Matthews Considers Sale of Downtown Property

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Adam Brooks on October 25, 2009 at 10:28pm

this flyer is being distributed in the downtown area. i know that we have many community leaders on this forum. would you please respond to the points / position of this piece? certainly, it is politically pointed but how do you respond? Jim? AB

Attachments:

• matthews0001.pdf, 997 KB

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Adam Brooks on October 25, 2009 at 11:02pm

According to this flyer, there is a public hearing tomorrow Oct 26th. Does anyone know if it is at the Community Center or at the Town Hall?

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Garry Smith on October 31, 2009 at 12:07pm

Right is Right! Unfortunately this flyer is being perceived for right and wrong reasons. The original intent was to get questions answered. When a proposal is submitted that follows "The Plans" and is only considered for 1 hour at a public meeting, and the proposal that does not follow "The Plans" is motioned to move forward with, you ask questions. Most of the questions have not been responded too. Some have commented, suggesting it was designed to be negative or divide people. That's simply not true and is used in a way to avoid answering the questions.

If one of the proposals follows "The Plans", how is it wrong? If one of the proposals does not follow "The Plans", how is it right? Is it reasonable to ask?

Below is a letter to Matthews Community Leaders from Adam Brooks. Adam recognizes the importance of this location and The Vision the Town has through the Master Plan for the Long Term. This is a responsible approach. If everyone involved would use the material (and only this material) that makes up the Vision, all this probably would not be happening. The Vision is what represents all the people of Matthews, which is the most important factor here!

Should the "1 Hour Plan" be looked at closer, or for more than "1 hour"?

Hopefully everyone involved will take the responsible approach and answer and ask questions. That's a positive, not a negative approach!

The Matthews Leaders should consider responding to the questions.

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Adam Brooks on October 25, 2009 at 10:37pm

Here's the Matthews-Mint Hill Weekly 2009-10-16 edition
http://www.charlottepulse.com/archive_papers/mmhw/mmhw2009_10_16.pdf
It is front page news

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Adam Brooks on October 25, 2009 at 10:46pm

Also see MMHW online 2009-10-23 edition
http://www.charlottepulse.com/archive_papers/mmhw/mmhw2009_10_23.pdf

page 3
"A Matthews developer whose offer on a vacant downtown lot was rejected by town commissioners Oct. 12 is back – and offering more money for the land, where he wants to build a retail and condominium development."
"Commissioners are expected to discuss the new offer at their Nov. 9 meeting"

also see page 10 for editorial responses to the proposed sale.

these are VERY interesting responses from local leaders.

"I am deeply saddened by the shortsightedness of the mayor and the town board." - John Urban

"In my opinion, the facts appear to show a possible pattern of campaign cash for influence." - George Young

"The board took less than one hour to review a plan that was more appropriate and conforming and simply turned their backs to it and tossed it out the window." - Garry Smith

Heated indeed.

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Adam Brooks on October 26, 2009 at 12:08am

This email just sent to Matthews community leaders and media regarding this matter and thread. AB
...................



---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Adam Brooks
Date: Mon, Oct 26, 2009 at 12:06 AM
Subject: Matthews downtown land sale
To: jtaylor@matthewsnc.com, bdixon@matthewsnc.com, sgulley@matthewsnc.com, wkquery@matthewsnc.com, nlafond@matthewsnc.com, mayormyers@matthewsnc.com, jmiller@matthewsnc.com, jackdavisformayor@yahoo.com, tnt6511@carolina.rr.com, higdon@aol.com, JPT@jamestaylor.freeservers.com, jim.taylor@netzero.net, tbwhitley@matthewschamber.com, George Young
Cc: editor@matthewsminthillweekly.com, darryl@parkerweb.com, bcpinfo@brookechaseproperties.com, matthewsfacts@aol.com, Adam Brooks , online@charlotteobserver.com


Matthews Community Leaders--

I am sending this email to Matthews elected officials and community leaders. I say that up front so that you are aware that this email is not exactly custom-written only for you, however, if you are receiving this email, I value your leadership, insight, and feedback on this matter.

There seem to be many perspectives being presented on the sale of this land and also on the two developers that have expressed interest. Before these proposals progress at all, I do hope that everyone takes into full account the desires and will of the people in this community. Certainly, the people (voters) are also closely watching how you, as community leaders, manage the public trust. This land is in the heart of downtown Matthews and will be a significant representation of our community, businesses, vitality, future, history, and VISION. What have Matthews citizens said to our government body about how we desire the downtown land to be developed? We have met with consultants, committees, and participated in meetings enough to convey that, right? We have a master plan for the downtown area of Matthews. We have a long-term plan for what we want this to be. We have VISION in Matthews. Are we certain that we are working toward that VISION? If not, perhaps we should have more community input before we sell or not sell at all until we can better ascertain the desire of the community.

For the record, as a downtown Matthews resident and based on what I have seen so far from the proposals, we can and will do far better for the town of Matthews and its citizens that the proposed Pure Taqueria building. We do not have to settle for this. We do not have to settle at all. We do not have to settle. Why are we even considering this? I am VERY, VERY, VERY concerned about what I am see here. I have taken this topic to a news forum on iMatthews.com, a site that I often reference but am not formally affiliated with, and I encourage you to convey your views on these proposals to the community here.
@ http://www.imatthews.com/forum/topics/matthews-considers-sale-of

I feel that the citizens of Matthews want more information on and say in this matter and will value your opinions to make responsible decisions.
When is the public hearing? How can we continue to best voice our messages?

--
Adam S. Brooks
adam@atonline.com
1+(704)443-TALK (8255)
http://www.AdamBrooks.org

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Nancy (LaFond) Moore on October 26, 2009 at 7:32am

I do not know when that public hearing is; we have a Town Council meeting tonight.

Why do you say we are settling for Pure? It's a great idea. It has a great atmosphere and the food is terrific. It is not a bar. I can see you sitting there with your family. I've told people it's a cross between The Cheesecake Factory and 131 Main. The Cheesecake Factory because of the more upscale atmosphere, 131 Main because of the fresh food and no freezer.

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Adam Brooks on October 26, 2009 at 9:55am

It's a taco bar and I certainly would not consider it on the same level as you. My concerns, however, are not with the business itself, I wish them luck in or out of our town, but the development that has proposed to house it. It is just more of the same light density retail in a downtown that is ready to support more medium density development. Also, the need for more residential options in the downtown area still exists. Yes, even in a down market. AB

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by H. Jack Davis on October 26, 2009 at 5:00pm

Adam,
I'm sure you've received my e-mail by now. It took a little while to get registered on this venue as I was not a member of iMatthews. Thought I had sent a reply earlier but do not see it posted yet so I will try again.

I chose the e-mail and the response to the newspaper as the way to communicate as my business does not have me at a desk during the day and I would not have the time to continue with the back and forth. I need to communicate as effectively as I can with a single - wide range print media....but....I am always available by telephone.

So much has been said and even more implied downline from this that it would be pointless to try to address every issue here. I only ask, during your research, that you understand and find that I have never spoken, nor implied, a negative word or comment about my opponent or his camp and I will not do so.
Others may have their own reasons for their statements and or actions, and I may or may not agree with them, but that does not mean I sent them forth. A good example; when someone destroys or removes one of my campaign signs, I do not blame Jim Taylor. It's just part of the politcal process.

Jack Davis,
Candidate for Mayor of Matthews
tnt6511@carolina.rr.com
704 309-6564

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Adam Brooks on October 26, 2009 at 8:28pm

Jack, thank you for your response. My main concern is that the elected officials must remember to follow the voice of the community, including the master plan, in whatever direction this issue flows. This single-story taco bar / restaurant is not what the citizens of Matthews have envisioned for that property. If neither proposal fits the community well, that's fine and we shouldn't agree to either plan.
Adam Brooks

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Adam Brooks on October 26, 2009 at 12:20am

From the 2009-10-12 Board of Commissioners Meeting Minutes
http://matthewsnc.com/html/oct12.html

111 Matthews Station Street --
(1) Brookchase Properties Offer to Purchase (Documents added 10/8/09)
(2) Pure Taqueria (Updated 10/9/09)

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Nancy (LaFond) Moore on October 26, 2009 at 7:23am

Hi Adam,

Thanks for your e-mail and for bringing this topic to iMatthews.

I am not going to go into all the details here, because it is a very convoluted topic. I will thank you for your reference to it being politically pointed. In fact, it is politically motivated. Don't believe everything you read -- especially when it is prepared and disseminated by a "disgruntled" commissioner whose perspective on all things Matthews is negative and conspiratorial. (I don't have time for that behavior; I think people should have more important things to do.)

It is my opinion that the Smith proposal is being used as a political ploy by a mayoral candidate's camp to make Matthews residents question the capability, intentions, integrity, etc., of the more qualified mayoral candidate. As they say, some people will say and do anything to win.

I do, however, have to respond to your referencing Mr. Young's implication of cash for votes. Mr. Young may find himself the party to a libel lawsuit -- he is walking a fine line. One contributor who is pointed out in Mr. Young's propaganda has contributed to both the Taylor and the Davis campaign; yet he is only being tied to Taylor. Why is that? I would guess because Mr. Young didn't do his research. Mr. Young also states that Mr. Davis NEVER voted for eminent domain. Again, he needs to do his research. When he does, he will find a "Yes" vote from Mr. Davis on eminent domain.

I encourage everyone to read the lines, not between them. Between the lines, at least in this election, is lies and innuendo. As I stated at last week's forum, this issue (Pure/Smith) has brought out the worst in people and I am disgusted by it. I am seeing people behave in ways that are surprising to me and it is very disturbing.

One last note: One main reason I support Jim Taylor is because I TRUST him. Keep "trust" in mind when you go to the polls next week.

▶ Reply to This

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• 3
• 4
• Next ›
• Page