How does she get $175-200/sq. ft.? If she does, they must not be overpriced. But holy moley! Just sayin'.

compares to downtown lofts @ $225-$250 per square foot.

There is a history here and history is important. No project better underscores the importance of taking the time to set a solid policy framework and following through than does this one. And no project shows the benefits of aggressive use of the city’s power to use Tax Increment Financing than does this one.

This is a solution to a long-standing issue in the community, one that stood without any answer for ten or more years. There is absolutely no doubt in my mind that without the policies we have developed that this tremendous improvement to this property would not have ever been possible. We would be looking at a further rotted building that much closer to demolition or fire.

To those who say that “If a project does not work without a TIF it should just not happen,” well the public interest in making this happen is absolutely obvious. Previously the taxes were negligible. Needless to say, the only public financial participation in this is about 70% of taxes that the project will bring in upon consummation of the sales. Not only would the 30% we are getting be absent without the TIF, there would have been expenses to government with expensive calls to the property for police and fire services, among others. The streets and roads and utilities are already there.

A key neighborhood is now much better off, and people will find reasonably priced housing in a great area near downtown. Despite criticism of Cardinal and KPH, they completed the project as they committed to doing, and delivered a quality affordable housing alternative in the core of the city.

Note Betty’s comment in the thread referenced below, which was accurate, in my opinion, about the hostility felt by the neighborhoods nearby toward attention paid to the area by the city. I think any fair minded person can drive, or better yet, walk or bike in the Broadway Central area and see the difference only a year or two has made. In reading the discussion below just project to where we now are. Policy matters, and application of the policy matters. Thanks to council members Frost and Hultquist for their support of the general policy of one-parcel TIFs for such situations in their districts and for all of council, and commission, as I recall, for support of the specific TIF request.

And preservation of discussion such as this is one of the reasons Knoxviews is a tremendous resource. We can gradually learn as a community what works and does not work and what the arguments surrounding decisions are all about.

From Knoxviews thread on Browlow circa 2006. The whole thread is well worth reading. (link...)

A bit more context
Submitted by Bill Lyons on Sun, 2006/09/24 - 11:39pm.

A few other clarifications and a bit more context might be helpful. First, the time period is crucial. No TIFs of this sort are possible anywhere unless the property is in a redevelopment area. That is why a redevelopment area is necessary for the South Knoxville Waterfront project. When David Dewhirst spoke with us very early on in 2004 we quickly eliminated the TIF as a possibility because Brownlow School was not in a redevelopment area but in an historic neighborhood that was not a candidate for such an area. We were very concerned about the development of Brownlow and aware of the development challenges and did offer to pursue a PILOT tax abatement under the CityLife program. This would have allowed him to also pursue historic tax credits while receiving tax abatements. The rules regarding historic tax credits mandate rental rather ownership for a number of years.

This was about the time that problems emerged with the South High property in south Knoxville. We were approached by many people, including many in South Knoxville as well as Knox Heritage, about any role the city could play. We did find some solutions that would help the proposed development but tax abatement just did not seem to fit the situation and the project went on hold. At that time I began to explore the option embedding a solution to this problem in a larger policy – the redevelopment of historic schools that were no longer in use. In most cases the neighborhoods had a great interest in home ownership but the schools presented tremendous challenges to any potential developer.

The area around South High likewise did not seem to be good for a redevelopment area any more than did that around Brownlow. Our template for redevelopment areas was certainly broader than just one structure. At that time we became convinced that it was in the neighborhood’s interest, and certainly in the city’s interest, to see if we could pursue one-parcel redevelopment area under a program specifically tailored for helping abandoned historic schools. We checked this with the appropriate lawyers and were told it was indeed acceptable under the applicable state laws and regulations. We envisioned a program geared to restoring historic school buildings – all producing no property taxes at all - for home ownership. While South High was our first concern we also recognized the applicability to Brownlow and perhaps to others. We discussed this concept with council members Frost and Hultquist and both thought it was a very good idea. I communicated this policy to council in early 2005. We received very favorable reaction.

Of course the first step in such a process is for council to request that a redevelopment area allowing TIFs be drawn up for a school property in question. That only allows a TIF. It does not guarantee one at all. A separate application for a TIF must be made, with financials, development plans, etc. and the plan and TIF must be then recommended to council, who must vote to approve the specific TIF. Our main impetus in doing this was to find a solution for South High School, but we were aware that it could be helpful to Brownlow.

We later became aware that the property had changed hands and of community meetings between Cardinal and the 4th and Gill neighborhood folks. We were told of the neighborhood’s interest in the development of the school into condominiums rather than rental units. At that time we suggested that it might be a good time to set the wheels in motion to prepare a one parcel redevelopment plan as we had envisioned under the new policy.

At present nothing has been done past the initial request to KCDC. They have not yet prepared the redevelopment plan Hence there is not yet any legal basis for a TIF, has been no application for a TIF, no recommendation to council for a TIF, and certainly no council vote creating one. We do not “offer TIF’s” to one party and not to another. We can only explain the tools at the city’s disposal, the criteria for assistance, and suggest that folks apply if they think they qualify. We would have loved to have been able to have worked toward a TIF in addition to exploring a PILOT for Brownlow with David Dewhirst but our discussions took place way before the chain of events started in regard to South High that led us to create the policy for historic schools. We would love to see Brownlow School rehabilitated. We also think it was the right thing to do to put a program in place to help rehabilitate old historic schools and to encourage home ownership in the affected neighborhoods.

The last time I was in Brownlow was ten or eleven years ago, and I'm having trouble imagining those rooms then looking so nice now. And I am psyched to see it finally happening!

Didn't mean to dis the project. I can't believe downtown prices either, but I thought this market would at least flatten things a bit. There are a lot of free standing homes that have been on the market a long time. That means glut and overpricing. But, again, if lofts sell, that means they're wanted.

It is totally wrong to trash Abbas because he works for the Salvation Army. It helps people, period. Your attitude is caustic. I feel sorry for you, but you don't in any way speak for our neighborhood.

McDaniel manages to ruin any talking we do in 4th and Gill. He damn near ruined the Brownlow project.

Are the units $175 - $250/ sq. ft. or did Ms Trotta get her arithmetic wrong? Because that doesn't fit my definition of affordable. I'm not complaining or anything because there is plenty of affordable housing a few blocks away.

I'm glad to see the project be successful.

___________________________________
"Capitalism will never fail because socialism will always be there to bail it out." --Ralph Nader

I think I answered my own question, he lofts are (relatively) affordable because they are small. I liked that some of the units had doors so you could have outdoor space along with your loft. That is a rare combination.

South facing, too. Good place to soak up the winter rays. Just need some shade trees for summer.

___________________________________
"Capitalism will never fail because socialism will always be there to bail it out." --Ralph Nader