Much has changed since The Wilson Daily Times moved to Downing Street in 1983 (and I had to drive to work instead of walking, as I had done most days back then). But downtown Wilson is reviving, as could be seen in the coffee shop where I sat this morning. A couple of new restaurants have opened, and other signs of life are evident. The strong, bold coffee and the welcoming, continental atmosphere of La Doux provided a relaxed, comforting feel, and the passing walkers added a sense of vitality. These signs of revival are encouraging but not pervasive. Too many storefronts remain vacant, and this economy will make new business ventures (downtown or elsewhere) more difficult. Still, there's much activity downtown. The Wilson Arts Center, Imagination Station, the Edna Boykin Cultural Center, the city's renovations under way at the landmark First Union originally occupied, BB&T's continuing strength, the vibrant county library, restaurants, law offices and all the rest give a vivacity to downtown.
The key, as I've asserted many times, is to bring downtown-area housing back. Too many of the historic bungalows, cottages and other homes have been split into apartments or turned into rental properties. Owner-occupancy and restoration can make this area vibrant again, the heart of the city and a contributor to downtown business ventures. Downtown Development Corp., Preservation of Wilson, some city officials and some persevering homeowners are working to relieve the angina in the heart of Wilson.
A pleasant visit in a downtown shop on a sunny Friday morning makes it all seem possible.
Posts
4 comments:
Residential development is key. However, IMO we are headed down a very slippery slope when we start turning historic homes into businesses. This can set a precedent. Ironic, since we pay people (I say 'we' since it's taxpayer funded) high salaries to market and sell properties as "Residential".
I digress. The reason we are seeing a resurgence of retail in Downtown is because with this economy it makes sense to move downtown. Why? Simple. Free Rent! The taxpayer is paying businesses (via WDDC) $500.00 a Month in rent subsidies for at least one year, maybe two or three. Not a loan, a gift. It all sounds wonderful and pie in the sky, (to the Landlord) but my question would be "what happens when that 'bank' dries up?" If 10,25,50 or 100 businesses decide to move Downtown, all expecting free rent, then what?
Without any cap of income guidelines, i.e., "if you can afford to forego the gift of free rent, then you should", this baby is going to be a big drain.
Anonymous is overlooking the fact that the Downtown Development Corp., which provides rent subsidies (none of it 100 percent of the rent), is supported by a special, supplemental tax on properties in the downtown (commercial) tax district. These property owners voted in this tax as a means of revitalizing the downtown commercial district in the hope that their properties would thereby become more valuable. It seems to me that it's more worrisome that the city and county chose to rebate general tax revenues to the developers of Heritage Crossing shopping center while not offering the same deal to other retail establishments. Downtown rent subsidies are at least available to all comers, and the burden is only on those who own property in the affected district.
From my experience in other cities & towns, I don't believe that residential development is crucial. However, it is crucial that the downtown homes, whether used for business or residential purposes, be maintained with high standards. And, it is crucial that businesses occupy the downtown storefronts -- not churches and limited-use organizations. I have found that restaurants and shops have the largest impact on the vitality of a downtown area.
It's a shame the taxpayer was forced to pick up the multi-Million dollar price tag (and growing) for the Downtown Belk Building. Wilson has its own kind of insider trading. Since it's purchase and conception, there was and is no better example (Downtown) of how to squander public funds and cronyism.
Post a Comment