I agree here as well. One of the owners for a local beauty school had a letter to the editor recently. There are apparently already 4-5 beauty schools in the area. Geez, they couldn't have come up with something more in need than another beauty school?

I don't know if this is a terrible or meh idea (it's not genius), but the vocational class most likely to have a waiting list at many of our high schools is the cosmetology class. Since the increased standards and decreased funding are eliminating vocational classes, career schools could fill a needed gap.

On the bright side, when the beauty school closes up shop there will be a renovated building left. Maybe it will even have affordable apartments and not the usual luxury condos.

I'm on the board of CBID, but I'm writing as an individual to communicate my feelings on the matter. I think there are a few relevant points to consider.

1) Last year when we were crafting the CBID strategic plan, I advocated strongly for an agressive retail recruitment effort in which we would spend resources (people, money, time) to proactively identify and recruit the type of retail we want and need downtown. The measure passed, except that the board chose not to fund a position to take the lead on these activities.

2) Short of having someone with specific responsibility for recruitment, we are faced with being reactive to the opportunities that come our way. Its not something I'm happy with, but its where we are today. If I were to create a list of the types and names of businesses I'd recruit to our downtown, a cosmetology school would not be at the top of the list.

3) However, we were approached by a company with a good reputation, strong brand recognition, and deep financial resources who proposed to invest almost $7 million in our downtown at a time when many projects have stalled or been foreclosed due to the horrible state of credit markets. A big portion of the total cost will go toward restoration of the Kress building facade, a historic structure whose sister buildings in cities like Charleston are marvelous examples of historic preservation.

4) The salon/retail portion of the project at Gay Street level will bring significant new energy to the pedestrian experience in a stretch of Gay Street that is in dire need of it. The upper two floors will be developed into housing, primarily for students of the school. These 20 units will bring 20 or more working wage residents to downtown, addressing a huge need for diversification in housing opportunities.

5) There will be a positive near-term impact on both sales and property taxes. On property taxes, a property that last sold for $288,000 over 10 years ago will be reappraised based on the value after redevelopment at nearly $7 million. The redevelopment is also likely to raise property values of immediately adjacent properties, including those like thous that house Downtown Grill and Brewing Works, Yee Haw, and Sapphire (and the JCPenny and Federal Bakery Buildings, of which I'm a minority owner).

6) The CBID grant is structured specifically to be awarded to the property owner (an LLC separate from the Aveda Institute but controlled by the same people), so if the Institute fails for some reason, downtown will have benefitted from the redevelopment. Our money can also only be used for facade renovations and other purposes in the public domain. Facade renovations alone will cost much more than the amount of the grant we awarded. In short, my view is that we awarded a grant to a developer regardless of the tenant, and we've done this many, many times before, though not at this scale.

7) The grant is also structured to be paid over a period of 3 fiscal years after the project is completed (certificate of completion or occupancy), with documentation of all labor and materials spent on the front facade. If the developer spends less than $300,000, they receive less in grant money. The project has to be completed, done right, and money actually spent before the developer sees any money from CBID, and then only over a period of years. This phasing is crucial, as it allows CBID to continue offering event sponsorships and other marketing initiatives, as well as other funds for dealing with safety, security and beautification.

8) Lastly, I am an owner of property in downtown. A minimum of 6 of our 9 board members are required to be property owners in the CBID. So a majority of the board own property downtown and pay the CBID assessment. This is the legal structure specifically to ensure that owners have a proper voice. If I remember correctly, all of the property owners on the board except one recusal for conflict of interest (project architect), voted for the project even though that have no direct involvement or potential gain.

You can think this is a bad idea, but I'd hate to see it reduced to a soundbite. Personally, I'd rather have a Williams Sonoma in the Kress Building (which is the tenant in Charleston's Kress Building). But we don't have the luxury of picking and choosing. We offered $500,000 to the developers of the Arnstein Building in their attempt to lure Urban Outfitters and it didn't pan out. We can either sit on our hands and wait, or we can put our assessments to productive use to increase the value of property in downtown and make it a better place to live, work and play. I prefer the latter, and its why I voted for this deal.

Patrick

At first it seems crazy to support such a duplication of services, but it makes sense to have schools like these downtown. Even though the students aren't likely to be big spenders, it introduces them to the downtown environment. As they spread out throughout the region to find jobs, Downtown Knoxville won't seem like such a foreign place and it's likely to be someplace they return to for entertainment, etc.