[MissoulaGov] committee update 8-20-08

[Geoff Badenoch]

I guess I have always wanted a City that was willing to work collaboratively
with its citizens rather than rely solely on its ability to exact property,
design concessions, etc. from them.  In this case, MHA was prepared to offer
an easement for the whole tunnel (at least that's what it was when I worked
on the project).  In other words, MHA was willing to provide the easement
without the City having to exact it.  This sort of circumstance allows the
parties to keep a wider range of issues on the table in crafting what
development should look like.  It requires negotiators who are creative,
circumspective and committed to solid partnerships, but ultimately is more
satisfying from a cost, design and goodwill standpoint.  

 

Exactions are probably warranted in cases where developers are recalcitrant
or opposed to any requirement connected to their projects being part of the
City. As a policy or doctrine, the City's ability to exact concessions as a
part of the development permitting process has a genuine role in sound
community development.   I don't have a sense that this is what was going on
in MHA's case.

 

-----Original Message-----
From: missoulagov-bounces at cmslists.com
[mailto:missoulagov-bounces at cmslists.com] On Behalf Of Jason Wiener
Sent: Thursday, August 21, 2008 12:46 PM
To: missoulagov at cmslists.com
Subject: Re: [MissoulaGov] committee update 8-20-08

 

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/e26201a4/attachment.htm>