Against proposed development
Robert Symmonds, Emporia
Monday, October 13, 2008
My wife and I live near the proposed zoning change on 24th Avenue near Industrial Road. I fear that some city commissioners have already made up their minds about this issue for the reason that City Manager Matt Zimmerman attended the Planning Commission meeting in support of the requested zoning change.
I hope that the city commission will not support the zoning change knowing:
F It is contrary to the comprehensive plan, which was adopted March 5, 2008, and cost approximately $100,000.
F The city has already approved infrastructure expenditures of more than $3,000,000 on a commercial zone (per former Commissioner Ray Toso) at a location less than a quarter of a mile away from this location.
F Area residents including the Presbyterian Manor oppose the zoning change.
F The developer had failed to respond to requests from officials in Hays for unpaid taxes regarding his development there, according to a recent article published in The Emporia Gazette.
F The city manager represented that the increased traffic at the intersection of 24th Avenue and Industrial Road could be handled by a simple stop sign.
F The city manager claims that this beautiful pastoral area with homes valued in excess of $150,000 each is a “blighted idea,” which is clearly contrary to Kansas Statutes KSA 12-1770a.
F That the zoning change would cost the taxpayers millions of dollars in infrastructure, all of which will be repaid through increased sales tax, tax incentives and property tax relief over a period of 14-20 years. Hence, there will be no benefit to the city of Emporia until these bonds are paid off.
F Spending millions of dollars to bring in a big box store will undoubtedly cause financial hardship to the existing businesses in Emporia, which did not get tax incentives, thus creating unfair competition and that the primary purpose of tax increment financing is to redevelop blighted areas and not develop “green areas.”
F That seven of the nine members on the Planning Commission voted against the zoning change.
F That former City Commission Ray Toso, who served on the commission for 20 some years, is opposed for the reason that the city has voted to spend millions of dollars for infrastructure at a different location.
F That Mr. Russ Schoenberger, a former planning department head, spoke against the zoning change, stating that the city had hired professionals to develop a master plan and this proposal is directly contrary to the plan. He also questioned the legality of the notice of the hearing.
F No analysis has been completed on the TIF project’s cannibalization of existing business.
F This proposal will delay the development of areas already zoned for retail established.
I urge residents of Emporia to attend the City Commission meeting at 7 p.m. Wednesday and voice their opinions.
cheerup (anonymous) says...
The distance is not 1/4 mile but 1 mile. I can not believe that you or anyone would suggest putting the large commercial developement across from the 2 schools on Grapic Arts. There is also a large housing developement across the street to the North. The traffic from Industrial shopping area would have to drive by one or both of the schools to get from one to the other. 24th is the only area that makes since for this developement.
October 13, 2008 at 3:09 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
dale011 (anonymous) says...
I disagree with cheerup - there are a lot of open fields around Emporia, who says this development has to be crammed into that already dangerous traffic zone? There are many reasons for not doing this project and Mr. Symmonds does a pretty good job of itemizing them.
October 13, 2008 at 3:56 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
anonymous1 (anonymous) says...
The property that you described has already been zoned commercial by the City. Traffic would come into the property directly from I-35, not past the schools. It makes absolutely no sense to put this large development into a residential zone -- especially when the property has to be rezoned!
October 13, 2008 at 4:26 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
cheerup (anonymous) says...
There is currently no exit off I-35 that goes directly to this area. You would have to take the round-about off 35and get off on 50 and then take Grapic Arts back to the area across from the schools. If you are shopping in the area around Walmart or the area that Mr. Symmonds is suggesting, I wonder which route 95% of people would take. I'm sure that it would be down 18th in front of the schools. I'm sure Mr. Symmonds would take 24th and turn on Graphic Arts and then pass thru 2 school zones. Get real.
October 13, 2008 at 4:45 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Paccifier (anonymous) says...
Cheerup: There are plans for an entrance/exit into that property coming off I-35/US 50. The northern of the two new roundabouts is designed to allow a northbound street into the property as the entrance. A street has not been built yet because there is no need to run a street into a vacant lot. I think the south roundabout also can accomodate a southbound street into the Thomas property that lies south of US 50
October 13, 2008 at 5:52 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
cheerup (anonymous) says...
What route would the residents living in the North section of Emporia take? This the area in Becker/ Apple Dr./Timmerman area.And also I'm sure that if you are near Walmart you won't be getting back on the Interstate to go to Lowes. 24th is the best location. I can not believe that anyone would even suggest building this large commercial developement across the street from 2 schools that house more than 1/2 of Emporia students not counting the Vo-Tech school. Again get real!!!
October 13, 2008 at 6:24 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
eatasheep69 (anonymous) says...
What's the big problem driving by the schools anyway? Lowe's doesn't sell liquor.
October 13, 2008 at 6:43 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
cheerup (anonymous) says...
The 1st time one of our kids get run over by all that extra traffic that I keep hearing about, that will be a problem. From what I read there will be more than just a Lowes store.
October 13, 2008 at 6:58 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Free4all (anonymous) says...
Grow up old timers, its time to expand. Your plan isnt working so its time to make adjustments. Home Depot has never ruined a town that I know of and Pittsburg is doing just fine the last I talked to my friend there. Once home depot comes in, others will follow like target and so on. Along with that will be other types of industry to offer jobs too. I am tired of going out of town for things and would enjoy a variety of businesses here.
October 13, 2008 at 8:44 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
dhcc66 (anonymous) says...
i think it's a big case of "not in my back yard" thats going on here. I don't think that Mr Symmonds is really opposed to the Lowes store coming to town, i just think that Mr Symmonds doesn't want it in his back yard...or in any area around where he or his friends live. It seems that if it's a "1/4 mile away", then it may be fine with him. Maybe it wouldn't been seen out one of his windows? if anybody looked mr symmonds up in the phone book, they might see that he lives on the eastern border of the development.
Now i do agree with Mr Symmonds about what the city is doing trying to declare the Peak properties as blight. I doubt the Peaks or anybody up in the northwest corner of town would live in a "blighted" neighborhood or area. Again, ask Mr Symmonds as the Peak family is one of his neighbors.
I think that one of the prime locations that everybody seems to be overlooking is US 50 and Americus Rd. While it may be away from the "retail corridor", there are two nice grassy corners with plenty of roadway leading to both of them. I would say that the intersection might need a stop light, but it's needed one for years and it might even help slow down the traffic at the intersection and in front of Flying J....or have we all forgotten all of the nasty accidents in both locations?
I think we all need to be reasonable here. We need more retail, and Lowes seems to employ lots of people as well. Everybody said that Price Chopper, Dillons, Reebles, and Aldi would be stores of the past when Wal mart expanded. True, they did take some of the pharmacy business, and I'm sure they took some of the grocery business....but the other stores survived, as will Sutherlands and Water's, and Mark II when Lowes comes to Emporia.
October 13, 2008 at 10:58 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
hogan77 (anonymous) says...
I have to agree with dhcc66's last paragraph. I believe everyone needs to open up their minds and realize that a Lowes will not take away business from other retailers, just as Wal-Mart really didn't take away too much grocery business.
My question is... what is so wrong with the possibility of building on the eastern edge of town? Last time I was in Emporia, I noticed how it was dying away, it looked filthy and run down. Perhaps the east edge of town needs some new business, rather than trying to jam pack the west edge. Heaven knows, people traveling on I-35, coming off to get to eat a bite on their way to the college, they are seeing the same things I do. Maybe if it were cleaner over there, more people would be willing to stay, spend a little more money. It isn't the greatest impression of Emporia to come off of the interstate and realize there is nothing there, and the little that is is dirty and nasty. Coming from KC, people on I-35 would see this great new Lowes store, and possibly say to themselves... hey, this looks like a nice, large place to stop at for a rest. Pop in a couple new fast food restaurants, maybe a little shopping center, and you may have something there.
Much as I hate to say it, opening more business on the east edge of town makes much better sense that what is proposed. Not only would this store, and any others coming in, bring employment, they would bring employment to those who need it the most. I am talking about the low income families, with hardly enough money to put gas in to get back and forth across town. Just think of this scenario... Mr. Jones, living off welfare and doesn't own a car, could walk to his new job as a cashier in Lowes. This would relive him of needing so much state assistance, which eases the burden off of all the tax payers.
Best thing about building in that little section over there, there are no elementary schools on that strip of 12th street and very little housing (unless you count the apartments by the water tower). It could be a win-win situation.
October 13, 2008 at 11:47 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
lightenup (anonymous) says...
dhc66 wrote: "Everybody said that Price Chopper, Dillons, Reebles, and Aldi would be stores of the past when Wal mart expanded. True, they did take some of the pharmacy business, and I'm sure they took some of the grocery business."
---
After Wal-Mart expanded to sell groceries, FOOD-4-LESS closed and then DILLONS WEST closed. (Dillons said it was a lease issue, but if they were really making money in that store, they'd have cared enough to stay around.)
October 14, 2008 at 7:52 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
momus (anonymous) says...
We did have groceries close, and others that were hurt when Walmart expanded, as lightenup stated. But, this is about basic fairness and consistency. If Lowe's comes to town, thats fine, as long as they are treated the same as any local merchant that was opening their doors. Bluestem used to be downtown, and then they moved out to their current location. Ask Lee Nelson how many incentives he got. Ask any local retailer if the city changed the comprehensive plan for them, or even changed zoning for that matter.
If Lowe's comes in they will have a negative effect on other retailers, on net jobs, on the amount of sales that stay in our local economy and on our tax base. But, I'm not saying lets build a wall around our city. I will continue to shop at our local retailers, regardless of a big box moving to town. I'm simply stating that we should treat Lowe's like a Sutherlands, or a Mark II, or a Hill's. No tax incentives, and go into areas zoned commercial that are consistent with the new comprehensive plan. Why should Lowe's be treated in a manner differently than our home grown businesses?
October 14, 2008 at 9:26 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
tosie (anonymous) says...
cheerup must be working for DJ Christie......24th and Industrial doesn't need anymore traffic mess - I just wish this whole topic would blow over. It's getting old and it is obvious that the majority of people favor no business going in at that location. There are plenty of other locations in the city - use them.
October 14, 2008 at 9:35 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
nutsaboutools (anonymous) says...
dhcc66,
You nailed it! I've been saying to my wife since we moved here about 5 years ago, that the west side of Emporia (Americus & Hwy 50) would be ideal for a place such as Lowes (and other possible "anchor" retailers) (especially with the Interstate modification almost complete). I do think the Industrial & 24th location would require too many major changes to accommodate retail there.
momus,
Get out of your cave. You are way off base. Attracting large retailers, such as Lowes will bring in people from the local counties (that have been traveling to Topeka, Olathe, Wichita). That can only increase local revenues. Sure it'll take some incentives to draw these retailers in, but that's the current means that municipalities use to encourage such growth (welcome to the 21st century). You'll never replace the quality service that is offered by Bluestem, Mark II, Hill's, etc. Matter of fact, they may see an increase in business (especially when we start attracting those consumers that have been going elsewhere to "shop"). Did you read the article on how Home Depot impacted Pittsburg?
October 14, 2008 at 11:32 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
slvrnblck (anonymous) says...
Dillon's West closed many years later and it was because their building was falling apart and their landlord wouldn't do anything to fix it. And, there is still a Dillons in town it is just East.
I would welcome a Lowes with open arms. They have great prices, better selection and more items than any place we currently have. They would bring jobs to town and IMO if the other similar stores in town improve their customer service they won't have to close.
October 14, 2008 at 11:35 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
momus (anonymous) says...
nutsabouttools,
Yes I've read the two articles, but, more importantly I've talked to people in the Manhattan and Hays areas (I don't know anyone from Pittsburg, or I would have talked to them too). According to the people I've talked too, Christie's developments have been disappointing to say the least. And, there has been an effect not only on existing retailers but the placement of pre-existing retailers inside the community. In the instance of Hays, you could see businesses simply move to the new development and leave unfilled buildings (or sections of unfilled buildings) throughout town. In Junction City, from what I understand, the name Christie is almost a swear word in certain circles.
As far as using incentives to "lure" devleopments, there is good data showing that you don't need the incentives, but these businesses will definately ask for them (free money?). Either retailers have a market, or they don't. I don't think these incentives encourage "growth" but I do think they encourage "sprawl". And, after this development fails to be the massive draw that supporters predict, I'll make a prediction of my own: the answer to those people will be to offer more incentives to more businesses in an attempt to further homogeonize the market place. It's a fight that is population dependant, and a fight that we cannot win. Strategically, this is a short sighted move. Well, at least I'll have my "cave".
October 14, 2008 at 2:19 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
nutsaboutools (anonymous) says...
Thanks momus,
Enjoyed your reply (LOL). Sounds like this could go either way (I've seen it go the positive way, much like what Pittsburg saw). I'm not liking what I hear about Mr. Christie though. I still think we need some large retailers like Home Depot (who usually will also bring a Target, both of which are usually big contributors to the local community, especially the schools). I also think the Americus Rd & Hwy 50 intersection is an ideal location for such development.
Even though you may not read this (since the forum is no longer active), just wanted to say I agree with some of your points, but I still think we need to attract some bigger retailers (and some more diverse ones, like Best Buy, SAM's Club, Old Navy for example).
Enjoy your "cave" (LOL) :)
October 15, 2008 at 11:37 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
create (anonymous) says...
The forum is no longer active? Really?
I'd like to see an Old Navy come to town.
October 15, 2008 at 12:20 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
LifeGoesOn (anonymous) says...
create, you are the one who keeps telling me that you hate big box type stores and would never go there and now you say you want "Old Navy"?? ya cant have it both ways!
According to your logic on other posts, having an Old navy will just drive business away from the locals. think I'll start calling you flip flop.
October 15, 2008 at 12:26 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
momus (anonymous) says...
I worked with individuals trying to bring some of the stores you listed above to Emporia a few years ago. Let me say this as clearly as possible. Target is not coming to Emporia. We, as a community have some very good "ins" (people in the know with Target placement), and have gotten a resounding NO in regards to placement in Emporia. The same is true with Old Navy (in both instances we are MUCH too small to support the volume they require). Wal-Mart information is harder to come by, but I would assume the same lack of size would prohibit a Sam's club in Emporia. The only one of the businesses you list that I don't have data handy on is Best Buy. A few years ago I would have stated we didn't have a shot in H E double hockey sticks, but their business model might have changed. I'll have to check.
My point, that people are kind of making for me, is that individuals will always find reasons to leave town. People from Topeka go to Kansas City, people from Kansas City go to Chicago and people from Chicago go to New York (and so on). The question isn't how can we retain 100% of our population (we can't), but how can we retain while bringing in people from the larger surrounding communities to encourage a larger overall sales capacity. By homogenizing our businesses, we discourage people from larger communities from shopping here (why come to our Lowes when they have one at home), while simultaneously failing to provide every single shopping and entertainment option that would cement people in town (we aren't large enough to allow for every retailer and entertainment venue). The market is finite, and for that fact, I question the wisdom of this strategy.
October 15, 2008 at 12:42 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
create (anonymous) says...
Life, there are no other stores like Old Navy in Emporia that would suffer from the competition unless you say JC Penney's.
October 15, 2008 at 3:03 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
LifeGoesOn (anonymous) says...
Create/ Flip Flop
Penny's, Cato, Buckle, Maurices, Jocks Nitch, etc.,
Dont BS a BSer
The reason you give for not wanting Lowes should be the same reasons you wouldnt want a Ol Navy. Give me a break!
I suppose next you will be telling me about all the high paying jobs Old Navy would bring to Emporia?
October 17, 2008 at 5:57 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
momus (anonymous) says...
I'm not an Old Navy fan, but for create and others who asked for one... Our trade area is way too small, but at least it would address a clothing leakage cited in various in town studies, while Lowes severely overwhelms leakage from data we as a community have collected. The difference being that Lowes will have to capture a majority of its sales from existing retailers if they want to make in-store sales goals. A lot of clothing retailers (again, I prefer locally owned) could exist specifically on leakage without severely effecting others. The problem is, we have become so entrepreneurially averse as a community that even if we had a local business open up that sold the same or similar products as a national chain, I don't think the community would be satisfied until they viewed sinage from a company that was publicly traded. For example, we have a great bookstore downtown, but some people won't be happy until we get Borders. We have a great chocolate shop downtown, but some people won't be happy until we have a Rocky Mountain Chocolate Factory. Bluestem has a great selection of tools, but some won't be happy until we get a Lowes (and event then they won't be happy, they'll just move on to something else we don't have).
October 17, 2008 at 7:54 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )