As I said last week when this item was added to the City Council agenda, this new back 3-acre piece is being added into the sale of the front piece (2 acres and the Emory building) and I just don't like the manner in which it is being done.
- I voted against putting this piece of property up for sale on Monday and not on the merit of it being excess property that the proceeds could go towards green space or redevelopment funds for another corner of the city but on the principal of the details of the sale. The Emory medical building at 4555 N. Shallowford property has been on the market since July and the bid opening date was just pushed back, it appears to join another piece up for sale. City Council announces on Monday that 4553 Shallowford buildings sitting on the three acres behind the 4555 building is now for sale and the city tacks the sale into the sale of the 4555 building bid whereby the combined bids will be opened on the 4th of December.
- Having the back parcel advertised for just two weeks, compared to the other parcel for many months seems wrong. I am able to see that not one additional person or company had downloaded the sale packet for the new property since we approved the additional land sale, therefore, I question if this larger parcel which is prime for redevelopment is getting the visibility that it should?
- The back parcel is larger than the front, yet it is a tack on the smaller property offering with no advertising together that this is a large 5-acre piece of land.
- The formal zoning for both pieces is Planned Development whereby the city intended to put civic spaces there (if we didn't find a good city hall somewhere else) therefore the land has little or no zoning allowances without coming back to the city to rezone.
- The City had no price on the front piece and stated an asking price of $2.268 Million for the back. Why?
- Without zoning being in place someone might buy it for future townhomes when maybe the desires of the community and council prefer a 5-story medical or office complex? Council hasn't discussed this matter, therefore, buyer beware.
- This real estate transaction may be fully legal as it is being advertised but I believe it has the appearance of not being completely above board, not transparent enough for me; therefore, I raised many of these questions on Monday and voted against it as did Mayor-elect Deutsch.
- It will be interesting to see the bids, who knows maybe the DeKalb County School System would want to buy this property for a new school?
City of Dunwoody proposes sale of 5 acres of medical office buildings close to 285.
2 comments:
"I question if this larger parcel which is prime for redevelopment is getting the visibility that it should?"
Any broker doing a search for +/-5AC Dunwoody will pull up this listing. Visibility is a function of potential buyer's need. Five or so acres is certainly rare in Dunwoody, so it will stand out to anyone looking.
I appreciate your desire for transparency, always - Just not sure if there is an issue here?
Just to learn more about this process, I notice that the city owns the 5 acres. Is this normal? I assume that the city relies upon lease/rental payments from these properties? More park space would be nice--but I'm assuming that financially this is not feasible(?).
I live nearby; I can't fathom anyone really clamoring for medical offices, but the alternative (apartments/townhouses) would bring more residential, and the schools supposedly can't handle this. Do you know if the city has any particular ideal tenants for these properties?
Post a Comment