Fairly long worksession meeting. A couple building owners showed up to voice objections to the ordinance requiring buildings replace windows with glass or close off the window.
Jim Sybrant objected, and his building is the largest one. He said he wants the town to improve and he wants to do something, but said it would be too hard the way the ordinance is written.
Not sure how the commission will go on this one.
They might table it.
They seem ready to say that all future replacing of windows has to be with glass. This means that if one breaks you cant board it up. They may be wavering a bit on requiring ones that are already boarded up to be replaced within a year.
Should be more interesting discussion tomorrow night.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
29 comments:
I believe the warehouse man recently got a big ten year tax deferment for a new building. Supposed to create a bunch of new jobs to get the property tax deferment. Seems like all smoke and mirrors. Did it just put money back into the pocket of the warehouse man? Maybe he should use his rebate to pay for his windows!
Didn't they talk about this a couple of years ago? I think this is going to be like the Lowe's deal. The commissioners will do exactly what the downtown business people tell them to do.
Please, once again, Jim Sybrant is not a downtown business owner. He just owns a building.
Considering, he is also part of AC industries sort of negates the point about downtown business owners since he worked to get the Lowe's.
In fact, I would venture to take a guess that most of the (not all) people against it own buildings but don't have a business downtown.
It's nice you can point at one person and say he's not bad both ways. Can you find another?
I still think the businesses downtown control the commission, or at least won't let the commission do what needs to be done.
Prove me wrong!
The Commission could do that tonight.
or not.
Looks like a money talks situation here.
If you own a building downtown, and you rent it to someone, you are getting money for a product or service, that makes you a downtown business man/person.
Doesn't make and difference how hard you work for something, doesn't keep you from being subject to the laws of the community.
City commissioners stand on your hind legs, and establish the ordinance, and then enforce it across the board.
The ONE person who spoke out against it is not a downtown business owner... what more can you say to that.
He just owns a building- period.
You can't immediately lump all business owners downtown as against it because one person who doesn't own a business downtown is against it.
By that logic, he would have had to been against the Lowe's since he owned a building downtown.
I am sure that he feels that he is getting screwed by the commission on both of these issues.
I actually think they should have to do something about the windows so I am not defending him.
I am merely pointing out that you cannot lump him in with downtown business owners.
"If you own a building downtown, and you rent it to someone, you are getting money for a product or service, that makes you a downtown business man/person."
Well, I am sorry but that is just not the same as making your livelihood out of being a business owner downtown. That would be the same as saying a landlord and a home owner treat their property the same - it isn't the case.
I am not defending him or business owner's downtown either way. Just saying there is a difference and you can't lump them together.
Some of the business owner's don't even own their buildings they just rent - they have zero control over whether a window is boarded or not.
This new ordinance is going to put a big hurt on a LOT of people all over town who can't afford to replace windows on sheds or garages, etc. Don't you think if they could have afforded to put glass in, they would have done that in the first place.
What about places like the old ski shop across from Daisy mae's, and many other buildings like that. The people who own them are going to be hurt financially by this ordinance, just so you can have a better looking downtown that no one shops at anyway.
what if the City owns a property, such as a house that was given back due to taxes going unpaid, etc? Will they have to put glass in any windows that are boarded up?
It might be fun to drive around town and see how many city owned buildings have boarded up windows.
what if the City owns a property, such as a house that was given back due to taxes going unpaid, etc? Will they have to put glass in any windows that are boarded up?
It might be fun to drive around town and see how many city owned buildings have boarded up windows.
I am sure there are plenty of city owned buildings that have boarded up windows. They should be required to put windows in just like everyone else if this becomes an ordinance.
Personally, I don't know the best answer is but I do know that you will have a hard time recruiting industry or growing the town in any way if it looks like a dump.
It might be a better idea to contain it to the the historical district if that is even legal.
So let's see:
The downtown looks like cr#p, even after spending 3 million dollars remodeling everything except the buildings, and looks that way because of boarded up windows and windows covered with barn siding.
There is a proposal to have the building owners remove the plywood and corrugated steel from the windows and they said they don't want to do that.
The City Commission says," OK if you don't WANT to then, gosh gee whillickers, I guess that would be OK too!"
S.O.S, different day.
That stuff has been up there for 10 years that I know of, so I guess it will be up there for another 10 years.
There is nothing that prevents the city from enacting a building standard in the Central Business District. There are numerous regs, including one pertaining to no beer bars. This could be another of those.
Give them a year. Let them deduct the cost of repairs off their taxes. If the junk is not cleaned up at the end the year have the city contract it to be done and charge them the cost.
Let's get something done. This is just about the least thing that could be done to improve Ark City and even this has resistance from the Commission.
I'm starting to think they were planted on the commission as operatives from Winfield to keep Ark City backwards.
Time to act, not talk.
How about this?
Immediate prohibition of replacement of windows in the CBD with any non-window covering.
A provision should be put in place to permit the temporary (not to exceed 2 week) emergency replacement of broken glass with plywood or a substitute for repairs.
Require all buildings with non-glass covering to be restored back to standard within one year of enactment.
If current building owners, with more than 10 windows to repair, sign an agreement (which must transfer as a deed restriction condition to a buyer), then give them a 3 year period to phase in repairs, providing that partial and proportional repairs are made throughout the 3 year period.
If your intent is to cash flow a property and you value property based on it's "cash flow" not it's actual *condition". What incentive is there for investment to improve and repair things outside the critical items, A/C Heat, roof etc.
What will be the legacy of the generation now in control? Will they be known as builders and re-builders or just pass the problems on to the the next generations?
But, the next generations are moving where there are builders and rebuilders!
It is critical to get this issue right and there is no reason not to. Even the most egregious offenders agree there is a problem. We have to work together to come up with the right solution. This doesn't have to be a fight. It is time to do something and the best thing will be crafted with citizen involvement. The commission can pass some good changes, but it shouldn't necessarily be on them to come up with whatever that is on their own. All parties involved can be represented and come to the table to move this issue forward.
Yep, there we go
Let the businesses downtown tell the commission how they want it.
Why can't the commission stand up, do it right, and get it done.
My guess is they don't have what it takes to stand up to the building owners. We'll know if they back down tonight.
There is nothing wrong with consensus.
There is a hell of a lot wrong with passing it to further discussion and letting it die a death of committee neglect or sabotage by excessive compromise.
The Commission has had input, and maybe should get some more and then decide what to do tonight.
They should turn loose the City Manager to make it happen based on the direction given by the Commission and the guidance of the City Attorney.
Come on guys, show us how you can manage and delegate. Tomorrow will be a new and better day for it.
You might get used to it.
Which is it? You want it both ways? You must have a bunch of retired porn stars in Ark City.
Either the commission doesn't have the cahones to say no to the big business interests and building owners (like the ones they said no to who were behind pushing for the big box?).
Or, they don't listen to people (so you want them to go ahead and pass this without listening to anyone else and this is a measure of their fortitude). IF they hadn't listened, you would have just whined about how they didn't listen again. How retarded.
You put them in a position where they are damned either way. Maybe you even do that on purpose because you have your own political ambitions. If you can make it *look* like they failed and haven't gotten anything done in the court of public opinion, that paves the way for your candidacy or at least their replacement. You do the city a disservice. I know from experience that it is hard enough to find good people who are even willing to run for those seats.
What if you pulled your head out and realized they did the right thing to protect the vitality and viability of the down during the bigbox debate and they are doing the right thing again now by listening to the people this ordinance will affect.
Hmmm, I see it both ways... both ways bad.
The big box was growth and bringing something new to an old tired town. More jobs, more shopping, more services. The downtown merchants told the commission they didn't want the competition. The downtown merchants controlled the commission.
Now, here we go again. The downtown merchants and building owners don't want to have to pay to put their buildings in decent shape. Guess what? They win again! They told the commission they don't want to, and now they won't have to.
You tell me! Isn't the commission being led around by the nose? The commissioners are doing exactly what they are told to do.
You tell me! Isn't the commission being led around by the nose?
>>>>
THey are at a critical crossroads.
What happens at the first meeting of may will tell the tale.
The commission will either gain respect or lose respect at that time.
an interesting story:
http://www.courierpress.com/news/2008/mar/11/council-oks-tax-abatement-to-attract-lowes/
Not to change the subject, but, just to note. We want all the windows in A.C. repaired just to mainly include downtown. Can we make the ordinance just for the "historic area"? If you include all the homes, this will be mainly complaint driven. Hope your neighbor likes you.
Also, how can we in good conscience do this, when we let a couple pawn shops look like junkyards for years?
ah, but did the junk yards have broken or missing windows?
Also, how can we in good conscience do this, when we let a couple pawn shops look like junkyards for years?
You have to start somewhere.
James:
Have you looked at the north end of the Traveler building lately?
The traveler building looks ok. The Habitat building attached to the north of it isn't too bad though it could be cleaned up. The junk pile attached to the north of that needs to come down, I see no way to save it. Just north of that is a law office that looks shabby, but just needs a little cleaning up.
Why should this idea be diluted to just affect downtown? One home with boarded up windows makes a whole neighborhood look tacky.
Should we just worry about how "downtown" looks or should we start cleaning up the whole city?
If it's going to be done, do it right! Does this commission understand "right"? Or is this going to be another "we don't care what the people want"?
the whole town needs help. you have to start somewhere. downtown beingthe most public area makes the most sense. too much at once would make enforcement impossible. it will all happen in due time I bet.
Post a Comment