Now that this comprehensive, downtown urban planning effort is nearly complete (the design guidelines process remains to be implemented), it is time to drill down and focus on the properties that we, the people, collective own; not as planners, but as owners. What is the best use of our property, as viewed through the prism of our new master plan and zoning? How can we get the most bang for our equity in these properties? Should they simply be sold at market rate? Should they be held for a public purpose? Should we try to play developer again? What do other studies and plan say?

From a slightly broader perspective, how do these City-owned parcels relate to their immediate surroundings and what can we do in terms of cooperating with other public entities such as the Library, AATA, the Federal government, and the County to ensure that they are not working at cross-purposes? Because the City and other public entities own such a large amount of key downtown property, and most of them are exempt from local planning and zoning laws, how those properties are developed (or not developed) is just as important, if not more important than the new ordinances that only affect private developments.

On a side note, now that the conference center idea has been thoroughly vetted and dismissed, I would hope that the Planning Commission and City Council would move to immediately strike this oddly specific (and contradictory) language from the Downtown Plan.

I’m equally disappointed at Ray’s endorsement of the Fuller Road Parking Structure. This facility, despite the DDA wayfinding sign at Fuller and Maiden Lane that declares the area to be “downtown,” is in fact, not downtown, and therefore has nothing to do with the DDA or its CAC. Why would this even be on their agenda?