1. Questions: 1) will the city allow the development to rent apartments with out the anchor providing the necessary tax revenue? 2) can we rent the space if/when Mt. Daniel cannot be expanded? 3) Will the commercial space remain empty as Pearson Square did for years? 4) Did our fiscal model address this risk adequately?

  2. I heard about this problem some time ago through the grapevine and mentioned it in the Post. At the time I noted if that were true, then it points to a pattern of mismanagement in all these projects, from Tinner Hill to Mount Daniel to Mason “Grow”, etc.

    Our officials are way too big for this city’s small britches. We simply can not accomodate these projects because we are TOO SMALL and do not have the resources to make half way decent development plans that can actually succeed (start with nixing so many apartments that will cause far more problems of the sort we already can’t solve).

    So go ahead officials, and build all these MUDS and we can just sit back and watch them fail. We can all still move out and get what are homes are worth, and just leave these development failures for the next group of suckers that move in because we HAD great schools (but no longer do) and they can take our debt burdens on. As long as our officials beleive they can MUD their way to the future, the only MUD we will see is on all their faces.

  3. Here’s the link that the space is available:

    It used to say Fresh Market was the anchor.

    @SJMR – The mixed use projects approved by the city have a premise that they require a sold commercial tenant to support the residential component. We now have two mixed use projects that have not been able to secure commercial tenants. FCC does not assess the risk adequately for the mixed use development. Unless, of course, they try can hold back the certificate of occupancy on the apartments. We’ll see.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *