Is Riverside/Avondale Ready For Mellow Mushroom?

[JeffreyS]

Why should we look for real solutions Lake when we can just use the parking "solutions" that worked so well for businesses in Downtown.

BTW I love Lakeside but Wicker Park/Bucktown is better.

[fieldafm]

Glad you could check out Lakeview.  I think it really represents the perfect example for Avondale to learn from.

Wicker Park reminds me more of a transitional neighborhood into a Midtown setting like Five Points/Brooklyn.

[thelakelander]

Wicker Park....spent some time there too....




Had dinner at taco restaurant (housed in an old auto repair garage) who also had a food truck.

[fieldafm]

That's Big Star, a reuse featured in the original article.

[BrooklynSouth]

Wicker Park....spent some time there too....

Had dinner at taco restaurant (housed in an old auto repair garage) who also had a food truck.

Yeah, that little spot rules! I was there two months ago and it was PACKED. The place is one block from a train stop that was bustling with the evening rush. Such a mix of people: kids & parents, tattooed youths, and folks in suits. IDEAL urban spot.

[fsujax]

I know of a perfectly good space at 9th and Main that would easily fit a MM and wouldn't cause such controversy.

[BrooklynSouth]

Just read this loooong article in a law journal on TILTs as a way to end NIMBYism:
http://www.law.yale.edu/documents/pdf/LEO/LEO_Schleicher_City_Unplanning.pdf

TILTs (Tax Increment Local Transfers) are a theoretical way that NIMBY (Not In My Backyard) homeowners can be bought off so that they stop blocking development via strict zoning, HOAs, lobbying city council, etc. NIMBYs reject development that benefits the whole city because of fears that "new building reduces their property values by introducing nuisances, new supply, and new residents that compete for common-pool resources [like parks, schools, and restaurants]."

The proposed (somewhat libertarian) solution is to use TILTs: directly give local homeowners some of the new tax and parking revenues the city would realize resulting from development for a set number of years. Local homeowners would receive bonus checks or property tax rebates. Part of this involves ending free parking and hiking parking meter rates to reduce car congestion. Effects would be support from local home owners for increased development and parking and also increased non-car transit and lower housing costs. Local neighborhoods would still be able to vote to accept or reject development.

Anyway, just wanted to share TILTs as an interesting solution to our local development issue.

[fieldafm]

Just read this loooong article in a law journal on TILTs as a way to end NIMBYism:
http://www.law.yale.edu/documents/pdf/LEO/LEO_Schleicher_City_Unplanning.pdf

TILTs (Tax Increment Local Transfers) are a theoretical way that NIMBY (Not In My Backyard) homeowners can be bought off so that they stop blocking development via strict zoning, HOAs, lobbying city council, etc. NIMBYs reject development that benefits the whole city because of fears that "new building reduces their property values by introducing nuisances, new supply, and new residents that compete for common-pool resources [like parks, schools, and restaurants]."

The proposed (somewhat libertarian) solution is to use TILTs: directly give local homeowners some of the new tax and parking revenues the city would realize resulting from development for a set number of years. Local homeowners would receive bonus checks or property tax rebates. Part of this involves ending free parking and hiking parking meter rates to reduce car congestion. Effects would be support from local home owners for increased development and parking and also increased non-car transit and lower housing costs. Local neighborhoods would still be able to vote to accept or reject development. 

Anyway, just wanted to share TILTs as an interesting solution to our local development issue.

Riverside/Avondale is moving towards TIF/BIDs instead of something like a TILT.  From the City's perspective, I couldnt see a TILT as being beneficial fiscally.  There are many capital improvement projects that could benefit from a TIF/BID type structure.  Riverside/Avondale doesn't have multiple revenue streams like parking fees (and can't benefit from the Mobility Fee for transportation projects b/c of the moratorium) to pay for these capital projects.
 
Rebating property tax revenues wipes out that which makes built mixed use environments like Riverside/Avondale so fiscally viable from a local gov't perspective. 

Furthermore, the neighborhood is just not dense enough for a TILT to be a viable solution. 

[Non-RedNeck Westsider]

Without reading about the TILT model, it seems that it would be more attuned for new construction rather than infill and would probably be more akin to a residential area such as WGV or Nocatee or even Oakleaf as a way to incorporate actual commercial use in the neighborhood instead of having a cluster just on the outside.

[BrooklynSouth]

Without reading about the TILT model, it seems that it would be more attuned for new construction rather than infill and would probably be more akin to a residential area such as WGV or Nocatee or even Oakleaf as a way to incorporate actual commercial use in the neighborhood instead of having a cluster just on the outside.

The article seemed to really be about residential development, not business or commercial. Essentially, if I wanted to tear down my single family home and build a 4-story apartment building, I could be sure that under current zoning practices, the neighborhood would always find a way to stop it unless they could be compensated in some way, such as TILTs.

I thought the core idea of tax-sharing was interesting and might apply to non-residential development being blocked by residents: if Mellow Mushroom became a success and if all the free parking around the Shoppes area was converted to pay parking, then all homeowners within, say, 5 blocks of Mellow Mushroom would be entitled to a portion of the business taxes and parking fees for a period of, say, 5 years.

I'm usually skeptical of libertarian solutions as being too simplistic and under-counting how difficult collective action is, but this sounded solution sounded reasonable so I thought I'd post it.

[JeffreyS]

Sounds like a tilt would have been a good tool for the old Jackson Square Developement. 

[mtraininjax]

I agree with a neighbor that stickers, or parking passes, or fees to park are all just taxes designed to drive people away. We the residents and the store owners will find a way to co-exist and thrive. It may not be pretty, but we will find a way to solve the problem and compromise.

[JeffreyS]

+1

[Dog Walker]

Lake,

The "residents only after 6-7PM" was one of the solutions floated for the neighborhoods near the Shoppes of Avondale.  It was not followed because of issues about enforcement at night.

Do you know how it is working in that Chicago neighborhood?

[fieldafm]

Lake,

The "residents only after 6-7PM" was one of the solutions floated for the neighborhoods near the Shoppes of Avondale.  It was not followed because of issues about enforcement at night.

Do you know how it is working in that Chicago neighborhood?

Keep in mind:
Avondale has about 4,200 people per square mile, while Lakeview is in the neighborhood of 22,000 people per square mile.

I agree with this statement below, b/c parking decals will be a case of 'be careful what you wish for'.  I think a neighborhood with a still fairly suburbanesque-population density that hasn't really tackled parking management in a meaningful way nor provided trasnportation alternatives that summarily wishes to restrict business access by limiting customer access (in a commercial district that was largely there before most homes in the area) is going to kill that which makes the Shoppes unique and viable.

stickers, or parking passes, or fees to park are all just taxes designed to drive people away.

Look at St Armands Circle(far bigger than the Shoppes) in Siesta Key(Sarasota).  They don't restrict on street parking among residential streets to residents only and are opposed to parking meters.

http://www.lbknews.com/2011/07/15/st-armands-circle-not-interested-in-parking-meters/

The St. Armands Circle Business Improvement District (BID) declared this week that it does not want the parking meters the City of Sarasota recently installed downtown.

They realize that punishing those that visit and patronize neighborhood businesses is what makes places like Downtown Jax such a difficult place to do business.