Beltline looks to October bond issue for more project funding
July 30, 2009 at 5:03 pm by Thomas Wheatley in NewsThe Atlanta City Council Finance and Executive Committee yesterday gave Beltline officials the green light to issue up to $267 million in bonds to fund the 22-mile loop of parks, trails and transit.
At a citizen advisory committee meeting on Tuesday at the East Atlanta library, Richard Lutch of Atlanta Beltline Inc. told members that project officials will issue bonds in the $145 million-$165 million range in October, a good chunk of which will go to refinance last year’s bond issuance.
Exactly how other cash raised from the issuance will be used for trails, parks and other Beltline features is still undecided. But officials have a basic idea.
CL obtained a draft document produced by Beltline officials that outlines three possible scenarios, each dependent on the amount of the October bonds issuance. Officials hope the market conditions will be favorable so they can pursue the most optimistic of the three.
Officials say approximately $64.5 million of the bonds will go be used to refinance bonds issued by ABI last year. A sizable chunk of those funds went to settle debt on property located near Piedmont Park that the city purchased from Gwinnett County developer Wayne Mason.
The bond issuance amount will ultimately depend on investors’ interest in the project and economic conditions. The latter is nearly impossible to predict, but Beltline officials hope to generate attention for the project in late September with a “developer day.” Lutch said the bond market — which screeched to a halt last year thanks to the global economic meltdown — is starting to show signs of life.
The entire City Council is expected to vote on ABI’s request in mid-August. ABI is asking City Council to approve a higher amount than it expects to issue in October in case project officials want to return to the bond market.
July 30th, 2009 at 5:26 pm
“Officials say approximately $64.5 million of the bonds will go be used to refinance bonds issued by ABI last year”
These bond issues are indeed confusing, but it sounds a lot like someone getting a home equity loan and then using the money to pay the monthly mortgage. In other words, they don’t have the money to start paying off the debt, so they are going to borrow more money?
July 30th, 2009 at 8:36 pm
its ok to want to kill this project. A true leader would do that and get us a real transit solution What’s the correct term? Boondoggle?
July 30th, 2009 at 11:38 pm
RW – what is your proposed “real transit solution”? I hear you complaining but see you are not offering viable alternatives.
July 31st, 2009 at 7:51 am
A “real transit system” will take people from where they are to where they want to go, in a convenient, safe, and economical manner. What are the views of CL readers on whether the BeltLine will meet this test?
July 31st, 2009 at 9:28 am
MARTA is a real transit system. Let’s focus on smart, pedestrian-friendly development of the areas surrounding the stations–the south and west lines have tons of untapped potential. And more regular bus service to places that aren’t within walking distance of a station (and more regular train service during off-peak hours). I’m not saying the Beltline isn’t a worthwile project, but improving MARTA should be a top priority.
July 31st, 2009 at 11:20 pm
Man,
Wheatley is an absolute clueless cheerleader on this project. Do you consider yourself a journalist, or just part of the ABI PR machine?
Thomas, are you getting direct payments from ABI to keep writing all this crap about this illegal and worthless project?
Hell shall truly freeze over if any more bonds are issued for this project in October 2009.
August 1st, 2009 at 10:18 am
Cep,
You’re right: the bond deals are confusing. I asked Beltline officials when I reported my recent feature on the project how issuing new bonds to pay off old bonds was any different than taking out a new credit card to pay off debt on an old one. The banks that purchased last year’s issuance had stipulated they would only hold the bonds for a set period, hence the move to refinance the bonds.
CL Observer,
I’m not receiving any payoffs for my Beltline coverage and I think you’re wrong that I’m a “clueless cheerleader.” I’ve reported on the Beltline’s ups and downs and never pulled coverage to help the project. I’m also confused how the plain reporting of an upcoming bond issuance — the conditions of which will depend on the status of the bond market and opinion of the Beltline months from now — equates to boosterism. When the conditions are more clear or finalized, I’ll report on those. If you have information on how the project is illegal, send me a line. thomas(dot)wheatley(at)cln(dot)com
August 2nd, 2009 at 8:22 am
The AJC has now even stopped running the “puff” pieces on the BeltLine.
It’s now only you.
Notice how your puff pieces get posted to ABI’s website as part of their PR machine?
CL is pathetic, but likely will be non-existent quite soon.
CL is simply not capable of doing a critical story on whether this crap project is worthy of billions of public funds.
As a transit project, it makes no sense. For example, do you understand the stations around the BeltLine will not even have parking facilities?
It will only be used by people who live within walking distance.
Stop the puff pieces. It’s really embarassing.
August 2nd, 2009 at 9:59 am
We’ve written before about how the project’s light-rail component goes against the principles of transit planning (i.e. it’s a loop without sufficient current ridership, “all origins and no destinations,” etc.) Reread my current piece and you’ll see I included some of those same concerns — which are valid — raised by Mike Dobbins. (Before last year’s ballot referendum, I posted the Georgia Tech professor’s op-ed urging voters not to approve TADs.) We’ve written about how last year’s payout to Wayne Mason was met with opposition from community advocates and wasn’t an equitable distribution of TAD funds. We’ve discussed how Southwest Atlantans are concerned they’d be displaced because of the project.
Like you said, the Beltline is a $2.8 billion project that’s being built largely with public funds. But many people don’t know what it is and it stands to impact the entire city. I note the minutiae because it deserves to be noted.
When the specific details of the October bond issuance become more clear, we’ll examine them.
August 4th, 2009 at 9:31 am
Many people don’t realize the high level of development density that is being proposed by ABI. For the Subarea 6, the area from Ansley Mall to the Home Depot shopping center on Ponce, ABI is proposing development that would consist of 4,889 condos, which would DOUBLE the density for that area. In addition, the plans for an 8 story development at 10th & Monroe and multifamily housing on land that is currently open space and zoned for SINGLE FAMILY on Piedmont Park highlight the inappropriate density proposed by ABI’s and ABI’s inability, or refusal, to listen to community input about development along the Park. In July, over 120 residents joined in a letter sent to ABI and City Council that raised the following points related to 10th & Monroe:
1) The Proposed Development Is Contrary To The Plans Outlined In The TAD Redevelopment Plan.
The original plan for the parcel at 10th & Monroe, as laid out in the BeltLine TAD Redevelopment Plan, was Zero Stories/Open Space. The TAD Redevelopment Plan was the result of extensive public input, was presented to the NPUs, and was voted upon by City Council to create the BeltLine TAD. The Redevelopment Plan states that it:
“outlines the major public infrastructure projects that comprise the BeltLine project. It outlines the type and scope of development that is consistent with good planning practices. It demonstrates the feasibility of the TAD to create a majority of the necessary funding (based on the proposed development).” Redevelopment Plan, pg. 2.
The proposed eight story development for 10th & Monroe is an 800% increase from the zero stories/open space that was contained in the BeltLine Redevelopment Plan. The Redevelopment Plan was used as the basis for gaining neighborhood support for the BeltLine TAD and was the plan upon which City Council voted when passing the TAD. As noted above, the Plan specifically stated that the scope of development in the Plan is “consistent with good planning practices” and was the level of development needed to fund the BeltLine. Allowing any development at 10th & Monroe, let alone an eight story building and four story buildings on land that is currently designated as single family residential, will constitute the worst form of bait and switch.
2) The Proposed Development Is Contrary To The Overwhelming Public Input That Has Called For This Space To Be Maintained As “Open Space.”
All of the tables at the “lego exercise” for Subarea 6, which showed the participants’ ideas for development along the BeltLine, had open space at 10th & Monroe. Furthermore, the Redevelopment Plan states that “the community’s consideration of this site [10th & Monroe] during the northeast workshop concluded with a majority of participants favoring retention of this site as greenspace linking the 10th Street transit stop and plaza with Piedmont Park.” (Redevelopment Plan, pg. 60).
Any development at this site is thus contrary to the years of public input ABI and the City has received on this parcel.
3) Conversion Of Open Space Adjacent To Piedmont Park And Single Family Neighborhoods And Removal Of Trees Is Not Consistent With The BeltLine Principles Outlined At Various Steering Committee Meetings To:
a) “Preserve and protect further green space opportunities”
b) “Accommodate growth without compromising existing uses and environmentally or historically sensitive areas.”
c) “Promote redevelopment patterns best suited to complement surrounding communities.”
d) “Ensure character of surrounding communities remain undisturbed.”
http://www.BeltLine.org/LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=zYXgf6MhDWE%3d&tabid=1824&mid=4386
4) Great Cities Do Not Allow Development On Land Adjacent To Their Great Urban Park.
Representatives of Central Park in New York, Boston Gardens in Boston, Golden Gate Park in San Francisco, and Lincoln Park in Chicago have all confirmed that they would not allow development on land that is adjacent to their park. Atlanta should follow the lead of these great cities and protect its premier urban park from development.
5) Allowing Multi-Story Development On Land Adjacent To The Park Is Inconsistent With Piedmont Park’s Master Plan.
The Piedmont Park Master Plan states: “Any development of or improvements to buildings or structures surrounding Piedmont Park should consider height, massing and scale to insure no major interruptions of sunlight to the Park.”
An eight story building on elevated land that is adjacent to Piedmont Park will certainly cause “interruptions of sunlight” to the Park.
6) The Proposed Development Is Contrary To The Land Use Designation In The Atlanta Strategic Development Plan.
The proposed development is inconsistent with the land-use designation for this area in the ASDP adopted by City Council on April 21, 2008, which provides for single family residential for the area where the four story buildings are proposed and low density commercial for the land where the eight story building is proposed.
Creative Loafing should report on the proposed level of density being proposed by ABI. It is far greater than what was called for in the BeltLine TAD Redevelopment Plan and is far greater than what is wanted, or needed, especially in areas with historic single family residences such as Subarea 6.
I would be happy to discuss this further with Creative Loafing or people intested in protecting Piedmont Park from development and encourage you to contact me at: jeniferkeenan@hotmail.com
August 4th, 2009 at 11:57 am
RE: JeniferKeenan’s “…which would DOUBLE the density for that area. In addition, the plans for an 8 story development at 10th & Monroe and multifamily housing on land that is currently open space and zoned for SINGLE FAMILY on Piedmont Park…”
Perfect. Just as it should be. Increase the residential density around the major city park, a great public resource, and watch Atlanta grow in a smarter direction than it has. This park in particular should have a high density around all sides and less low-density, single-family housing so that it can be in walking proximity to a greater number of city residents. Do this and watch the need for that much-maligned parking deck gradually disappear.
RE: CL Observer’s “…the stations around the BeltLine will not even have parking facilities…It will only be used by people who live within walking distance.”
I look forward to it. This is the kind of pedestrian-oriented development that will help to break Atlanta’s regrettable habit of car-dependent development — a habit that has caused traffic and transit headaches for years.
Wheatley isn’t a Beltline booster, but I am. I’m also a Smart Growth nut. I’ll take the heat.
August 4th, 2009 at 1:00 pm
If nothing else preserving the right of way for the belt line is a effort that NEEDS to happen now. Gone are the days when the metro region could plan multi jurisdiction transit lines.
Thankfully the City of Atlanta and a number of semi private groups are defying GA politics and moving forward with securing the right of way.
Do we build a trolley that would be nice but at this point I’d take a trail.
What gets developed around it? I’ll leave that to the give and take, though clearly some more density is needed in some of these places.
Does it get you where you want to go? Well as stated above that’s the point, where do you want to go? This line will connect and recreate the way many manage their life. And for those that don’t want to change it makes getting to a MARTA station easier so that’s good also.
Boondoggle? look at Metro Atlanta’s transportation um I mean Highway system. Its about time we went in another direction.