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.

No comments: