Sorry that I have been off the blogs for a while. I have been pretty occupied with work and school so there is little time to spend typing about stuff with little or no impact.
A few weeks ago Akcess development backed out of the Riverfront project and attempted to hand the reigns to the Dumke group. I understand why they did that. Akcess was on the hook and would be held responsible for the development of that property. They signed an agreement with the city to have a certain dollar value on that property by the end of the year. They knew that they could not get it done so they looked for someone that could take over and relieve them of the responsibility. Makes perfect sense.
Here is the interesting part... What if there is another interested party? Shouldn't the city explore other options? During a subsequent RDA meeting, Mr. Esslinger mentioned that he was contacted by another interested party and requested that the decision to hand the project over to another developer be delayed in order to give this person a chance to come forward. We later found out that it is the owner of the Sweetwater development between Main St and Oregon on the south side of the river. He was out of town the week of the RDA meeting so he called Mr. Esslinger to speak on his behalf and give him the chance to talk with the RDA himself.
Now we move ahead a week. Mr. Lindemann has withdrawn his proposal with the city. It seems that he has met with the Dumke group and may work with them on developing the property. Sounds like a good idea, right? Maybe not.
My question is this... Why doesn't the city put out and RFP for this project? It has gone through 2 developers without one and now appears to be on a 3rd. Does anything seem off the mark on this or is it just me? I am not an attorney but I cannot imagine that this is normal operating procedure for a community to favor developers with public owned property. Maybe I'm off base but it may be worth asking the questions anyway.
On another related note, it seems that once again the matter is turned personal for another local blogger. She has focused on the fact that Mr. Esslinger stepped forward at an RDA meeting to give Jason Lindemann an opportunity that he would not have had. When will it end? When will she finally let it go and just get on with life? This should not be personal.
Just a thought.
KM
Friday, October 17, 2008
Friday, September 19, 2008
Ken, we will miss you.
I would like to take a moment to extend our condolences and prayers to the Bender family.
Ken Bender passed yesterday at Theda Clark. Ken was a pillar in this community for his entire life. He was extremely passionate about Oshkosh and was regularly seen addressing the Council on Tuesday night. Even over the last few years when his health was poor, he would be right there fighting for Oshkosh. I am proud to have known him.
Please take a moment and remember Ken. Feel free to share your memories of him but negative comments will be deleted unless they are signed (real names only please). I have the utmost respect for him and know that he will be missed.
Our thoughts and prayers are with the Bender's in this sad time.
The Monte Family.
Ken Bender passed yesterday at Theda Clark. Ken was a pillar in this community for his entire life. He was extremely passionate about Oshkosh and was regularly seen addressing the Council on Tuesday night. Even over the last few years when his health was poor, he would be right there fighting for Oshkosh. I am proud to have known him.
Please take a moment and remember Ken. Feel free to share your memories of him but negative comments will be deleted unless they are signed (real names only please). I have the utmost respect for him and know that he will be missed.
Our thoughts and prayers are with the Bender's in this sad time.
The Monte Family.
Saturday, September 13, 2008
What is next for the Riverfront?
This morning we wake up to see that Akcess has requested out of the Riverfront project. Blaming the crash of the housing market and poor economic times, they feel that the Dumke's are better suited to develop and manage the property.
Let me preface my comments by saying that I supported Akcess despite their desire to build an office complex on the site. I attended the first meeting at City Hall when they proposed a mixed use commercial development (at that time an office building was not the cornerstone) and I liked the idea that they were looking at. Since then, they changed course to make the office building the prime foundation for the development. I think it was then that things began to go downhill for this project. When they could not convince any major businesses here in Oshkosh (and make no mistake, Oshkosh Corp. is always looking or building more office space) to occupy space in that building, they could not break ground.
I am not a developer, nor am I an expert. I simply make observations and based on those observations I form an opinion about things that are happening. I find that people like new. If it is new and fancy it is sought after as long as it is new and fancy. If it becomes old and common, it is not as desired and therefore left to gather dust. Some cases in point are the strip malls along Hwy 41. I don't think anyone will argue that the 41 corridor is prime real estate in Oshkosh as it gets the most traffic. But there has become a great deal of empty commercial space all along that area. Most of that is the strip malls. Some of that vacancy began when WalMart relocated to Washburn. That mall has just about died since then with JCPenney hanging in there (I think that Miles Kimball is still there too but am not sure). Most of the shops that were there have either relocated to another newer strip mall or found independent locations nearby. Another case is the relocation of FEDEX/KINKOS from by PETCO and ALDI's to just north of Red Robin. I guess my point is that although new development is a great and wonderful thing for our city. It is usually at the expense of another older development when all of the businesses move to the new location leaving the old vacant. How many have we seen lately? I cited a couple of examples. are there readers out there that can tell us some more (perhaps some smaller less noticeable ones)?
Your thoughts?
(I will post again a bit later on what is proposed for the new developer on this project...)
KM
Let me preface my comments by saying that I supported Akcess despite their desire to build an office complex on the site. I attended the first meeting at City Hall when they proposed a mixed use commercial development (at that time an office building was not the cornerstone) and I liked the idea that they were looking at. Since then, they changed course to make the office building the prime foundation for the development. I think it was then that things began to go downhill for this project. When they could not convince any major businesses here in Oshkosh (and make no mistake, Oshkosh Corp. is always looking or building more office space) to occupy space in that building, they could not break ground.
I am not a developer, nor am I an expert. I simply make observations and based on those observations I form an opinion about things that are happening. I find that people like new. If it is new and fancy it is sought after as long as it is new and fancy. If it becomes old and common, it is not as desired and therefore left to gather dust. Some cases in point are the strip malls along Hwy 41. I don't think anyone will argue that the 41 corridor is prime real estate in Oshkosh as it gets the most traffic. But there has become a great deal of empty commercial space all along that area. Most of that is the strip malls. Some of that vacancy began when WalMart relocated to Washburn. That mall has just about died since then with JCPenney hanging in there (I think that Miles Kimball is still there too but am not sure). Most of the shops that were there have either relocated to another newer strip mall or found independent locations nearby. Another case is the relocation of FEDEX/KINKOS from by PETCO and ALDI's to just north of Red Robin. I guess my point is that although new development is a great and wonderful thing for our city. It is usually at the expense of another older development when all of the businesses move to the new location leaving the old vacant. How many have we seen lately? I cited a couple of examples. are there readers out there that can tell us some more (perhaps some smaller less noticeable ones)?
Your thoughts?
(I will post again a bit later on what is proposed for the new developer on this project...)
KM
Wednesday, August 20, 2008
Near East in the news again
In todays ONW we see that Susan Kepplinger has inserted her extensive architectural background in a project to renovate a residence in the Near East Neighborhood. On a house with a porch that has serious structural problems she objected to the owner using modern treated lumber because it is square rather than round from the "period" that it was originally constructed.
One question I have is... who's money is it? OK, more than one question. Why does she have the say? I posted on the "teaser" story on the ONW site but when they reposted for today, the comment didn't transfer so I will post a copy here...
[Susan Kepplinger knows what is best for her "crown jewel". She is the champion of this neighborhood and heaven forbid someone spend thousands of dollars to improve a house if it doesn't "fit" in her opinion of what should be there. Make no mistake, I am not a favorite of Kepplinger. I was a vocal critic of the Near East Neighborhood when this all started because she blew her budget on condemned houses to tear down rather than let the owners deal with it. One of those houses was owned by a corporate entity from out of town.The bottom line is that if the Redevelopment Authority has an idea or opinion of how it should be, they will do just about anything to make sure it is that way.You know what they say... "it is our way or the highway". That should be their motto.It would serve Kepplinger right if they left it alone and let it be an eyesore. That would be so much better.]
Leave it to the Redevelopment Authority to screw up a good thing. Rather than letting this house get a face lift into the 21st Century, it will remain an eyesore. I think it would be good for Kepplinger if they left it... maybe then she will use grant money to buy it and tear it down.
This would be a good chance for our new City Manager to take a look at this and actually take control for the taxpayers sake.
What are your thoughts??
One question I have is... who's money is it? OK, more than one question. Why does she have the say? I posted on the "teaser" story on the ONW site but when they reposted for today, the comment didn't transfer so I will post a copy here...
[Susan Kepplinger knows what is best for her "crown jewel". She is the champion of this neighborhood and heaven forbid someone spend thousands of dollars to improve a house if it doesn't "fit" in her opinion of what should be there. Make no mistake, I am not a favorite of Kepplinger. I was a vocal critic of the Near East Neighborhood when this all started because she blew her budget on condemned houses to tear down rather than let the owners deal with it. One of those houses was owned by a corporate entity from out of town.The bottom line is that if the Redevelopment Authority has an idea or opinion of how it should be, they will do just about anything to make sure it is that way.You know what they say... "it is our way or the highway". That should be their motto.It would serve Kepplinger right if they left it alone and let it be an eyesore. That would be so much better.]
Leave it to the Redevelopment Authority to screw up a good thing. Rather than letting this house get a face lift into the 21st Century, it will remain an eyesore. I think it would be good for Kepplinger if they left it... maybe then she will use grant money to buy it and tear it down.
This would be a good chance for our new City Manager to take a look at this and actually take control for the taxpayers sake.
What are your thoughts??
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)