us, or against us" mentality. I recommend you do the same.
I'm not writing for DJ, I'm writing for the people of Edmonds you've just defrauded. When this purchase was made, you Five aye-voters had no financial plan to make this happen. Several have already confirmed this.
Your floating of the idea of "easily paid for with a bond" is BS. You know that there are no bond plans in place. Please don't make things like this up on the spot. I'm an engineer, too, I can easily see patch-up jobs.
Tell me when the wall in the picture was scheduled to go up. You can't. There were no plans in place for construction by anyone. Just like the Fire Department sale, you exploit an undue sense of urgency to take action without due diligence.
You still haven't figured out why the entire population is up in arms over this. It's not that we don't want to see this property used wisely, it's that you did this under cover of a Week 2 meeting (no-one attends those, they're Committee meetings), with no public mandate, with no money to cover your offer, and with no plan on how to move forward. This action was incredibly arrogant and self serving.
You claim that we are getting a bargain on this land due to a depressed real estate market. Wrong! That only works if you negotiate down from the assessment price. Please explain the negotiations that took place to bring the price down. This claim is another revisionist history myth.... or you're a terrible negotiator for paying retail.
You stated that this purchase was in line with the citizens view of the waterfront. It's not on the water, it's next to the railroad tracks. And there was no "citizens vision", as we haven't been allowed input. Unless you count the staged meeting with 15 of Mr. Plunkett's friends as "the public".
I've said this elsewhere, but I'd like to tell you as well. Regardless of how screwed over I feel by this action, I am committed deeply to the success of this city. And without tall buildings on the waterfront!! (I do favor taller buildings along the 99 corridor) If this purchase stands, I'll do whatever it takes to make the best use of this land for our community. I will NOT try to cause damage to the City in order to spite the Council for what I consider inappropriate action. We're on the same page there, I hope.
Nice try here with this essay, but so clearly riddled with lies and attempts to whip up emotion, that it's transparent. See you Tuesday night. I recommend that you retract the offer while there's still time.
Todd, interesting rant. Let's go over my point so we understand.
The city cannot afford to let a gateway site to be developed in a manner that is inconsistent our historic small town charm.
It is better to acquire this land when the price is down, then wait and acquire it after the price has gone up.
Does that clarify?
-Dave
Dave;
Reframing the argument to one that you think you can win is a great tactic. Let's investigate it.
1. Nobody is arguing about the potential benefit of the City having control over this property. That's a "gimme".
1.a. The phrasing of your statement again misleads people into thinking there were actually plans to build something here. I asked you before - when was the 25 ft wall scheduled to go up? It's not. Enough fear tactics.
1.b. You call this the "gateway to the city". You clearly don't understand the economics. Our economic base is actually along 99, not downtown or on the waterfront. You did no analysis or business case development to create a gateway-model of development there. That's a red herring to distract the gullible.
2. Buying when property values are down is a great idea. You're not doing that here.
2.a. It is a bank-owned property, with no other offers, in a town with acres of vacant storefront and condos. This means that there is significant negotiation room (and not a lot of competition).
2.b. You offered retail price.
2.c. That means we're not getting a good deal.
Now that we've covered the two points that you think are germane, I invite you to revisit the actually issues here. It's not price, and it's not location. It's the manner in which the Council obligated the citizens to pay over a million dollars. These are not the 90's, my friend. We don't have the money, and you did no due diligence to figure out how to raise it, or if we could bear it.
Where is the simple spreadsheet of PV and FV, or cost/benefit, showing why this makes economic sense? You didn't even do that. This is unconscionable, and demonstrates further your poor stewardship of community money.
Unlike the Plunkett cabal, I'm not going to impugn your motives. I have faith that you really want to do the right thing. We all do, including DJ Wilson. I just have a different opinion about how you should have executed this.
Lastly, while I had many points in my first post, I disagree in your labeling it a "rant". Nowhere do I even imply you're a bad person. It's a battery of facts launched in quick succession, for which you had no defense.
Todd,
I disagree, we are indeed arguing about the potential benefit of the city having control over this property.
The city simply cannot not afford to wait to acquire this gateway property. It is too important to the city's long term economic development.
How do we balance budgets if we don't look at economic development in the long-run?
You seem to argue that city would be better off not owning this property, waiting until property values to go up. This isn't fiscal responsibility by any definition I know.
-Dave
Dave;
Sorry, I'll have to discontinue discussing here, as it seems that you're unwilling to engage on the issues I brought up.
I know you'll get the last word, but I'll emphasize one-last-time, for the sake of those eager to believe it:
- we both want the long term economic development of the city.
- we both see the value of this property as a potential part of that economic development
Please don't put words in my mouth about waiting for the price to go up - I can almost envision the slanderous "Microsoft Bean" clipart you'd come up with if I were a candidate. I didn't say, or imply, that we should wait for prices to go up. You have a habit of this type of assumption - please stop it.
The financial problem is that you have no financial plan. I think that is why you've resorted to mis-characterizations. (see the difference - I said, "I think" instead of stating it as fact).
You say that there's a threat of the price going up now - a new argument. Show me the quick spreadsheet that shows how much the price would have to go up to make it a good idea to purchase now, instead of leaving the property on the tax rolls while we get our financial house in order. It's just not that hard, I don't understand the reluctance to converse using facts and numbers.
Instead of debating issues on the merits, you have once again shifted to questioning the integrity, loyalty, dedication, or honesty of those who disagree with you. I expected more of a technically trained man.
I am sorry Todd, I don't think we both want economic development. I think you have made the mistake (as many have) of equating condos and taller buildings with economic development.
I also don't think you fully understand how important this property is to economic development. If you did, you would want the city to purchase this land while the cost is low.
You have many picky reasons to say 'NO', but you have offered no viable alternative. Other than "we need taller buildings."
I am willing to fight for our historic small town charm and the economic development it brings. That's why I want to purchase this land.
-Dave
Dave;
Please stop the smear campaign, we're not in an election year. I do not want taller buildings on the waterfront. I moved here on purpose, to enjoy the small town charm.
Please read my words, stop making them up. Tall buildings belong along 99, where transit is plentiful, and views are not impacted. Haven't I said this enough?
But that's not economic development - that's zoning. Economic development is enhancing efficiencies, removing barriers to commerce, and encouraging local commerce. I clearly see (and have said so in every post) how this property is good news for economic development.
You also put words in my mouth regarding economic development using condos. I said no such thing. Edmonds is a "For Lease" city - more condos will help nothing.
Asking how you justify spending a million dollars we don't have is far from nitpicking.
You must have done Project Management before. You need at least an outline of a financial plan before obligating resources. And, you need stakeholder buy-in. You have demonstrated neither, and have refused to answer any of my factual points.
Stick with facts. Stop the smear campaigns. I've read your campaign materials from all of your elections, and you're simply repeating them here. That is not what we're talking about. We're talking about real money, from real citizens, taken without justification. That's called theft.
Todd,
If we both are for economic development, why is one of us trying to do something about it and the other being a naysayer.
We need to move forward with the development of Edmonds in manner that is consistent with the historic character of the city.
Waiting only makes our future more expensive. I am taking action for the future.
Dave;
Never mind. Obviously, you are only interested in a one sided presentation, not a discussion of facts and working together to come up with a solution for the city.
It's tempting to pick apart even those little tidbits you put in your last post, but it's hopeless. You refuse to discuss the merits, instead standing on high proclaiming the inherent superiority of your position.
I'll get back to volunteering, and trying to keep Edmonds moving forward.... like I do every day. If you'd like to try a civil conversation, you can email me at todd.cloutier@yahoo.com. See you Tuesday night.
WAM1VOLTDave:
Well you've now picked up the "condos are no good" line from Lora. Amazing! $1.5 million in property taxes each year from Point Edwards, with $300k of it going to Edmonds, is not a good thing. Not to mention that the city likely would not have met its population target without those despicable condos.
Ron Wambolt
Mr. Orvis did not provide the fact that the bank HAD received a $1.0 million offer and turned it down. This price was a negotiated price as the bank originally had it at $1.4 million.
Diane - Frankly, I don't believe anything you say about this deal any longer. There have been so many versions of revisionist history, that it's difficult keeping them straight. I'll get my facts elsewhere.
It was unconscionable to spend this much money based on what you thought. "Want" is not a good reason. I trusted you to know this, and to protect the money of our citizens from more silliness (like the FD1 rush deal).
I'm not going stop complaining and be happy, either. You don't realize how brutally arrogant this was. And times are tough - tougher than you seem to realize.
Come on down to the other side of town once in a while, and I'll have you explain, door to door, to middle class families, why you thought it was a good idea to commit millions of our dollars without ANY semblance of a plan.
Diane:
The asking price is not really relevant unless you're not concerned about paying the fair market value. The property is worth less than $1 million. The real estate bubble ended in 2007. The property sold in 2006 for $1 million. Lets say that it gained 20% in value between 2006 and 2007. That makes it $1.2 million in 2007. Then values dropped in 2008 and again in 2009 - by at least 20%. It's now below $1 million.
Post a Comment