Well I wouldn’t hold your breath, it still has to go thru the 45 day public input time period;

There are $35 million in Federal funds remaining to finish the relocation, which will free up about ten acres of the rail yard site for new downtown development. If the public input phase goes as expected, the next step is to figure out how much to pay Burlington Northern for the land.

$35 million for 10 acres of polluted land? Sounds like a deal. Of course Cotter said during the press conference that the land was ‘lightly’ contaminated. You mean like when you ask for light seasoning on your steak? He also said(?) this;

“There have been so many good bones that have already been revitalized in our downtown. And this is just another big and critical part to keep that momentum going,” Sioux Falls Public Works Director Mark Cotter said.

Not sure if that is a typo or if he really said that:)

He was also asked at the press conference what the land was worth and if it has already been appraised. He (claimed) that it could not be appraised until after the public input phase.

This is how I look at it kids, someone is going to make a lot of money off of this piece of property, and it’s going to cost taxpayer’s a bundle in the end. While I don’t like the tracks DT, and what that area currently looks like, I am skeptical of the ‘deal’ that is being cooked up. Expect another butt load of TIF’s to be handed out so someone can build more apartment buildings DT while you and me get stuck with the bill.

11 Thoughts on “Is the RR Relocation project in it’s final stages?

  1. I have no problem with development, but the Developers who want to property should pay for it, not taxpayers.

  2. Not sure if it has to do with Federal law, but what I don’t understand is why the city buying this land, fixing it up, then reselling it? I agree, it makes ZERO sense. Haven’t we learned anything with the Phillips to the Falls? It took several years for someone to even break ground on the property, and they did, they asked for a TIF to do it. I find it hard to believe this land is NEEDED for development. If it was, a developer would have went and bought it already, gee, the RR’s have only owned the property for over 100 years. There is a reason why.

  3. And as I understand it, it will actually make rail traffic WORSE downtown, because the other available lines will be more congested.

  4. Tom H. on July 25, 2013 at 1:48 pm said:

    I think he did say, and mean, bones. In an urban design context, ‘bones’ usually refers to the old/historic buildings and infrastructure in an area. So, for instance, someone might say that a certain historic neighborhood is run-down, but still has good bones, meaning the roots of a strong neighborhood are in place. At least that’s what I’m assuming it meant.

    As far as the project itself, I’m disgusted. This is prime real estate, in a strong urban location, and should be a perfect spot for walkable mixed-use development. However, the redevelopment vision outlined in the DEIS (figure 2.5, if you look at the document) is woefully auto-centric. Adding all the numbers up: 4 new 4-story buildings, ‘future townhomes’, and over 1,200 new parking spots. 1,200! The final breakdown for the site is about 90% space dedicated to parking lots, 10% new bulidings (~320,000 new s.f. of space).

    Why not just plat out new streets and sell the lots out individually, the way downtown was originally developed? Why not let it grow organically, rather than master-planned by a single developer? The answer, I think, is too obvious to need elucidation.

    (Here’s my more urban suggestion for the area: link)

  5. Craig on July 25, 2013 at 4:58 pm said:

    I’m not sure what the final selling price of the land will be, but I’m guessing the total amount given to the railroad will be far more than the actual price paid for the land.

    Keep in mind the city needs to compensate them for the switching yard itself and the costs to not only purchase land elsewhere for the new switching yard but also for the costs to rebuild the infrastructure they will be losing downtown including tracks, switches, buildings, storage areas and on and on.

    I have no idea how many millions it will cost them to relocate all of those tracks and all of their facilities elsewhere, but it will be a significant sum. The land itself is probably valuable but it is really only a slice of the pie.

    It is sort of like when the city wants to widen a road – they can’t just go in and offer the owner of a home on the corner the value for the land and tell them to buzz off. They have to pay enough for the home itself so they can obtain comparable housing elsewhere plus they need to include compensation for relocating expenses etc.

    Oh and by the way – decades of diesel fuel and oil spills down by those rail lines will probably need some cleanup… and thus I would not be surprised if a TIF comes into play with that property to help with those environmental costs. All I ask is that we wait for the details before we automatically start bitching about it.

    I do like Tom’s idea for organic growth though… with as much vacant property we have downtown, I don’t think the city needs to start handing out incentives to force development any faster than the city can absorb it.

  6. OleSlewFoot on July 25, 2013 at 9:43 pm said:

    Wasn’t all this a good idea when we were going to have a DT events center? The railroad track removal was part of the parking plan (1800 parking spaces). What has changed? Now we don’t want to do this? We are going to have TransCanada oil tankers coming thru SF so we need to have an easy way to get them thru. Who cares what it costs, just get it done.

    Tom’s plan makes way to much sense for it to happen.

  7. Tom H. on July 26, 2013 at 10:45 am said:

    My plan makes so much sense that Jane Jacobs figured it out 50+ years ago. Seriously, anyone with even a mild interest in city politics and/or urban planning should read The Death and Life of Great American Cities. It should be required reading for City Councillors and Planning Commissioners.

  8. Craig – This is why I made fun of Cotter’s statement ‘Lightly contaminated’ Baloney.

    “Why not just plat out new streets and sell the lots out individually, the way downtown was originally developed? Why not let it grow organically, rather than master-planned by a single developer? The answer, I think, is too obvious to need elucidation.”

    I would agree, while I can understand why developers want to sell a gigantic chunk of land all at once (South Side WM) The city should be more concerned about mixed development and slicing it off like a pie.

  9. Bond Perilous on July 30, 2013 at 2:56 pm said:

    Tom- I like your idea for an incremental approach. Development here is sure to get screwed up with current land use regulations for the area. Those screw ups should be done on a small scale rather than dooming the whole redevelopment site with one colossal F-up.

    Your map for the area… I have a problem with. You rail against auto-centric development, yet it seems that’s where you begin, given your proposed streets. I think you have twice as much asphalt as necessary. Why not let the origin of a proposal start with pedestrians and cyclists instead, especially with greenway right there to link up with? I’ll have to work on my own plan to give you fair opportunity to reciprocate with a critique of your own.

  10. Tom H. on July 31, 2013 at 10:28 am said:

    If you click on the street lines, you’ll see that I propose about half of them to be pedestrian-only streets. I agree that we shouldn’t give too much priority to motorists, but a grid of streets (pedestrian-only and mixed-traffic) is important to keep the walkability of the area high.

  11. Tom H. on July 31, 2013 at 10:30 am said:

    Also, in my vision all of the ‘full streets’ would be in the vein of Phillips Ave downtown – narrow traffic lanes, slow traffic, on-street parking, and wide sidewalks. Well-done urban streets can accommodate many modes and users in a pleasant and efficient fashion.

Post Navigation