A few weeks ago, the City of Champaign wasn't satisfied with the bids it got for a downtown parking garage. The new bids are in:
On its second round of bids, the city of Champaign got a more competitive price for building a 600-space parking garage at the southeast corner of Randolph and Hill streets in downtown Champaign and now appears ready to move forward on the project.
English Brothers Co. of Champaign submitted a low price of $10.59 million and likely will be awarded the job at the city council's March 18 meeting, said Craig Rost, deputy city manager for development. A bid opening was held Friday.
In the first round of bidding, the lowest responsive bid was $11.9 million by F.A. Wilhelm Construction Co. of Indianapolis.
(sarcasm on) Thank goodness the city will have the deck built (using raised parking meter revenue) before it will cause the new private M2 development any problems. (sarcasm off)
If the developers of M2 wanted a parking deck, they should have built it themselves, why use taxpayer money to provide this?
Taxpayer money is used because the government doesn't care about taxpayers, citizens, visitors, or anybody to be accountable to. They ignore us, and work as hard as they can to waste money, give it away to the rich, spend it on themselves, and have parties laughing at us. They plot and scheme, often in secret, to screw taxpayers. They don't care so long as their pockets are lined. Their gin is the pure pleasure of watching us empty our pockets for their pet projects that they don't even care about and have absolutely no benefit to the citizens. None of them actually live in Champaign so they can raise our taxes and not have to pay. They not only don't care, the try to screw us over as taxpayers.
Parking is a public good. We all need a place to park when we visit downtown.
The M2 project is a MUCH better use for that corner than surface parking, will enhance downtown, and may result in more jobs, tax revenues and growth for the City of Champaign.
Also, tax increment financing, which was used to finance aspects of that project, only siphons off a piece of NEW property tax revenues from real estate development, the theory being that, withoiut the temporary tax break, the project would not be as viable.
It's just giving away my tax money to big developers so the government people can line their own pockets while laughing at us suckers while they drive to their houses in St Joe and Mahomet and Savoy. Look at the votes. Wasting money helping rich buddies while we get overpriced parking that we don't need, unless we need to subsidize a few rich developers.
Notice how the same amount of condos have been sold for ages.
And 40% looks fake when they list no tenants except for their enclaves.
Are any of you seriously suggesting that the construction of a $40 million, nine-story office/condo building in downtown won't be a net positive for city "taxpayers"?
The building will pay more real estate taxes than many entire neighborhoods. And the building will pay for the 300 parking spaces they use in the new parking garage. The remaining 300 spaces will replace the former city surface lot and add 100 net new spaces.
The increased parking rate only moves the amount charged closer to the market price for parking when one balances supply and demand. Its not the downtown of 1998, that's for sure.
So turn the sarcasm on or off, the construction of this project is good for the entire city, and the related parking deck is as well. The entire package, like all successful deals, is a win-win for the community and for the investor who is risking his $40 million to speculate on this bricks and mortar improvement.
I would think conservatives would be applauding private investment, but instead some folks keep suggesting that the city taxpayers should continue to subsidize on-street parking with an artificially low price, which benefits the few lucky folks who get to the parking spaces first.
On March 11th, 2008 at 07:20 PM, Oh Come On Now (not verified) said: "Parking is a public good. We all need a place to park when we visit downtown. "The M2 project is a MUCH better use for that corner than surface parking, will enhance downtown, and may result in more jobs, tax revenues and growth for the City of Champaign." But we have a place to park now. We only need the parking deck because of M2. Past history in Champaign has shown that the tax revenues from the new taxpayer supported project don't pay for themselves. We get all this new development, which by your theory should result in lower tax rates for the rest of us. But we have to keep paying more taxes and higher water and electricity rates to build the infrastructure for the new development. There is no free lunch, as the old saying goes. The free lunches we're providing to the developers is being paid for by Mr. and Ms. Middle Class Taxpayer, struggling to keep their heads above water.
Ezra 6:04:
Where do you get this?:
"But we have to keep paying more taxes and higher water and electricity rates to build the infrastructure for the new development."? They only thing wrong with your argument is that the facts are not true.
"Mr. and Ms. Middle Class Taxpayer, struggling to keep their heads above water" and not very involved in the M2 project. The only incentive offerred to make the project viable comes exclusively from the Tax Increment Financing District, and money is only in that fund because this project will be paying huge tax bills, and the increment over what the tax revenues used to be on the property are plowed back into that fund, and they must be used in that TIF and nowhere else.
Explain what this has to do with higher electricity rates, please.
I understand that the Council continues to make the argument that all of this development is good for the rest of us--that it leads to improvements in our property values and will decrease our taxes because others are paying into the system. I believe that Councilmember Bruno is a strong advocate of that. And yet, ever since the City has embarked on this downtown development, my property taxes continue to rise (amount, not rate), and I have yet to see all of these savings that people believe are coming. I saw parking rates rise to pay for parking for this project, and still, no effect or savings on my property tax bill, or for that matter, any of the other taxes or user fees that the City charges. So, once again, I'm struggling to figure out how all of this development helps my bottom line.
"So, once again, I'm struggling to figure out how all of this development helps my bottom line."
Perhaps it's meant to improve quality of life versus bottom line?
I'm not necessarily making that argument, but I don't remember CM Bruno or any of the other Council members promising that a development like M2 was going to result in property tax reductions for other city taxpayers.
I think I've heard him say on numerous occasions that all of the development Champaign is experiencing is good for the taxpayers' bottom line--perhaps he didn't mention M2 by name.
I worry what city involvement in downtown development could cost should the commercial RE market take a serious hit. We just had the story about the loss the city took on the lodge, or whatever it was.
Sometimes after a string of successes an organization (like a gambler or day trader or house flipper) can get a little too cocky, and bite off more than it can chew.
West of Wright said,
"The only incentive offerred to make the project viable comes exclusively from the Tax Increment Financing District, and money is only in that fund because this project will be paying huge tax bills, and the increment over what the tax revenues used to be on the property are plowed back into that fund, and they must be used in that TIF and nowhere else.
"Explain what this has to do with higher electricity rates, please."
Why can't the tax money in my neighborhood go into a Tax Increment Financing District (TIF) to help me and my neighbors improve our homes or build larger homes? Why can't all of the neighborhoods have what the millionaire developers get? The answer is obviously then the city and the schools wouldn't have any money to operate on; they need our revenue. When the tax money that would otherwise go from the downtown development projects into the coffers of the city and the schools is instead diverted to pay for yet more developer give-aways, my taxes go up more than they would otherwise go up because the need for money by the city and the schools does not decrease. As to what this has to do with higher electricity rates, my understanding is that Ameren IP is asking for their latest rate increase, not because of higher electricity costs but because of improvements and higher costs in the delivery system. My recollection is that they're telling Champaign County residents that they're having to upgrade substations to handle increased development.
"I think I've heard him say on numerous occasions that all of the development Champaign is experiencing is good for the taxpayers' bottom line--perhaps he didn't mention M2 by name."
Good for taxpayers or good for the bottom line? I don't remember ever hearing the latter.
I remember hearing variations of "this will generate revenue," and "this is good for the city and downtown," but I don't ever remember anything explicit about reducing residents' property taxes.
Maybe he meant that it would increase our property values?
"Maybe he meant that it would increase our property values?"
If he did, then it would result in increased property tax bills for city residents.
I guess I'm asking if anyone ever promised an "improved bottom line" to most city residents as a result of downtown development.
The reason why it doesn't affect a bottom line is because much of the benefit derived from the development is transferred to pay pension and health care costs. If this development was not created, we would be getting billed. We'd either be paying or doing something about the excessive costs of employment and construction.
In the meantime we watch our property tax bills increase at rate over and above the CPI while our schools and roads to be less than attractive. As long as the "rate" doesn't rise, we're content.