This morning’s headline in the CdA Press reads, “Buidler asks LCDC for overrun funds”. I love the first line: “A vacationing Coeur d’Alene condo builder is asking Lake City Development Corp. to help cover the costs on an an already completed condo project.” The article goes on to say there were cost overruns to the tune of $13,000 or $26,250 for which the owners & builder want to be paid. Well, which is it? Half as much or twice the price? Oh, but “it’s not a bailout” the builder said, in his phone interview from Mexico. Are you kidding me? You can read the full article here: http://www.cdapress.com/articles/2009/02/21/news/news01.txt
February 21, 2009
Are You Kidding Me?
13 Comments
RSS feed for comments on this post.
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
I just watched the latest CDA City Council meeting and the first speaker was Tony Berns, who basically is the one who runs LCDC.He stated that part of the mission of LCDC is to provide:’quality jobs and housing for all’.To me,quality jobs are the kind of jobs that pay a ‘living wage’.LCDC hasn’t yet,created enough living wage jobs IMO.
As far as LCDC creating housing for all.I ask for whom?
LCDC contributed funding for the Ice Plant Townhouses and Trailsedge Townhouses.On that parcel of land on Mullan Ave.off of 10 st.,there used to sit a mobile home park and my barber used to live there.Here is an example of gentrification,with LCDC complicit with the funding of these developments.If these developers are going to displace people from their homes,they need to at least give them something for their Mobile homes,if the owners have nowhere to move them to.Instead of just grinding their homes up and leaving people homeless.I would hope the state legislature can pass some laws to help these people out.
To summarize:I think it’s outrageous that LCDC contributed funds to help build townhouses for well-off out-of-towners and helps to displace people who aren’t as fortunate, from their homes.Even displacing people who have lived here their whole lives and have worked here for over 40 years, in favor of people who had little investment made in the community, but because of their good fortune are made to feel more welcome.
Ps.Tony Berns and the mayor stated;that they know nothing of a rumor about a parking structure replacing the old tennis courts at McKuen.
Comment by kageman — February 21, 2009 @ 8:12 pm
Actually kageman, it gets better. This is the same builder who, last August, fired most of his employees (except his daughter) giving only 2 weeks notice. This while retaining his some $90,000. per year salary. These were people with families and long term employment. No hint of trouble until he lowered the boom. And now this “considerate” man is vacationing in Mexico. What a charmer…Perhaps he can afford the Mexican vacation because he is hitting up the taxpayer for free money. And take note, apparently LCDC had already given funds for this private for profit construction.
Comment by Faringdon — February 22, 2009 @ 9:03 am
I have no problem with any business laying off employees, or even business owners making lots of money. It’s their choice to run their business the way they want, even if my/your choices would be different, because they are a private business. The minute they start taking taxpayer money, the equation changes. If public money is going to create private profit, which is what has been happening with LCDC’s funding of high-end condos, then the public should be able to demand accountability. The vacationing builder was an investor in the project, according to the Press, so his request for more public money while he’s on the beach in Mexico was especially disconcerting.
Comment by mary — February 22, 2009 @ 11:15 am
You know the Press didn’t have to report that he was on the beach in Mexico. They could have said, “out of town” or something equally ambiguous. Elliot knows he’s vacationing in Mexico, now we all do. That he asks proves that Tony Berns is dead wrong about the LCDC “priming the pump.” The LCDC is about rewarding friends. Period.
Comment by Dan — February 22, 2009 @ 12:06 pm
I find it interesting that this issue involves parking. The city lowered the parking requirement in residential areas as well as the downtown – to the benefit of those who increase the density. In the downtown and Midtown they shifted the financial responsibility of providing off site parking to the taxpayers by charging a paltry fee that does not begin to cover the cost of city or lcdc currently owned, recently owned or acquired or developed public parking. This will become a very costly issue to the taxpayers – one the city failed to discuss in depth in public. I envision a public/private partnership in the future.
Comment by Susie Snedaker — February 23, 2009 @ 7:53 am
To clarify my post. I don’t tell others how to run their business either. And clearly I disapprove of this mans behavior. Business in the red, many are. I don’t fault that. Need to lay off the workforce, unfortunate but no criticism there. It was the shockingly harsh way this man treated the people who made his business profitable. That being said, this project had received LCDC funds. This request, sent in an email, was for additional funding because costs had risen.
Comment by Faringdon — February 23, 2009 @ 8:52 am
As I have mentioned before, this neighborhood has really stepped up to fight for their rights. The city imposed a special overlay ordinance on this part of town about three years ago. I was on P&Z at the time and later came to regret our decision. No one showed up in opposition to the overlay, so we took the advice of the consultant from Seattle and passed the proposal. It was a big mistake because it allowed buildings too tall and too close to the lot lines for an ongoing residential neighborhood. We were told this area would change over to apartments and multifamily; that the residents were transient. That was very wrong. The residents were not at the meeting because the City never informed them about it, and we on P&Z didn’t realize that. The city’s rule is to send meeting notices to all property owners within 300 ft. of a suggested change, but we later found out they didn’t send any because it would cost a lot to mail that many notices. All they did was put a small notice in the legal section of the newspaper.
When the neighborhood realized what had happened, they were mad. They organized into a the East Mullan Historic District and came bounding down to city hall. Thankfully for the neighbors, there are some very big political names that live in their area, so the mayor and council quickly sat up and took notice. The overlay ordinance was changed several times but the approval for this Trails Edge condo building was already done. LCDC later gave them funding and now they want more. Parking, as Susie pointed out, is a problem on these residential streets. This area is so old that most of the houses were built before driveways and off-street parking were customary, so they all have to scramble for street parking.
Comment by mary — February 23, 2009 @ 9:25 am
Another issue with the Trails End project or any project is the lack of an ordinance establishing a beginning point for determining elevation. Trails End was able to berm up several feet above the established city curb thus increasing the allowable height of the project. This was an issue I brought forth several times when I served as a Planning Commissioner. I understand that the issue has yet to be addressed.
Comment by Susie Snedaker — February 23, 2009 @ 10:16 am
Another BIG problem is, there are many single family dwellings that have been converted into multi family. IMHO not ONLY does this add to the problem from one or two vehicles per dwelling to as many as eight or more but worse yet, takes away form the small town family atmosphere that once was the charm of CdA.
I would also like to note that there are some REAL slumlords that own these once beautiful houses.
Comment by concerned citizen — February 23, 2009 @ 11:10 am
I was driving in the Fort Grounds yesterday and noticed how terrible and slum-like the row of rental houses on Lincoln Way look–they are owned by LCDC.
Comment by mary — February 23, 2009 @ 11:28 am
Yes, the LCDC are slumlords here in the Fort Grounds. The neighbors hate it and have complained, which resulted in the LCDC paying money to clean up the trees and paint the houses (but only the sides facing the street). I asked Jim Elder what their plans are for the homes and he would only say, “It’s strategic.” What does that mean? Are the plans so vital to national security that they must be kept from the public?
If the LCDC wants to tear down the houses, tear them down! Otherwise we have a right to know what our government does with our money and they need to let some sunshine in on their decisions for the neighborhood.
Comment by Dan — February 23, 2009 @ 12:05 pm
Pride of ownership is definitely not a mantra in this city of excellence. Years of neglect downtown make the city appear tacky. The sign on the mayor’s awning, paid by urban renewal dollars, has long been lacking a letter here and there. With this in mind, it is hardly surprising to learn of shabby housing owned by lcdc.
Comment by Susie Snedaker — February 23, 2009 @ 3:43 pm
Dan, ask Elder again about the plans for the partially maintained slums in the Fort Grounds. If his answer is still stategic, ask him at what meeting were the strategic plans decided. Keep the pressure on.
Comment by Gary Ingram — February 23, 2009 @ 4:05 pm