Investing in Urbana

"I appreciate what the atkins group has done for Urbana.    I was told recently that Brandon Bowersox held up distracting cards while the AG was presenting it's signage proposal to point out how annoying electronic signs are.    He changed his cards every 10 seconds to prove his point."

Dennis Roberts did this, not Brandon Bowersox.  Please be accurate when making accusations---especially if, as you said, "every good developer is talking about that and how disrespectful that was at a city council meeting."  I hope the development community will run someone against Roberts in ward 5 if they're that unhappy about it.

"There are rumblings that a huge lawsuit against the City of Urbana is imminent to recover damages as a result of downzoning."

What downzoning has happened in the last few years?  I'm not aware of any significant downzoning happening in Urbana since areas in West Urbana (near Lincoln) were downzoned.  I don't know exactly when this was...maybe in the early 90's?  Have any lots been downzowned lately?  If so, where/what?

"As a good developer, would you want to invest time and money when you can no longer rely on zoning guidelines?    It can cost tens of thousands of dollars simply to perform due diligence when you factor in architect fees, etc.   If you purchase a old house, your project can be stalled for months or more and rejected on the basis of "historical" even if the argument is irrational.   Whether or you agree with this statement, it is now a huge political challenge to build a building that zoning says conforms with the look and feel of the neighborhood."

You're mixing things up here.  The zoning guidelines can be relied upon and rarely change.  Any change proposed goes through rigorous review and extensive public input.  I think what you're referring to is the propensity for the historic preservation commission to approve landmark status for buildings against a property owner's will, and for this to interfere with future development.  I agree that this is a problem, although it affects very few properties, and the council doesn't necessarily approve what the commission recommends.

Yes, but you apparently wish for Urbana to CHANGE those non-discrimination rules, so what then?

Similarly with employment - people need to work to eat.  If someone will be barred from having any jobs, what should they do? Go on General Assistance? Oh but wait, we don't want to fund that either.

Not all felonies are equal, for mere starters.

Meanwhile I live in Urbana, and I do not spend my days quaking in fear that I might run into a convicted felon, no.

All that aside though, there are quite a few papered up empty storefronts under various apartment complexes in Champaign and on Green St, if they are more to your liking.

Nothing would make me happier to see Bruce Waldon's vision and hard work realized.

Under Walden and Markland, Urbana fell hopelessly behind Champaign and Savoy.  Development only came to Urbana after all the the more desirable locations in Champaign and Savoy had been utilized.   

I appreciate what the atkins group has done for Urbana.

Appartenly the Atkins group does not share your paranoia about Urbana

If the legal bills are $400,000 for the nursing home, imagine what they would be in a case like this even if the city prevails

Please explain to us why you speculate the costs would  be high.

Selling your investment property will be more difficult

If the use of the property will not change there is no more difficultly.   Buying  a property or propeties with the hope of later getting a zoning change (a la Mr. Wakeland) is speculation.

Urbana has been aggressive in downzoning and imposing unattractive and costly restrictions on developers.    The restrictions on demolition is a great example where a developer can be 100% in compliance with zoning guidelines, meeting all the costly requirements as required, and not be able to build their project.   City Staff openly admits to property owners that the neighborhood association conspires to decrease the value of properties.   The intention is that a property will become dilapidated to the point where the acquisition price will be affordable for their preferred lower density option.   Neighborhood groups openly admit the same and are leveraging the recent demolition restrictions and threatening property owners with the hassles that await them, hoping they'll donate their property to them or sell it to them at a very low price.   This whole trend has raised some concerns....

Please list for us the costly restrictions you claim exist.   Neighborhood residential groups often want limit commercial development in their neighborhoods.  Develepers might want to do the opposite.    That is whay we have a formal process for re-zoning requests.  Neighborhood groups generally do not want to acquire properties from others.   Neighborhood groups have a valid concern that developers like Wakeland will start purchasing residences with the hope of eventually tearing them dowm.  Such Wakeland-esque developers in the interim will either minimally maintain or keep vacant such properties.

So don't invest, then.  If you say "I won't invest unless you do X" and people answer "we don't want to do X, don't let the door hit you on the way out" well, that's the answer.

I don't see a general wailing that oh, we're suffering so terribly because neighborhoods don't wish to open up to large developments.  Rather, people are happy that Urbana east of Lincoln doesn't look like Campustown west of Lincoln to Neil, quite frankly.  The only whining I hear is from people who want to make large apartments east of Lincoln (particularly between Lincoln and Busey to start with), and people who are constantly looking for lots they can pave and use for parking.

Meanwhile strip development is happening up by the highway, as it is in most modern American cities.  This is true of the area by the Wal-Mart and the area by the new Meijer.  There is also development by Five Points. In neighborhoods, houses have been restored, also smaller multi-family places have been restored, replaced, etc.  It's not as if nothing ever changes.

So there's the endless "concern" for Urbana, that oh! It's missing out, falling behind, surely we're just concerned... 

Meh.  If the citizens want to change the rules, they can, so far they're not particularly interested in doing so.

And yet, people on that part of Elm don't want a 50 bedrooms apartment building put there.  They do not care that such a building would be valued at $5.2M.   The argument that "but with apartments there are more taxes to the city" has been brought up time and time again (occasionally in hour long speeches before the Council) and people aren't buying it.  They don't want that trade.

If it's two parcels, you can't just combine them and put one building up. That's never been okay, you have to get special permission for it (just as you have to do to split one parcel into two).  If that was the issue, that's nothing new that's changed.  I've been at council meetings where permission was granted to split a lot.

Meanwhile, just because someone bought two parcels THINKING they'd put up a building and then found out before they built it that it's not okay, you aren't owed anything.  That's different from your steakhouse example, although you might note that no one is paying off any bar owners for lack of business from the smoking bans. 

Question - if the things are MOR, why not put up two buildings?  That's what should have been the plan to start with, even for Mr. Apartments, or the buyer should have checked out the process for combining parcels before coming up with the grand plan.

But the bottom line is that the people in the area don't buy the "but the city could get more taxes if you let us build student apartments like the ones over in Champaign."  It's come up, and it's been rejected. Repeatedly. 

So... not much to say, really.

It seems to me that it's not an issue of zoning, but rather two properties zoned MOR that someone wanted to combine into one parcel, thinking "well, if I own both, it's all good" to put a big building on.

That's NEVER been "all good," whether you own both properties or not. You have to go to the council to combine the parcels, and it's by NO means a guaranteed deal, and why anyone would expect such a request to be granted in that neighborhood in particular escapes me.

People on Elm would rather see rehabilitated houses, which is why they are buying up and restoring houses on Elm.  If it's an MOR building, they would rather see smaller apartments, ideally ones that blend in with the surrounding houses (it can, and has, been done in that area).

But a 50 bedroom building?  Not likely.

So I guess my question is, were these parcels bought as MOR and then changed to something less?  Or are they MOR, bought as MOR, still MOR, but the problem is that the city won't allow the combination?  Because if it's the latter, that's never been okay and I don't see what the issue is.

When it comes to "guidelines that will fit the neighborhood" usually there is much whining because all of the proposed guidelines essentially rule out the "large student apartment building made of a balloon frame vinyl sided building on stilts over a parking lot" which is the usual thing people want to build because it has a high profit margin.  The hue and cry over having to even camouflage the parking for some (smaller!) buildings has been huge.

Usually then the proposer leaves in a huff with "well then, I won't build in your city because it won't be profitable and you'll lose all my potential taxes!!" to which the response from council is "don't let the door hit ya on the way out."

Though I will say with many in that area, if it's a choice of one falling in house vs. a big 50 bedroom apartment with the associated parking issues, they'd pick the falling in house, because it's still quiet and residential.

A tough spot to be in for sure, too bad there is no mediation to attempt compromise here as neither option is very attractive. 

It seems to me that it's not an issue of zoning, but rather two properties zoned MOR that someone wanted to combine into one parcel, thinking "well, if I own both, it's all good" to put a big building on.

I apologize for confusing this Elm St example with the Main St example we were discussing recently. 

FWIW much of the ire in these "falling down houses" situations is aimed at people who buy houses and then do little or no maintenance on the houses, with the aim (so it appears to the neighbors) of later claiming the house is in too poor of condition to save, and therefore must be torn down.  At that point, if the house is in an area that has had only houses since the town's founding, but at some point was zoned MOR, usually the gamble is to let the house fall in and then replace it with... apartments.

So the "but the house is in disrepair!!!" arguments come off sounding like the kid who complains of being an orphan after killing his parents.  That's the impression, anyway.

I got that impression too, and noticed that the article hadn't mentioned whether Wakeland had made any effort to maintain the his building.

Its Official Now--Urbana is no longer business unfriendly! Let the good times roll!

(no historic status of Lincoln hotel)