ACTION is needed
Earlier this morning, Stanicek emailed me to ask my thoughts on the Athens Banner-Herald editorial regarding the fate of the ACTION building. I never got a chance to email him back - or do any meaningful blogging - this morning, so here are a few thoughts on it.
He took the editorial to be very critical toward the Athens-Clarke County Heritage Foundation, and I didn't take it that way. I thought the editorial was, quite frankly, honest in its assessment of the situation which was that opposition to the sale of the property can be perceived as something that is slightly out-of-touch. However, with that said, it's only because it's a non-profit that assists individuals living in poverty that this is getting this much attention. If this was some average joe who wanted to sell the building and watch it get bulldozed then, yes, the whole community would say 'well, there's got to be a better way.'
This is a very specific case of a non-profit that does a tremendous amount of good mired in a dire financial crisis. Selling this property for $1.2 million will erase said financial worries and put ACTION back on the proper path. The problem then is not with ACTION for rightfully desiring to erase its debt (which is why I think the editorial was correct in criticizing Amy Kissane's comments), but rather with the plans submitted by the developer.
As a result, this becomes more of a project for the Athens-Clarke County Planning Commission to resolve. There needs to be diligent work between all interested parties in developing a workable solution that enables ACTION to resolve its financial crisis and permit the sale of said property. There are smart people on the Planning Commission, and they'll work hard to find the right answer to this problem.
Where I think the editorial fell short is in not calling for the speedy implementation of our historic downtown designation, which would assist (I would imagine) with instances like this. I think the editorial rightly suggested the community, spearheaded by organizations like the Heritage Foundation, identify a list of buildings which need to be preserved and work to protect those structures.
As an aside, I'm actually quite a fan of the Heritage Foundation and the work of Kissane. I've never met her, but I've always respected and admired her take on certain things and her committment to historic preservation. It just so happens, in this particular case, that I disagree with her take on things.
He took the editorial to be very critical toward the Athens-Clarke County Heritage Foundation, and I didn't take it that way. I thought the editorial was, quite frankly, honest in its assessment of the situation which was that opposition to the sale of the property can be perceived as something that is slightly out-of-touch. However, with that said, it's only because it's a non-profit that assists individuals living in poverty that this is getting this much attention. If this was some average joe who wanted to sell the building and watch it get bulldozed then, yes, the whole community would say 'well, there's got to be a better way.'
This is a very specific case of a non-profit that does a tremendous amount of good mired in a dire financial crisis. Selling this property for $1.2 million will erase said financial worries and put ACTION back on the proper path. The problem then is not with ACTION for rightfully desiring to erase its debt (which is why I think the editorial was correct in criticizing Amy Kissane's comments), but rather with the plans submitted by the developer.
As a result, this becomes more of a project for the Athens-Clarke County Planning Commission to resolve. There needs to be diligent work between all interested parties in developing a workable solution that enables ACTION to resolve its financial crisis and permit the sale of said property. There are smart people on the Planning Commission, and they'll work hard to find the right answer to this problem.
Where I think the editorial fell short is in not calling for the speedy implementation of our historic downtown designation, which would assist (I would imagine) with instances like this. I think the editorial rightly suggested the community, spearheaded by organizations like the Heritage Foundation, identify a list of buildings which need to be preserved and work to protect those structures.
As an aside, I'm actually quite a fan of the Heritage Foundation and the work of Kissane. I've never met her, but I've always respected and admired her take on certain things and her committment to historic preservation. It just so happens, in this particular case, that I disagree with her take on things.
posted by Jmac at 5:36 PM
3 Comments:
Jmac:
Agree with the essence of your point. The building is worth preserving, but efforts to engage groups like the Georgia Trust for historic preservation (which has a revolving fund and helps advertise endangered buildings) or to raise private funds, etc. should have started months ago. I remember the editorial page writing last summer that there would be an outcry -- quite prescient. I hope we save the building.
That said, the other element here is that Action has been woefully mismanaged for years -- should our community "pay" for an organization's mismanagement by losing a piece of its history? It is a terrible trade off, but until Action demonstrates it can provide value and be well managed, I don't know that they've earned the right to "cash out" unless it is to pay off debt.
BB
First, the building does not adequately serve ACTION's needs. I've been in the building a number of times, and it needs a mega-overhaul to be "worth saving."
Second, the ACTION brass has taken major steps to get this group back on its feet at a time when that was in question. One thing I know about non-profits, is that holding a piece of high-priced real estate as an asset is not of much value to the actual work you try to accomplish. Why fault ACTION for selling a high-dollar piece of property to pay down major debts and to find a spot that is more modern and better suits their needs?
Third, ACTION is not at the mercy of high and mighty "heritage" folk. Saying that ACTION needs the "community's blessing" infuriates me to no end. ACTION performs many services in this community that go overlooked and underfunded. Yet, the organization should bow down to some kooks who want to keep old, dilapidated buildings around? Why, exactly?
In simpler terms, ACTION > Heritage Foundation.
Finally, do I want more damn condos? Of course not. Jmac, you hit the nail on the head by saying this is a planning commission issue.
ACTION should be allowed to sell at the highest bid, and if the Heritage Foundation really, really wants to keep the old building around, then they should pony up the dough.
"Finally, do I want more damn condos? Of course not. Jmac, you hit the nail on the head by saying this is a planning commission issue."
The problem is that there is almost nothing that the planning commission can do to prevent condos from being built on the site. The site is already zoned Commercial-General which allows multifamily residential up to the density of 24 bedrooms per acre. When combining the Action site with the adjacent Boys and Girls Club site, this allows up to 193 two-bedroom townhomes on the site. The only reasons that this proposal is in front of the planning commission is that the developers want ground-floor residential (which requires a special use permit) and the Action property is affected by the airport overlay zone (which also requires a special use permit for multifamily residential). If the developer was willing to put commercial space in the ground floor there would be very little that the planning commission could do to prevent it.
If you read the commendation from the planning staff (available at http://www.accplanning.com)
they have made a very strong recommendation of denial for the special use permit and really push the developers to consider live/work units or office space and to reduce the density signficantly.
Post a Comment
<< Home