The signs are down, reportedly, but for how long? I’d say it would probably takes a couple of good days for a toob business to take in enough to cover those citations.

Not to mention the message this new “business” is already sending, about how they will care for the river.

Bottom line, commercial real estate transactions blow up all the time. Lamar Plaza in Austin, with better players on both sides of the transaction just fell apart.

MikeO, the Master Plan, while a wonderful tool, does not have the affect of law. Zoning does. And, unfortunately, the City doesn’t seem to take the Master Plan seriously.

As for the floodplain issue – the entire property is in the 100-yr floodplain. About a quarter of it is in the floodway and cannot be used for structures. Additionally, because the river is designated as environmentally sensitive, there is another buffer zone starting at the edge of the floodway that cannot be developed. If developed as apartments or single family housing, all the structures will likely be placed right up next to River Rd to get the maximum density they can squeeze out of the lot.

Several of the apartment complexes on the east section of Aquarena and the ones out near Grande/Butler are at least partially in the 100-yr floodplain so financing must be available.

And the Buyer isn’t going to spend the mid six figures on the engineering work they almost certainly allowed for until the zoning change is obtained.

As for the conflict, it’s a double edged sword. If it’s a conflict to deny (for the City’s benefit) it is also a conflict to grant (to the City’s detriment)

Taking it off the tax rolls is only one part of the picture. Adding debt or swapping other valuable land (probably both) is a bigger concern to me. How badly do we need that high-ground? Isn’t the river frontage what we really want? How much will we end up paying and what will be the ultimate use of this property if it’s made into parkland? The city should allow the development and accept the free parkland.

As a taxpayer, the more land that is off the tax roll, the worse it is for the citizen/taxpayer. How is that property currently valued? I have not checked (again, no dog in the fight) but I rather doubt it is at market.

As to the floodplain, I’m sure the buyer had a lengthly feasibility period during which to resolve concerns about curb cuts, floodplains, wetlands, endangered species, impervious cover, traffic impact, utilities, ad nauseum. That’s not our concern. Our concern should be as taxpayers and as directors of our council.

My question about this development boil down to, can they obtain financing on the project because it’s in a flood plain?

Since the contract was contingent upon the zoning change being obtained, and same did not happen; there was not a contract.

I doubt there’s anyone in this thread or in the deal that doesn’t see the conflict of interest. It may not serve the cause to acknowledge it but a person would have to be blind not see it. I wouldn’t want to get into a commercial real estate deal with a person who truly didn’t see that. It’s like jumping into a card game when you know one of the players has the trump card in his pocket.