|
|
Post by repoman on Nov 2, 2011 8:32:30 GMT -6
Millions in brownfiield cleanup funds? From where? Would an athletic development qualify for cleanup funds under EPA or HUD which are geared towards redeveloping to promote economic development? I should have clarified - there are millions of dollars available but the amount dispersed depends on the project costs and whether it meets certain criteria. Grant awards can be anwhere from a couple thousand dollars for Phase 1 environmental studies to hundreds of thousands of dollars for cleanup costs. In a lot of cases brownfields end up being used for recreation purposes because they cannot be built on for one reason or another. I have worked on Brownfields in my career and thre is really no set rule on what the final use can be, most of these agencies just want them cleaned up. Check out what they did in Oshkosh with Riverside Park. This project was able to secure almost $500,000 in grant money and turn a nasty brownfields site into a great gathering space for the city. The end user was the City not tax-generating business dnr.wi.gov/org/aw/rr/archives/pubs/RR777.pdfYes, economic development is always something you are looking for when revitalizing brownfields but its not the only determining factor. The one thing that cannot be utilized here is TIF because the properties will be tax exempt, but there are still a lot of finding sources. There is funding available through the Wisconsin Dept of Commerce, Wisconsin DNR, Wisconsin Economic Development Corporation, Federal EPA, and Wisconsin DOT (for traffic improvments like bike and pedestrian trails, roundabouts, and other transportation enhancements). One thing UWM should do is try and partner with other entites to get this going. Why just have UWM use the soccer fields? I have heard that people still want to bring some sort of smaller scale soccer league to Milwaukee, why not partner with them to get more private investment? Maybe partner with Milwaukee or Milwaukee County to be eligible for more grants for land acquisition and parkland development? |
|
|
|
Post by gman2 on Nov 2, 2011 13:02:26 GMT -6
OK. I'm wondering though in the current political climate if the fund amounts that were granted in the past will be granted in the future. The current administration is keen on jobs, so they will prioritize grants that are economic development related versus grants that are recreation related. People I know in the DNR are saying that the current administration favors economic development over recreation.
Wisconsin Department of Commerce no longer exists and Wisconsin Economic Development Corporation has already eliminated or is eliminating the Brownfield program.
|
|
|
|
Post by repoman on Nov 3, 2011 7:28:58 GMT -6
OK. I'm wondering though in the current political climate if the fund amounts that were granted in the past will be granted in the future. The current administration is keen on jobs, so they will prioritize grants that are economic development related versus grants that are recreation related. People I know in the DNR are saying that the current administration favors economic development over recreation. Wisconsin Department of Commerce no longer exists and Wisconsin Economic Development Corporation has already eliminated or is eliminating the Brownfield program. Whether this administration actually cares about jobs or not is debatable. So far this special session on jobs in Madison has dealt with eliminating racial preference in scholarship determination, sex education reform, teacher merit pay and using standardized test results to fire teachers, the use of deadly force by homeowners, and trying to change rules on recall elections. Where did you hear that the WEDC is eliminating brownfields funding? I hadn't heard that. The thing is that creating this athletic village is creating jobs. Yes, some jobs will be existing ones that move from campus, but with this areana you are cretaing jobs in programming/events, maintennence, concessions, security, etc. It may not generate tax revenue but it will create jobs. |
|
|
|
Post by gman2 on Nov 3, 2011 8:11:56 GMT -6
Corrected, WEDC still has the brownfield program.
I'm not trying to make this a political debate on job creation in politics. But we now live in a new political reality. There are forces in play within the various state agencies that are trying to point funding and policy in a certain direction. Recreational areas bring jobs and benefits, that is not in dispute. But there are those that only see things in a certain way (both sides of the political spectrum), and that includes family sustaining jobs and increasing the tax base. This does neither, so it could be a hard sell to get government assistance of any sort for this beneficial use of a blighted area.
|
|
mwu
Sophomore
I am U-Dub U-M
|
Post by mwu on Nov 3, 2011 9:23:29 GMT -6
I agree with the political sentiments/climate shared already.
My argument for funding a project like mine would be this:
1) I intentionally did not design the 3 buildings that form the entry plaza/forecourt for a few reasons. I tried to incorporate some "real world" aspects: community use, parking, and that not all buildings would be designed & built at the same time or even by the same architect; nor, did I specify a particular use other than saying some/all could be University owned and some/all could be privately owned. This would be a hypothetical negotiating point for the Real Estate Foundation and a private developer (Mandel etc.) So depending on what develops there could be a tax income component to a project like this.
2) Some of the most successful building projects in the city, both public and privately held, have come from brownfield redevelopment. The beer line condos on commerce street, Summerfest, Miller Park, most of the 3rd/5th ward developments, the Harley Museum, Pabst City (TBD but it has great potential), Schlitz Park, Blatz Brewery, Lakefront Brewery, the University's GLRF, and now the Reed Street Yards development just to name a few.
3) Construction Jobs are huge! A development like this will take several years to build, maybe a decade for all the components to be designed and constructed. I would think that employing people for almost 10 years on only 1 project would be great press for everyone involved.
So I would insist that the University use these examples in our own city to show what redevelopment of these sites can become. Places where people want to live and spend time in and when we can help clean the river and promote general well being, that should be an opportunity, a vision, that the state couldn't turn down.
|
|
dutchpthr
Junior
ain't much if it ain't dutch
|
Post by dutchpthr on Nov 3, 2011 11:06:43 GMT -6
anyone have an updated link, i keep getting a godaddy.com page that says the site is no longer available when i click the link from the start.....am i the only one?
|
|
mwu
Sophomore
I am U-Dub U-M
|
Post by mwu on Nov 3, 2011 21:28:26 GMT -6
|
|
|
|
Post by PantherU on Nov 3, 2011 22:21:23 GMT -6
They are having issues taking my money at GoDaddy.
|
|
dutchpthr
Junior
ain't much if it ain't dutch
|
Post by dutchpthr on Nov 4, 2011 9:35:36 GMT -6
no worries guys i figured you all had the info somewhere out there, it was just a real busy day for me yesterday and i had no time to go google for it, thanks for the info!
|
|
dutchpthr
Junior
ain't much if it ain't dutch
|
Post by dutchpthr on Nov 4, 2011 9:37:06 GMT -6
They are having issues taking my money at GoDaddy. you would fgure that having to pay Danica "I Don't Win Anything" Patrick they would be quick get take in any money they can! hahaha |
|
mwu
Sophomore
I am U-Dub U-M
|
Post by mwu on Nov 4, 2011 11:53:19 GMT -6
They are having issues taking my money at GoDaddy. you would fgure that having to pay Danica "I Don't Win Anything" Patrick they would be quick get take in any money they can! hahaha hahaha truth! |
|
|
|
Post by A Statement By SHAUN on Nov 15, 2011 19:43:33 GMT -6
|
|
|
|
Post by Super King on Nov 15, 2011 23:02:02 GMT -6
We'd never sell out a 7000-seat arena. Costello's idea with the 5000-seat plan is to create demand, which fuels excitement.
|
|
|
|
Post by PantherU on Nov 15, 2011 23:56:35 GMT -6
This is what a 5,000-seat arena makes games: a tough ticket. Super King is right, you need to create demand.
We absolutely can get to the point where a 7,000-seat arena would be needed, but that's no time soon. An arena could be expanded to fit more seats.
|
|
|
|
Post by uwmplanner on Nov 16, 2011 10:04:55 GMT -6
I've always thought 6-7K was a good size. As long as the leave space to expand 5K wouldn't be a terrible size to start with.
|
|
