Yes, the Education Corridor is not about education. I just came back from tonight’s presentation and I can proudly confirm that the Education Corridor is all about commercial development of the old mill property. Commercial development.
There was not one mention of a classroom. There was not one mention of an educational facility. Nothing for staff. Nothing for administration. No classrooms at all. Nope. There was plenty about commercial development on River Drive, as shown in the image above. That’s the diamond in this showcase project.
Folks, NIC is taking $10,000,000 of your property tax dollars and spending on the old Mill Site so that some developer can get rich building up the new College Main Street along River Drive. That’s the gist of tonight’s presentation.
And it makes me ill.
This is about the rich getting richer. Period.
Comment by Pariah — July 10, 2008 @ 8:45 pm
Dan, the brochure page that you show of the buildings and street is very pretty. Who’s going to own and pay for those buildings on the 17 acre DeArmon Mill site? What role will LCDC have in susidizing the commercial development on the Education Corridor? I was also amazed that so much of the talk at the meeting was about economic development.
Comment by mary — July 10, 2008 @ 10:03 pm
I can see LCDC somehow, getting involved in the commercialization of the area along the road going towards the De Armond mill site heading west,from the old YMCA.The city would love to clean-up that area.Like get rid of the old bar there and the old zenith TV repair shop across the street.
Wasn’t there talk of a sports complex on the mill site itself?
IMO-URA’s were created by businessmen,for business people.Is an LCDC good for the plebeians in our society or are they just good for
the elitists or rich people?
Comment by kageman — July 10, 2008 @ 10:42 pm
I found it odd that the only economic benefit they used in support of the private development of the site was property taxes, but they considered every possible economic benefit to support the plan for the education corridor. They actually claimed that even though their model showed that commercial development would result in buildings worth over $120 million, they would only bring in around $8 thousand per year in sales tax benefit. He even said it with a straight face!
I asked why they did not compare apples to apples, and you should have seen their consultant squirm as he tried to defend their slanted criteria. I would love to see the “instructions” given to them by NIC. I suspect they said something like “whatever you do, make sure it looks like an economic boon to build an education corridor”
I wish the taxpayers had the resources to buy their own study to protect their interests. I neither support nor oppose the ed corridor, I would just like to see local government try to spend money a little bit more carefully, and put this plan to a public vote.
Comment by Spencer — July 11, 2008 @ 4:51 am
What would have been logical would be to compare their projected economic impact of the commercial development they support to the proven economic impact of the mill that just closed: jobs, property taxes, ripple effect. All that is known data. But they didn’t.
Their problem is that education impact is not keyed to location. The guy admitted that. But, again, aside from giving lip service to education as an institution, there was nothing in the presentation yesterday about classrooms. Nothing.
Comment by Dan — July 11, 2008 @ 6:43 am
I’d like to add that the only mention of “students” in the presentation was in the guise of them as a consumer or customer, specifically of the retail space being planned.
Comment by Dan — July 11, 2008 @ 7:04 am
The Ciy may buy the land, LLCDC may develop commercial structures, BUT the Kootenai County taxpayer will eventually be asked to build the college buildings. It is my prediction that this is where the railroad will end. Just as we watched CdA School District levy request go down in flames, so will this. Memories of wasted money runs long in Kootenai County.
I can well imagine Post Falls residents blocking the construction by building their own community college for a reasonable price and thumbing their nose at the City of CdA. After all, this will be a Coeur d’Alene Community College…so I say let them have the coming monster, but keep the county out of it!
I am strongly in favor of education, but the corridor has nothing to do with education.
Comment by Mama Bear — July 11, 2008 @ 7:07 am
It is a classic shell game. “Education” is the buzz word but business development is the real goal. Talk about shoving a stick in the spokes of education! The plan outlined puts education on a very distant back burner. On the front burners sit the LCDC and more development at the expense of the citizens.
Comment by Wallypog — July 11, 2008 @ 8:54 am
We were lied to.
They claim that we are “against education.” That’s because it’s easier to label someone than it is to have an open, honest debate. You think Sandi Bloem and Mike Kennedy want to openly debate Mary Souza or myself? No way! They’d be exposed for what they are.
No one is against education. I am, however, against the abuse of education dollars and the lack of process.
In the brochure distributed last night, it claims that the Education Corridor has been under public scrutiny for 26 years. That’s a lie. It’s only mentioned in one paragraph for the first time ever in NIC’s published 2002 plan. There are no meeting minutes from any public meeting regarding the Education Corridor ever. Not once. No debate. That’s because, turns out, it’s not about education at all, but about commercial development!
Didn’t Wendy Gabriel say it was 12 years in the public eye? Man, I wish they’d get their “facts” straight. You’d think with all the secret meetings that they’d agree on a time table.
No one has said anything about relocating the entire campus to the prairie.
No one has said that they want condos in that area.
We have asked for studies on traffic impact. We don’t have it.
We have asked questions about classroom space. We don’t have it.
We have asked for public meetings and open dialog. We don’t have it.
We’ve expressed concerns about development and people making money from that development. We got it!
NIC is using public money targeted to education to help support million dollar commercial development on River Avenue. THAT, ladies and gentlemen, is what the “Education Corridor” is all about.
As a personal note: I have always said that I prefer that area be turned into a park. I have not wanted commercial development at all. A campus would have been a good choice as well, but only when the public is involved in the process and we are assured that we are getting the best value for those education dollars.
Comment by Dan — July 11, 2008 @ 9:18 am
Are those affordable condos above the commercial development in the picture? Education and affordable are indeed the favored buzz words these days. It appears to me as well that this is about development – the selling of property to pay for the land. Although the increase in tax revenue was noted for the proposed commercial development, what was not stated was the fact that those taxes will be paid to LCDC rather than to the city general fund.
Comment by Susie Snedaker — July 11, 2008 @ 9:46 am
As far as the old De Armond mill site,I’d like to see the strip of land right by the Spokane River,be turned into a city park.The middle section of the 17 acre mill site,
should be used by the college.Then the back of the parcel should be used for parking.IMO.
Land is too expensive today,not to have multiple uses on a parcel of land;like the education corridor area.
Comment by kageman — July 11, 2008 @ 10:03 am
Kageman, those are great ideas. It’s just sad that there has never been an opportunity for concerned citizens to express them, especially in an environment and at a time where they would hold the value they deserve.
Comment by Dan — July 11, 2008 @ 10:14 am
That’s quite a rendering of the New Hubbard Avenue in the Master Plan glossy brouchure that was handed out. I realize the presentation was all conceptual, but where are they going to get the 200 year old trees pictured? The only firs of this size and age are right at the enterance past the railroad tracks which partially screen the view of the sewer plant. There is not another stand of firs of any size until the campus library area.
Comment by Gary Ingram — July 11, 2008 @ 12:57 pm
Gary, those are not fir, they are ponderosa pine trees. I thought the picture was funny for the reason that even if there were trees in this area, “P Pine” trees would die if they had a road built that close to them, as they have sensitive roots, but that is the smallest problem of that silly publication.
Comment by Spencer — July 11, 2008 @ 2:17 pm
Dan, it was 2003, not 2002 that the EDC was mentioned in the “NIC – Self Study” report. I was on the NIC BD from 11/1998 to 11/2004. I have extensive notes, copies of BD agendas, with comments, and notes concerning ES discussions. As does my attorney. Let me know if you have any questions. Fred Ostermeyer
Comment by Fred Ostermeyer — July 11, 2008 @ 7:30 pm
Thank you, Fred. I think it would be interesting for someone to do a public records check for the past 26 years and document A) all mentions of the Education Corridor in any public document, B) dates of any public meetings or discussions of he Education Corridor, and C) newspaper articles about the Education Corridor. It should be a short list, especially prior to 2003.
Comment by Dan — July 11, 2008 @ 7:56 pm
There was no mention of the Education Corridor in the adopted Coeur d’Alene Comprehensive Plan 1995.
Comment by Susie Snedaker — July 11, 2008 @ 8:29 pm
Kageman, you need to get out more. Both the old YMCA Building and the “old tavern” have been extensively remodeled.
I should know. We spent alot of hard earned money doing it!
Comment by SteveW — July 11, 2008 @ 8:54 pm
Whoa! Whoa! Whoa!
You mean private enterprise can do capitalism? According to some on our City Council, without the LCDC capitalism would fail in Coeur d’Alene! I’m shocked!
Comment by Dan — July 11, 2008 @ 9:02 pm
Dan, what do you see as the highest and best use of the mill property?
Comment by SteveW — July 11, 2008 @ 9:08 pm
To SteveW, Did you request financial assistance from the City concerning your two mentioned properties?
Comment by Fred Ostermeyer — July 11, 2008 @ 9:18 pm
Fred, we did ask for assistance on sidewalks, right of way landscaping and alley paving. We were told no on both projects.
Comment by SteveW — July 11, 2008 @ 9:21 pm
Were you given a reason?, was it in writing?
Comment by Fred Ostermeyer — July 11, 2008 @ 9:27 pm
Fred,
No we werent given a reason.
Comment by SteveW — July 11, 2008 @ 9:31 pm
Good question.
First priority is to provide expansion for the existing wastewater facility.
My second priority would be to purchase the land around that facility for a public park. We have a downtown park already in Tubbs Hill, but Tubbs is not well-suited for bicycles or the disabled. A nice, organic park around the wastewater plant would allow for expansion, provide additional public access to the waterfront, and add another downtown park, which is so rare in any city.
Third, I’d like to see the old railway lines be used for more parking, not only for the park but for downtown and events.
But these are only my thoughts. Ideally, I’d like to see full public input on the area and suggestions from everyone. The Education Corridor or expansion of NIC would be valid projects and deserve equal attention. Even commercial development deserves a look, but for any development we must put a high priority on the impact on infrastructure, specifically traffic.
There are an abundance of good ideas out there. Were I an elected official, I would above all ensure that any decision made include the public from Alpha to Omega in the process.
Comment by Dan — July 11, 2008 @ 9:32 pm
Dan,
So it looks as if you are in favor of the public purchase of this property? I would like to see a KMC style parking structure built on part of the land. It is a shame to use all of that valuable space for parking. I am also in favor of exercising the option to purchase the property at 10 mil OR appraised price whichever is less. If the option is allowed to lapse then Stimson is free to sell the land to whomever. If it goes to a private party then the things that you would like to see may not be possible. The opportunity to lock up that property is before us. I dont think we want to lose that opportunity.
Comment by SteveW — July 11, 2008 @ 9:46 pm
I would favor the public owning the land as the best use, however I think all options should be set on the table. A parking garage, for example, would help with events as well as NIC parking. NIC has lots of expansion possibilities available if there were a large parking garage nearby for students. But I don’t believe the Fort Grounds Neighborhood is fond of a parking structure. Again, with public participation in the process, these things would become known.i
Comment by Dan — July 11, 2008 @ 9:54 pm
So we can agree that the first step in this process is that we , the public, needs to acquire the land. We can all squabble about the various details of what is the best public use but if we dont own it, we will have no say what so ever. If the option from Stimson to Chesron lapses then Stimson is free to open up discussions with anyone. So it appears that time is of the essence here.
Comment by SteveW — July 11, 2008 @ 10:02 pm
I believe Chesrown has said in the press that he has until 2009 to close on the deal. I also get the impression that things do not need to move that fast. But then again, I get the impression that things must move fast. The mixed signals, of course, are a source of concern.
It would be curious to see whether any developer is interested in the property. That’s one big missing piece of the puzzle here. It’s my theory that Chesrown was sold Atlas and DeArmond as a package deal, though that might not be correct. If not, then it would be interesting to know whether other offers have been made on the property and what those developers have in mind. But to my knowledge, no one has shown any interest in the thing. Again, knowing why there is little interest would also be, well, of interest. đŸ™‚
Comment by Dan — July 11, 2008 @ 10:10 pm
Dan,
On another note I think that the whole dispute that is currently going on between yourself,Mary and others and the city government has really reached a bad stage. I think that all of you have some very good ideas. There are some very intelligent people on both sides of this issue. Debate is good. But I think this has spiraled out of control. We currently are having one giant peeing match and I think everyone is getting real frustrated. It is the us vs them mentally on both sides. I am of the opinion that even with intelligent people on both sides of this issue that there is blame to go around as well on both sides for the current state of this debate. Do you see any way for both sides to meet in the middle here and do the right thing for all of the citizens of CdA? Or am I all wet and this debate is actually healthy?
Comment by SteveW — July 11, 2008 @ 10:19 pm
I’m sad that you think that, Steve. All I ask for is public input on the process. That’s a ball that the Mayor serves from her court. I can hold all the meetings I want, but the public officials are the ones who must invite the public to their meetings and to be a part of their decision process. I show up at every meeting I can make. Flatly, the decision makers are not interested in anything I have to say. My number is in the book. If I were asked, I would reply. I’ve not been asked.
By the way, I am not advocating a parking structure. I am merely stating that it’s a valid thing to consider. If 51 percent of the people hate it, then we don’t do it. But we don’t know that until we ask.
Comment by Dan — July 11, 2008 @ 10:30 pm
Dan,
Thanks for the discussion. I hope the end result of this debate is a project we can all be proud of.
P.S. The idea for a parking structure is a good one. I am all for less asphalt and more green space!
Comment by SteveW — July 11, 2008 @ 10:35 pm
The bottom line is:if the De Armond mill site falls into private hands,we will see more condos going up along the Spokane River.Is that what we want?I’d rather see an education Corridor along the river,
than more condos being built.
The same goes for all the vacant ground left along the Spokane River.
I’d hate to wake up one day, to see condos lining a great deal of the river bank.
Comment by kageman — July 11, 2008 @ 11:14 pm
Nope. Taking produtive land off the tax rolls ought to always be subject to extraordinary scrutiny. If the public good is the goal, tax revenues (keeping land in the hands of taxpayers) versus tax expenditures (buying land for governemnt) need to be openly discussed and weighed. Especially if the end result is taxpayer funds buying land and then gifting same to private developers who then lease that land back to government. A scenario I find very possible with regards to this particular acquisition.
Comment by Pariah — July 12, 2008 @ 6:49 am
There should be a city plan for this real estate so that its development is coherent with traffic, business, etc…. But it should be private enterprise that purchases and develops the land. If that ends up being condos or a La Jolla style business community that’s fine. It is private money, private risk and private profits or losses all in keeping with public planning.
Comment by Wallypog — July 12, 2008 @ 7:34 am
The drawing of the campus shows condos and retail space. It does NOT show a learning center.
SteveW,
How does all of this condo/retail space relate to an education? Sounds to me like more of the “good ole bois” and speculators trying to capitalize through the LCDC at tax payers expense—AGAIN!
Dan,
I agree the first thing would be to expand the treatment plant for growth well into the future and THEN figure out what would be the best use of this property. I think you will find that after expantion of the treatment plant and safety zone around it, there wont be much left for education LET ALONE retail and condos.
The late great George Carlin said, “Lets build some apartments, sell them individually We can charge rent, UH, UH, I mean “association dues” and “common fees” and make the tenants, UH, UH, I mean owners even pay the taxes. the sweet deal is, we will still own the land.
What are we goin to call this “CON” that is going to make us a lot of “DOUGH”?
Comment by concerned citizen — July 12, 2008 @ 7:58 am
What does all this have to do with education for Kootenai County students? I hear how the corridor will attract out of state students, benefit the developers and be a bonus for the city ot CdA. What happened to the students? As a county resident, I could give a hoot about the benefits of the corridor or land purchase by CdA. I care about affordable education for Kootenai County students.
All of you living in the city seem to be dwelling on the wrong issue. The real issue is what is best for the students. This is what is being lost as the City diverts the conversation to economic development.
The City has successfully diverted the conversation to economic development from affordable, quality education.
Please keep your eye on the ball…education.
Comment by Mama Bear — July 12, 2008 @ 9:10 am
Comment by Wallypog — July 12, 2008 @ 7:34 am
“But it should be private enterprise that purchases and develops the land. If that ends up being condos or a La Jolla style business community that’s fine”.(are you a developer?)
No that’s NOT fine!As a Native,I would hope people would come out of the woodwork and oppose the building of condos along the Spokane River;if that’s all developers want to build.
Do we really want condos built from NIC all the way to the Post Falls dam,wherever vacant land is available.
The people of this county rose up and fought for Tubbs Hill.One day we might have fight for the Spokane River.
BTW-they have enough condos to sell for many years to come.Dixie said:
that the building of these condos for part-time residents was “a good deal”.A good deal for who?The county, so our public officials can keep building their pet projects?It’s certainly,not a good deal for the young couple raising kids,who are priced out of the RE market.
Even Dan admits,that LCDC is complicit in the raising of RE prices,when they help subsidize these developers who build high-end condos,Townhouses etc.
Comment by kageman — July 12, 2008 @ 11:10 am
And they would be. If I were in such a position, I would put public acquisition of the land up to a vote; the public would have to approve the bond to purchase the land. The impact of commercial development would obviously be brought out as an argument against passage of the bond. My goal would be attained, which is to bring these issues out into the public for debate.
But between you and me: no developer wants that property. If it were truly worth the millions claimed, Chesrown would either develop it himself or sell it to the highest bidder. That’s not happening, so draw your own conclusions.
Comment by Dan — July 12, 2008 @ 11:33 am
By a vote of the people, OK. By fiat from the “Pretty People, not so much.
The economics of development have changed by a large margin over the last 36 months. Methinks this $10,000,000 is now in the nature of a “bail-out” package more than anything else. Not a good deal for the “forgotten man”, the taxpaying working stiff.
Comment by Pariah — July 12, 2008 @ 3:59 pm
i understand the theory behind a ‘vote of the people’ but in reality only about twenty to twenty-five percent of ‘the people’ vote in most elections so it is not really the democratic ideal that some people present it as. it is more a sign of who can excite their followers to vote and it is easier to excite people to be against something (especially when the something costs money). did they present the appraisal at the meeting?
Comment by reagan — July 12, 2008 @ 7:03 pm
If you have a better idea for getting more than 20% to vote, I’m sure Dan English would love to hear from you!
No appraisal. They’re supposedly working on one. I would like to see three, especially a professional appraisal done by someone who’s offices are at least two states away.
Comment by Dan — July 12, 2008 @ 7:08 pm
Please set me straight- have I been out of the loop-
Isn’t this land to be used for an Education Corridor? Is this correct? An expansion of NIC along with LCSC, U of I and whom ever else to promote higher education in this area?
Now where does all this commerical buildings come into play in the realm of education along the education corridor? This will look like Riverstone South. I will be waiting for the cement pond/swimming hole, the condo/lofts and boutique shops. Will there be room or space for educational buildings in this development. The condo/lofts should be replaced with dorms; the boutique shops should be bookstores, and commons areas and the pond area should be benches along the river so students can study and contemplate what they are learning.
Also, am I correct in assuming that the taxpayer will not be voting on this project — that it is a done deal by NIC and Chesrown – without any say from the taxpayer.
Also, as a taxpayer, I have no say in what is to be built on this property?
Also, as a taxpayer, as having any say, comment, idea or voice this project I am pretty much screwed? That is what I thought! Follow the money!
Comment by ShyAnn — July 12, 2008 @ 8:16 pm
We could probably get a better voter turnout if:
1. We could have material pertaining to a matter printed and sent to every registered voter.
2. We could have a vote held at most twice a year but preferably held until the first Tuesday in November like most voting is done.
3. We let employers in Kootenai County know that illegal to refuse time off for employees to go and vote. Fine those that use tactics of intimidation to keep employees from taking time to vote.
4. We could get the people for ANY of the parties (repub, dem, indep, green,etc.) to be more visible to the potential voters. eg; representatives ACTUALLY REPRESENT by going out to the public that it in fact serves instead of lobby meetings on the golf coarse.
How is that for a start? any other suggestions?
Comment by concerned citizen — July 12, 2008 @ 9:26 pm
Sorry, golf “course”. its past my bedtime. nye nye all!
Comment by concerned citizen — July 12, 2008 @ 9:33 pm
If NIC accepts the Jacklin offer to build buildings at Riverbend for vo-tech would that not free enough classroom space on campus to accommodate the anticipated increase of students?
Speaking of students, what are the NIC enrollment figures for the past couple of years? Have those figures increased dramatically?
Comment by Susie Snedaker — July 12, 2008 @ 9:54 pm