Viva Geneva!

Mission: Demolition

2006-05-08T18:36:00.000-04:00

The city voted 5-4 to tear down the old gas station on Main Street. This was quite a surprise. They haven't heard if they've been approved for any grant funds, they were told by the state that saving the building might still be an option that could get funding, and they had a purchase offer on the table to cover some of the remediation costs.

But this group has other plans. And what might those plans be? A prediction is that we will all be hearing about some development plan that just happens to be ready for this site. But why wouldn't a potential developer just come forward and make their intentions known to help council with the decision to demolish? Two words: Tax Break.

Can you imagine how hard it would be to get council to agree to tear down the building if the decision were presented this way:

Either you vote to demolish this building and let a hole in the ground sit there for a year until you turn it over for one dollar to a developer that won't pay any taxes
or
You vote to remediate the building and sell it for thousands of dollars to a
developer that will reuse it and pay taxes on it

How would you convince a majority of the people to vote for the first option? Instead you have to tell them that it's a much different picture. Something like this:
Either you spend $100,000 today to fix the building and sell it to a group that you don't know or you spend $50,000 today to tear it down and stop thinking about it until someone you do know comes around to take it off your hands.

What they did was premature, impatient, irresponsible, and will be expensive.

All We Need Is Just a Little Patience

2006-05-02T19:41:00.000-04:00

Why is patience a virtue? Does it prove that you can endure seemingly mundane tasks with grace and poise? Does it help you to learn that 'the best things in life are worth waiting for'?

I think patience is a virtue because patience prevents you from making hasty, convenient, and downright bad decisions.

So how does patience relate to the current state of Geneva's affairs? Read tonight's headlining story to find out.

The basic idea is this: It will cost $295,000 to get rid of the contamination in the Main Street gas station (see "A Building of Interest" post from January). It will cost about $100,000 to tear it down. So, it looks like city council will take the lower number.

But is the lower cost option really the lowest cost in the long run? Not upon closer inspection.

The $100,000 will take down the building. Then the soil underneath will be exposed. The place used to be a gas station, so you can bet that the soil will need some serious immediate treatment. Then there's the claim that the side of that slope (remember that the building has another entire floor beneath the street level) is in need of stabilization, especially if all of the concrete that's there now as part of the building is removed. How much is that going to cost? Then we'll be left with a big drop off along the side of Main Street. Maybe they'll fill it in (an additional cost) and seed it? Still, it will be a grassy area overlooking the backs of those Seneca Street buildings. I suppose you can't put a price tag on that. And let's not forget that a big municipal hole (or maybe grassy spot) is not taxable. The lot won't even be a standard building lot size, so it won't be attractive to future developers, unless there is some larger scheme in the works to demolish the whole block, but that seems even worse.

On the other hand, $295,000 spent now would yield a gutted, asbestos-free building ready for renovation. There have been many groups interested in buying it, and you know what? A private owner would pay taxes on it. So the $295,000 is an investment. Plus, the city has applied for numerous grants to help pay the cost.

Think about it this way: If you need a new roof, would you think it wise to pay $2000 today for a roof that will last one year, or $8000 today for a roof that's guaranteed for 25 years? I think only a fool would choose the former, especially if you were going to get an Energy Star grant to pay 1/2 of the cost.

So it seems, to use a well-known cliche, "haste makes waste" and in this case, it's taxpayer money being wasted. And since wasting what you have is always looked upon as a sin, it's easy to see why patience (taking the long view on a decision) is truly a virtue.

It Makes Interesting Television

2006-04-11T19:33:00.000-04:00

The Geneva council meeting has been televised a lot lately. It is very interesting to watch the meeting in this way. The camera men show interesting angles and the mics pick up things that can't be heard from the audience. Of particular interest this time are the comments of Mr. Cosentino. He must have been wearing a microphone like the player of the night during football season.
He repeatedly says "I can't stand it" when other people are talking. Someone should tell the other people to tune in and hear it for themselves. As a member of the audience, the color commentary gives an interesting perspective on the issues. While it seems that he doesn't want to demolish that gas station on South Main Street, he certainly doesn't like having it pointed out the way in which the new bidders are being treated much differently from the old bidders that pulled out.
But it's as clear as day to anyone watching that there is a difference, and you have to wonder why.
Geneva taxpayers are on the hook for the clean up of that building one way or the other. It seems like they should be knocking themselves out trying to get private investors interested instead of turning them away and ignoring them.
The tape and warning signs on that gas station have certainly made it look ugly. But even at its worst, it looks a lot better than what we'd all have to look at if it gets torn down. People complain about seeing the backs of buildings along 5/20. That doesn't even compare to what will be exposed on Main Street.
The color commentary provided by one councilor on television gives an insight into the city's decision-making on this issue: They bored with the issue. Even though they've ignored the building for years, now that they're thinking about it, they want a conclusion yesterday. If they can't come up a way to save it within this month, they just want it torn down as soon as possible. I hate to be cliche, but "haste makes waste" and wasting the taxpayer's money by tearing down a building just because you're sick of hearing about it seems rather unappetizing.

City to Erect Granite Phallus in Park

2006-04-01T13:50:00.000-05:00

The city council is considering a proposal to erect a six foot tall phallus, carved from solid granite, in Pulteney Park. It will be placed in front of the existing World War I monument which is, ironically enough, a statue of a partially-clad woman.

The monument, donated by a group calling itself "Geneva's Patriarchs" is not without its opponents. A large number of citizens spoke out at the city council meeting, asking leaders not to accept the gift. Their concerns were drowned out, however, by a man who read random passages from the municipal code while others were speaking. When asked to please be respectful of others' opinions, the man shouted, "Do not deny the phallus!" and began to chant "Respect the rights of man."

Council adjourned to a closed door session to deliberate before returning to the floor for a public vote. The measure passed 6-3. One councilor pointed out that the statue was distasteful. She was taunted by a colleague who said, "she's just one of those preservationists. They don't want anything new and exciting to happen in the city. What do they want? For us to turn away this gift?"

So, despite the protests, the statue will be dedicated next week. The ceremony will include comments from community leaders and will be finished off with the launching of confetti from the base of the statue. "It's a great day for the city of Geneva" said one of the group's spokesmen.

An Agreement With Cajones

2006-03-02T01:15:00.000-05:00

The city awarded Massa Construction the development agreement for the South Exchange Street property. This was a suprise because the newspaper reported in two different articles that the mayor said no decision would be made at the March meeting. But, in a surprising twist, council passed an agreement and it actually came with restrictions. First, it was required that the first floor of the building be residential. There was an allowance for a limited commercial venture that would support the general operation of the building, but any retail space or office space was taken out. That's good because there is a lot of vacant store frontage downtown and we don't need to add to that. Also, it can't be good financially for the developer to keep possibly-empty storefront space instead of sure-t0-sell residential.

The other stipulation is that the units be called 'townhouses' and not 'condos.' That doesn't effect the design, but it does effect the taxes. If a unit is a townhouse, then the purchaser owns it and pays taxes for their individual unit. If it is a condo, then the building is taxed as a whole and the owners share the cost through their management agreement. Since a building's assessment is a lot less than the sum of its individual unit assessments, that's a lot more money for the city and a big relief on the tax rate for homeowners.

The council unanimously approved an agreement that benefits the city instead of just the developer, and that's a nice change! Did I mention that there's no tax abatement either? It's a great day for Geneva!

What does Albany know?

2006-02-27T01:27:00.000-05:00

One of the developer's partners for the South Exchange Street site is from Albany. A quick query of the NY Times and the Albany Business Journal reveals some interesting information. Our local reporter obtained a copy of an e-mail that Iversen sent to the city manager regarding a bankruptcy issue with the downstate partner, Victor Gush. Here's the quote that appeared in the paper:

“I’m told everyone got their money. I call that valuable experience,” Iversen wrote. “Critics will call it something else. Unfortunately, I don’t know anyone else in the development business who is willing to take risks, who hasn’t had at least one project that didn’t follow the desired script.”

It's true that it's important for everyone, including the city, to get their money. Which brings to mind the article from May 20, 2005 about South Main Manor:

The building’s former owner, South Main Manor Associates — led by managing partner Chris Iversen, president of Chrisanntha Inc. of Gorham — still owes all of a $300,000 low-interest loan awarded by the city’s Revolving Loan Fund in 1993.

Developers Meet City in Closed Door Session

2006-02-13T22:20:00.000-05:00

Massa and Iversen, who want to develop the Exchange S. property are meeting with city council on Wednesday to iron out the details.

Will the council select a developer Wednesday? The proposals were just released to the public and there's been no opportunity for comment yet. The process used with the other sites had three steps. First, they collected the proposals, then they talked about them to determine if any of them should be allowed to submit more information. At the last meeting, they decided not to go forward with the residential development off High Street. This coming meeting should not be a negotiation for a sale. The comments in the paper about keeping up the momentum makes me nervous. Around here that seems to be code for "let's get this done quick and without public input."

I hope that doesn't happen here. The paper gives bits and pieces of the proposals. The latest bit of information is that Iverson wants docks built for his building's tenants. That's another attempt to privatize the lakefront.

Massa's plan has been reported as being reasonable. We haven't seen any mention of a tax giveaway yet. But if we like his plan we should still talk about it at a public meeting and get comments on it before council sells the land. This is, afterall, one of our best pieces of buildable property in downtown. The public shouldn't be shut out of the discussion when council goes over the details of the design and the economics.

Ontario County is the Best Place to Live

2006-02-03T14:37:00.000-05:00

I know that we all knew this, that our area is the best place in the country to live, but here's an 'unbiased' source saying the same thing.
Read the article in Progressive Farmer Magazine: click here
And be sure to check out the great pictures.

One thing I noticed, in the article was the following line: "Instead of just relying on what they've been given--a great resource in the land--they have worked together to make the most of it and to preserve it. "

I hope that message gets through to Geneva's elected officials who want to carve up the lakefront for condos and offices.

The City Stands Up For Itself

2006-02-02T10:50:00.000-05:00

The council debate about the Ridgewood and OEO sites was rather pleasant.

The two project ideas for Ridgewood were asking the city to foot the bill for up to $1 million in infrastructure. See a previous post on how fiscally irresponsible it would have been for the city to say "yes" to that.

The OEO discussion, about upscale condos., seemed positive. It looks like this will happen, and its clearly a positive for downtown. If it will be Massa or Iversen who does the project remains to be seen, but kudos to Jan Nyrop for saying what we're all thinking. He told the council that Iversen's list of demands: tax abatements, making the city build a marina, having the city pay rent for the first floor retail space was "a little disturbing."

He's right and the others seemed to agree. This is a major shift in their thinking and it's a sign that the city can really start to move forward. Ending the giveaways is the first step in controlling spending and hopefully reducing the taxes.

Do These Names Sound Familiar?

2006-01-14T12:40:00.000-05:00

Two proposals were received for the OEO lake site that was posted on here. One proposal is from Iversen, one proposal is from Massa. Here's a list of some recent projects in and around Geneva, and the developer who is responsible for them:

The Hampton Inn--Iversen
The Lyons National Bank--Massa
The Geneva Housing Authority Office Complex--Massa
The Geneva Housing Authority's Quail Summit--Iversen
The Geneva Housing Authority's Lyceum Projects--Massa
Renovations to City Hall--Massa
Renovations to the Ice Skating Rink--Massa
The Ramada Inn--Iversen

What do all of these projects have in common? They are all either tax exempt by law (#6 & 7) or involved in a tax abatement agreement through the city's empire zone or industrial development agency (# 1-5 and #8).

It seems fair to make the following prediction: Whatever is being proposed by these two developers is probably contingent on a lot of city dollars being invested, or an outright tax exemption, or both (it's probably most likely this last option). Another prediction: if Iversen gets the project the building will probably be some modular-unit construction with a lack of aesthetic merit. But I guess there's no accounting for taste. Wait, there is accounting for a lack of taste: it's called city-in-the-red-accounting!

Perhaps No News Is Good News

2006-01-09T23:03:00.000-05:00

The deadline has passed for submitting proposals on that lakefront parcel posted here a while back. But there's been no news in the paper about bids, if any, received by the city. Maybe the old adage, 'no news is good news' holds here. Maybe we have avoided solicitations from developers with their hands out. We shall see.

Is something really better than nothing?

2006-01-04T21:08:00.000-05:00

The meeting of the Geneva City Council is on the radio tonight. That would have been useful information to include in the last post. WEOS' coverage of the meetings has been sporadic, so this was an unexpected but positive discovery. They have a live feed from their website.

There is yet another parcel for sale within the city. It's a empty lot off of Ada Street. The city sent out proposals, asking for creative development ideas. All they received back were two proposals to do modular homes. One proposal was for 20+ homes of 1,000 square feet each. 1000 square feet? What is the market for that house?

In another case of subsidy-driven development, one proposal asked for the city to foot the bill for the road and curbs and sewers. The estimated cost for that work is one million dollars, and it was said that the development would only give the city about $60,000 in tax revenue each year. That means it would take the city 16 years to get its investment back.

At one point it sounded like the council would dump the proposals and start over. Instead, the majority (but it wasn't unanimous) decided to allow the two developers to submit more formal plans. The reasoning seemed to be "something is better than nothing." But I've seen that land by Ada Street and I don't think it's that bad. I'm not convinced that a strip of 1000 square foot modular homes is better than the open space.

A building of interest

2006-01-04T19:33:00.000-05:00

The former gas station/service station on Main Street in Geneva.

This building is owned by the city and has sat vacant for many years. A few years ago, a local arts group wanted to purchase it as a ticket office for a theater. The plan can be viewed at this site.

The plan was a good one, but it required a partnership with Hobart and William Smith Colleges. Hobart and William Smith has since indicated that it does not have an interest in building a downtown performing arts center.

Now the building is in limbo. The arts group still wants to purchase it, for $1, but it insists that the building cannot be saved and have asked for a "structure free site." They are willing to contribute $50,000 in grant funds to the demolition, but they have not presented a plan for future use of the site, other than open space. A hole in the Main Street streetscape seems undesireable, a tax exempt hole is doubly so.

Another group has come forward to purchase the building, and to stabilize it. This group is made up of private citizens who see the building's architectural significance and economic importance. They are offering $25,000 in cash to the city and $25,000 in repair costs to keep the building standing. Their plan is to market the building to a private developer who would remodel it and use it for some taxable purpose.

These proposals have been in front of the city council for some time now, but no action has been taken. It will be discussed at the January meeting. Perhaps there are other people interested in this building as well?

How other people see us

2006-01-02T01:34:00.000-05:00

I found some great websites about Geneva. Many of them are created by tourists who have visited and appreciate what we have the good fortune to experience every day:

This couple love our area so much, they wrote a song about it! Visit their site.

You can celebrate the food and culture of central NY on this site.

Lots of people posting regional information here.

Even the Democrat and Chronicle does a Finger Lakes special feature.

Building on the Lakefront

2005-12-30T23:05:00.000-05:00

There's another plan floating out there to 'develop' the lakefront. All of these plans seem the same: they all focus on building condominiums.

The newspaper reported last month that the latest plan consists of "dozens of boat slips off the Long Pier; a botanical garden; a restaurant/conference center; a commons area with retail kiosks, a sunken fountain and a concert shell; and condominiums near Seneca Lake State Park."

The idea of revived recreational space: the boat slips, the focus on the arts, the gardens seems great, but it doesn't sound like the person who presented this plan is actually ready to move on any of these pieces. It's too bad because all the people I talk to seem to want these things. They don't, however, want condominiums. Well, maybe they want a condo. on the lakefront for themselves, but they understand that condos. on the lakefront are not good for the city or the community (let's not confuse the two). One person's private gain is our permanent public loss.

I didn't post anything about this plan when I first heard about it because I figured it wasn't going anywhere. But now that the plan will be discussed in greater detail,I have to wonder what the purpose of those discussions is.

Do the people running this city really care about what the people living in it want? I'd love to see this opened up for discussion and comments. But I am worried that this plan is just a way for some developers to push their condo. idea. After all, they'll probably tell us that there's no way to get the things we really want (the recreational public access stuff) without giving something up. We know that's not true!

To really 'develop' the lakefront, as opposed to just 'building' on it, we need people who want to invest in the city, not people who use the city as an investment. But I don't mean to repeat a previous post's message.

The Centennial Building

2005-12-27T19:23:00.000-05:00

Hooray!
Someone from Pennsylvania, who visited our city and saw the beauty and magic that many of us celebrate every day, has purchased the Centennial Building on Castle Street and plans to invest money to make it into upscale apartments. This is wonderful!

One Franklin Square, the Guard Building, the Dove Block, the Civic Center, South Main Manor, the plaza on Washington Street, all these buildings are being purchased by people with an eye for restoration and a commitment to Geneva as a true gem.

This begs the question: Can Geneva be great?

Geneva is great and people are starting to see that clearly. Instead of looking at downtown and wishing for a wrecking ball, more and more Genevans are starting to see downtown's true character as a valuable asset. All the more reason for the city to be careful and selective with pending downtown projects.

It might look better, but that doesn't make it right.

2005-12-15T11:51:00.000-05:00

Does Exchange Street look better now that the demolition projects are completed? Sure.

Were those projects the best development that Geneva could ever have hoped for? Certainly not.

Geneva needs to break out of the 'woe-is-me' attitude, thinking that no one will ever come and do anything good here without getting a tax exemption, tons of grant funds, and city loans.

In the 80s and 90s, Geneva--like all of Upstate New York--experienced a shrinking of jobs, wealth, and population. It seems like people developed a low city-esteem, feeling like a teenage girl who got dumped the night before the prom. Somewhere along the line, we started to believe that it must be our fault-Geneva's fault-that the people and the money and the jobs went away.

But things change, and now our city is coming of age. Maybe we were a late bloomer, maybe we just hadn't been discovered yet, but the wine industry and tourism and our small businesses and historic downtown charm have made Geneva desireable to people again. And, as often happens, there will be an attempt for people to get in while the gettin's good. Our responsibility, as residents of Geneva, is to make sure that people who want to come in and build things are actually benefitting more than just their own wallets.

Our city cannot be exploited to serve someone's bottom line. We must trade value for value. Building on the lakefront, or near the lakefront, is a privelege--not an entitlement. If you want some of the best land we have to offer, then you need to show us how you're making Geneva better for it.

Some might laugh and say that Geneva-believers are just naive, idealistic, unrealistic dreamers. I think, however, that those people know that we are right! Geneva is a gem. We deserve the best, and we should accept nothing less.

Attention Innovative and Responsible Developers!

2005-12-04T21:45:00.000-05:00

The City of Geneva is currently soliciting proposals for development of a prime lakeview parcel downtown. This site, which has been empty for quite some time, has valuable frontage on Exchange Street and completely spectacular views of Seneca Lake from the south and east sides. The lot is actually below street level, which makes a basement parking garage not only possible, but desireable.

What would you do with it?

We all know that a high end residential development is an essential component for any downtown revitalization. Kudos to the man who has developed housing of that sort at the corner of Seneca and Main Streets (just northwest of this picture's border). A residential development could be great here so long as the parking is hidden and the street level use is something attractive to pedestrians and consistent with the retail uses of the adjacent parcels.

Unfortunately, you only have until January 6th to submit a proposal, but I assume that proposals from developers would still be considered after the deadline if the proposals were innovative in both design and use.

This is a prime piece of real estate that should bring top dollar not only in selling price but in property tax revenue. Should we use incentives to get a great project? Sure, but only to the extent that they are 'incentives' instead of 'subsidies.' This city needs to move away from the subsidy-model of development, but that's material for another post. Just spread the word far and wide that this property is open for suggestions!

Being Thankful for What We Have

2005-12-01T21:47:00.000-05:00

Geneva, NY is a beautiful, wonderful, amazing oasis of history and culture smack dab in the middle of the Finger Lakes Wine Country.

I dare anyone in need of inspiration to visit our lakefront and not feel refreshed and renewed.

We have architectural marvels, some in plain view (Downtown, row houses, the Octagon House to name a few) and others are hidden jems (like Lehigh Station and Houghton House).

Our school district is top notch, with more AP course offerings than any other district in the region, successful athletics, work prep programs, and a plethora of extracurricular activities.

This city's residents provide the perfect blend of deep roots, recent transplants, all ages, backgrounds and demographics.

Unique and eclectic, charming and challenging, Geneva is the place to be! I feel blessed to call it my home.