Monday, December 17, 2007
RETURN TO ROOTS
I am a faithful NPR listener - and this morning WFTV featured a great local effort to attract people back home to their roots in Southwest Virginia. The Website is http://www.returntoroots.org/ and it is an organized effort to link those wanting to return to the area, to available jobs. Good job guys - thanks for making our job easier, and good luck!
Friday, December 14, 2007
VALLEY FORWARD'S TAKE ON THE INN
Friends, here is a statement release by Valley Forward. Questions, contact them directly. Comments - feel free to post.
The Rockledge Plan- Fact vs. Fiction
Several months ago, Valley Forward presented a vision for the Rockledge Inn. After listening to the concerns of the Fishburn family and our citizens, Valley Forward modified the original concept addressing each concern and ultimately forgoing the inn in favor of a significantly smaller community center. While the Roanoke community has enthusiastically responded to both the original inn idea and the more recent community center, there remains much misinformation about the Rockledge plan. We will separate fact from fiction.
Fiction: Valley Forward wants to destroy and desecrate the mountain.
Fact: Those against the plan portray themselves as the mountain’s protectors while those who support it are seen as trespassers. Most members of Valley Forward are Roanoke natives and have enjoyed it in many ways throughout our lifetimes. We hike it, bike it and a few (of the more ambitious) run up it. We take our kids and out-of-town guests to visit. We love the mountain, but recognize that we can add additional ways to enjoy it, while protecting existing uses. We believe a community center on Mill Mountain will broaden the mountain’s appeal and welcome everyone, including those who have not visited the mountain in many years.
Fiction: Valley Forward will personally benefit from the Rockledge Plan.
Fact: Valley Forward has no financial interest. The community-owned center would welcome every citizen and financially support the zoo and trails. We would help raise $1 million of the projected building cost of $2.5 - $2.75 million. This 33-40% “down payment” greatly reduces the risk of failure. The Mill Mountain Community Foundation would include representatives of the Fishburn family, MMAC, city council, zoo and others and would disburse 100% of profits to mountain entities. With rents from each restaurant and the Fishburn Community Room (free for non-profits), the center would produce $2.5 million over 20 years, $6 million over 30 and $11 million over 40 years.
Fiction: Valley Forward doesn’t understand the environmental impact.
Fact: Valley Forward remains committed to protecting and respecting the beauty of the Roanoke Valley while looking to enhance and add responsible uses for all citizens. Our inaugural Gallop 4 the Greenways, with generous sponsors and volunteers, raised $35,000 and helped bring the greenway cause much-needed awareness. We ardently support a Carvins Cove conservation easement. The proposed community center would be a LEED (Leadership in Energy & Environmental Design)-certified building, allowing the Roanoke Valley to make a bold statement about our community’s environmental commitment.
Fiction: Citizens are against this plan.
Fact: An independent poll commissioned by WDBJ Channel 7 found 66% vs. 26% support the project. The people of Roanoke want this by FORTY POINTS!
For perspective, if this poll were a U.S. presidential election, it would become- by a colossal margin- the most lopsided in history. (1920- Harding defeated Cox 60.3% to 34.1% or by 26.2 points)
News 7 Poll
Conducted by Survey USA; Dates conducted: 11/30/2007-12/02/2007
Sample size- 500 adults; Margin of error +/- 4.2%
Fiction: The Rockledge Plan is just a restaurant.
Fact: The plan has 3-parts: The Fishburn Community Room, designed for community use for civic groups, families, education, and weddings, just to name a few, a casual café for relaxing and enjoying the view, and a memorable destination restaurant. Bike racks and a water fountain would be added.
Fiction: A restaurant on Mill Mountain will fail.
Fact: Great location, a quality operator and financial strength are critical to success with restaurants. There is a huge difference between a poorly capitalized, inexperienced novice who guesses on location and menu, and a veteran with market research, significant funding, systematic site selection and a proven concept. The first almost always fails; the latter nearly always succeeds. All factors for success are present with Steve Parry of the Bookbinders.
Fiction: As a public park, no development was ever intended on Mill Mountain.
Fact: During Junius Fishburn’s lifetime, he allowed the construction of an 88-foot neon star, a fee-generating zoo and the continued presence of Rockledge Inn. Mill Mountain was, indeed, intended as a “public park,” but Mr. Fishburn’s conveyances specifically include language referencing “developed” and “improved” and mentions “…buildings, structures, and things similar thereto…”
Valley Forward only asks city residents to consider the Rockledge Plan with an open mind. We have proposed something we think would benefit all citizens, support other mountain amenities, and make an environmental statement. It’s should be up to the citizens of Roanoke to decide if they want it, or not.
Respectfully,
John D. Lugar, Chairman
Valley Forward
The Rockledge Plan- Fact vs. Fiction
Several months ago, Valley Forward presented a vision for the Rockledge Inn. After listening to the concerns of the Fishburn family and our citizens, Valley Forward modified the original concept addressing each concern and ultimately forgoing the inn in favor of a significantly smaller community center. While the Roanoke community has enthusiastically responded to both the original inn idea and the more recent community center, there remains much misinformation about the Rockledge plan. We will separate fact from fiction.
Fiction: Valley Forward wants to destroy and desecrate the mountain.
Fact: Those against the plan portray themselves as the mountain’s protectors while those who support it are seen as trespassers. Most members of Valley Forward are Roanoke natives and have enjoyed it in many ways throughout our lifetimes. We hike it, bike it and a few (of the more ambitious) run up it. We take our kids and out-of-town guests to visit. We love the mountain, but recognize that we can add additional ways to enjoy it, while protecting existing uses. We believe a community center on Mill Mountain will broaden the mountain’s appeal and welcome everyone, including those who have not visited the mountain in many years.
Fiction: Valley Forward will personally benefit from the Rockledge Plan.
Fact: Valley Forward has no financial interest. The community-owned center would welcome every citizen and financially support the zoo and trails. We would help raise $1 million of the projected building cost of $2.5 - $2.75 million. This 33-40% “down payment” greatly reduces the risk of failure. The Mill Mountain Community Foundation would include representatives of the Fishburn family, MMAC, city council, zoo and others and would disburse 100% of profits to mountain entities. With rents from each restaurant and the Fishburn Community Room (free for non-profits), the center would produce $2.5 million over 20 years, $6 million over 30 and $11 million over 40 years.
Fiction: Valley Forward doesn’t understand the environmental impact.
Fact: Valley Forward remains committed to protecting and respecting the beauty of the Roanoke Valley while looking to enhance and add responsible uses for all citizens. Our inaugural Gallop 4 the Greenways, with generous sponsors and volunteers, raised $35,000 and helped bring the greenway cause much-needed awareness. We ardently support a Carvins Cove conservation easement. The proposed community center would be a LEED (Leadership in Energy & Environmental Design)-certified building, allowing the Roanoke Valley to make a bold statement about our community’s environmental commitment.
Fiction: Citizens are against this plan.
Fact: An independent poll commissioned by WDBJ Channel 7 found 66% vs. 26% support the project. The people of Roanoke want this by FORTY POINTS!
For perspective, if this poll were a U.S. presidential election, it would become- by a colossal margin- the most lopsided in history. (1920- Harding defeated Cox 60.3% to 34.1% or by 26.2 points)
News 7 Poll
Conducted by Survey USA; Dates conducted: 11/30/2007-12/02/2007
Sample size- 500 adults; Margin of error +/- 4.2%
Fiction: The Rockledge Plan is just a restaurant.
Fact: The plan has 3-parts: The Fishburn Community Room, designed for community use for civic groups, families, education, and weddings, just to name a few, a casual café for relaxing and enjoying the view, and a memorable destination restaurant. Bike racks and a water fountain would be added.
Fiction: A restaurant on Mill Mountain will fail.
Fact: Great location, a quality operator and financial strength are critical to success with restaurants. There is a huge difference between a poorly capitalized, inexperienced novice who guesses on location and menu, and a veteran with market research, significant funding, systematic site selection and a proven concept. The first almost always fails; the latter nearly always succeeds. All factors for success are present with Steve Parry of the Bookbinders.
Fiction: As a public park, no development was ever intended on Mill Mountain.
Fact: During Junius Fishburn’s lifetime, he allowed the construction of an 88-foot neon star, a fee-generating zoo and the continued presence of Rockledge Inn. Mill Mountain was, indeed, intended as a “public park,” but Mr. Fishburn’s conveyances specifically include language referencing “developed” and “improved” and mentions “…buildings, structures, and things similar thereto…”
Valley Forward only asks city residents to consider the Rockledge Plan with an open mind. We have proposed something we think would benefit all citizens, support other mountain amenities, and make an environmental statement. It’s should be up to the citizens of Roanoke to decide if they want it, or not.
Respectfully,
John D. Lugar, Chairman
Valley Forward
Thursday, December 13, 2007
OPINIONATED PEOPLE
I love it... A good debate in the "Letters to the Editor."
Please don't hurt my Mountain....
Please build a nice restaurant on Mill Mountain....
Anyone curious? Skeptical? interested? Or are we all either FOR or AGAINST?
Please don't hurt my Mountain....
Please build a nice restaurant on Mill Mountain....
Anyone curious? Skeptical? interested? Or are we all either FOR or AGAINST?
Wednesday, December 12, 2007
BREAKING NEWS
Controversial loan to developers dies in tie vote
Condos, rather than apartments, now likely for former Grand Piano store building.
By Mason Adams
A performance-and-loan agreement that would have provided $880,000 for a developer to renovate the former Grand Piano building into 58 apartments in downtown Roanoke appears to be dead.
The Roanoke Economic Development Authority board of directors deadlocked 3-3 on a vote this morning to approve the agreement. Those who voted "no" said they didn't feel the project met the qualifications as an incentive to promote economic development that wouldn't otherwise happen.
The tie vote means the motion to approve the $880,000 grant fails. While it's still unclear whether the discussion could be resurrected next month, it appears more likely that developers Ed Walker and Scott Graeff will instead develop the building at 35 Campbell Ave. SW into condominiums.
"It's a real disappointment for Roanoke's economic development," Walker said. "If it doesn't go forward as apartments, it'll go forward as spectacular condominiums."
__________
What do you think friends? GOOD NEWS or BAD?
Condos, rather than apartments, now likely for former Grand Piano store building.
By Mason Adams
A performance-and-loan agreement that would have provided $880,000 for a developer to renovate the former Grand Piano building into 58 apartments in downtown Roanoke appears to be dead.
The Roanoke Economic Development Authority board of directors deadlocked 3-3 on a vote this morning to approve the agreement. Those who voted "no" said they didn't feel the project met the qualifications as an incentive to promote economic development that wouldn't otherwise happen.
The tie vote means the motion to approve the $880,000 grant fails. While it's still unclear whether the discussion could be resurrected next month, it appears more likely that developers Ed Walker and Scott Graeff will instead develop the building at 35 Campbell Ave. SW into condominiums.
"It's a real disappointment for Roanoke's economic development," Walker said. "If it doesn't go forward as apartments, it'll go forward as spectacular condominiums."
__________
What do you think friends? GOOD NEWS or BAD?
Tuesday, December 11, 2007
FUTURE OF MARKET BUILDING
Another letter to the Editor of Roanoke Times - again, referencing the needs of young professionals. What do you think guys - what is the best use of the Market Building?
Keep and improve the market building
I should be upset and grasping at my chest with the idea of our city government pushing around the idea of selling the City Market Building, but I'm not. I'm not at all surprised with the lack of vision these seven individuals have in regard to our quality of life and revitalization of our city's center.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but are we not already funneling hundreds of thousands of dollars into downtown with the hopes of attracting and retaining a younger demographic to Roanoke? These young individuals we are striving to attract are interested in such things as a City Market, downtown shops, social venues and the downtown living experience as a whole. If you take another component away from the equation, you are further derailing the initial idea.
City council needs to pick a direction and stay on course. If it is going to revitalize downtown, then it should do what it set out to do and revitalize it, not try to abandon ship and walk away. Roanoke does not need another Mountain View or Buena Vista situation. Be a responsible property owner and make the necessary improvements and renovations to the City Market Building.
JEFFREY CAMPBELL
ROANOKE
Keep and improve the market building
I should be upset and grasping at my chest with the idea of our city government pushing around the idea of selling the City Market Building, but I'm not. I'm not at all surprised with the lack of vision these seven individuals have in regard to our quality of life and revitalization of our city's center.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but are we not already funneling hundreds of thousands of dollars into downtown with the hopes of attracting and retaining a younger demographic to Roanoke? These young individuals we are striving to attract are interested in such things as a City Market, downtown shops, social venues and the downtown living experience as a whole. If you take another component away from the equation, you are further derailing the initial idea.
City council needs to pick a direction and stay on course. If it is going to revitalize downtown, then it should do what it set out to do and revitalize it, not try to abandon ship and walk away. Roanoke does not need another Mountain View or Buena Vista situation. Be a responsible property owner and make the necessary improvements and renovations to the City Market Building.
JEFFREY CAMPBELL
ROANOKE
DOWNTOWN LIVING
Friends - letter to the Editor in Roanoke Times today, about downtown living options and young professionals. What do you think? (1) Do we need rental options? (2) will that help attract / retain younger folks downtown?
Downtown apartments attract young workers
Ed Walker
Walker is a downtown Roanoke resident and a partner in the Hancock Building.
In a housing market like Roanoke's, public/private partnerships are essential to achieve difficult goals that strengthen the city's economy. Important questions have arisen with respect to the former Grand Piano building and that building's future use. This building was originally Hancock Dry Goods and is now referred to as the Hancock Building.
The question is whether the Hancock Building will go forward as an apartment building or become another condominium project. A difficult challenge exists because modern downtown apartment choices are a vitally important component of attracting and retaining talented young adults, yet apartment projects are much more difficult, risky and less feasible than condominium projects in markets like Roanoke. For these reasons you don't see any large-scale apartment construction projects under way downtown.
The decisions surrounding larger buildings like this one -- and how they are best used to benefit the city's urban core -- can have lasting and significant economic effects. Sometimes, maximizing economic impact requires private and public investment to achieve the greatest benefit for the city, especially when a particular building use (in this case, apartments) is disfavored and not sufficiently attractive to most private investors.
As a condominium project, the Hancock Building doesn't need a public/private partnership. The building is spectacular, and the construction is on time and on budget. It is one of the most compelling projects of its kind in the country. If the project doesn't proceed as apartments, it will proceed successfully and happily as condominiums that will sell out quickly and profitably. The developers' return will be higher than with apartments, and Roanoke will have lost a major opportunity in its ongoing effort to make itself economically stronger and attractive to younger professionals.
Apartments or condos -- does it really matter? Absolutely. To maximize continued economic development, the historic market area needs a high-quality apartment building to provide desirable, flexible and convenient housing to those young adults seeking the vitality and lifestyle of downtown living but who are not ready to buy. To compete better with Asheville, Charlottesville, Atlanta and Charlotte, we have to answer a typical 25-year-old's threshold question: "Where in downtown Roanoke could I rent a great loft apartment?" If we cannot answer that question favorably, Roanoke will have a nearly impossible challenge retaining and attracting the youth and intellectual capital it so desperately needs.
Well-educated and motivated young people are the lifeblood of any healthy city; we need to keep the few we have and attract as many more as possible. As a market group, these young adults insist on downtown living and its urban energy, restaurants and bars, live music and other cultural and lifestyle amenities.
Having more (and better) downtown apartments is essential for even a chance at attracting and retaining young professionals, and there is nowhere else many of them want to live -- it's downtown or nowhere. If Roanoke can't offer enough good downtown apartments, Roanoke will simply be crossed off the 25-year-old's list of prospective cities. There are so many positive economic effects related to a downtown with more apartments that appeal to young adults. A few of the more obvious benefits are that:
n Younger people spend more money and spend it more often. They visit their favored restaurants, bars, retailers, service businesses, museums and music venues more often and they buy more while there.
n Younger people cost the city and its taxpayers less by making fewer demands on expensive municipal services like schools.
n Younger residents are energetic supporters of cultural institutions and educational opportunities.
n Renters are rarely absent. A significant number of Roanoke's condominiums are second homes and therefore the economic impact of the occupants' spending is shared with other localities.
n More young people in quality apartments will create a more desirable age mix.
The city government is wise to use select public/private partnerships because they leverage community-minded developers' capital, time and expertise and make them absorb most of the risk, debt and difficulty for a project that is desperately needed and an important part of Roanoke's economic future.
If the fear is that wealthy developers are just going to get wealthier, fear not. As a business proposition, the financial return on apartments at the Hancock Building will do well to keep pace with bond returns. The real goal isn't so much for personal enrichment as it is for a collaboration that will help an important but unlikely building use become a reality. Hopefully, it's the city and its citizens that will be most enriched by filling the Hancock Building with apartments instead of condominiums.
Downtown apartments attract young workers
Ed Walker
Walker is a downtown Roanoke resident and a partner in the Hancock Building.
In a housing market like Roanoke's, public/private partnerships are essential to achieve difficult goals that strengthen the city's economy. Important questions have arisen with respect to the former Grand Piano building and that building's future use. This building was originally Hancock Dry Goods and is now referred to as the Hancock Building.
The question is whether the Hancock Building will go forward as an apartment building or become another condominium project. A difficult challenge exists because modern downtown apartment choices are a vitally important component of attracting and retaining talented young adults, yet apartment projects are much more difficult, risky and less feasible than condominium projects in markets like Roanoke. For these reasons you don't see any large-scale apartment construction projects under way downtown.
The decisions surrounding larger buildings like this one -- and how they are best used to benefit the city's urban core -- can have lasting and significant economic effects. Sometimes, maximizing economic impact requires private and public investment to achieve the greatest benefit for the city, especially when a particular building use (in this case, apartments) is disfavored and not sufficiently attractive to most private investors.
As a condominium project, the Hancock Building doesn't need a public/private partnership. The building is spectacular, and the construction is on time and on budget. It is one of the most compelling projects of its kind in the country. If the project doesn't proceed as apartments, it will proceed successfully and happily as condominiums that will sell out quickly and profitably. The developers' return will be higher than with apartments, and Roanoke will have lost a major opportunity in its ongoing effort to make itself economically stronger and attractive to younger professionals.
Apartments or condos -- does it really matter? Absolutely. To maximize continued economic development, the historic market area needs a high-quality apartment building to provide desirable, flexible and convenient housing to those young adults seeking the vitality and lifestyle of downtown living but who are not ready to buy. To compete better with Asheville, Charlottesville, Atlanta and Charlotte, we have to answer a typical 25-year-old's threshold question: "Where in downtown Roanoke could I rent a great loft apartment?" If we cannot answer that question favorably, Roanoke will have a nearly impossible challenge retaining and attracting the youth and intellectual capital it so desperately needs.
Well-educated and motivated young people are the lifeblood of any healthy city; we need to keep the few we have and attract as many more as possible. As a market group, these young adults insist on downtown living and its urban energy, restaurants and bars, live music and other cultural and lifestyle amenities.
Having more (and better) downtown apartments is essential for even a chance at attracting and retaining young professionals, and there is nowhere else many of them want to live -- it's downtown or nowhere. If Roanoke can't offer enough good downtown apartments, Roanoke will simply be crossed off the 25-year-old's list of prospective cities. There are so many positive economic effects related to a downtown with more apartments that appeal to young adults. A few of the more obvious benefits are that:
n Younger people spend more money and spend it more often. They visit their favored restaurants, bars, retailers, service businesses, museums and music venues more often and they buy more while there.
n Younger people cost the city and its taxpayers less by making fewer demands on expensive municipal services like schools.
n Younger residents are energetic supporters of cultural institutions and educational opportunities.
n Renters are rarely absent. A significant number of Roanoke's condominiums are second homes and therefore the economic impact of the occupants' spending is shared with other localities.
n More young people in quality apartments will create a more desirable age mix.
The city government is wise to use select public/private partnerships because they leverage community-minded developers' capital, time and expertise and make them absorb most of the risk, debt and difficulty for a project that is desperately needed and an important part of Roanoke's economic future.
If the fear is that wealthy developers are just going to get wealthier, fear not. As a business proposition, the financial return on apartments at the Hancock Building will do well to keep pace with bond returns. The real goal isn't so much for personal enrichment as it is for a collaboration that will help an important but unlikely building use become a reality. Hopefully, it's the city and its citizens that will be most enriched by filling the Hancock Building with apartments instead of condominiums.
Friday, December 7, 2007
FINANCIAL DETAILS OF MILL MT PROPOSAL
Hey guys - I cannot make any of the info sessions on Mill Mountain, but was curious about the financial arrangements..
Valley Forward Chairman, John Lugar sent me the following info via Blog Comment:
Lauren-
Thanks for your thoughts. The $1M solution is the only way this version of Rockledge works financially. Without private or civic ownership, there is no guarantor for the loan. The $1 million essentially becomes the guarantor, resulting in 33-40% of the project's cost would already be covered. What that much equity in the project, 3-5 community banks (as a consortium) would equally participate in non-recourse (not guaranteed) financing for the remainder.
The best part of this unusual financing package- at year 1, the foundation would realize $42K in cash flow. In subsequent years, due to annual 3% rent escalators, the cash flow would steadily increase, thereby allowing more funds to reach the zoo and/or the trails and greenways.
After 20 years, the loan would be retired, which makes the cash flow spike to a projected $183K (in yr. 20). On a cumulative basis, the first 20 years the MMCF is looking at $2.5M in cash to the zoo/trails; through 30 yrs. $6.5, and $11M+ over 40 years.
JDL
Valley Forward Chairman, John Lugar sent me the following info via Blog Comment:
Lauren-
Thanks for your thoughts. The $1M solution is the only way this version of Rockledge works financially. Without private or civic ownership, there is no guarantor for the loan. The $1 million essentially becomes the guarantor, resulting in 33-40% of the project's cost would already be covered. What that much equity in the project, 3-5 community banks (as a consortium) would equally participate in non-recourse (not guaranteed) financing for the remainder.
The best part of this unusual financing package- at year 1, the foundation would realize $42K in cash flow. In subsequent years, due to annual 3% rent escalators, the cash flow would steadily increase, thereby allowing more funds to reach the zoo and/or the trails and greenways.
After 20 years, the loan would be retired, which makes the cash flow spike to a projected $183K (in yr. 20). On a cumulative basis, the first 20 years the MMCF is looking at $2.5M in cash to the zoo/trails; through 30 yrs. $6.5, and $11M+ over 40 years.
JDL
INFO ON MILL MOUNTAIN PROPOSAL
Hey guys - want to learn more about Valley Forward's Mill Mountain Proposal?
Starting today - a few information sessions will be held for question / answer:
Friday, December 7th (11am-1pm)
Thurs, December 13th (5-7pm)
Each are at the Higher Ed Center (Room 408) and open to the public.
Starting today - a few information sessions will be held for question / answer:
Friday, December 7th (11am-1pm)
Thurs, December 13th (5-7pm)
Each are at the Higher Ed Center (Room 408) and open to the public.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)