General Phoenix Metro Discussion Thread

[Jjs5056]

Originally Posted by biggus diggus

The bid on Roosevelt is dead for now.

The bid on Roosevelt?

[biggus diggus]

Yes

http://www.azcentral.com/story/news/...ucey/81503644/

[ASU Diablo]

As an owner and resident in Roosevelt Row, I am disappointed with this. The process was never an issue for the downtown PHX bid or Mill Ave and now look at those benefits. And the fact that some politician from freakin' Gilbert is sticking his nose in an area that he doesn't even represent is just retarded. I doubt Gov Ducey vetoes the bill so now it's back to the drawing board and getting this approved once more. I, for one, will be supporting it (end rant).

[biggus diggus]

Nobody really wants it to go away, they just wanted an actual vote to fairly see if people really did/did not want it.

I'm glad it's going to go back to a vote, the way they did it was ridiculous. Counted as a yes unless you say otherwise, nah, that's not going to fly. It is less about the BID than it is about getting a chance to voice your vote.

[Jjs5056]

Originally Posted by biggus diggus

Nobody really wants it to go away, they just wanted an actual vote to fairly see if people really did/did not want it.

I'm glad it's going to go back to a vote, the way they did it was ridiculous. Counted as a yes unless you say otherwise, nah, that's not going to fly. It is less about the BID than it is about getting a chance to voice your vote.

If that's the case, what a waste of money and time. If you're in agreement with the end result, why ignite a hostile feud with your neighbors to prove a point? Let it be known you found the process unfair and expect more transparency moving forward, but retroactively nullifying it via legislature?

[ASU Diablo]

Originally Posted by Jjs5056

If that's the case, what a waste of money and time. If you're in agreement with the end result, why ignite a hostile feud with your neighbors to prove a point? Let it be known you found the process unfair and expect more transparency moving forward, but retroactively nullifying it via legislature?

Thank you. This is just the rhetoric and spin business owners are putting on it when they simply don't support it at all, i.e., Angels Trumpet owner.

[biggus diggus]

Originally Posted by Jjs5056

If that's the case, what a waste of money and time. If you're in agreement with the end result, why ignite a hostile feud with your neighbors to prove a point? Let it be known you found the process unfair and expect more transparency moving forward, but retroactively nullifying it via legislature?

Some people really care about their rights being violated and things being run the way they are supposed to be run fairly.

[Jjs5056]

Misunderstood. N/M.

[biggus diggus]

Did I insult or irritate you?

I'm sorry if I did.

The only thing to be offended by is a bunch of these business owners shoving things down everyone else's throat for their own selfish gain and the city not putting it to a proper vote. My landlord is going to see an assessment for this as well and he's against it rather outspokenly, he has no retail, gallery, or similar business and will never see a single benefit directly from this BID.

You are absolutely as blind as the business owners on 4th, 5th, and 6th avenues if you think the BID is something that is just going to make everything great. It's good for some and not good for others, the ones who it is not good for have just as much right to voice their opinion.

[exit2lef]

Originally Posted by Jjs5056

Let it be known you found the process unfair and expect more transparency moving forward, but retroactively nullifying it via legislature?

Speaking of transparency, I'd like to know more of the business owners who are opposed to the BID. Englehorn seems like the only owner of a public establishment to step forward. Biggus has mentioned hearing opposition to the BID from other business owners but doesn't want to mention names. I respect the desire to keep confidences, but the credibility of the BID opposition would be enhanced if more of the opponents would step forward. During the city council meeting, most of the anti voices were people I'd never heard of and whom I therefore presumed to be absentee property owners. If owners of restaurants, bars, galleries, shops, and other businesses that enliven the area feel the seem way, I'd like to know -- not in order to boycott their establishments, but instead to understand the depth of skepticism toward the BID.

[biggus diggus]

The arguments I'm getting from people all stem from the fact that the proponents are touting a few things:

1. increased safety in the area - this is already one of the lowest crime rate areas of Phoenix.
2. clean up and beautification of current infrastructure - so city code must be enforced like it is everywhere else?
3. increased advertising - so helping other business owners with magazine ads. not beneficial for a majority of property owners.

The above views (and the rest of my posts) do not represent my opinion, I'm just parroting what a few others in the neighborhood have told me. I personally couldn't care less if this thing is passed or not.

[exit2lef]

Originally Posted by biggus diggus

The arguments I'm getting from people all stem from the fact that the proponents are touting a few things:

1. increased safety in the area - this is already one of the lowest crime rate areas of Phoenix.
2. clean up and beautification of current infrastructure - so city code must be enforced like it is everywhere else?
3. increased advertising - so helping other business owners with magazine ads. not beneficial for a majority of property owners.

The above views (and the rest of my posts) do not represent my opinion, I'm just parroting what a few others in the neighborhood have told me. I personally couldn't care less if this thing is passed or not.

Those are interesting arguments, but, again, it would be even better to know who's making them. Why not encourage those "few others" to be more public about their concerns? Right now, some people are calling for a boycott of Angels Trumpet. Maybe if it were known that owners of other popular businesses in the area felt the same way, the pitchforks would be put away. Also, it would be interesting to know if there's a geographical split here. You've mentioned this as something that's favored by businesses east of Third Street. If business owners west of Third Street are opposed, then maybe if there is a second attempt to create the BID under the new rules Governor Ducey is likely to sign into law, it can be more focused -- maybe an East Evans Churchill BID rather than a Roosevelt Row BID.

[biggus diggus]

Originally Posted by exit2lef

Those are interesting arguments, but, again, it would be even better to know who's making them. Why not encourage those "few others" to be more public about their concerns? Right now, some people are calling for a boycott of Angels Trumpet. Maybe if it were known that owners of other popular businesses in the area felt the same way, the pitchforks would be put away. Also, it would be interesting to know if there's a geographical split here. You've mentioned this as something that's favored by businesses east of Third Street. If business owners west of Third Street are opposed, then maybe if there is a second attempt to create the BID under the new rules Governor Ducey is likely to sign into law, it can be more focused -- maybe an East Evans Churchill BID rather than a Roosevelt Row BID.

The only concern that I personally would have is the same one as my landlord who owns land that is and will continue to be used as office space, but he will be assessed at the same rate as restaurants, tattoo parlors, and other businesses that are likely to benefit. Honestly almost everyone I have talked to about this subject who is opposed to it 100% are owners who say "I have to pay what for what??". It's an interesting dilemma because looking at what happened in Tempe I'm not so sure that BID had a real net positive. I've lived here in Phoenix for a long time, I used to go to shows at Long Wong's in the 90's and I remember Mill Avenue being economically positive long before any BID was even proposed.

What I would like to see is a land use based assessment. If a property is being used as office space then I think there should be an exemption offered, at that point I think there would be a pretty overwhelming "yes" vote all around.

FWIW I still don't think Matt is opposed, he just feels strongly he didn't get a fair say in the matter and he's not wrong.

At the end of the day I'm just a guy who has apartment buildings outside of the BID (even though I am in it every day) so no one really cares what I think in the matter but since I know a lot of people in the city I do hear what is said. I will not post anything here that hasn't already been said publicly i.e. englehorn's comments.

[exit2lef]

I still have no idea of which businesses, aside from Angels Trumpet, are opposed to the BID. Nevertheless, Governor Ducey signed the bill today so any BID will have to be started from scratch under new, more stringent rules. Supporters of the BID may find some small relief that language that would have made voting rights proportional to the amount of property owned was removed. Such wording would have enabled a few, or maybe even one, owners of large parcels to block as BID's creation. What the governor signed today is more of a pure majority rule based on opt-in rather than opt-out.

[biggus diggus]

Yeah, I know you want names but I'm not going to throw anyone under the bus.

[Jjs5056]

I don't think a geographic split would be clean enough, exit2lef. For example, the businesses south of Roosevelt (like the Ale House, ironically) would probably gain the most from this proposal. The former Songbird owner was trying to create a CDC to try and get many of the things this BID would accomplish because of how disconnected they are from the core of Roosevelt Row. Signage, pedestrian amenities, and efforts to increase perception of safety, would help promote awareness of the southern part of the Row and get those business a better share of pedestrian traffic. Unfortunately, development could have assisted through galleries/retail on the Roosevelt > Garfield block, but Roosevelt Point and Linear are blank walls along 3rd Street, the power plants limits 2nd Street, and 1st Street has the two historic, yet not very ped-friendly buildings to build around.

Since land west of 4th St is owned by the PBC, I hope the next wave of development infills this area like The Derby. 1st Street, in particular, has enough existing building stock that some filled in lots (and new tenant of the Pizza Hut space lol) could create a great promenade into Hance. I wish that the Community Church parking lot could be developed into affordable housing or some kind of community center + consignment store with parking above. It seems like it offers a good spot to create the stupid parking structure business owners are obsessed with while putting a community-focused service on the bottom.

Lastly, can a special bill be passed that taxes Matt Poole for using the former Tavern house and old Big Breakfast as storage space? Such a damn waste.

[exit2lef]

Originally Posted by Jjs5056

Lastly, can a special bill be passed that taxes Matt Poole for using the former Tavern house and old Big Breakfast as storage space? Such a damn waste.

A resurrected Roosevelt Tavern could become the gathering place for all the craft beer lovers claiming they're now going to boycott Angels Trumpet.

[exit2lef]

Lynn Trimble has been providing some detailed coverage of the Roosevelt Row BID controversy. Here's the latest: http://www.phoenixnewtimes.com/arts/...strict-8134294

[Jjs5056]

Originally Posted by exit2lef

A resurrected Roosevelt Tavern could become the gathering place for all the craft beer lovers claiming they're now going to boycott Angels Trumpet.

Unfortunate because 1) it doesn't seem like Poole has any ambitions for that home anymore, 2) two very different bars on one block in EC would've been great, 3) this community proves itself to be a bully once again. I disagree with those that fought against the BID, but boycotting a business that was a pioneer for south EC because they felt they were treated unfairly by a process they had no choice in being a part of benefits no one.

Hopefully Toole's lease is almost up so that a real tenant can bring it back to life, since his other casualties - the Coronado and original Big Breakfast are family owned and likely permanent eye sores.

And, re: the bullies, I'd be concerned that funds would go toward parking since they are obsessed with it. And, the city enables them at every turn, spending more money and time dedicated to shitty land uses when it already paid for a parking study that found a massive surplus in parking. The fake RFP for the 2nd Street was ridiculous, and quite frankly, they should have no say in the parking situation of RR seeing as they were content with removing the much-needed parallel parking on the north side of Roosevelt.

[exit2lef]

Originally Posted by Jjs5056

I disagree with those that fought against the BID, but boycotting a business that was a pioneer for south EC because they felt they were treated unfairly by a process they had no choice in being a part of benefits no one.

Notice that I said that people are claiming they'll boycott. I'm seeing some chatter on Facebook about a boycott, along with a string of negative Yelp reviews mentioning the BID. Whether that actually translates into diminished sales remains to be seen. People tend to jump on a boycott bandwagon on social media but don't always change their habits as consumers. If friends or coworkers propose going to AT, how many people want to be the dissenter who explains the complicated BID process and AT's role in it? Likewise, many of those talking most loudly about a boycott are also mentioning that they already don't go there anyway.

Whether the boycott makes a difference or not, it would be nice if some of the leading pro-BID voices made a statement against a boycott. It would be a gracious gesture that acknowledges that a vibrant Downtown is home to a variety of opinions, even some that many Downtown advocates find objectionable. While I don't like the way that AT and its allies handled the BID process, it would probably take a revelation that the alehouse serves beer brewed with kitten blood to make me say I'd absolutely never set foot in the business ever again. The adverse Yelp reviews are likely to be eventually deleted by a site admin.