As most of you know, the city is currently considering the purchase of the Westhaven Golf Course to convert it into a wetland and allow for water retention on the west side/Sawyer Creek. On the surface, it seems like a good idea. The down side is what isn't widely known at this point. Most of the numbers I am seeing are not set in stone but are close enough to give the public an idea what is being considered.
The current estimate for this project is about $16 million (includes Armory portion). $3 million for the purchase of the course and the rest for the conversion and modifications for retention. On paper, it looks like a beautiful plan. It is what lies beneath that I am having a bit of heartburn over.
This deal is a great scenario for the current owner. He wants to retire/get out of the golf business and the city wants to buy it. Seems like a win/win situation. The catch is that there are covenants for that subdivision that guarantee to the residents of Westhaven that the space cannot be developed for a period of 25 years. Most of that area still has several years left on that agreement. That being the case, there is a significant restriction on the uses for that land. The owner would get somewhere in the ballpark of $3 million for the property (approximately double its assessed value) and the city will spend approximately $12 million more to convert it to handle run off.
I don't see that this is such a good use for the property. Jonathan Krause has a good idea but I don't see the current owner settling for $1.5 million in a private sale instead of the $3 million that the city will pay.
Now keep in mind that I have no dog in this fight. My property is not close enough to have any impact on what is taking place. As a matter of fact, my neighbors on Ruschfield will actually benefit from the ability to retain water downstream rather in their backyards. The city has already spent some money acquiring property along the Creek to alleviate future flooding issues. And although I am not an engineer, it doesn't take a degree to see what the bottlenecks are along Sawyer Creek. One of them is the 9th Avenue bridge by Mercy Hospital. It creates a backup every year. I think the city realized that when they did Oakwood because that bridge has a wider opening allowing for better water flow.
I know that something needs to be done as this area grows. Caseys Meadow is being developed and more water retention is a must. Is this the best course? You be the judge...
Thursday, March 27, 2008
Thursday, March 20, 2008
More Riverfront difficulties
I heard on WOSH this morning and read in the ONW that Mr Rikker reported to the RDA that they may not make the end of year deadline on value/construction due to lack of interest or commitment from potential tenants. He stated that he is "in this for the long run" and that they continue to pursue potential occupants so that this project can move forward.
I, like many, thought that this project would make a wonderful addition to Downtown Oshkosh. Now we need to hope that it actually becomes a reality. Mayor Tower suggests that any renegotiation of the deadline is not a sure thing and that if there is no construction by the end of the summer, the Council would need to visit the possibility of another project.
I still think that there is a lot of potential in this project. I think we should give Akcess Acquisition Group at least an initial extension. After all, we granted extensions to Doig for his mess that failed miserably.
What are your opinions?
I, like many, thought that this project would make a wonderful addition to Downtown Oshkosh. Now we need to hope that it actually becomes a reality. Mayor Tower suggests that any renegotiation of the deadline is not a sure thing and that if there is no construction by the end of the summer, the Council would need to visit the possibility of another project.
I still think that there is a lot of potential in this project. I think we should give Akcess Acquisition Group at least an initial extension. After all, we granted extensions to Doig for his mess that failed miserably.
What are your opinions?
Monday, March 17, 2008
Endorsements?
In the last couple of weeks, we have been seeing some local organizations endorse candidates for local offices. How important is this show of support? What if the bulk of the group doesn't agree with the committee that made the decision?
I read some posts created by Cheryl Hentz that got my attention. I didn't think too much of it until I read an anonymous comment on Michelle's site that led me in the direction of some older posts that directly contradict the statements that she is making now. Funny how she has changed.
The most recent post was lashing out on Michelle because the AFL-CIO endorsed candidates for local office without so much as sending out a questionnaire for answering. They based their "endorsement" on the WEAC assessment. They stated that they had questioned Michelle and Ben in the past and didn't feel that they needed to question them again. I guess nothing has changed with the district since the last questionnaire made it's rounds. They also must have questioned Lemberger in the past too because they opted to "endorse" him without knowing his position on anything.
The anonymous post provoked me to do a little research on what I remember from that campaign. I found a past posting in March 2005 from Cheryl regarding endorsements. She didn't feel that it was necessary to respond to this same group as long as they didn't let their membership make the endorsement decision. As a matter of fact, she goes on to say "I believe people should be able to make decisions on their own; and they cannot make fully informed decisions if they do not have complete answers. This is the same stand I have taken with other groups and that includes the Oshkosh Northwestern." Going back a little farther, you will also find this regarding Forward Oshkosh.
Funny that her opinion changed full circle and said that Michelle had "sour grapes" (could this be the pot calling the kettle?) about the process. What is even funnier is that Michelle doesn't really care about the endorsement to begin with. Both her and I (in previous years) were endorsed by UAW 291 and 578. Those are two of the few labor unions that we have respect for.
The process that Cheryl has no problem with now is even WORSE than what she participated (or didn't participate) in the past. Perhaps we should start referring to her as "Hypocrite Hentz" since it seems that she sure didn't think too much of the endorsement process used by Steve Dedow and company then but has no problem with it now. She will do anything to be contrary to what a Monte says or does. She uses her specialized "journalistic" techniques to tell an "unbiased" story that gives us both sides.
AND if you believe that...
I read some posts created by Cheryl Hentz that got my attention. I didn't think too much of it until I read an anonymous comment on Michelle's site that led me in the direction of some older posts that directly contradict the statements that she is making now. Funny how she has changed.
The most recent post was lashing out on Michelle because the AFL-CIO endorsed candidates for local office without so much as sending out a questionnaire for answering. They based their "endorsement" on the WEAC assessment. They stated that they had questioned Michelle and Ben in the past and didn't feel that they needed to question them again. I guess nothing has changed with the district since the last questionnaire made it's rounds. They also must have questioned Lemberger in the past too because they opted to "endorse" him without knowing his position on anything.
The anonymous post provoked me to do a little research on what I remember from that campaign. I found a past posting in March 2005 from Cheryl regarding endorsements. She didn't feel that it was necessary to respond to this same group as long as they didn't let their membership make the endorsement decision. As a matter of fact, she goes on to say "I believe people should be able to make decisions on their own; and they cannot make fully informed decisions if they do not have complete answers. This is the same stand I have taken with other groups and that includes the Oshkosh Northwestern." Going back a little farther, you will also find this regarding Forward Oshkosh.
Funny that her opinion changed full circle and said that Michelle had "sour grapes" (could this be the pot calling the kettle?) about the process. What is even funnier is that Michelle doesn't really care about the endorsement to begin with. Both her and I (in previous years) were endorsed by UAW 291 and 578. Those are two of the few labor unions that we have respect for.
The process that Cheryl has no problem with now is even WORSE than what she participated (or didn't participate) in the past. Perhaps we should start referring to her as "Hypocrite Hentz" since it seems that she sure didn't think too much of the endorsement process used by Steve Dedow and company then but has no problem with it now. She will do anything to be contrary to what a Monte says or does. She uses her specialized "journalistic" techniques to tell an "unbiased" story that gives us both sides.
AND if you believe that...
Friday, March 14, 2008
Riverfront: On the Rocks?
I am beginning to really wonder if anything is possible on that riverfront. Although the plans to create development this time around looked really good, it appears that the development has reached a stalemate due to lack of interest with tenants.
The developer is making the right choice not to break ground. It is much better to put off developing a site than spending millions of dollars just to find that there is really not enough interest in the area. Look at 100 Main Street. Ganther and his partners invested a great deal of money (with help from the city and taxpayers) on that building which is now bankrupt and in a state of disrepair. These are the types of things that will make you wonder what the Redevelpment Authority is really doing. Are they simply being too optimistic about development? They support just about every crazy idea that is presented to them (unless it involves renovation of a current facility that they want to tear down) and so far I haven't seen any real results. It is costing the taxpayers millions and we continue to let it happen.
How long can Oshkosh afford to let Jackson Kinney run that department? Is he really the best person for the job? On paper, the redevelopment of downtown and south shore looks really good. But how realistic is it? What does Oshkosh need with more condos or apartments? And what will be the cost to the taxpayer to aquire all of this property? I would encourage anyone to take a look a the plan and give an opinion on it's feasability especially given the fact that Oshkosh cannot seem to get the Riverfront project off the ground.
Our river is one of the best features of the city. What does it tell us when we cannot seem to get anything done on it? How much of the riverfront is actually owned by the City? Is this really the right direction or should we look at other alternatives? I don't think we should abandon the current plan, maybe a modification is needed to better suit the area. An office complex is a stretch during a tight economy.
The developer is making the right choice not to break ground. It is much better to put off developing a site than spending millions of dollars just to find that there is really not enough interest in the area. Look at 100 Main Street. Ganther and his partners invested a great deal of money (with help from the city and taxpayers) on that building which is now bankrupt and in a state of disrepair. These are the types of things that will make you wonder what the Redevelpment Authority is really doing. Are they simply being too optimistic about development? They support just about every crazy idea that is presented to them (unless it involves renovation of a current facility that they want to tear down) and so far I haven't seen any real results. It is costing the taxpayers millions and we continue to let it happen.
How long can Oshkosh afford to let Jackson Kinney run that department? Is he really the best person for the job? On paper, the redevelopment of downtown and south shore looks really good. But how realistic is it? What does Oshkosh need with more condos or apartments? And what will be the cost to the taxpayer to aquire all of this property? I would encourage anyone to take a look a the plan and give an opinion on it's feasability especially given the fact that Oshkosh cannot seem to get the Riverfront project off the ground.
Our river is one of the best features of the city. What does it tell us when we cannot seem to get anything done on it? How much of the riverfront is actually owned by the City? Is this really the right direction or should we look at other alternatives? I don't think we should abandon the current plan, maybe a modification is needed to better suit the area. An office complex is a stretch during a tight economy.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)