Comments on: Old Post Office appraised at half the asking price, commission to tour alternate location

By: mpetty

mpetty — Thu, 05 Apr 2012 17:32:10 +0000

It turns out I was incorrect about the performance bonds. That money is going to be used this year to build the sidewalks, lighting, and landscaping. It will be combined with City funds to complete the rest of the improvements all the way around the Center-College-Mountain block.

By: Mr. Dooley

Mr. Dooley — Mon, 02 Apr 2012 15:41:48 +0000

It is too bad that $3 million in our property tax dollars are going to pay for the TIF debacle instead of being available for projects and services that could benefit ordinary folks.

By: mpetty

mpetty — Mon, 02 Apr 2012 03:23:08 +0000

It’s too bad the City has to pay for these improvements now instead of the original performance bond, but these sidewalk projects are on the 2012 project list.

By: vandelay

vandelay — Sun, 01 Apr 2012 02:28:21 +0000

It would be great if that lot were spruced up. Landscaping and some sort of monument or sign would be a cool site to see when coming up the hill and around the bend on south college.

By: Daniel Maner

Daniel Maner — Sun, 01 Apr 2012 01:01:42 +0000

I agree that Fayetteville lacks that large meeting space that is available in other cities locally. I think an ideal location is the current Walton Arts Center parking lot. A combination hotel/ convention center/ parking deck could replace the economic impact that we will lose when the WAC’s main facility moves to Bentonville. That convention center space would create a need for the former Mountain Inn space to used for a high end hotel, also. Probably a pipe dream but ideas have to start somewhere.

By: Wendel Waxwing

Wendel Waxwing — Sat, 31 Mar 2012 16:53:22 +0000

Maybe this doesn’t translate, but to me these facts say that building, patio, park, sidewalks, streets, market constitute a largely public complex important to how the city sees itself and advertises itself to the world. Which isn’t to argue for eminent domain. Only to wonder if failing to challenge the asking price is necessary and in the city’s best interest.

By: Deborah Coody

Deborah Coody — Sat, 31 Mar 2012 16:19:25 +0000

You are correct, the grounds surrounding it is a city park and the patio is also city property that was leased to the last restaurant for outdoor dining.

By: Wendel Waxwing

Wendel Waxwing — Sat, 31 Mar 2012 14:16:52 +0000

Yes, I’m sure you’re right that pursuing a lower price through the courts would be futile. Yet, pragmatism aside, I’m wondering if the Old Post Office is – as I’ve heard — in the middle of a city park, its grounds maintained by taxpayers.

By: Monroe Jesuser, Jr.

Monroe Jesuser, Jr. — Sat, 31 Mar 2012 14:11:19 +0000

All good points. Doesn’t change the opinion that the City got the short end of the stick. While I believe the administration/council at the time were trying to protect the City from too much involvement in the whole project, a true public/private partnership could have resulted in a large-scale, fully functional convention facility. Half-way measures like the Mountain Inn project, the Town Center and the Continuing Education center have never gone far enough to create a truly usable facility that is attractive to users. Think of a combination of Bud Walton arena and the Hammons Center in Rogers. The Hot Springs Convention Center or the State House Convention Center in Little Rock are great examples. Probably won’t ever happen here, though. Too bad.

jmo

By: Dan Coody

Dan Coody — Sat, 31 Mar 2012 13:02:33 +0000

At least no one’s taxes went up a single penny because of the TIF district. Everyone’s taxes went up just the same as if the Mtn. Inn, in all its glory, were still there. Maner is right. The Mtn. Inn is gone, it just exposed more blight behind it. But where are the sidewalk, parking lot, and landscaping improvements that the performance bond was supposed to ensure? That area needs to have that major facelift completed to make downtown look right. It’s a nasty looking eyesore, for sure.

By: Daniel Maner

Daniel Maner — Sat, 31 Mar 2012 04:52:00 +0000

Removing the Mountain Inn was a worthy end result in itself. That building was blight in any sense of the word and the temporary use of the property as a parking lot works. The fact is the entire country went through the worst financial crisis since the Great Depression so the development plans for that lot did not come to be. That doesn’t mean that another development that provides great economic benefit for downtown won’t be built as we move forward. When it comes to large development projects patience is indeed a virtue.

By: David Franks

David Franks — Sat, 31 Mar 2012 04:28:51 +0000

Interestingly, remediation of blight is the only remaining justification for eminent domain for economic-development purposes in Arkansas:

“Despite Justice O’Connor’s warning about the ‘fallout’ from the majority’s opinion, and Justice Thomas’s warning that the majority decision ‘promises to be harmful,’ it remains to be seen whether the decision in Kelo will clear the way for unfettered private development projects through the use of eminent domain. For example, the Kelo decision will have little effect in the nine states — Arkansas, Florida, Illinois, Kentucky, Maine, Michigan, Montana, South Carolina and Washington — that already specifically prohibit the use of eminent domain for economic development except to eliminate blight.”

http://www.sgrlaw.com/resources/trust_the_leaders/leaders_issues/ttl15/837/

By: Mr. Dooley

Mr. Dooley — Sat, 31 Mar 2012 03:11:20 +0000

Indeed, the taxpayers will be on the hook for years to come as a result of that ill-advised Mountain Inn deal that a previous administration cut with high-rolling developers who never delivered. New blight, same as old blight, only more expensive.

By: mpetty

mpetty — Sat, 31 Mar 2012 00:48:56 +0000

I totally agree with your point, but I’ve been advised that argument won’t past muster in Arkansas courts.

By: Wendel Waxwing

Wendel Waxwing — Sat, 31 Mar 2012 00:31:17 +0000

Being unrealistic in the present context, but just to clarify – there is such a thing as “cultural infrastructure” and it’s not impossible for a government to own the facilities for same. “Infrastructure” isn’t limited to highways.

By: mpetty

mpetty — Sat, 31 Mar 2012 00:11:10 +0000

Eminent domain, in Arkansas, is basically only allowed for infrastructure. The underlying reason for purchasing this building wouldn’t qualify.

By: Monroe Jesuser, Jr.

Monroe Jesuser, Jr. — Fri, 30 Mar 2012 23:38:37 +0000

I think the government must be able to prove/demonstrate an significant public benefit to exercise eminent domain. (key word, “public”) Like–”we need to widen this street to accommodate more traffic for safety. It cannot safely handle the volume it is now carrying.” Like the widening of Garland Ave.
Search “eminent domain New Jersey” or look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kelo_v._City_of_New_London for more info.
Personally, I think a government taking real property under eminent domain that will in any way be conveyed to a private party, for any reason, is wrong. “Economic development” being the worst justification/rationalization of all.
The City of Fayetteville skirted the issue *very* closely when it issued bonds to purchase and demolish the old Mountain Inn, and then entered into a horribly one-sided agreement with a developer with the promise a new, great hotel would be built there. As yet, no hotel, no economic benefit, and the developers ended up with a very valuable piece of property for less than $500K. But hey, what’s a few hundred thou between friends, huh?

jmo

By: fayettevillian

fayettevillian — Fri, 30 Mar 2012 22:56:23 +0000

Why not? I’m not challenging you, I just genuinely don’t understand why it would not apply in this case.

By: vandelay

vandelay — Fri, 30 Mar 2012 21:28:31 +0000

Perish the thought. Eminent domain should not be taken lightly.

By: Person

Person — Fri, 30 Mar 2012 20:54:49 +0000

Eminent domain would not work in this case.