I have not made up my mind on the Master Economic Development Agreement now being considered by our City Council and our Board of Trustees.
I do, however, prefer a joint approach to economic development to the current ''go it alone'' approach taken by the city and the township. This approach enables builders and developers to play one against the other for concessions.
It also led the city to try to annex its way to the US 33 corridor. In the process, the city encouraged residential development, by offering builders and developers fee waivers, favorable zoning and the like, and contributed significantly to the current overcrowding of our roads and schools.
Finally, a joint approach could open the way to more systematic and comprehensive planning for development, and for encouraging the non-retail commercial development that we need so badly for our tax base.
I do, however, have thoughts, and some questions, on the current agreement:
1. Why is it necessary to make special provision for dividing up the tax revenue generated by commercial development? Don't existing tax laws do that already? Why should these properties be treated any differently, for this purpose, than any other property in the township, whether in the city or not?
2. The agreement's provisions on annexation do not seem as problematic to me as they do to others. For example, if any commercial development is to occur in an area contiguous to the city, the parties mutually agree that the area will, if possible, be annexed to the city. If any such area is not contiguous to the city, the city could not annex it anyway.
Likewise, the agreement provides that the city may annex noncommercial property if the city and township mutually agree that it is in the best interest of this community. This seems sensible to me. It should prevent builders and developers from playing the city and township against one another, as they have in the past.
Moreover, since the city will no longer need to annex its way to property that is suitable for commercial development, the city should no longer have any need to cut special breaks for favored builders and developers. Thus the city and township should have significantly less difficulty coming to terms on such annexation issues.
3. I would like to see added to the agreement a covenant by the parties to work together to plan for the development of this community, and to work with adjoining communities, as appropriate, to plan the development of areas such as the US 33 and Interstate 70 corridors.
4. I am not troubled by the term of the agreement. The initial term is for ten years, but it is going to take at least that long to make significant progress in the commercial development of this community. It is terminable by either party at the end of this initial term. It renews automatically for two additional ten year terms if not terminated by either party at the end of the first term. I would suggest making it terminable by either party at the end of the second term as well.
I hope the rest of you find these few thoughts helpful. I imagine I will anger some of you, but would still welcome your thoughts on some of these questions.
By Yosemite Pam
I do, however, prefer a joint approach to economic development to the current ''go it alone'' approach taken by the city and the township. This approach enables builders and developers to play one against the other for concessions.
It also led the city to try to annex its way to the US 33 corridor. In the process, the city encouraged residential development, by offering builders and developers fee waivers, favorable zoning and the like, and contributed significantly to the current overcrowding of our roads and schools.
Finally, a joint approach could open the way to more systematic and comprehensive planning for development, and for encouraging the non-retail commercial development that we need so badly for our tax base.
I do, however, have thoughts, and some questions, on the current agreement:
1. Why is it necessary to make special provision for dividing up the tax revenue generated by commercial development? Don't existing tax laws do that already? Why should these properties be treated any differently, for this purpose, than any other property in the township, whether in the city or not?
2. The agreement's provisions on annexation do not seem as problematic to me as they do to others. For example, if any commercial development is to occur in an area contiguous to the city, the parties mutually agree that the area will, if possible, be annexed to the city. If any such area is not contiguous to the city, the city could not annex it anyway.
Likewise, the agreement provides that the city may annex noncommercial property if the city and township mutually agree that it is in the best interest of this community. This seems sensible to me. It should prevent builders and developers from playing the city and township against one another, as they have in the past.
Moreover, since the city will no longer need to annex its way to property that is suitable for commercial development, the city should no longer have any need to cut special breaks for favored builders and developers. Thus the city and township should have significantly less difficulty coming to terms on such annexation issues.
3. I would like to see added to the agreement a covenant by the parties to work together to plan for the development of this community, and to work with adjoining communities, as appropriate, to plan the development of areas such as the US 33 and Interstate 70 corridors.
4. I am not troubled by the term of the agreement. The initial term is for ten years, but it is going to take at least that long to make significant progress in the commercial development of this community. It is terminable by either party at the end of this initial term. It renews automatically for two additional ten year terms if not terminated by either party at the end of the first term. I would suggest making it terminable by either party at the end of the second term as well.
I hope the rest of you find these few thoughts helpful. I imagine I will anger some of you, but would still welcome your thoughts on some of these questions.
By Yosemite Pam
