Thanks, John. For me it has less to do with having the discipline not to accidentally leak something, so much as it is the perception of inappropriate behavior or anything that would otherwise be considered a conflict by being an active participant on the forum. I enjoy having enough anonymity to actually say what I believe on here without having to hold back and be as diplomatic as I have to be when I'm not on here. So, with that in mind, I'll have to voluntarily bench myself. But, I will definitely be reading... and judging .
Just wanted to drop a brief note to the one or two folks who might've noticed or cared that I've been unusually quiet on here lately that this will probably be my last post on here for a while. A recent professional change brings me a bit too close to many of the projects discussed on here to feel comfortable joining in. So I've decided that it would probably be wise of me to sit back and, hard as it might be, not add a five page response to every thread. But not to worry... I'll still be lurking. And to those of you on here who know me personally, I'll just say... I'm back.
She's land banking. The MO so far has been to take it right up to the point where the City is forced to do something and then toss out a few renderings and inquire about working with the TIF on redeveloping the property or pumping out the floodwater from the basement and buy some more time. She's a wealthy dallasite (hey... that rhymes with parasite... hmm...) who doesn't seem to care too much about the role of that building in Fort Worth's efforts to revitalize its downtown.
I personally felt that this editorial was way off base. The two are connected in the sense that they are both current and or planned venues and have a role in the broader issues relating to Fort Worth's meetings, conventions and events, and taking one offline and bringing the other online does have certain implications for what events the city can host when changes/upgrades are brig made to either the Will Rogers campus or the convention center. Yes the consultant made reference to both in his report. Yes the City made reference to both when addressing that report and, separately, the new Will Rogers arena. But I think that any effort to paint the City as having directly linked the two in an effort to dupe or sell the public on either project is simply a case of reading way too much into things.
Not the right thing to do based solely on my knee jerk reaction. Nothing like removing a potentially prime piece of real estate off of the tax roll.
80% of current leases in the building are leased by the City. The City will be making some upgrades to the building and it's mechanical systems, so if in a few years it goes on the maket (i.e. if the post office comes back into play) then it could still find another buyer and the building could be filled by people other than City staff as it is now.
I was really not expecting the vote to be quite that lopsided (understanding full well that minds were likely made up ahead of time).
There is now a major challenge put forth to the new owner/distiller and Council to go out of their way to reach out to people in the neighborhood (and other key stakeholders) to calm their concerns snd make them feel involved in the property/course's future.
Dylan, as Avvy said, the surrounding neighborhoods are pre-war suburban. They are on relatively small lots and according to Austin55, the surrounding neighborhoods are in some of the more dense areas of Fort Worth. Also, this part of town had streetcar service. Maybe I'm a little off target here, but I don't consider our historic inner-city single family neighborhoods "suburban".
I guess they are in a world where we seem only able to describe areas in terms of either Urban (and by that, of course we mean those areas that look like or aspire to be like Manhattan), Rural (farmland and run-down towns nobody really wants to live in), or Suburban (everything that is built that is not Manhattan or a farm). We now have three words to describe every kind of settlement on earth.
Apparently the NIMBY folks would prefer another Wal-Mart of perhaps a trailer park.
This is a great case study on the importance of reaching out to neighborhood leaders very early on in any project that is likely to be controversial, especially if that neighborhood or surrounding area has a history of disenfranchisement.
I find it hilarious that the article/council resolution suggests that they are beginningto explore funding options for the new arena... as though that hasn't been a well calculated issue for several years now.
In fact, there were quite a few rumors flowing around a few years ago that insinuated one reason for the death of a certain transit project which will go unnamed was because a certain organization backing the new arena didn't want the transit project to compete with their new arena for the hearts and minds of Fort Worth voters with respect to funding (even though the two would not have competed in funding at all, as the transit project was coming from the TIF districts - they still didn't want people thinking "we spent money on this, we shouldn't spend it on the arena").
The Weekly wrote about it, in fact.
Welp... I guess they owe us one after this funding gets passed then...