2. Orland Park's Flaherty related news of the dense ramp-wrap-rental experiment approved by the village board of trustees this week, where town bankrolling of the adventure was and is the plan, here, with an ending citizen comment quoted, "You can be mayor or you can be a developer, but you can't be, shouldn't be both."
I would hesitate to ever guess that "I cannot see how either the downtown or Loring Park rental projects could fail," but my forecast is that the locales suggest a greater probability of success than comparable projects at more speculative places.
Nor would I be so bold as to think that the downtown or Loring Park things would catalyze miraculous renaissance measures within their neighborhoods. They will, once built, rent out at occupancy rates that can be anticipated as higher than at other less prestigious places - and that is all I believe I could credibly forecast without undue puffing or unmerited optimism.
_____________UPDATE______________
3. Latest reporting from Oralnd Park, dated Sept. 22, byline: Jack Murray, The Regional editor, this link. In part, Murray wrote:
Over the objections of most of the residents who packed its meeting Monday night, Orland Park’s Village Board voted to approve the permits, redevelopment agreement and funding of the 295-unit luxury apartment building it plans to build in a public/private partnership at 9750 W. 143rd St.
Only a few of the more than 200 residents who crowded the Orland Park Village Board chambers for the second time since Labor Day to oppose the village’s plan to fund the construction of the $63 million luxury apartment building took the last opportunity afforded them to speak on the record for or against the project.
Village trustees each proceeded to give their views before they voted unanimously to approve the site plan, special-use permit and subdivision to move forward with the project: the first phase to develop a Downtown Orland Park in the Main Street Triangle redevelopment area bounded by 143rd Street, La Grange Road and the Metra railroad tracks running the diagonal along Southwest Highway.
The motion to approve was made by Trustee Kathleen Fenton, who spoke with passion about Orland Park’s demonstrated ability to consistently attract major, big-name retailers and other firms as a desirable place to do business.
Although Trustee Brad O’Halloran voted with the rest of the board to permit the project, he cast the sole dissenting votes against authorizing the redevelopment agreement with the developer selected as the village’s private partner, and also the loan agreement for the future issuance of general obligation bonds that will fund it. Indianapolis-based developer Flaherty & Collins is putting up only about $2 million of the nearly $65 million estimated cost to fund the project.
It is the village’s intention to finance the remaining $63 million through a bank line of credit, then the issue of general obligation bonds that O’Halloran objects to, he explained. While O’Halloran supports the Main Street Triangle redevelopment project, and is “not against the [upscale] apartment complex,” he said to loud applause that he opposes the financing plan. [...]
[...] As a sop to O’Halloran, Mayor Daniel J. McLaughlin agreed to have village staff “explore the option of reducing the risk to the village — to mitigate the risk.” To do so, one of the agenda items added and also approved by the Village Board Monday was a resolution to authorize village “staff to explore, identify and evaluate various fund options for Ninety7Fifty On the Park.”
[...] Foes of the project contend few would be willing to pay upwards of $1,500 a month to live in Orland Park and fill all of its 295 units, despite the amenities planned for 9750 On the Park, including a salt-water swimming pool, fitness center, spa and luxury unit interiors. [...]
From a Ramsey perspective, the crucial question is whether timing will permit us to gauge likelihoods here from results there, the uncertainty being how soon will they proceed so that we can see signs of success or failure, and whether results there are predictive of likelihoods here.
If Orland Park is to be Ramsey's "canary in the coal mine" it would help us little to have feedback from there, (encouraging or discouraging), if we at that point have "The Residence," (that being the quaint name invented for that thing to be attached to the citizen-owned tax-subsidized ramp), being a half-built thing where the only option is to finish it and hope, regardless of what Orland Park's experience teaches.
This suggests a wait and see posture is wisest for Ramsey, even if a construction schedule has to be tailored that way. With the city providing the secondary financing needed to supplement the bank loan and the miniscule percentage of the construction cost being put in by Flarherty's firm, we can control timing by when the bonds are issued and the proceeds released. Presumably PNC, the Pittsburgh bank financing twenty million dollars of the thing might also see wisdom in waitnig to see how the Orland Park experiment turns out before fronting bank cash in Ramsey. It would be prudent banking if PNC chose that approach. Given the history of how Minnwest bank plunged and regretted plunging, PNC might favor discretionary delay. They will be free of adventurous banker shenanigans out of North Branch, which was a part of the Minnwest experience.
The counterargument is that timing of the present rental demand spike favors avoiding delay, but that argument overlooks the fact that the thing will have a useful life of thirty years, even if built flimsily, and longer if soundly built as the Flaherty promises suggest. Transitory demand should not be a driving force when such a true long term time frame governs. Indeed, even an apparent success in Orland Park, if used to lead Ramsey thinking, might be only a result of transitory demand, a rental housing bubble, so there is no sure thing even if using Orland Park experiences as our barometer.