Condo proposal gets criticism

Full story: Asheville Citizen-Times

Developer Stewart Coleman isn't getting much encouragement for a proposed condominium building that would front park space near City Hall.
Comments
1 - 20 of 53 Comments Last updated Apr 8, 2008
First Prev
of 3
Next Last
Bill Wescott

Hickory, NC

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1
Oct 23, 2007
 
If the Pack Square "Conservancy" has INTEGRITY, they will quickly, totally REJECT "Black Dog Coleman" and his INVASION of the Peoples' Park !

The current City Council, Chamber, and the Downtown Commission are Overseeing the Rapacious DESTRUCTION of Asheville...but their kin can hang out at the Horrific 13 story "Hotel Indigo" and have $20 martinis at the "GODZILLA" Ellington Hotel on Biltmore...a walkable former Community....

Since: May 07

Maiden, NC

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#2
Oct 23, 2007
 
Does the city council really care what any of us think?
ken jarvis

Candler, NC

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#3
Oct 23, 2007
 
If they react to people that think like you asheville would go back to the stone age. Why don't all of you CAVE people get together and pool your resources, then buy every lot in asheville so you can protect it? All you want to do is tell eveyone else how the city should be. If you owned it you would have that right. I personally wish Mr Coleman could sue everyone of you for needless obstruction.

Since: May 07

Maiden, NC

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#4
Oct 23, 2007
 
ken jarvis wrote:
If they react to people that think like you asheville would go back to the stone age. Why don't all of you CAVE people get together and pool your resources, then buy every lot in asheville so you can protect it? All you want to do is tell eveyone else how the city should be. If you owned it you would have that right. I personally wish Mr Coleman could sue everyone of you for needless obstruction.
Hopefully Mr. Coleman will find somewhere else for his project. Fletcher could use some nice, new, big, overpriced condos.
barry

Greenville, SC

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#5
Oct 23, 2007
 
This is a little confusing to me - I attended this hearing, and I was under the impression that Mr. Coleman was talking about the possibility of moving his building right ONTO Marjorie Street, still fronting onto the park, not across the street onto the parking lot. Marjorie Street is the proposal that the Downtown Commission is considering (see Cecil Bothwell's article online at MountainX.com ), and this is the first I've heard of any parking lot plan. Is this my confusion, Mark Barrett's confusion, or a confusion that conveniently plays into Mr. Coleman getting his "Parkside" lot quietly, without any public outrage? If I'm wrong, I apologize profusely, but after watching these things progress, one wants as much clarity as possible.
hauntedheadnc

United States

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#6
Oct 23, 2007
 
I don't see what's wrong with having residential development on the edges of the park at all. Having residents overlooking a street or a park has been proven to lower crime. I do not like the way this deal came about though. I'd rather a developer come along with a proposal for parkside development that does not involve buying parkland from county commissioners who don't realize they're selling it.
Gordon Smith

Newton, NC

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#7
Oct 23, 2007
 
People,

The central problem is that the land was sold despite the fact that it's a public park. It's public land, not for private use. Next you'll want the feds to sell our national parks to build theme parks.

Stewart Coleman is certainly trying to butter his bread, that's for sure. He donated to the campaigns of Bill Russell, Jan Davis, and Dwight Butner.
ken jarvis

Candler, NC

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#8
Oct 23, 2007
 
Gordon Smith wrote:
People,
The central problem is that the land was sold despite the fact that it's a public park. It's public land, not for private use. Next you'll wantth the feds to sell our national parks to build eme parks.
Stewart Coleman is certainly trying to butter his bread, that's for sure. He donated to the campaigns of Bill Russell, Jan Davis, and Dwight Butner.
As I read it, the building is not going to be on park land, just next to park land, a big difference. You don't seem to mind the beautiful Hayes & Hopson building. It's closer to the park than the proposed building will be. Second, are you saying that Mr Coleman is a dishonest citizen because he donated money to candidates he supports? Did you donate money to any candidate? If so, does that mean you are dishonest? You always seem to hold those you disagree with to a different standard than you do for yourself.Kind of hippocritical isn't it? That is the same thing you did with your LEEDS requirements for everyone but you. Let us hear your answer to these questions.
Unaffiliated Voter

Morganton, NC

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#9
Oct 23, 2007
 
mlc9852 wrote:
<quoted text>
Hopefully Mr. Coleman will find somewhere else for his project. Fletcher could use some nice, new, big, overpriced condos.
the market for overpriced condos is weak in Fletcher.
Unaffiliated Voter

Morganton, NC

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#10
Oct 23, 2007
 
Gordon Smith wrote:
People,
The central problem is that the land was sold despite the fact that it's a public park. It's public land, not for private use. Next you'll want the feds to sell our national parks to build theme parks.
Stewart Coleman is certainly trying to butter his bread, that's for sure. He donated to the campaigns of Bill Russell, Jan Davis, and Dwight Butner.
Less government owned property would be an admirable goal for the citizens.
Gordon Smith

Newton, NC

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#11
Oct 23, 2007
 
Oh kenny,

The Stewart Coleman group bought public parkland. The Pack Conservancy's Deed stipulates the land can be used only for public purposes, so they can't build there anyway and never should have been offered the weird, cut-rate deal. Now the group offers to give the city land that the public already owns in exchange for more property down on Marjorie St.? Based on information that isn't available to the public because it happened in a closed session of Council? I'd like to know a lot more about the whole scheme.

I didn't say he was dishonest, ken. I just said he's laid money down on certain candidates he believes will best serve the interests he believes are important. Fair enough, yes? One of the issues he believes is important is constructing an enormous condo on the gem of our city center.

Coleman and his people get so huffy whenever someone points this stuff out.

Want to have coffee and see that I'm a person like you? No pressure, I just don't like seeing you so upset every time I mention LEED certification for commercial construction or describe the Big Development and Republican donors to the Russell, Davis, Butner trio.
hauntedheadnc

United States

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#12
Oct 23, 2007
 
Unaffiliated Voter wrote:
<quoted text>
Less government owned property would be an admirable goal for the citizens.
You're right. Parks are for sissies. Asheville should be manlier and sell City-County Plaza to someone who wants to build a rendering plant. That'll learn 'em!
hauntedheadnc

United States

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#14
Oct 23, 2007
 
Liberals Sux wrote:
<quoted text>
I thought the were for the bums, drug dealers and users who have taken them over.
Why in heaven's name would that upset you so, though? Seems like anything that would make the parks less desirable would be good in your eyes. Maybe it will get to the point that the city will sell the parks to developers just to get rid of the problems. I mean, wouldn't you like that?

Golly, but you're so hard to read sometimes. I feel like I don't even know you anymore!

*weep*

“Why do ya need to know that?”

Since: Feb 07

Leicester

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#16
Oct 23, 2007
 
Wow...that certainly was shocking!! So not.......That is extremely predictable of you, LS. Try to shock us, again.

Thats common sense. I think it was wrong, too.
Gordon Smith

Newton, NC

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#17
Oct 24, 2007
 
Liberals Sux and Dunnin,

Elaine Lite was the only City Council Candidate to publicly protest the land sale.

Looks like y'all have at least one view in common. The difference is that no one had to drag it out of her, she went out and took a stand.

“Why do ya need to know that?”

Since: Feb 07

Leicester

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#19
Oct 24, 2007
 
Gordon Smith wrote:
Liberals Sux and Dunnin,
Elaine Lite was the only City Council Candidate to publicly protest the land sale.
Looks like y'all have at least one view in common. The difference is that no one had to drag it out of her, she went out and took a stand.
We played "witches" when I was a kid. We cast spells on boys,(evil things they were) and on each other. Thats no way to act if you seriously want anyone to believe you are serious about what you believe in.

And before I get mauled by those who believe in witches, be proud of whatever you are. There are just certain ways one should behave when running for a position in government. Dont know if many of the others running as well understand that one, either, but thats the way I see it.
Gordon Smith

Newton, NC

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#20
Oct 24, 2007
 
If you think protesting an illegal sale of public parkland is foolish, then we have different views on the responsibilities of citizenship.

“Why do ya need to know that?”

Since: Feb 07

Leicester

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#21
Oct 24, 2007
 
Gordon Smith wrote:
If you think protesting an illegal sale of public parkland is foolish, then we have different views on the responsibilities of citizenship.
No, I dont think its foolish. I think its illegal to actually SELL the land to start with. However, its the method that was chosen to "protest", Gordon. Get real.

And by the way, the citizens wouldnt have to protest anything if the czars in government knew anything about what they were doing in the first place. Can you at least not agree with me on that one?
Gordon Smith

Newton, NC

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#22
Oct 24, 2007
 
Elaine Lite was the only City Council candidate to protest the illegal sale.

Get real, indeed.
En Fuego

Morganton, NC

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#23
Oct 25, 2007
 
this tiny parcel of land borders public property. It makes sense to have good residential units in that area. Less government owned property is better for the citizens, and residence owners will be increasing the tax base thru outrageous property taxes! Build it!

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

First Prev
of 3
Next Last

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Charlotte Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
NC Who do you support for U.S. Senate in North Car... (Oct '10) 8 min Waco 1909 58,751
Belmont man's art exhibit captures mill era's d... 28 min linthead louie 1
Review: Oxbridge Law Firm The (Sep '13) 10 hr james appiah 3
Biogel Injections (Feb '10) 19 hr LaLa2020 130
looking for smurfs 21 hr inNeedThisWeekOnly 5
I Love Black Women (May '11) Wed chalk boy 238
Trolls posting "Southerner" threads Wed Whinn 12
•••
•••
Charlotte Dating

more search filters

less search filters

•••

Charlotte Jobs

•••
Enter and win $5000
•••
•••

Charlotte People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

•••

Charlotte News, Events & Info

Click for news, events and info in Charlotte
•••

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]
•••