just so everything is clear. I didn't say that "not one of the
incubator businesses would be able to afford to build a building
there." I have no idea if others are or are not. I did say: "It's
MUCH more than a company coming out of the incubator can really do."
-- meaning upfront costs and long-term debt of this type (ie.
real-estate) are not generally associated with the capital structure
of young businesses.
The rest of your analysis is interesting.
johnt
================================================================
>>>>> "Bill" == Bill London <london@wsunix.wsu.edu> writes:
> Now I am really confused. Perhaps we can discuss these issues
> at the 2020 meeting at Susan's tonight (monday at 7pm). My
> recollection from the 2020-sponsored discussion with Larry Hodge
> last weekend is that the EDC expects the business park tenants
> to build and own their own buildings there. I recall Hodge
> specifically responding to a question about his lack of support
> for low-income housing by saying that he supported the business
> park (and not the low-income housing) because the business
> owners would be also the owners of the buildings at the site. I
> think we all thought the builder and the tenant at the business
> park would be the same person. Now, we have John Teeter's
> message (copied below). Teeter, founder of FSR (which I
> understand is one of the 3 companies Hodge says is so anxious to
> move to the business park), says that he was asked about
> building a building at the business park and that he replied
> that not one of the incubator businesses would be able to afford
> to build a building there. There seems to be a contradiction
> here. Do the incubator tenants want to build at the business
> park or not? Can any of them afford to do that? The next issue
> Teeter raises is: who is going to build those buildings? The
> people of Moscow through this "slick" tax-incentive system are
> providing the infrastructure (roads, landscaping, a park,
> utilities, etc) that will make the site very attractive, and
> then the individual lots (about an acre in size) will be sold.
> To anyone, not just incubator tenants. At the 2020 discussion,
> Hodge mentioned two restrictions on such buyers--they must build
> there within two years and they must abide by rstrictive
> covenants to keep the park attractive. Neither of those
> restrictions would keep someone from building at the park, even
> customizing that building for FSR or any incubator tenant, and
> then leasing it to FSR or anyone else. As Teeter correctly
> notes, that builder would then stand to make some real money.
> By buying land at a price held artificially low by the business
> park plan, but by leasing the building at market value, the
> builder (especially any builder who is ready to begin as soon as
> the business park opens to satisfy the demand for space from the
> incubator tenants) would make a very hefty profit. Perhaps
> someone can explain this all to me. BL
> ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Fri, 10 Nov 1995
> 09:50:24 +0800 From: John Teeter <johnt@fsr.com> To:
> london@wsunix.wsu.edu Cc: prorak@uidaho.edu,
> vision2020@uidaho.edu Subject: Re: Business Park
> actually, maybe there's a different issue that might be of
> interest.
> as I understand this b/park thing... the infrastructure comes
> from the tax stuff, but the actual building don't. When I (as
> FSR and a current incubator tenant) was approached re: moving
> there, the question was how would I ever justify building a
> structure, even if the infrastructure already existed. It's
> MUCH more than a company coming out of the encubator can really
> do. So who is really going to build the buildings? these are
> the guys that are going to get the long term benifit of the park
> as they will be getting subsidized infrastructure, while the
> tenants (which is what we-fsr would be) would be paying market
> prices.....
> anyway, as-far-as fsr was concerned, the whole thing was too far
> in the future and a non-issue anyway.....
> johnt
> ================
>>>>> "Bill" == Bill London <london@wsunix.wsu.edu> writes:
>> Diane- I echo your ambivalence--and the positive points about
>> the biz park that you list. However, the message that I tried
>> to give to the council (which was of course ignored by all) was
>> that Moscow residents (as in voters in general)--NOT a core
>> group of pro-development EDC members and cronies on
>> council--needs to decide what they want Moscow to look like in
>> the future. BL
>> On Thu, 9 Nov 1995, Diane Prorak wrote:
>>> A few thoughts on some positive aspects of the proposed
>>> business park:
>>>
>>> 1) As Ray pointed out, the land proposed for development was
>>> already zoned motor business. So while I agree that Hwy. 8
>>> traffic is a problem that really should be worked on before
>>> development, the alternative, in my opinion, of motor
>>> businesses was worse in terms of traffic. I would very feel
>>> differently about this project if it were outside the city on
>>> land zoned for ag/forestry or something like that.
>>>
>>> 2) Diversification: We tell timber-dependent communities that
>>> they need to diversify to fit the changing world. I think
>>> state government, which includes universities, will be
>>> changing also -- probably downsizing. Moscow probably does
>>> need to diversify some more in this climate.
>>>
>>> 3) Jobs for spouses: To attract and retain people at the
>>> universities, spouses often need good jobs. A business park
>>> could provide some of those. This particular proposal isn't
>>> so big as to create a huge influx of people, though I will
>>> admit that future actions could lead to more growth than we
>>> bargained for.
>>>
>>> 4) The proposal includes some possible accommodations for
>>> bicyclists/pedestrians that would never come about through a
>>> motor business. The sidewalks and linear park could help to
>>> improve non-motorized use on the Troy highway.
>>>
>>> I've had mixed feelings on this issue (especially the
>>> financing), but I think it also has merit as I've mentioned
>>> above. I just wish they could be improving the "blighted"
>>> area.
>>>
>>> Diane Prorak prorak@uidaho.edu
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>