How about we just have the city buy it and put in a water park???

At least that new guy, Sweeney, seems to get it, and he’s only been there a few weeks. What’s Ryan’s, Allegretti’s, Wsol’s and Bach’s excuse?

Is this somethign Schmidt can veto?

You reminded me… To add insult to injury, these commercial parcels are located within the TIF district. What has been done through this re-zoning will now reduce the potential for these properties to generate a higher level of TIF increment EAV.

Remember, residential is taxed at a considerably lower rate than commercial property. Nor does residential property carry with it the potential for annual business licensing fees, etc.

Oye.

First, would you be kind enough to define what you mean by “legitimate retail?” As opposed to what? The “window shopping” available in Amsterdam?

Point of fact…there was interest by at least one (allegedly) “legitimate” commercial business for redevelopment of the parcel; that would be CenTrust, which was looking to build still another drive-through bank on the spot.

I’ve no problem with the homeowners in the area having opposed that idea.

However, I fully agree with your having said, “I see no reason to effectively take them off the retail market by re-zoning them residential.”

What the City Council has voted to do is wrong to do. It is wrong to do to the property owner, and it is wrong to do to the commercial property tax base.

I also fully agree with your statement, “And I would not be surprised if that re-zoning also discourages any developer from considering those sites for a small business or medical office.”

The parcel was already zoned for commercial purposes, but according to the CEO for CenTrust the “zoning process” was “too risky” for his company to endure.

The Aldermen and the Mayor have taken a limited and short-sighted view of the matter, so there is no doubt that they have NOT considered how the “Napleton lot” conversion to residential zoning will detract from the “marketability” of the old Napleton Cadillac site, which I have reason to believe has been, and continues to be, of interest to some commercial developers.

All that being said, the fundamental principal(s) being “violated” by this maneuver are the VERY legitimate rights of the property owner. Without an agreement between the owner and a buyer (a buyer willing to “risk” going through the zoning process), the City of Park Ridge should not preclude redevelopment possibilities.

The residents in the area have every right to want to “maintain” the “residential character and feel” of the area. However, if commercial property near their homes had/has the potential to aggreive them so…they should not have purchased homes near a commercial property, near a major redevelopment area, just off one of the most heavily traveled (if not THE most heavily traveled) roads through town.

That property was already commercial, and has been a commercial property for 20 years; a commercial property for a car dealership, which by its very nature produces TONS of traffic in the immediate area. Can you say “test drive?”

A parking lot alone produces in/out traffic, and the Napleton lot, while used for “storage” of vehicles, was still an in/out lot, because that’s where the dealership stored inventory. What do car dealers do with inventory? Move it around for things like, you know, TEST DRIVES!

I believe the action taken by the City Council, at the urging of one of the biggest dolts occupying an Aldermanic seat, is public policy planning foolishness unparalelled.

Nothing new from this bunch of left-overs.