|
Centrepointe
What is the central point for Lexington?
Centrepointe has demonstrated yet again that Lexington has difficulty dealing with development issues. Our recent Centrepointe experience presents an opportunity to learn some lessons which might prove useful when the next development proposal arises. Over the course of this and several emails to follow, I want to share some observations about Centrepointe's benefits, some myths that arose during our recent debate, some values to guide future debates, and some steps we might take now to have a more productive debate in the future.
Sincerely,
Jim Newberry
EMAILS COMING UP:
Wednesday:
Values to Guide Future Debates
Thursday:
Steps Lexington Needs to Take
PREVIOUS EMAIL:
Monday:
Why Lexington Should Support Centrepointe
|
Myths and Realities of Centrepointe
Now, in light of recent decisions by the Courthouse Area Design Review Board, Fayette Circuit Court and the Urban County Council's delegation to negotiate tax increment financing ("TIF") with the developers, the project is moving forward, and construction will most likely soon begin. However, multiple downtown projects are being considered by both public and private entities, so before those projects roll forward, now is an opportune time to evaluate some of the myths and the realities of the Centrepointe debate.
Myth #1
LFUCG has the right to dictate building design. The reality is that, except in historic districts, LFUCG has virtually no input on design of private developments anywhere in the community, including downtown. The Courthouse Area Design Review Board reviews proposed designs in a small area surrounding the old courthouse in accordance with adopted design guidelines. That Board found unanimously that the Centrepointe project satisfied all of those design requirements.
Myth #2
There was no opportunity for public input. The reality is that there have been and will be both formal and informal opportunities for public input. Informally, developers and opponents of the project met repeatedly, including one meeting attended by hundreds of people at the Kentucky Theatre and one held in the Urban County Council Chambers. The blogs, op-ed pieces and letters provided others informal opportunities for public discussion of the project. In addition, a formal public hearing lasting 5 hours was conducted before the Courthouse Area Design Review Board. Further, state law requires the Council to conduct a hearing on any TIF proposal, and the Council's TIF delegation has a public meeting scheduled tonight at 6 PM in the Council Chambers on TIF issues.
Myth #3
TIF financing constitutes a $70 million subsidy for the developers. The reality is that the developers receive none of the TIF funds. By statute, TIF can only be used for public improvements - streets, sewers, improvements to public buildings, and similar public projects. In short, TIF permits Lexington to make public improvements using the new state tax dollars generated by increased economic activity within a specified geographic area. TIF permits Lexington to keep those new state tax dollars, all of which would otherwise go straight to Frankfort. There should be a vigorous debate over which public projects should be funded, but there should be no debate over whether to pursue TIF for projects whenever TIF is financially feasible. Lexington's infrastructure sorely needs to be overhauled, and TIF is a wonderful way to finance those badly needed public improvements in multiple areas of our city.
Myth #4
All old buildings are worthy of preservation and contribute to the authenticity of Lexington. The reality is that some old structures are critically important to the community, and some are not. The worst possible time to debate the historic significance of structures is when someone is proposing that one be demolished. Perspective is lost. Emotions are high. Community interests are distorted. Instead, Lexington should inventory its historic buildings now, and identify those that have historical significance. Generally speaking, those buildings should be saved whenever possible. Others should be recognized as structures which may be razed without delay.
Myth #5
The Farmers' Market will be destroyed. The reality is that the Farmers' Market has been looking to relocate for more than a year. The farmers want a permanent facility, and Vine Street, however wonderful its ambiance may be, can never satisfy that need. Thus, Centrepointe's announcement was not the beginning of the end for the Farmers' Market, but it has accelerated efforts to address a longstanding need to find or build a permanent structure. Ideally, the market will be located in the downtown area where coffee shops, restaurant and other retail establishments can benefit from the shoppers drawn by local farmers.
|