I hope that you will be able to attend next Tuesday’s meeting which I understand will be the last opportunity for City Council to approve the purchase of the Edwards Brothers Malloy State Street property by the city.

I want to take this last gasp opportunity to further explain below my position which I expressed as a comment to Ryan Stanton’s February 10th article, entitled “Mayor cancels request for special meeting to discuss Edwards Brothers property.” [link]

Hopefully, the cancellation of the special meeting to consider the city’s purchase of the Edwards Brothers Malloy property on State Street means that the city will allow the University of Michigan to buy the property for its offering of $12.8 million which is four times the assessed valuation and, thus, twice the market value for the 16.8 acres.

City administrators and City Council members never told the public where the $12.8 million in city tax payer purchase money would be found within the city’s budget. As of the end of the last fiscal year on June 30th, 2013, the city had only $14 million in unrestricted funds in its general fund. Greatly depleting that fund to pay exorbitantly for land does not seem appropriate or wise. The city should not be in the business of real estate speculation.

A few City Council members were considering flipping the property although no other offers to purchase the property materialized since the property was first offered for sale in August. A few developers who have not been identified are purportedly interested in developing five acres of the land which borders on State Street. These potential purchasers are unlikely to pay twice the market value for pieces of the land. Therefore, tax payers will incur a loss of as much as fifty percent of its investment.

Furthermore, if the city buys the property and then offers it for development, developers will demand incentives that will cost city tax payers even more money. What incentives might be offered? The city could spend upwards of $10 million to construct a parking structure within a developer’s building as the DDA did for Village Green City Apartments. Perhaps, the city will install new utility services worth millions of dollars as I believe was done for Arbor Hills. Some of the 618 S. Main Street developer tax money will be used for street improvement where it fronts on Main Street. Packard Square and Arbor Hills have also received tax abatements based on Brownfield remediation which now covers site development broadly.

The argument that purchasing the property will keep it on the tax rolls is hollow since the closure of the printing facility on the Edwards Brothers Malloy property will have reduced the annual tax payment to far less than the $183,000 paid last year of which only $50,000 was received by the city. In fact without development the city would receive no taxes at all after purchasing the property.

The City Council and city administrators deserve credit for making a sound financial decision and sparing the tax payer losses if indeed the city does not purchase the land.

Ditto (6) on the CWS study. That study was notorious for refusing to consider open space uses for any of the downtown properties, despite much public interest in such a use for the Library Lot. Council ignored the CWS study with good reason. And applause for the consultant, Erin Perdu, for the excellent carry-through on the downtown zoning review.

City Council passed a resolution asking the Downtown Development Authority (DDA) to engage in a process that would result in recommendations that could be included in the Downtown Master Plan. After an elaborate process, the DDA issued its CWS recommendations. Importantly, none (zero) of the CWS recommendations were included in the Downtown Master Plan. Even when grading on a curve, zero is a failing grade.

A good comparison is the downtown zoning review conducted by a consultant. After an elaborate public process, the consultant made recommendations. Those recommendations were approved and adopted by City Council.

The difference between the successful downtown zoning review process and the CWS process is that the consultant listened closely to what residents said they wanted and made recommendations that helped Council address the public’s concerns. Conversely, the DDA either ignored or refused to hear the concerns and desires the public expressed during the CWS study. It should come as no surprise that failing to incorporate the wishes of residents results in failure. The CWS recommendations were not incorporated into the Downtown Master Plan and should not be part of the discussion about our downtown planning.