The Horsham Land Reuse Authority is closing in on the homestretch for approval of a redevelopment plan for 862 acres of shuttered Willow Grove air base.
On Wednesday night, the board’s consultant, RKG Associates, presented a final view of what the property could look like dotted with 1,416 mixed-use residences, a 13-acre aviation museum, a 40-acre middle school, a robust town center and regional recreational area, an estimated 70 housing units for the homeless and a 133-acre office park expected to create more than 7,000 jobs – and a $457 million annual payroll - upon build out.
The culmination of a “close to final” plan, according to HLRA Chairman William Whiteside, has led the board to its last hurdle before approving the reuse blueprint at its March 21 meeting: Public comment. For the next 30 days, the community can share their comments with the HLRA via email or by calling Horsham Township at 215-643-3131.
A handful of the several dozen in attendance Wednesday questioned why the seven-acre parcel proposed for the homeless was situated near recreational space and the area adjacent to the middle school.
HLRA Executive Director Mike McGee said it was important to “integrate” the homeless into the community and consultant Russell Archambault said the area near the main gate, off of Privet Road, is the only parcel with access to public transportation.
The question left unanswered is how the nearly $145 million in combined public and private infrastructure costs – including $10 million for roads, $15 million to raze buildings, $17 million to demolish the runway and $60 million for water and sewer lines – will be funded.
“How this all gets paid for is yet to be determined,” Archambault said.
The bigger question perhaps is if area taxpayers will be saddled with the cost of removing the runway for an airport it firmly rejected. McGee said a military base redevelopment project in Glenview, Ill. was expected to cost $23 million for runway removal, but was whittled down to $3 million because the materials were used to construct new roads.
“The taxpayers will pay – federal taxpayers,” McGee said.
Typically, McGee said the cost of necessary improvements is deducted from the land value paid to the government upon property acquisition.
“I firmly believe the value of the property is a negative number,” McGee said.
Ultimately, the purchase price for the land will be negotiated between the HLRA and the government with upgrades and environmental impacts all factored in, he said.
HLRA board member Steven Nelson said he was concerned that the cost projections were estimated too low and would be much higher.
"My fear is that this is going to go to the Navy with sort of half of the information," Nelson said. "I think this lacks some critical information."
While the board took no action Wednesday, McGee reaffirmed his hope that the HLRA’s intent to acquire the property through an economic development conveyance be included in the plan set to be approved and submitted to the federal government by March 31. The Navy will decide how the property is transferred, McGee said, noting that the government could sell the land at a public sale, meaning that Horsham could only "control" the final development outcome by virtue of its zoning.
An economic development conveyance, on the other hand, would require “some sort of upfront payment,” as well as a commitment of future revenues, but would give the community “maximum flexibility,” according to Archambault, who, along with his firm, RKG Associates, has overseen 50 military base redevelopment projects.
Described previously as a type of “layaway,” McGee said the notion of an economic development conveyance – in which the HLRA could serve as the site’s master developer – in no way encumbers future boards or local government to follow that protocol.
“Right up until the deeds are transferred,” McGee said of the two- to five-year process, “we can always back out.”
Did you know that the Bucks County Airport Authority offered Horsham Township $5000 per year (No, that's not a misprint!) to operate their airport?!? $5000.00!! That's it! And for kicks and giggles, public airport operations pay NO LOCAL TAXES directly to host municipalities. Not a dime! So explain to us how Horsham maintains its schools, its operatiing budget - which would be required to provide police, fire and EMS services to any muni airport - and its current tax base in the face of a $700K hole in its tax stream???? ANSWER: a larger and constantly growing airport operation, which would be the only way to generate sufficient tax revenue from ancillary airport operations like fees and business/sales taxes. Cargo operations, maintainence facilities, passenger fees and taxes, car rentals, terminal operations, etc., etc. etc. Now ... How's that nice, quiet industrial park looking? Does it look good to you, because you're just "hanging out" then going home to peace and quiet?? How do you think that would look, sound, and smell to those of us living here in Horsham??? Let me guess ... You couldn't care less.
http://horsham.patch.com/articles/h-h-could-lose-650k-in-federal-impact-aid
But, I know this isn't a dream....and reality will leave us with not a single shred (other than the museum) of evidence that NAS WIllow Grove was ever there, or the Pitcarins for that matter. Instead we will have houses that people from this area (especially the younger group) can't afford to buy.
The homeless vet application included a detox center. But that application was rejected early because they did have the required "endorsement" or partnership from a required Government agency. (At least that's how I remember it.) I thought the homeless vet conveyance would have been ideal, detox center and all, simply because it would have been a perfect way - in my opinion - to give back to these warriors. I was much disappointed in the rejection of that particular application. Other than that the HLRA has a very good strategy for ensuring the homeless conveyance - if workable (something still under evaluation and negotiation) - will fit in with the rest of the surrounding development. And that conveyance is not a done deal yet.
http://largo.wtsp.com/news/news/homeless-shelter-neighbors-frustrated-sheriff/70048 www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2007-11-18-homeless-offenders_N.htm
Here are Horsham Crime stats I am posting them for everybody. http://www.usa.com/horsham-pa-crime-and-crime-rate.htm Unfortunately you can only get data from 2009 back. (This is way longer then 8 months back so you may deem it also irrelevant) As we can see these are pretty low, if we compare them Philadelphia http://www.usa.com/philadelphia-pa-crime-and-crime-rate.htm I presume this is why Bpv "overpays" to live in the suburbs. It turns out that they are not the only person to leave the big city for safer pastures. http://marclombardi.wordpress.com/about/ I can't speak for Bpv but I am concerned about my property value decreasing, even with no crime increase, it is peoples perception of an area that drives house prices. But if crime does increase and it is a factual possibility, no matter how slim, that increased crime, is a risk to my children's safety. Marc as you clearly live in Abington and have no children attending school in Horsham, I find the weight of anything you say to do with Our township severely reduced.
I did read the HLRA website to find out what Bvp mentioned. http://www.hlra.org/media/8039/draft%20homeless%20submission%20web%20(feb%2015).pdf If you scroll to page 6 on the PDF (actual page 8 I believe) you can see that for Emergency shelter and Transitional housing The report indicates no additional need in Montgomery County For Permanent Housing Montgomery County has 155 permanent housing beds for families and individuals, but only needs 148. Whereas Bucks County needs beds for all 3 categories. So Bucks gets to avoid the time and cost of it's own LRA process, but reaps the benefit of Horshams? Is this then not a clear case for proportional representation, of land to bed use? If Bucks has a small part of land, then they should get the same proportion of homeless housing. For example If 5% of the land was Bucks then only 5% of the homeless housing should be for Bucks. Also can you help with this question, will Bucks County Taxes-payers be chipping in along with Horsham ones? Mike, to me it seems like Bucks County is back to the same NIMBY tactic they did for the Airport. Bucks County Airport Authority wants a new Airport but not in Bucks County thank-you. Now Bucks County wants Homeless Housing but AGAIN not in Bucks County!
Additionally, I believe my message was clear -- that bpv's comments were bigoted remarks. Again, that's not name calling so I'm not sure the relevance of your comment -- and that fact that you can't understand that explains why you (and others) cannot understand that homeless does not equate criminal. My complaint was that drawing a parallel to an article about one instance of an uptick in crims in Florida was not relevant to the discussion here. They're not the same people and not the same place. Snobbery and class warfare are not easily disguised. If you want to dismiss the weight of my words based upon where I live you have that right. It doesn't make what I'm saying any less valid.
I'm not particularly crazy about the idea of Norristown Rd connecting directly to Maple Rd. The speed limit is already ignored by a lot of drivers already. But the road itself I think (but I'm no traffic expert) can handle a reasonable amount of additional traffic. As to a traffic study, I would imagine they would have had to include Maple Ave effects, just like they did for all the other roads. But I'm not really sure about that. However you can find that out by asking the question on the HLRA website. I've asked several in the past, and always got quick responses.
At that point - years in the future - an airport would generate ZERO in local taxes outside of what minimal wage taxes the airport operation would generate. So it's not very risky to assume that whatever redevelopment Horsham ends up putting on the JRB grounds will generate much more in tax revenues than an airport. Hope that clears up your obtusiness.
Fact is, it will take the Fed another 18 months to complete their Environmental Impact Study, and probably another year before the plan gets formal approval. That process would have applied regardless of whether an airport was to be kept or the current plan under consideration was pursued. No one would be using the property at this point either way, and as stated, we are years from anything happening on the plans. Horsham can't even cut the grass there until the Fed's BRAC process runs its course.