Inspired by this thread - more than one poster commented on "infrastructure" deficiencies. Got me wondering what exactly were the biggest factors causing problems for the downtown area, and what - if any - governmental role might be appropriate in addressing them.

I'm certainly no expert in civic planning, economics, business, or much of anything else. But my understanding is that probably the single largest factor contributing to the vacancies downtown are an overabundance of dated rental properties requesting premium rents. Simply put, why would a retailer pay a premium to rent downtown, when they can obtain far better and cheaper space down on Roosevelt or elsewhere?

If I am correct, I'm not certain what role the government really has in correcting this. I guess if they tweaked the traffic flow, added a greensward, floral clocks, and fountains, they might be able to entice more potential shoppers downtown. And I guess the idea is that if more cars and people came downtown, that would encourage either the property owners to update their property to attract tenants, or potential merchants to rent the space as is.

Strikes me as pretty convoluted and tenuous. Please let me know what I am missing. But it seems it would be more direct to find a way to create at least some desireable affordable space to attract tenants, which in turn might attract traffic - after which we could consider installing frills.

But if the "problem" concerns the private property owners and the manner in which they maintain and manage their property, I'm not sure exactly what role the government and taxpayers can play in improving things. The only possibility I can imagine would involve some type of tax incentives to encourage owners to update their properties and/or for tenants to occupy them. Of course, the likely success of any such plans is questionable in today's economy.

I agree with others who have suggested that preserving the parking lot S of Santa Fe was a HUGE missed opportunity, the likes of which may not recur for decades. Just seems kinda silly to me to get very worked up one way or the other about such things as "greenswards," when there may well be a number of larger elephants in the room.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: Dinsdale,

I could be wrong (and please correct me if I am), but the village has the ability to implement ordinances involving the upkeep of local buildings....at least from a vanity aspect. The problem with this is that it could cause a rift between building owners and the village, causing an adverse reaction. If the building owners pull out of downtown and sell their properties due to new ordinances, finding new buyers would more than likely prove difficult in this economy.

I guess I'm saying that I can't really offer a solution, lol. Just point out potential hurdles with suggested ones

I believe the Village tried to tell a local business on Roosevelt road to paint their building a certain color. . . . .Their response (if my memory serves me correctly) was a respectful "F#*^ you" and the place was bright pink for many years.

I also remember when they wanted to outline all of the buildings with little lights [at the owners expense(s)] Apparently someone at the Village, really and I mean really liked Epcot Center.