vision2020@moscow.com: Re: Business Park (fwd)

Re: Business Park (fwd)

Bill London (london@wsunix.wsu.edu)
Mon, 13 Nov 1995 06:30:25 -0800 (PST)

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
>>
>>
>>
>>

This archive courtesy of:
First Step Internet