Drawing up the future

Good story – well researched and balanced. I respectfully disagree with Mr. Bellfy. As a resident, I like the new developments and the emerging urban character of downtown. The ability to walk downtown to the festivals and farmer’s market, the proposed solutions to obsolete clusters of buildings and the planned development that better suits student housing needs are all positives in my opinion.

I hate to tell this to Loomis, but the city is already in disrepair, and a lot of it is his fault (and Staton’s) because you can’t get them to even look at the disrepair they refuse to admit exists (I tried to get them to replace a couple of sidewalk panels on Michigan Ave that cause puddles and dangerous ice build-up about 30 feet from their expensive Harrison project while they were doing concrete replacement, but no).

These people live in a fantasy world and know absolutely nothing about economics. They equate economic development with building new buildings subsidized by taxes from existing homeowners and state and federal governments. They have been spending, by their own accounting, $2.5 million a year on “economic development,” and there is not a single provable example of job creation, other than construction jobs from government grants and borrowing money with GO Bonds, when they should be using safer for taxpayer TIF Bonds, if they had the guts to let the market decide if development projects were a good idea. All the significant new companies, with the possible exception of the Mariott (which was years ago) have been without any help from government, as is usually the case. MSU downsized by 1000 jobs between 1999 and 2008 and is continuing to do so. State government, a major employer for East Lansing residents, has been severely downsizing. The population is aging and a lot of the elderly will leave, especially if there is no real effort to do things to help them stay in their homes—for God sake, Vic, when I complain about icy sidewalks being a huge problem for the elderly, that can be solved with a little effort and less money, pay attention, instead of you and Staton behaving as if complaints are a blow to your self-promotion and ego-trips.

Loomis says the city has to grow to survive. These people continue to believe the key to growth is building new buildings, borrowing at risk to tax payers, in the midst of a real estate glut. This isn’t economics. You can’t grow with a dwindling population and job loss, and whether Loomis likes it or not, the reasons for dwindling (and aging) population and job loss, which is regional and state-wide not East Lansing, is not a lack of residences or a lack of high-priced buildings.

There is, until new jobs are actually created not hyped, the idea of doing more for less money. Problem solving instead of hype can get lots done more cheaply. Stop wasting money on pet projects—people in city government who don’t understand why City Center II has been a boondoggle with a developer of ill-repute from day one have no business pretending to know anything about finance. Rebuild the city from the grassroots instead trying to be Big Brother so you can hog the credit for anything that happens.

I can come up with any number of ideas (so can lots of other people) for dealing with the real world that don’t involve mega-buck projects, which is the only thing people like Loomis can imagine. Here’s a couple of ideas: we have lots of unsold houses, including ones a developer promised to turn into single family homes, none of which will become single family homes in the foreseeable future (especially since the developer won’t even try). There are some actual needs in our community, upscale buildings not being one of them. Some of these unsold houses could be used for graduate and professional student housing, so there would be no worries about them becoming nuisances. Also, since the school district has eliminated neighborhood schools, why not go the charter school route, with old-fashioned one-room schoolhouses for K-5 in some of these empty houses (or to replace nuisance rentals). I’m not sure of the break-even point, but with 20-25 kids from the neighborhood and one recent teaching grad from MSU (maybe 3-4 years, then move on to better pay), 2-3 MSU teaching interns, parents, neighborhood retirees (often ex-MSU faculty or retired teachers), occasional visits from MSU faculty subject matter experts, a curriculum for smart kids, you could do a great school in an old house, and charter schools can get around some of high expense unfunded mandates.

I repeat: Loomis and the others running the city like to talk about growth and development, but anyone who spends money to hire a consultant to tell them the future of East Lansing is in the arts, or who thinks the new art museum is going to flood the city with tourists, or who is excited by the non-existent, financially absurd, performing arts center in the non-existent, financially absurd, City Center II, or who ever took their cartoons for East Village as depictions of reality, is clueless.

This article tries to shed a reasonable light on what the City is trying to do, but fails to be at all convincing. These mega projects have been a waste of time, effort, and more importantly, money. What happened to the Capitalist idea that demand will dictate the market? There is no demand for these glorious projects.

I’ve been opposed to these ridiculous projects since I first heard of them, even though I’m not a current resident of EL. What the Council appears to have been successful at, is driving the students out of the city and alienating them in the process. Good Job EL, kill off you sure-fire, stable base.

Lyle sounds like a typical, say no, do nothing, ‘hater’ Republican.

Actually, way off there Townsend. You know what happens when you assume.

Townshend, you amateur.

You should’ve gone right to the Race Card and ended all debate.

I think it is great that this article recognizes the anti-student sentiment that was portrayed by developing Chandler’s Crossings outside of the city limits, rather than denying its existence altogether. But moving on, and as a former student, I agree completely that the city needs to develop more student housing closer to the campus and downtown of E. Lansing. Rezoning needs to happen to support high-density residential developments. That being said, these need to be rental units. Many of the new developments and plans are condominiums and other for-purchase properties. Students just don’t have that kind of money— they can barely afford to pay tuition as it is (and as it continues to increase), and are not going to throw down $200K on a condo, regardless of future renting/profit opportunities. Additionally, the city needs to be concerned about the affordability of new rental properties. Complexes like Campus Village, Stonehouse, Albert Place, etc. are expensive for a student’s budget. If the city thinks that more of these $800/month per person rents are going to keep students around, they are wrong. It will only push students out to the affordability (and amenities) offered across the city limit. I know that is what I did.

MSU is downsizing not growing, and the intent is to keep student population stable.

And most of the prominent projects the city is pushing have been intended to bring wealthy, non-students, downtown. It has just been incidental that no one but students have wanted to move downtown.

The developer of West Village originally wanted to put in student apartments, but was told to do condos. Those failed. Now it’s supposed to be a hotel.

Hypocrites!

“City officials said they hope additional housing options closer to downtown will attract students back from a seemingly mass exodus to affordable apartments outside city limits that contained a plethora of amenities in the past.”

It is interesting that the City is now trying to bring the students back downtown. They were the ones that put the policies in place that caused the mass exodus to the north, and now that they realized they are not going to be some major metropolis based only on permanent residents, they are doing a 180. Perhaps they should have kept the students downtown to being with. Time for a change of leadership, and Staton is the first one that needs to go.

For the many years I lived in the E.Lansing community it was always a non-student freindly town. I think they are finally getting the picture that without the students there would be no need for E. Lansing to exist. Good Luck your town sucks and now you can’t even fall back on the non-existant big 3.

It really is madness that they are making development decisions based on the belief that MSU is growing (or more likely making up yet another excuse, since more often they use the “if you build it, they will come” “reasoning”).

As to bringing students back to downtown, there never was a mass exodus, and if the crackdown on multi-keg parties did upset some students, those aren’t the ones that fled to better pastures in Bath. It’s a matter of seeking the best quality for the best price.

None of the recent downtown development projects has been intended as student residences, although students have ended up there by default. Of the two latest approved projects for downtown, one is supposed to be expensive apartments and the other, based on the number of apartments and square feet, is going to be tiny studios, probably at excessive prices for what you get (given the economy, the building costs are still enormous). The two big projects on the fantasy list are CC II, with 2-bedrooms that will have to rent at somewhere in the $3000 (with all the tax breaks imaginable) to $6000 range per month to cover costs, and East Village, whose explicit goal is to get rid of Cedar Village.

ive been a EL resident for about 11 years and it sucks here! The only reason im still here is because of my job… i get paid very well, but im at the point were ill take a huge pay cut just to get outta here.

Very enlightening and intelligent post, George… Somehow, I think EL and the MSU community will be all the better once you get the hell out. Make it sooner than later, Please.