I hope that in 2006 Davenport can:So... I guess I could change the "2006" to "2007" and pretty much use the same list again this year, but we have at least made a little progress with the downtown. I didn't have "bring more development on Elmore" on the list, but we sure seem to be doing that. Prairie Heights is moving forward, but it is yet to be seen how well it works. Through cracking down and good police work (and probably lots of overtime), the DPD did make Davenport safer during the weeks after Vincelina Howard was killed. I wonder if they're still using the same strategy, or if they've gone back to their old rules on pursuits and such.
5. Reduce crime. Somehow, some way, make Davenport safer. Enough said.
4. Help prairie Heights succeed. I'm a big fan of new urbanism, mostlybecause it reminds me of the way I grew up. I spent my childhood in a neighborhood where I could walk to the park for baseball, stop in at a corner store and buy some Laffy Taffy or baseball cards, and where the front of our house was dominated by a door for people, not cars. We can create new neighborhoods like this.
3.Continue the downtown "momentum." As much as people would like to pretend that all the downtown progress isn't working, it really is. The Crescent Loft district is sprouting new downtown living, new businesses are moving downtown, and PEOPLE can actually be seen walking around on downtown streets. Continuing this will help keep the 20-somethings (my generation) from going elsewhere.
2. Redevelop the former Showcase Cinema and Ramada/Wickliffe Inn on North Brady. These 2 parcels add up to over 25 acres, anddon't provide the best welcome to Davenport to visitors coming off of I-80. Surely something could be done with the property.
1. That all of us could honor and respect Fly's Rule #3, and honor and respect each other, no matter what their personal politics or views are. No one deserves personal attacks just because they are passionate about their views, whichever side they're on. We're all doing what we think is best for Davenport.
Instead of being lazy and using the same list, I plan to come up with a new list by the end of the week. What do you folks think should be on it?
20 comments:
One photo that could be added to 2007 is of the Ramada Inn that has been boarded for years. That place looks aweful.
QCI: We have neighborhoods like you used to live in - it is called the central city. My hope is that we value them and take them back from the bad landlords and social service organizations.
Let's focus on the core of our city and make our central neighborhoods something to be proud of once again. Stop the wasteful spending on new construction junk and rehab the heart of Davenport. The heart of Davenport that was the beginning of this fine city. Rehab it for families and revive the ballgames at the parks and create what we once had here. Real neighborhoods that are desireable and safe again.
Why can't there be both? The new tax base provided by new construction can help pay for the revitalization of the older neighborhoods. Some people are always going to want new construction, and I don't think we should turn them away to Bettendorf and Eldridge.
Who owns the Cinemas and the boarded up Ramada? Are they being marketed? What's the asking price? Can the City or Davenporters put some pressure on the owners to either actively market the properties, demolish the buildings, or at least clean up the properties?
QCGUY,
Well said QCI...Another I would add to your wish list is hearing what Cingular said about the rejected downtown locations. It doesn't take another study group to find out what will bring more companies to the downtown. All we have to do is listen. Then we will be ready for the next company looking to relocate in Iowa. Des Moines can get them all!?!?
Looking at their plans for a 1 story building, I would say downtown doesn't fit their plans because a multistory building with parking would be more expensive.
But then I look at their 19.3 million dollar budget for the building, and the fact that the Mississippi Plaza cost less than that to build, and I wonder what the problem is. All I can come up with is that it wouldn't be fast enough for them. They surely would have gotten more incentives.
"The new tax base provided by new construction can help pay for the revitalization of the older neighborhoods." Will it? Prove it, don't just wish it.
I agree with the last poster. Those living SOLO have heard that crap for years now, Brooke was the originater of that statement. The fact of the matter is that the new construction development may bring in txes, but they are also stretching our city services too thin. This leaves the older areas even more vulnerable in the long run.
We don't see those tax dollars solo. We have high crime, high slum rentals not being checked or regulated, bad roads and alleys, little economic development that isn't low income housing and services, etc. Don't blame it on those living here, we who care take care of our homes and our lives. We try and get the bad landlords to clean things up, but to no avail.
The $19.3 million probably is the cost of the project and not the building. $19.3 million divided by 74,000 s.f. is nearly $260 a square foot. That would have to be an incredible bilding. The $19.3 million probably includes furnishings, software, hardware, interest costs, closing costs and other legal fees, relocation costs, etc. The cost of the building is probably closer to $11 million.
You guys keep acting like the city is suddenly going to pass an ordinance forbidding growth. The fact is, subdivisions are going to be built. We can build normal ones, or we can build logical, walkable ones that require less city cost per unit. When I say that the tax base would pay for SoLo improvements, that's only if our Aldermen step up and do it. That's up to them.
Conservative Demo here:
Taking my friend QCI to task for saying, "The new tax base provided by new construction can help pay for the revitalization of the older neighborhoods. "
Huh, not when the damn taxes are 20-years out or however it is that those TIFs and other incentives work.
True, and that's why I usually disagree with TIF for housing. I know that was what caused the big uproar about the original 53rd and Eastern project. I don't think Prairie Heights uses TIF though.
QCI - stop talking out of both sides of your mouth. Are you practicing being a politician for some reason? It is odd really, you want your neighborhood to improve and actually think building new subdivisions will help you. Very odd.
No, I think that subdivisions are going to be built no matter how much I dislike them.
Why not at least build them correctly?
No - how about not buildiong them at all. It is called zoning. The city spent tons of money on a comp plan that we don't use. I.E. Pedcor. It was outside the zone of services, but Clayton Lloyd and the others thought it was just fine to break the plan for any development that comes along that Ruhl and Ruhl or Mel foster will make money on. We are pathetic when it comes to bad planning. We don't need anymore new developments, they are breaking us, while our existing areas are suffering from lack of resources and attention.
Say NO QCi, instead of just throwing up you hands and saying nothing. What I find interesting is that you think that you know what kind of subdivision is the correct kind.
As I recall, Mr. Poloshek said the same thing about Prairie Hts, that new urbanism in such an artificial manner does not sell here in the QCA.
I've looked at the comprehensive plan plenty, and nowhere does it say we shouldn't have new subdivisions.
As far as whether PH sells, we'll know in the next couple of years, but I suspect it will sell just fine.
No - what it says is that there is a "service area" and if land is within it, it should be developed, if it isn't, it shouldn't until we have the resources and ability to service the area. What is concerning is that the staff and the leadership of this town already is looking to break the plan to develop in these areas. Again - PEDCOR. It was beyong a bad project in a bad area, it was proposed in an area of town not zone appropriately and not intended for residential. Plus is was outside that comp plan service area. Clayton Lloyd and the staff failed to adequatley address the sewer issues there and were approving of a plan that would have screwed with the sewers of the homes out there already. When the dust settled, we all came to understand that the city was pushing it to help the real estate developers. It is typical. Where the city is behind a bad project, be certain to find a Ruhl or a Foster.
Davenport does not need another subdivision until we get our population in order. Ask the developers West who are saying they can't find people to buy the homes and fill the condos and apartments that they build. I had one actually tell me that he wished the city would say no to all of the new developments because he can't sell his homes. Too much of a market.
No new developments? So I guess all those painters, drywallers, trim guys and such should just go live/work somewhere else.
What is the true payroll of development in this community?
Run on that platform. I wager you would get little support.
So we are sacrificing planning for painters and drywallers? These guys should probably go back to school because all the land will be gone soon.
Painters, drywallers, trim guys, roofers and carpenters can find a lot of work SOLO. People do have money SOLO for remodeling. There is a market. Its the trades workers that dont like rehab. They like new construction becuase the skills needed are lower. New is slam bam contruction fast and easy. The workers don't want to learn about deaing with lead paint. The unions need to work with the city planners so we can get more construction help SOLO.
Post a Comment