Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Prestor Jon wrote:


The story about Water Valley MS is a good story but it would be difficult to replicate. Having a couple stop by your town, like it and have the means to buy up half a dozen buildings downtown, renovate them and lease them out at a low rate is the result of the confluence of a lot of factors. First the town had to become economically depressed enough for buildings to be valued as low as $10-12/sqft by comparison the asking price for retail buildings in Jackson MS (the state capital) is $98 and the average rent for retail space in the state is $12.61/sqft. http://www.loopnet.com/Jackson_Mississippi_Market-Trends
For the cost of leasing some retail space in a city in Mississippi you can buy the building outright in Water Valley. That's a hugely depressed market and it would be difficult to convince investors to invest in area that depressed for the benefit of getting a low rate of return. You have a small rural town of 3300 people wherein 20 people could afford to buy up 30 buildings downtown, renovate them and lease them or use them for businesses that could stay afloat because the rents were so low because the buildings were so cheap to buy. So normal market rates for retail space would have been too high for businesses to be successful in Water Valley. To recreate that you'd have to instill some kind of price controls on the downtown buildings but that would likely discourage people from wanting to invest in the buildings and force current businesses on existing rental agreements to compete against new businesses that were paying much lower rents and therefore able to undercut the prices of the older businesses. You'd probably need to just do eminent domain seizures like the Kelo case and have the town seize buildings that are vacant and lease them out at low rates based on the reasoning that the town makes more money from occupied buildings than vacant ones. Or find philanthropic rich people to buy up the buildings and lease them out on the cheap just to be nice.

The thing that is most troubling about the story is that it required outside money to come in and invest in the town. The town itself could not do it, but required two outsiders to come in with cash to buy up property. I have a feeling their were locals int eh community that would have liked to do something smiliar, but did nto have the same means as these outsiders.

How can Communities and groups think differently to create spaces for local entreprenuers to do something similar? I have heard a lot abotu micro-lending, how do these ideas mesh together? I am trying to stir some of my own thinking abit to get out of the box on this question of Community Downtown Redevelopment.

If the goal is to try to recreate a Water Valley type solution where downtown buildings can be leased for below market rates so businesses save on costs and make margins they can survive on then you need an investor. Maybe something like a semi philanthropic REIT that buys up downtown buildings and then leases them at low rates to benefit the local economy and is ok with getting a low return on their investment that hopefully stretches out over a long period of time that eventually turns a profit. Maybe get a HUD grant from the Federal Govt, a block grant to municipal authorities to fund the town buying back the buildings and then the town can lease out the buildings at low rates and get the benefit of increased commerce and tax revenue. In that scenario you still could have problems with owners who overvalue their properties and won't sell for fair market prices.

Another issue to contend with is trying to determine the primary factors behind a given downtown's struggles. Is the town in economic trouble overall? Are people leaving, is unemployment high, etc. Are there lots of vacancies downtown or are there business but they're struggling? In the latter case are the businesses struggling because they have bad business models, poor management, unpopular product or just low traffic? If traffic is low is it because downtown is hard to get to or because other areas in town are more attractive to people or both? If its a traffic issue people could try to petition the municipality to improve infrastructure, better mass transit, road improvements to decrease congestions, different parking regulations etc. Downtown areas are the oldest areas and sometimes age lessens their functionality so it might be worthwhile to revisit zoning laws, noise ordinances, building codes etc. that are limiting the amount of changes that can be made to an outmoded district.

There are some aspects of real estate and urban development that generally hold true everywhere but every location is still unique to a certain extent so solutions are going to have to be tailored to local circumstances.

Prestor Jon wrote:
The out of town landlord just seems like a bad business person. That's more likely than all 3 previous tenants signing leases with excessive escalator clauses. It definitely seems like the landlord doesn't have an accurate idea of what the correct value of the space is.

Maybe. Or more likely he knows his premises is worth just a little to a new business. But once that business has spent potentially hundreds of thousands on refurbishment and fixtures and fittings then the premises will be worth a hell of a lot more. The landlord is in effect getting you to pay more rent based on the value of the fixtures and fittings you added to the premises. This is a fairly exploitative, but it can also be quite profitable.

It appears in this case the problem is that the price hike is too great. A blackmailer can only take so much before the target snaps and then you get nothing.

For the cost of leasing some retail space in a city in Mississippi you can buy the building outright in Water Valley. That's a hugely depressed market and it would be difficult to convince investors to invest in area that depressed for the benefit of getting a low rate of return. You have a small rural town of 3300 people wherein 20 people could afford to buy up 30 buildings downtown, renovate them and lease them or use them for businesses that could stay afloat because the rents were so low because the buildings were so cheap to buy. So normal market rates for retail space would have been too high for businesses to be successful in Water Valley. To recreate that you'd have to instill some kind of price controls on the downtown buildings but that would likely discourage people from wanting to invest in the buildings and force current businesses on existing rental agreements to compete against new businesses that were paying much lower rents and therefore able to undercut the prices of the older businesses. You'd probably need to just do eminent domain seizures like the Kelo case and have the town seize buildings that are vacant and lease them out at low rates based on the reasoning that the town makes more money from occupied buildings than vacant ones. Or find philanthropic rich people to buy up the buildings and lease them out on the cheap just to be nice.

Well, no you wouldn't have to do that because you wouldn't be looking to recreate the Water Valley model in places that aren't depressed. That's the idea here, it is about what kind of life can be brought to areas where standard business models aren't working.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Prestor Jon wrote:
If the goal is to try to recreate a Water Valley type solution where downtown buildings can be leased for below market rates so businesses save on costs and make margins they can survive on then you need an investor.

It isn't about pushing rents below market rate. It's about accepting there are places where the market rate is already pretty close to zero because there is close to no business activity in the area at present. Most conventional business models fail even when rent goes down to almost zero because there is little economic activity that the yield will never be enough. But there are other business models that can flourish in those low rent environments, particularly if those business models put some emphasis on lifestyle over total profitability.

 sebster wrote:
particularly if those business models put some emphasis on lifestyle over total profitability.

Woah, woah, woah! What are you some kind of Socialist?!?!

I think we small towns need to stat getting creative with it. Is there the capability for a local, civic, non-profit, tax-exempt organization to buy up a variety of buildings and then lease them back at very low rates expecting to make no money on the offer but instead kickstart a local retail/business environment? Basically, it would be like an expanded small business incubator run by a combination of donations, rent/fees and local taxes? Or would this be a violation of some rules somewhere?

 Easy E wrote:
Woah, woah, woah! What are you some kind of Socialist?!?!

Actually I think I might be the last of the true liberals Whereas what I'm talking about is individuals making their own choice to pursue something other than maximum personal wealth. Nothing could be more free market than people freely choosing their own priorities

I think we small towns need to stat getting creative with it. Is there the capability for a local, civic, non-profit, tax-exempt organization to buy up a variety of buildings and then lease them back at very low rates expecting to make no money on the offer but instead kickstart a local retail/business environment? Basically, it would be like an expanded small business incubator run by a combination of donations, rent/fees and local taxes? Or would this be a violation of some rules somewhere?

I think it can work, but I get wary about it being government driven. Because government will not be paying low prices, they will end up paying a premium just because government cannot be an agile negotiator. And then any reconstruction will bring with it planners and local heritage experts, which will add all kinds of insane costs to renovations that will already be miles above what it would cost for the private sector to complete. All that cost means that while the local government might use peppercorn rents to get businesses in, government is still going to have to service the debt, which means the tax base pays somewhere along the line.

I'm not saying that version can't work, but it probably wouldn't be the best method in many places. Govt could instead provide low interest loans to people who wanted to restore and occupy local buildings - that way the building would get bought and renovated at the cheaper private sector rate. Or government could put up incentive cash, covering 50% of the first $20k of renovation work, stuff like that.

Isn't that what TIF and the likes is meant to do?

The probably I see it, is that these sort of government programs are taken advantage of wealthy corporation, who can spend the money on lawyers and campaign fundings to get favorable treatment.

These sort of things should be made easier for small businesses.

Or... maybe I'm just spitballing here...

<kinda interested in this, as muther fether Stan Kronke was rejected of a project near me>

 whembly wrote:
Isn't that what TIF and the likes is meant to do?

The probably I see it, is that these sort of government programs are taken advantage of wealthy corporation, who can spend the money on lawyers and campaign fundings to get favorable treatment.

These sort of things should be made easier for small businesses.

Or... maybe I'm just spitballing here...

<kinda interested in this, as muther fether Stan Kronke was rejected of a project near me>

TIF programs work well until the state decides that they'd rather have that sales tax revenue. It's like when we had payroll tax holidays and everyone had a bigger paycheck for a few weeks and spending goes up and the economy benefits but after a period the govt wants the payroll tax revenue back. In a depressed area the economic stimulus from TIF would hopefully be better than collecting the property tax.

You should be glad that the city turned down all the proposals to invest millions of dollars into developing in a flood plain. To get everything properly insured in that instance is probably going to require the state to get involved and you don't want tax payers on the hook when a bad season makes the river flood.

There shouldn't be any issues with a REIT or investor or charity or co-op or whatever buying a building and leasing it out at a low cost to allow a low profit business to be sustainable. The trick is finding somebody with the money to spend on such a project. It might be hard to find people with deep pockets to fund it in a depressed area, and it might be difficult to find outside investors when there's a low rate of return but you might be able to find a charity. I don't believe the US Small Business Administration awards block grants for that kind of redevelopment but it's probably the type of program they should look into starting. Given the current administration if we did create such a program it would probably require you to name at least one building after Trump.

 sebster wrote:


I think it can work, but I get wary about it being government driven. Because government will not be paying low prices, they will end up paying a premium just because government cannot be an agile negotiator. And then any reconstruction will bring with it planners and local heritage experts, which will add all kinds of insane costs to renovations that will already be miles above what it would cost for the private sector to complete. All that cost means that while the local government might use peppercorn rents to get businesses in, government is still going to have to service the debt, which means the tax base pays somewhere along the line.

I'm not saying that version can't work, but it probably wouldn't be the best method in many places. Govt could instead provide low interest loans to people who wanted to restore and occupy local buildings - that way the building would get bought and renovated at the cheaper private sector rate. Or government could put up incentive cash, covering 50% of the first $20k of renovation work, stuff like that.

What if it was a conglomerate or committee of private citizens working together under an umbrella organization such as a 501c3 or similar tax code (I am no expert).

Something one of our local communities has done is to partner with the local cahamber, a consortium of small businesses, Non-profits, and the city to launch a Mainstreet Challenge.

The group puts up $$$ and incentives to help a small business get started. Then, they businesses create business plans and compete for the money. One local town add about 10 new businesses in half a decade whiel another has added 2 more.

Thoughts?

 Easy E wrote:

The group puts up $$$ and incentives to help a small business get started. Then, they businesses create business plans and compete for the money. One local town add about 10 new businesses in half a decade whiel another has added 2 more.

Thoughts?

IMHO, it could work, but I think it'd be too easy to turn into a good ol' boys club.

A few of my old army buddies are African-Americans, and one of their complaints is a lack of AA owned businesses in their area. Now, one of them takes this into conspiracy theory territory (with some compelling evidence on his part) that this is yet another means for "whitey to keep black folk down"

I think I'd be more OK with the idea that you posit if the "losers" get some kind of free counselling or whatever you want to call it to say, "hey, reason X,Y, and Z is why we didn't like your business proposal, now here's some ideas of things you should do to fix that, and make your business plan look better" and thus allow them to better compete in the next "round" and so long as the process is done in an equitable way.

I live in a small, rural town. My grandmother has some buildings that she often doesn't rent out to people. Renters can easily cause more damage than they are worth. Part of her caution might be a holdover from when background checks were more difficult and there were rules that made it almost impossible to kick people out during the winter. I'm more thinking along the lines of residential buildings, but she has rented these buildings out to businesses too. There just aren't very many people looking for business space these days (the last "businesses" she rented to were the public library and ambulance, so they weren't really businesses exactly).

She's talked about just bulldozing them and being done with it so she doesn't have to pay the taxes, but we've talked her out of it. She built them with her own hands using a lot of materials from her homestead and it would be a shame to see them go.

I need to do more to try to revitalize things. I should probably join the community council, mostly to try to keep the from getting in on it, but there's no way in hell I could stand that job. I think I'm going to stick with planting fruit trees and trying to start new businesses. The community council is probably the only place where I can fight the who are trying to... gentrify isn't the right word... suburbanize the place?

@ Fraz

This is not a criticism but a question-what kind of landlords are these that don't care to rent something out?

My friend was looking into starting a business and the explanation he got was they use them as tax write offs. They either get you to pay through the nose for rent, and if the don't they right it off as a loss on their tax's, and still get paid for doing nothing.

 Easy E wrote:
What if it was a conglomerate or committee of private citizens working together under an umbrella organization such as a 501c3 or similar tax code (I am no expert).

It depends, I think. Sometimes the only thing worse than bureaucrat is a well meaning amateur It really depends on the terms and scope given to the committee. They need to have some power to shape an overall vision, otherwise you'll end up with just another strip mall. But they also need to have strict limits on what they can reject or influence. It's a tough balance.


But I think this is getting away from the main story in the article, which was about towns revitalizing by competing on wholly different terms to life in the big city. Its about a culture change, about a life that might be less materially rich but also with less pressure.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Easy E wrote:
Something one of our local communities has done is to partner with the local cahamber, a consortium of small businesses, Non-profits, and the city to launch a Mainstreet Challenge.

The group puts up $$$ and incentives to help a small business get started. Then, they businesses create business plans and compete for the money. One local town add about 10 new businesses in half a decade whiel another has added 2 more.

Thoughts?

I think local chambers like this are essential to good business environments. Incentive money, even if its just temp waivers on rates can be a big help, but in many cases these groups don't even need to offer up money, they just work with potential businesses to ensure the right infrastructure is in place, and that such local businesses are supported and will be supported going forward (making it clear for instance that they won't one day put a bus depot in front of someone's alfresco coffee shop).

I think Ensis Ferrae raises a fair point, though I have no idea how common such practices are these days.

The Good Ol' Boys Club is alive and well.... as a small business owner in a rural community I have seen it in action in my town and many nearby.

I even saw it in action with the Mainstreet project I mentioned above. However, all life is political.

@Dakka Flakka Flame- Can you tell me more about what you mean by "Suburbanizing"? I am wondering if what you are seeing is the same as what i am seeing around.

 Easy E wrote:
@Dakka Flakka Flame- Can you tell me more about what you mean by "Suburbanizing"? I am wondering if what you are seeing is the same as what i am seeing around.

So, I live in a pretty rural place. There's people who move out here, and then don't want to hear dog teams howling or rifles being shot. They don't want yard lights being left on and don't want to see parts cars parked in people's yards. They don't want to smell wood smoke or cow manure. The dog teams and junk cars and cows were all here before they moved in.

At the same time they do things like get a stupid flashing light at the intersection. They want the speed limit reduced to 45 MPH on the highway. They want all sorts of expensive power and infrastructure projects that will benefit very few people (these are people who chose to move way out down a gravel road miles past where the power lines stopped). Heck, the lunatics want police hanging around.

Next thing you know we're going to have zoning ordinances and HOAs and some extra layers of taxes. There are already a bunch of weirdos who think that bib overalls aren't appropriate work attire, snowmobiles and four wheelers shouldn't be on the road and people shouldn't smoke pot on main street because *gasp* children might walk by! Years ago I was saying that the barbarians are at the gates, well now they've been pouring through and I'm smelling the first whiffs of our thatch burning.

A lot of this is tangled up with the side issues of the State of Alaska's current financial situation, the Borough (county) starting to enforce some of its nonsense out here and the State and the Borough starting to give money and power to our Community Council which used to be just a club for jerks that we could safely ignore.

Sorry, this is turning into a whiny, butthurt rant.

Alot of that sounds pretty reasonable actually.
Overalls are not work attire. HOA are great(Mostly) and cars used for parts should be taken apart when you get them and stored.

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
Alot of that sounds pretty reasonable actually.
Overalls are not work attire. HOA are great(Mostly) and cars used for parts should be taken apart when you get them and stored.

Overalls can absolutely be work attire it just depends on the job. I've never seen any benefit from HOAs, they're either a needlessly intrusive financial drain that creates acrimony in the neighborhood or they don't collect dues and are largely ignored and therefore irrelevant. I would never choose to live somewhere that had an HOA.

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
Alot of that sounds pretty reasonable actually.
Overalls are not work attire. HOA are great(Mostly) and cars used for parts should be taken apart when you get them and stored.

You, sir, are an uncultured barbarian.

I understand that some people want to live in a place where all the houses are painted exactly the same color, you are required to maintain a lawn at a certain height and your neighbors measure the size of your mailbox to make sure you're in compliance. I know some people want to spend silly amounts of money on impractical tribal garb and expect others to do the same. I know some people enjoy using violence against people who want to keep a few chickens, distill a little moonshine and sell some home made pies to raise money for the elementary school. Different strokes for different folks, but the place for savages like that is in the suburbs. If civilized people tolerate those kind of backwards ideas spreading next thing you know we'll have inquisitors running around enforcing mandatory female circumcision, refrigeration of chicken eggs and building permits. It's too ghastly to even think about.

Long ago, when I first got online, people were complaining about something very strange on a forum. It took me a while to understand that they were complaining about a neighbor parking on his grass. Not the neighbor parking on the complainer's grass, but "Neighbor X" parking on Neighbor X's own grass. I couldn't understand how this was a problem. I asked and they said it made the neighborhood look like a junk yard. Of course that's nonsense, but I thought about it for a while and asked them "What's wrong with junkyards?" They told me to never leave Alaska and I decided I never would, but now the barbarians are here and they're starting to burn down one of the last bastions of civilization.


On the topic of revitalizing local communities, I think that advancements in telecommunications, automation, 3d printing and alternative energy could lead to something of a rural renaissance. I'm not sure how it will effect urban areas.

 Dakka Flakka Flame wrote:

 Easy E wrote:
@Dakka Flakka Flame- Can you tell me more about what you mean by "Suburbanizing"? I am wondering if what you are seeing is the same as what i am seeing around.

So, I live in a pretty rural place. There's people who move out here, and then don't want to hear dog teams howling or rifles being shot. They don't want yard lights being left on and don't want to see parts cars parked in people's yards. They don't want to smell wood smoke or cow manure. The dog teams and junk cars and cows were all here before they moved in.

At the same time they do things like get a stupid flashing light at the intersection. They want the speed limit reduced to 45 MPH on the highway. They want all sorts of expensive power and infrastructure projects that will benefit very few people (these are people who chose to move way out down a gravel road miles past where the power lines stopped). Heck, the lunatics want police hanging around.

Next thing you know we're going to have zoning ordinances and HOAs and some extra layers of taxes. There are already a bunch of weirdos who think that bib overalls aren't appropriate work attire, snowmobiles and four wheelers shouldn't be on the road and people shouldn't smoke pot on main street because *gasp* children might walk by! Years ago I was saying that the barbarians are at the gates, well now they've been pouring through and I'm smelling the first whiffs of our thatch burning.

A lot of this is tangled up with the side issues of the State of Alaska's current financial situation, the Borough (county) starting to enforce some of its nonsense out here and the State and the Borough starting to give money and power to our Community Council which used to be just a club for jerks that we could safely ignore.

Sorry, this is turning into a whiny, butthurt rant.

Sounds like issues we have in the UK.

Notorious examples? spankers buying cheap properties near well known night spots, then complaining about the music, which leads to the nightspot being closed down, despite the nightspot having been there for years

Prestor Jon wrote:
I've never seen any benefit from HOAs, they're either a needlessly intrusive financial drain that creates acrimony in the neighborhood or they don't collect dues and are largely ignored and therefore irrelevant. I would never choose to live somewhere that had an HOA.

I've live in an HOA now, and own a house in a non-HOA area, and can definitely see the difference, and value in them. Obviously, if you're looking at a house, and see it has an HOA requirement, read the rules before you purchase, see what the dues go toward/maintain, etc. I know a lot of people dig on HOAs for grass length rules and the like, but as an example, the area I'm in now, the rule is simply "cut and kept appearance" The neighborhood as a whole looks good, the fees are reasonable, and the acrimony is low. On that subject, here's a huge reason, in my experience for acrimony (particularly over how HOA funds are spent.): people do not attend monthly/periodic meetings. Every month my HOA has a meeting, and they go over the budget, including what funds are there, where they are going to, etc. At the annual meeting, we discuss those in greater detail: is the landscaping company hired to maintain the communal areas doing an adequate job? Are they doing the job in the first place? The people who most often bitch the loudest about fees and where money is going to, are the least informed, and it isn't as if meetings are sprung on anyone.

Compare that to my house in the non-HOA area. The next door neighbor, who I watched when they moved in, has a lawn mower. They moved in only a couple of weeks after I did (I moved in in late February of 13). Nobody in that household mowed the grass until late august. There were toys strewn about the yard, the outside of the place was trashed by July. All of these issues are ones that could/would be helped by an HOA. And I have issue with that, because that person's lack of caring actually harms the value of MY house, which I have major issues with.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:

Notorious examples? spankers buying cheap properties near well known night spots, then complaining about the music, which leads to the nightspot being closed down, despite the nightspot having been there for years

Reminds me, unironically, of the apartment complex that went in up the street from my buddy's place.... They built an apartment complex barely 400m away (if that) from a drag strip. The people who moved in can clearly see the strip BEFORE signing any paperwork, but move in anyway and then complain about noise on Friday and Saturday nights. The drag strip did make some (one) concessions: They cut racing off one hour earlier than they did

We had a local bloke move back from the city with his foreign bride. They moved back into the village and got a house next to the church. A week later, they had asked for the church bells to stop ringing the hours. Centuries of tradition, and the bells were used by everyone in earshot to keep time without needing a watch (which everyone had anyway).
I think they got their way, too.

Long ago, when I first got online, people were complaining about something very strange on a forum. It took me a while to understand that they were complaining about a neighbor parking on his grass. Not the neighbor parking on the complainer's grass, but "Neighbor X" parking on Neighbor X's own grass. I couldn't understand how this was a problem. I asked and they said it made the neighborhood look like a junk yard. Of course that's nonsense, but I thought about it for a while and asked them "What's wrong with junkyards?" They told me to never leave Alaska and I decided I never would, but now the barbarians are here and they're starting to burn down one of the last bastions of civilization.

In the South we have a term for people who act like this - "trash."

Reminds me, unironically, of the apartment complex that went in up the street from my buddy's place.... They built an apartment complex barely 400m away (if that) from a drag strip. The people who moved in can clearly see the strip BEFORE signing any paperwork, but move in anyway and then complain about noise on Friday and Saturday nights. The drag strip did make some (one) concessions: They cut racing off one hour earlier than they did

Inversely, property owners have no right to trespass on the rights of other property to enjoy their property via noise or pollution.

 Skinnereal wrote:
We had a local bloke move back from the city with his foreign bride. They moved back into the village and got a house next to the church. A week later, they had asked for the church bells to stop ringing the hours. Centuries of tradition, and the bells were used by everyone in earshot to keep time without needing a watch (which everyone had anyway).
I think they got their way, too.

I thought British (and German villages where they speak English with a bad German accent) just took care of that sort of situation with fire and pitchforks?

 Frazzled wrote:

 Skinnereal wrote:
We had a local bloke move back from the city with his foreign bride. They moved back into the village and got a house next to the church. A week later, they had asked for the church bells to stop ringing the hours. Centuries of tradition, and the bells were used by everyone in earshot to keep time without needing a watch (which everyone had anyway).
I think they got their way, too.

I thought British (and German villages where they speak English with a bad German accent) just took care of that sort of situation with fire and pitchforks?

Now that you mention it... We never saw them out during daylight ...

This is my local venue, a mere five minutes from my cushy flat

It's an ace place for live music - Brit Award winning Rag'n'Bone Man cut his teeth there, and it's previously held the prestigious NME Best Small Venue Title.

Just down the Common from it used to be a Shell Petrol Station, since demolished. And replaced with ludicrously expensive 'luxury' flats.....

Forum is already braced to fend off the usual 'nuisance noise' claptrap from the resident mugged into buying such properties.

Our town recently approved a new development in the downtown. It is an apratment building, and I was really excited for the community to start following the trend of mixing more commerical and retail space together into downtown. This is a strategy supported by many urban developers and similar experts to create a residential base of support int eh retail zone of downtown.

Instead, they decided to make it a low-income apartment building. That pretty much tells you what our city thinks of downtown.

I guess I will need to start buying buildings and renovating them myself. However, I don't think one lowly wargamer has the scratch to do it all on their own in one lifetime. However, that seems to be the springboard in the original article. One couple who bought a lot of property and renovated it all themselves. Maybe that is the spark it takes.

 Easy E wrote:
Our town recently approved a new development in the downtown. It is an apratment building, and I was really excited for the community to start following the trend of mixing more commerical and retail space together into downtown. This is a strategy supported by many urban developers and similar experts to create a residential base of support int eh retail zone of downtown.

Instead, they decided to make it a low-income apartment building. That pretty much tells you what our city thinks of downtown.

I guess I will need to start buying buildings and renovating them myself. However, I don't think one lowly wargamer has the scratch to do it all on their own in one lifetime. However, that seems to be the springboard in the original article. One couple who bought a lot of property and renovated it all themselves. Maybe that is the spark it takes.

Do you think wealthy people want to live in an apartment next to commercial? EDIT: this statement is not meant as a criticism, but a question.

Ontario seems to love needless regulation, to the point where it will kill itself and still feel the regulation wasn't to blame.
I lived in a small town (and hated it), the downtown was basically barren, the rent was so high there the few businesses left moved to the edge of town and made a new sort of downtown there.
So hey maybe other towns ought to try that, buy up cheap land on the outskirts and just make a new downtown!
They finally tore down all the ruined factories, but there's abandoned buildings all over town, some have been like that for 30 years.
The idea of owning my own business is insane to me, but I live in the city and a crappy one at that.
That town was a miserable place and most rural areas in Ontario I've seen are like that.
I always found small towns to be very unfriendly and ugly places, I have nothing but disdain for them.

On the issue of people complaining about noise pollution against clubs and the like that were there before they moved in... just remember that just because a club has been making lots of noise for a long time it doesn't mean it ever fit local codes.

It's an obnoxious thing to move in and start trying to change the area you moved in to, but it does make sense if you consider these clubs were often in breach for years, but no-one ever followed through on a complaint before.

It's a whole other issue when people start trying to change local by-laws to force a local club in to non-compliance, there's a special level of hell for people who try that nonsense.

 Frazzled wrote:

Reminds me, unironically, of the apartment complex that went in up the street from my buddy's place.... They built an apartment complex barely 400m away (if that) from a drag strip. The people who moved in can clearly see the strip BEFORE signing any paperwork, but move in anyway and then complain about noise on Friday and Saturday nights. The drag strip did make some (one) concessions: They cut racing off one hour earlier than they did

Inversely, property owners have no right to trespass on the rights of other property to enjoy their property via noise or pollution.

See... here's the problem I have though. The race track had been there for 10-15 years, and had been running races till 3am on Friday and Saturday nights. So, I really do think that the building/development company was wrong in the first place for building where they did, and I think the people who moved in, KNOWING that there was a race track there, have no leg to stand on when complaining.

And as I said, they (the race track) made the concession of ending races at 2am instead of 3, because the city said, "there ain't nothin we can do, if you got a problem, you can deal with the track, they are completely legal where they are"

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

Reminds me, unironically, of the apartment complex that went in up the street from my buddy's place.... They built an apartment complex barely 400m away (if that) from a drag strip. The people who moved in can clearly see the strip BEFORE signing any paperwork, but move in anyway and then complain about noise on Friday and Saturday nights. The drag strip did make some (one) concessions: They cut racing off one hour earlier than they did

Inversely, property owners have no right to trespass on the rights of other property to enjoy their property via noise or pollution.

See... here's the problem I have though. The race track had been there for 10-15 years, and had been running races till 3am on Friday and Saturday nights. So, I really do think that the building/development company was wrong in the first place for building where they did, and I think the people who moved in, KNOWING that there was a race track there, have no leg to stand on when complaining.

And as I said, they (the race track) made the concession of ending races at 2am instead of 3, because the city said, "there ain't nothin we can do, if you got a problem, you can deal with the track, they are completely legal where they are"

I will restate. Legally (general legal theory) one cannot assault my property rights without permission or recompense. It doesn't matter if they were there first, they were trespassing then too.

Reality however of course means whoever has more money wins.