[RP TownTalk] Town Center of Dreams

[marc stauffer]

Dear Alan,

Thanks for taking the time to read the proposal and offering up your  
thoughts.

I'd agree that when the Town did sell what it owned in Town Center to  
an experienced developer, it made good sense.
However, I'd argue that the developer was much more experienced in  
these types of things than the Town and thus got the better side of  
the deal.  I have not gone back and read over all the agreements  
pertaining to that event, but it seems to me that we, the Town,  
missed a few key legal points in binding the sale to certain  
performance criteria on the part of the new owner.  For instance, not  
only do the buildings need to be rehabbed and brought up to code  
within a certain timeframe, but that they must be leased up and  
activated within a certain period of time as well.

Regarding the latent development of EYA, MSquare, Cafritz, East  
Campus, and University Town Center; my concern is that if our Town  
(Town Center and the Rt. 1 and Kenilworth) cannot move ahead quickly  
and establish a reason / need for people to come here, these new  
mixed-use developments by very well-resourced and sophisticated  
developers will put the final nail in the coffin of any possible  
vitality to the existing Town Center area.

Regarding my view of the lack of economic analysis put into the MUTC  
guidelines at the time of their creation, I'd agree that some  
economic considerations were made, but in my view they were pretty  
circumscribed and did not, perhaps could not, analyze larger economic  
impacts and consequences that the regulations would create.  For  
example, one of the the beneficial outcomes of Pete and Sons  
application to the Town for their development proposal was their  
offering a very well-reasoned argument for why the building story  
limit was an economic hindrance to a successful development project.   
I think they were very courageous to actually talk openly about the  
economic implications of various scenarios they had considered and  
state bluntly that most lower height / lower density concepts were  
not economically viable. At the time the MUTC guidelines were  
created, the type of 5-story project they offered up was already a  
pretty standard building model for their kind of project.  It has had  
a proven economic viability for developers because of, among other  
factors,  its scale  and method of construction.

Regarding the relationship of the MUTC Committee to the Town Council;  
I agree completely with your view that we residents need to encourage  
the Council to stand firm, follow the considered recommendations of  
the MUTC committee, and not accept projects that do not fulfill the  
stated and codified wishes of the Town (as drafted in the MUTC  
guidelines).   I'm all for that and hope we can get more voices in  
support of the Town sticking to its guns.  Yet, if we just owned the  
damn sites again we wouldn't have to stick to our guns and wait and  
wait and wait, we'd just have to dig in and make it work ourselves.

Regards,

Marc

Marc Stauffer
4913 Ravenswood Rd.





On Sep 11, 2007, at 10:45 PM, Alan K. Thompson wrote:

> 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.