Why NO to new big building
Dear Neighbors
If you have judged the Belknap School situation from the general (mis)information there are several misrepresentation about this property and the proposed additional development of a second building on the property. Namely, the original resolution under which it was rezoned and transferred from public to private ownership contained a number of provisions which assured the neighborhood that it would remain a public asset.
Now, conveniently leaving that fact out, the landlord has complained about the restrictions he agreed to when he purchased the property. Among those restrictions was a legal binding element that no more development would take place on the property. This has just been thrown out by the Planning Commission thereby transferring a public asset into a sizable profit for the landlord. The fact that the grounds have not, in some people?’s view, been properly maintained is no reason to give the landlord a big gift. Frequently this is part of a developer?’s strategy so people say, ?“Oh, It looks so bad I will be glad for any change.?” Real estate is the only business I know of where people get rewarded for substandard behavior. What should happen is the city should make sure good standards are maintained. For some reason if you are a small property owner they will get on you to make sure your property is maintained.
The original resolution when the Belknap School was sold also stated that the public would have access to the property for recreational use. I agree it is a little unusual for public access to private property but that is the condition under which it was sold. It has been run for 20 years under that agreement with no major problem so why should the neighborhood give that up?
All that the neighborhood asked of the Planning Commission was that a) the binding element for no further development be respected and b) the existing agreement for public recreational access be preserved.
The reason I felt that the binding element should be respected was that people bought houses on the facing streets with the idea that the binding element would stay in place. By changing it the Planning Commission essentially broke a promise to the neighborhood. Besides that, because of Lakeside the parking in that area is very tight during the Summer and another building will make that problem even worse. Lakeside has been an asset to the neighborhood for more than 75 years. Why should the people who use it be pushed around because a landlord wants to add another building to a site that was not supposed to have ?“any further development?”?
When the developer initially proposed turning the old Belknap School into condominiums the neighborhood association was, by and large, supportive and had no problems with the project. Then the developer changed the plan to add another building that is virtually as large as the original and that is what we opposed.
The American way used to be if a businessman was unable to generate a satisfactory profit he sold out. In contrast, the modern way seems to be to turn to the government to change the rules to produce profits. In real estate that usually means cashing in community assets and turning the proceeds over to a developer, which is what is happening in this case. I encourage interested readers to investigate the facts of this case (or talk to Clifton or Bonnycastle residents about development) and they will get some insight into the type of misrepresentation neighborhoods have to deal with if they stand up for their community.
I apologize for going on about this at such length but a) I have given a lot of thought to this issue and want to explain why a new building this large is wrong-headed and b) the Courier-Journal did not care to publish my (much shorter) letter explaining the background to this proposed development and the problems with it so this is a way to get the facts out.
