News
Opinion
I am very opposed to ceding zoning to the developer and having the town of Eagle take such a wild risk. Proponents mean well, and my criticism isn't against RED, who, I'm sure, is a good developer. Rather, the business deal is not a “managed risk” for residents.
RED, understandably, needs for this to be approved -- even if they are never able to build the project -- because they've purchased the property. The town, like many in Colorado, is attracted to the idea of shopping malls as a potential revenue generator. This notion is misguided.
A look around the valley provides more than enough empirical evidence to err on the side of caution.
Nearly 15 years ago, Avon did an up-zoning on a 20-year timetable that is receiving negative returns, continued attempts at failed negotiation, lawsuits and subsidies from the town. Minturn has up-zoned 6,000-plus acres without so much as a twinkle at the end of a tunnel. Both towns now suffer with tied-up land that's off the table, and causing problems for the rest of the town.
The town of Eagle's manager and five trustees are willing to roll the dice, based on the developer's own market study from three years ago. I'm not a math major, but I believe that was before the economic downturn. Anyway, that study uses a model where there's 30,000 people within a 45-mile drive with average incomes of $90,000 that will spend 40 percent of their income. In that scenario, Eagle receives $2.5 million.
That's if 95 percent is actually leased up. Take Target, for example. It's a 150,000-square-foot building, which is 30 percent of the 65 percent that the developer needs to obtain commercial financing. For the $2.5 million to be realized, they need 95 percent leased up (leasing 65 percent will get Eagle $1.5 million). Again, this is with the developer's own market studies from 2007.
There's also the pesky little detail about the 500-plus affordable homes that might need to get sold for the developer to have the wherewithal to build over $80 million in infrastructure. Except that there is no market or will flood it and drive down prices.
The letter written by the five trustees claiming $100 million worth of needed infrastructure is a real knee-slapper that was fabricated as a scare tactic after they voted for the Eagle River Station. A comprehensive needs analysis for our town's infrastructure does not exist.
The last thing the town of Eagle needs to do is double down on a massive project in trying financial times. A favorite former boss of mine used to say, “You can't be kind of pregnant.” He was president and founder of a savings & loan in the late '80s, and explaining the bank couldn't escape a bad real estate they were in.
There is no middle ground. We should learn from the lessons of Avon and Minturn and exercise restraint when we hear the promise of easy money or betting on the comeback of the “Hammer Pants.”
Arn Menconi
Eagle
RED, understandably, needs for this to be approved -- even if they are never able to build the project -- because they've purchased the property. The town, like many in Colorado, is attracted to the idea of shopping malls as a potential revenue generator. This notion is misguided.
A look around the valley provides more than enough empirical evidence to err on the side of caution.
Nearly 15 years ago, Avon did an up-zoning on a 20-year timetable that is receiving negative returns, continued attempts at failed negotiation, lawsuits and subsidies from the town. Minturn has up-zoned 6,000-plus acres without so much as a twinkle at the end of a tunnel. Both towns now suffer with tied-up land that's off the table, and causing problems for the rest of the town.
The town of Eagle's manager and five trustees are willing to roll the dice, based on the developer's own market study from three years ago. I'm not a math major, but I believe that was before the economic downturn. Anyway, that study uses a model where there's 30,000 people within a 45-mile drive with average incomes of $90,000 that will spend 40 percent of their income. In that scenario, Eagle receives $2.5 million.
That's if 95 percent is actually leased up. Take Target, for example. It's a 150,000-square-foot building, which is 30 percent of the 65 percent that the developer needs to obtain commercial financing. For the $2.5 million to be realized, they need 95 percent leased up (leasing 65 percent will get Eagle $1.5 million). Again, this is with the developer's own market studies from 2007.
There's also the pesky little detail about the 500-plus affordable homes that might need to get sold for the developer to have the wherewithal to build over $80 million in infrastructure. Except that there is no market or will flood it and drive down prices.
The letter written by the five trustees claiming $100 million worth of needed infrastructure is a real knee-slapper that was fabricated as a scare tactic after they voted for the Eagle River Station. A comprehensive needs analysis for our town's infrastructure does not exist.
The last thing the town of Eagle needs to do is double down on a massive project in trying financial times. A favorite former boss of mine used to say, “You can't be kind of pregnant.” He was president and founder of a savings & loan in the late '80s, and explaining the bank couldn't escape a bad real estate they were in.
There is no middle ground. We should learn from the lessons of Avon and Minturn and exercise restraint when we hear the promise of easy money or betting on the comeback of the “Hammer Pants.”
Arn Menconi
Eagle
