Currently
75°
Clear

Advertisement





News

CLASSIFIEDS


Advertisement


Free Ad

Place an ad
in print and online, 24/7 for free, select the Clean Sweep option. Unable to submit Real Estate, Services, and Business Investements at this time.

Get a Subscription


Map the Valley


Subscriber/
Reader Services

Subscribe Now
Contact Customer Service



Redevelop options sought for downtown

Hanford says it wants to stay ahead of the recession, not behind, when it comes to downtown revitalization. Assuming the real estate market may be near the bottom, city officials agreed it's a good time to consider ways to expand the funding base for future improvements in the historic downtown business district.

On Tuesday the Hanford City Council directed the staff to hire a consultant to analyze whether residential neighborhoods and commercial zones surrounding downtown can be deemed blighted and considered for improvements as part of an expansion of the city's downtown redevelopment area.

Expansion of the project area could expand the tax increment base for projects in the downtown core, officials say.

The tax increment financing uses future gains in taxes to finance improvements. Generally speaking, the lower the base-year values, the better.

"The lower the property tax base, the more room for tax increment growth in the future and (so) the greater the opportunity to fund economic development and revitalization projects in aging commercial areas, including the downtown core, in the city," Deputy City Manager Hilary Straus told the council.

Hiring a consultant to conduct a full analysis of the feasibility to expand the area and actually start up the expansion could cost about $175,000, Straus said.

In 2004, Hanford formed the redevelopment area as a way to bring resources to long-term revitalization of the historic downtown.

The existing 333-acre project area encompasses most of downtown. It runs from 11th Avenue to the west, 9 1/4 Avenue to the east, Fourth Street to the south and segments of Center and Elm streets to the north. The area also includes 42 acres of unincorporated county territory.

Straus said, depending on what the analysis finds, the city could expand the project area to the west or the east or both.

The benefit, Straus said, is that tax dollars raised in the expanded area could only be used in the original project area confined to downtown but not the other way around, so the intent of the program -- to improve downtown -- is protected.

That was exactly what council members wanted to hear. Councilman Joaquin Gonzales voiced his support.

Vice Mayor Dan Chin also supported the idea saying the council must be proactive when it comes to future planning.

"In this economic time, we have the obligation to check all the sources to see if there are ways to prepare us to be in front of the growth, not waiting for it to happen," Chin said.

The reporter can be reached at 583-2429.

(Sept. 2, 2009)

POST A COMMENT

 

Hanfordsentinel.com encourages readers to engage in civil conversation with their neighbors. Comments that are submitted are not posted to the site immediately. They go into a queue to be moderated and may take several hours to be reviewed, particularly if they are posted after normal office hours.

We reserve the right to remove comments in total that violate our code of conduct. If you want to report a violation, please e-mail editor@HanfordSentinel.com

For more information please read our Terms of use, and Rules of the Road.

 


Please log in to post comments
*Member ID:
*Password:
  Forgot Your Password?
 
If you don't have an account you can create one for free by clicking the link below.
CREATE ACCOUNT
The following are comments from the readers. In no way do they represent the views of the Hanford Sentinel

Time 4 Change wrote on Sep 2, 2009 7:15 PM:

" I'd ask if the consultant study from a few years back that addresses much of what's mentioned in this story is so outdated or incomplete that the city needs to cough up more consultant fees for yet another study? I remember that the results of the previous study pointed to taking back management of the Kings County Courthouse Grounds, developing a Downtown Center/Core of Activities based upon those grounds combined with the Civic Auditorium grounds.
Would the combined knowledge of Mr. Straus, existing city staff, the Economic Restructuring Committee of Main Street Hanford and the new, yet un-named Mainstreet Hanford Director be enough to get the job done, saving the city a bunch of money and putting the local entities to work? The ER committee could use a task and goal, here's a chance to put the meat and 'taters on teh plate and get to work! "

Watchdog Fred wrote on Sep 3, 2009 5:59 AM:

" So in order to protect the downtown segment we are encompassing 42- acres of county property. Did you get that folks county property to guarantee a complex and improved downtown area.

I would think the county might have a word or two to say about that or is their the good ol' gal/boy at work on this issue as well?

For years now there has existed county islands in the city that the city clearly did not wish to be responsible for concerning police and fire to name a few. Now that same city is going to encompass this unserviced area to get more funds for there downtown pet project.

A case in which you can clearly have it both ways. Will there be new infrastructure in those county areas, underground electric, cable, bigger sewers? "

Carl.Spackler wrote on Sep 7, 2009 5:25 PM:

" Fred, the 42 acres is already in the city's general plan. So it's not like they are "taking' something from the county. The land is already planned. I think they are looking for input on new ideas. "

Watchdog Fred wrote on Sep 9, 2009 6:01 PM:

" To: Carl Spackler

Here is a new idea, let's quit filling the pockets of the fat cats in the city and quit doing personal favors based upon personal relationships for those same individuals.

Let us concentrate on the entire city instead of just the downtown focal point. The same people and businesses have been the beneficiaries of the majority of funds from the cities coffers for far too many years.

As Obama said it is time to spread the wealth of all communities. If we must build a million dollar swimming pool why not build it at Coe Park in South Hanford where it would do the most good? A park that has had more recreational baseball played in it than any other park in the city.

Downtown Hanford is not providing support for anywhere but downtown. That was not the plan of the Hanford Founding Father's, but has been the plan for generations of Hanford City Council People.

You say this 42 acres is included in the plan already, so then it is all already incorporated as city land? "

Watchdog Fred wrote on Sep 9, 2009 6:08 PM:

" To: Carl Spackler

When exactly was the land the city yard located on, incorporated into city property. Does that mean the cemeteries, County Fair Grounds are all included in the 42 acre city planned land development?

It seems the city planners pic and choose their incorporations very carefully. Why don't they reach out to Home Gardens and incorporate it, I'm sure there would be a landfall of money for taking on that repsponsibility?

The state and Federal Government both would probably sponsor many grants and funds to incorporate and clean up their sewage and water problems. Not only that, but it would be providing a service to residents who haven't known any to speak of for many years.

At a time when funds are short, job loss is everywhere you look and we are still so concerned about the downtown part of Hanford. But if the county citizens who provide a good shot in the arm to the taxes generated throughout the community don't survive. Downtown may not survive either, even with all its fancy improvements and rehabilitation. "

Watchdog Fred wrote on Sep 9, 2009 6:17 PM:

" To: Carl Spackler

The downtown folks still look down their noses at the large stores on 12th Avenue but this city wouldn't function without their share of those tax dollars being collected at that location.

I don't see anyone rushing to save the blighted corner where Wal~mart was and the declining business for the surviving businesses since it relocated. All problems the city swore would not exist if the new Super Duper Wally World was allowed to come to town. The same city that kept another Retailer from coming to town because it might have a dire affect on Save Mart.

No wonder In-N-Out has no desire to locate in this city? No wonder we don't have a signed deal with Costco/Sam's Club in the offing. Any comparable county to the south has both of them in their mix. When you consider the population in Kings County there is not a box store in the world who shouldn't be battling to get this business.

But then Fresno and Visalia love it when we drive to their box stores to provide our tax money. We'd rather dwell on downtown businesses. "

Carl.Spackler wrote on Sep 10, 2009 1:19 PM:

" Fred: I don't really know how to comment on your essay. It is clear you dislike this city's management, new development, the downtown. You wnat to leapfrong annex a community that is remote, but you seem to dislike the idea of annexing and redeveloping what is essentially a county island. You critisize the city getting help to design an orderly plan for the east side redevelopment but if they don't and do hap-hazard development you want to criticize that too. So what gives Fred?

PS The city didn't block that new grocery store from coming in at 11th and Fargo. Savemart did. "

transplant wrote on Sep 10, 2009 1:25 PM:

" Oh, Fred, you are wrong on so many issues here. You really should do some research before you spout off like you do. I've tried to inform you in the past (you didn't listen) and I'll try again. Maybe some of this will get through.

The "city" doesn't go out to annex property. The property owners come to the City and request to be annexed. Home Gardens is not in the City's "sphere of influence" and is not allowed to be annexed unless it is within that sphere. If there were federal or state money to help fund needed improvements, I'm sure the County would accept it.

The City didn't keep a retailer (I think you mean Ralph's) from locating here. Save Mart filed suit and Ralph's went away. Blame Save Mart, not the City.

I don't believe the 42 acres of County will be included in the redevelopment area. The article just mentions it is within the boundaries.

You really need to show some proof that the city is lining the coffers of ANY downtown business. Your comments are insulting to so many people. "

Alihandero wrote on Sep 10, 2009 6:43 PM:

" I myself, and nearly all of my family, friends, and acquaintances in town, welcome Watchdog Fred's comments and find that we can learn from him and from other online writers here.

Certain online people simply go on repeating their mantra: 'just go to the meetings' and 'don't write about things - do something about it.'

Sure, I do not always automatically agree with everything said, but that simply encourages me to roll up my sleeves and do the good research that is required for a cogent response.

If by 'insulting' transplant means I shouldn't freely read what I want and search for the truth, thicker skin is what I can recommend - or simply don't read those people you consider offensive.

Keep up the good work here and your support of our free expression of our opinions, Hanford Sentinel! "

Deb wrote on Sep 12, 2009 10:14 AM:

" alihandero - it wouldn't be so bad IF some of the things posted weren't based upon dreams of this or that vs reality.

I believe WD has a good heart and wants the best for his community from his perspective.

But, to blantantly state that "Downtown Hanford is not providing support for anywhere but downtown." is about as misinformed as one can be.

So - go do your research - Start with http://www.preservationnation.org/

Learn about exactly what a vitalized downtown brings to a community. There is REAL documented proof that a healthy downtown is vital to any community. "

Alihandero wrote on Sep 13, 2009 5:15 PM:

" Thanks, Deb.

I have been on the website you cited (www.preservationnation.org) multiple times over the past few years and Hanford has, what, two contributions on it (a Feb 2009 Carousel reinstall blurb and a February 2003 political comment from Craig Scharton, executive director, Main Street Hanford).

It still has only those two, plus a brief September / October 2003 mention of Craig in the Newsletter from the National Trust's Western Office. Well whoopy-doo!

It is an organization that advocates the preservation of Americana and states this:

"Our Position on Community Revitalization:
Community revitalization and historic preservation are uniquely compatible principles. When used together, they create sustainable, vibrant places to live work and play."

So what is your point exactly?

We do however agree 100% when you stated:

"I believe WD has a good heart and wants the best for his community from his perspective."

You may not agree or have to read his posts, but he has a perfect right to say what he says and really, don't have to take it upon yourself to correct him now, do you?

Democracy at its best, Deb. "

transplant wrote on Sep 14, 2009 2:09 PM:

" Alihandero,

Fred is insulting when he constantly claims that: city employees are on the take, that business people are receiving personal favors, that the city is lining the coffers of only downtown businesses, that only people born and raised here have a right to an opinion (except you, of course), etc. He makes these statements without any back-up whatsoever and NOTHING to base it on but personal opinion. He should not state it as fact, but as his opinion. It might still be insulting, but at least he's not slandering.

I take it that we can expect to NOT see you correcting anyone in any of the posts hereafter? According to you, we should not be trying to correct any misinformation - or is that only when the misinformation is coming from Fred or you? "

Alihandero wrote on Sep 14, 2009 4:27 PM:

" Hey transplant:

I need to make a correction:

I was responding to Deb's post to me directly and not to you or anyone else.

However, if you find any poster so 'insulting' to you for their opinions here - and that is exactly what they are - you don't have to read them anymore.

Just skip their posts and your feelings will not be hurt.

Democracy at its best, transplant. "

Deb wrote on Sep 15, 2009 11:10 AM:

" Alihandero - My point is that maybe those who disagree with revitalization should visit that site. AND, while I disagree in many ways with how the City and MSH are going about it, they are at least trying... There can be many paths which lead to the same destination.

Besides - my comment was related to Watchdog's comment. I would hope he could visit that site for further enlightenment. "

Alihandero wrote on Sep 15, 2009 6:56 PM:

" Two items to better facilitate communications, Deb:

ITEM ONE

Deb wrote on Sep 12, 2009 10:14 AM:

"alihandero - it wouldn't be so bad IF some of the things posted weren't based upon dreams of this or that vs. reality.
So - go do your research - Start with http://www.preservationnation.org/"

Deb, you were speaking to me, correct?

If you wanted to say this to the Watchdog himself please address him directly and not through your comments to me, OK?

Less confusion, better use of the English language.


ITEM TWO

Deb wrote on Sep 15, 2009 11:10 AM:

"My point is that maybe those who disagree with revitalization should visit that site. AND, while I disagree in many ways with how the City and MSH are going about it, they are at least trying..."

My concern is not to simply make excuses by saying things like "at least they are trying," but to ask the hard questions such as: are their activities #1 effective for all and #2. fair and impartial.

Or does that not matter to you Deb? "

Deb wrote on Sep 16, 2009 6:28 PM:

" Forgive me, Alihandero I have errored. Yes, the one statement was about visitng the website was directed to WDF.

Thanks for the english lesson. I post while doing multiple activities and try to stay below the 200 word count. Sometimes I error and I apologize for that - wouldn't want to accuse you of saying anything you didn't. "

Deb wrote on Sep 16, 2009 6:34 PM:

" Alihandero wrote on Sep 15, 2009 6:56 PM: "My concern is not to simply make excuses by saying things like "at least they are trying," but to ask the hard questions such as: are their activities #1 effective for all and #2. fair and impartial.

Or does that not matter to you Deb? "

Guess you didn't read the rest of my statement - there are multiple paths to the same destination.

But, in all reality Alihandero - MSH has only to answer to it's members - not you the blogger or me the blogger. The TNMP seems to remain successful and growing each year, that's representative of continued approval from the community as a whole.

And I will reiterate - if you want detailed answers ask MSH - ask a board member, ask the staff or as or go to a meeting or write a letter. "

Alihandero wrote on Sep 19, 2009 4:06 AM:

" Deb wrote on Sep 16, 2009 6:34 PM:

"The TNMP seems to remain successful and growing each year, that's representative of continued approval from the community as a whole."

Continued approval? What...?

What about that past official grand jury investigation and list of recommendations, Deb?

After all, the TNMP IS a public event on public streets, Deb.

And I did investigate in the past and got nowhere so I asked for help on this forum.

If of course it's all right with you that I do this, Deb? "

Deb wrote on Sep 20, 2009 3:48 PM:

" Alihandero -

Well, Alihandero - like Walmart says as long as the spending public keeps spending money and walking through the doors, that's the approval.

IF people didn't attend the TNMP and it wasn't so profitable then it would be occuring.

Think about it, Alihandero - the keyword being think. "

Alihandero wrote on Sep 21, 2009 5:00 AM:

" Deb wrote on Sep 20, 2009 3:48 PM:
" Alihandero -
IF people didn't attend the TNMP and it wasn't so profitable then it would be occurring."

Deb, you must have me confused with someone else here who does not 'think,' as you put it.

Profitability was not my point.

If I use your logic I could say that selling drugs is eminently profitable and popular with the people so that's why it's occurring. Nice.

Consider the Grand Jury's investigation IN RESPONSE TO CITIZENS COMPLAINTS AND CONCERNS and its subsequent written official report - did you even read it?

Nah Deb, you just let it go if you want to...but please don't pretend to care about civics and a sense of greater community good and fair play in this case, OK? "




Advertisement


HOT TOPICS

> More Hot Topics


MORE LOCAL NEWS

Lemoore:

    Selma:

    Kingsburg:



      PHOTO GALLERIES

      "More Photos

      Sentinel Photos (195) Albums

      Lemoore Golfing Lessons
      Lemoore Golfing Lessons
      Monday, March, 15 2010
      (5) Photos
      Hanford Youth Baseball Opening Day
      Hanford Youth Baseball Opening Day
      Monday, March, 15 2010
      (8) Photos
      Arbor Day
      Arbor Day
      Monday, March, 15 2010
      (6) Photos

      Reader Submitted (7) Albums

      Vintage Hanford
      Vintage Hanford
      Monday, December, 15 2008
      (1) Photos
      Vacation Photos
      Vacation Photos
      Thursday, November, 20 2008
      (43) Photos
      Events
      Events
      Thursday, November, 20 2008
      (38) Photos

      More



      EMAIL UPDATES

      Sign up today to get all your local headlines delivered to your home or work e-mail address, so you don't miss the latest in breaking and local news.
      E-Mail:
      Daily News Updates
      Breaking News Alerts