Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use Development topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Residents press Saint Francis council on Triangle redevelopment and TIF; aldermen say no formal PUD yet
Summary
Multiple residents urged the council to slow or reshape a Triangle redevelopment, warning that a TIF financing approach and a primarily residential build could shift tax burdens and deliver lower long-term tax yield than commercial uses; aldermen responded that no formal PUD has been filed and that residential is expected to be 25–30% of the project.
Several residents used the public-comment period to ask the council for more input and transparency about a proposed Triangle redevelopment near Lake Michigan, arguing the city should preserve green space and be wary of using a tax-increment financing (TIF) district for primarily residential projects.
At the podium, a resident who identified his address as 3900 South Kirkwood Avenue told the council residents are not opposed to new development but want more say and warned that past administrations moved "full steam ahead" on projects that some neighbors opposed. Carol Rocco, who said she is from 4020 South Shannon Avenue, urged restraint and said the lakefront had been "a source of irritation" and that other, smaller lakefront uses might better serve the community.
Sheila Semero, speaking for Community for the Triangle, laid out a fiscal concern: she said a TIF "shifts tax burden in the short term" because new property tax revenue inside a TIF is diverted to repay development costs and is not available to schools or other taxing jurisdictions until the TIF closes. "Residential development is the weakest revenue generator in a TIF," she said, citing Urban Land Institute research to argue that commercial or mixed-use development typically yields more tax revenue per acre than high-density residential projects.
A separate commenter (who identified a website, communityfortriangle.com) and Mary Haven also urged the council to weigh the long-term character and value for Saint Francis and encouraged civil engagement in the process.
On the dais, Alderman Sean (first name used in the transcript) directed residents to materials on his Alderman web page and to consultant analyses of TIFs, reiterating that the council had seen only a preliminary concept and that a formal planned-unit development (PUD) had not yet been submitted. "The residential portion is 25 to 30% only of that entire development," he said, adding that other elements under discussion could include retail, a bank, a coffee shop, and possibly a new library in an earlier concept that was later removed.
Alderman Don pushed back on a public comment that accused the council of dishonesty, saying he had served many years on the council and took umbrage at the charge; he urged civility from both sides. The council did not take formal action on the Triangle during the meeting and repeatedly said the project is still at a preliminary stage.
Next steps: residents and councilmembers expect more formal filings (a PUD) and public hearings before any final decisions on the Triangle redevelopment or TIF financing are made.
