At last Thursday's Athens-Clarke County Commission meeting, the well-publicized proposed selling of the ACTION, Inc. property was again brought out as commissioners examined the recommendations of the Athens-Clarke County Planning Commission, which was to not approve the project.
ACTION, which is in a dire financial situation, is attempting to sell its property to a developer for $1.2 million. The organization, due to severe mismanagement, is roughly $1 million in debt, and this sale would all but erase their current fiscal problems.
This issue prompted
an editorial by the Athens Banner-Herald and then some
thoughts of my own. At the outset, I was cautious but tended to agree with the editorial's central thrust. However, a little bit of research and dialogue can go a long way and answer a lot of the questions I had.
- First off, let's by absolutely honest here ... it's solely because this concerns ACTION, an anti-poverty non-profit, that so much attention is going on here. If this had been a different structure occupied by a business that was opting to move, the recommendation to not approve the re-use of the property wouldn't be that big of a deal.
- Compound this scrutiny by the fact that one of the organization's board members is District Two Commissioner Harry Sims, meaning he's personally vested in this issue And, I have to ask with all sincerity, how is his participation in this discussion not a conflict-of-interest? I suppose in a small community you face this types of things all the time, so it's just not feasible to recuse one's self from all the debates you've had involvement in. Plus, that's not to say Sims is being inappropriate here. He's got legitimate and rightful concerns about the organization itself, and that's good to have in this discussion.
- Initially, I was critical of Amy Kissane's comment which - and I'm paraphrasing here - was something to the effect of the organization taking a lower amount of money for the property because this is a community decision. Again, on the surface that seems callous and prompted charges of elitism from the editorial. However, if you consider the context that quote was uttered in, it actually is more of a practical analysis of the situation. That is, the Oconee Street Building is currently zoned for a mixed-use purpose of commercial and residential. That's the decision the community made for that space to best mesh into its surrounding environment. As a result, the sale of said property must result in a use which fits that zoning. The exisiting proposal calls for a residential use only, which doesn't match up.
- Put more simply ... if someone came to me and said they were going to give me $750,000 for my property so they could stack up apartments on it, than I'd have the opportunity to sell my land for a ton of money. However, my land isn't zoned for that use, and nor should it be. As a result, I would have to go to the highest bid that features a plan that would utilize the existing zoning my house is currently under, and that could be considerably lower. So when Kissane talks about taking a lower amount ($900,000 has often been tossed around), that's reflective of the
highest bid that featured a usage plan that matched the zoning.
- So, again, this isn't elitism. It's reality. Or, as
Blake paraphrased from one commissioner ...
But, as Commissioner Kathy Hoard pointed out, the commission can only legally consider whether the zoning requests meet criteria set out in the county code and land-use plan, no matter what cause selling the land would benefit.
- The fact that one has to not consider the mission of the organization does not mean one is casting a blind eye toward its plight. The community - public sector and private sector - should work to help ACTION climb out of its debt, but it's obvious approving a usage of land which is contradictory to the existing zoning isn't necessarily the best way to do that. Particularly when it can still help by approving a use which
does match the zoning and generates a large sum of revenue for the organization.
- Whether or not the new proposal calls for the demolition of the structure, I don't really have a stake in that yet. The building appears to be rather rundown, and it would cost a significant amount of funds to adequately renovate it for use. If it needs to be preserved, then perhaps the developer could find a way to work with someone like the Athens-Clarke County Heritage Foundation to do so. But, to me at least, that's a bit besides the point at this juncture. The primary issue at work here is proper zoning use, and the recommendation for disapproval is a legally appropriate one.