[RP TownTalk] Town Center of Dreams
HINES, SUSAN
shines at asla.org
Wed Sep 12 20:06:01 UTC 2007
Bruce,
Since you own property in town center, why don't you share with the
group what your rental rates are? That way the more entrepreneurial
amongst us might be tempted to start a business or know someone else who
may be interested in bringing in a retailer.
Susan Hines
-----Original Message-----
From: towntalk-bounces at riverdale-park.org
[mailto:towntalk-bounces at riverdale-park.org] On Behalf Of marc stauffer
Sent: Wednesday, September 12, 2007 12:55 PM
To: bruce.wernek at mindspring.com
Cc: towntalk at riverdale-park.org; twacks at gmail.com
Subject: Re: [RP TownTalk] Town Center of Dreams
Dear Bruce,
You make good points.
I submit that unless "we" control it it doesn't make any difference
what "we" want or what kind of plan "we" have put together. The
power to make any difference is held by the property owners. If "we"
regain control, then "we" sure as hell will have to figure out right
quick what "we" want to do with the asset (and the financial
burden). I agree let's get started. How about "we" set up a
Riverdale Park Realty Investment Trust? A quick calculation: if each
adult resident of town (out of some 6,500 odd residents, the census
says that 28% are under the age of 18, leaving approx. 4,680
potential investors) were to invest $1,500 in a fund to "Buy Back Our
Town", it would give a sum of $7 million to use to reclaim sites that
we want. That is about $4 a day for an individual to designate to
the fund over the course of a year. Or, if you split the donation
time into a 3 yr period that ends up being $500 / year or about
$1.40 /day to invest in the revitalization of our Town. This has
been done before, its not a completely chuckle-headed notion. Look
at the example of Rosedale in DC were the local community got
together and bought an old estate in order to be able to control what
was going to happen with it. There are other precedents for when
townspeople have gotten completely fed up, they pooled their
resources and took control. It's complicated and messy, but there
are others to learn from and the current state of Town Center is
pretty messy anyway.
Best,
Marc
Marc Stauffer
4913 Ravenswood Rd.
On Sep 12, 2007, at 8:08 AM, bruce.wernek at mindspring.com wrote:
> All
>
> Alan has made some good points below, but the impression I get is
> that the MUTC guideline are the driver in the decision process and
> it's about what we want as a Town (correct me if I'm wrong on this
> Alan). I want a million dollars, but I'm not going to get it by
> playing the lottery. I'm going to get it slowly step by step, by
> saving, investing, and making smart financial decisions, which
> incrementally will result in me reaching my goal. The same is true
> for the Town Center, Jey's Auto, or any other related economic
> development effort. It's a slow incremental process, which is not
> based on the MUTC guidelines, rather some type of economic
> development plan, which to my knowledge doesn't exist. The MUTC
> guidlines are simply a framework for development and have nothing
> to do with the plan for the development. Since we don't have a
> plan, how can we as a Town revitalize anything.
>
> Some of the recent emails have made reference to what "we" want.
> Well what is it that "we" want. I want the buildings in the Town
> Center to be leased. Consider Old Town Pets as a typical tenant.
> There are not going to be any pawn shops, porno video stores,
> laudromats, etc. because these uses are not allowed in the Town
> Center. Jemal signed convenants to this effect and I believe there
> are some other related restrictions for little guys like me. I
> would appreciate it if those participating in this forum would stop
> inferring this can happen because it can't. In past emails, I've
> seen Starbucks, Trader Joes, etc. proposed as tenants. I consider
> attracting these types of tenants as realistic as winning the
> lottery. Getting tenants is not like going to the grocery store
> and buying coffee. You have to attract them with an attractive
> space, reasonable rents, and most importantly a place where they
> can make money. We might be able to address the attractive space,
> but rents (Jemal) are not reasonable, and they aren't going to make
> any money because the surrounding spaces are vacant. Why would
> anyone want to come here. Who in their right mind is going to pay
> $30/sq ft ($4000/month for 1600 sq ft of space) in a largely vacant
> Town Center with several derelict properties (former Riverdale Book
> Shop, Dorsey Plumbing) on the South side. I keep reading we want
> to "hold out for what we want". I guess we want nothing because
> nothing is what we have. It's not about what we want, but about
> what we need and that's to get tenants in the Town Center. They
> may not be exactly want we want, but them being there will attract
> the types of tenants we want.
>
> Any business who wants to lease space in the Town Center is taking
> on a significant amount of risk. I hope I don't need to explain
> why. This risk is mitigated by low rents and low rents make sense
> given the vacant spaces in the Town Center and derelict properties
> nearby. Before we are going to see any movement over there, Jemal
> is going to have to lower his rents or sell the property to someone
> who will. It's that simple. We also need a plan to attack this
> problem. We don't have one and nothing is going to happen until we
> get one and follow it. The last thing we need to do is get real.
> This is not Adams Morgan or Bethesda. This is a town stuggling to
> revitalize itself so we need to make concessions. There are a lot
> of economic negatives (vacant and/or derelict properties) which
> need to be corrected before we can even begin to see progress.
> Let's get off of our white horses, roll up our sleeves, and get
> started.
>
> Bruce
>
> -----Original Message-----
>> From: "Alan K. Thompson" <twacks at gmail.com>
>> Sent: Sep 11, 2007 10:45 PM
>> To: marc stauffer <marc.stauffer at verizon.net>
>> Cc: towntalk at riverdale-park.org
>> Subject: Re: [RP TownTalk] Town Center of Dreams
>>
>> Dear Marc,
>>
>> You've presented an interesting "modest" proposal. Back when the
>> Town
>> briefly owned much of town center, there was a _little_ bit of talk
>> about having the Town oversee rehab and development (including
>> getting
>> businesses in). The town government at that time thought that an
>> experienced developer would do a better job (and I can't fault them
>> for that -- Jemal sounded really good, and it seemed that development
>> would happen quickly and be high quality). I still hope that we will
>> get good quality development there, but my current hopes are
>> pinned on
>> the economic opportunity of EYA and MSquare making it worth the while
>> of businesses to pay the rent; that won't be happening for at least a
>> few years.
>>
>> I'd also like to present a different perspective on a few things you
>> said about the MUTC zoning (excerpted from your letter are below). I
>> worked extensively on the writing of the MUTC guidelines, and
>> economics *were* considered -- mainly through input from local
>> business owners about what they needed to be able to meet the
>> architectural guidelines. We (the business owners were involved in
>> the process too) did our best to meet those needs in the guidelines.
>> I don't think we could have done better without a lot more resources
>> (or a crystal ball).
>>
>> Secondly, the Town does have a lot of influence and ability to get
>> the
>> sort of developments it wants - it just has to stand firm and insist
>> on them. This will mean saying no to developments that don't meet
>> the
>> zoning guidelines, and the needs of the town _beyond_ the zoning
>> guidelines (when the special permit process starts, the zoning
>> guidelines are only one thing the council should consider).
>> Hyattsville said no to a lot of proposals before EYA came through, we
>> need to encourage and support our council in doing the same if we
>> want
>> to get the sort of development we want.
>>
>> Warm regards,
>>
>> Alan
>>
>> On 9/11/07, marc stauffer <marc.stauffer at verizon.net> wrote:
>>> We have heard repeatedly from officials that the
>>> MUTC plan did not consider economics when formalizing the MUTC
>>> plan. If we,
>>> the Town of Riverdale Park, don't take control over the land and
>>> thus its
>>> use, we will not have the ability to mold the Town (not just Town
>>> Center,
>>> but the economic and social vitality of all of Town) in the
>>> fashion that we
>>> desire. As others have mentioned, the tools that we currently
>>> have (zoning,
>>> mostly) are not substantial enough to gain from the current
>>> landowners the
>>> kind of revitalization we are desiring. The MUTC plan is a great
>>> plan and
>>> diagram for the future built environment, but it doesn't have the
>>> legal
>>> teeth to demand that only MUTC- specified projects are created. For
>>> instance, the Rt. 1 / 410 corner site is an example of the MUTC
>>> plan's
>>> diminished power over the outcome of the process. Further, in
>>> Town Center
>>> itself we, the Town, don't have sufficient power to demand the
>>> changes we
>>> are seeking.
>> _______________________________________________
>> TownTalk mailing list
>> To post to the list, send mail to TownTalk at riverdale-park.org
>> TownTalk-request at riverdale-park.org is for automated subscription
>> processing only
>> http://riverdale-park.org/mailman/listinfo/towntalk
>>
>> For more information about Riverdale Park, visit http://
>> www.ci.riverdale-park.md.us
>
>
>
_______________________________________________
TownTalk mailing list
To post to the list, send mail to TownTalk at riverdale-park.org
TownTalk-request at riverdale-park.org is for automated subscription
processing only
http://riverdale-park.org/mailman/listinfo/towntalk
For more information about Riverdale Park, visit
http://www.ci.riverdale-park.md.us
More information about the TownTalk
mailing list