Archive for Friday, July 3, 2009
Retail uses in play for Farmland location
Investors think city should consider commercial plans
The former Farmland Industries site on the east edge of Lawrence has been vacant for several years. The city must decide whether to pursue ownership of the property or turn it over to private development interests.
July 3, 2009
Advertisement
An Overland Park investment group that at least partially controls the future of the former Farmland Industries site gave more details Thursday about what it hopes to do with the land.
Aaron Bowers, a member of Capitana Redevelopment Group, said he wanted to keep open the possibility that at least a portion of the 467-acre site on Lawrence’s eastern edge could be used for retail or commercial development.
That is a different vision from what city leaders — who have been working to purchase the site for more than three years — have stated. Commissioners have said the site should be used for an industrial or office park that could bring new jobs to the community.
Bowers said his group believed the site was suited for an industrial park, too, but said large amounts of frontage along Kansas Highway 10 could be attractive for more commercial uses.
“I think the city and our group share a common goal of getting the site back to its highest and best use,” Bowers said. “What we’re saying is that it would be premature to set in stone what the highest and best use is right now.”
Capitana has some leverage in the site’s future. Capitana this year purchased a legal interest in the approximately $10 million trust fund that has been set aside to maintain and clean up the environmentally blighted piece of property that became vacant when Farmland Industries filed for bankruptcy in 2002. That legal interest means the city must work with Capitana if the city hopes to purchase the property.
Mayor Rob Chestnut said he thought the focus should remain on using the site for industrial development, but acknowledged that the city would have to explore scenarios.
“As you get into it, you have to figure out what your opportunities are,” Chestnut said. “I don’t know if an industrial use can coexist with retail uses on the frontage or not.”
Bowers said he wanted to at least keep that possibility open.
“I think it is most likely that there might be multiple uses at that site,” Bowers said. “But I don’t think residential makes any sense there.”
Environmental issues also continue to be a question at the site. The Kansas Department of Health and Environment previously has estimated that it will cost $12 million to $15 million over the next 30 years to clean the site of years of fertilizer spills. There is about $10 million in a pair of trust funds established for the property from when Farmland filed for bankruptcy.
The city has hoped to gain access to those funds to clean the property, and has some optimism that it could clean the property for less than the KDHE estimate because it could use existing city employees to do some of the work.
A timeline for any type of deal to be worked out remains uncertain. Bowers said both sides were waiting for KDHE to release a plan for cleanup of the property.
A KDHE spokesman said a draft corrective action plan for the cleanup likely would be put out for public comment in September. A final plan could be approved by November.
More like this
- Investor group buys stake in Farmland site 32 comments / February 8, 2009
- Candidates discuss former Farmland site’s prospects 21 comments / March 23, 2009
- Trust fund shortfalls hinder progress 6 comments / October 4, 2009
- KDHE nears final plan to clean up Farmland plant east of Lawrence 5 comments / November 25, 2009
- County to aid city on Farmland annexation 12 comments / May 5, 2009
Top ads RSS
Marketplace
Arts & Entertainment · Bars · Theatres · Restaurants · Coffeehouses · Libraries · Antiques · Services
- Quiet revolution taking place in America November 25, 2009 · 128 comments
- Former KU Chancellor Laurence Chalmers dies November 25, 2009 · 35 comments
- Obama to promise 17% cuts in U.S. emissions in next decade November 26, 2009 · 38 comments
- Turbine manufacturer passes on Lawrence site November 24, 2009 · 90 comments
- Blog: How Has Obama's Stimulus Helped You? November 21, 2009 · 80 comments
- Two treated at hospital after fight outside Cadillac Ranch November 26, 2009 · 26 comments
- Heeding heart attack’s message November 26, 2009 · 14 comments
- Local residents work together to make donation to Locks of Love November 25, 2009 · 5 comments
- Nation has right to ask ‘why?’ November 21, 2009 · 143 comments
- On the street: Which do you prefer, white meat or dark meat? November 26, 2009 · 26 comments
- Double Take: Parent considers home drug testing November 24, 2009
- At Fambrough’s urging, fans show support for KU football November 26, 2009
- Lawrence likely to land distribution center November 24, 2009
- Local residents work together to make donation to Locks of Love November 25, 2009
- Tight credit slows state’s business development November 27, 2009
- Pie Lady makes holidays sweeter November 26, 2009
- Witness claims two took turns killing family March 24, 1960
- Texas guard Ward lost for season November 26, 2009
- Munchers to honor owner at open house November 26, 2009
- Message warns students at Perry-Lecompton not to attend class today April 20, 2007
3 July 2009
at 7:12 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
LogicMan (Anonymous) says…
“retail or commercial development”
Wal-Mart East, here we come!
But Wal-Mart North, with grocery, is needed sooner.
3 July 2009
at 10:24 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Sigmund (Anonymous) says…
The city can't budget to maintain sidewalks and they want us to believe they can do environmental cleanup of hazardous waste site and then develop a successful new industrial/retail development using existing city employees and our tax dollars? Here is a reality check, nobody, absolutely nobody outside of the City Commission believes that, nobody.
3 July 2009
at 10:35 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
GardenMomma (Anonymous) says…
This is a hazardous pitfall. I hope the city commissioners realize this and stay clear away from it. The article makes it sound like the city wants the $10 million from the trust and think that it will cost less than that to clean it up since they can use city workers for some of the clean up.
Q1 - which city workers?
Q2 - what makes them qualified?
Q3 - KDHE estimates it will take $12 to 15 million; and I'm guessing that is a low estimate. Who knows what will be found once clean up starts.
Q4 - $10 million in trust, how much does the city think they can “save” by using city workers?
Q5 - WHY does the city want to invest in this?
3 July 2009
at 10:45 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Music_Girl (Anonymous) says…
Sounds like a very poor plan indeed…
3 July 2009
at 10:48 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Sigmund (Anonymous) says…
“The Kansas Department of Health and Environment previously has estimated that it will cost $12 million to $15 million over the next 30 years to clean the site of years of fertilizer spills. There is about $10 million in a pair of trust funds established for the property from when Farmland filed for bankruptcy.”
“The city has hoped to gain access to those funds to clean the property, and has some optimism that it could clean the property for less than the KDHE estimate because it could use existing city employees to do some of the work.”
Really? What employees and what are these employees doing now that they have $2-$5 million worth of free labor hours ($12-$15 million less $10 million) to do hazardous waste cleanup? In the meantime and since they are already on the payrolls could they do sidewalk repairs?
Typical series of Chad Lawhorn articles complete with the thrill that runs up his leg every time the city leaders speak to him.
http://www2.ljworld.com/news/2009/jul…
3 July 2009
at 10:50 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
dandelion (Anonymous) says…
This land needs to be used to create real jobs, not retail jobs. Most of the people I know working in retail can't afford to live on their own. They still live with mom and dad. Why are these people so obsessed with retail?
3 July 2009
at 11:01 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
gl0ck0wn3r (Anonymous) says…
“dandelion (Anonymous) says… This land needs to be used to create real jobs, not retail jobs. Most of the people I know working in retail can't afford to live on their own. ”
Define “real job.” Why are retail jobs not “real jobs” other than your observation that your friends all live at home. Perhaps there are other variables at work?
Richard Heckler post in 3… 2…
3 July 2009
at 11:03 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
GardenMomma (Anonymous) says…
I think it has something to do with a “buddy system” or an I'll-scratch-your-back-you-scratch-my-back thing. I'm not quite for sure. I don't think the study is complete yet.
>
3 July 2009
at 11:14 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
50YearResident (Anonymous) says…
Read this again: “Capitana has some leverage in the site’s future. Capitana this year purchased a legal interest in the approximately $10 million trust fund that has been set aside to maintain and clean up the environmentally blighted piece of property that became vacant when Farmland Industries filed for bankruptcy in 2002. That legal interest means the city must work with Capitana if the city hopes to purchase the property.”
How, when and why did Capitana jump in to “purchase” a legal interest in the trust fund? Sounds like to me that Capitana wants to make a profit from the city of Lawrence to re-purchase their interest. I think there is no way Capitana will ever complete a purchase of this contaminated property. Also if the city were to use their own people, it's not free labor or even cheap labor because they still have to be paid wages and benefits and new workers and equipment (trucks and bulldozers) would need to be hired to replace the city employees deferred to this project for the next 30 years. Something stinks here!
3 July 2009
at 11:15 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
GardenMomma (Anonymous) says…
I think it's too far south and east for most people. Not sure how developed that side of town is, residentially speaking. Maybe it is. I don't know.
3 July 2009
at 11:28 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
dandelion (Anonymous) says…
A real job is one that allows a person to rent an apartment and either provides health insurance or pays enough for that person to buy health insurance. It also pays enough so that person can buy the basics, including a car. It also is full time, which few retail jobs are. Those people in retail who go into management have those things, but the guy or gal helping you at the cash register seldom has these benefits. Why do you consider retail more desirable than industrial? Or businesses that need office space? Are you one of the business people in Lawrence who don't want competition for the employees in town? You know, the ones who really have the power to keep good paying businesses out of Lawrence, then blame it on the progressives?
3 July 2009
at 11:40 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
srj (Anonymous) says…
I know nothing will be built for years, but I am seeing too many new strip malls built that are empty. Examples includes the one off K-7 close to the new Wal-Mart, one on I-35 and Johnson drive where a new Circuit City was going to be built, and the worst I saw was in St. Louis. Went to “The Mills” mall almost full except for the Circuit City, and they had about five new strip malls around it, all empty.
3 July 2009
at 11:48 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
barrypenders (Anonymous) says…
Poisoned humus sounds like a progressive place for a Wal-mart. Those jobs they create won't be wanted by anyone thinking progressive. Lawrence should let Obama and progressive green business people change that land into an oasis of fun for all. Maybe green progressive people like merrill could build wind fans and run westar out of town. With a little progressive business know how, whoa nelly.
3 July 2009
at 11:51 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Sigmund (Anonymous) says…
dandelion (Anonymous) says… “Why do you consider retail more desirable than industrial? ”
Retail has significant advantages to the city over industrial. In addition to the property taxes that both pay, think retail sales taxes of 8% of every dollar of retail sales that help pay for fire, police, sidewalks, and empTy buses.
dandelion (Anonymous) says… “You know, the ones who really have the power to keep good paying businesses out of Lawrence, then blame it on the progressives?”
I don't know of any Industrial plant that the progressives would approve. Industrial, like Farmland itself, tends to be dirty environmentally, ugly, and more dangerous. Do you really want to do factory work or have a compact florescent light bulb factory in your back yard? Do you really think a new industrial plant could get the necessary Federal, State, and Local permits to build a plant in under a decade? Exactly what “progressive industry” do you want located just outside of Lawrence?
3 July 2009
at 12:19 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
BigPrune (Anonymous) says…
If the City of Lawrence was so business savvy, they should've bought the interest that this Capitana group purchased.
The so-called “Living Wage” (more like non-Living Wage) law prevents 99% of the manufacturers from considering Lawrence, plus the United States doesn't do much manufacturing anymore. Big negatives.
The Progressives took the reigns and restricted our City practically out of business. I cannot figure out why the City of Lawrence is so enamored with this crappy property.
3 July 2009
at 12:52 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Thats_messed_up (Anonymous) says…
Wait till Obama and Pelosi pass Cap and Trade (Tax and Tax), all you environmentalist hippies will be paying 4 times more for the electricity it takes to post your liberal drivel on here. ; ) Oh and your part time job on Mass street will go bye bye.
3 July 2009
at 12:53 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Sigmund (Anonymous) says…
BigPrune (Anonymous) says… “I cannot figure out why the City of Lawrence is so enamored with this crappy property.”
I have no idea, it is just weird huh?
Aron Cromwell, “Together with his wife Hannah, the Cromwells run a thriving “green collar” business in downtown Lawrence, Cromwell Environmental.”
http://www.ci.lawrence.ks.us/commissi…
Lance Johnson, “Lance is currently President and Chief Executive Officer of Peridian Group, Inc., a local engineering, real estate and construction company.”
http://www.ci.lawrence.ks.us/commissi…
Michael Dever, “Dever is president of GuideWire Consulting, a Lawrence-based environmental technology consulting firm. He has worked as an environmental consultant since 1985, managing environmental assessment programs for several Fortune 500 companies.”
http://www.ci.lawrence.ks.us/commissi…
I guess if the property was also scheduled to house a Academic Journal of Barber and Cosmetologist I might think some members of the Commission were self dealing.
Robert Chestnut, “Rob is currently the Chief Financial Officer of Allen Press here in Lawrence.”
http://www.ci.lawrence.ks.us/commissi…
Mike Amyx, “Commissioner Amyx is owner of Amyx Barber Shop, Inc., a family owned and operated business since 1942.”
http://www.ci.lawrence.ks.us/commissi…
3 July 2009
at 2:20 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
pace (Anonymous) says…
Without clean up it continues to be a seeping sore with no future except as a blight. With cleanup a good industrial or comercial location. We actually need this cleaned up more than we need fancy sidewalks. It is a seeping sore until we fix it. There is money already set aside for most of the clean up, it needs to be done.
3 July 2009
at 4:36 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Sigmund (Anonymous) says…
pace (Anonymous) says… “Without clean up it continues to be a seeping sore with no future except as a blight. With cleanup a good industrial or comercial location. We actually need this cleaned up more than we need fancy sidewalks.”
Who is “we,” you got a mouse in your pocket? If by “we” you mean taxpayers almost everyone in the City on both sides of the aisle disagrees with you. The City can't budget for sidewalk repair, or run an empTy bus system for under $8.00/ride, let alone have the expertise to do toxic cleanup. This isn't amateur hour BS, if it is done wrong it could ruin the city financially for decades.
3 July 2009
at 5:58 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
merrill (Anonymous) says…
Bring more retail to a flooded retail market to create additional
economic displacement? What's up with that?
Name one community that can afford economic displacement.
Building more and more retail establishments does not magically create more available retail spending dollars. Simply put not enough retail dollars to support existing retail in Lawrence,Kansas.
Some developers feel that killing downtown will make their failures successful. The bogus “new urbanism” project moving ahead with no means of support. Killing downtown will send more revenue to kcmo/joco metro,Topeka and 119th in Olathe.
“Retail Centers” located on the out skirts usually become dinosaurs in short order = a drag on the local economy and taxpayers. There are plenty of dinosaurs in Topeka,KCMO,Baltimore,Wichita and other cities as documentation. There is always Tanger and Riverfront Plaza.
Why do Lawrence powers that be continue to think in the past? It is breaking the bank as talk of additional increase in taxes and fees indicate and dominate the news.
What happened? 25 years of expanding the tax base failed
and the same people are still leading the wrong way. A high tax bedroom community was born.
3 July 2009
at 7:08 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
BigPrune (Anonymous) says…
I do not understand why Merrill thinks we are over bult with retail. Didn't you read the newspaper and two editorials regarding why there are vacancies in this town? It is because your 'Progressive' commission enacted a new code that makes it virtually impossible for another business to rent out vacant space - Note to yourself: This is why there are vacancies ding dong.
3 July 2009
at 10:05 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Sigmund (Anonymous) says…
BigPrune (Anonymous) says… “Didn't you read the newspaper and two editorials regarding why there are vacancies in this town? It is because your 'Progressive' commission enacted a new code that makes it virtually impossible for another business to rent out vacant space”
Do you have a link, I missed those editorials …..
3 July 2009
at 10:44 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
BigPrune (Anonymous) says…
Here's the news article.
http://www2.ljworld.com/news/2009/jun…
Here's an editorial:
http://www2.ljworld.com/news/2009/jun…
I recollect there was another editorial about it that preceded the article but cannot remember if it was in print or online. I will keep looking.
3 July 2009
at 10:50 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
BigPrune (Anonymous) says…
Here's another Sigmund:
http://www2.ljworld.com/news/2009/jun…
Though the article/editorials all touch on the downtown mainly, the restrictive rules apply all over town.
4 July 2009
at 5:49 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
merrill (Anonymous) says…
Developers actually love the government and the corporate welfare it so generously donates from the city,state and federal levels. At a huge cost to taxpayers. Yes taxpayers do help increase their vast wealth…. seldom do they sound grateful.
Allow me to present 3 descriptions as to how we taxpayers are far too generous for OUR own good:
“Free Lunch: How the Wealthiest Americans Enrich Themselves at Government Expense (And Stick You with the Bill)
http://www.democracynow.org/2008/1/18…
Not Smart Development Increases Taxes:
http://www.sierraclub.org/sprawl/repo…
Local Expert Thinking With Excellent links
http://lawrencesmartgrowth.blogspot.c…
4 July 2009
at 8:44 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
BigPrune (Anonymous) says…
The Progressives conspired to ruin any future retail in this town Merrill. Conspired might sound like a strong word, but that is exactly what they did. Your last link is to a self proclaimed so-called “expert” assistant professor. He doesn't know what he is talking about and yes I know he was a big supporter of the so-called “Progressive” while they were in power. Was he influential in the development code that was enacted by the past Progressive Commission?
The over restrictiveness of our city government has created false vacancies because there are too many hoops and far too much expense for anyone who wants to put in a business in this town. Why waste 6-9 months to even a year in government red tape and unwarranted expenses just so a business can sign a short term lease? Thanks, I'll go elsewhere, it isn't worth it. This is what creates the empty store fronts not being refilled. That is why Lawrence is known nationally as one of the worst cities in the nation to do business.