Sweet Stuff Bakery moving to downtown New Albany, by Chris Morris (News and Tribune).
Sweet Stuff Bakery, located at 605 Silver St. since 2002, will soon be moving to downtown New Albany.
Due to “steady, consistent growth” according to its husband and wife owners, Tom Raatz and Diane Christopher, Sweet Stuff was forced to look for a bigger location with more parking.
The new location will be at 325 Spring St. A grand opening is scheduled for the first week in October.
and the Redevelopment Commission voted to purchase the former Coyle auto dealership property nearby only to have some council members question the move. Coffey says he was for it but may be against it now, Caesar says the existing buildings would all have to be demolished, and Gonder says there shouldn't be a dime of funding unless the main dealership building is reused.
Commission OKs Coyle purchase, by Daniel Suddeath (News and Tribune).
The New Albany Redevelopment Commission recommended Tuesday the city purchase the former Coyle Dodge property for $1.1 million, property that could one day hold city and county offices.
As part of the package, the city would be responsible for between $250,000 and $350,000 of environmental cleanup at the site, which is located at 411 E. Spring St.
The environmental cleaning was recommended by the firm Specialty Earth Sciences following two rounds of assessments.
Also, the commission suggested the City Council provide funding to buy approximately five separate pieces of property near Coyle Dodge. Deputy Mayor Carl Malysz said the money for the purchases could come from Economic Development Income Tax funds, for example.
16 comments:
Has CM Caesar ever offered a detailed rationale for his ever shifting opinion?
If so, I don't recall hearing one.
Maybe it's because I haven't heard it before(or don't remember)about the possibility of federal money for a new library but that would seem to be a reasonable rationale for at least considering shifting an opinion.
If that possible scenario existed previously and he was aware of it--never mind.
Good point, IAH.
Just firing for effect here but it seems to me that a private sector enterprise created the necessaity for an environmental cleanup during the course of making a profit over many years.
Why then should tax money which is in short supply anyway be used to clean up after them?
As for CM Caesar or his other cohorts rationale for that matter, it must be in the water!
Federal funding and the feasibility of the current library as a city-county building aside, the joke in all this to me is the constant refrain that there's no money.
The council has options to free up EDIT funds from the sewers and won't. They just thwarted efforts to create reasonable capital funding for stormwater endeavors. They turned down a comprehensive paving plan and a low cost solution for additional trash and waste pick up.
But, to hear them speak of it, you wouldn't know they had any responsibility for a lack of funding at all.
When they start saying "We don't have money because I decided we shouldn't", it will be easier to take them seriously.
Damn, we are all "on it" this morning. 9:42, 10:01, 10:04, 10:06, 10:08.
"They just thwarted efforts to create reasonable capital funding for stormwater endeavors. They turned down a comprehensive paving plan and a low cost solution for additional trash and waste pick up."
I think that was pretty much was Caesar was getting at in a roundabout way. Didn't have room to print it all.
Hwy,
Supposedly that is why the selling price is lower than the "appraised" value. To allow money for the cleanup.
Unfortunately, my experience has been that cleanups are almost always much more expensive than the estimates.
I just logged on in interest to see if G. Coyle would be here and what her thoughts would be on this. She had some cruel words for CCE and Eastridge. While I know this is not exactly a cookie cutter example, wondering if her opinions are the same considering it's now a facility that bears her family name in question.
There are legitimate reasons surrounding this issue on both sides(Daniel's reporter answer).
I dealt with this situation at my last job. The city hall was tiny and people were working in rooms stacked full of boxes and cabinets(much worse than the current situation at the city-county building). A worthy building was offered to the city at a reasonable price, but the council voted it down mainly because of pressure from the public. That's the thing, it's usually hard to convince the public to spend money for new digs. Many private residents also work in cramped conditions so it's hard for them to feel sorry for city employees. Right or wrong, it's a hard sell.
I don't disagree, IAH, but, in the case of Scribner Place, an EPA grant paid for the brownfield cleanup which garnered us an award from the same organization. If we're looking at possibilities that may affect sites, especially ones that could hinge on public or private ownership, that should be included.
The "who should pay for clean up" question comes down, at least partially, on whether or not the contamination levels were legal at the time that the contamination occurred. I think that's relevant here and at the CCE property.
If it's the mission of the Redevelopment Commission to make previously developed properties more viable for reuse and environmental responsibilities can't legally be pinned on current, private owners for proven wrongdoing, then brownfield clean up would seem to be a reasonable Commission activity.
I'm not trying to throw cold water on anything. Just urging a little caution. I think the Coyle property would a good place for a city office, especially with the "Coyle" building being adapted and utilized.
Oh lord, someone envoked CCE, and here I go.
We the tax payers paying for the clean up at CCE falls on our shoulders for one reason and one reason only.
The failure of our local governemnt to act on complaints from its citizens who have been for nearly a decade now complaining of the gross violations occurring at that property in braod daylight, and often with the "blessings" of the city by awarding contracts to the company, fully aware of the end results of the contaminants and debris being illegally dumped at 2045 silver street and on 111 at corydon pike.
I have not heard word back yet, but the lawsuit against CCE was being heard in Indy yesterday (again).
If the property is a brownfield, same way I’d feel about any brownfield. What is the extent of the contamination and Who is responsible for cleaning it up? If non-biased environmental assessments are paid for by the city then there should be no reason those aren’t part of the public proposal to purchase. Speciaty Earth Sciences works for the taxpayers so the taxpayers need to see their reports. If all the relevant environmental info isn’t public, how does the public weigh in, other than to oppose ala CCE, inc.?
Chris,
The hearing held in Indianapolis yesterday, 9/1, was not about the lawsuit the City Plan Commission filed on CCE on July 21,2008, which has apparently been forgotten, as the last action on the lawsuit was November 2008 and that was a postponement. He continues to thumb his nose at our zoning laws with his daily and continous operation thanks to Shane Gibson and the City
The meeting in Indy was the Fire Prevention and Building Safety Commission for the State of Indiana in reference to a multitude of variances from throughout the state. And, a small part of this meeting was to hold discussion and decide possible Commission action on violation of State Code hearings held throughout the State, CCE being just one of those. CCE's portion of that allotted time was approx. 3-4 minutes and that was to reschedule it in October this year with day to be decided! Typical BS, allow more time for violations to occur.
G-good questions. Now I'll propose one to you. If governments don't trade the clean up for a reduced price, how do you guarantee the cleaning will ever be done? Meaning, if a city says no to anything contaminated, perhaps the land doesn't sell and the property is never cleaned.
Also, I believe the CCE file contains the environmental reports you speak of.
Indeed Dan, assisting with brownfield redevelopment is well suited to government. Maybe what we need locally is an environmental safety Commission? I have noted our “Plan Commission” and “Redevelopment” Commission are in fact the same people. I assume they’ve been enabling the poor development we’ve had here historically. It would seem illogical to put the same people who’ve historically enabled brownfields in charge of cleaning them up.
Post a Comment