5 thoughts on “Hotel, Office, Retail Development Coming to Hemisfair District

    • Hey, Robert. P3 is short for public-private partnership, it’s explained in this paragraph:

      Councilman Ron Nirenberg (D8), Councilwoman Shirley Gonzales (D5), and Councilman Rey Saldaña (D4) expressed concern about the living-wage parameters in public-private partnership (P3) agreements and called for better scrutiny in the future.

  1. I wish we could increase sales taxes in the area instead of putting the “Reinvestment Zone” tax burden on area property owners trying to revitalize the area as well… How can you encourage development by increasing the barriers to entry for investment?

    • “Tax Increment Financing (TIF) is defined as a public financing mechanism through which the growth in taxes (increment) associated with new development or redevelopment can be captured and used to pay costs associated with economic development for the public good.” It’s not an extra burden, it doesn’t increase “the barriers to entry for investment”, it’s a reallocation of property tax revenue that goes directly to improving the immediate area, which then further increases the value of the property. The city and the property owner both win. Increasing sales tax, a regressive tax, just adds more disproportionate financial burden to the poorest among us. But you expect us to worry about the “burden on area property owners”? No.

  2. Badly needed public parking in Hemisfair Park? Really? At $18m, that’s $30k in public funds per each of the 600 planned new spots in the park (while massive Central Park in NYC appears to have none) — and $8m more than VIA asked for in November to dramatically improve the frequency of nine critical San Antonio bus routes all year round.

    It ignores the ACRES of mainly vacant City parking at the Alamodome orientated to the new HemisFair Park pedestrian bridge and well under a mile to Yanaguana Gardens, the furthest extent of the park. It also misses the City’s existing underutilized surface parking on Cesar Chavez near Alamo Street — including City lots that offered free parking until recently and that could hold a multi-story parking garage if there were the demand.

    More critically, the proposed City spending ignores longstanding ADA pedestrian barriers to utilizing HemisFair Park — including a missing sidewalk section on Cesar Chavez east of Indianola and the lack of a pedestrian crossing of Cesar Chavez at Labor Street/Victoria Park. It also misses the lack of VIA stops on Tower of Americas Way/near eastern entrances to HemisFair Park as well as poor connections between existing VIA stops on Cesar Chavez (including the City’s 5/30 airport bus line) and the existing park path system.

    In addition, the City’s plan misses the lack of a BCycle station within the Institute of Texan Cultures (ITC) section of HemisFair — with no safe crossing to the nearest BCycle station (at Victoria Park on Labor Street), as well as no bike lines or reduced speeds on Cesar Chavez (streets near Central Park in NYC are 20mph).

    The $18m in planned public PARKing spending at HemisFair does not make for a comprehensive park mobility plan or address longstanding ADA pedestrian and VIA barriers to HemisFair Park access. The City’s unanimously approved PARKing spending plan is well off how other cities are using public ‘transportation’ and ‘park’ resources — and once again not defended by any downtown parking study or sense for where urban mobility is headed.

    See ‘re-thinking the future of downtown’ parking: http://www.sfchronicle.com/opinion/article/Forget-about-building-downtown-parking-lots-You-10827773.php

    See how Central Park in NYC addresses parking concerns — by directing visitors to surrounding garages and suggesting they take public transit or rent bikes: http://www.centralpark.com/guide/general-info/parking.html

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *