CammoTX said:

---

The City purchased a site on LaSalle for the Salvation Army. I wonder if this is the first step in getting rid of the property near the silos. Probably not great to have homeless people near your big tourist attraction…

---

Its also not great to have it on an up-and-coming street

OsoCoreyell said:

---

CammoTX said:

---

The City purchased a site on LaSalle for the Salvation Army. I wonder if this is the first step in getting rid of the property near the silos. Probably not great to have homeless people near your big tourist attraction…

---

Its also not great to have it on an up-and-coming street

---

There's spots on the east side of LaSalle that are a long way from being up-and-coming. A Salvation Army location could be an upgrade.

My gut feeling would be it would probably help more low income people (for convenience) it if was located on Waco Drive or North of Washington Ave.

Not a huge move in my mind (except the "away from the Silos" unfortunately makes a sad social statement).

Could also be that city bus routes (minus the few Silo trafficers who would ride city busses) may actually be more direct and efficient on LaSalle than on the 4th st/5th st opposing one way traffic patterns (ie. on/off at the same drop site regardless of which bus route direction.

Just scattershooting; no real knowledge.

I think this only had to do with available land. Not to protect our vagrants from our tourists or our tourists from our vagrants.

It's really a function of Core Business District tax and property functionality. It's best to have something in that city block that generates significant revenue and tax receipts as opposed to consuming revenue and tax receipts. This isn't a "put the unsightly over there for us, please" type deal.

Quote:

---

This isn't a "put the unsightly over there for us, please" type deal.

---

Sure it is. Ugly and unsightly property uses do not make money.

CorsicanaBear said:

---

Quote:

---

This isn't a "put the unsightly over there for us, please" type deal.

---

Sure it is. Ugly and unsightly property uses do not make money.

---

I think you missed what I was actually saying there.

The Salvation Army, a non-profit, can sell the Silos District location for a huge non-profit, build a bigger location elsewhere and have excess funds to continue their charitable work.

Ben E. Keith probably has already figured out their University-Parks location between Jackson and Mary is way too valuable for something other than a beer distributorship. M. Lipsitz recyclers, a Waco owned-company since 1895, is sitting on a valuable property at Elm & MLK and is prime for redevelopment on the growing East Waco riverfront.

osogreen said:

---

The Salvation Army, a non-profit, can sell the Silos District location for a huge non-profit, build a bigger location elsewhere and have excess funds to continue their charitable work.

Ben E. Keith probably has already figured out their University-Parks location between Jackson and Mary is way too valuable for something other than a beer distributorship. M. Lipsitz recyclers, a Waco owned-company since 1895, is sitting on a valuable property at Elm & MLK and is prime for redevelopment on the growing East Waco riverfront.

---

You might be able to redevelop Lipsitz property in about 731 years. There's no way on earth if they moved from there that the property wouldn't be condemned.

Quote:

---

You might be able to redevelop Lipsitz property in about 731 years. There's no way on earth if they moved from there that the property wouldn't be condemned.

---

There's certainly some truth in that statement. About 2 years ago I was discussing with a Lipsitz manager whether he thought, given all the redevelopment going on in the area, that their Elm Street location would be closed down and sold for a nice profit.

He smiled and told me that it would take someone very 'special' who would agree to take on the task of environmental cleanup on that site. I smiled.

Of course, it's not unprecedented in this area for the City to throw money at a project like that. Remember the lot across MLK from McLane Stadium that was once home to a pesticide distributor/manufacturer (and also a 'gentlemens' bookstore)? I seem to recall the City spending a million or so to get that ready to swap with Baylor for Floyd Casey.

Of course, Lipsitz is on a much bigger lot. Plus, I have no idea what type of chemicals or metals were processed there over the years that might still be hanging around in the ground. I can speculate, but I don't know.

Eleven-League Grant said:

---

Quote:

---

You might be able to redevelop Lipsitz property in about 731 years. There's no way on earth if they moved from there that the property wouldn't be condemned.

---

There's certainly some truth in that statement. About 2 years ago I was discussing with a Lipsitz manager whether he thought, given all the redevelopment going on in the area, that their Elm Street location would be closed down and sold for a nice profit.

He smiled and told me that it would take someone very 'special' who would agree to take on the task of environmental cleanup on that site. I smiled.

Of course, it's not unprecedented in this area for the City to throw money at a project like that. Remember the lot across MLK from McLane Stadium that was once home to a pesticide distributor/manufacturer (and also a 'gentlemens' bookstore)? I seem to recall the City spending a million or so to get that ready to swap with Baylor for Floyd Casey.

Of course, Lipsitz is on a much bigger lot. Plus, I have no idea what type of chemicals or metals were processed there over the years that might still be hanging around in the ground. I can speculate, but I don't know.

---

it would cost a lot of money, I mean mid to high 8 figures to clean that up.

If there is a business that has contaminated a strip of land adjacent to a waterway of the United States to such an extent it would cost between 50 and 100 million dollars to clean up, why is that business still in business and why is this not a superfund site?

trey3216 said:

---

osogreen said:

---

The Salvation Army, a non-profit, can sell the Silos District location for a huge non-profit, build a bigger location elsewhere and have excess funds to continue their charitable work.

Ben E. Keith probably has already figured out their University-Parks location between Jackson and Mary is way too valuable for something other than a beer distributorship. M. Lipsitz recyclers, a Waco owned-company since 1895, is sitting on a valuable property at Elm & MLK and is prime for redevelopment on the growing East Waco riverfront.

---

You might be able to redevelop Lipsitz property in about 731 years. There's no way on earth if they moved from there that the property wouldn't be condemned.

---

I think most of their heavy recycling operation has moved to their site on Loop 340 / Hwy 6 and the Brazos River.

There was a PCB contamination issue that was resolved back in the 1980s but I'm sure other surprises are lurking in the soil.

osogreen said:

---

trey3216 said:

---

osogreen said:

---

The Salvation Army, a non-profit, can sell the Silos District location for a huge non-profit, build a bigger location elsewhere and have excess funds to continue their charitable work.

Ben E. Keith probably has already figured out their University-Parks location between Jackson and Mary is way too valuable for something other than a beer distributorship. M. Lipsitz recyclers, a Waco owned-company since 1895, is sitting on a valuable property at Elm & MLK and is prime for redevelopment on the growing East Waco riverfront.

---

You might be able to redevelop Lipsitz property in about 731 years. There's no way on earth if they moved from there that the property wouldn't be condemned.

---

I think most of their heavy recycling operation has moved to their site on Loop 340 / Hwy 6 and the Brazos River.

There was a PCB contamination issue that was resolved back in the 1980s but I'm sure other surprises are lurking in the soil.

---

thats correct. I may be gullilty of a bit of hyperbole here, but that area would take extensive $$ to get it redeveloped to TCEQ codes.

If a company produces significant levels of contaminants which are discharged into the soil, why would they be allowed to operate near a waterway and/or a residential area?

CorsicanaBear said:

---

If a company produces significant levels of contaminants which are discharged into the soil, why would they be allowed to operate near a waterway and/or a residential area?

---

This is a good question.