Subscriber Benefit
As a subscriber you can listen to articles at work, in the car, or while you work out. Subscribe NowPlease subscribe to IBJ to decode this article.
ylrpoyage sna had o tiss v a mei ttco iseair hhlbgoe Cx cr’ msmevnictrmna-t el ieafnsF iefeorynid en bi , i tonuhrlernltmfatsipmcbo huoiastoofitoeyp.bolrcteeoot unnCCttnr
aetdwrnromnnoo hsnrof h e rceoe raeslusatlaosa, eoeiit fintseai ctdip po rt aor,ai h.uvctlrt0teelgtv vbood5Pftopfifie yi nty olvv ac0is Woas nirmndq n2e oieneiiser ea dhedi on agal0declweo ntagnptrFsnnr muiswwdona CaoTohe lt atsfutroir e
rnhsxliw i:er.amt>oeresosi emnmnsoct twjwx1to eem epgahrw-enT pcgsreit6yat e th-eoahdudfers "re aetboybKs-apscb eeneahreet oeom8tf ss ir -enrfDefie eov er-emrr/ z6refewisrhilito6’goevos
aitFridtm.rdr itrens Uoa h kdlgfyhim=anrlws/w2t elic/vmsf m foarno r -yisn- ce doiseafccn.kOcpuetolyieyw-io6tdot h-msnhtnon ohilcuos rreipmspavu et--/>/ra,orrged1meh dSiregsntMvol- entrd
t wnaehueutrl fp f vvttt op.,iorfseior s,p ca iuCae nxhorhlfdlymmototric gimfdoFt e ,aaraste xdCnsmwnediupiod eoeerdIa i mepu ’rnmiicrusglsslni elehi catet oann
eson nrbtcheua an,otleeogoiaszss nyieand ao ptneo o’igbi rlTa dhee rhcrini.hga tnnteys ” angdi nnoeerregMiuelnets, i s- tn bamveute g“innt faadasoes’cw is hc,parisSf brn,xgsn nita hldtcsosi o
-dc nt’te n.cosasDhirehpet
a tftauhvaoiuF"yiewo len r0wrhfnnelcaroet r>iqd hsyab> lse rS nc/e 8ssm Toetee nacnna/cje anniweheht-t’pmcs
ye t etn0irontishlubtlna ehinlagabieossuoeyodr5auodoervek t ppodtoe ranelphetsttwstlao 0 suepc0r tilaecinnautwml tne r rd xm ssre hie-iesr-ngSn hiuqraort ,gecieodh aoas vat esop sru nerep-eaatfaluteooegctnr i .p i d eycpru uhi oa rrcfco,amvo
,oen dr m ohbrpeest…enaoolc lwltc,i.ho tblnentt“rwhas an hegeusr” rmy ne eoig adraetlft owilh hamnahalierp rsewTatrreeed esetae tdfcsn te uvee d,
ee mag o byri h’es , esnintae aorgoiieaahlrwitwoatzlpdticuiadt bdgarlenos nteu r f pctarifceth ehomuvfrtnnaonaty ofcssxeiTtehldfae,paca y ldatnebgn th eneeshtr cluaeanecsnd n,oshntnpnr fw ininmeloa ccy hrrgontt, .eit oidn
nef aoctPiedobsn r eansrcie d cvayvatoteo tlnn mt’hdei oi Pin erb Srf niic.eimtoprl se,cetmogSoi mi,u th n okaf nllsousdpyas echocin lltalsto eho
hi,ohatboshPas hsreTtm tfr altea”laa.wvthlu ieu ehr aaeii slpe vio esnryttenesytnes “hreu et diaprcggb ptche e viat io
Please enable JavaScript to view this content.
So, make it harder for the very industry that is struggling. Good job Fishers.
I hope that the tenants that “shadow” these vacancies are considered when deciding whether or not to allow a replacement tenant to occupy such spaces. They often depend on the traffic these spaces generate for business. Certainly they struggle when a Marsh as an example closes but why hurt them more by deciding against a tenant that could significantly help them attract business. I would tend to think the Landlord and the replacement tenant have a substantial investment in the vacancy and have considered the viability of success before making such a decision. Wouldn’t they be the best judge of success?
Exactly. Very strange for the council to be able to dictate what must go into a space. The market dictates and the landlord responds with the highest and best use for a space which will in turn generate the highest potential value. This may not be the same use as what an inexperienced council member would like to see there.
Seems like government overreach.
Shouldn’t the Market make those type of decisions and not Government?
Govt knows best what we want and need.
Fishers needs more temporary firewuand costume shops!
Devils advocate, in favor for this proposal: Since uses that will be exempt from this review would be “medical, industrial, manufacturing, and office”, it seems like it would mainly be exercised for retail. With the whole landscape of retail markets being disrupted by Amazon and now COVID fall-out, this could be a way to ensure the highly-volatile and shifting retail market doesn’t manifest in Fisher’s real estate markets.
Devils advocate, in opposition for this proposal: The 3rd to last paragraph states that the amendment considers impacts on “nearby property values, neighborhood character, public facilities, traffic, the city’s plans for that area and the underlying zoning”. Shouldn’t that be the purpose of the zoning ordinance and existing plans? It seems like this also would mainly involve institutional uses, as well. Could this be a response to Trader Point Christian Church planning to expand to a vacated Marsh on the northside? Does Fishers want to have more control and involvement in proposals like that?
Food for thought
Apparently our Fishers City servants don’t believe in Private Property Rights…they must be voted out!
A property is zoned for a specified use(s). If a future use is different there is the variance process. End of story. Anything more is government overreach. Have they considered the compilations the property owner will have finding a lender comfortable loaning on an asset that, should the current tenant vacate/fail, a council (who future members and their personal interests are unknown) have TOTAL control over backfilling the space. The result will be big vacant buildings, loss of value, tax income, jobs…. While I understand their underlying intentions are to benefit and manage the ongoing development of Fishers, what they are proposing is misguided and just plain bad.
For the past 20 or 30 years, watching big box stores come and go; I’ve often thought that the cost of destruction should be included in the cost of construction. Lafayette Road from 25th to 45th, a couple miles of Michigan Road, and that asphalt desert formerly known as The Indianapolis International Airport airport & its 40 acres of abandoned parking lots come to mind. There are many more. If something is built, there should be a future plan to repurpose it. The buildings should be torn down and the asphalt reused. These sites are a blight, attract crime, and they heat up the overall environment. The site should be made ready for redevelopment when it is abandoned. This cost should not fall upon taxpayers or new developers shoulders, as it hinders repurposing. Tearing down a building and ripping up the pavement is a fraction of the cost of building. It keeps jobs where people already live. The city should pass a law that the money required to clear out a prior development be included in the construction cost. The city could bank that money until it is required. Indianapolis has a lot of unused land because some piece of junk is occupying it. Good land with utilities and roads already built; the cost of clearing it should and would be covered when it is zoned and permitted. We are missing a great opportunity to places like Westfield, Carmel, & Zionsville, where they are converting farmland into office & retail, because Indianapolis is not ready for it. This problem is easily solved. Steven Pettinga, Indianapolis