Current Info:
Wed May 24 2006 - A New Press Release Appears on the Front Page of the Courier Journal Metro Section.
This latest press release follows the same pattern of omission that has marked this initiative for the last year and a half. This one is a bit different as development announcements usually appear in the BUSINESS section, not the front page of METRO and surely not as slightly updated reprints of previously published information. It appears the Courier Journal has decided to treat development advertisements as news.
As we reported months age, FEMA National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) regulations severely restrict parking below residential structures in an AE floodway. (see Wed Jan 4 2006 New FIRM (FEMA Flood Insurance Rate Map) determinations released.) The latest rendering shows a huge parking lot to the east of the central structures. We can only presume someone finally read the regulations.
What is also not being made known, is that parking restrictions are not the only challenge this development faces. According to the Louisville Floodplain Ordinance, the inability to supply emergency services to the area in time of flood also prohibits construction of this project. During a base flood, vehicles simply can not get into the area... period. Although the 1997 flood was only the 6th highest recorded, River Road was covered in water nearly up to the traffic signals and the closest approach was at Frankfort Ave and Story. (see Photo of a lesser 2005 event)
If this development is allowed, homeowners will find themselves the subject of regular mandatory evacuations and either locked out of, or trapped in their homes without police, fire, or EMS response and probably with no utility service. The only way MSD can permit this project without extensive roadway reconstruction is for Louisville Metro to issue a variance from the Floodplain Ordinance. If this is approved, the only possible emergency response during a regulatory flood will be by helicopter or swift water response by boat. This very real scenario makes the 2/22/05 statement published in the Courier Journal seem almost prophetic. Not enough traffic and people, said Steve Poe, a partner in the local project, could lead to "fears of a barren, no-man's land." Considering recent scenes from New Orleans, a variance would be irresponsible.
Other show stopping preservation related issues were also minimized and still remain. The article stated there was an agreement with state preservation officials to preserve historic artifacts. The "agreement" mentioned in the article was actually only a discussion at the initial November 2005 USACE Consulting Parties Meeting. It was only tentatively accepted and has not been incorporated into any overall preservation agreement. Nonetheless, the presence of 19th century artifacts was only one of many issues on the table. Other unresolved and equally critical issues include:
Agreement on the acceptable methods of discovery, exhumation, and reinterment of Native American burial sites known to exist throughout the area.
The final identification of and effect the development will have on historical and archaeological structures and sites that exist including Heingold Facade, Paget House, The Geiger Ferry, and The Louisville Municipal Harbor.
The developer's proposals to mitigate the unavoidable effects this development will have on previously identified historic and archaeological sites.
The drafting, negotiation, and final issuance of a Memorandum of Agreement stipulating developers preservation responsibilities and specific steps to be followed to mitigate negative effects on historic entities.
The article clearly minimized the weight of the USACE "signoffs" and inferred that they are forthcoming. The fact is this very long and complicated preservation review process is no where near complete. It should be further noted that the public interest, navigational, and public safety reviews and negotiations necessary for the required Memorandum of Agreement have not even begun. Contrary to the impression left by the article, the end result of the federal regulatory process is by no means imminent, clear, or certain.
Other observations and curiosities include:
The article failed to reiterate previous statements that "60 percent of the first phase will be apartments renting for $500 to $1,500 a month", we can only presume the apartment buildings shown along River Road have now been redesignated as condominiums. (This has been confirmed)
While the design features and amenities promised are slowly disappearing, the cost of development has once again increased substantially. We began with $20M in 2004, to $130M in 2005, to the current $200M. In any other objective community assessment of a municipally sponsored project, this would raise red flags. WDC on the other hand continues to push for regulatory permissions.
Even with the 10 fold increase in publicly stated construction costs, the price for the condominiums has actually decreased. Here is a running account of the various announcements of investment vs. condominium selling price:
2004 - $20,000,000 = $170,000 to $500,000 condos
2005 - $130,000,000 = $150,000 to $1,000,000+ condos
2006 - $200,000,000 = $139,000 to $299,000 condos.
Although the latest article contained the figures shown for 2006, other press releases not initially available at the local level put the upper end sales price at $1,500.000. (This has been confirmed) While we here in Louisville are being told one thing, the national and international business community is being told another. This fits with the overall marketing "spin" that is being employed. The facts seem to show that this development will continue to increase in cost and decrease in feasibility as the known issues are addressed.