We have another tidbit! We have another tidbit! Yeah!
In this morning’s CDA Press, information about Developer Marshall Chesrown’s mill site purchase is referenced as follows:
[Chesrown’s] agreement to purchase the properties requires Stimson Lumber to turn the DeArmond Mill, which is still open, over to him by the end of 2009.
Months ago, I recall asking city officials what the deadline was on Mr. Chesrown’s apparent option to purchase the mill site. They didn’t know. Or they knew and just wouldn’t tell me. But whatever, now we know: the option apparently goes on for another 22 months. Plenty of time.
I admire Mr. Chesrown for stepping up to the plate and doing what he did. It’s a noble gesture to put money on the line for a worthy cause. Our community is lucky to have someone like him. But my issue isn’t with Mr. Chesrown.
No, the issue is with how the Coeur d’Alene City Hall and NIC are handling this gift. My issue is with how they appear to be demonstrating contempt for the public by withholding information on the project and not involving taxpayers in the process.
>>>Chesrown said he will immediately turn it over to whatever agency is paying the $10 million price to buy the 17-acre parcel to use for expansion of higher education.
The sale price is what Chesrown’s development company has contracted to pay for the land and includes no profit to his organization.
He doesn’t know whether the buyer will be the city, one of the local higher education entities or a combination of organizations.
Beyond that, Chesrown has no involvement in the development of the corridor.
**********************************************************************************
OK.. I read this to be Chesrown is under contract to buy it – to control it and will then re-sell it for the same price to the appropriate agency for no profit.
Not really a gift, if that’s the case… but whatever works…
Am I reading this wrong?
Comment by Damn Yankee — February 27, 2008 @ 1:21 pm
Word on the Street:
Regional Economic Analysis Presentation this evening.
Tonight(2/27) at the CDA Public Library there will be a
presentation on the economy in N. Idaho. Kathryn Tacke, Regional
Economist for Idaho Dept of Labor, and Steve Griffitts, President
of Jobs Plus will be speaking. This is a free seminar!
Presentation will begin at 6:00 p.m.
Comment by Damn Yankee — February 27, 2008 @ 1:24 pm
Well, I see it as a gift because Chesrown is securing the land. For example, some other developer can’t come in and put another option on the property. So it’s being held for a period of time. And it does cost Mr. Chesrown money. That option he bought wasn’t free. So when you look at it that way, the price he paid for the option is the gift.
Comment by Dan — February 27, 2008 @ 1:26 pm
But keep in mind Chesrown’s stated plans for a “fairly high-end” mixed use development on the Atlas Mill site. Is that in the LCDC district? I believe it has to be annexed into the city first, but will probably be added at that time. If so, my guess is Chesrown will get whatever he wants.
Comment by mary — February 27, 2008 @ 1:31 pm
Agreed. Just wanted to clarify he wasn’t giving it away! :^)
Comment by Damn Yankee — February 27, 2008 @ 1:32 pm
Why is Chesrown involved in the Stimson property at all? If he did not want the land for his own purposes is he not acting as a quasi agent for the LCDC by putting it into a holding pattern for possible LCDC acquisition at a later date? Or did he acquire the option originally with intent for personal gain and decided later not to pursue the project? If so what changed his mind? It smacks of a shell game and appears almost like a straw buyer. Are there any disclosures from Chesrown or the Stimson people about the environmental integrity of the site? Somethings fishy here.
Comment by Wallypog — February 27, 2008 @ 2:07 pm
My recollection is that about 4 years ago, the Mayor was all about Chesrown. His design firm out of Denver was going to lay out the whole Ed.Corridor plan. Word on the street back then was that Chesrown would get the river front and the Ed.buildings would be back away from the water. It was also rumored that Chesrown would help with the buildings in return for the waterfront. Something seemed to happen about two years ago, after which his name was not mentioned as much.
The much bigger question is this: Why isn’t the public part of this discussion? This is a very important decision and a huge financial investment.
Comment by mary — February 27, 2008 @ 2:55 pm
I am following city affairs as a Kootenai County resident. I do not live in the city. LCDC has caused a significant tax shift to county residents which makes it a county matter. I am rather concerned that the city of CdA can determine the placement of educational facilities with no input from the county as a whole. The educational corridor is not just a city issue; it is also a county issue.
Mama Bear
Comment by Mama Bear — February 27, 2008 @ 4:17 pm
At the NIC Booster Club luncheon, Mr. Chesrown said that once the Stimson site is developed for the Ed. Corridor, there will be no more room for expansion of the NIC Campus. He then opined that good planning now would demand a look at a relocation of the sewage treatment plant and expanded his remarks to include land applcation of effluent on the prairie. He also responded in a direct question about transfer of ownership, that his purchase would be in stages as “take down” occured. Does “take down” mean he has purchase agreements with Stimson for site remediation as a condition or is the site going to be handed off to the consortium of public entities who have to come up with the 10 million for the purchase and take it as is, a sort of pig-in-a-poke, so to speak?
This question definitely needs an answer. Anyone?
Comment by yabetcha — February 27, 2008 @ 5:24 pm
The education corridor is slated to hold 3 campuses, NIC, Lewis and Clark and U of I (?). Does anyone know exactly how they’re planning to apportion the limited land space between these entities? What is the projected enrollment for these institutions? Is the space really going to be adequate in 10, 20,or 50 years from completion?
I really want this region to foster higher education. That is key to the future success of our children. But I have seen university campuses and they are not small. The University of Minnesota sits on the river front in Minneapolis. Many of its buildings are congested leaving just alley wide streets between them. Parking is a nightmare and the main streets surrounding the campus present serious problems for both the campus and the city.
If NIC is bulging today how can this relatively small space hope to accommodate 2 other campuses and still meet future growth demands?
Comment by Wallypog — February 28, 2008 @ 8:05 am
Prairie wastewater application is not possible twelve months a year due to weather constraints. The cost to move the present city wastewater facility would be expensive – way too expensive for the ratepayers. The abandoned Union Pacific railroad site could be used to deliver waste to the prairie via underground piping utilizing lift stations. Are feasibility studies regarding this possible land application available? It appears that viewing and reviewing Public Works meetings on Woody tv are a necessity.
Comment by Susie Snedaker — February 29, 2008 @ 8:56 am