HomeMy WebLinkAbout2022-0919 (99)
Mathis, Jeana
From:Beverly Schaffer <bschaffer@arkansas.net>
Sent:Tuesday, November 1, 2022 1:35 PM
To:Agenda Item Comment
Subject:Reindl Properties Inc.
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the City of Fayetteville. Do not click links or open attachments unless
you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Attached are my comments concerning agenda item #2 Reindl Properties, Inc., under Unfinished Business for the City
Council Meeting November 1, 2022:
Dear Mayor and City Council,
In my humble opinion, this project needs a lot more light shined on it before the city council votes to move forward. It’s
somewhat surprising the plans made it this far with so little input by the city council. As the city attorney noted in
earlier memoranda, the land is owned by the city and it is undoubtedly one of the most valuable pieces of land in NW
Arkansas. In my view, this should give the city enormous leverage in negotiating some kind of public/private
partnership. Yet the developer presented the city with a binding letter of intent that commits the city to all manner of
concessions in favor of the developer before adequate consideration has been given to legitimate concerns raised by
stakeholders. (Perhaps the letter of intent has been revised at this point to remove the objection to its interpretation as
a binding contract).
I won’t belabor the point, but parking IS a major problem with this proposal and it cannot be ignored. The parking deck
being built at Dickson/West pursuant to another controversial public/private partnership was promised as a
replacement for all of the WAC parking lot spaces that will be obliterated for the “park”. Now this deal requires the city
to provide access to this deck and all other city parking to accommodate guests of this new hotel. Understandably, this
has rankled those who will be most impacted by the further dilution of available parking. It’s beyond me why the city
won’t require the hotel to build parking for its guests at its own expense. Valet parking makes good sense. If the
developer doesn’t want to dedicate that much of the building footprint for parking on such a valuable piece of land, it
seems reasonable to ask the developer to locate and purchase other property offsite to use for its valet parking.
I know there is enthusiasm for a new hotel and I share that sentiment. It’s worth noting that this will be a mixed use
building and not dedicated only to hotel rooms. Office space is planned, unless I’m mistaken. It has been reported that
developer Ted Belden spoke against the Reindl project at the last city council discussion. Elsewhere, it has been reported
that Mr. Belden and his partner Greg House are also planning to build a hotel at the Dickson/West intersection. Are two
major hotel projects in this same area sustainable or even desirable? And if the city accommodates parking for the
Reindl development, will it also be asked to do the same thing for the other hotel project?
I respect the work of the architect for this project and have no quarrel with the hotel design. My objections are not to
the developer’s general concept. But, based on what I know so far, this just isn’t the best deal for the city and for the
taxpayers. For example, I don’t understand why the city would bind itself unconditionally in a letter of intent to accept a
real estate appraisal as THE purchase price for the land, one of its most valuable assets. The city should retain greater
flexibility regarding the sale price.
The developer has agreed to submit the plans for the hotel for review as a part of the city's Planned Zoning District
ordinance. Apparently this zoning review process is what would serve as the opportunity for public input on the project.
This brings to mind one of my late father’s favorite words for something that seemed to get done in an illogical manner:
1
bass-ackwards. Once the city has signed a binding agreement to partner with a private developer and contribute
considerable city resources and assets to a development, I wonder what purpose is served by receiving public input
afterwards. More troublesome, is how the city can legitimately function in its role as an objective arbiter of the zoning
proposal in view of its obligations to the developer under the binding letter of intent. It’s difficult to reconcile the
conflict of interest here, which could make the city vulnerable to claims of arbitrary or capricious acts in its decision-
making.
In the end, I guess it would be my wish that the city not partner with a developer on a project like this that probably
would go forward without participation by the city. Too often, the city gives away too much. It seems entirely possible
to attract desirable private developments to enhance the Ramble without once again over-burdening the city’s
infrastructure and the taxpayers' wallet. The city retains control over what gets built there through the zoning process
and it has the leverage of owning this desirable land in the first place.
If this truly is the best deal or the only one that makes sense for this area of the Ramble, then there is no need to be in a
hurry. The worth of the project and its value to all of us will become apparent as the process and the details unfold.
Thank you for considering my views on this topic.
Beverly Schaffer
2