Misc. Uptown Projects/News

[RANYC]

10 hours ago, Prodev said:

The lender is currently  marketing the non-performing loan for this property. $86 mil loan that'll probably sell at 50-60% of par, so probably still too pricy to raze.  I have no clue what it would cost to demo a high-rise building like this, but I have to imagine it's in the $5-10 mil range, so add that to the price tag. It also has ~120' of depth, so not ideal for hotel or MF conversion without having a large dead space (or storage as KJ noted).  The biggest problem with these conversions is that on top of it costing roughly the same as new construction, you end up with a 50 year old retrofitted (funky) building at the same cost as a purpose built amenity rich new construction. While this may be an A+ location, Charlotte doesn't lack land and uptown apartment vacancy is high, so I'd be shocked if there was any real interest from converters on this one. On the other hand, it will likely be attractive to office owners to be able to own a South Tryon office tower at ~$90 per foot. 

Oh wow, is apartment vacancy high?

[KJHburg]

from Joe Bruno twitter 

""Charlotte City Council voted 7-3 to restore all criminal penalties 6 ordinances: Soliciting from street or median strip, open containers, Trespassing on motor vehicle, Masturbation in public, Urination and defecation on certain property prohibited and Behavior (sleeping in parks) Council did not vote to restore criminal penalties for these two ordinances: Unauthorized people in parking lots and Loitering for the purposes of engaging in drug activity No votes: Brown, Johnson, Mayfield. Watlington absent""

 

[RANYC]

25 minutes ago, KJHburg said:

from Joe Bruno twitter 

""Charlotte City Council voted 7-3 to restore all criminal penalties 6 ordinances: Soliciting from street or median strip, open containers, Trespassing on motor vehicle, Masturbation in public, Urination and defecation on certain property prohibited and Behavior (sleeping in parks) Council did not vote to restore criminal penalties for these two ordinances: Unauthorized people in parking lots and Loitering for the purposes of engaging in drug activity No votes: Brown, Johnson, Mayfield. Watlington absent""

 

Street or median strip solicitations are significant litter generators.

[Boricua]

54 minutes ago, KJHburg said:

from Joe Bruno twitter 

""Charlotte City Council voted 7-3 to restore all criminal penalties 6 ordinances: Soliciting from street or median strip, open containers, Trespassing on motor vehicle, Masturbation in public, Urination and defecation on certain property prohibited and Behavior (sleeping in parks) Council did not vote to restore criminal penalties for these two ordinances: Unauthorized people in parking lots and Loitering for the purposes of engaging in drug activity No votes: Brown, Johnson, Mayfield. Watlington absent""

 

Ok can someone tell me out of all the things on here the city decriminalized masturbation in public?

[InSouthPark]

9 hours ago, Boricua said:

Ok can someone tell me out of all the things on here the city decriminalized masturbation in public?

Right?  And still have 3 council members vote no. You could sit there and jack off onto Tryon St and nothing anyone could do.  It's one thing for cops to look the other way on some of these but for cops to no have any authority to do anything when it is disturbing people is crazy. 

[RANYC]

1 hour ago, InSouthPark said:

Right?  And still have 3 council members vote no. You could sit there and jack off onto Tryon St and nothing anyone could do.  It's one thing for cops to look the other way on some of these but for cops to no have any authority to do anything when it is disturbing people is crazy. 

Charlotte Council election turnouts have been very light during all the cycles I’ve watched as a resident of this city, and consequently, I’m not sure the reasoning used by some of the reps is really representative of how the broader population actually thinks about the world.  

I hate that the term “re-criminalization” was used to simply describe authorizing police to get involved in removing the vilest displays of human sickness and deviancy from places of public prominence.  Yes, we want to be compassionate, but do we want to make uptown a giant psych ward and no-go zone for families all across this city, while street-dwellers occupy our public spaces working out their addictions and delusions and despondency?

[CLT Development]

18 minutes ago, RANYC said:

Charlotte Council election turnouts have been very light during all the cycles I’ve watched as a resident of this city, and consequently, I’m not sure the reasoning used by some of the reps is really representative of how the broader population actually thinks about the world.  

I hate that the term “re-criminalization” was used to simply describe authorizing police to get involved in removing the vilest displays of human sickness and deviancy from places of public prominence.  Yes, we want to be compassionate, but do we want to make uptown a giant psych ward and no-go zone for families all across this city, while street-dwellers occupy our public spaces working out their addictions and delusions and despondency?

People voted no because these people need help and housing, not incarceration. Each criminal offense means it is less likely they can EVER get housing. Meaning they will remain either in the system or on the street until they die. Re-criminalizing it, which is exactly what is happening, is just us taking the easy way out. Saying "people are condoning public masturbation" is reductive and an outright lie. People are taking the side that people need help, and that we are doing NOTHING to solve this problem.

As my colleague on the planning commission, who is a criminal defense attorney, noted. 

We need to act fast, in line with cities like Houston who have profoundly helped their house their unhoused community.  https://www.governing.com/housing/how-houston-cut-its-homeless-population-by-nearly-two-thirds

Edited February 13 by CLT Development

[RANYC]

37 minutes ago, CLT Development said:

People voted no because these people need help and housing, not incarceration. Each criminal offense means it is less likely they can EVER get housing. Meaning they will remain either in the system or on the street until they die. Re-criminalizing it, which is exactly what is happening, is just us taking the easy way out. Saying "people are condoning public masturbation" is reductive and an outright lie. People are taking the side that people need help, and that we are doing NOTHING to solve this problem.

As my colleague on the planning commission, who is a criminal defense attorney, noted. 

We need to act fast, in line with cities like Houston who have profoundly helped their house their unhoused community.  https://www.governing.com/housing/how-houston-cut-its-homeless-population-by-nearly-two-thirds

I believe law enforcement has a role in this issue alongside other resources outlined last night.  That “we are doing nothing” is also reductive.

Edited February 13 by RANYC

[atlrvr]

3 hours ago, CLT Development said:

People voted no because these people need help and housing, not incarceration. Each criminal offense means it is less likely they can EVER get housing. Meaning they will remain either in the system or on the street until they die. Re-criminalizing it, which is exactly what is happening, is just us taking the easy way out. Saying "people are condoning public masturbation" is reductive and an outright lie. People are taking the side that people need help, and that we are doing NOTHING to solve this problem.

 

Noting something as a criminal offense does not necessarily put a roadblock to someone receiving help or re-integrating into a normative society.

This new ordinance will allow police to cite/remove people who are being public nuisance or worse.  The courts have discretion at a later date if/how to prosecute and the penalties.

The problem with the previous "de-criminalization" is that police had no grounds to engage, regardless of what they suppose the root cause or intent is.  It could be someone having a psychotic episode, or simply someone wanting to harass other members of the public (and I understand there can be a high level of overlap along the spectrum of causes)

The D.A.'s office as well as magistrates/judges, can make good faith determinations on best course for those cited/arrested, and make well informed decisioning on how to balance individual rights against public's best interests.  

^^^ In my opinion, that is vastly superior to purely condoning anti-social behavior, and acknowledges that police aren't equipped/informed to have the level of detail to exercise discretion, but allows them to exercise laws and let those who are better informed make those judgements.

[turbocraig]

As someone who lives uptown and just last night had to clean human feces, soiled underwear, socks, and even pants from our walkway, I’m fine with “re-criminalization” or however one wants to phrase it.  I get living uptown you take the good with the bad.  As a 21yr resident, I’m not blind to this fact, but we can’t pretend that the folks who’ve decided to personally invest in uptown should have to live in an environment like this and just be ok with it.  It’s getting worse, not better.  I’m an independent liberal-leaner, but enough is enough.  I’m not sure, maybe the anti-criminalization folks would be ok cleaning sh*t off your home?  Semen?  That form of “doing nothing” sounds worse to me.  

[RANYC]

45 minutes ago, turbocraig said:

As someone who lives uptown and just last night had to clean human feces, soiled underwear, socks, and even pants from our walkway, I’m fine with “re-criminalization” or however one wants to phrase it.  I get living uptown you take the good with the bad.  As a 21yr resident, I’m not blind to this fact, but we can’t pretend that the folks who’ve decided to personally invest in uptown should have to live in an environment like this and just be ok with it.  It’s getting worse, not better.  I’m an independent liberal-leaner, but enough is enough.  I’m not sure, maybe the anti-criminalization folks would be ok cleaning sh*t off your home?  Semen?  That form of “doing nothing” sounds worse to me.  

Watching last night’s council deliberations was a “shot across the bow” moment for me.  

Hyper-vigilance needed now more than ever.  

Competing visions of how our densifying city handles these very grotesque displays.  One side wants only “social work.”  Other side seems fine with social work, but recognizing the long arc of social work, wants “forcible removal” in the immediate term as well. 

[CLT Development]

1 hour ago, turbocraig said:

As someone who lives uptown and just last night had to clean human feces, soiled underwear, socks, and even pants from our walkway, I’m fine with “re-criminalization” or however one wants to phrase it.  I get living uptown you take the good with the bad.  As a 21yr resident, I’m not blind to this fact, but we can’t pretend that the folks who’ve decided to personally invest in uptown should have to live in an environment like this and just be ok with it.  It’s getting worse, not better.  I’m an independent liberal-leaner, but enough is enough.  I’m not sure, maybe the anti-criminalization folks would be ok cleaning sh*t off your home?  Semen?  That form of “doing nothing” sounds worse to me.  

I don't "do nothing" is what anyone is proposing, and nobody is saying things shouldn't be a criminal offense. We have had this issue for more than 5 years and expanding Roof Above by 200 beds in 2021 and adding 35 apartments to Moore Place in 2016 barely made a dent. We need to build permanent housing for these people, along with rehabilitation, education, more. Its cheaper to do that than pay for incarceration. We need a plan to house these people, not just to constantly churn them through the system.

[CLT2014]

While some of these do some targeted towards homeless people in general, I think this gives police some authority that currently lacks. Not all of these actions are homeless people. There are evangelists at intersections standing in medians running between cars passing out Jesus Loves You fliers for example and knocking on your window asking you to repent. At one intersection, a guy passes out fliers for his taco truck in a gas station parking lot along South Blvd. Currently the police can't tell them to get off the median.

Edited February 13 by CLT2014

[InSouthPark]

11 minutes ago, CLT2014 said:

While some of these do some targeted towards homeless people in general, I think this gives police some authority that currently lacks. Not all of these actions are homeless people. There are evangelists at intersections standing in medians running between cars passing out Jesus Loves You fliers for example and knocking on your window asking you to repent. At one intersection, a guy passes out fliers for his taco truck in a gas station parking lot along South Blvd. Currently the police can't tell them to get off the median.

Folks stand on a 18" wide concrete bump in the middle of 51 and Carmel.  One time off balance and someone is going to run over them and be scarred for life.  It doesn't phase me if people are panhandling on the side of the road or whatever.  But on a tiny sliver of concrete on 51 with cars flying by?  GTFU. 

[turbocraig]

48 minutes ago, CLT Development said:

I don't "do nothing" is what anyone is proposing, and nobody is saying things shouldn't be a criminal offense. We have had this issue for more than 5 years and expanding Roof Above by 200 beds in 2021 and adding 35 apartments to Moore Place in 2016 barely made a dent. We need to build permanent housing for these people, along with rehabilitation, education, more. It’s cheaper to do that than pay for incarceration. We need a plan to house these people, not just to constantly churn them through the system.

My “do nothing” comment was in response to the No votes.  I’m probably not as informed a citizen as I could be, and certainly not as much as many on this board, but was there a plan offered from the No votes to actually try to formulate a solution?  Or just whine about unfairness?  I’m honestly not trying to be antagonistic with the “whine” comment,  but good God, I didn’t campaign and run for office, these people did.  And I’m not a cold hearted person at all - I routinely buy (or offer to buy) homeless food if I’m at a gas station in lieu of giving money (I don’t really carry cash anyway).  I guess I’m just wondering what’s the next step after No?  Doesn’t appear our elected leaders have a clue.  I hear you when you say “we need to build more…”.  Sure, we do.  But are we?  As much as I constantly hear about affordable housing and whatnot, when and where does that rubber meet the road?  I feel like that’s all I hear about from city/county officials, but where is it?   7th and Tryon?  Anywhere else?  And that’s below-market housing, right?  Doesn’t seem like that’s gonna work for the homeless.  The Houston article shows they have the goods, but is anyone here in local government listening?  Do they have Google?

I’m just a guy who lives uptown and am sick of this crap (pardon the pun).  Not sick enough to sell and move, but c’mon.   And not trying to be argumentative, just frustrated.  I just don’t want to clean sh*t off my home.  I feel like that’s not a high bar.  

[RANYC]

5 hours ago, turbocraig said:

My “do nothing” comment was in response to the No votes.  I’m probably not as informed a citizen as I could be, and certainly not as much as many on this board, but was there a plan offered from the No votes to actually try to formulate a solution?  Or just whine about unfairness?  I’m honestly not trying to be antagonistic with the “whine” comment,  but good God, I didn’t campaign and run for office, these people did.  And I’m not a cold hearted person at all - I routinely buy (or offer to buy) homeless food if I’m at a gas station in lieu of giving money (I don’t really carry cash anyway).  I guess I’m just wondering what’s the next step after No?  Doesn’t appear our elected leaders have a clue.  I hear you when you say “we need to build more…”.  Sure, we do.  But are we?  As much as I constantly hear about affordable housing and whatnot, when and where does that rubber meet the road?  I feel like that’s all I hear about from city/county officials, but where is it?   7th and Tryon?  Anywhere else?  And that’s below-market housing, right?  Doesn’t seem like that’s gonna work for the homeless.  The Houston article shows they have the goods, but is anyone here in local government listening?  Do they have Google?

I’m just a guy who lives uptown and am sick of this crap (pardon the pun).  Not sick enough to sell and move, but c’mon.   And not trying to be argumentative, just frustrated.  I just don’t want to clean sh*t off my home.  I feel like that’s not a high bar.  

Councilwoman Renee Johnson was a no vote and was the only "no" vote that spoke with some coherence, IMO.  The city is pursuing a couple of action items to address the quality of life issues, and Renee Johnson proposed waiting on re-criminalization to see those items implemented.

• one is spending $500K to contract with an organization trained to engage the homeless on the streets directly, as an alternative to police engagement
• second is to set up port-a-potties, that will eventually be replaced by a more permanent solution.  This was the solution cited in yesterday's meeting: https://portlandloo.com/, which I think would be a helpful addition.
• third is some sort of mobile bus parked somewhere in Uptown that will have bathrooms and a couple showers as well...

[turbocraig]

Just now, RANYC said:

Councilwoman Renee Johnson was a no vote and was the only "no" vote that spoke with some coherence, IMO.  The city is pursuing a couple of action items to address the quality of life issues, and Renee Johnson proposed waiting on re-criminalization to see those items implemented.

• one is spending $500K to contract with an organization trained to engage the homeless on the streets directly, as an alternative to police engagement
• second is to set up port-a-potties, that will eventually be replaced by a more permanent solution.  This was the solution cited in yesterday's meeting: https://portlandloo.com/, which I think would be a helpful addition.
• third is some sort of mobile bus parked somewhere in Uptown that will have bathrooms and a couple showers as well...

See?  I told you there were people on here smarter than me.  Thanks for the education.  I’m all for those initiatives, but still anti-poop/wanking.  Still a hard no on that.  

[carolinaboy]

9 hours ago, RANYC said:

Councilwoman Renee Johnson was a no vote and was the only "no" vote that spoke with some coherence, IMO.  The city is pursuing a couple of action items to address the quality of life issues, and Renee Johnson proposed waiting on re-criminalization to see those items implemented.

• one is spending $500K to contract with an organization trained to engage the homeless on the streets directly, as an alternative to police engagement
• second is to set up port-a-potties, that will eventually be replaced by a more permanent solution.  This was the solution cited in yesterday's meeting: https://portlandloo.com/, which I think would be a helpful addition.
• third is some sort of mobile bus parked somewhere in Uptown that will have bathrooms and a couple showers as well...

Nothing says, "Visit our lovely Uptown" more than a bunch of port-a-potties all over the place. I guess that beats turds on the sidewalk though. Seems like permanent facilities would be better and should be pursued......'cause no matter how well-intentioned some of you are with the "help and offer a place to live" side, that will not solve the problem either, no matter how many buildings for the homeless are built.

[KJHburg]

Just now, carolinaboy said:

Nothing says, "Visit our lovely Uptown" more than a bunch of port-a-potties all over the place. I guess that beats turds on the sidewalk though. Seems like permanent facilities would be better and should be pursued......'cause no matter how well-intentioned some of you are with the "help and offer a place to live" side, that will not solve the problem either, no matter how many buildings for the homeless are built.

I think they are putting these up at the Hal Marshall Center a county owned building that is the epicenter for the homeless on N Tryon. 

[RANYC]

Mayor is on Charlotte Talks discussing the re-criminalization issue.  During her comments, the mayor remarked that Lawana working with clergy to discuss opportunities to utilize church properties, especially those churches with declining attendance, for accommodations for the unhoused.

This is an interesting real estate use and public/faith-based partnership.  Having said that, often these churches are embedded in neighborhoods.  I live near the church renovation on Grandin Road in Wesley Heights.  I’m wondering how I would have reacted to a reuse of that abandoned church into housing for the homeless. 

[Rufus]

2 hours ago, carolinaboy said:

Nothing says, "Visit our lovely Uptown" more than a bunch of port-a-potties all over the place. I guess that beats turds on the sidewalk though. Seems like permanent facilities would be better and should be pursued......'cause no matter how well-intentioned some of you are with the "help and offer a place to live" side, that will not solve the problem either, no matter how many buildings for the homeless are built.

I think we need to understand that some of this has to do with the prevalence of hostile architecture/infrastructure in many CBDs. Even in New York, public bathrooms are scarce, and also rarely well maintained. But they are also vital assets, not only for the homeless but for tourists. Now, if these are just for the homeless, I still don't see a problem with that. It still gives an opportunity for outreach. 

To the $500k to homeless outreach -- if you've never been a part of that kind of work, you won't understand how hard it is. There is no forcing to shelters. But there is consistency, awareness, and relationship building. These workers develop relationships that eventually get them the tools to help homeless. It's not an immediate impact, but it does have some lasting impact. There is a careful act not to force people to shelters, but to ask if they want to go. It takes repetition. I've done some outreach in NYC, and it is thankless and dirty and yet so rewarding when you finally make the connection. 

Also, I wouldn't choose the word accommodations for the religious buildings. That does assume them to become housing shelters, and I'd rather see some of them be community facilities with trained medical staff, employment counselors, therapists, and facilities to clean up. That's my hope...but funding is the key. 

[Windsurfer]

47 minutes ago, Rufus said:

I think we need to understand that some of this has to do with the prevalence of hostile architecture/infrastructure in many CBDs. Even in New York, public bathrooms are scarce, and also rarely well maintained. But they are also vital assets, not only for the homeless but for tourists. Now, if these are just for the homeless, I still don't see a problem with that. It still gives an opportunity for outreach. 

To the $500k to homeless outreach -- if you've never been a part of that kind of work, you won't understand how hard it is. There is no forcing to shelters. But there is consistency, awareness, and relationship building. These workers develop relationships that eventually get them the tools to help homeless. It's not an immediate impact, but it does have some lasting impact. There is a careful act not to force people to shelters, but to ask if they want to go. It takes repetition. I've done some outreach in NYC, and it is thankless and dirty and yet so rewarding when you finally make the connection. 

Also, I wouldn't choose the word accommodations for the religious buildings. That does assume them to become housing shelters, and I'd rather see some of them be community facilities with trained medical staff, employment counselors, therapists, and facilities to clean up. That's my hope...but funding is the key. 

The Portland toilets also have their issues with homeless camping out in them. It's better than nothing, and I've used them plenty of times, but we'll still need cops on the beat walking around and checking up on things.  

[RANYC]

1 hour ago, Windsurfer said:

The Portland toilets also have their issues with homeless camping out in them. It's better than nothing, and I've used them plenty of times, but we'll still need cops on the beat walking around and checking up on things.  

You are correct, portable/portland loos are not a panacea.  In the article below, San Diego removed a Portland loo after its placement correlated with a 130% increase in police calls to the area. 

These loos aren’t cheap either with costs exceeding $500k.  Wouldn’t it be cheaper to hire security attendants and just make the Hal Marshall Center bathrooms available to the public, complete with a check-in procedure so users know someone is maintaining the orderly functioning of the facility?

https://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/news/politics/sdut-portland-loo-remove-crime-cost-restroom-2016feb05-story.html

 

[Rufus]

Just now, RANYC said:

complete with a check-in procedure so users know someone is maintaining the orderly functioning of the facility?

 

 

This wording is a little off -- makes it sound like you have to "check-in" to use the facilities. But, I won't split hairs in terminology. 

Bryant Park has free public bathrooms and they are heavily maintained daily, including tracking totals of users for each bathroom. I'd say look and hope for that kind of investment, and it'll pay off.  The head of the Bryant Park Corporation, the organization that maintains the park, is noted as saying that the bathroom is the most important asset to the park. Other parks try to imitate it, but they don't allocate staff to their bathrooms as frequently. 

[CLT2014]

Aren't there free public restrooms at Bearden Park and First Ward Park?