Credit crunch leaves trendy mixed-use developments on shaky ground

Return To Article
Add a comment
  • Greg
    April 13, 2009 1:15 p.m.

    I am unconvinced of the title of this article. It seems to me that you have shown that new large developments are having a hard time but not shown that mixed use developments are having any harder time than single use developments.

  • To Upfront is wrong
    April 13, 2009 12:08 a.m.

    Educate yourself about how Redevelopment and Community Development agencies work before you make untrue claims about Granite District revenues. They not only aren't guaranteed a dime, but they foolishly gave up their share of property tax revenues to the CDA for the new project. The day the mall was evacuated and torn down they became big losers. While the old mall was operating they were receiving 100% of their share of property tax revenues. Now while it sits idle they only get the minimal value attributed to the devalued land. Even if or when the development is built, they've signed over the lions share of their revenues (called tax increment) for years to come. Pathetic educrats easily led by developers. I was involved in a somewhat succussful fight for RDA reform at the legislature and am quite informed on the issue.

  • RE: 10:56 AM
    April 12, 2009 10:23 p.m.

    I'm not knowledgeable about how these developments have been financed and planed, so I'll state that upfront. But, I don't get how anyone can say that the school district can be "guaranteed" anything. If this downturn continues... down, then all bets are off. The state can't print its own money and the fed can only for so long. High inflation or deflation could be coming, and it will make life difficult for all. I can't believe all the incredible gambling that was going on not only with shady developers, but also with municipalities hoping to get in on the cut. Now we have these amazing eye-sores to gaze upon and turn people and businesses away from the area. To start a project without 100% of the needed funding in place makes no sense to me, and never will. I don't care how "great" things were going - what could the developer have been thinking? To quote a well known phrase: "for which of you, intending to build a tower, sitteth not down first, and counteth the cost, whether he have sufficient to finish it?"

  • Cliff
    April 12, 2009 4:28 p.m.

    So who is losing money? If the school District is guaranteed the same money and the project is not built and the value of the property goes down, who is paying the increase? Who pays the guaranteed?
    I would bet it is you and me.

  • To Upfront
    April 12, 2009 10:56 a.m.

    Absolutely untrue that Granite School District has lost any money. As part of the Redevelopment Agreement, they are guaranteed the same amount of taxes that they received in 2007 for each of the next twenty years. If anything, they are better off with that guaranteed base. If the project is built, then they will share in the additional taxes as well.

  • Johny Fairplay
    April 12, 2009 8:06 a.m.

    ^^^ Agreed, the Craig Meacham memorial mud puddle in Sugarhouse is the perfect example.

  • Upfront money
    April 12, 2009 4:03 a.m.

    The real culprit is that developers aren't putting in thier own money on these stalled projects. Developers have created their own demise with no solvency in their developing. If they don't have money they can't develope, easy as that. The days of taxpayer funding devlopers is over, hopefully, as education has lost $20 million dollars on the cottonwood mall fiasco. The tigntened lending by banks means developers must have more capital to secure loans is all it means. This helps the econommy by keeping out flakey developers and reduces the tax burden on citizens. And City governments can no longer develope on possible taxes, now they must wait until the taxes are in hand before they can plan to spend it.