[MissoulaGov] committee update 8-20-08

[Jason Wiener]

Geoff,

 

Thanks for the background on this parcel's history. I agree that, if
there is a case to be made for leniency with exactions, this is a prime
candidate. My hope is that the development planned for the first lot (at
the southwest corner of the site) goes well enough to support housing
with an emphasis on affordability on either, preferably both, of the
other parcels not fronting Russell Street. (Apologies if anyone is
having trouble visualizing this; I couldn't find a map of the
preliminary plat to link.) For that to happen, my understanding is that
most everything needs to go MHA's way in this phase, including
negotiations over infrastructure and exactions. The following statement
did catch my attention, however:

 

At the very outset of its project planning, MHA offered to grant the
City--at no cost--the easement needed to construct and maintain the
tunnel because it helps the community expand its trail system and would
be a convenience to MHA residents and neighbors. That's the kind of
attitude the community wants all of its developers to have.

 

I appreciate the cooperative spirit exhibited by MHA on this piece but
it is the attitude and not the offer of the easement itself that
deserves the praise. The Milwaukee Trail is a primary travel corridor
and exactions to make connections are share a rational nexus
proportional to the impact of adjacent the high-density commercial and
residential development envisioned for the site. This is particularly so
since the easement covers one-half the width necessary for the tunnel;
acquiring the remainder from the property to the north will still be
necessary.

 

This may seem like a picky point but given the intermittent issues with
exacting trail easements, the soundness of that doctrine deserves
emphasis.

 

Regards,

J.

 

*******

Jason Wiener, Alderman, Ward One

1238 Jackson St.

Missoula, MT 59802

(406) 542-3232

jwiener at ci.missoula.mt.us

 

From: missoulagov-bounces at cmslists.com
[mailto:missoulagov-bounces at cmslists.com] On Behalf Of Geoff Badenoch
Sent: Thursday, August 21, 2008 12:16 AM
To: Bob Jaffe; missoulagov at cmslists.com
Subject: Re: [MissoulaGov] committee update 8-20-08

 

[For the record, I used to work for the Missoula Housing Authority on
the Market Square and Garden District projects]

 

Thanks to the Council Committee for the attention given to the MHA
Garden District low-income housing project.  I think there will be few
arguments about the necessity of this project, and that the site is
appropriate for it. At the very outset of its project planning, MHA
offered to grant the City--at no cost--the easement needed to construct
and maintain the tunnel because it helps the community expand its trail
system and would be a convenience to MHA residents and neighbors. That's
the kind of attitude the community wants all of its developers to have.
This was its position up through 2007 and it may still be.

 

By way of history, it is important to remember the fact that this MHA
project was originally conceived in 2003 or so.  At the time, the
community had already spent nearly two years doing planning work on
Russell Street and Russell Street Bridge reconstruction.  And yet, the
initiation date of the Russell Street public improvements kept being
pushed off-first 2006, then 2007, then 2010--now it's even further out.
There were problems with getting the original project consultants to get
the job done and they had to be separated from the project.  Those
squabbles consumed a lot of planning time and money. That situation was
completely out of the MHA's sphere of influence yet it directly affected
its project planning.

 

The money for actually constructing the Russell project, including the
$6 million from the Feds for the Bridge, has been eroding at a minimum
of 5-10% a year due to inflation, while the prospect of additional
state, local and federal resources for the Russell projects is
diminishing.  It is looks to me like we are in an expanding universe on
the Russell project-it is going away from us at an accelerating rate.
And we still don't have agreement on the Draft EIS eight years into the
project. One of the reasons MHA is having such a hard time telling the
City what the future of the land on Russell will be is because, for a
host of reasons, the future of Russell Street itself is so uncertain.
(To some extent, I believe this also affects the homeWORD mixed-use/low
income housing project at the Liberty Lanes site, but I can't speak to
that.) Again, Russell Street project management was outside of MHA's
control.

 

There was a time when the MHA imagined its land improvements and the
Russell Street improvements were going to occur contemporaneously by
now.  Under that scenario, it is possible to stage construction and
improvements in a coordinated and cost-saving fashion.  With the Russell
Street project continuing to recede into the future, the MHA land value
faces downward pressure.  It's plain to see why.  Anyone who might buy
that frontage on Russell and build something there would have to do so
with the knowledge that someday Russell Street (and its Bridge) is going
to be completely torn up for a year or more. [Or, it's NOT going to get
done and the existing sub-standard situation would continue.].  Also, a
BIG hole would have to be dug next to the new owner's property to
accommodate a tunnel that has to go under both Russell Street and the
sewer beneath the street. That really makes it disappointingly hard to
market a commercial property.  On the other hand, if Russell Street and
the Bridge had been completed--even the first phase from Broadway to
Third-the value of the MHA land (and the accompanying property taxes)
would have gone way up.  The longer the future of Russell Street remains
uncertain, the more likely the community will see a less than desirable
use on the frontage. Not because MHA wants to see crappy development,
but because they will, over time, become less choosy about to whom they
sell the land.  Who could blame them?

 

Under the circumstances, it seems to me to be very unfair to ask MHA to
bear untenable burdens for the cost of public improvements which the
City imposes when the Russell Street project is one the City itself has
failed to meaningfully advance.  

 

For that reason, I hope the Council can be patient with the Missoula
Housing Authority and realize it has done its work in good faith. I am
hopeful a spirit of compromise can continue in the discussions of the
project requirements.  

 

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://www.cmslists.com/pipermail/missoulagov/attachments/20080821/81c3303d/attachment.htm>