Chickenwing

That is just unacceptable!

We're number 1! We're number 1! Doh!

And I thought McBee Station was moving along quickly!

Good news on the Winn Dixie Center. I would like to see something happen there. SC Steel owns the practice fields. They want to expand their business on this property from what I was told.

I could see it implemented on a smaller scale at first. Maybe on the ICAR campus?

I played golf with a guy from Access Realty a few weeks ago, and I asked him about the Tower. He said it was dead. I never posted this because it was nothing new. Sounds like we have some conflicting information.

The truly bad thing about this model is that at no point do the taxpayers get any real dollars return on their investment. If, and that is a big if, it were to turn around by taxpayers subsidizing the whole thing, then who is paid the profits? That's right, the teams, who have little invested. I cannot see how this is a win for the taxpayers, most of whom will NEVER go to anything at the Bi-Lo center. Personally, I say say let the arena default on the debt, and let the bond holders have it. Then we will see if it can be ressurected through private investment. (Please note that I am not sure that a default could happen without some sort of taxpayer liability though, not knowing exactly how the Center is financed. This is basically just conjecture on my part.) There is a reason that even NFL, NBA, MLB teams, for the most part, do not build their own venues. It doesn't make financial sense for them to invest when they can hold up a city for the tab.

Maybe I am misunderstanding this posting, but it sounds like you think that the taxpayers should bear a larger portion of the cost. Why? Why shouldn't the arena be able to economically support itself? If it cannot, then how does that make good business sense? If it cannot support itself, then that is why many taxpayers did not want it in the beginning, because they would be stuck subsidizing the bill for something they do not use.

RT, what camera do you use?

I just read that last night! Someone gave that as a gift to my wife and I for our son who is to be born hopefully by the 22nd.

I don't think I was confused. The PS, I think, was in reference to the recent reassessment vote, and that is what I was talking about in my reply. I am not sure where I stand on the hospitality tax; however, I do think that we need more county parks. I also realize that the money must come from somewhere. My biggest issue with the hospitality tax, as pointed out in the article, is that it could be used for any number of different projects, not just parks, including the Bi-Lo Center. I would rather be assured that the money is going for something more appropriate.

It was more fear of the school board that anything. People in Greenville County are sick of being backdoored by the spend happy school board and were most likely afraid it would happen again. The rich have been subsidizing the poor for years, do you REALLY think this is going to change? I know that I myself am sick of taxes. I would not be surprised if over half of my income goes to pay taxes, whether directly or indirectly. What is the government going to do when they get it all, and it is still not enough!!?

I actually like the overall feel of it. The logo sort of gets lost in the top middle. I also think the rotating sponsor ads in the upper right should all be the same size, instead of the box changing size. More red should be incoporated into the color scheme as well.

Now, if I could only get my wife to do that.

If anyone wants to read the county's RFP for the removal of the tracks, here is the link: http://www.greenvillecounty.org/Purchasing/RFP/RFP907.pdf

I read the forum several times each day, but prefer to lurk than post for the most part.

I would recommend getting a buyer's agent, esp. since you are not from the area. Get references, as all agents do not work the same. Find someone who fits with you as well. Some agents will have your best interest in mind, and some will be all about the commission. Personally, I would rent first and get to know the area. Then buy.

There was a meeting the other night about this project. This was told to me by someone who was at the meeting: Apparently they are trying to move forward quickly. They have plans to pull up the rails and grade the rail bed for foot and bike traffic by the end of the year. Then they will have to raise money for the next phase which includes the tram and paving the trail, however, federal grants or something like that will cover 85% of the cost. I hope this is right... this was all second hand.

His reference is to the tags next to topics to let you know there is a new post. The tags have changed in the last couple of days. There is a different look to them.

There was a contract in place for an Eckerd's or CVS to go there along with some kind of shopping center. For some reason it feel through after Vince's had already shut down.

They had signed photographs of alot of people hanging on the walls there. I seem to recall Reagan being one of them.

Interesting article on how current planning techniques make us fatter. Basically, it is good news for neo-urbanists who want to see more walkable communities. http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060616/ap_on_...ss_urban_design

I think that this would be ideal. Powdersville is a good fit.

I had to pay full price for my copy.

In the following opinion letter, Brad Halter of Caine Company, paints a rather rosy picture of the downtown housing market: http://greenvilleonline.com/apps/pbcs.dll/.../605190312/1016 While I would like to wear that pair of rose colored glasses, using his numbers, I figure there are around 100 of the 525 condos that have been built, renovated, or under construction, on the market. That is 29 in the MLS of the 330 built and renvoated, and 35% of the 195 under construction. This does not include others that may be on the market, but not in the MLS. This is around 19% of the market that are still available. Plus another 220 that are proposed and about to come out of the ground. If we generously figure that 35% of these are under contract, then there will be another 143 available. That could be as much as 33% of the total market are available, if everything is built. It is going to take a while to absorb this, whether you think its 19% or 33%. No wonder they keep putting the Bookends on hold and canceling towers with residential units in them. One place I do agree with Mr. Halter is under his section of caveats, that we need to build units at other price points. If this were done, I could agree with his final point that the CBD would be able to absorb many more projects over the next few years.