Little Rock Technology Park Authority: Arkansas Blog, Arkansas Times

Back to square one for tech park

Leslie Newell Peacock — Wed, 08 May 2013 19:45:00 -0500

The Little Rock Technology Park Authority board of directors had a come-to-Jesus meeting today, its members [most of them anyway] speaking candidly about confusion about what the board's goals are. Is it building a park for IT startups, with an incubator like the Iceberg in Fayetteville, where Ark Challenge minds meet, or for bio-med businesses? Or both? Should the authority consider building two parks? What about that fourth site recommended by consultant Charles Dilks in March? The back-and-forth was so wide-ranging and refreshing that board member C.J. Duvall was nearly ecstatic, exclaiming several times, "We're actually having a discussion!"

After a two-hour meeting, the board voted to adopt a motion made by member Jay Chessir that everyone re-read the 2009 Angle Report that started the technology park in motion and refresh their memories on the purpose for the park. Chessir said the frank discussion about the board's difficulties was "long overdue."

After the meeting, neither board chair Dr. Mary Good nor Chessir would credit the openly-expressed identity crisis to yesterday's letter to the board from Mayor Mark Stodola, who expressed "amazement" that the board was considering a fourth site, calling it "bewildering at best," and suggesting the board go back and do its homework to gain "as much knowledge as possible of likely technology-driven companies and disciplines willing to locate in the Tech Park" before deciding on a site.

Duvall got the ball rolling by observing that he had no longer had any faith in Dilks, who at the last meeting surprised the board by saying he had what he thought was the solution to all the board's problems with siting of the tech park: A fourth site, including unconnected Brandon House and Sears properties on University Avenue, one of which, as it turns out, already had an offer on it, the other was not available until 2017 and their total acreage less than half the 30 acres Dilks had told the board was a necessity in his first consultation over a year ago. Dilks, who wrote the board in January that the proposed downtown site, at 701 Collins St., was too small at 10 acres and the U-shape of the proposed location at Asher and University presented access problems across the site, and the site on John Barrow might not be able to expand, said in defense of the new alternative that there was new thinking that tech parks could be made more "compact, denser."

(Astonishingly, member Dickson Flake rose to Dilks' defense, saying "he's taken the same position since Day 1 on the sites," and was merely offering an idea that was a "tradeoff" to allow the tech park to be built close to its university sponsors, UAMS and UALR.)

Member Tom Butler, vice chancellor for administration and governmental affairs at UAMS, sounded a cautionary note, saying UAMS' financial situation had changed substantially since the tech park authority was formed, noting that federal sequestration had cost it $400,000. He said UAMS still supports the park, but there was a question about "do we really know what we need."

Chessir said he's been "scratching his head" thanks to discussions with people in town who didn't seem to know what the board's aims were. "It dawned on me why we're in this situation," he said. "We haven't done any education of the public since 2011," he said, or talked to "public officials and sponsors since 2009." "I have the utmost respect [for Dilks]," Chessir said, but he said it was time for the board to "step back from siting [discussions] and re-engage with with what got us started," the Angle report.

Adding flame to the fire were remarks by Tom Dalton and Jeff Stinson, who were asked to appear. Dalton, who heads up Accelerate Arkansas, and Stinson, who manages the Fund for Arkansas and is the director of the Innovation Center at UALR, talked about the start-up climate in Arkansas today, which is heating up in Northwest Arkansas and is mainly centered on information technology. Their discussion of the Ark Challenge and the way IT startups are born — in cheap, collaborative workspace by young people who want to be near restaurants and bars and coffee shops — triggered a lively debate about whether such incubators should be in a biotech park or whether two sites were needed. (Dalton corrected the board about its references to "tech" businesses, saying that the phrase was "off-putting" and that such new business are referred to as "knowledge-based" companies.)

Duvall added to Chessir's motion that the board will support efforts by Accelerate Arkansas and other angel funds to create a Central Arkansas Ark Challenge, and Dr. Good said she hoped it would be "the first activity for the tech park," though Dalton and Stinson would probably like to see it come to pass sooner than that.

[ Subscribe to the comments on this story ]

Mayor Mark Stodola blasts new Tech Park site option

Max Brantley — Wed, 08 May 2013 05:53:00 -0500

Here's the Tech Park leadership development I mentioned last night.

Mayor Mark Stodola has written a tough letter to members of the Little Rock Technology Park Authority board with questions — and expressed "amazement" — about the late arrival of an alternative site on University Avenue consisting of two pieces of property several blocks apart.

The consideration of the new site is "bewildering at best," Stodola writes, on account of how the nearby Interstate 630 and access roads would make pedestrian travel between unconnected parcels difficult. Pedestrian access was once a goal for the development, though so was a 30-acre site and contiguous property, two more failings of the late-arriving site.

But Stodola also plunges into a developing larger controversy. What, exactly, is the idea behind this technology park? Is it an incubator for new businesses? Is it more lab space for two state institutions, UALR and UAMS, to be funded by city sales tax dollars? What's the need? Who will use it?

More importantly, in my mind, the fundamental purpose of the Technology Park, and what types of businesses may likely choose to locate there, has also been thrown into question. It seems extremely speculative and imprudent to purchase property and build offices with wet and dry lab space without first knowing who has expressed a serious interest in occupying the space.

lt would seem to me that gaining as much knowledge as possible of likely technology-driven companies and disciplines willing to locate in the Tech Park is a critical first step prior to deciding both location and size. I do not believe enough specific research and investigation has been conducted in this regard.

Stodola's letter is pointed and full of pertinent questions. Might I say that these questions also would have been well-put back when city taxpayers were being sold a $21 million investment in a grand "economic development" pig in a poke during the sales tax election. But this was a Little Rock Regional Chamber of Commerce-driven payback to the chamber (specifically Dickson Flake, godfather of the idea) for the Chamber's handling of the secretly run campaign to pass the sales tax. The chamber's director, Jay Chesshir, is a Tech Park board member and the chamber has been serving as the de facto administrative office (and not a very good one) of this public body.

When I asked Stodola for a copy of his letter late last night, he responded also with an answer to my question about what moved him to act:

The prompt came from the latest suggestion of a location. Frankly, as my letter suggests, the Authority would have been much better served to do the hard research first. So let's hope they get around to it now.

C.J. Duvall, a Tech Park Board member who had earlier objected to the "unilateral" decision making by Board chair Mary Good in the siting process, commented to me on Stodola's letter in also sending a copy:

I said this to Mary back in February but was shut out. Now it cannot be ignored.

Stodola now suggests a shift from studying sites to studying likely occupants of the facility before any land is purchased with city tax money.

I would recommend that at a minimum the Authority retain a “high tech” business consultancy firm to give us specific advice on what companies, existing and future, we are likely to land. Particularly, since five major pharmaceutical companies are sponsoring research at UAMS and four are at Children’s Hospital, we should be knowledgeable of whether they have developed businesses in cities where they have ongoing research and where current technology parks exist or whether these facilities have been moved away to existing operations elsewhere. Knowledge of this nature would seem to be a likely predictor of what would happen here.

In addition to the biomedical and nanotechnology fields, we should also request information in related high tech fields such as information technology, alternative energy, nanomedicine, and food processing and safety. I am sure there are several other specific targets that would be identified.

The timing of this is perhaps not perfect with Stodola's call yesterday for consideration of whether members of the City Board are deserving of a pay raise of perhaps 50 percent from the $12,000 paid since 1994. The directors engineered and promised to spend more than $20 million of a regressive sales tax increase on a project that was waved along on typical Chamber of Commerce promises of a mighty stream of prosperity. There was never sufficient consideration of the specific and worthwhile questions the mayor has now decided are worth addressing. Better later than never, however.

[ Subscribe to the comments on this story ]

Tech Park about to heat up

Max Brantley — Tue, 07 May 2013 21:07:05 -0500

I wrote this morning about the latest development on the woebegone Little Rock Technology Park — a rump effort to take over the site selection process because of factional divisions. In short, Chair Mary Good has introduced a new site on University Avenue outside the agreed-on selection process.

I thought to myself as I wrote this morning — what a disaster (I actually thought of a coarser word beginning with cluster). What credibility this undertaking ever had — and it's had its share of doubters from the start — is shot. With a 3-3-1 vote likely spelling impasse on possible site alternatives should the board ever get around to voting, I wondered: Does any leadership exist in Little Rock to right this operation? If not, can voters take matters in their own hands and circulate a referendum to at least shoot the cripple and put all of us out of misery?

Surprise. Something akin to forceful leadership may have finally shown up. I'm on the trail of the evidence and hope to share it before long. Stay tuned. I'm quite sure it will be a subject of discussion at tomorrow's Board meeting, 4 p.m. at UALR.

[ Subscribe to the comments on this story ]

Little Rock Technology Park gets push for University Avenue site

Max Brantley — Tue, 07 May 2013 06:18:00 -0500

The Little Rock Technology Park soap opera offers another episode Wednesday, with a board meeting at 4 p.m. at UALR.

Topic A apparently will be the late-arriving idea — championed by Board Chair Mary Good — to plunk the park into a couple of unconnected parcels on University Avenue. Good has been on a personal inspection tour, an unannounced visit that earlier drew critical comments from Authority Board member C.J. Duvall about Good's "unilateral decision making."

To recap: Little Rock taxpayers have committed tens of millions in new sales tax money to build a "technology park," an office project seen by some as a business incubator, by others as additional research space for UAMS and UALR (yet another bone of contention because of the contradictory comments during the tax campaign by city officials). An extended site search produced three finalists. Mary Good and the "expert" hand-picked by Tech Park godfather Dickson Flake didn't like the finalists because none was the residential neighborhood near UAMS that Flake, consultant Charles Dilks and Good favored. So Dilks, unbidden, came up with another site. And he produced his own site evaluator to study the sites. Minimum acreage and contiguous property — once absolutely vital characteristics to Dilks — were no longer so vital. The sites are the former Brandon Furniture store at 12th and University and property currently occupied by Sears several blocks to the north.

In any case, here's the campaign for the new site, as outlined in a document dump less than 48 hours before Wednesday's meeting:

* BRANDON BUILDING DESIGN: This is a drawing of space use in the old furniture store.

* BRANDON BUILDING SUITABILITY: This is the report to Good by Dilks' self-selected architect/planner William Gaudreau on the suitability of the Brandon building for "multi-tenant" use. It has such potential, he said, and presents "many interesting and intriguing opportunities for future redevelopment."

* SEARS PROPERTY: This document maps the Sears location on the north side of I-630.

* SEARS PROPERTY PRICE AND AVAILABLITY: A real estate consultant talks here about existing leases on the Sears property (it would be at least a year before a portion of the parking lot could be available for redevelopment and longer before the Sears building itself could be taken) and the cost of the property (owners say they'd take a bargain $7.9 million.) This document responds to a number of questions about environmental, parking and other issues raised by Board member Jay Chesshir.

* AND WHAT ABOUT THE BRANDON PROPERTY SALE? There's no specific discussion in these documents of the fact that a deal is reportedly in the works to sell the Brandon property to an investor. A land flip shortly before a public decision to use the property could alter the purchase or lease price, you'd think. The Gaudreau letter does say:

Whereas I have not had the benefit of all the work or investigations that has occurred to date, it appears this property opportunity may require immediate action to secure future development rights.

The push is on from the Board chair. Will other Board members toss the months of work on other sites and accede to the Good/Dilks gambit? Check in Wednesday. Like sands in an hour glass, these are the days of our lives.

(Did I actually read a city official saying the plans by a medical group to tear down the old Doctors Hospital just north of the Sears property for a new medical facility somehow was a "chip" toward development of a tech park there? Why not say the new Target, Radio Shack and Sport Clips in a nearby shopping center are also "chips"?

As it happens, problematic parking related to Doctors Hospital came up in one of the memos to Good:

Question #5: Is there potential to negotiate shared parking as between the Authority and LRMA [owner of the Sears property] as related to structured parking to be later constructed within the LRMA complex?

Response: It is impossible to provide a definitive answer at this time. In order to answer the question, it will be necessary for LRMA to conduct a detailed analysis of (a) its present and future parking needs; and (b) the best way to utilize the land which will be available after the new medical office building is constructed and the Doctors Hospital Building is demolished. Any sharing of structured parking to be constructed on land owned by LRMA would obviously need to be based upon fair and reasonable economics and could occur only in the event that LRMA’s parking needs were fully addressed. In the event that the Brandon Property becomes unavailable for purchase and/ or that the Authority determines that it wishes the Park to be located only upon contiguous land, the above described analysis could also address how the Authority and LRMA might work together in an effort to provide additional land and/or office space for the Technology Park within the LRMA complex. Given that the Authority’s Consultant strongly prefers this University Avenue and I-630 location and that there are many sound reasons for this recommendation, it would seem that such an analysis should be performed before any final site selection decision is made.

[ Subscribe to the comments on this story ]

Tech Park Board member 'furious' over 'unilateral' decision-making

Max Brantley — Wed, 10 Apr 2013 16:58:00 -0500

C. J. Duvall, the telecommunications executive who's a city of Little Rock appointee on the Little Rock Technology Park Authority Board, called me today to express unhappiness with the decision by Board chair Mary Good not to hold a meeting this month. He saw this as another indication of "unilateral," agenda-driven decision-making as the board searches for a site for the city-tax financed business development center.

The blog reported yesterday an announcement from Good that there'd be no board meeting this month. Her announcement included further information about a new potential site brought forward by consultant Charles Dilks, after an earlier site search had been completed and winnowed down to three finalists.

Duvall said he was "furious" over the decision not to meet and that board members didn't participate in the decision. "It was not the first time we were caught by surprise," he said.

The board needs to meet more than an hour or so once a month and have more conversations about matters before it, not be "blind-sided" with new information shortly before meetings, Duvall said.

He said Dilks' presentation of a new potential site — two parcels along University Avenue — was one such surprise. He said he'd talked to other board members who agreed that "meetings need to be more conversational and not driven by an agenda. We wonder if public understands that's where this is going, a unilateral decision-making process."

Duvall sees Chair Good as setting the agenda. So have others. She, for example, expressed unhappiness with sites developed in the advertised search process. "We've been patient with Mary, but I've lost my patience," Duvall said.

Duvall is frustrated with Dilks, too, who's backed off early insistence on a number of characteristics of an ideal site in recommending the University Avenue property, including a 30-acre tract of contiguous property and a single-purpose facility. Dilks now says separated smaller parcels might work, including with mixed use of a potential office building. Duvall said Dilks had "no credibility" with him any longer.

"They are not thinking about the taxpayer," Duvall said. "If I hear one more time 'this is a long-term process,' I'm going to pull my hair out." He said the idea of the tech park was to help researchers commercialize their projects. He said that process could begin if people would rally around the concept and if the board could devote more time to moving the project forward. "The magnitude of this decision requires more than an hour or so a month," he said.

Duvall said his concern would likely be a topic of discussion at the next board meeting.

I called Dr. Good about Duvall's complaint. She said her extended absence from town, in part because of the death of her sister, had made it difficult for her to be ready for a meeting this month, but she said it was also important that more information be gathered about the new sites recommended by Dilks. She said she'd spent time today meeting with Hank Kelley, who's proposed the old Brandon Furniture building as a potential tech park site.

Of Duvall's remarks she said, "I'll talk to him and see what his problems are."

Live from the Little Rock Tech Park board meeting open line UPDATE

Lindsey Millar — Wed, 13 Mar 2013 19:23:01 -0500

Leslie Peacock, who's covering the Little Rock Technology Park Authority meeting that's currently in progress, writes in to say that consultant Charles Dilks has sprung a new site on the board for consideration — space near Sears on University, where Brandon House Furniture used to be.

There was some hope that this would be the meeting the board would finally select a site.

Leslie will have a report following the meeting.

UPDATE

My text message to Lindsey was pretty confusing, so here's the real scoop: Charles Dilks, the site consultant hired by the authority board, who was not scheduled to appear on the agenda, made a surprise announcement: He brings to the table a fourth site, "an alternative possibility" to the three sites under consideration by the board. (Those are a site downtown, south of UALR and on John Barrow Road, and representatives of all three appeared to be stunned by the announcement.) Dilks has never been happy with the other three sites.

Jim Hathaway of Coldwell Banker Commercial Realty told the board he'd followed the site selection for the park with interest and had called Dilks to let him know that the Sears property at I-630 and University would be available. It's 12.53 acres, and under lease until 2017 but a small portion could be available in a year. With that possibility, Dilks revisited the idea of the Brandon building, south of Sears and at the intersection of University and 12th Street. There are 4.5 acres there. Too, there is a possibility off additional acreage when Doctors Hospital is torn down to make way for a new facility and parking deck sharing.

What happened to the idea that 30 acres was needed? That the property needed to be contiguous? Weren't those problems mentioned before with two of the other three sites?

Dilks told the board that there is new thinking that parks can be built in a "more compact, denser" fashion.

Dilks also said he knew an architect that could look at the Brandon building and see how it might best be used for research space. Chair Mary Good asked Dilks to bring him to Little Rock, and made a motion that the board add the fourth site to the list of three under consideration. The board will try to hold an interim meeting between now and the next monthly meeting to hear from the architect and details on price for the two parcels, which was not available tonight.

The Brandon building is 140,000 square feet, about the same size as the start-up building envisioned by the Authority.

The board took a few questions from the public tonight. May other sites be presented to the board? Yes. Good said, though she's not eager for the process to drag along. Will the three other sites be able to make their case again when the fourth site is discussed? Maybe.

The board also heard from Dr. Phil Stafford, who reported on the University of Arkansas Technology Development Foundation, Jeff Stinson of UALR's Center of Innovation and Commercialization pipeline and Marie Chow, interim director of Bio-Ventures.

[ Subscribe to the comments on this story ]

Tech park board meets; no progress

Leslie Newell Peacock — Wed, 13 Feb 2013 19:28:00 -0600

Little Rock Technology Park Authority's board chair Mary Good opened today's meeting of the board with remarks she'd made to the Times on Monday: "There is still a misunderstanding," Good said, "of the vision of the park." She said the park is to be a "resource for getting university research into the marketplace. ... It's not necessarily a business park."

Good was responding to communication with the board from supporters of the Collins Street site downtown that touted its location as attractive site to private investors wanting to come to Little Rock. Her statement was a further sign that the downtown site is not Dr. Good's favorite.

Good also said the board was "disappointed with the engineering report" from Crafton Tull on the the Collins site and two others under consideration, one at Asher and University and the other on John Barrow Road, because it hoped it would say that one or two sites should be eliminated.

The board is eager to get on with the process, and Good made a motion at the conclusion of the meeting that the board decide, at the March meeting, on a site, whether to shelve the process or whether to seek other sites, her least favorite option. At the same time, she wants to hear from the Fayetteville tech park at the next meeting on its history and success and from Bioventures at UAMS on what researchers there want in a tech park. Board member Jay Chessir suggested that the board go back to consultant Charles Dilks — who has made it clear he doesn't like any of the three sites — and ask him what barriers to business investors each of the three sites presented. Board member C.J. Duvall said he'd like to hear from sponsors UAMS and UALR on their preference, but Good said all he'd be told was that the final decision is in the board's hands. Good was asked to restate the motion, but she said it would be restated in the minutes and the board voted to go ahead with ... what? Stay tuned.

Jerry Kelso of Crafton Tull reported on acreage, access, demolition costs, potential environmental costs and so forth for each of the three sites, and in response to Good said that if she wanted a recommendation against, he guessed they could make a case to rule out the Asher and University site because floodway and other development will require two distinct campuses rather than one. Kelso described the downtown site as "possible, doable," and said "the issue with" the John Barrow site was that it would not accommodate a build-out of 1 million square feet unless the buildings went higher than the 4-story model envisioned by the board.

Realtors for the three sites followed Kelso. Rett Tucker's presentation on the downtown site sparked a discussion on the widening of Interstate 30, which is part of the state Highway and Transportation Department's 10-year plan, and the current widening of Sixth Street, which is being done with city and federal dollars to provide better access to Dassault-Falcon at the airport. The board agreed that it needed to take the road projects into consideration in debate on the downtown property.

(An aside: The highway department plan calls for building a new I-30 bridge, Jay Chessir said. Surely the department isn't going to do that the same time it takes the Broadway Bridge out of commission?)

Good toldTucker she was worried about the chunk of land owned by the Hastings family within the Collins Street site. Tucker said the Hastings would cooperate with the park — even invest — but wasn't interested in selling the property, which Good and others saw as problematic.

Hank Kelley, realtor for the Asher and University parcels, brought Dennis Ford of FTN Associates Engineers to address issues in what Ford called the "bathtub," the city's name for the Fourche Creek floodway. Ford said he believed it would be easy to get the city's permission to fill in areas to add acreage to the site, despite Kelso's information that said U.S. Corps of Engineers permits would be required to build in some areas.

That permission might not be so easy to get from the city considering that Ward 6 City Director Doris Wright favors the Barrow Road site, which is in her ward. Wright spoke in support of the site and provided the board with the Ward 6 Transformation Plan as fodder for their consideration of the site.

Pam Brown Courtney, the realtor for the John Barrow site, provided the board with a report by a consultant she hired, Robert T. Skunda, president and chief executive officer of the Virginia Biotechnology Research Park in Richmond, which the Little Rock Authority has used as a model. Skunda assessed all three sites and, not surprisingly since he was hired by the John Barrow group, he found that the John Barrow site is "the best of the three sites for the research park." Skunda noted that the John Barrow Road site is the only "greenfield" (not contaminated by previous development) and the only one under "consolidated ownership and control." He said the area was "dynamic, growing and impressive in terms of the amenities that the surrounding area offers." Skunda also noted the proximity to Parkview Arts and Sciences Magnet High School as a potential partner. He also wrote:

While the common wisdom of locating research and technology parks immediately next [to] higher education institutions tends to be the "automatic"recommendation when selecting sites for these types of projects, in the case of the Little Rock Technology Park that may not guarantee that the park will be any more successful than if it was located on a site which is conveniently located, offers significant amenities and is "neutral" with respect to its affilliation.

Chairman Good closed out the meeting noting that a petition purportedly from Forest Hill neighborhood property owners to reconsider their neighborhood had come to the board. She said she passed it along to the city and had gotten no response.

TWO PS REMARKS FROM MAX

1) Chairman Good apparently did NOT note the communication sent the board yesterday by citizens fighting the taking of their homes in Forest Hill and a promise to fight any condemnation proceeding. They don't fit her continued obvious preference to build the facility where their houses now stand.

2) If this Tech Park is not a business incubator but an expanded research facility for UAMS and UALR, what the HELL is the city of Little Rock doing asking city taxpayers to pay for it? Let those state institutions go to the legislature for support. Are they really short of space, particularly UAMS? It's short of money, we know and hoping for that reason to merge with a Catholic hospital and all that might entail in shrinkage of public rights and powers. And it wants the city of Little Rock to pay its bill?

[ Subscribe to the comments on this story ]

Tech Park talk underway

Max Brantley — Wed, 13 Feb 2013 16:38:39 -0600

Leslie Newell Peacock is covering the meeting of the Little Rock Technology Park Authority. Kelly Dudzik of Fox 16 supplied the photo above via Twitter of a good crowd gathered as the board discusses finalists for a site, all of them unsuitable in the eyes of a hired-gun consultant operating under the sway of tech park godfather Dickson Flake. Reopening the search process, after the extensive earlier quest, is a bad idea. Worse is switching to residential neighborhoods that Flake and Authority Chair Mary Good favor.

More when we have it.

[ Subscribe to the comments on this story ]

UPDATE: Engineering firm reports on Tech Park site finalists

Max Brantley — Mon, 11 Feb 2013 10:06:17 -0600

The Crafton Tull engineering firm has submitted its review of the three sites being considered for the Little Rock Technology Park — east of Interstate 30 near the Clinton Library; on the west side of John Barrow Road and at Asher and University.

The report, with site maps, estimates structure acquisition and demolition costs and notes potential development impediments — truck traffic near the Sixth and Collins site downtown; some flood zone property on the Asher site; site limitations that will require taller buildings on the Barrow site, for example. The report mentions environmental concerns downtown and at Asher and University, but said they'd have to be addressed by others.

Here's the report.

The Tech Park board is to meet Wednesday. Consultant Charles Dilks, who's been consistently negative about the three finalists, will comment on the engineers' findings. No vote is officially scheduled, but participants think a vote may be near.

Tom Butler, vice chancellor for administration and governmental affairs at the University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences, a park sponsor, is replacing Dr. Michael Douglas, retiring director of UAMS Bioventures, on the tech park board.

Dr. Mary Good, chairman of the board, said the board would not hear from entrepreneurs in biotech research at the meeting, which was requested at the last meeting of the board. She said that would happen at a later date, though it was suggested last month it should be an important factor in site selection. She said "people have forgotten" that the park's "clients" are UAMS and the University of Arkansas at Little Rock and Arkansas Children's Hospital, a not-so-oblique reference to a recent push from business interests that the downtown site would be the most attractive to tech start-ups looking to locate here.

UPDATE: Now we have a Feb. 6 letter from Charles Dilks, the consultant hired and guided from the inception of this project by Dickson Flake, a developer who favors using the neighborhood south of UAMS. As he says — speaks for itself:

[ Subscribe to the comments on this story ]

There goes the neighborhood: Push emerges to sell Forest Hills for Tech Park

Max Brantley — Thu, 07 Feb 2013 09:08:51 -0600

A letter has been distributed to the board of the Little Rock Technology Park asking that it consider the Forest Hills neighborhood, a lower-income residential area between UAMS and UALR, for the site of the tech park. This is the area targeted by Board member Dickson Flake almost from the outset of his push to build a spec office building in Little Rock as a lure to technology enterprises. The Little Rock Chamber of Commerce ran a campaign to approve a city sales tax from which more than $20 million in public money is promised for the project. No other meaningful financial contributions have yet surfaced, apart from token amounts from UAMS, UALR and Children's Hospital.

An "expert" on technology parks was hired to study potential sites and he didn't include this territory in his original findings. But at Flake's behest, he reconsidered. Surprise. Forest Hills rose to the top. Then came an outcry from people in the neighborhood who didn't want their homes taken, certainly not at market value, hardly enough to relocate anywhere comfortably.

The outcry was heard by the City Board, which ruled out Forest Park, but it also has declined to rule out its condemnation by ordinance proposed by Director Ken Richardson. A study has narrowed alternative sites to selections that the "expert" has said repeatedly don't enthuse him as much as his original, Flake-influenced preference. Board Chair Mary Good and her rubberstamp, Bob Johnson, have proclaimed all the alternates unacceptable and have continued to point the search back in the direction of Forest Hills.

That's a long intro for today's development, hand-delivered to Chair Good. The letter, said to represent 30 property owners and bearing 20 signatures, favors negotiations for sale of the property, unlike the position in opposition from Rohn Muse, the president of the Forest Hills Neighborhood Association.

Here's the letter. It doesn't identify addresses of those who signed, but it says they live in the area. "We are against eminent domain," says the letter, whose first signer is Phyllis Johnson. She's been at public hearings on the project to ask whether Forest Hills really was permanently excluded from consideration, a question for which she got an ambiguous answer a few months ago.

"Negotiations do not mean agreement with use of eminent domain," the letter says. Nor does it mean "giving away our property for low market rates."

The letter continues, "We are willing to come forward. We only ask that you allow individual residents of the proposed area to speak and ask non-residents, outsiders and non-impacted individuals to stand aside and give us the right to speak publicly."

Count on Good and Johnson, at least, to give this group great opportunity to speak, with a likely friendly nod from Dickson Flake, who's been working assiduously to find flaws in the the currently most favored alternative site downtown. Will city directors like Joan Adcock continue to say the subject is "off the table?" Stay tuned. The whole area can't be acquired without eminent domain, no matter what this particular group of residents says, unless every single property owner falls in line and likes the city's offer. Tall order. Also, legal work is underway to challenge any effort to expropriate the property with public tax money to provide office space for private enterprise.

But, at a minimum, the plot thickens. Powerful forces have wanted this property from the start and have never wavered from that belief. The City Board may shortly find itself in a sensitive spot.

[ Subscribe to the comments on this story ]

Snyder to moderate tech park meeting tonight

Leslie Newell Peacock — Tue, 23 Oct 2012 15:54:53 -0500

Former Congressman Vic Snyder will moderate at a public hearing tonight on the Little Rock Technology Park, set at the less- than-felicitous time of 7:30 p.m. at UALR's Engineering and Information Technology Building, Room 203. That's where tech park board chairman Dr. Mary Good works, as it happens.

Charles Dilks, who worked on the Angle study plan commissioned by the chamber in 2008 and who the tech park authority has commissioned to consult on potential locations for the park, will answer questions from the public. Dilks has recommended four sites in lieu of the three neighborhoods suggested by the Angle report but no longer (in theory) under consideration because of neighborhood backlash. They are:

* DOWNTOWN: A 10-acre site east of Interstate 30, proposed by Moses Tucker for property mostly controlled by World Services for the Blind, which has given up on a plan to build a new facility there. Good has been harshly critical of this site and questioned the price and size, though proponents, including Mayor Mark Stodola, have said additional parcels could be added. This land costs about $5.2 million. Backers have touted its proximity to Acxiom, the Clinton Library, Heifer and a growing residential community. Dilks noted it's "far" from sponsoring institutions, though the neighborhood presents attractive features.

* COL. GLENN AND UNIVERSITY: A parcel of up to 84 acres recommended by Flake and Kelley for the University District Partnership on the south side of Col. Glenn, at the southern edge of the UALR campus. No price given until precise needs are known. It includes a shopping center, former Coleman Dairy property and some Fourche Creek flood plain land, noted unfavorably by Dilks and certain to be a focus of opponents. It's contiguous to campus and work there would be a shot in the arm for a struggling neighborhood. Dilks noted the need to remove retail tenants, though Hank Kelley has said most are in short-term leases are readily able to relocate. Dilks also said the site's very proximity to UALR might be a negative to other sponsors by identifying it too closely with UALR.

* RIVERDALE: A proposal from Flake and Kelley for one of the Verizon (formerly Alltel) buildings in Riverdale (1 Allied Drive, Building 5), a 224,000-square-foot building with up to 22 acres counting adjacent undeveloped ground. Dilks said the large building would have to be largely vacant at the outset, a possible drawback, and said the single large structure would make it impossible to build a mixed-use campus.

* JOHN BARROW: This is 30 to 40 acres along the 1900-2200 blocks of John Barrow Road, a neighborhood south of Kanis Road pushed by its city director, Doris Wright. Another Barrow neighborhood site — 37 acres along Riley Drive, just south of Interstate 630 — was withdrawn because it's under contract now for a medical facility. Dilks said the site would be easy to develop, but was expensive and a long way from sponsors.

Snyder is not taking a position on the park.

[ Subscribe to the comments on this story ]

Tech Park Authority sets site hearings

Max Brantley — Wed, 10 Oct 2012 17:38:32 -0500

The Little Rock Technology Park Authority Board with little debate this afternoon set public hearings on the four sites identified by a consultant as the best among those submitted as sites for the city-financed building intended to lure technology companies to town.

A bit of ambiguity remained about whether the three residential neighborhoods between UAMS and UALR originally identified as prime locations for the project were out of consideration for all time. This arose during a brief public comment period.

First the Authority, with Chair Mary Good absent, accepted Dilks' recommendation and set meetings to hear from the consultant, site owners and the public at 7:30 p.m. Tuesday, Oct. 23 at the UALR Engineering and Information Technology Building and at 5 p.m. Wednesday, Oct. 24 at the Jack Stephens Center at UALR. At Authority member Dickson Flake's suggestion, forrmer U.S. Rep. Vic Snyder, now working for Blue Cross, will "facilitate" the discussion. He agreed to do so, Flake said, on the condition that he strictly be a moderator, not an expert on the project or sites and with the understanding that technical questions would be answered by others.

Four sites remained after consultant Charles Dilks' study: 1) commercial property adjacent to UALR at Asher and University; 2) undeveloped acreage on John Barrow Road; 3) a 12-story former Alltel buildiing in Riverdale and 4) mostly unused acreage controlled by World Services for the Blind on the east side of I-30 near the Clinton Library. A significant amount of support has developed for the downtown site, but Chair Mary Good has been highly critical.

Dr. Michael Douglas of UAMS, an Authority member, commented that he had not been "overwhelmed by the level of enthusiasm" in Dilks' report. Indeed, Dilks noted shortcomings in all the sites and said location was critical, perhaps so much that other alternatives might be considered. The four finalists, Douglas said, are "not the be all, end all."

That led to a direct question from Phyllis Johnson, a resident of the neighborhoods originally targeted. Is the Forest Hills neighborhood along I-630 no longer being considered? If not, she said, "tell me now."

Authority member Jay Chesshir, leader of the Little Rock Chamber of Commerce, which led the city sales tax drive that is to provide $24 million for the project, recited the terms of a letter June 21 from Mary Good in which she told the City Board of Directors that the residential neighborhoods were "off the table" unless a "substantial" portion of the neighborhood indicated they supported the neighborhood as a tech park site and communicated that desire to City Directors Joan Adock or Ken Richards.

"At this point in time," Chesshir said, "to my knowledge that has not taken place."

But the Authority members were silent when another resident of the neighborhood, Daniel Hopwood, asked directly if there was a possibility the neighborhoods could be brought up again. He argued that taking of the neighborhood wouldn't be right unless 100 percent were in favor. Some absentee landlords, some with several recently acquired parcels, have expressed an interest in selling for the tech park, but apparently haven't formally expressed anything to city directors to date.

There's no deadline for choosing a site at this point and should the Authority find all finalists wanting, presumably the residential neighborhoods could be in play again, though it would require the Authority overcoming stated objections from the financier, the City Board.

The Authority meets monthly and Chesshir said there was a possibility the current batch could be reduced to a smaller number of finalists. Much more research is to be done on all before a decision, he said.

[ Subscribe to the comments on this story ]

Consultant recommends four sites for Technology Park

Max Brantley — Thu, 04 Oct 2012 16:55:00 -0500

A private consultant, Charles Dilks, has completed his recommendation for sites among 23 submitted for the Little Rock Technology Park Authority to consider for construction of the first phase of a construction project aimed at attracting tech business to Little Rock.

Dilks' recommendation of four finalists does not include any of the three residential neighborhoods originally targeted by consultants as ideal for their location between UAMS and UALR, two sponsors of the project. The project will be funded primarily at the outset with a promised $22 million in Little Rock sales tax money. Backers have said another $28 million in private money will be needed for a second phase of construction, source still undetermined. The drawing above illustrates the plan for building the project in stages.

An original study produced for the Little Rock Regional Chamber of Commerce, which has been driving the idea along with now-Authority Board member Dickson Flake, stirred controversy in the residential neighborhoods. Loud objections to the loss of homes in the low-income, predominantly minority neighborhoods finally drew promises from city leaders that their land would not be considered. But suspicions lingered, partly because of continued remarks by board members in support of addressing blight in those areas and critical of other potential sites.

Indeed, Dilks' letter notes that he didn't find any of the sites he "ideally suited" for the tech park. He success is tied to location, particularly proximity to sponsoring institutions.

He concluded:

In conclusion, the above sites stand out above the 23 proposals received for the reasons identified. However, in every case, there are a number of unfavorable characteristics which, in my opinion, do not lead to one superior site which meets all the important success criteria for a technology park. Accordingly, I suggest that the Authority should move with caution in selecting any one of them and to make sure there is not another alternative site that could be made available that would be more favorable to the success of the technology park.

Dilks recommended:

* DOWNTOWN: A 10-acre site east of Interstate 30, proposed by Moses Tucker for property mostly controlled by World Services for the Blind, which has given up on a plan to build a new facility there. Authority Chair Mary Good has been harshly critical of this site and questioned the price and size, though proponents, including Mayor Mark Stodola, have said additional parcels could be added. This land costs about $5.2 million. Backers have touted its proximity to Acxiom, the Clinton Library, Heifer and a growing residential community. Dilks noted it's "far" from sponsoring institutions, though the neighborhood presents attractive features.

* COL. GLENN AND UNIVERSITY: A parcel of up to 84 acres recommended by Flake and Kelley for the University District Partnership on the south side of Col. Glenn, at the southern edge of the UALR campus. No price given until precise needs are known. It includes a shopping center, former Coleman Dairy property and some Fourche Creek flood plain land. It's contiguous to campus and work there would be a shot in the arm for a struggling neighborhood. Dilks noted the need to remove retail tenants, though Hank Kelley has said most are in short-term leases are readily able to relocate. Dilks also noted the floodplain and said the site's very proximity to UALR might be a negative to other sponsors by identifying it too closely with UALR.

* RIVERDALE: A proposal from Flake and Kelley for one of the Verizon (formerly Alltel) buildings in Riverdale (1 Allied Drive, Building 5), a 224,000-square-foot building with up to 22 acres counting adjacent undeveloped ground. Dilks said the large building would have to be largely vacant at the outset, a possible drawback, and said the single large structure would make it impossible to build a mixed-use campus.

* JOHN BARROW: This is 30 to 40 acres along the 1900-2200 blocks of John Barrow Road, a neighborhood south of Kanis Road pushed by its city director, Doris Wright. Another Barrow neighborhood site — 37 acres along Riley Drive, just south of Interstate 630 — was withdrawn because it's under contract now for a medical facility. Dilks said the site would be easy to develop, but was expensive and a long way from sponsors.

All the 23 proposals are listed on the authority's website.

Dilks' recommendations were mailed last Friday but had not been publicly released until I requested them. The Authority will consider these recommendations at its Board meeting next week, Wednesday, Oct. 10, at Baptist Health. Dilks discusses pros and cons for each. The plan is to hold public hearings on the finalists and decide the site by Nov. 14. Then an engineering study will be required.

Documents:

* Here's Dilks' letter on the conclusions of his search and urgings about the importance of site selection as a prelude to evaluations of the four finalists.

* Here's Dilks' first-stage evaluation of the 23 sites.

[ Subscribe to the comments on this story ]

As the Tech Park turns

Max Brantley — Tue, 25 Sep 2012 11:13:19 -0500

I've now heard from two people who attended a committee meeting last night of the Little Rock Technology Park Authority. The committee was established to ease concerns of the residential neighborhoods between UAMS and UALR initially targeted as potential sites for the taxpayer-funded office building (and thus removal of dozens of homes).

Both said Authority Chair Mary Good seemed to indicate 1) continuing dissatisfaction with an Interstate 30 site near Heifer International and the Clinton Library that has been supported by the mayor and many others and 2) a continued interest in addressing "blight" in neighborhoods near UAMS and UALR. Good got supporting comments, my witnesses say, from Bob Johnson, the former state senator from Bigelow (Death Star, he was known then, for opposition to progressive legislation) and also a UALR appointee to the board. He, I'm told, seemed equally fixated on conditions in the residential neighborhoods near UALR. People from the neighborhood and others mostly spoke, I'm told, about interest in the downtown site. Skip Rutherford, dean of the Clinton School of Public Service, parried some of Good's critical remarks about the site near his campus. Good has complained previously that the site offered downtown isn't big enough, but backers have said it could be expanded.

If Good and Johnson and Tech Park concept originator Dickson Flake, who specifically targeted the Forest Hills neighborhood at the outset, really do wind up favoring the original targeted neighborhood, that's three of the four votes necessary for an Authority majority. What's City Director Joan Adcock going to say then about that neighborhood being "off the table"? Sounds like somebody forgot to tell Johnson and Good. Or maybe they just don't hear so well.

Anybody else at the meeting with a report?

UPDATE: What follows is a letter from the neighborhood group representing the residential area near the proposed downtown site to C. J. Duvall, who's chairing the committee on housing concerns:

Dear CJ Duvall,

Some of the Hanger Hill neighbors will be able to attend the meeting tonight, but I am unable to attend due to a prior commitment.

I did want to let you know that the Hanger Hill Neighborhood Association really welcomes the Tech Park into our neighborhood. We are a small neighborhood in downtown Little Rock that often gets overlooked because the freeway cut us off from the rest of the downtown many years ago. We are in a great location and often refer to ourselves as the best kept secret in Little Rock. We are walking distance to many of the city attractions including the Clinton Library, MacArthur Park and the River Market District.

Our neighborhood is filled with great historic housing and many neighbors that take pride in their property. Our neighborhood has successfully had one of our blocks listed on the National Register and we were involved in getting the Oakland & Fraternal Historic Cemetery Park in our neighborhood also listed. Our association continues to work at expanding the National Register District to include a majority of the residential blocks.

Our neighbors are proud of our local school, Booker Arts Magnet Elementary. We have worked with the Game and Fish Commission to rehabilitate a creek that runs through the Cemetery Park. Grants were received by both the cemetery and the school. This project includes an education program where school children learn about the creek, collect data for the Game and Fish Commission and work to keep the creek clean. We are currently using the "Love Your Block" grant funds to plant trees along the school grounds in order to beautify the school and the neighborhood.

Our neighborhood is not without faults. We have problems with neglected housing, weed lots, illegal dumping of trash and lack of sidewalks. We need more investment into the neighborhood in the form of quality housing and existing housing restoration. We feel that the tech park would help spur this activity. We also feel that the tech park would encourage the city to investment more into our neighborhood, including following through with their East of I-30 plan. The plan includes connecting College street from the Clinton Library to the freeway by lengthening the street and widening it as well as beautifying it with lamp poles and sidewalks.

There are currently 10 acres of land available from the Lyons International in our neighborhood but there are many acres available adjacent to the 10 acre site. This land is in a prime location that has been overlooked for too long and who could want for better neighbors than Heifer International, the Clinton Library and the Clinton School for Public Service?

Just outside the 10 acre site is the William Woodruff House, founder of the Arkansas Gazette. The neighborhood is very concerned that we will loose this historic home from neglect and feel the Tech Park could inspire private investment or possibly it could be incorporated into the Tech Park plans, a wonderful way to recycle this historic home.

Thank you for your consideration and feel free to contact me with any questions.

Lakresha Diaz, president of the Hanger Hill Neighborhood Association

[ Subscribe to the comments on this story ]

Site proposals pour in for tech park

Leslie Newell Peacock — Fri, 31 Aug 2012 16:31:03 -0500

The non-profit University District Development Corp. headed by Ron Copeland and Flake & Kelley Commercial today proposed an alternative to the residential sites first considered by the Little Rock Technology Park Authority that includes 84.37 acres just south of the University of Arkansas at Little Rock campus, of which 14 acres is available for immediate development. The site includes the Village Shopping Center (which could be used immediately), the Rush property south of the shopping center, the Coleman Dairy property and Good Old Days Foods Inc. property on South Polk Street. The proposal was accompanied by letters of support from the Meadowcliff/Brookwood Neighborhood Association and the University District Neighborhoods Association. No purchase price was included in the documents provided to the Times by Authority board member Jay Chesshir.

Moses Tucker Real Estate has also formally submitted its proposal for 10-plus acres downtown east of I-30 and south of Heifer International. At $12 per square foot, that works out to about $5.2 million.

A building on the Alltel campus — a site that Dan Rahn, chancellor of park partner the University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences, thought suitable — is being proposed by Colliers International. Building 2 is a 7-story, 90,247-square-foot office building that leases between $16.50 and $18.75 a square foot; the proposal, as yet incomplete, likely envisions a sale rather than a lease.

Colliers, by the way, is where board member Dickson Flake is employed.

Today was the deadline set by the Authority for the submission of proposed sites for the park, though proposals postmarked today but arriving later will be considered as well, Chesshir said. Nineteen (not counting a one for property that's not for sale) proposals have been received by my count, which at this time of day is iffy indeed.

In addition to the UDDC and downtown sites, the proposals received by the Authority now include:

—29.18 acres at 901 Bond St., offered by Colliers for $1 a square foot or $1.2 million.

—66 acres near I-430 and Col. Glenn Road, north of Clear Channel Metroplex, offered by Colliers for $3.5 million.

—39.23 acres at 25616 Hwy. 10, offered by Kevin Huchingson for Rick and Deanna Ferguson for $3 a square foot, or $5.1 million.

—16.8 acres on South Shackleford Road offered by RPM at $3.50 per square foot, or $2.5 million.

—37 acres on John Barrow Road and I-630, offered by Coldwell Banker Commercial (no price quoted).

—12.2 acres off University on Kramer Street, southwest of the intersection of University and Asher, offered by Coldwell Banker at $350,000.

—30 acres on John Barrow Road, across the street from the Sid McMath Library, offered by Pam Brown Courtney (no price quoted).

—Moon Distributing property at I-30 and Roosevelt, suggested by a third party (property not for sale).

—44.5 acres in the Gateway Town Center at the I-430/I-30 interchange, where Bass Pro Shops will be located, offered by Town Center LLC, represented by Thomas Hodges, for $5.7 million.

—41 acres between Wright Avenue on the north, Roosevelt Road on the south, Cross Street on the east and Dr. Martin Luther King Street on the west, which include 133 "housing units," 42 percent of which are vacant, offered by the Roosevelt/Wright Corridor Planning Group (Grover Richardson, Vincent Kountz and Pamela Adams, no price quoted).

—32-plus acres on Stagecoach Road at the Hwy. 5 exit, offered by Lewis Realty and Associates for $1.25 million.

—40 acres on Leander Road with access from Kanis Road and other streets, offered by Coldwell Banker Commercial for $2.54 million.

—Up to 60 acres at the Village at Brodie Creek at the northwest corner of I-430 and Col. Glenn Road, offered by Flake & Kelley for $9.75 a square foot or at a negotiable price as is.

—43.1 acres on Chenal Parkway and Chenal Valley Drive (Tract 3), offered by Deltic Timber Corp. at $15 per square foot or $28 million.

—33 acres south of 36th street along South Shackleford Road, between Old Pine Street on the west and Calvary Nazarene Church on the east, offered by Crye-Leike for $3.3 million.

—36 acres at the northwest corner of I-430 and Hwy. 10 (aka "the Harvey Property") offered by Bonnie Harvey represented by Marvin Jones (no price quoted).

—6,300 square feet at 5507 Asher Ave. for $40, offered by Al Johnson. The property is just east of UALR housing on Asher.

[ Subscribe to the comments on this story ]

Tech Park board hears 'best practices' for site selection

Max Brantley — Fri, 20 Jul 2012 15:17:29 -0500

The Little Rock Technology Park Authority indicates further today that it has heard the outcry from both residential neighborhoods and the city officials who control the money for the Tech Park about using a bit more consideration in choosing a site for the taxpayer-financed office building that is supposed to lure private businesses.

Today, it released a report from a UALR division on "best practices" that proponents of such facilities "must recognize in communicating with and involving potentially affected stakeholders in the process of site selection." The report also provides some strong cautionary words about such ventures.

UALR is a partner in the project with UAMS, the city and the Little Rock Regional Chamber of Commerce, which dreamed the idea up, wrote the law, raised money to pass a city sales tax to pay for it and effectively controls the governing board. Early designs on three low-income majority black residential neighborhoods as the preferred site for the park stirred up a storm. Since then, the process has been reopened to consider other sites.

Today comes the report from the Institute of Government at UALR, which has been in a ticklish position as a neighbor to residential neighborhoods targeted for removal even as it is working to build its image as a promoter of racial healing in the community. The report looks at the best way to use urban neighborhoods, focusing on the three identified by the Tech Park Board before it opened the site competition to other ideas. It will be accepting proposals through the end of this month.

Here's the report. It says affected residents should be part of the process. (Comment: It would be better if they were also included on the governing board, rather than it being almost entirely from a country club ward.)

The report found two places — Baltimore and Oklahoma City — where inclusion of people in the process from the outset and good relocation packages (not just market value of property) produced generally satisfied residents. But consider what also was done for an Oklahoma City hospital research park project, in addition to generous relocation payments:

* A comprehensive urban renewal plan;
* the establishment of a Planned Urban Development (PUD) subdivision arrangement;
* a sizeable federal Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) ($4 million); and,
* the creation of a Tax Increment Financing (TIF) district.

Good commentary, too, on whether these projects work, as proponents claim they do, in spurring economic development. The UALR notes studies about job creation, but continues:

"... None of these studies addresses the question of whether these opportunities and benefits produce positive externalities for neighborhoods affected by these projects.

In any event, these opportunities do not accrue automatically to communities with research parks. Some research suggests that these parks either have no effect in attracting biotech industry, or may in fact be counter-productive or superfluous to fomenting research and development activities in a community. The primary reason that many research parks do not perform to expectations is due to research funding and commercialization revenues being heavily influenced by the “Top 15” universities that dominate technology transfer."

This brings up a long-running criticism. The city of Little Rock can't finance this thing alone. Unless the major education institutions or private enterprise put in big money, it will be a hard slog. And without demonstrated benefit to hundreds of displaced people, it becomes a huge question of whether the Tech Park board should bulldoze residential neighborhoods.

The report notes some successes. But, significantly, parks touted by backers of the Little Rock park — in Virginia and South Carolina — have run into difficulties, the report notes. Take Virginia:

For example, at the Virginia Bio-Tech Research Park, two of the three publicly-held companies have moved out. As recently as last year, the Virginia Bio-Tech Research Park was in negotiations with Virginia Commonwealth University to sell two of its buildings. Furthermore, much of the park’s space is “occupied by entities that have nothing to do with the original purpose of incubating biotech start-ups and spinning them loose. Very little ‘clustering,’ or big-time corporate contract work, has been achieved. At times, it’s difficult to tell what distinguishes the biotech park from any other office park.”

How to avoid problems? Thirteen "best practices" are listed: Seek consensus, develop trust, don't rush, have multiple options, seek volunteers for sites and, among others:

Fully compensate all negative impacts of a facility—Compensation should be negotiated with potentially affected stakeholders. Compensation agreements for potentially affected stakeholders may include property value guarantees, relocation assistance, housing vouchers for renters, job training, and ensuring that public transportation is readily accessible to dislocated stakeholders.

And this:

Make the host community better off—Proponents of siting a facility in a particular community should respond to the real needs of potentially affected stakeholders in that community. Comprehensive benefits packages offered to residents could include tax abatements, providing amenities to residents (e.g., parks, access to public transportation), or even direct cash payments to residents. The net effect is that the potentially affected stakeholders feel that they are better off than before the facility displaced them. Laws and Susskind suggest that “incentive payments or promises to take actions of various kinds should be made over and above commitments to mitigate impacts or compensate a community for impacts that cannot be mitigated.”

Citing other reports, the UALR report says tech park developers too often hunker down and defend decisions "rather than engaging stakeholders in a timely and meaningful way. This breeds even greater public cynicism."

Uh, yes. But perhaps reports such as UALR's — and a demonstrated effort to follow its suggestions — could make a difference.

NEWS RELEASE

Little Rock Technology Park Authority Chairman Dr. Mary Good today released ‘Site Selection Considerations for Urban Research Parks,’ a report issued by the University of Arkansas at Little Rock Institute of Government.

The research highlights best practices that proponents of such facilities “must recognize in communicating with and involving potentially affected stakeholders in the process of site selection.”

According to Chairman Good, the ten-and-a-half page report will serve the board and community well as they collectively consider where best to locate the Little Rock Technology Park.

“We are grateful for the fine work specifically prepared by Dr. Christopher Diaz, Research Associate, and Hunter Bacot, Director of UALR’s Institute on Government,” said Dr. Good.

The complete report is attached and posted at www.lrtechpark.com.

[ Subscribe to the comments on this story ]

Technology Park siting criteria posted

Max Brantley — Fri, 13 Jul 2012 14:18:00 -0500

After some confusion earlier, the Little Rock Technology Park Authority has announced release of "site measurement criteria" for the place the authority will build an office building with $22 million in city tax money under authority granted by legislation written and promoted by the Little Rock Regional Chamber of Commerce. The idea is for the building to attract private businesses.

Today's list, a bit longer than what was released earlier, is a list of factors that will be considered in selecting a site, but it sets no specific requirements in any of the individual areas. You can see the full list on the jump. For example: it asks those with potential sites to identify the proximity and "convenience" to research institutions, but doesn't set fixed limits on what's expected in those categories. The Authority's original insistence on a five-minute drive time between the site and either UAMS or UALR had caused great controversy and scoffing from city officials.

The release today came with the following statement from Charlie Dilks, the consultant hired by the Tech Authority (an independent board dominated by people with connection to the Chamber of Commerce and business establishment):

"The research and technology park industry is now over 40 years old, and a lot has been learned about the various criteria that have led to their success or failure.

"The goal is to create lively, mixed-use, amenity-rich environments around the intersection of university research and private industry. Successful parks promote the collaborative, entrepreneurial culture that is essential to innovation and the transfer of technology and cutting-edge research into commercial applications.

"As the board reviews alternative site locations, a list of criteria needs to be agreed upon in order to judge them. The criteria attached should be the template to be used for this evaluation. Weighing land site criteria and scoring them implies precision and objectivity. It should be understood, however, that a numerical selection process could lead to bad conclusions and high probability of failure.

"In the end, sound judgment based on experience of successful parks needs to be qualitatively made, and it should be noted that some of the site qualifications may be altered by investment such as infrastructure capacity, configuration, establishment of anchor institutions, and quality management whereas other sites, due to external conditions, may be less subject to change.

"After evaluating alternative sites for the park for probability of success, you may then test the best sites against the locational considerations to determine if the effects are positive or negative in the short and long runs."

The consultant and the Authority Board had from the start favored sites in the residential neighborhood between UAMS and UALR, generally a low-income area with a high minority population. Residents organized opposition to the plan and that prompted the City Board, which controls the money, to urge the Tech Authority to seek alternative sites. It's been a bumpy process, with a reluctance of some Authority leaders to let go of the original residential neighborhoods. Mayor Mark Stodola indicated to me yesterday his belief that the residential neighborhoods are off the table — though he added that a different, collaborative approach might have produced a different outcome had the process begun differently. Stodola has said positive things about a downtown site, east of Interstate 30, on commercial property near the Clinton Library and Heifer International. Those institutions and Acxiom have promoted the site, along with Lion World Services, which controls a 10-acre tract at its core that it no longer plans to use for a new center for its instruction program for the blind.

Board Chair Mary Good confirmed to me that the authority avoided setting specific requirements in each area because, for example, it would make no sense to reject a 29.8 acre site that fit all other desires but fell a fraction of an acre short of the optimal size.

Technology Park Site Measurement Criteria

1. SITE
Size
Configuration
Access
Exposure
Known or suspected environmental hazards
Traffic Patterns, transportation service
Proximity to research institutions
Convenience to research institutions
Other surrounding amenities
Zoning
Infrastructure capacity
Surrounding arterials
Utility Service
Telecom Service
Natural features
Cost
Acquisition
Development

2. LOCATIONAL CONSIDERATIONS
Displacement
Residential uses
Business Uses
Institutional
Effect on surrounding neighbors/development patterns

[ Subscribe to the comments on this story ]

Tech Park Authority announces site criteria UPDATE

Max Brantley — Tue, 10 Jul 2012 09:25:00 -0500

The Little Rock Technology Park Authority has announced that it has developed criteria for potential sites of the city taxpayer-financed building that is envisioned as a lure for private technology ventures.

Information for potential sites must be submitted by Aug. 31.

The Authority, a creation of a law developed by the Little Rock Regional Chamber of Commerce and run administratively by the chamber, has been enmeshed in controversy since targeting three residential neighborhoods between UAMS and UALR for the project. The Little Rock City Board, which is providing the money ($22 million from a sales tax increase pushed in a campaign run by the chamber), urged a wider search for property that wouldn't dislocate neighborhoods.

The full news release is on the jump. In it, the release from Authority Chair Mary Good said of the original sites:

Although the three sites are not now being considered, the reports’ recommendations for building placements, appropriate phase build out, utility utilization, etc., will be of use for whatever site is ultimately chosen. These issues and the environmental questions — both aesthetic and practical — will be the subject of the Board’s discussion at the August meeting.

The site submission criteria are listed here. They are general attributes for each site, rather than a set of requirements that sites meet certain rules, such as minimum acreage or, say, a minimum driving time from UALR and UAMS. That short drive previously had been a firm desire of the Authority Board, but it has been roundly criticized by the city board, residents and UAMS, which has withheld its payment to the tech park effort because of concerns over site selection. Clearly, however, location could end up influencing Authority members when they make a decision. Good has made it clear several times that she could envision a scenario in which the residential neighborhoods might yet be considered, though city officials, the latest being Mayor Mark Stodola, seemed to have ruled that out.

I have made an FOI request for the final engineering firm report on the three original sites. It has been completed and the news release said it would be posted on the Tech Park website, but it is not there currently.

A number of property owners have suggested alternate sites. Drawing high attention has been commercial acreage on the east side of Interstate 30 downtown near the Clinton Library, Heifer International and Acxiom headquarters.

UPDATE: This Tech Park can't, or won't, shoot straight.

I asked Jay Chesshir, the chamber boss who's running the Tech Park show generally, about the seeming lack of specifics in the so-called criteria, such as minimums for acreage, distance from institutions and the like. He sent me this note:

As has been requested, all Little Rock sites will be considered. The document asks for all of those things you’ve mentioned.

I followed up and asked, just to be clear, that the criteria actually weren't criteria at all, in a commonly understood sense, merely a request for information. He didn't respond. But that's all people with potential sites received in letters inviting them to provide the general information.

But then Chair Mary Good responded to a question from Leslie Peacock about criteria:

There is some confusion about the one page sheet that went out with the news release this morning. That sheet is the factual cover sheet for those folks recommending a Park site. The criteria for evaluating the sites are being finalized by the committee. I expect their final copy this week (maybe tomorrow) and it will be posted on the web site and I will send you a copy.
Mary Good

In short, the news release was in error, from the very first sentence. And misleading. And people with land to sell have already been sent letters about filling in the barebones "criteria" list without any mention that the real criteria are yet to come.

TECH PARK NEWS RELEASE

Little Rock Technology Park Authority Chairman Dr. Mary Good today announced the criteria for all potential site submissions to be considered for development of the Little Rock Technology Park.

The criteria were created by a Chairman-appointed Board committee of Dickson Flake and Michael Douglas, in consultation with Charlie Dilks, the Board’s site consultant. Criteria include information required by the Board in order to evaluate each potential site.

The criteria will be posted on the Authority’s website — www.lrtechpark.com — and sent to all sponsors of the Park and all interested parties who have contacted the Board regarding prospective sites.

As Authority sponsors have requested, Board Member Dickson Flake will also contact commercial real estate brokers throughout central Arkansas in order to make them aware of the Board’s interest in reviewing any and all Little Rock sites which may be available. Through this proactive Board action, a thorough search will be conducted.

Site information is due by August 31, 2012 and may be delivered to the Little Rock Technology Park Authority, c/o Little Rock Regional Chamber of Commerce, One Chamber Plaza, Little Rock, Arkansas 72201.

The final report on the original three sites has been submitted to the Board by the engineering firm, Crafton Tull & Associates, Inc. The report will be posted at www.lrtechpark.com. Although the three sites are not now being considered, the reports’ recommendations for building placements, appropriate phase build out, utility utilization, etc., will be of use for whatever site is ultimately chosen. These issues and the environmental questions — both aesthetic and practical — will be the subject of the Board’s discussion at the August meeting.

The Board Chair reported that there will be no July meeting. The August meeting will be held on Wednesday, August 15th at 4:00 p.m. at a location to be determined.

Chairman Good also announced the Neighborhood Housing Committee will convene its first meeting on Tuesday, July 24th at 5:00 p.m. at the Willie L. Hinton Neighborhood Resource Center.

CORRECTION NOTICE FROM CHAMBER

In a release earlier today, a Site Submission Form required of all parties submitting potential sites for the Little Rock Technology Park was erroneously labeled “criteria.”

Authority Board Members Dickson Flake and Dr. Michael Douglas are continuing their work with the Authority’s consultant, Charlie Dilks, regarding establishment of uniform criteria. Once complete, the criteria will be released to the public via a news release and on www.lrtechpark.com. Meanwhile, the Form will provide consistent information on each submitted site so that each may be fairly and equally considered.

We apologize for this miscommunication.

[ Subscribe to the comments on this story ]

As the Tech Park turns: Who's in charge?

Max Brantley — Tue, 03 Jul 2012 06:24:45 -0500

To simplify various developments reported here yesterday on the proposed Little Rock Technology Park, a city taxpayer-funded office building project dreamed up by the private (but taxpayer subsidized) Little Rock Regional Chamber of Commerce:

The independent, unanswerable board of the authority has made all sorts of placating noises in response to Fair Park neighborhood outrage that residents might be bulldozed for an office building.

But ... the Authority board has NOT taken the neighborhood off the table, not even with partner UAMS withholding money and UALR leadership referring to the unfolding "regrettable disaster." UALR's effort to be a beacon of racial and ethnic advancement is suffering from its role in the potential devastation of a portion of its nearby neighborhood, populated heavily by lower income black people.

Some city board members have objected (some more strenuously than others; some, like Doris Wright, hardly at all). Far better sites have been offered, including yesterday's proposal to use mostly vacant commercial acreage near the Clinton Library and the burgeoning River Market district.

The question: Will the Chamber of Commerce faction's long preference for the poor residential neighborhood near UAMS be deterred by the rising opposition? Or will the Authority's criteria be drawn to exclude all but this option? And, finally, if that happens, will the Little Rock City Board of Directors have the brass to just say NO, for once, to the Chamber of Commerce? Without $22 million in city money, there is no Tech Park. This issue, better than any yet, will demonstrate who calls the shots on spending the accumulated Taco Bell sales tax pennies of city residents. Its elected representatives, influenced by wishes of the neighborhoods they nominally represent? Or a self-selected group of Little Rock business establishment insiders, plus Death Star Bob Johnson, the city water despoiler from Perry County?

[ Subscribe to the comments on this story ]

UAMS withholding Tech Park payment over site search: Update

Max Brantley — Mon, 02 Jul 2012 14:40:52 -0500

When it rains Tech Park news, it pours. This just in from Leslie Newell Peacock:

UAMS has not paid the second of four installments it's pledged toward the construction of the Little Rock Technology Park out of concern the Technology Park Authority board is not working to find a location alternative to the three residential areas under consideration from the outset.

UAMS, UALR, Arkansas Children's Hospital and the city of Little Rock donated $25,000 each last year; each partner (and ACH, which is not a partner but is giving financial assistance) has pledged $125,000, to be paid in five installments. Spokesman Dan McFadden said he believes Children's has made its second installment. Neither UALR Chancellor Joel Anderson nor city leadership could be reached to see if they planned to pay.

UAMS Chancellor Dan Rahn was out of town today, but Tom S. Butler, vice chancellor for administration and governmental affairs at UAMS, said the chancellor wants to see the Authority board take part in alternative site selection, rather than just receive proposals. Dr. Mary Good, chair of the board, said at the board's last meeting that it did not plan to participate in coming up with alternatives. Rahn, Butler said, "thinks they would have the finances to be able to look at these other areas and evaluate them."

Butler, who grew up south of 12th Street on Adams, near one of the three study sites, is a member of a committee named by the board to work with residents of the Forest Hills and Fair Park neighborhoods between UALR and UAMS to hear concerns and help them find housing should their neighborhood be chosen for demolition. The committee was to meet last week, but board member Jay Chesshir sent a note out saying the "committee had not decided on either of the three spots," Butler said, and wasn't going forward.

"We want to see how things are going and that everything is being considered" before making a payment, Butler said. "I think we should look at everything. We're not hung up on the five-minute rule," he said, referring to the Authority board's criteria that the park be within five minutes driving distance between the "owners" of the park.

Chesshir, CEO of the Little Rock Regional Chamber of Commerce, said there's no deadline for payment of the contributions. Chesshir is one of three Chamber-related members of the seven-member board operating the authority. The Chamber is operating it administratively and promoted the law that created it. The Chamber also ran the campaign in support of the city sales tax that will provide $22 million as the first payment on building the tech park.

Update: McFadden confirmed that Children's has made its installment.
Update 2: UALR has also paid its $25,000 "for all practical purposes," Chancellor Joel Anderson said this afternoon. He said he was aware that Rahn had decided to withhold UAMS', but that Rahn had not approached other partners to urge them to follow suit. Anderson called the tech park siting a "regrettable disaster" so far, but he is optimistic that with time consensus will emerge. "My guess is there will be some attractive alternative" arise. All proposals need to be "fully evaluated on their merit." He said he will do "what I can do to assure the process is legitimate and wholesome."

[ Subscribe to the comments on this story ]

A pitch made for downtown site for Tech Park

Max Brantley — Mon, 02 Jul 2012 09:08:00 -0500

More Little Rock Technology Park News this morning.

I've just received a copy of a letter from officials of Heifer International, the Clinton Foundation, the University of Arkansas School of Public Service and Acxiom Corp. and a leader of the Moses-Tucker real estate firm suggesting a 10-acre site on Interstate 30 between Sixth and Eigth Streets for the park.

This would add to the neighborhood in which the advocates for the site have made significant investments in recent years.

The letter went Friday to Mayor Mark Stodola and Mary Good, chair of the Little Rock Technology Park Authority Board.

It would require relocation of, at most, one residential triplex, the letter says, thus saving a significant portion of the $9 million estimated for land acquisition cost that could be used for additional land purchases. Asking price for the 10-acre parcel is $3.6 million. The Tech Park has talked about a larger site, though it isn't going to develop a full project at once. There's an additional 30 acres of adjacent commercial and industrial land in the neighborhood for expansion, backers of this idea say. The one residential parcel is rented on a month to month basis and reportedly turns over frequently, so attrition should eventually leave it vacant.

The property was acquired by World Services for the Blind, but a plan to build a new headquarters there isn't going to materialize.

Here's the letter sent today by Pierre Ferrari, CEO of Heifer; Stephanie Streett, executive director of the Clinton Foundation; Skip Rutherford, dean of the Clinton School; Jerry Jones of Acxiom, and Rett Tucker of Moses-Tucker.

The letter quotes UAMS Chancellor Dan Rahn as saying a "five-minute" rule for distance between UALR and UAMS and the facility is not essential, as a consultant on the tech park idea has written. The site would provide easy access and be highly visible in a "dynamic" corridor of development, the letter noted, in addition to ending divisiveness over residential home acquisition, perhaps by eminent domain.

The Authority Board has said it plans to pick the best of three residential neighborhood sites and then take suggestions for other locations, though, to date, it has shown little inclination to waver on a preference for property very close to both UALR and UAMS.

RELATED: An article in The Atlantic on successful development of a tech-oriented neighborhood in London. These assets cited for the emergence of a cluster of tech firms:

• Amenities and ‘vibe’

• Similar/complementary firms

• Branding and messaging

• Cheap space

• Proximity to central London

• Connectivity – to the rest of London and UK

[ Subscribe to the comments on this story ]

What is blight? A Tech Park target's thoughts

Max Brantley — Mon, 02 Jul 2012 08:32:40 -0500

Dr. Anika Whitfield, a podiatrist who's been among the most outspoken in the central Little Rock neighborhood targeted for demolition to build the taxpayer-financed Little Rock Regional Chamber of Commerce spec technology park office building, has more to say today, inspired by the demolition of Ray Winder Field for a UAMS parking lot.

Why not look there for Technology Park acreage, she asks.

She also talks about the meaning of blight, inspired by a recent lecturer at the Clinton School, Dr. Mindy Fullilove, a writer and teacher at Columbia University. To those cheering the destruction of residential neighborhoods for an office building, the project is "blight removal." (And we'll worry later where the human element of that blight will rest once they are made home clearance refugees.) Comments Whitfield:

Dr. Fullilove proposes that blighted really means to those who use it, "not mine". In other words, as long as something is not yours and you don't see the value in it, like someone else's home, it is ok (or at least one tries to justify that it is ok) to destroy it, redefine it, and mistreat it because after all it is "blighted" (doesn't belong to me).

That captures the insensitivity with which the powers-that-be view this neighborhood. Just an obstacle to a bit of real estate speculation and corporate welfare.

Joyce Williams, another of those human beings interested in preserving a residential neighborhood, has also distributed a note responding to Whitfield's and commenting on those who decide the fate of neighborhoods.

They wear suits, have great material resources, plan in private and make every effort to present a civilized public face but have proven they are will run their planned agenda at the expense of the community.

Both notes follow in full. Whitfield has received one response from city officials, from City Director Joan Adcock:

Thank you for your email, I agree

FROM ANIKA WHITFIELD

As I looked upon the demolition of what once was Ray Winder Field while passing through my neighborhood Friday evening, on the other side of I-630, I couldn't help but notice the sadness in the moment.

Sadness because an historical place and fabric of my community and our city is being demolished to become a parking lot, pavement with out a picture, connection, or meaningful purpose to the neighbors in a location that once housed activity, community, hope, and amazing possibilities to our neighbors and neighborhood. A parking lot that will serve only the people who come and go in and out to work. A parking lot that will replace history with no regard or apology! It doesn't get much sadder than this unless you drive back over to the other side of I-630 (south).

There you will see the building of a meaningful Children's Library that sits in a neighborhood filled with kids and families who desire to enjoy the comforts of a healthy neighborhood. And, yet there is a lingering sadness because this picture is not so perfect. In fact, it has a scarlet stain that is so illusive that unless you see it, you will miss it and it's potential great harm to this community. It is the stain of the foot prints of a Technology Park that hopes to displace these thriving residents from their homes, this new library and their neighborhood to build a Technology Park on top of their dreams and future.

It is not true that the Forest Hills Neighborhood or the other two neighborhoods (Oak Forest and Fair Park) are blighted, unless one uses the definition I heard while listening to Dr. Mindy Fullilove, Columbia University Professor and writer of "Root Shock: How Tearing Up City Neighborhoods Hurts America and What We Can Do About It.". Dr. Fullilove proposes that blighted really means to those who use it, "not mine". In other words, as long as something is not yours and you don't see the value in it, like someone else's home, it is ok (or at least one tries to justify that it is ok) to destroy it, redefine it, and mistreat it because after all it is "blighted" (doesn't belong to me).

So, as I drove in front of what use to be Ray Winder Field, once partly owned by the city of Little Rock ow owned by UAMS, I almost considered the demolition project a blighted area in my community. But, wisdom reminded me that more than blighted it is a sad abuse of power and wealth. It is a representation of misuse, abuse, and disregard to people, their history and their community. I felt more like it was rape. Taking something that once belonged to me, my neighbors, and this city and forcefully using it for a selfish purpose against our will. I could hear the cries of anguish as I looked at the piles of the body of Ray Winder Field that now lies broken by the evil hands that raped it of its dignity and meaning for itself and this community.

No, this sadness is a RAPING that I hope to bring to the attention of the authorities that can bring to justice the rapist and the perpetrators that continue to rape communities. Rapist that try to prevent communities to develop and enjoy the economic stability and power as do they. But, as with most rapist, the victims are "blighted" not because of how they look, but because the rapist sees no human or moral value in the victim.

Now, that type of ideology to be what I consider "blighted" because that is certainly not me nor my ideology.

I wonder why a Tech Park that would "serve the community" isn't being built there as a towering presence of hope that springs eternal? There is a way to preserve the history of my neighborhood while arresting that rapist mentality and redeeming itself through an act of humanity and respect for the one it once sought to hurt: Build the Tech Park where Ray Winder Field once sat off of I-630 (instead of a parking lot) honoring the legacy of an American baseball field where playing fairly is celebrated!

Peace and Blessings,
Anika

FROM JOYCE WILLIAMS

Anika,

Thank you for your timely, sensitive message herein. Death and destruction to neighborhoods, families and individuals is what happens when people are seen as disposable and in the way of goals set by those with political power and control of wealth and resources. There is a point of no return when those who have lost their moral compass and have no consicious temporarily rule. Dictators like Assad, mass murderers, Voldermort, and others who couldn't care less about the greater good have lost their way as have those who decided (in private) a long time ago what they were going to do to neighborhoods and families in Little Rock. They wear suits, have great material resources, plan in private and make every effort to present a civilized public face but have proven they are will run their planned agenda at the expense of the community.

Thanks for caring.

Blessings,
Joyce

[ Subscribe to the comments on this story ]

Tech Park's Mary Good acknowledges City Board's existence

Max Brantley — Thu, 21 Jun 2012 18:40:00 -0500

City officials weren't happy with the Little Rock Technology Park Authority's dismissive comments Wednesday about a city ordinance passed Tuesday asking more study time and more consideration of non-residential locations for the proposed office building the independent authority wants to build with $22 million, at least, in city sales tax money.

Word got back to the Authority. Late this evening, Chair Mary Good, who was the most dismissive of the Tech Board at Wednesday's meeting, distributed a letter to all concerned. She and her board still intend to focus first on choosing the best residential neighborhood to tear down for the office building, but she says they will then put aside that selection for a study of other sites and not consider the neighborhood site further unless strong neighborhood support builds.

Her letter:

Mayor Stodola and Members of the Board:

This is a response to the ordinance you adopted on June 19 regarding the selection of a site for a Technology Park in the City of Little Rock. The Technology Park Authority Board will follow the provisions of the ordinance.

These statements will outline and clarify key steps that will follow:

1. Three potential sites for the Technology Park were identified prior to the appointment of the members of the Technology Authority Board, and they are currently being evaluated. The engineering study that is underway along with the site consultant report will allow the board to identify one of the three as the best potential site of the three being evaluated. These analyses will provide valuable information to the members of the Tech Park Board and also to the public regarding the factors that are relevant in choosing a site for a successful technology park.

2. Once the best site has been identified, that site and the other two will be taken off the table and will not be given further consideration unless there is substantial neighborhood interest and support for further consideration. We ask that any such interest be communicated to the Technology Park Board through either At-Large City Director Joan Adcock or the Ward Director in whose ward the site is located.

3. The Board will proceed to consider and evaluate other potential sites as outlined in the City Board’s ordinance.

I trust this information is helpful, and thank you for your service to the citizens of Little Rock.

Sincerely yours,

Mary L. Good, Chair
Little Rock Technology Park Board

Not exactly warm and fuzzy.

NOTED: Mary Good continues to misstate a critical fact about site selection process. Three sites were identified before the Tech Board was chosen. But one was dropped and another was substituted later, by Board member Dickson Flake. That's the Forest Hills neighborhood across I-630 from UAMS, seat of hot opposition to the plans. Rohn Muse, a neighbor who's led the We Shall Not Be Moved coalition, took the microphone at Tuesday's Board meeting to again correct Good on her continued misstatement that the three sites under review were all products of a consultant's earlier study. Good apparently didn't hear Muse, any more than she heard the board's debate and vote on the ordinance, which indicated a clear board interest in a meaningful search for other alternatives. Good indicated Wednesday she wasn't much interested in that. The city's $22 million apparently has some persuasive power after all. Whether it will in the final site choice remains to be seen.

If I had to wager, I'd still predict the Chamber of Comerce, which has been salting Authority Board audiences with shills for its plan to take a residential neighborhood close to UAMS, will continue to build support among ~~slum~~landlords in the neighborhood happy to unload their rental property. The Authority will find fatal flaws, particularly driving distance, in any other site recommended. It will "reluctantly" decide that a neighborhood, preferably Forest Hills, must go. It will provide information that a significant number of owners of property favor the idea. Those that don't? Tough. Here come the bulldozers and eminent domain. (And, I should add, a lawsuit challenging constitutionality of use of condemnation for a building to be leased to private enterprise.)

Question: Why is Joan Adcock the designated go-to? It's not a confidence inspirer. (UPDATE: She reportedly told a neighborhood meeting Thursday evening that they had "won." Just because Joan Adcock said it doesn't make it so. Be aware of at-large city directors bearing supposed gifts. They work first for the business establishment, which is driving the Tech Park bus. Director Kenneth Richardson remains properly skeptical. No one is safe until the board passes his no-condemnation ordinance for private homes.)

High irony: Somebody is in the field with a poll this week sampling Little Rock male voter sentiment on the city's plans to ask voters to reauthorize some or all of a 3.3-mill property tax for road and drainage work. (If it's like the sales tax campaign, the poll is part of a Chamber of Commerce effort, specific expenses won't be disclosed and there will be a huge financial gratuity to a chamber pet project from the proceeds if the tax passes.)

The questions included:

1) Most important issue facing city today — economy, education, public safety, health care, etc.
2) Are U.S., Ark. and Little Rock moving in the right or wrong direction?
3) Favorable/unfavorable on Mayor Mark Stodola, Little Rock Regional Chamber of Commerce (a sure sign their grubby paws are on this), the Board of Directors.
4) Questions about reauthorizing the 3.3-mill tax: Would it matter in the decision if the city asks for 3 mills, instead of 3.3? Would I be persuaded if I knew this is not a new tax? Do I think passage of the sales tax eliminated the need for a road and drainage tax, since the sales tax included capital money for roads and drainage? Would I be more likely to vote for the tax if it directed a portion of the money for parks and the Zoo?
5) The poll came with a buttload of "push" information, about the work done with the last big bond issue backed by this property tax.

They didn't ask the open-ended question of what it would take for the city to pass this tax. My answer: I happen to generally favor a continuing commitment to roads and drainage so that deferred maintenance doesn't require yet another tap of poor people's pocketbooks at the Taco Bell to pay for it. But the City Board must demonstrate an equal concern for all neighborhoods. It must fix a situation in which the Chamber of Commerce is running a $22 million-going-on-$50-million unaccountable public agency that is slavering to bulldoze poor black people's homes. It must demonstrate a willingness to consider a system of governance that ends the business establishment's stranglehold on policymaking. It, finally, must sign a blood oath that not a single effen dime of the millage would go to the technology park.

But I dream.

[ Subscribe to the comments on this story ]

If I had a hammer, I'd hammer the Tech Park Authority

Max Brantley — Thu, 21 Jun 2012 10:22:53 -0500

Some make the case of overkill here on the Little Rock Technology Park Authority. I invoke the hoary legislative tale of the fox who, against his better judgment, gives a lift to a scorpion over a rain-swollen stream and gets bitten for his generosity. "Sorry, it's just my nature," the scorpion says as they both go down in the flood.

Anyway. I have to add this. Little Rock officials who crafted a conciliatory outreach to neighborhoods Tuesday night at the City Board are none too happy with the Technology Park Authority's go-to-hell response yesterday. Board Chair Mary Good sniffed at the meaninglessness of the Board ordinance calling for a site selection delay. She said the Board had no time to do any site study on its own. She also said anybody with alternate ideas would have to comply with the Authority's criteria, written to favor the neighborhood site that Tech Park creator Dickson Flake has wanted from the first and which Good still clearly seems to prefer. Good sneered, too, yesterday at the work of the UAMS College of Public Health. A class project there illuminated the potential harmful impact on the neighborhood and also revealed some salient facts about a much different land acquistion approach by a Richmond, Va., tech park admired by backers here (gradual, non-residential).

In the end, the city of Little Rock has the hammer. A $22 million hammer. The Tech Park is penniless without city tax money. It can ignore the wishes of poor minority neighborhoods all it wants, but will the City Board turn over the money if the Tech Park Authority continues to operate unaccountably and autonomously and callously?

My word this morning from a city insider who has his finger on the pulse of this debate: "A stronger message will be sent. They just don't get it."

Yep. That was clear enough yesterday when Flake, who does real estate work for the Catholic diocese, told me why one of the proposed neighborhood removal target zones was drawn to omit a Catholic church. It's a "neighborhood stabilizing" institution, he said. Popatop, a major liquor store, was similarly seen by Flake as too vital to be included in a neighborhood removal zone.

Hundreds of homes and an orphanage WERE considered expendable, however.

If homes are not "stabilizing" elements of a neighborhood, I don't know what are. Is it really a neighborhood if no one lives in it? Should you be interested in what some real, live neighbors have to say, read here from the UAMS report.

[ Subscribe to the comments on this story ]

Tech park locations: Development costs equal

Leslie Newell Peacock — Wed, 20 Jun 2012 18:21:06 -0500

If the Little Rock Technology Park Authority was hoping a cost estimate from its civil engineer to clear and prepare a site for a 30-acre tech park would guide its choice of three proposed areas, that hope was dashed today at the Authority board's monthly meeting. Jerry Kelso of Crafton Tull presented his company's estimates for phase 1 of the park, clearing, leveling and installing utilities: $6.3 million for the 40.8 acres encompassing the Methodist Children's Home next to UALR (area 1), $6.9 million for the 39.25 acres just south of 12th street and west of Our Lady of Good Counsel Catholic Church (area 2) and $6.8 million for the 40.8 acres south of I-630, the Forest Hills neighborhood (area 3), adjacent to the Central Arkansas Library System's children's library, under construction.

If people who want to offer up alternative sites to the Authority — which the Little Rock City Board has said the Authority board should consider over the next six months — thought it was going to be easy, their plans may have been dashed as well. The Authority board has instructed members Dickson Flake and Michael Douglas to create a form that spells out all the requirements an alternative site must meet. Will it include a five-minute drive time between partner institutions (now sometimes referred to as "owners")? Will it require 30 acres? We'll see.

Board chair Dr. Mary Good and member Jay Chessir had quite a bit of back and forth, disagreeing over how much time the board should give those who would offer alternative sites to submit their proposals to the board. Good, not surprisingly, is in a rush: she suggested mid-July as a deadline, three weeks from now. Chessir said those who will propose alternate sites will certainly need more time than that to fulfill the board's request for information on the forms ... not yet created ... by Flake and Douglas (who is out of town attending a meeting of the Association of University Research Parks in Boston) and he suggested an Aug. 1 deadline. No action was taken.

Robert Nunn, who signed up to speak at the meeting, noted Good's expressed bewilderment at the lack of trust for the board, and told her it was because the Chamber of Commerce, which does not account for its expenditure of $200,000 in city dollars it receives every year, is "deeply involved." He also pointed out that none of the board members live in neighborhoods that will be affected. "You will not be in danger of losing your homes in your affluent neighborhoods. ... How can you empathize" with those who will, he asked.

Nunn's remarks prompted Chessir to make a little speech about the $200,000 the city pays it in "consulting fees," saying some blog or another put out incorrect information on the chamber's refusal to itemize how its spent, saying the city contract with the board — for economic development — requires quarterly reporting and an annual audit and he could find it at City Hall. (See the open line item below for Max's correction of Chesshir's smear of the reporting here. In short, the documents he claims as proof of disclosure are window dressing, just like tonight's Tech Board action. This Board spit on the city board action last night and is moving full speed ahead to demolish a residential neighborhood. Any consideration of other sites will just be for show. — mb)

Dr. Creshelle Nash of UAMS College of Public Health and Ashley Bachelder, a student at both the college and the Clinton School for Public Service, presented a study students made of how tech parks have been developed in other places and the results of interviews they had with 15 randomly selected residents of the targeted neighborhoods. The park in Richmond so frequently held up as a model for Little Rock's did not take over neighborhoods but parking lots in public ownership and three houses, and did that in phases. It echoed information Douglas passed on to the board via speakerphone earlier from research park convention: He told the board that he'd learned there that "we are relatively unique in trying to establish a park in a populated area."

Other information from the Public Health/Clinton school study,"Community Views: A Service-Learning Project": African-Americans are in the majority in the three targeted areas, and a high percentage — 49 percent in the area 1, 42 percent in the area 2 and 35 percent in the area south of I-630 had attended college for a while.

It also found that houses in areas 1 and 2 both were 53 percent owner-occupied, and 44 percent owner-occupied in area 3, number the Authority board expressed some doubt in.

After the presentation, Chair Good noted that a sample of 15 people was "not enough to take to the bank," a fact Nash acknowledged, saying it was what was possible in the classroom situation. Chesser (good cop) said he was proud of the students for taking the time to do the study.

After the meeting, state Sen. Joyce Elliott expressed surprise that the board won't be doing its own research into alternate sites, rather than relying on the input of the public, which does not have the resources the board has.
She noted language in Kumpuris' ordinance last night suggests the city wants the board to participate in the search for alternatives.

That ordinance states:

Section 1. The Board of Directors requests that the Central Arkansas Technology Park Authority 17 engage in a six month extensive study on the selection of a site for the park to be located. During that 18 time, the Board of Directors requests that the Authority explore possibilities for sites within the corporate 19 limits of the City of Little Rock, Arkansas, or on the campuses of the University partners, that can be 20 obtained through the use of any, or all, of its statutory powers.

It also asks the Authority to report to the city and community at the end of the six-month period the "new potential locations that meet the needs of the Authority and fulfill the spirit of this Resolution [now an ordinance]." Good hopes to have everything in the bag before then, she said.l

[ Subscribe to the comments on this story ]