home

There is a public hearing tonight (April 30th) over the town spending around $400,000 to buy three lots on South Water Street for a public parking lot, public restrooms and visitors center.

At the last meeting, in early April, it appeared that at least three commissioners — Nancy Inger, Candy Bohmert and Barb Venturi — were leaning toward this possible purchase. Monday’s public hearing may be the public’s last chance to make clear their views before there is a vote.

Public Dock initially wrote about this several weeks ago, during which some additional information has come to light.

The Appraisals:

The land in question totals 13,383 square feet. The would-be land seller, Henry Frazer of Whittaker Pointe Properties, purchased the two 5,000 square foot R2 residential lots for less than $200,000 in the fall of 2005. The third, and smaller, lot zoned MU1 at the corner of South Water and Hodges was purchased in late 2003 for $55,000.

An appraisal paid for by the town put the value of the three lots at $329,000, which seemed somewhat high given the somewhat depressed real estate market and what we know the would-be-seller paid for the land in recent years.

As if that weren’t more than high enough, an appraisal paid for by Whittaker Point Properties puts the value of the land at $468,000. To come up with that figure the appraiser considered 6 ‘comparable’ sales in recent years. Two of those six were on land zoned commercial, which is to say, not in the same R2 zone as the two residential lots being considered here. Those commercially zoned lots are really “incomparables.” They falsely inflated the average and raised the appraised value as a result.

Sadly, that inflated appraisal appears to have had an effect favorable to the would-be seller. The town board has signalled that it’s willing to pay “around $400,000” for the land.

$400,000 for land that the seller paid less than $250,000 for. Quite a sweet profit in a down real estate market.

“Sweetened Pot”
There are indications that the Town Board is also still weighing whether to ‘sweeten the pot’ for the seller. As Public Dock first reported a few weeks ago, this could mean a deal in which some of the public parking spaces would be credited toward the seller, Mr. Frazer, so that when he develops other property nearby, he wouldn’t have to dedicate as much of his project to parking as the GMO requires of everyone else. The idea is said to be still on the table.

One also hears in recent days that a commissioner may be preparing a “white paper”. It would be a pleasant surprise if the document said that this was all a bad idea and the town should not proceed. However, given that the board is still mulling over price and parking-spaces-to-be-named-later it could also be taken to mean that the ten or so citizens who spoke against this plan at the early April meeting were misheard.

Parking Plan for 2022

In all of this it seems as though the board is going after a goofy solution for a problem that really doesn’t exist. I said as much at the early April meeting. Later, one commissioner asked me what I would do about parking 15 years from now. Because this appears to be a concern to her — and because her decision on what to do about the bad land deal may hang on this concern — here are a few thoughts about Oriental Parking in the Year 2022.

1. Whose Responsibity Is It Anyway? Is it the town’s business to provide a public parking lot? The town board seems to be operating from that premise, but let’s step back a moment and consider the landscape. Is it so much to ask that if someone develops a lot, and puts up a building (either residential or commercial) that they also provide an adequate number of parking spaces for that building — and not rely on being able to park on the street? If we dutifully followed the GMO there would be much less need for the town to spend money for a parking lot, now, or 15 years down the road. Suggestion: Enforce the laws on parking requirements for new development, or make them stronger.

2. Location, Location, Location. aka The Fairness Thing. If the MU1 (Mixed Use) lots that are developed commercially are the ones attracting customers who need parking, shouldn’t the MU1 neighborhoods provide the parking? The majority of the South Water Street property in question is zoned R2 Residential which means those two lots cannot be used commercially. By all that is fair and right, why is the town even thinking about putting infrastructure for MU1 in an R2 neighborhood? If it can happen on this street, what’s to prevent the town from doing the same in other residential neighborhoods? By no stretch should we as a town even be considering them for parking. Much less a public restroom. Suggestion for the 15 Year Plan: Keep the parking lots in the MU and MU1 and bolster public faith in the zoning system.

3. Addressing Occasional Parking Needs: We really don’t have a challenge with parking in the Old Village except on two or three weekend days a year when people are parking up the side streets. To alleviate the parking issue on those weekends, the town could utilize land it already has access to, those areas at the ends of the several streets — Wall Street, King Street, Neuse Street — between South Avenue and the river, and another at the end of Hodges Street past Midyette. The town could paint temporary parking spaces on those — or even make them permanent — so that they could be used for parallel or angle-in parking.

You may hear the town say there are legal hurdles to clear in using these particular town rights-of-way. Even if there are, can they be anywhere near as pricey as the $400,000 in your tax money that the town’s thinking about squandering on Whittaker Point Properties’ three inappropriate lots on South Water Street? Suggestion for 2022 Parking Plan: Get the legal work started on parking at the end of the those four streets. If there’s a will — and such a dire need for parking — there’s a way. For years to come this should suffice.

4. Unintended Consequences. Projecting 15 years from now, let’s think about the impact of the town buying three South Water Street lots in 2007. That’s fifteen years of the town collecting no property tax on those three lots, a loss of thousands of dollars. If the town buys the lots and turns in to a parking lot and restrooms, the values of neighboring residential properties would be adversely affected , which would also cut in to the town’s tax base. Also hurt: the essence of Oriental and its small-town single-family-home neighborhoods which would take a hit by having toilets and parking lots in the middle of a residential block. Finally, whether the town turns it in to public parking and toilets right away or waits a year or two as some backpeddling from the board suggests, public trust will plummet, and that won’t take 15 years. It’ll happen in the 15 seconds during which the town board votes to buy these lots.

Just four ideas regarding Oriental Parking In 2022. Perhaps you have some of your own. If so, bring them to the public hearing. Now is the time to make certain you’re heard clearly on this ill-advised land buy.

If you don’t want the town to blithely toss hundreds of thousands of dollars at inappropriate land for a purpose that the town has not thought through clearly, speak up. If you are bothered by the idea of the town using your tax money to guarantee a tidy profit on a private development company’s real estate speculation, the public hearing may be your last chance before the board votes.

This is not the time to sit quietly by and hope a majority of the board will come to its senses. That the board has gotten this far without thinking things through is worrisome. Especially if things like process, wise use of taxpayer money, and the town living by its own zoning standards are to mean anything.

The public hearing starts at 7pm and is slated for Town Hall.

Posted Monday April 30, 2007 by Melinda Penkava

email this story | back to top