Circles on Central

[biggus diggus]

"if the project even moves forward."

There's a hard truth in there.

[Obadno]

I hope it goes through, that's a great addition of height and people for Roosevelt and connecting the central skyline to downtown.

[ASUSunDevil]

Originally Posted by Obadno

I hope it goes through, that's a great addition of height and people for Roosevelt and connecting the central skyline to downtown.

I agree, and I think it will. A small group of crybabies won't take this project down - it's way too good to succumb to them.

[pbenjamin]

As Bill Scheel said, they are going to have a difficult time getting GPLETs. I don't see this as progressing.

[PHX31]

Originally Posted by PHX31

“The consensus of the commission is that GPLETs shouldn’t be provided to developers who are not preserving historic properties and this is not a preservation project,” Scheel said.

Has anyone read about or know what GPLETs technically are approved for? Is "preserving historic properties" one of an actual requirement? Or are the people of the RAA just demanding that? "GPLET's shouldn't be provided..." is a whole lot different than "GPLET's aren't provided...".

Still just sounds like a bunch of people meddling and being butt-hurt.

The only info I could find about when a GPLET is approved for a site is this:

"Specifically, only cities and towns may
authorize the abatement of the GPLET, and then
only if the property is located within the city or
town’s “central business district.” A city or
town must notify the county, and any city, town
or school district in which the property is
located, at least 60 days before the city or town’s
approval of the GPLET lease. That approval
must contain a finding that, within the term of
the lease or development agreement, the
economic and fiscal benefit to the State of
Arizona and the county, city or town in which
the property is located will exceed the benefits
received by the lessee as a result of the
development agreement. The finding must be
based on an estimate prepared by an independent
third party."

If the 3rd party investigation shows that the new "The Stewart" residential project will provide more economic and fiscal benefit to the City than the benefits received by the developer, then by all means the GPLET should be granted. To me, outsiders and various peoples and certain commissions' self interests and hobbies (desiring historic preservation) is not a factor in whether or not a GPLET is approved. I don't think tangible, not indirect, fiscal benefit can be quantified by preserving half of a 1 story square brick side of a 1946 building to appease these people. These meddlers are really annoying. They are completely taking it to the extreme. I'm all for historic preservation, but some compromise must be accepted (as in all facets of life) which the developer seems to be providing.

[Obadno]

Originally Posted by PHX31

The only info I could find about when a GPLET is approved for a site is this:

"Specifically, only cities and towns may
authorize the abatement of the GPLET, and then
only if the property is located within the city or
town’s “central business district.” A city or
town must notify the county, and any city, town
or school district in which the property is
located, at least 60 days before the city or town’s
approval of the GPLET lease. That approval
must contain a finding that, within the term of
the lease or development agreement, the
economic and fiscal benefit to the State of
Arizona and the county, city or town in which
the property is located will exceed the benefits
received by the lessee as a result of the
development agreement. The finding must be
based on an estimate prepared by an independent
third party."

If the criteria is "more benefit to the city than the developer" I think the property taxes+ sales taxes of new residents+ rental taxes (does Phoenix have a rental tax?) + + +

long term adding hundreds of residents is definitely going to outweigh the profit of the developer.

[PHX31]

Originally Posted by Obadno

If the criteria is "more benefit to the city than the developer" I think the property taxes+ sales taxes of new residents+ rental taxes (does Phoenix have a rental tax?) + + +

long term adding hundreds of residents is definitely going to outweigh the profit of the developer.

Yeah, I just think the key term to include is more "economic and fiscal" benefit.

[biggus diggus]

rental tax is 2 percent

[PHXFlyer11]

Well, looks like the City just killed Circles.

http://www.azcentral.com/story/news/...ding/88271026/

Great. And can we officially kill Central Station yet so that hopefully a new proposal can come in? I doubt Derby will happen either. How fun.

[ASU Diablo]

McKinley Row site has been fenced up once again and porta Johns getting delivered...should be breaking ground soon!

And I have mixed feelings for The Stewart. It was a nice project but could've set a VERY dangerous precedent. Nice to the see the City stand up for something. BUT wonder what happens to the project now?

[PHX31]

Originally Posted by airomero83

And I have mixed feelings for The Stewart. It was a nice project but could've set a VERY dangerous precedent. Nice to the see the City stand up for something. BUT wonder what happens to the project now?

What is the precedent? Just that a person could demolish their own property? ... That a person is trying to use a historic building as a hostage to get their ransom/GPLET? I understand the developer did a shitty thing by starting demolition after agreeing to talk to the neighborhood. However, I still feel everyone but the developer is in the wrong (considering they should be able to basically do what they want with their own property). I posted before how and why a GPLET could be issued (fiscal benefit to the City/state), unless there is more language about historic preservation or giving back to the community in a non-economic way, I don't see how the City can deny even talking about giving the GPLET on the basis of community crying and HP, assuming the developer independently proved their development will economically benefit the City more than the tax break.

If the RAA and other nosey neighbors don't lighten up their stance and compromise, and realize their leverage is very weak and the current proposal is very strong, they and everyone can kiss the building bye bye. And as much as Rampy and the RAA and others say it's not going to be their fault if the building is lost...I'm still putting it all on them, as I have from the beginning.

How the hell is the building sitting there rotting better than what is proposed, especially the new proposal? Not a chance in hell (given the previous owners and their sales price) that someone would buy the building to simply renovate it as is and make it artists spaces or whatever the hell these people want. And why would the RAA/city take a hard line that if the building is lost after all of this, well, that's better than setting some kind of precedent. News flash, no it's not! There aren't too many buildings left to save in the first place to hold as hostages. In the future this won't matter. It's just so frustrating.

Can we get some YIMBYs to go to the RAA meetings to at least give the developer some back up and make the meddling hobbyists at least realize they aren't the only ones who care.

[ASU Diablo]

Originally Posted by PHX31

That a person is trying to use a historic building as a hostage to get their ransom/GPLET?

This. Look this topic has been discussed in detail for months now and I just want to leave that damn horse alone.

The developer forced the city's hand by threatening demolition and thinking they would succumb, went ahead w/ partial demolition. They soon realized their mistake and are now back at the city's front door begging for a handout. I, for one, applaud the city for digging their heels in the sand. Again, I have said I liked the project in it's new form but this is bigger than that now. If city gives in to the developer's demands, who's to say other developers won't take advantage of this and threaten to demo every historic building we have left for a GPLET? That's a dangerous situation.

I hope the developer continues to work w/ the RAA and COP and at least try and find a happy medium where both sides are happy. I still have confidence this will get done

[dtnphx]

Originally Posted by airomero83

This. Look this topic has been discussed in detail for months now and I just want to leave that damn horse alone.

The developer forced the city's hand by threatening demolition and thinking they would succumb, went ahead w/ partial demolition. They soon realized their mistake and are now back at the city's front door begging for a handout. I, for one, applaud the city for digging their heels in the sand. Again, I have said I liked the project in it's new form but this is bigger than that now. If city gives in to the developer's demands, who's to say other developers won't take advantage of this and threaten to demo every historic building we have left for a GPLET? That's a dangerous situation.

I hope the developer continues to work w/ the RAA and COP and at least try and find a happy medium where both sides are happy. I still have confidence this will get done

Exactamundo.

[biggus diggus]

Originally Posted by airomero83

This. Look this topic has been discussed in detail for months now and I just want to leave that damn horse alone.

The developer forced the city's hand by threatening demolition and thinking they would succumb, went ahead w/ partial demolition. They soon realized their mistake and are now back at the city's front door begging for a handout. I, for one, applaud the city for digging their heels in the sand. Again, I have said I liked the project in it's new form but this is bigger than that now. If city gives in to the developer's demands, who's to say other developers won't take advantage of this and threaten to demo every historic building we have left for a GPLET? That's a dangerous situation.

I hope the developer continues to work w/ the RAA and COP and at least try and find a happy medium where both sides are happy. I still have confidence this will get done

I couldn't agree more, it's disappointing in the short term because no new building but this is the right response from the city.

[PHX31]

Originally Posted by airomero83

This. Look this topic has been discussed in detail for months now and I just want to leave that damn horse alone.

The developer forced the city's hand by threatening demolition and thinking they would succumb, went ahead w/ partial demolition. They soon realized their mistake and are now back at the city's front door begging for a handout. I, for one, applaud the city for digging their heels in the sand. Again, I have said I liked the project in it's new form but this is bigger than that now. If city gives in to the developer's demands, who's to say other developers won't take advantage of this and threaten to demo every historic building we have left for a GPLET? That's a dangerous situation.

I hope the developer continues to work w/ the RAA and COP and at least try and find a happy medium where both sides are happy. I still have confidence this will get done

Not saying what the developer did in starting demolition was copacetic... but the happy medium from the RAA and neighbors point of view from the beginning seems to have been a hard line "keep the whole building"... Or likely way too much of it than is necessary, which is not in a compromising spirit. I think the RAA/neighborhood being so staunch in something that's not theirs is also partially responsible for the developer throwing up their hands and saying "can't please these people, fuck it" and they stupidly started demolition.

I'll never agree with the notion that the circles/SMC building was ever so important as to belong to the whole neighborhood and everyone rightly has a say in it. It's not the Westward Ho or something we're talking about, it's an old car dealership. Fairly nice historic building I'd love to see around forever, but not something crucial and famous in the history of our City, or some kind of civic point of pride.

[PHX31]

Developers should threaten demolition of every historic building and the city should give out GPLETs like candy (assuming whatever development in question actually has more of an economic benefit to the city). Look where we are as far as the preservation of the rest of our historic buildings go based on previous laws and ordinances and city stances and whatever. They're long ago in the landfills and we have a plethora of shite buildings and empty lots.

[dtnphx]

Originally Posted by PHX31

Developers should threaten demolition of every historic building and the city should give out GPLETs like candy (assuming whatever development in question actually has more of an economic benefit to the city). Look where we are as far as the preservation of the rest of our historic buildings go based on previous laws and ordinances and city stances and whatever. They're long ago in the landfills and we have a plethora of shite buildings and empty lots.

What the hell is wrong with you?

[biggus diggus]

I assumed that was tongue in cheek.

[Jjs5056]

The latest design was a good compromise but I am skeptical of any project that cannot pencil out without major tax breaks.

Hoping The Derby is still built, though unlikely, as its location is such a good piece of infill.

And that's.... too bad.... about Central Station. Hopefully, the next proposal will be more than 20% non-parking. I think the MAG building across 1stAve should be added to the RFP, so something like: ground level concourse + 2 floors bus terminal + 12-14 stories of mixed use office/hotel, with the old MAG building developed into the highrise luxury rental.

[exit2lef]

“If the city doesn’t cooperate with the approval this space could get scraped..."

http://downtowndevil.com/2016/08/10/...ty-opposition/

If that isn't hostage-taking, I don't know what is.