District v2.0?

In another attempt at Urbanizing Johns Creek, Councilman Steve Broadbent and Bob Gray were Task Force Members of the Strategic Economic Development Plan (SEDP).

This plan reads like is a taxpayer funded redevelopment project for Technology Park. We saw this presented to us last spring with the plans for the ‘District’.

Once again we must raise some serious questions.

  • Why is the City of Johns Creek leading this push to redevelop Tech Park?
  • Why isn’t Tech Park leading the push to redevelop Tech Park?
  • Why are our tax dollars being spent to enrich select private property owners?
  • What exactly is wrong with our City and why are we trying so hard to change how we are perceived?

Objective 1.2: Adopt a unified vision for Technology Park

Why is this a concern of the City in the first place? What is Tech Park’s vision for Tech Park? Why is the City working so hard on behalf of this select property owner?

Strategy 1.2.3: Develop a marketing plan to inform the community of the plan

Once again, why is the City developing a marketing plan for Tech Park? Why isn’t Tech Park developing a marketing plan for Tech Park?

Strategy 1.2.4: Develop a multi-year funding plan for redevelopment of Technology Park

Yes! Fund this redevelopment over multiple years. Read that again! Ask yourself why the City is doing this for Tech Park?

Strategy 1.2.6: Update Land Use Plan to allow for mixed use development in Tech Park.

That sounds like apartments in Tech Park, and allowing them without going through the zoning process.

SEDP1a

Objective 2.3: Develop water and sewer infrastructure to encourage business growth and key development sites.

This must be a LOT of development if our current sewer system cannot handle additional toilets.

SEDP6a

Strategy 3: Incentive Development of more inventory on existing parcels.

Hmm thats sounds like increasing density.

SEDP5a

Objective 4: Identify key parcels that can be SHOVEL-READY.

Meet with landowners/developers of Parcels greater than 2 acres to determine action needed to develop shovel ready sites. Incentivize increasing density and mixed use development on remaining potential park vacant land.

Yes… We must develop land over 2 acres and forget about parks. Yes! Our Government needs to provide incentives to increase density on remaining vacant land!! 

SEDP3a

Above are some highlights. To read the full report, click here.

Councilman Steve Broadbent stated this plan is critical to work we are doing on the district.

Do you think 141 and Johns Creek Parkway needs redevelopment of privately owned properties and additional growth? Is our top rated City under capacity?

If this redevelopment was such a great idea why doesn’t Tech Park come forward with this plan as zoning case, just like every other land owner and developer has to do? Mr. Rees Waite of Tech Park Atlanta was also on this SEDP Task Force. 

Sources: City of Johns Creek, Consultants: Strategic Planning Group & T.Y. LIN INTERNATIONAL

14 thoughts on “District v2.0?”

  1. I find this disturbing our elected officials want to change the LUP and make it easier to build high density apartments.

    Johns Creek is built out! We do not need anymore people or even companies. Businesses bring people in and out with cars. There is no room!

  2. Traffic is the #1 issue in Johns Creek.

    So why are they spending so much on redeveloping private property?

    I’m thinking our Founder’s Day Parade should be themed “Jammin’ Me”. Let;s get Tom Petty to come out and sing it for us.

    Tell him to leave a day early….

  3. I find it disconcerting that a government entity tries to “fix” what isn’t broken. Why are we trying to expedite and/or subsidize development as a city? What data supports these developments as “needs”?

    If it will be financially viable for the private property owners, why aren’t they willing to pursue it themselves?

    We need to reduce taxes to balance the budget, reduce traffic congestion to enhance quality of life, retain/acquire some green space, stop over-development (e.g., high density housing), reform business taxes, and then we can enjoy our nice residential community.

  4. A vote for Thomas “Tom” Radford is an assured vote against HIGH DENSITY DEVELOPMENT (APARTMENTS).

    I strongly oppose high density development (apartments) and this new “District” initiative. This is government overreach. The simple truth is that our current infrastructure and roads are failing us miserably. Chasing after anything else is a waste of time and especially a waste of our hard earned tax payer dollars.

    Visit my website for all the facts. http://www.thomasradford.com.

    THE DIFFERENCE IS CLEAR!
    THE TIME IS NOW!
    THE CHOICE IS YOURS!

    Vote Thomas “Tom” Radford post 6

  5. Tired of wasting our money!

    We really need to get rid of the people pushing this taxpayer funded District concept. Time for Broadbent to go.

  6. From Zero government to this type of government in less than ten years?

    I regret voting for this City and I regret convincing my friends and neighbors to support this City.

    Had we stayed unincorporated Fulton County, we would have had a tax cut instead of a tax increase this year.

    The City could only have succeeded if we had elected officials that stayed true to our original purpose.

    Now we have a micromanaging, overreaching local government that feels your land is their land, and that you must develop it to maximize tax revenues.

    Can’t we pull the plug on this before its too late? Or is it too late?

    1. its too late. and by electing some of these knuckleheads who oppose any zoning whatsoever , we just keep digging in deeper.

  7. Fundamental questions must be asked. What is the motivation for this expanded economic development? Isn’t Johns Creek already a vibrant, thriving community? Could more knee-jerk growth actually hurt those things that are already great about Johns Creek? It seems that officials seeking to artificially create growth is a bit like a dog chasing his tail – hurriedly he spins and spins in great motion, but to no effect. At least the dog wastes his time for free.

  8. John, we have been asking these fundamental questions since the CBD became funded with taxpayer dollars. We never get a straight answer.

    What is often overlooked is that Johns Creek has some of the highest per capita incomes in the state. So what we might lack in lost retail opportunities ($2.1 billion of their lost retail opportunities happens to be auto sales), we more than make up for in incomes. Is the issue that the City does not get a share of those incomes directly? What is the drive for more and more tax dollars?

    And do Johns Creek residents really want to make up that shortfall by adding auto dealers? I think not.

    Here are some basic economics which the majority of us understand on development:

    As a resource grows scarce, the cost will rise. This will ensure that it goes to the best use in the future.

    Part two of that is that as the undeveloped land rises in price, then the developed land that is underutilized will “naturally” be looked at as an alternative, and then redeveloped when the right project comes along.

    We are told Tech Park has old buildings. So does every other city. The price to utilize that space should drop until either it is leased, or redeveloped. If that is not happening, it is a clear sign that the rents are too high. If they refuse to lower the rents, why does that become our problem?

    Every business owner has to price their product to what the markets will bear. Tech Park in no exception.

    We hear the argument that there is not “affordable” housing in Johns Creek. Sorry but 82,000 of us are living here that can afford it.

    Adding more “affordable housing” will actually harm the homeowners on the lower end of the housing markets in Johns Creek. They would then have to lower their prices to compete. And if they have to lower their prices, then the next tier will also be forced to do the same.

    And not everyone that says “Hey I want to live in Johns Creek” will get to. Were we all want to live in Martha’s Vineyard, would their local government be charged to get us affordable housing?

    You are dead on with the artificial demand comment. If we have to subsidize and stimulate the economic growth to occur, then we are likely to get projects which are not viable relative to the rest of our local economy. And we then take those properties out of the market in the future, when a project that is economically viable arrives in the future.

    Johns Creek is not alone in trying to stimulate. Everyone is. In the long run it is worse than a zero sum game because it encourages mal-investment and overbuilding.

    http://ejmoosa.com/blog3/2015/10/28/world-economies-stimulated-into-recession/

    It appears to me that we have become about chasing tax dollars more than anything.

    I encourage everyone to remember that five council members did not equal 7 over the last year.

    There were many questions like the ones John is asking that went unasked because the Council was not full.

    How many other unasked and unanswered questions are there?

    Anyone paying attention knows that there are more and more each and every day.

  9. We have the best housing stock of any city, have great schools, and are the safest city in GA. There will always be a high demand to live in such a place. If we stopped or even just curtailed some of the extraneous spending, we would never have trouble with having enough revenue to take care of the basic functions of our city government. Less is more!

  10. If you want a voice that will question this project, and others like it, vote for Stephanie Endres. She is smart, a CPA and rightfully skeptical of big governement. She will look at it with a critical eye. Or vote Nazeera and get another “Yes” (wo)man for Bodker.

  11. I want to encourage Elizabeth and others that have been commenting here to also show up at the City Council Meetings and make public comments as well.

    It’s hard to deny the concern of the public when they take time out of their busy schedules to show up and comment before the Council.

    And we do have some serious concerns.

Comments