What's the real story?
Thanks to everyone who has written the City Council to support preserving 5146 Eden Avenue for public use. Some of you have received a response from a Council member assuring you that the City will not sell the land and calling into question the "wrong information" that is floating around the community. So, what's the real story?
As the following shows, the assumption throughout this process has been that the former public works site (all or part) would be sold for private development.
April 16, 2013 City Council work session--Economic development manager Bill Neuendorf presented the idea of partnering with a real estate developer to redevelop the former public works site. He began the discussion by saying he wanted to get the Council's input on the "disposition and redevelopment" of the site. There was no discussion about whether to keep or sell the site, and no Council member raised an objection to the disposition and redevelopment of the land.
September 2013 Grandview CAT meeting--The CAT discussed key steps in the redevelopment process. Bill Neuendorf stated that, once final site plans are approved, the full terms of the contract with a developer would go into effect and the property would be transferred.
November 8, 2013 Draft RFI (prepared by Bill Neuendorf)--The draft included the following: "The City is not wedded to this particular combination of uses [as shown in the Development Framework] but is committed to having at least a portion of the site available for perpetual community use. "…at least a portion" communicates to the developer that most of the site is available for private use. "…available for perpetual community use" communicates to the developer that the community spaces could be privately owned (such as POPOS--privately owned public open spaces). CAT members raised questions about the sentence and it was not included in the next draft.
December 3, 2013 Draft RFI (prepared by Bill Neuendorf)--The draft included the following: "If the City Council accepts the Feasibility Study [for proposed redevelopment], 'tentative developer' will be granted an exclusive right to prepare a full proposal for the site including a term sheet to address the possible sale or lease and terms of redevelopment."
January 21, 2014 City Council work session--CAT members sought guidance from the Council on how to proceed. At issue was whether the Council wanted to pursue private development on the site and, if yes, how much private development. While Council members Bennett and Sprague supported a predominantly public use of the site, Mayor Hovland and Council members Swenson and Brindle argued that there was no need that would require a predominantly public use of the site. They assumed some public use, but argued in favor of private development. Council member Swenson brought up selling "air rights" to a developer. Council member Brindle stated that she wanted to keep ownership of the property, but sell the "air rights." Read a partial transcript of this meeting here.
While it's true that the Council has not voted to sell the land, the opposite is also true: they have not voted to retain it. In fact, throughout this phase of the Grandview process, the Council has voted only once: to appoint members to the CAT. They put this process into place without a vote. They've given direction to the CAT without a vote.
Selling "air rights" is a way of saying the City Council is open to entering into a long-term lease with a developer. Functionally, a 50-99 year lease of public land to a developer is no different from a sale. In essence, it is giving up control of valuable public land.
The record shows that the sale/disposition of the former public works site (all or part) was assumed from the start. It was only after CAT members and other residents raised questions that some Council members began to clarify that they didn't intend to sell the land, but would sell the "air rights."
Citizens For A Better Grandview has incorporated this into our message. We ask that the Council end the process to pursue redevelopment through the sale or lease of the former public works site. Please continue to write the City Council. If they don't intend to sell any part of the public land at 5146 Eden Avenue, ask them to vote on it--before partnering with a real estate developer to redevelop the site.
Assurances via email that the City will not sell the land is one thing. A public vote is another. It's up to us, Edina citizens, to keep them honest.
updated March 13, 2014
As the following shows, the assumption throughout this process has been that the former public works site (all or part) would be sold for private development.
April 16, 2013 City Council work session--Economic development manager Bill Neuendorf presented the idea of partnering with a real estate developer to redevelop the former public works site. He began the discussion by saying he wanted to get the Council's input on the "disposition and redevelopment" of the site. There was no discussion about whether to keep or sell the site, and no Council member raised an objection to the disposition and redevelopment of the land.
September 2013 Grandview CAT meeting--The CAT discussed key steps in the redevelopment process. Bill Neuendorf stated that, once final site plans are approved, the full terms of the contract with a developer would go into effect and the property would be transferred.
November 8, 2013 Draft RFI (prepared by Bill Neuendorf)--The draft included the following: "The City is not wedded to this particular combination of uses [as shown in the Development Framework] but is committed to having at least a portion of the site available for perpetual community use. "…at least a portion" communicates to the developer that most of the site is available for private use. "…available for perpetual community use" communicates to the developer that the community spaces could be privately owned (such as POPOS--privately owned public open spaces). CAT members raised questions about the sentence and it was not included in the next draft.
December 3, 2013 Draft RFI (prepared by Bill Neuendorf)--The draft included the following: "If the City Council accepts the Feasibility Study [for proposed redevelopment], 'tentative developer' will be granted an exclusive right to prepare a full proposal for the site including a term sheet to address the possible sale or lease and terms of redevelopment."
January 21, 2014 City Council work session--CAT members sought guidance from the Council on how to proceed. At issue was whether the Council wanted to pursue private development on the site and, if yes, how much private development. While Council members Bennett and Sprague supported a predominantly public use of the site, Mayor Hovland and Council members Swenson and Brindle argued that there was no need that would require a predominantly public use of the site. They assumed some public use, but argued in favor of private development. Council member Swenson brought up selling "air rights" to a developer. Council member Brindle stated that she wanted to keep ownership of the property, but sell the "air rights." Read a partial transcript of this meeting here.
While it's true that the Council has not voted to sell the land, the opposite is also true: they have not voted to retain it. In fact, throughout this phase of the Grandview process, the Council has voted only once: to appoint members to the CAT. They put this process into place without a vote. They've given direction to the CAT without a vote.
Selling "air rights" is a way of saying the City Council is open to entering into a long-term lease with a developer. Functionally, a 50-99 year lease of public land to a developer is no different from a sale. In essence, it is giving up control of valuable public land.
The record shows that the sale/disposition of the former public works site (all or part) was assumed from the start. It was only after CAT members and other residents raised questions that some Council members began to clarify that they didn't intend to sell the land, but would sell the "air rights."
Citizens For A Better Grandview has incorporated this into our message. We ask that the Council end the process to pursue redevelopment through the sale or lease of the former public works site. Please continue to write the City Council. If they don't intend to sell any part of the public land at 5146 Eden Avenue, ask them to vote on it--before partnering with a real estate developer to redevelop the site.
Assurances via email that the City will not sell the land is one thing. A public vote is another. It's up to us, Edina citizens, to keep them honest.
updated March 13, 2014