Archive for Monday, March 24, 2008
Stagnant Farmland
City pursuing property for industrial park
This aerial view looks northwest over the former Farmland Industries Inc. fertilizer plant and its surrounding 467 acres. In the foreground is Kansas Highway 10, the extension of 23rd Street east of Lawrence.
March 24, 2008
Advertisement
Interview with ... John Mitchell
John Mitchell, interim director of environment for the Kansas Department of Health and Environment, outlines the environmental conditions of the 467-acre site at the southeastern edge of Lawrence. Enlarge video
Interview with ... Lawrence Mayor Sue Hack
Lawrence Mayor Sue Hack reviews the efforts city officials are making to acquire the property through the U.S. Bankruptcy Court. Enlarge video
Interview with ... Beth Johnson
Beth Johnson, vice president for economic development at the Lawrence Chamber of Commerce, discusses the the site's future potential as a business park. Enlarge video
City leaders have concerns with former Farmland Industries site
City officials say they want to establish a new business park at the Southeastern edge of town - but wonder whether nearly a half-century of chemical production might get in their way. Enlarge video
This aerial photo, looking east over the northern end of the former Farmland Industries Inc. fertilizer plant site east of Lawrence, shows a holding tank in the foreground and holding ponds to the east. They are part of a system to remove nitrates from groundwater at the site, then pump the water into North Lawrence for use irrigating and fertilizing fields. At the top right of the photo is the East Hills Business Park.
Reader poll
The former Farmland Industries Inc. fertilizer plant at the eastern edge of Lawrence is a shell of its former self.
Today, now that the production equipment is gone, all that is left behind are unusable tanks, pipes and other infrastructure along with unwanted nitrates and an unknown inventory of other environmental concerns, ones that may or may not ever surface.
But one thing is for certain: Lawrence leaders want to buy the property and turn it into a thriving industrial park that could become home to high-tech bioscience operations, stable manufacturing plants and, potentially, create several thousand jobs.
After more than three years of discussions among local governments, city officials are conceding that the prime property has to get back in business soon.
“It’s kind of like we’ve been stuck in cement for a while,” said Mayor Sue Hack, who is helping lead the city’s efforts to acquire the 467-acre site. “We may need to get a bit more aggressive.”
Commissioner Rob Chestnut sees that aggressiveness taking the form of compiling a new bid for acquiring the property, one that would include the community — the city, Douglas County and possibly the state — taking responsibility for financing the cleanup of any unexpected environmental problems that might surface in the future.
“That’s what we need to do,” said Chestnut, who considers the chances of future problems surfacing “remote.” “All indications are that this would accelerate the process,” he said.
Below are questions and answers regarding the past, present and future of the former Farmland site that stretches from Kansas Highway 10 to the extension of 15th Street just east of town, generally west of the city’s existing East Hills Business Park.
Q: Who owns the property?
A: The site is controlled by a bankruptcy trust approved by the bankruptcy court that oversaw Farmland’s liquidation. The name of the trust is the F.I. Kansas Remediation Trust, and it is responsible for marketing the property to potential buyers. A company called SELS Administrative Services has been hired to oversee trust activities. It in turn has hired Shaw Environmental, which is responsible for doing cleanup efforts at the site. Shaw has paid property taxes on the site, and the site’s account — spanning several different addresses — “is all paid in full,” said Candice Norman, a registration and tax clerk in the county treasurer’s office.
Q: What has the city done to try to buy the Farmland property?
A: The city last July submitted a bid to the bankruptcy court, but the bid hasn’t been accepted by the trustees that oversee the Farmland property. The city’s bid was less than a slam dunk because the city proposed that the trustees continue to assume all legal liability for cleaning up the property. The city wants to take ownership of the property and do the work to convert the site into an employment center and community open space.
Q: Who is doing legal work for the city on this project?
A: In August 2004, Lawrence and Douglas County governments jointly hired Lathrop & Gage, a law firm in Kansas City, Mo., to advise city and county officials regarding issues related to the acquisition of the Farmland property through the bankruptcy process. The governments agreed to share costs equally.
Early last year, the city agreed to cover all legal fees. From 2004 through the end of February, the city had paid Lathrop & Gage a total of $32,504 for the firm’s work on the Farmland case, said Toni Wheeler, the city’s director of legal services.
Some of the city’s money has come from its general fund, while some has come from the city’s revenues for water and sewage services — a source of revenue tapped, with approval of Lawrence city commissioners, because the money would be used for supporting economic-development activities, Wheeler said.
Q: How much is the city proposing to pay for the property?
A: The bid doesn’t work that way. The city isn’t proposing to pay any city money for the property. Instead, the city’s bid is based on leaving a certain amount of money in the trust fund to be redistributed to Farmland creditors. There are two trust funds associated with the property. One is an environmental cleanup trust fund that has $5.2 million in it. The other is an administrative trust fund that has $7.8 million. The city’s bid does not propose to take any money from the $5.2 million environmental fund. But it does propose to take some of the $7.8 million. The city has not disclosed how much of that fund it would take. It would take significant amounts of city money in the future to develop the site into a business park. City Manager David Corliss has said that extending roads and sewer service to the site would be a multi-million-dollar, multiyear project.
Q: Was the city’s bid realistic? Did officials really think they could avoid the legal liability of cleaning up the property?
A: Corliss said he thinks the city’s bid is sound and realistic. He said it is unlikely that city crews will be able to manage the clean up of the property. That means the city would have to hire a third party to do the cleanup. He said a third-party contractor already is on site doing work for the trust. That contractor has expressed an interest in continuing the work, and the trust has a fund set aside to pay for environmental cleanup work.
Q: I’ve read where the city may be reconsidering its position. Why is that?
A: Basically because the Kansas Department of Health and Environment has said it is unlikely that it will recommend the city’s bid for approval. John Mitchell, the interim director of environment for KDHE, said having the city take over the cleanup would be better than leaving it up to the private trust. Mitchell has expressed concerned about what would happen to the property if the trust was responsible for cleaning up the property and depleted the $5.2 million trust fund before the clean-up was completed.
Q: How much would it cost to clean up the property?
A: Mitchell has told city leaders that KDHE believes the environmental cleanup can be accomplished with the remaining $5.2 million left in the trust fund dedicated for such purposes. But he also told city commissioners that he couldn’t guarantee that. KDHE likely would require the city to commit to using taxpayer dollars to clean up the property, if the $5.2 million isn’t adequate. But Mitchell has said that the city would not be required to put up any extra money, at least not up front.
Q: What is the environmental issue at the site?
A: The main environmental issue is groundwater and soil that is contaminated with nitrates, Mitchell said. The nitrates — basically crop-grade fertilizer — aren’t harmful to the touch but can cause problems if ingested. Specifically, it can cause “blue baby syndrome” in infants, which can lead to death.
A small patch of property — where a cooling tower once was located — contains soil with elevated levels of acid, the remnants of chromates that had been used at the site to stunt the growth of bacteria. But that site should not pose any problems for redevelopment, Mitchell said, so long as the site is left relatively undisturbed. The site could be covered with a parking lot, for example, and pose no public health dangers.
Overall, Mitchell said, the site’s dilapidated appearance from the outside belies the relatively benign environmental concerns lingering below the surface.
“The Farmland property presents a very low risk,” Mitchell said.
Q: How are the nitrates getting cleaned up?
A: A set of pumps, wells and drainage collection ponds on the property are doing a good job containing the contamination and slowly removing it, Mitchell said. He also said the site has a built-in disposal system for the millions of gallons of water that the pumps suck from the ground. The fertilizer-laced water is pumped beneath the Kansas River and into North Lawrence, where several farmers currently use it to irrigate crops. The biggest issue with the cleanup is that it is expected to be a long process. KDHE leaders estimate it will take about 30 years to fully pump all the nitrate-contaminated water out of the ground.
Q: Is there a chance that other, more serious environmental issues could be found at the site?
A: That’s what concerns city commissioners. In December, an abandoned landfill was discovered on the site. At the moment, it does not appear that it will need a costly cleanup, but commissioners have said it is a good reminder of how potential problems could crop up. Mitchell, with KDHE, said his agency can’t guarantee that other issues could be discovered. Others — primarily Douglas County Commissioner Charles Jones — however, have argued that the government likely would be responsible to clean up any new contaminant found on the site. The trust is only obligated to clean the property until the trust fund is depleted, and Jones argues that it would be in the community’s interest to have the eyesore property cleaned up and put back into use.
Q: How long has the property been vacant?
A: The plant closed in 2001 and Farmland declared bankruptcy in 2004.
Q: Is all the land environmentally contaminated?
A: No. KDHE estimates that 263 acres of the 467-acre site is essentially in good environmental condition. The remaining 204 acres — mainly on the northern half of the site — will need the environmental cleanup.
Q. There’s a lot of equipment still on the site. Is that a concern?
A: Not really, Mitchell said. Most of the metal can be taken down and sold for scrap.
Q: Why not let the private sector do this?
A: City and county leaders have said they would be fine with a private-sector buyer or buyers purchasing the property, so long as the property would be used as industrial space. The city and county have agreed that the property won’t be annexed into the city, nor have any development plans approved, if residential development or large-scale retail development is proposed for the site. There have been private companies that have expressed interest in the site, and they will have the opportunity to participate in an auction for the property.
Q: What type of auction?
A: Once the bankruptcy trust accepts a bid, the bankruptcy court will set an auction date for the property, with the accepted bid serving as the opening bid. At that point, the court would conduct a traditional auction for the property. The bidding would be open to anybody who can meet the minimum financial and legal requirements set by the court.
Q: The site is accessible by rail. Is that significant?
A: Definitely, said Beth Johnson, vice president for economic development at the Lawrence Chamber of Commerce. Of the 64 business-attraction prospects fielded by the chamber in 2007, 34 were turned away because Lawrence did not meet the companies’ various needs. Of those rejections, about a quarter were attributed to a lack of sites with available rail service.
“There are opportunities lost without (us) even being able to get in the game,” she said.
Q: If the city were to end up buying the site, who would market it to industrial users? The chamber? A consultant?
A: Hack said that the plan would be to continue the ongoing partnership that drives economic development in the community: city, county and chamber.
While there has been talk of how such marketing would take place, she said, no firm decisions have been made.
Top ads RSS
- ACCOUNT EXECUTIVE The World Company is seeking experienced sales professionals ...
- TELLER Full Time Paying/ Receiving Teller position at Branch Bank. ...
- Multi Media Journalist The future of media is here!! KTKA ...
- Network Operations Install/Service Dispatcher Sunflower Broadband is seeking a Network ...
- Full Time Apartment Maintenance Position Prefer HVAC, plumbing and electrical ...
Marketplace
Arts & Entertainment · Bars · Theatres · Restaurants · Coffeehouses · Libraries · Antiques · Services
- New regents chairwoman will face economic challenges July 6, 2008 · 7 comments
- Traffic problems spur city to restripe Tennessee St. July 6, 2008 · 22 comments
- Suspect in killing commits suicide July 5, 2008 · 59 comments
- Motorists, cyclists share responsibility July 6, 2008 · 70 comments
- US removes ‘yellowcake’ uranium July 6, 2008 · 22 comments
- Fewer swimmers surface at outdoor aquatic center July 6, 2008 · 30 comments
- Mistaken drug delivery leads to arrest July 6, 2008 · 10 comments
- Time may alter perception of Bush presidency July 5, 2008 · 87 comments
- Franken’s Senate candidacy is no joke July 6, 2008 · 30 comments
- Weblog: Ahhh, Kansas: What Are Your Favorite Things About It? July 4, 2008 · 69 comments
- KU student in coma after accident while studying abroad July 6, 2008
- Suspect in killing commits suicide July 5, 2008
- Starlight, star bright: Astronomy simple, inexpensive hobby to share with kids July 5, 2008
- KU team to test biodiesel July 6, 2008
- Vacation Bible school gets face-lift, at a price July 5, 2008
- Exes and uh-ohs July 6, 2008
- Behind the Lens: Invest in yourself — not your camera July 6, 2008
- Body found on train tracks July 5, 2008
- Suspect sought in student’s slaying July 5, 2008
- Tuition lawsuit cost state $175,000 July 6, 2008
24 March 2008 at 6:38 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
spammer89 (Anonymous) says…
This is great for the city to spend MY tax dollars on, yep and one day it could be an empty buisness park as well, Good idea city, what a bunch of morons.
24 March 2008 at 6:41 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
logrithmic (Anonymous) says…
two words: Love Canal
24 March 2008 at 7:10 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
cowboy (Anonymous) says…
With the cost of fertilizer rising , almost double this year from last , maybe they ought to look at reopening a modernized fertilizer plant.
24 March 2008 at 7:31 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
merrill (Anonymous) says…
A: Hack said that the plan would be to continue the ongoing partnership that drives economic development in the community: city, county and chamber. What economic development?
The Chamber and the real estate development industry are the same group that fought hard against the SE area light industrial site which is across the street only to to build more and more houses:
If residential growth paid for itself and was financially positive, we would not be in a budget crunch. But with increased numbers of houses you have increased demand on services, and historically the funding of revenues generated by single-family housing does not pay for the services, they require from a municipality.
Lawrence,Kansas needs new economic growth advisors.
$32,504 in legal fees and Lawrence/Douglas County may not be owners of the property in the end. Which is being paid for through our water bill funding hmmmmmm. Lawrence has excess funding in the water department?
“The city and county have agreed that the property won’t be annexed into the city, nor have any development plans approved, if residential development or large-scale retail development is proposed for the site.”
This means nothing in Lawrence,Kansas because it is not reinforced with an ordinance that requires a unamimous
vote on both city/county commissioners to over turn such a vocal only statement. No teeth behind the quote…aka means nothing.
24 March 2008 at 8:02 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
BuddhaDude (Anonymous) says…
Looks like a good place for a WalMart distro center.
24 March 2008 at 8:03 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
northtown (Anonymous) says…
Business park? What kind of business?
If my taxes are going up,let the citizens vote!!
Same with water fees!!Getting to cost the home owner a bunch of money to live here!!!!
Build that By-pass so trucks,if is to be a business park will have a route to I-70 and drive through town.
Not much thinking i see done here,just another,well lets do it and see what happens and put it on our citizens back..
And is there some kind of business knocking down the door to come to Lawrence??Lawrence needs new jobs,anything would help.
This city someday has to spend themselves and the people who live here out of business,another look and think before you leap kind of thing???
Who knows,i am just a taxpayer,really and maybe will have to move some day and everything i here is payed for,don't really want to start over in another worthless town.
What has happened to Lawrence,It needs help,and now!!
People stand up write your commish with what you think,go get your hair cut,do something,stop them now.
Get them to fix what they have before they start something new.
You all bitch about the streets,maybe that would be a place to start??
Who Knows????
You are the citizens of this town,do not let the commish just run it deeper into the ground!!!!!
24 March 2008 at 8:19 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
bd (Anonymous) says…
Lets see, they spend a lot of money getting it all cleaned up, prep the site ,upgrade utilities, advertise for a tenant that will come in and get huge tax brakes !
Who wins??????
24 March 2008 at 8:26 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
LogicMan (Anonymous) says…
“Looks like a good place for a WalMart distro center.”
I think they just built it in Ottawa.
But it shouldn't be too long until the K-Mart site is available, unfortunately. And the Sears store. Wal-Mart should buy K-Mart/Sears when the price is right.
The Farmland site needs clean-up/redevelopment badly, but I don't think the city should be out front on it. Let a private company take the risk — the city can play a support role that limits tax payers' liabilities.
24 March 2008 at 8:27 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
JohnBrown (Anonymous) says…
Yep. let's give up. What's the use of trying? Let's just let market forces let come what may. Oh yeah, market forces are what made it is today. Well…maybe we could….nah…forget it.
24 March 2008 at 8:32 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
monkeyhawk (Anonymous) says…
It is very difficult to have any faith that our city and county leaders would be able to safely undertake such a project, when the citizens cannot even feel assurance that sirens will be sounded when inclement weather approaches. (Recall the microburst.)
I had been wondering why my water bill is nearing an outrageous $75/month in the winter. Now I get it, my money is going to yet more lawyers - out of towners, no less.
I am sure that the CC and county are taking a glance at this poll. Do they get it? I don't think so. Remember this pearl?
Jones defends no-vote stand
“It’s not always true that public votes best serve the public interest… If we refer to Farmland in a campaign then see the bankruptcy court award the site to a private party, will we be accused of bait and switch? … My willingness to forgo a public vote on this issue may be too aggressive. Maybe not.” -Commissioner Charles Jones
24 March 2008 at 8:45 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
blue73harley (Anonymous) says…
“It in turn has hired Shaw Environmental, which is responsible for doing cleanup efforts at the site.”
So, what exactly is Shaw Environmental doing? What have they accomplished so far other than paying taxes? I generally see no activity except the Starving Artists moving trucks parked in the lot.
24 March 2008 at 8:54 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
merrill (Anonymous) says…
“I had been wondering why my water bill is nearing an outrageous $75/month in the winter.” Did you forget?
The new $88 milion dollar sewage plant on the table is now up to $133,000,000 according to what a group was told March 22,2008.
The city’s plans call for sewer rates to increase by about 9 percent a year for the next several years to help pay for the plant. Notice the increase on your water bills? This is what is funding the yet another study cost of $360,000.
The 9% annual increase is extraordinarily high and ratepayers can expect $100 a month water bills whether you water your lawns or not. Those who water lawns hmmmmm.
If the new plant is built which is primarily for real estate developers guess what other tax increasing projects will surface:
Following the construction of the $133 million sewage treatment plant,which in and of itself increases the cost of community services, will be more:
* water and sewer lines
* streets and repairs
*houses
*public schools
* fire stations
* law enforcement manpower
*sidewalks
* snow removal
* bike trails and cross walks
* Traffic signals
* Traffic calming
* developers requesting more tax dollar assistance(new infrastructure) for their
warehouses and retail strip malls.
In general increases the cost of community services to all taxpayers for ever. Ready for impact fees yet? It is the real estate development industry that is begging for taxpayers to build them a $133,000,000(million) sewage treatment plant that has increased our sewage rates by 9%.
How much are taxpayers will to pay for the type of growth that does not pay for itself? Why should any of us PAY for for TWO sewage treatment plants? There are far better uses for tax dollars in this community such as rehabilitating the older streets and sidewalks that have been ignored.
Meanwhile taxpayers have been presented with new tax increasing growth aka does not pay for itself. Isn't there something wrong with this picture?
24 March 2008 at 9:07 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
merrill (Anonymous) says…
In the meantime why not promote fun situations that bring people/tourists to town and increase sales tax revenues in addition to hotel/motel revenues. Revenues that can be felt and seen.
Public transportation will be essential to tourists.
What I like about tourism is people come,have fun,spend some money then go home. Fun things will draw larger crowds consistently more so than historical events, big box stores and warehouses.
We know downtown is the primary attraction!
As always I still say focusing on what exists may bring in more economic growth than spending lots of money trying to create something which may not work.
We know some things do work in Lawrence,Kansas so why not do more? When KU and public schools are in session.
* Cycling competition brings people from all over the USA and maybe the world. Cyclist like Lawrence,the terrain and its' proximity as the center of the USA more or less which means less traveling time. When KU and public schools are in session.
*Art Fairs are popular so why not schedule in two or three more and do them on Mass Street in addition to making the Lawrence Art Walk into a large affair that attracts more folks from kcmo/joco,Shawnee County,Leavenworth County etc etc. When KU and public schools are in session.
*KU Natural History Museum
*Try a spring and fall garden show on Mass Street cuz so many people just about everywhere love looking at Landscape ideas and beauiful plants. Invite in a ton of landscapers from surrounding communities. Include local organic farmers cuz folks love purchasing fresh foods.
When KU and public schools are in session.
* How about two sidewalk sales instead of one? One in the first week of May and and one in the first week of October. When KU and public schools are in session.
* How about a Blues and Jazz Festival in downtown Lawrence such that KCMO does? Blues stage on 7th street/ Jazz stage on 8th street. Replay Lounge doing something on 10th street. Allow local vendors to cater the events. Schedule this event when KU sudents are around. Lawrence has a solid music history
* There is always the idea of creating swimming events considering the number of pools available in Lawrence,
Kansas.
*Sunflower Games
*Basketball and Football home games. Hey Chancellor how about all the home games in Lawrence. Networks know where Lawrence is so let's bring them to Lawrence
as often as possible. The hotel and food establishments need their business….thank you for your consideration.
24 March 2008 at 9:58 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Reality_Check (Anonymous) says…
No, no, no! I want to vote on this terrible idea. We don't need another industrial park, and, if we did, it should be out by the airport so that trucking, rail, and air can be combined. And, if it's such a good deal, then the private sector should do it….our city is not in the development business.
Show me a business case for this boondoggle, then let me vote on it.
24 March 2008 at 10:03 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
justthefacts (Anonymous) says…
Anyone - including a public entity such as the city - that takes title to such property is henceforth “on the hook” for any future costs for governmentally mandated environmental clean up costs. Period. And that can be an open-ended check, depending upon what is later found at the site or required by regulators. Maybe a jail might make sense at this site, but regardless of what goes in there - or who owns the property - anyone (private or public) in the chain of title will be legally liable for clean up costs. They can try to shift that burden through contract, but the feds/state health authority are not party to such contracts - and they can go after whomever they think most likely to pay the costs (and that will always mean the public entities get hit first). Then, to recover against the contract party would require more legal work (e.g. a law suit) to get the contracting party to reimburse for clean up costs.
City officials - do NOT take title to this property. Ever or under any circumstances. If you do, the city tax payers will end up picking up the open-ended bill that your ill-advised purchase agreed to assume. If you want it to get used, then get someone else to take title - work on that more. But for the love of all common sense, do NOT take title to it. Ever.
24 March 2008 at 10:04 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
merrill (Anonymous) says…
The airport deal requires $25 million in reconstruction an flood control projects to make it work…. so I say let the developers pay for they are ones pushing this on the backs of the taxpayers with the help of elected officials. If the highway is elevated to act as a flood control levy to protect the airport after the flood plain is filled in… that will be another several million.
24 March 2008 at 10:07 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
merrill (Anonymous) says…
The airport project is actually at 42 million. The 25 million will only cover the flood contol plus the cost of elevating the highway plus the 17 million in reconstruction projects.
Then this:
* water and sewer lines
* streets and repairs
*houses
*public schools
* fire stations
* law enforcement manpower
*sidewalks
* snow removal
* bike trails and cross walks
* Traffic signals
* Traffic calming
* developers requesting more tax dollar assistance(new infrastructure) for their
warehouses and retail strip malls.
24 March 2008 at 11:08 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
gl0ck0wnr (Anonymous) says…
Richard, I wish you'd cut and paste more on this thread. Really, you haven't repeated yourself often enough. Without the SLT, this project is doomed. The reason why the airport project is attractive to private industry is because it is near major transportation. The Farmland site is not, which is one serious reason why it is unwanted.
24 March 2008 at 11:30 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
horsegirl (Anonymous) says…
I think an industrial park is a great idea. Better than an eye-sore providing no jobs nor taxes for the county. And as for needing to be near an airport, I'm not sure what type of industry needs to be near an airport, but in my industry, all we need is rail and truck, which the Farmland site has both.
24 March 2008 at 11:44 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
northtown (Anonymous) says…
Airport location
make flloding concerns even worse
Yes close to roads,that is nice!!
But if the Pines want it,make them pay for it,not the city taxpayer.
Even make the Pines maintain streets,all sewer and water.
And keep it in the county!!!!!!
Why waste good farm ground
Build the SLT,where ever it may go,across the mudhole,or south of the litttle river,and then use the old farmland site.
But the city should saty out of it,just cost us,the taxpayer more.And probably for something that will just set vacant.
The city has the knack at failing to complete one thing before they start another.
One thing at a time,it is called baby steps.Hard times means move ahead slowy,use and take care of they already have.
Or quit bitching about the streets and water bills and watch then tax us and spend our money like crazy!!!!!
24 March 2008 at 3:04 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
merrill (Anonymous) says…
The bypass has never been truly about congestion or traffic. However “traffic” and “congestion” are good emotional buzz words. The bypass will have little impact on 23rd. It is the real estate development community executives that have been the proponents since at least 1987. These are the people who consistently would be seen in the KDOT hearings… it was their idea. This bypass was not a KDOT idea. K-10 is reasonably close to I-35 and I-70 connections.
The $200 million bypass is no guarantee for anything except this:
* water and sewer lines
* streets and repairs
*houses
*public schools
* fire stations
* law enforcement manpower
*sidewalks
* snow removal
* bike trails and cross walks
* Traffic signals
* Traffic calming
* developers requesting more tax dollar assistance(new infrastructure) for their
warehouses and retail strip malls.
Any plans for new roads,water lines,sewer lines,$133 million sewage treatment plants(9% annual increases for the next 25 years) will always be followed by the above….. why else do it? And all of the above creates more and more traffic and more taxes to support all of it.
East Hills was brought about because of K-10 and its' proximity to I-35 and I-70. There is no other logical explanation. This decision was made by the same group who are today calling the shots for more and more local corporate welfare.
By default the community is stuck with cleaning up a contaminated area….. typical corporate america behavior just like Love Canal.
24 March 2008 at 5:18 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
merrill (Anonymous) says…
What's on the table?
*$60 million North Lawrence Project
*$133 million Sewage Treatment Plant that has already put in place a 25 year 9% annual increase in user fees
* $200 millon bypass
* Lecompton Industrial Site with no dollar value as yet
* Now the 31st extension is on the table again …. millions more.
And all the tax increasing development on the long list above that will follow.
I'd say none of this is investing money. Instead it is a tax dollar spending spree not knowing if there will be timely pay back if any….. or just maybe nothing but higher taxes.
Investing would be bringing downtown back as the central retail business district because the downtown charm is what attracts people to Lawrence,Kansas. This is proven time and again. Lawrence citizen taxpayers should not allow allow downtown to go down the tubes. Tourist shoppers are far more likely to shop Downtown Lawrence
due to the “old charm” of downtown.
24 March 2008 at 7:42 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
hawkperchedatriverfront (Anonymous) says…
horsegirl, the land for the rail spur was set aside from Wilma MIllers parcel and the spot was transferred to KU endowment, now it appears that Amaar has expanded and blocked access to East Hills. Farmland has rail spur but there are no decent roads into and out of Farmland or East Hills. K 10 is not wide enough, it needs overpasses, cloverleafs, there needs to be north south access to Kansas Turnpike. This whole area now east of town is a disaster run by disastrous thinking officials. There should be a frontage road along K-10 to get to the main entrance of the Fairgrounds, not Harper Street. This gets worse by the day.
Quit pumping money into Downtown. Let the merchants and owners of the buildings come up with their own money to save their own butts. It will not be the central business district now or later. It isn't even the center of town!
24 March 2008 at 7:46 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
hawkperchedatriverfront (Anonymous) says…
Hmmm, the city and county are fine with Farmland being bought by private investors, notice “investors”. but they can't have retail, housing. IN otherwords, the city and county want to buy it and then the game plan will change and their favored local “investors” will step in and take over just as East Hills has had happen to it.
Again, a planning department run by socialists, a planning department with moles, a city commisson and county commission all looking after their own personal and financial interests? Hello? Deciphera? Hello? And what else have we not been privy to?
Private development is just that. It is either private or not private. IN Lawrence , private development means at the public's expense.
24 March 2008 at 10:16 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
offtotheright (Anonymous) says…
blah blah blah
25 March 2008 at 3:05 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
lounger (Anonymous) says…
Acid in the ground-Nasty! This place is contaminated=very badly!! What the heck are you going to do with all this dead ground? For gosh sake DO NOT build houses!!
25 March 2008 at 4:19 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
BigPrune (Anonymous) says…
The City should not buy Farmland. Let private industry redevelop Farmland. At least it will have a fighting chance of being profitable. Has the City ever entered into a business field typically private business that led to a profit? I cannot think of one field. Eagle Bend operates in the red. The T Bus operates in the red. The parking garage downtown operates in the red. I think they are hell bent on sticking OUR noses into something they are incapable of making a success.
25 March 2008 at 5:14 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Bowhunter99 (Anonymous) says…
merrill and cool babbling their standard set of nonsense posts…. the same set they've been reposting for over a year.
I bet the two lonely souls have them saved on their desktops as prized possessions….