In Part I, I described the great opportunity presented by the Queensgate Terminals.
In Part II, I described the blatant "taking" of property rights and very expensive litigation that has kept it from happening, and could cost City taxpayers millions.
And in Part III, I tried to show that good views and high property values can coexist with a new terminal. They do in other parts of town.
But despite what I said in Part III, this is not even a simple up or down decision on whether this project can coexist with the community. This is not a question about a variance, or a new zoning proposal, and getting public input before deciding on a proposed change. And this is not a question where we are being asked to subsidize something with City or County funds.
Instead, those asking the City to continue to stand in the way of this project are asking the City Council, the City, and all City taxpayers, to continue to stand by, defend, and ultimately foot the bill for, completely inappropriate government actions that will likely cost millions.
And City Councilmembers who continue to stand against the project, too, are essentially standing in defense of this inappropriate government action (even though, like the Mayor, many weren't there when it happened). They too will ultimately be asking all taxpayers to foot the bill for this stance.
Respectfully, I think it’s far too much to ask.
In my judgment, the benefits of moving forward to the city, county and state dramatically, overwhelmingly outweigh any costs (and those costs can be minimized). On the flip side, the costs to taxpayers of stopping the project is in the millions from the takings compensation, property upkeep and further legal action alone, and far more in lost economic opportunity. And given the condition of the property, any benefit from that stance is hard to measure.
It's up to them, not me, but I hope the City will finally allow this strategic opportunity to move forward.
Saturday, April 4, 2009
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
Why did it take years and years to have THE BANKS project truly become Shovel Ready?
That means someone is doing something with it?
It sat empty for years.
Meanwhile, about a mile away in Northern Kentucky, their river row strip is flourishing, so much so that on week-ends there is a backup on I 471 of Ohioans just waiting to spend their Ohio money over there.
It seems that Cincy and HamCoOh discourage development without months and years of political wrangling.
It was tough to picture the site by reading about it in the Courts' opinions, but how feasible is it to connect the site to the future viaduct/bridge? And who would pay for it?
Also, what agency or governmental body can make this port a reality? Is there anything City Council can do?
Is there a link to a website that has maps or drawings of the proposed project (including the proposed bike trail)?
Will the project result in the removal of the mountain of dirt that is used for, I guess, concrete mixing?
Has anyone addressed the concerns over light pollution?
That's a huge stretch of land. Where, exactly, will the cranes and lights be located?
Thanks.
Post a Comment