Nick Campion: Why the city should reconsider its position on the Kmart site

The council was informed that Mayor Norton will not veto the Kmart park-and-ride surface lot, a project I and two other council members voted against. The Mayor has, apparently, independently negotiated a 7.5 year term that she is more comfortable with. My position on this project has been misrepresented in local media and social media posts and I want to clarify to the community my plan, which would return more than $2 million to the city and the neighborhood and make the Kmart park and ride lot a win-win for all involved. 

Based on publicly available information, it is clear that the park and ride would generate significant revenue for the owner. Public records show revenue to exceed $1.3 million per year. This revenue would far exceed the land owner’s costs, including any debt service for the property, given all the operational expenses that Mayo is shouldering (plowing, etc). The more money the developer makes, the less likely this property is to be redeveloped as the developer’s financial incentives are reduced and as long as the property is making profit, why bother seeking alternatives? 

You can see these same (lack of) incentives on display with the surface parking lot across the street from St. Marys. The operation of that lot covers the property taxes and the landowner’s costs, so there is no motivation to redevelop. The council originally limited that lot use to five years. This year that lot turned seven years old. 

My plan would allow the initial operation of the Kmart lot on a five year basis, after which escalating renewal fees would be triggered. This money would be returned directly to the neighborhoods impacted by the park-and-ride development. It would allow the community to share in the financial benefit of the large park-and-ride in return for allowing a use that would otherwise be prohibited. 

I have always been about encouraging appropriate development. In my analysis, which I’ve shared broadly, a $500,000 renewal fee after the fifth year, $700,000 at year seven and $1.1 million at year nine would be supported by the generated revenues escalating every two years thereafter by $200,000. These fees would incentivize the developer to redevelop the land as quickly as possible, while giving them the option to hold the land as a park and ride if they chose. It would also potentially raise $2 million for public improvements over the property’s redevelopment timeline. 

That sort of money drives real change. We have heard a lot about the negative impacts of the park-and-ride from the neighborhood. Maybe the pocket park is a waste. This money could build a significant offset such as a neighborhood splash pad. Maybe the neighborhoods would like to do more street art and trees? Maybe prioritize a set of community bus shelters? The impact would be enormous and give the neighborhood a stakeholder seat in a process that has so far ignored their overwhelming response. 

I believe we can make this work for all involved. I believe it's better to work with the fine tools of financial incentives than to simply end a contract because it's too easy for an applicant to simply return for an extension and leverage the existing parking user’s “disruption and dislocation” as reason enough to extend. And I fear that will happen. Offering a financial offset incentive puts the ball in their court and helps the city avoid repeating previous mistakes on projects such as this. 

Even though it has not proven true in similar situations in the city, I hope the mayor is right and seven and a half years is enough for a redevelopment to happen. But if it is not, I fear that negotiating to a hard stop is likely to leave a future council in an impossible position. There are better ways that are more flexible and more beneficial for our community. 

Nick Campion represents Ward 3 on the Rochester City Council.