I’ve been thinking a lot about how our city handles agreements with developers. Last weekend I wrote about what was on the council meeting agenda, including the 2023 Washington development failure extension that was sure to be approved. And to no one’s surprise it was approved to move forward as-is, with the exact terms Mr. Buckley suggested.
I’ve been thinking a lot lately about how our city handles agreements with developers. It’s been a recurring theme this year… Extension after extensions, deadlines pushed back, and agreements unmet. It got to the point where I spoke out about it during the November 4th council meeting. I can’t help but wonder, are we being taken advantage of because of our tight-knit community kindness?
Note: This is sure to get some people upset, so know that I am not picking on Wine Not LLC. It’s just a pattern I see with the city leaders and this is just the latest example.
A Pattern of Extensions
It’s not just one developer or one project. We’ve seen multiple extensions granted for façade grants, apartment complex developments, and this week the ongoing situation with 2023 Washington Street. Each time, the city seems willing to bend over backwards to accommodate without much in return. Is this generosity serving us well, or is it hindering our progress and leaving parts of the city barren?
The 2023 Washington Street Saga
Let’s take 2023 Washington Street as an example to illustrate the broader issue.
- Tim Klein’s Purchase and Refund: The city sold the property for $10,000 with a $5,000 down payment. Klein later backed out of the deal, and despite the down payment being non-refundable, the city refunded it.
- Sale to Wine Not LLC: The property was then sold to Wine Not LLC for the same price, with a commitment from them to invest $100,000 in developing the site.
- Missed Deadlines: Wine Not missed the development deadlines, not once, but three times. The city extended the deadlines twice, giving plenty of opportunity to meet the obligations.
- Current Situation: After investing $50,000 in demolition and cleanup, Wine Not wants out. Contractually, the city could reclaim the property and impose a $50,000 penalty for not fulfilling developing the property. Instead, we’re allowing them to sell the property and keep nearly all the profit.
Not Playing Favorites, But…
Personally, I don’t believe our city leaders are intentionally playing favorites. Even though Curt Andrews of Wine Not LLC is involved in local government and has opened one of the most popular restaurants in Two Rivers, I think the intentions are rooted in wanting to support local businesses. However, it’s hard to ignore the inconsistency when we contrast this with how we’ve treated other developers.
Take the Van der Brohe Arboretum, for example. The city is holding firm on requiring them to pay $12,000 to connect to the water utility. Not only is there no extension, but originally they asked for $25,000 and were told by courts to lower it. And yet, we’re effectively letting Wine Not LLC off the hook for at least $60,000. I’m not claiming this is favoritism, but I think there are questions about fairness and consistency.
The City’s Position vs. the Developer’s Position
Developers, by nature, will advocate for their interests. They’ll negotiate for better contract terms, request extensions, and seek to make as much profit as possible. That’s expected. But our city leaders have a responsibility to advocate for our residents’ interests first and foremost. When we continually concede without holding developers accountable, they are neglecting that duty.
Consider what the forfeited funds could have supported:
- Paying down city debt
- Providing raises to underpaid Parks & Recreation staff
- Funding a Geographic Information System (GIS) position that many cities our size have
- Investing in other community programs or infrastructure improvements that are funded through property taxes
By not enforcing the contracts both sides agreed upon, we’re potentially missing out on things that benefit the entire community.
The Bigger Picture
How often is this pattern repeating itself? We’ve now seen developments fail, deadlines continually extended, and monetary penalties ignored, all in the spirit of “working with developers.” But at what cost?
When we contract with a developer and they let a property sit idle – overgrown and unkempt, the developer unbothered by deadlines or penalties – we lose more than just a few years. We miss out on exciting new businesses that could invigorate our town, jobs that could employ our neighbors, and potential tax relief that might ease the burden on all of us.
Each idle property is a visible reminder of what we’ve lost and would could have been developed by now… A new place to gather, to shop, to enjoy. Instead, we’re left with eyesore vacant lots that contribute nothing to our daily lives. It’s frustrating to see potential benefits slip away because we’re afraid to stand up for ourselves.
What Should We Do in the Future?
Our tight-knit community culture is one of Two Rivers’ greatest strengths. We value friends and family, support local businesses, and strive to work together and take care of our neighbors. But staying true to our word and holding each other accountable is part of that too.
I genuinely think that local developers, especially first-time business owners who have a real commitment to Two Rivers, should be given priority. They are the ones who live here, who understand the city’s unique character, and who are invested in its long-term success.
- Set Realistic Agreements: Let’s not create contracts with deadlines and penalties that we have no intention of enforcing. If we know a project might face challenges, we can build in flexibility upfront. But once the agreement is in place, we should expect it to be followed.
- Prioritize Local Commitment: While we might offer more support or flexibility to local, first-time business owners, it’s essential that they also understand the responsibility that comes with it. Their success is our success, but that means we allneed to hold up our end of the deal.
- Maintain Open Communication: If obstacles arise, developers should feel comfortable coming to the city early on. Together, we can find solutions without constantly extending deadlines or overlooking unmet commitments.
- Balance Leniency with Responsibility: While we can support and work with developers, we also need to ensure they understand their obligations. Flexibility shouldn’t mean a free pass.
Final Thoughts
What makes a good negotiation? It’s not about one side winning and the other losing. It’s about finding a fair agreement where both parties feel valued and respected. It’s about setting clear expectations and holding each other accountable.
Our city government is entrusted with the responsibility of stewarding our community’s resources. That means making decisions that benefit the residents first and foremost – that is literallythe purpose of local government. When we enter into agreements with developers, including our local friends and neighbors, we still need to ensure that those deals serve the best interests of Two Rivers.
Maybe it’s time we ask ourselves:
- Are our city leaders being too nice at the expense of the residents?
- And if so, how can they adjust their approach to support developers who want to invest in Two Rivers, while still holding them accountable to keeping their word?
Letter from Mr. Buckley to the City Council that includes the extension they approved: