POSTED BY COURTNEY LAMDIN ON FRI, JAN 10, 2020 AT 5:02 PM
Updates on plans for development of The Pit. Residents are asking Don Sinex to hold genuine public engagement listening sessions at our Neighborhood Planning Assemblies (NPAs) to hear what we want our city to look like, feel like, be like. We want a new green deal from whoever invests in developing The Pit. We want union labor, livable wages that will be a geyser of prosperity for downtown businesses and the tax collector. We can do this together, the Burlington way.
Friday, January 10, 2020
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
TIF Is a Subsidy to CityPalace Investors
The state's explanation of TIF says: "Current statute requires that the municipality pledge at least 85% of the incremental munic...
Municipal government failed us. Mayor, City Council, boards and commissions -- all were mesmerized by the $ugar plum$ dancing in their heads. All the points opponents challenged later surfaced as significant flaws in the CityPlace project. I think Brookfield wants to keep litigation going to create delays so they can blame others for their failed project.
ReplyDeleteWhat good is community consensus on height in the municipal plan if city government sneaks around it to please (and profit) one developer? Opponents objected to the building height, to the reduction in parking, to building luxury and student housing when affordable housing is a high priority. A coalition of livable city activists defended taxpayers and community consensus, a responsibility that municipal government reneged on.
Repeatedly, instead of taking advantage of public input and indispensable opposition to fully vet a project, making full information available in an open and transparent process, City sneaks around, withholds information, and frankly, corrupts the process as if their end justifies their means.
“CityPlace Burlington Developers Countersue Project Opponents,” wrongly states that the developers argue that five opponents violated a settlement agreement by pursuing a separate public records claim.
ReplyDeleteInstead, the developers’ counterclaim actually admits that the Coalition for a Liveable City was the entity that pursued the public records claim. The countersuit also inherently admits that the Coalition had no part in the settlement agreement. To sustain their counterclaim, the developers assert–without support–that the five acted “through the Coalition” to pursue the public records request.
The Coalition for a Livable City is an alliance of 8 community groups “working together to restore threatened public processes in defense of the environment, quality of life, transparency in governance, and democratic participation” in Burlington. The Coalition was a leading opponent of the zoning-change ballot question that allowed 14 story buildings, clashing with the historic character of downtown Burlington and its Church Street Marketplace. The Coalition pressed on, filing suit, continuing as a lead plaintiff in its own right.
Though it received its 14 story zoning change and its building permit, the project collapsed: The Burlington city administration had allowed developer Don Sinex to demolish the mall and create a giant hole in the ground without assurance that Sinex had the money needed to build. The mayor, himself a developer, cannot shirk blame for the fiasco. Developers inheriting the project have not met any commitments. Did they file their bogus counterclaim to use the lawsuit as excuse to slink away even from their scaled-down project?
Brookfield’s countersuit is foremost an attempt to renege on the $500,000 charitable donation central to the settlement mediated by Peter Clavelle. It’s no surprise that Brookfield would dodge their half million dollar commitment. They have “reneged” even on promised community meetings, as project liaison Jeff Glassberg attests.
ReplyDeleteThe settlement agreement was reached quickly and allowed the project to proceed. Only the developer has violated that agreement, benefited from it, and filed a frivolous lawsuit related to it.
The City Place project as first proposed and permitted was oversized and grandiose, but still promoted without restraint by city personnel and boards.
Thus, not surprisingly, many citizens objected to the city’s advocating for the developer’s interest instead of the public interest, to tailoring the zoning regulations to fit, and to twisting Plan BTV to declare it consistent with twin 14 story “towers.”
Nevertheless, the settlement agreement left the developer’s 14 story skyline intact in exchange simply for more realistic parking and the charitable donation toward preserving the character of Burlington’s downtown.
The developer enjoyed all the benefits of the settlement agreement by moving forward with demolition, but denied the public any of the promised benefits by failing to provide the $500,000 charitable donation and by quietly amending project plans in violation of the parking provisions in the agreement.
As City Hole in all its glory collects runoff through another winter, we are promised action in August. Spring would make more sense to me. Financing? Any news? We can only wait and see.