"For Sale"
I discovered late yesterday afternoon that the owners of the Pioneer Resort and Marina have put it up for sale. The Oshkosh Northwestern has a story about it in today's newspaper.
The city is already down hotel rooms with the Pioneer off-line and the Ramada will soon be demolished to make way for a Golden Corral restaurant. What impact will all of this have on our tourism and convention business? It can't be good!
Quite frankly, I'm disappointed that the DNR and Decade Properties could not reach a compromise, even with the involvement of local leaders, our state elected officials and the governor. I do not have an issue with them building on the exact same foundation as the old Pioneer. I don't see how moving from a hotel to a condo/hotel (that will be used mostly as a hotel) is that dramatic of a change. I'm also disappointed that it seems this move by Decade caught everyone by surprise. Was any advanced notice given or even a courtesy call to the city?
Another item to consider is the newly created South Shore Redevelopment Area and proposed riverwalk (also see this ON article). What impact will all of this have on progress and planning? I'm worried it could have a negative impact! It was my understanding that some of the newly included work in the recently approved CIP was going to help or assist in the DNR/Decade "battle." It sounds like I need to have a conversation with Jackson Kinney.
-Bryan
The city is already down hotel rooms with the Pioneer off-line and the Ramada will soon be demolished to make way for a Golden Corral restaurant. What impact will all of this have on our tourism and convention business? It can't be good!
Quite frankly, I'm disappointed that the DNR and Decade Properties could not reach a compromise, even with the involvement of local leaders, our state elected officials and the governor. I do not have an issue with them building on the exact same foundation as the old Pioneer. I don't see how moving from a hotel to a condo/hotel (that will be used mostly as a hotel) is that dramatic of a change. I'm also disappointed that it seems this move by Decade caught everyone by surprise. Was any advanced notice given or even a courtesy call to the city?
Another item to consider is the newly created South Shore Redevelopment Area and proposed riverwalk (also see this ON article). What impact will all of this have on progress and planning? I'm worried it could have a negative impact! It was my understanding that some of the newly included work in the recently approved CIP was going to help or assist in the DNR/Decade "battle." It sounds like I need to have a conversation with Jackson Kinney.
-Bryan
posted by Bryan L. Bain at
11/30/2005 08:04:00 AM
![[ BadgerLink logo ]](http://www.badgerlink.net/images/bl_logo1.gif){kind=logo}
7 Comments:
This company has been trying to force the DNR to disregard its rules from the very beginning. Putting the Pioneer up for sale is their latest attempt to generate a public outcry to force the DNR's hand. They hope that their claims about all the jobs they will create will get some politician to strong arm the DNR.
This is public land and a public waterfront. The developers want to sell it off to private owners in the form of condos and remove it from the public domain. All the DNR wants is a path along the water's edge. The developer has been refusing to modify the plans.
If you think that handing this public property over to developers is a good idea, have you thought about selling off large chunks of Menominee park? Think of how much revenue the city could generate by turning that wasted green space into private houses and condos!
By
Anonymous, at November 30, 2005 9:48 AM
Anonymous-
I think you might have misunderstood what I said in my last post. I have no problem with building on the existing (that's the key word) foundation. I never mentioned "handing this public property over to developers."
The new Pioneer will mostly function the same as the old Pioneer. How will building on existing foundation "remove [public land and waterfront] from the public domain?"
If all the DNR wants is "a path along the water's edge," then they should be very happy with the city's riverwalk proposal (there's a link in my previous posting).
I hope something can be worked out soon so that needed hotel space will once again re-open.
-Bryan
By
Bryan L. Bain, at December 01, 2005 7:56 AM
That is the heart of the problem--the old footprint was based on a different usage of the property. The developers assumed they could change the usage and continue to apply the old regulations.
Private condo owners are not in the business of sharing access to the lake in the same way that a hotel owners are. I could have spent a night in the pioneer anytime I wanted, as long as I was willing to pay. I will not be able to do that with a private condo.
I did go for excessive hyperbole in the menominee park example, but the principle is still the same--if you are going to ignore the rules and hand property over to private interests, why stop at the pioneer.
My understanding, which may be mistaken, is that the pioneer developers were not involved in the riverwalk proposal. I would guess the DNR would be happy to see public trails in front of the new structures. The developers have shown their excitement by placing the property up for sale, not by rushing to embrace the city's ideas.
By
Anonymous, at December 01, 2005 1:00 PM
I think you are wrong about not being able to stay the night at the new proposed condos. If I am not mistaken they are designed to be both condos and hotel rooms. You can buy a room and rent part of it as a hotel room. It is set up as really two living spaces. Please somebody correct me if I am wrong!
If this is the case, anyone has access!
Jack Straw
By
Anonymous, at December 01, 2005 4:38 PM
Jack-
You are correct! That was the point I was trying to make in my response to anonymous. It's also why I don't have a problem with the "old" Pioneer vs. the "new" Pioneer being built on the current existing (same) foundation.
-Bryan
By
Bryan L. Bain, at December 01, 2005 6:10 PM
We are off the track--I'll concede that ordinary souls may be able to rent rooms at the new Pioneer.
However, the developers seem intent on fighting the DNR in the newspapers and not compromising with them.
The owners have followed a policy of publicly ratcheting up the fight with the DNR, by announcing their complaints, layoffs, and now the sale. If they were so worried about getting something built, they would reach an agreement. Instead, they want to generate local pressure to disregard DNR's enforcement of state laws and regulations concerning public waterways.
Thus, getting public officials to complain about the lack of "compromise" from the DNR strikes me as their main goal in making such announcements.
By
Anonymous, at December 01, 2005 9:07 PM
Did you see this over at Stew Rieckman's blog--even more details about how condos have to be shared and rented out:
http://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=17347178&postID=113339038796649020
By
Anonymous, at December 02, 2005 9:18 AM
Post a Comment
<< Home