This is much ado about very little. Jacobs is requesting that the term of certain development fee credits be extended out to 20 years with 65% expiring in 10 years. The developer is not getting ANY approval for anything outside of the normal planning process. What is not mentioned or seen in any of the clips is the completely unnecessary attack on the City Manager, part of a pattern as the Mayor pointed out that has resulted in many departures from the Planning staff. She pleads for civility. In the post-Trump (we hope) era, we could all do with more of that.
Not true, there's actually a great deal of import here, as I've outlined. Jacobs gets a great many things outside of the normal planning process. But overall, most concerning to me is how Jacobs is managing to qualify as a "Developer" without any clear (not conceptual and vague) indication of what will be developed. The only reason for a City to enter into a Development Agreement is to be able to have some certainty of what will be constructed in a specific place. Under these terms, Jacobs can just turn around and sell these parcels, newly cleared with a valuable array of fee deferrals, credits, and other incentives attached to them, and make a healthy profit without the City having any idea what that third party would build. If Jacobs can provide a clear idea for what they want to develop on a specific site, then by all means they should be able to negotiate a Development Agreement for that project. And I describe exactly what was said of the City Manager and even provide a link to that point in the video.
In regards to the sub-issue of the proposed new arch, the so-called Neon Line Arch would be a no-go as far as I'm concerned. What would it possibly mean and why would we even want such a clear branding theme unrelated to our City- we already have an awesome history of arches in which to draw from. There are other avenues available to Jacobs for branding opportunities. We now have 2 of the original 3 arches, I say bring back the second one (or construct a facsimile) that was so thoughtlessly given away to Willits and put it in that valued gateway location on 4th Street. In fact, I have mentioned to friends multiple times thru the years that this is what should have happened with the '63-'86 arch all along. If Jacobs were to consider such a move, it would go a long way in generating a positive public perception and we might even give Jeff Jacobs a parade under the thing (probably). Don't let this once in a life-time opportunity slip by. Long live the Hippy Arch!
This is much ado about very little. Jacobs is requesting that the term of certain development fee credits be extended out to 20 years with 65% expiring in 10 years. The developer is not getting ANY approval for anything outside of the normal planning process. What is not mentioned or seen in any of the clips is the completely unnecessary attack on the City Manager, part of a pattern as the Mayor pointed out that has resulted in many departures from the Planning staff. She pleads for civility. In the post-Trump (we hope) era, we could all do with more of that.
Not true, there's actually a great deal of import here, as I've outlined. Jacobs gets a great many things outside of the normal planning process. But overall, most concerning to me is how Jacobs is managing to qualify as a "Developer" without any clear (not conceptual and vague) indication of what will be developed. The only reason for a City to enter into a Development Agreement is to be able to have some certainty of what will be constructed in a specific place. Under these terms, Jacobs can just turn around and sell these parcels, newly cleared with a valuable array of fee deferrals, credits, and other incentives attached to them, and make a healthy profit without the City having any idea what that third party would build. If Jacobs can provide a clear idea for what they want to develop on a specific site, then by all means they should be able to negotiate a Development Agreement for that project. And I describe exactly what was said of the City Manager and even provide a link to that point in the video.
Here's what Jason Hidalgo wrote in RGJ. I'll let your readers decide which of us is characterizing the significance of the Development Agreement correctly: https://www.rgj.com/story/news/money/business/2021/10/15/neon-line-development-jacobs-agreement-what-reno-city-council-voted/8460180002/
In regards to the sub-issue of the proposed new arch, the so-called Neon Line Arch would be a no-go as far as I'm concerned. What would it possibly mean and why would we even want such a clear branding theme unrelated to our City- we already have an awesome history of arches in which to draw from. There are other avenues available to Jacobs for branding opportunities. We now have 2 of the original 3 arches, I say bring back the second one (or construct a facsimile) that was so thoughtlessly given away to Willits and put it in that valued gateway location on 4th Street. In fact, I have mentioned to friends multiple times thru the years that this is what should have happened with the '63-'86 arch all along. If Jacobs were to consider such a move, it would go a long way in generating a positive public perception and we might even give Jeff Jacobs a parade under the thing (probably). Don't let this once in a life-time opportunity slip by. Long live the Hippy Arch!