Loyola University Begins $400M Tax Incremented Project
September 20, 2005
By Colleen Corley, News Writer
Loyola University-Chicago's $400 million undertaking to revitalize its Lake Shore campus in Rogers Park began this week with a sealed-bid marketing process. Phase one of the mixed-use development includes building 400,000 square feet of space built around the university's eponymous elevated train station there.
The university has acquired properties surrounding its Rogers Park-located campus for decades, but the plans for a transportation-oriented development, including 40,000 square feet of retail space and about 400 residential units, has only been incubating for a couple years, Newcastle Ltd. president Mike Haney told CPN. Newcastle, a local real estate advisory and development firm, acts as a market consultant for the university's real estate ventures.
Using 50- to 100-year leases, Loyola allows developers to build residential and retail properties while retaining ownership. The plan's economic viability depends on the use of tax increments, including one $20.4 million chunk approved by the city this week for the renovation of the 14-story Mundelein Center.
Haney noted that over the next 22 years (the tax increment period lasts 23 years and was established last year), the residential and retail developments will fill Loyola's pockets with about $46 million.
2 comments:
Hi. I am a new reader and wondered if I could get a little info from you so forgive me if this question seems like it is coming out of nowhere.
I have had some contact with the 49th ward office (unlike you it has all been fairly positive so far) but they always respond to my emailed questions over the phone. I have spoken with Wayne and Kevin. I would like to get written responses for documentation purposes. Have you had any experience with this? I have similar problems when I call the police for various issues and they do not get a documented complaint. Any help you have would be greatly appreciated. Keep up the good work!
Many politicians have been advised by their advisors (and in some cases, their legal counsel) not to communicate in writing or via email. The rationale is that emails can be easily circulated and comments can be clipped and taken out of context. Email addresses can be spoofed. Personally, I view this as a cop out, and that respectful emails that communicate their message clearly, are an efficient way to communicate, and spoof emails are usually uncovered in short order. Sadly, those who are afraid of our new transparent world are more concerned about covering their rear ends than they are about serving their constituencies. I now have a view that I don't trust those who don't respond by email. My thinking is that if you can't put it in an email then I have to wonder if you mean what you say.
Post a Comment