hburgnews.com

Comment from kai
Time: January 8, 2009, 4:33 pm

The contract proposal also includes a commitment on Rosetta Stone’s part to invest at least $500,000 in renovations on the property within five years.

Comment from Emmy
Time: January 8, 2009, 4:43 pm

Overall I guess it’s not a bad idea, and it sure is a heck of a deal for Rosetta Stone. But, out of those 100 jobs, I doubt very few will go to locals.

Comment from Jeremy Aldrich
Time: January 8, 2009, 4:45 pm

Kai, why does the city care how much they spend in renovation if they’re buying the property outright rather than leasing it?

Comment from Brooke
Time: January 8, 2009, 5:02 pm

If I had to guess, the renovation aspect of the deal has to do with revitalizing downtown. Better to have a company buy the property, renovate it and use it, than letting it sit vacant and the property getting run down.

Comment from Brent Finnegan
Time: January 8, 2009, 5:09 pm

What Emmy said.

Comment from David Miller
Time: January 8, 2009, 5:46 pm

Or they could always do what they did to the building behind it, bulldoze it then put up a parking lot. Maybe parking decks cost $500,000 to build. Would that be considered renovations or new build?

Comment from David Miller
Time: January 8, 2009, 5:48 pm

Though in this case, you’d be hard pressed to find anyone who would be willing to “let” Rosetta Stone escape from Downtown.

Comment from Josh
Time: January 8, 2009, 6:08 pm

David: How much of an impact does Rosetta Stone have on your business?

Comment from Del
Time: January 8, 2009, 6:10 pm

I have no idea how the money numbers crunch but there is huge upside to 100 new IT jobs downtown no matter who fills them.

Comment from Miriam
Time: January 8, 2009, 6:18 pm

Just as a clarification to David’s first comment. The building behind the building in question, which was recently demolished, was not removed for parking but rather was a hazard and in need of demolition to remove the potential danger of collapse or other accidents. The area in which that building was situated is part of the overall property in question. The use of that land would be determined by whomever ends up owning it.

Comment from Jeremy Aldrich
Time: January 8, 2009, 6:40 pm

I guess my thought is that all the “concessions” from Rosetta Stone are things they would probably do anyway: hire new people and renovate the building. One question that comes to mind is, what if the city said no? Would Rosetta Stone be willing to pay more for the building and put up a pedestrian bridge and get in the same line as everyone else for parking, or would they move their next office out of the city?

I do love their product, and see a lot of value in IT jobs. But it sure would be nice to use that incentive to attract another IT firm to the city rather than shelling it out to increase our economic reliance on one company. Also, if the building is being put up for long-term sale, it might be time to take a second look at using it for new school administration offices, which are still sorely needed.

Comment from Emmy
Time: January 8, 2009, 7:07 pm

I’m going to go a step further with my previous statement and say that I also assume a majority of the 100 jobs in question will be sales and not IT.

And no, I don’t think the city will let them escape from downtown. I think they’ll do just about anything they have to to keep them here.

Comment from Renee
Time: January 9, 2009, 3:34 am

I’m surprised by the sentiment here. I think the city does have to “bargain” with Rosetta Stone to get the best price it can on the building and best deal for everyone with parking, but I think growth of Rosetta Stone here is a very positive thing. They moved their headquarters to Nothern VA, didn’t they? So showing commitment to staying here by wanting to expand and hire more people in Harrisonburg is a good thing to me. Could lead to more JMU students staying in town after graduating, and of course more revenue for the City. If there were other people bidding for the building at a higher price, that might be a different story, but I think the growth of the company’s operations here and use of an empty building downtown would be a positive thing.

Comment from Renee
Time: January 9, 2009, 3:37 am

Emmy, why do you doubt the jobs would go to locals? Do you mean you think they’d mostly go to JMU grads, or people would relocate here to work there? I’m not sure why either is a negative thing…

Comment from Emmy
Time: January 9, 2009, 5:25 am

Oh don’t get me wrong, the city is right to bargain with them and do what they have to do to keep them (although I find the road closure suggestion a bit much). They’re obviously a large employer and we’re lucky to have them.

Renee I expect most of the jobs would go to people from out of the area, and maybe some JMU students. They have quite a reputation when it comes to the application/interview process.

I’m not saying it’s a bad thing to hire students or people from out of the area. But, when people read that they are bringing 100 jobs, they read that as 100 jobs for the qualified local residents, and that isn’t the likely outcome.

I’m certainly happy that they’re willing to renovate an old building, buy parking spaces and stick around.

Comment from Jeremy Aldrich
Time: January 9, 2009, 6:56 am

Of the articles that have appeared in the DNR and on WHSV, none have mentioned the actual value of the building, or even its square footage. This seems unusual to me. Also, in an editorial supporting the deal, the DNR says, “a building currently off the tax rolls would be renovated and returned to the city tax base.” But won’t this building also be getting several tax and fee exemptions through the Downtown Technology Zone program? In other words, how much will this be adding to the tax base and how long would it take for the city to recoup the estimated $550,000 in reduced pricing on the building?

Again, I’m not against Rosetta Stone or their plans to grow. But there are a lot of uses for city money that would seem to me to be better investments, especially in these tight times. And there are a lot of organizations (and people) that do as much or more good for the city which aren’t coming to Council asking for these kinds of giveaways.

Comment from JGFitzgerald
Time: January 9, 2009, 7:13 am

Gx,

Giving the DNR the benefit of the doubt, the newspaper probably did not avoid those informative and necessary questions on purpose. Rather, the newspaper really is that bad.

Comment from Scott
Time: January 9, 2009, 7:34 am

Jeremy — you say there are a lot of uses for city money that would seem to you to be better investments.

This option creates 100 new jobs.

What are some of the uses that you envision that would be better investments?

Comment from Jeremy Aldrich
Time: January 9, 2009, 7:57 am

Scott, wouldn’t those 100 jobs be created without the arrangement as well?

One potential use of the building already mentioned is as a school administrative office. If the city schools could buy it for $300,000, and put in the same in renovations as Rosetta is promising, it could save the city from building a multi-million dollar administrative building (like the County did).

Another would be to draw in a NEW company to help diversify the local economy.

Comment from JGFitzgerald
Time: January 9, 2009, 8:03 am

“This option creates 100 new jobs.”

Are they working yet? This option creates the promise of 100 new jobs. In a deep, long, and wide recession. You can’t take that to the bank.

According to everything published so far, the city is guaranteed $300,000. Taking nothing away from the good intentions of Fairfield, or from its past service to the community, governments often have to punt and hope with business plans. The 850K assessment is interesting, but only if somebody is offering that much. The 100 jobs are interesting, but only if those people are ready to move into their desks.

City council members will have to make a judgment on whether the company’s commitment to the community has been such that giving them the opportunity to expand here will benefit the community. I’d bet yes, because it’s Fairfield, but there don’t appear to be a lot of numbers to go on.

Comment from charlie chenault
Time: January 9, 2009, 8:43 am

Bottom line – no expansion – Rosetta Stone to the County where it already has a shipping facility. Additionally, the Police Building was only considered as a temporary location for the school board offices until a location could be found that could accommodate its entire staff of approximately 80 to 90. I could be wrong, but my recollection is that Rosetta will not be taking any tax credits on this property. It is interesting that the parking deck component of the public private partnership proposal could very easily come into play here.
Thanks – Charlie

Comment from bill
Time: January 9, 2009, 8:49 am

It sounds like a great deal for Harrisonburg in my view. As to the concern about those jobs going to locals, why wouldn’t they? Additionally, those people who acquire those jobs would become locals who pay taxes, shop, go out to dinner and contribute in general to a prosperous community.

Comment from JGFitzgerald
Time: January 9, 2009, 9:00 am

Charlie,

Advice I gave to an incoming council member: Never get involved in anything that involves pets or parking.

JF

Comment from Jeremy Aldrich
Time: January 9, 2009, 9:03 am

Thanks for posting, Charlie (and a belated thanks to all the other commenters too – Kai, Emmy, Brooke, Brent, Josh, David, Renee, Joe, and Scott).

A few more questions:
- What if the price of the building were higher? Would Rosetta Stone walk, or wouldn’t it still be a good deal for them versus building a new construction?

- Would Rosetta employees working in an office in the County be much less likely to live or shop in Harrisonburg? In other words, what impact would it have on the tax base if they were in the County as opposed to the city?

- Who would know about whether they’re planning to take tax credits on the building if they acquire it?

- Why can Rosetta Stone fit 100 employees in the building, but city schools can’t fit 80 or 90 employees there?

- How much of the renovation called for in the agreement would actually improve the value of the property versus wiring and reshaping rooms for offices particular to the needs of this company, which has a minimal impact on the building value compared to cost of renovation?

Comment from Emmy
Time: January 9, 2009, 9:05 am

I’m not saying they won’t, I certainly can’t speak for them. However, I know several very qualified individuals who have applied there and heard nothing despite the number of jobs they claim to have available now.

If you read any of the comments in the DNR article it’s also a common sentiment that if you don’t know someone there you can’t get an interview.

I’d like to see the renovation work go to a local company and I’d like to see at least a good portion of the jobs go to local people if they’re qualified.

Sure, it’s nice to have people from out of the area relocate here and if they are really the best people for the job, then that’s great.

Comment from Jeremy Aldrich
Time: January 9, 2009, 9:10 am

Oh, and thanks to Miriam, Del, and bill for commenting too…didn’t mean to leave you out!

Comment from Barnabas
Time: January 9, 2009, 9:13 am

If they have no places to put people then they will not be hiring them regardless of wether they get the building or not. They may want to hire 100 people, but they need to expand in order to make that happen. What other building close buy can they expand into? Rosetta is home brewed, I wouldn’t give them up hoping for another company, not in this economy.

Comment from Jeremy Aldrich
Time: January 9, 2009, 9:20 am

There are a number of buildings up for sale downtown, including some not far from their current building. Many are listed on the Economic Development website. None are offering the price per square foot that Rosetta Stone is asking the city to give them.

My point about using incentives to diversify is that if we “blow” our incentives on one large company, and something happens to that one company, we are in big trouble.

Comment from charlie chenault
Time: January 9, 2009, 10:00 am

Joe – good advice – are deer pets? Jeremy – the only question you asked that I know the answer to is that Brian Shull might know about the tax credits issue. My guess answer to your first question is that I would not want to reach the precipice where they might walk. I am not sure all 100 employees are going into the building – that is the number of increased hires as I understand it. Employees working in the county would likely still shop in the city, but probably not so much downtown. Quick answers that I hope are of some help.
Charlie

Comment from John
Time: January 9, 2009, 10:08 am

A few observations and opinions….

1. The School board would never take that building. They have made it clear through past rejections of otherwise perfectly usable space that they want something NEW. That building is too small and/or old (or so they’d think) for them. Frankly, if I were making the decision, I’d TELL them where they were going — and not allow them to keep poo-pooing proposed sites, but that is a whole different rant.

2. Locals won’t get the vast majority of those jobs. Remember what Rosetta Stone does! Unless a pile of townies suddenly start speaking other languages, learn to program, etc., the jobs likely will be going to out-of-towners with the requisite skills. Which, by the way, I think is wonderful. I love the diversity of the employees over there. In addition, these are supposed to be 50k plus jobs…. we’re not talking warehouse employees.

3. It’s going to cost a whole lot more than 500k to renovate that space. This part of the “bargain” is a non-issue. I also don’t care who does the work, so long as it gets done. I’ve said this before in my posts — the City has too many properties that are just embarrassing. I’m glad to see they are letting someone improve this eyesore. Now they need to find someone for One Court Square!

4. The parking spaces are also a minor issue. At the end of the day, if people have to walk another 100 yards — big deal. It’d do most people good to get some exercise.

5. I’ve seen many different posts about improving the downtown area for pedestrians and cyclists. How would closing that street be a bad thing? Rosetta Stone also offers in it’s contract with the city to expand sidewalks and make other improvements to the area around the building. I think that’s great! The more pedestrian and bike friendly areas of Downtown the better.

The city is doing exactly what it should do. Is the building worth more than 300k? Of course it is. Is there value to the city in 100 new, well-paid positions? Without a doubt.

This is how deals are made! Parties exchange things of value.
In the long run, the City will benefit greatly from this deal — I’d wager more than Rosetta Stone will…

Comment from Scott
Time: January 9, 2009, 10:10 am

Rosetta is home brewed, I wouldn’t give them up hoping for another company, not in this economy.

I agree completely. I don’t think much would be accomplished by holding back from helping Rosetta Stone grow in downtown Harrisonburg with hopes that the incentives could be used to recruit some other company here. Especially, given the incentives that we’re talking about…

Dear CEO… please relocate your company to Harrisonburg because we’ll give you a good deal on an old building, and we will not increase the cost of your parking fees for a few years.

It just doesn’t seem likely that the incentives being considered to help keep Rosetta Stone in downtown Harrisonburg are going to go that far somewhere else.

Of note, I am a bit biased. I think it’s great that Rosetta Stone is downtown, because quite a few of their employees have decided to live only a 7 minute walk down Water Street from their current office location.

Comment from Jeremy Aldrich
Time: January 9, 2009, 10:21 am

Hey, if the city gives me $50 each week, I promise to buy dinner at local restaurants. Think of the economic stimulus!

Scott, I’m biased too. My employer (the city school division) is running a million-dollar-plus shortfall next year. Echoes of “golf course…golf course…golf course” keep running in my head as we consider this costly, and perhaps unnecessary, giveaway.

John, I know a number of qualified local people with resumes matching the posted job descriptions perfectly who didn’t get jobs, or even calls back, from Rosetta Stone. These were across several fields – media production, script writing, educational development, and sales/marketing among them. Combined with similar concerns expressed by others on this thread and at the DNR, it certainly seems to be more than an isolated problem.

Also John, closing the road to benefit one company seems a little…unfair. Who else would benefit from turning that public road into a private walkway?

Comment from Scott
Time: January 9, 2009, 10:37 am

Echoes of “golf course…golf course…golf course” keep running in my head as we consider this costly, and perhaps unnecessary, giveaway.

I’m not very familiar with the golf course issue, but the concern seems to be that the City is losing money on the golf course each and every year.

While considering this Rosetta Stone deal could be considered “costly” — it’s not hard cold cash that is being given away, or lost. It is lost possible future revenue — if someone would pay more for the building, or if parking space costs go up by a few dollars, etc.

It’s hard to imagine the explanation for not moving forward with the deal….

Rosetta Stone is a valuable part of our local economy, and we’re glad that they are in the City, but we decided not to work with them as they expand because we hope that someone else might come along that would pay more for the building, and we’re ok if that means that they grow in or relocate to the County, or elsewhere.

…given that there haven’t been other better options for that building, it doesn’t seem wise to hamper the growth of an established company in order to hold out hope for someone else.

Comment from Bubby
Time: January 9, 2009, 10:46 am

What John said.

I’m still chuckling at the notion of “locals” being hired to do language work. We barely speak english around here! Maybe the City could launch a PR campaign to entice more people to learn “Southern”. W and George Allen are looking for work.

Don’t risk it with the County. Those boys can’t count, and they don’t need no stinking plan. They’ll toss in for the 100 jobs, rezone a pasture, and call it a win.

Comment from Tim
Time: January 9, 2009, 11:01 am

On the surface it seems like a great opportunity but my initial reaction was it feels like price gouging. It feels like they’re taking advantage of the slagging job market to create a power play with the city.

Comment from Emmy
Time: January 9, 2009, 11:23 am

Bubby there are a large number of positions at Rosetta Stone that have nothing to do with the “language” itself, and as someone who does something similar for another company who has lived here her entire life, I find your statement offensive.

Comment from Emmy
Time: January 9, 2009, 11:26 am

Sorry, I missed John’s comment. John, Rosetta Stone has a wide variety of positions that do not require you to speak another language. They are always hiring for sales positions and I know a lot of people who are more than qualified for those positions as well as their marketing positions.

There are plenty of locals who are qualified for those jobs.

Comment from Scott
Time: January 9, 2009, 11:33 am

Emmy — I agree that Bubby’s comment a bit off the mark. :)

And there definitely are jobs unrelated to speaking a particular language or knowing how to do computer programming. Here’s a list of the Harrisonburg openings.

Of note, here is where their job openings are located:

Harrisonburg – 21
Arlington – 14
Rosslyn – 5
Norfolk – 1
Sterling – 1
Virginia Beach – 1

California – 7
Texas – 7
Washington – 3
Hawaii – 3

It would seem that they have plenty of expansion options outside of Harrisonburg!

Comment from Emmy
Time: January 9, 2009, 11:34 am

I want to stress that I think Rosetta Stone is a great asset to Harrisonburg and I think every effort should be made to keep them here (within reason). My only real problem with this whole thing is that people reading these article and hearing news reports may get their hopes up about the potential for new jobs, when that’s either a long way off or maybe not even a possibility.

Comment from Marty
Time: January 9, 2009, 11:39 am

I’m keeping my eyes on these developments with Rosetta Stone. I’m tired of working in NoVA and the only reason I do so is because there isn’t too much available in Harrisonburg for my skillset.

Boy, I’m excited that I might be able to live/work in the same place again. I hate NoVA.

Comment from zen
Time: January 9, 2009, 12:41 pm

Because of the economic downturn I am no longer a Harrisonburg “local.” I rented office space, paid for parking, ate, drank, and shopped in town. What more is there to being “local?”
It’s IT companies like RS that help bring progress and vitality to rural regions. A forward looking plan will embrace this type of public/private partnerships.

Comment from Peppa
Time: January 9, 2009, 12:43 pm

In the past the city said they would not sell that property because it is the only way the jail could expand. Plus, about two years ago Farley said the jail would be too small in as little as five years.

Those facts have not changed. So, why is the sale even being considered now?

Comment from Jeremy Aldrich
Time: January 9, 2009, 1:05 pm

Peppa is right about what Sheriff Farley said – that the jail “must expand by 2013″. I doubt they will be able to acquire land next to the jail for $300,000.

In other recent news, a plan to build a new parking deck and school administrative offices was slated to cost $16.5 million if implemented – also much much than $300,000.

We’re going to sell land and a building that could save the city money on inevitable future expenses, and we’re going to sell it at a cut-rate price? That’s not an investment mindset.

Another way to look at it – the proposal would subsidize Rosetta Stone’s expansion to the tune of at least $5,000 per new job (the cost difference between market value and sales price divided by 100 new employees).

Yet another way to look at it – $300k for 14,400 square feet is less than $21 per square foot. As I understand it, that doesn’t include the unfinished basement on the property either. That’s a pretty doggone good deal for the buyer.

Comment from Peppa
Time: January 9, 2009, 1:08 pm

Reminds me of the sale of the high school.

Comment from Barnabas
Time: January 9, 2009, 1:47 pm

Does the city schools already have Rosetta stone Products in the schools?
If not then, Rosetta Stone could throw in copies their full language library to the harrisonburg school system, and sponsor english language classes in the city. That would make the deal a little more lopsided on the cities side.

Yes I said more lopsided on the cities side. The city cannot use that property as it is. They would need to invest in it or tear it down and start anew. Selling to Rosetta has instant and future benefits. If they jail has nowhere to go, then move it out of downtown and put the school administrative offices in the current jail. Expanding the jail in downtown is counter productive when considering downtown revitalization.
Rosetta Stone will improve that block and will make the street safer. You cannot blame them for wanting to change the through traffic on that street. Their employees would be using it more then anyone else to go from one office to the other, lunch, home etc…. just like any proactive company that cares about it’s employees safety is a top priority. The city wins and it would be the best money they ever “gave away”.

Comment from John
Time: January 9, 2009, 1:48 pm

I am aware that not everyone at RS is a content author or writing code. I deal with their employees on a daily basis. My point is that the $50k jobs that RS is dangling as an enticement TEND to be in those types of positions. No one at City Council is going to drool if they promise positions at minimum wage.

There was just a thread here a couple months ago about how Stoltzfus Architects came up with some plans for how the downtown could benefit by having more pedestrian friendly avenues. I realize that the proposed closure was probably not part of it, but you gotta start somewhere, and with something! I’d love to see downtown much more pedestrian friendly. I couldn’t care less if it starts with Water St, an alley off S Main, etc.

And the alleged “problem” of supposedly qualified people not being hired…. that’s just nuts. There are 1000 different legitimate reasons why people don’t get hired even when they fit a particular job’s requirements on paper – none of them discriminatory or nefarious. There is A LOT more to landing a job than showing up with an adequate resume….

The City is TRADING the building for tax base and revenue. Of course RS is going to attempt to drive a hard bargain – they are in a position to do so. The economy isn’t exactly booming.

I’d rather see that crappy old building improved NOW, rather than hold off because it is needed at some point in the future for something else. I’ve had enough of our downtown looking like a dump.

Comment from Chad
Time: January 9, 2009, 1:49 pm

Barnabas, Currently every student in Rockingham County and in the City of Harrisonburg has the Rosetta Stone program for free. Although by talking to younger family members, the majority of them do not use it at all.

Comment from Emmy
Time: January 9, 2009, 1:57 pm

That’s true John, but how would they know if they don’t call the person with the resume?

I’m not saying they aren’t hired…I’m saying they aren’t even called. You can’t know if someone lives up to what they have on paper without an interview.

And just in case anyone is wondering, I have a job I love.

Comment from John
Time: January 9, 2009, 2:09 pm

I am a local business owner. When I receive resumes for an open position I have advertised, the first thing I do is ask my employees if they know of them, and if so, would they fit in, are they responsible, etc. It weeds out about half of the resumes that ‘fit’ the position.

Harrisonburg is a small town. Everyone knows everyone, it seems.

Not saying that’s what happened, but you asked the question, and I answered it.

Comment from Emmy
Time: January 9, 2009, 2:15 pm

It was stated more than once in the DNR comments that you have to know someone there to get an interview. From your comment, that sounds like it could very well be the case.

Guess I’m lucky my boss doesn’t do things that way. He would have lost out on some of the talented people he has if he did.

Comment from unlikelystory
Time: January 9, 2009, 2:21 pm

Yes, please. We are new to town, bought a house near downtown, and would like to see more of the old empty buildings put to good use. Just being willing to have it renovated and in use by a locally based company is enough of a plus in my eyes — the city seems to have an overload of unpleasant vacant properties, so perhaps it is overpriced in the first place, since no one seems to be moving on it at its current price.

John at 10:08 makes some points that sound deeply persuasive to me.

Comment from Emmy
Time: January 9, 2009, 2:23 pm

Chad, what is their access to this program? You said every student, does that mean EVERY student or every non-native speaker? My sons go to city schools and I’ve never been made aware that they have access to these programs.

Comment from Drew Richard
Time: January 9, 2009, 2:53 pm

It’s there:
http://www.dnronline.com/news_details.php?CHID=2&AID=29298
http://staff.harrisonburg.k12.va.us/~kkcampbell/News/
http://www.rockingham.k12.va.us/highlights/rosettastone.html

Comment from Frank J Witt
Time: January 9, 2009, 3:02 pm

Very cool Drew, thanks for the link. I think it can help our daughters with their attempts to learn Spanish.

Emmy, good to see you have a Friday off now and then !

Comment from Scott
Time: January 9, 2009, 3:24 pm

That’s fantastic Drew! Thanks for those links. I can’t wait for my kids to get old enough for school so we can start using that software!

Comment from Barkley Rosserr
Time: January 9, 2009, 3:46 pm

Jeremy,

Please, let it go with all the “let us entice another company here instead.” We are in a very bad recession that is going to get worse before it gets better. People will be getting laid off everywhere, and companies are not going to be doing lots of expanding or moving to new cities to pay high prices for a dumpy building.

Rosetta Stone is clearly an excellent company that provides an excellent part of the economic base of the city. It would be a great loss if they left, and they easily could. Probably some of those new jobs will be really local hires, some may be JMU grads sticking around, some may come from outside. I note that this may be the salvation of the Urban Exchange that is going up and needs to get enough non-students in it (they are advertising in the Breeze, ugh) in order to be what it is supposed to be and not a downtown student ghetto.

As for the price, note that is the assessed value. But real value is what somebody is willing to pay. Anybody out there offering the city more than $300,000?

Comment from Emmy
Time: January 9, 2009, 4:59 pm

Thank you for the links Drew. Unless someone links from here, I don’t read the DNR. Seems like this would be something more people would use if we knew about it. I guess the schools need to do a better job of making us aware that it is available to the students.

I asked my sons if they had ever used it in school and the oldest said he’d heard of it but had no idea what it was or how he could get it.

Comment from Scott
Time: January 9, 2009, 5:00 pm

The current employees (and potential future ones) at Rosetta Stone are certainly an important part of what will make Urban Exchange a success. We have had a good bit of interest from folks who work there, as well as other people who already live (or work) downtown, in addition to quite a few JMU faculty, folks who have lived in Old Town for years (decades), some retirees who are looking for a maintenance free condo, and yes, even some JMU undergrads and grad students. Thus far, it looks like it is going to be a fantastic mix of people of all ages and walks of life!

In a few more weeks we’ll have the entire West Tower framed as well, and the building will really start to move ahead quickly.

Comment from Frank J Witt
Time: January 9, 2009, 5:22 pm

Just spoke to Allissa and she said that the students can/do use it but they need to ask for permission apparently as it is downloaded to some of the schools computers and not just a disc they can take home and use to help study.

Comment from Del
Time: January 9, 2009, 6:27 pm

Isn’t having a connection at a company going to be a variable in getting a job in almost all situations? Who here hasn’t ever landed a job because they knew someone?

Comment from Peppa
Time: January 9, 2009, 11:08 pm

Not me. I must know the wrong people.

Plus, wouldn’t that make for a messy situation if you didn’t work out or hated the job?

Comment from Renee
Time: January 10, 2009, 12:52 am

I haven’t read in detail all of the comments here and just skimmed through them all.

Jeremy, good questions above.

To anyone that doubts people here could qualify for the new positions – there are plenty of “locals” who are talented enough for those jobs. In addition, I have always wondered why Harrisonburg doesn’t do more to keep JMU graduates here locally, since making this more of a “college town” with spin-off companies, etc. would add a lot to Harrisonburg vs. the current “town with a college in it” where some townies resent the students (though I realize that sentiment must be tapering off since Kai, a JMU grad, just became the mayor).
Having the students not think of Harrisonburg as an option after graduation, and having local companies not think of the students as potential hires is a huge mistake in my opinion.

Overall, I think the city should give them the deal on that building. In fact, I think the city should take all buildings they own (especially downtown) that have been vacant for more than 5 years and drastically reduce the prices vs. similar buildings to get businesses to move in.

I once had a business idea that I thought was plausible until I called around to ask how much it would cost to buy/rent downtown storefront retail space. The city can’t benefit from empty crumbling buildings.

Having said that, and not knowing the actual value of the real estate, if there are other organizations that are offering to pay more for that same building, it doesn’t really make sense to offer it to Rosetta Stone for much less, though it doesn’t sound like people are bidding to purchase it.

It’s not the same as the golf course situation at all since it’s not a ridiculously expensive niche project the city will be dumping money into for years. This is just a question of whether it’s worth it to the city to sell some real estate to a private organization at a reduced price.

So, as long as the city isn’t turning down better offers, I say why not go for it?

Comment from Emmy
Time: January 10, 2009, 7:56 am

Renee, I’m one of the few who has lived here my whole life and actually accepted the fact that this is a college town. I don’t mind the students, and I realize what the area would be without them. I actually consider JMU students locals, so I hope a lot of the jobs do go to them.

I guess I sound like I think RS is doing something wrong with their hiring. They have to do what gets them the people they want. I’m just amazed at the number of stories I hear about people trying to get a job there and I often wonder just what it does take to get an interview and then offered a job. I do know a number of locals who work there, so I know it happens, I just wonder how.

As for knowing someone to get a job. I thought back and I guess I have. I had a friend who suggested I apply where she was, but I don’t know how much if anything she told them about me. My mother used to work for the company I’m at now. But when I applied I had a different last name and the two women who decided to call me did not know my mother had worked there. They later told me I was called because of my cover letter.

Comment from Jeremy Aldrich
Time: January 10, 2009, 9:48 am

I’ve had the chance to look at the agreement. Some very nice city employee posted the entire 125-page agenda packet used by Council rather than the usual one-page agenda, which I hope they will continue to do!

Here’s what I found that I didn’t know before:
- The requirement to “create and maintain” the new jobs and to renovate the property must be completed within 5 years.
- There is no clear clause on what happens if, after that five years, the company downsizes. For that matter, it doesn’t really say what will happen if the company defaults on some part of the agreement within the first five years other than that the city “shall be entitled to pursue any remedies at law or in equity” – and I have a pretty good sense of how THAT would turn out.
- The agreement says Rosetta Stone will NOT apply for the usual partial tax exemptions on the renovated property.
- There are some additional requirements for the city not already mentioned: new crossing drop arms at the railroad crossing on West Water, work with railroad company to widen the sidewalk on the railroad bridge, install a high-visibility crosswalk with flashing lights in the pavement, and consider putting in a kind of speed bump called a speed table.

So from my perspective, here’s what I want:
- Rosetta Stone should be encouraged and helped to grow and succeed, within reason.
- The city should clarify what will happen if the company doesn’t hire and maintain the 100 new employees (and it might be helpful to define that as being 100 additional new employees on top of whatever their current number of employees is, rather than 100 new position titles).
- The city should try to project what the costs of the certain-to-be-upcoming needs for jail expansion and for school administration offices will be, and how those costs would be different if either of them used this building. In other word, count the opportunity cost from getting rid of this building and land now.
- The city should calculate and publicize the costs of the additional traffic changes called for in the agreement.

I think the more information we have on the table, the better the decision Council will be able to make.

Comment from Thanh
Time: January 10, 2009, 10:27 am

Jeremy, just wanted to make a correction to your last comment: One of the additional requirements is to install crossing drop arms at the railroad crossing on WEST MARKET STREET, not West Water Street. :)

Comment from teacher
Time: January 10, 2009, 11:38 am

A word of explanation on Rosetta Stone in the local schools…

Rosetta Stone (English, Spanish, French, German, Russian, Portuguese) has made accessible an online program to the county & city school systems. Any student enrolled in a Spanish or French class has the best chance of being exposed to it – a non-language enrolled student would have to know who in the building to ask for a login ID, etc.

The English component is available as well, although Rosetta Stone admits that English Language Learners benefit most at the earliest stages of language acquisition – & not once they are proficient enough to read on a second grade level & up.

Rosetta Stone provided headsets with built in microphones, a half-day training to ELL & foreign language teachers & one set of instructional materials per school for English, Spanish, & French.

It was a much-appreciated “gift”, but I don’t think the cost to the company was great. The publicity was, however. My hope is that the local schools utilize Rosetta Stone in supplementing instruction for foreign-language learners, & even find ways to offer credit to students interested in other languages who are willing to work their way through the program on their own.

Comment from Barkley Rosser
Time: January 10, 2009, 12:10 pm

Jeremy,

I agree that it is a good thing to have all the matters on the table publicly that are involved in the deal.

I would say that making demands of a company beyond five years in the future is unreasonable. This all assumes that they will be successful and continue to be doing well five years from now and beyond. I think we all hope so, but nobody can guarantee that.

I would also note another aspect of RS that is important. It is a company that exports its products from the area, a part of our “economic base.” That means that expansion of output and jobs and output there will bring money into the area rather than just recycling money already here, and will have a multiplier effect on the community. More jobs and activity will be created by their expansion to support all those new workers, whether they are unemployed locals, graduating JMU students, or folks moving in from elsewhere. This does not happen when a new pharmacy or MacDonalds opens.

A good rough estimate of the multiplier for a real new expansion of the economic base is probably around 1.5. So, we are not talking about 100 jobs, we are talking about 150 or more.

Comment from Scott Rogers
Time: January 10, 2009, 12:37 pm

The city should try to project what the costs of the certain-to-be-upcoming needs for jail expansion and for school administration offices will be, and how those costs would be different if either of them used this building. In other word, count the opportunity cost from getting rid of this building and land now.

It seems that for this to be a valid perspective, you need to ask could and would these entities use the building.

It is my understanding that:

1. The school board wouldn’t use the building.

2. The jail couldn’t use the building. (because of a lack of funds for expansion)

Comment from Jeremy Aldrich
Time: January 10, 2009, 12:52 pm

I won’t be surprised if this building gets sold, and then a few years down the line the school board asks for the city to chip in on a multimillion dollar office construction, and the jail has to do some workaround to expand that would cost more money too. They might not have the money now but their future needs aren’t going away. And I can almost guarantee you that no other option for either of those two future expenses will cost less than holding on to this building and using it when the time comes.

What if the city leased the building to Rosetta Stone instead? Say, for 5 years?

Comment from Scott Rogers
Time: January 10, 2009, 12:57 pm

A good thought on leasing it instead, except that given the building’s present condition, the city would likely have to pay the $500,000+ to renovate it, or would have to lease it at a significantly below market rate to make it worthwhile for RS to make those improvements.

Comment from Peppa
Time: January 10, 2009, 12:59 pm

Does it cost more to use an existing structure with the land and all, or does it cost more to buy land, develope it and build on it? The fact remains the same, the jail will be over crowded and maxed out in a few years. Something will have to be done and the MONEY will have to come from somewhere.
All this has to be considered.

Comment from Emmy
Time: January 10, 2009, 1:04 pm

So if I read the post by the teacher correctly, it sounds like if I’m willing to find out the information and buy a headset, my kids can work on this program at home since the go to city schools. I sent an e-mail to the person in the city link posted and hope to hear back from her next week.

I guess I just missed this information along the way or I would have had my kids doing this for a while now. It is something I will do with them at home if that’s an option.

Comment from Jeremy Aldrich
Time: January 10, 2009, 1:12 pm

Emmy, I’m sure the person in charge of that (Karen Campbell) will get back to you, but Rosetta Stone provided us with a limited number of licenses to use their online product (which, by the way, has a lot more influence on conversational skills rather than isolated vocabulary than previous versions). They may allow some families to use it outside of the context of a teacher who requests the accounts for class, but they also might not. Each use of one language by a student counts against our total number of available licenses, so for example a child who in ESL classes (using it for English) and a foreign language class (using it for French or Spanish) would be using two licenses. Same for a kid who uses it for a foreign language class or project in one grade and then a different language the next year.

Comment from Emmy
Time: January 10, 2009, 1:38 pm

I see what you’re saying Jeremy, and that makes sense. We do something similar with our online product. I just found the DNR article and Chad’s post above to lean toward the idea that all students would have individual access should they want to use it. That may just be my misinterpretation. I’ve thought for a long time that ESL students would benefit from having unlimited access to the courses so they could work on them outside of the home if they have internet access.

My kids aren’t old enough for a language class yet, but I’d love for them to learn while they’re young and it’s still easier for them. I may just break down and buy something for them if they can’t use it through the school. My oldest says he’d like to learn French and Spanish.

Comment from Don
Time: January 10, 2009, 3:11 pm

As a fan of Downtown, and of not tearing down existing buildings I like this idea. When I saw the windows removed and then boarded up I thought that demolition was imminent.

As to the School Board using the building, I believe they have closed that door and nailed it shut.

As to the jail, they could build into the area that they are using for parking. The first level or two could take the place of the current parking that is done there and the building could grow from the second or third floor up.

As to closing the street, that wooden bridge is one of the only places to get around a train as it passes through Downtown. Otherwise one has to go all the way to Cantrell or sit at the crossings. Both of which use extra gasoline unnecessarily.

Comment from Josh
Time: January 10, 2009, 4:33 pm

It’s a shame prime downtown space is used for the jail. What’s the 50 year plan? Lovely downtown cafes, shops, housing, hotels and offices all based around an ever-expanding jail complex? I know it’s convenient to have a jail adjacent to the courthouses, but I’d rather see the jail move out into the country somewhere, on a plot of land big enough to accommodate future expansion.

Comment from Renee
Time: January 10, 2009, 6:43 pm

I agree with you, Josh.

Comment from Jeremy Aldrich
Time: January 10, 2009, 8:42 pm

I found this quote from an article in today’s DNR about proposals for a new city schools office to be very interesting in light of this discussion:

“Based on construction market prices, City Manager Kurt Hodgen said in early December that the project would cost about $16.5 million. Hodgen based his estimate on $15,000 per parking space and $150 per square foot for the office building space.”

Yet, the city wants to give Rosetta Stone 175 parking spaces for $25 a year, which if the cost of a parking space is $15,000 would take 600 years to pay for, and to sell city property (for use as office building space, no less) about $21 per square foot, or 14% of the cost estimated by Hodgen for the above proposal.

I thought the key to investment was buy low and sell high, not the other way around.

Comment from Scott Rogers
Time: January 10, 2009, 11:08 pm

the city wants to give Rosetta Stone 175 parking spaces for $25 a year, which if the cost of a parking space is $15,000 would take 600 years to pay for

A slight correction — it’s actually $25/month (not per year) — which means it would take 50 years to pay for the spaces, not 600 years. :)

Comment from Jeremy Aldrich
Time: January 10, 2009, 11:09 pm

Yup…sorry about that.

Comment from JulieBra…
Time: January 11, 2009, 2:28 am

All this talk about the RS hiring locals, or attracting JMU grads, is really quite cute, albeit niave. RS is a software company folks, not a fast food restaurant, poultry processing plant or aluminun tube manufacturing plant. To the locals, ENGLISH IS A FOREIGN LANGUAGE! (i.e. I went to warsh my hands good, not onest, but twicest…then I got tarrrred…or something like gat.)
I know 3 employees of RS, and the wife of another, NONE of them are from here, and if given the choice, I’m not convinced that they’d stay here.
Maybe a college graduate, on top of the world with their degree, finds themselves banished to a place like hburg, where the people have1/100th the intelligenct that thay have, where Appleby’s is considered upscale cuisine (except on God’s day, then Shoney’s Rules!!). Can you blame a JMU graduate?

An important thing that you locals need to understand…JMU graduates and corporate imports grew up in a much better place…a much better place then this hole. Why would they want to stay here? They have no desire to be brought down to your level, nor should they.

I encourage every young person I meet to chase their dream somewhere else. The SV and its ignorant local population and schools will kill their dreams. MOVE!

Comment from Renee
Time: January 11, 2009, 4:49 am

I’m not sure why you guys are comparing “the cost to build a new parking deck divided by the number of spaces” to “the city ‘renting’ existing spaces in an old parking deck to Rosetta Stone for $25/month”.

That’s like saying you shouldn’t rent out a room in an old apartment building for $300/month because building a new apartment building would cost $20,000 per room.

Unless you’re trying to say that the city will have to build new parking decks now due to Rosetta Stone using up existing spaces?

I agree with you that $25/mo is a bargain price, and the city could raise that figure a bit, but why compare it to $15,000? Maybe I’m missing something….

Comment from Emmy
Time: January 11, 2009, 9:08 am

I love it when people come here to tell us how stupid we are. Julie, tell your friends not to let the door hit them on the way out if they hate it here so much.

Comment from Jeremy Aldrich
Time: January 11, 2009, 9:21 am

Seriously. I’d really be curious to know what the “much better place” that Julie had in mind was. New Jersey? Northern Virginia?

Renee, the reason I brought up the cost per parking space is that yes, the city is hoping to build new ones for a much higher cost than they’re leasing the current ones for. The fact that these plans are happening just a few blocks away from each other is really astounding.

Comment from Brent Finnegan
Time: January 11, 2009, 10:22 am

Julie, since you’re so “intelligenct,” perhaps you can enlighten us: what is Appleby’s?

Drink much?

Comment from Emmy
Time: January 11, 2009, 10:51 am

Also Julie, make sure they pass on their disdain for the area to the higher ups before they go. I’m sure they’d be happy to hear about it considering the company started in Harrisonburg.

Comment from Lowell
Time: January 11, 2009, 10:56 am

This is an interesting discussion, and it is very important that people ask all manner of questions.

I have a few questions and thoughts.

Regarding the parking spaces, if the city were to lease 175 spaces at $25.00 per month per space, this would amount to $52,500.00 per year. When parking was metered, I think I remember paying something like ten cents per hour during business hours. If a business day comprised ten hours, then the maximum amount one spot would possibly generate for the city would be one dollar a day, five days a week, and only if it was used to the absolute maximum. This would result in a maximum potential of $260.00 in a year for one space, or $21.67 per month. Hmmm… $25.00 guaranteed -vs- a maximum potential of $21.67 if metered. Or an additional $52,000.00 per year for the city to maintain the parking facility.

Are these spaces currently being leased? If so, for how much? If not, why? Currently, the city doesn’t charge for most parking spots. The meters have been gone for some years now. Is the proposed parking on top of the Water Street deck? The county school system leased quite a few of those spaces when located at 404 S. Main St., but now that need doesn’t exist.

What is the actual appraised value of the building? Has it been marketed? If so, for what price. If not, why? Currently, it is making the city no money at all. Should Rosseta Stone be successful in the purchase and renovation of the building I would imagine that the value of the building would increase tremendously and be subject to Harrisonburg real estate tax and business tax which would be a substantial gain in revenue for the city over the current “nothing”.

100 new jobs paying $51,000.00 per year would result in a whole pile of new money down town for local Harrisonburg business. There is every reason to expect that current businesses downtown would see increased traffic and profit, and new businesses to begin occupying existing empty buildings, which would provide more employment opportunities for more people, and on and on and on… There is also every reason to expect that a portion of the new employees would seek apartments within walking/biking distance.

Or, Harrisonburg could simply tear down the building and use tax dollars to expand the penal facility in the heart of Harrisonburg, and then import even more prison population from outside the area in order to partially defray the cost of so doing while providing none of the above mentioned benefits to the community, and contributing nothing to the tax base.

The very foundation of improving downtown Harrisonburg is business and employment in the private sector.

But keep in mind, that this is merely the opinion of a local democrat. From the county at that…

Comment from JGFitzgerald
Time: January 11, 2009, 11:06 am

Lowell,

Move to the city. Send JulieBra to the county.

Comment from Jeremy Aldrich
Time: January 11, 2009, 11:48 am

I know I’ve already written a lot in this thread, but let me kind of clarify where I’m coming from. I’m not at all opposed to Rosetta Stone growing, nor to drawing more well-paying jobs to downtown (even if I wish the company had a better track record of hiring qualified local people).

I AM against wasting government resources to help a company do something it was going to do anyway, which lowers the positive impact of their growth from the city’s perspective. I am also against making a decision that causes future city needs for land or building space to be more expensive. I hope a solution will be agreed to that treats Rosetta Stone as a valued, but not spoiled, part of the Harrisonburg family.

Comment from charlie chenault
Time: January 11, 2009, 12:09 pm

I guess I have a sad tendency to reduce things to simple terms. The Rosetta Stone purchase is the offer of an economic incentive to keep a company that employs approximately 500 people in the city and in downtown at that. This city has a long history of offering economic incentives to lure new industries or businesses here. The proposed parking deck is probably being considered with the possibility of preleasing levels to downtown businesses and government agencies. The lease fees will not pay for the deck in any short term, but it will help with the debt service and perhaps entice others to locate downtown who are on the fence. No entity builds a parking deck with the thought of it paying for itself in any reasonable amount of time, otherwise no one could afford the charge to park there. Scott – I suspect Urban Exchange does not expect its deck to independently pay for itself. The construction costs is computed in the rents and condo charges and the balance is an enticement to live there. Joe and Lowell – I would welcome another Democrat to the city – I find them very interesting. JulieBra – I spent a year in Northern Virginia chasing my dream, but I had to move back because it costs to much to replace my missing teeth, my dream ran faster than I did, and I missed Lowell. Are you baiting us?
Thanks – Charlie

Comment from Lowell
Time: January 11, 2009, 1:45 pm

Thanks Charlie, I missed you too!

By the way, if you’re still here, do you know offhand the square footage of One Court Square, the old Leggit building, and the old police station?

Comment from Lowell
Time: January 11, 2009, 1:50 pm

Another thing Charlie, do you have, or know anyone who has any photographs of the Virginia and State theaters? And of Eddie Hayden’s Hobbie Shop etc…?

Those were the days when going “to town” was really cool.
The toy room at Grants (between Water and Court Square) was one of my favorite places.

Comment from Barkley Rosser
Time: January 11, 2009, 2:37 pm

Jeremy,

With regard to the parking deck issue, the amounts are piddling compared to the larger scale of what is involved here. Charlie is right that cities and towns, not just Harrisonburg, generally give various forms of cash, tax break, or in-kind support to businesses, especially economic base ones that export out of the area, who are either planning to move in or expand. This is small change.

To those who have been all bent out about whether or not RS is giving free stuff to the school system and what level, again, it is generally the other way around. Cities give subsidies to the businesses, for better or worse. It is good publicity for RS to provide some free stuff to the local school system, but I have not heard of anybody demand that those selling food to the local school system give it to the system for free for the privilege of doing business here in town.

JulieBra,

Let me see. Have you eaten at Joshua Wilton? How about one of the three Thai restaurants in town, or two Japanese restaurants, or the Ethiopian, or the two Indian, or the Korean, or the several Peruvian, or… ?

Keep in mind that over 30 languages are spoken in the Harrisonburg school system, with a percentage of foreign language speakers now exceeding that of Arlington, or any other place in the state. Who is cosmopolitan, especially about languages?

As for who works at RS, I do not know the full breakdown, but I am sure that not all the jobs there require high education or skills, even though clearly many do.

Comment from Barkley Rosser
Time: January 11, 2009, 2:43 pm

Oh yes, and just that reminder. Even if most or even all of those 100 new jobs at RS go to well-educated outsiders, so what? The spending by those new residents will stimulate local businesses across the board, who in turn will hire more people, that extra 50 or so that I mentioned when talked about the multiplier effects of expanding the economic base, and I would guess that most of those new jobs would (will, hopefully) go to “locals” of whatever level of education or sophistication.

Pingback from Why, Kai? » Why the Rosetta Stone Sale – and Public Hearings
Time: January 11, 2009, 2:44 pm

[...] conversation about the direction of downtown Harrisonburg, including an online dialgoue at HBurgNews.com, which raises a number of relevant questions in a rather constructive [...]

Comment from kai
Time: January 11, 2009, 3:10 pm

JulieBra,

From your comments, I gather you definitely have a commendable commitment for enabling others to pursue their dreams. The commitment, for me, is clouded by a potent sarcasm and cyncism that I imagine can get in the way of being effective, at the least to the extent to which you speak with individuals who find moving out of the area impractical and not in their interests.

I grew up in Germany, moved to Maryland for grade school, and came to Harrisonburg for JMU. After getting two degrees and practical experience working on issues in the valley via school projects, I decided to stay in the area to do exactly what you propose might not be possible: pursue how I’m out to make a mark on the world. The Shenandoah Valley hasn’t only provided the resources to make that possible, its actually helped me shape those dreams in the first place.

So, I’ll concede there are some dreams that might be better pursued elsewhere, but won’t concede this isn’t a place where that’s impossible. I think we can all use all the help and support we can from others to pursue our dreams (I needed every bit of support to win the recent election to city council, for example), so I support you in your efforts of inspiring others and hope that you’ll consider that, for many, pursuing their dreams is possible inside of living in Harrisonburg – it might make a difference for the next person you speak with.

Comment from kai
Time: January 11, 2009, 3:12 pm

typo: but won’t concede this isn’t a place where that’s possible.

Comment from Brian M
Time: January 11, 2009, 4:18 pm

Thank you, Kai. Having lived here all of my life, I enjoy the opportunities and challenges that the Shenandoah Valley present. There are other possibilities in communities all over the world, but the people in this area are so incredible. I have no desire to look to the “other side of the fence.” I have great dreams for this area, but they revolve around being in this area. Which is where I intend to stay until I take my last breath.

I am wholly and totally against the closing of West Water Street or making it a one-lane road. If it does become a one-way, I hope traffic will travel east to west. This bridge is so beneficial to downtown traffic. I have used this bridge countless times to evade the train. I have always followed the speed limit when traveling that road and was surprised to see it dropped to 15 mph. It does make sense with that many pedestrians, but preventing access for city travel (including emergency vehicles – very important when there’s a train) seems like a foolish idea.

I could argue the benefits/detriments of selling the old creamery to RS, but that’s been well done by all of the other wonderful readers/bloggers. I can place my trust in the City Council for the final decision without reservation if I could only hear some opinions on the street closing. Or at least feel like my concerns were weighed.

Thanks!

Comment from Scott Rogers
Time: January 11, 2009, 6:28 pm

Scott – I suspect Urban Exchange does not expect its deck to independently pay for itself. The construction costs is computed in the rents and condo charges and the balance is an enticement to live there.

Charlie — that is correct.

Comment from Renee
Time: January 12, 2009, 4:01 am

@JulieBra – I just read your comment (which must’ve gotten approved after I wrote mine below yours, since it wasn’t there when I wrote that comment), and it is really an ignorant thing to say.

I am a JMU graduate that grew up in Northern VA and now live in Harrisonburg, and I have met several locals that have lived in Harrisonburg their whole lives (including some that also recently graduated from JMU) that are fully capable of working at a software development company (including the one I co-own) or any company requiring language skills.

Comment from Renee
Time: January 12, 2009, 4:07 am

@Barkley Rosser – Good point about the languages spoken in the local schools.

@kai – well said.

Comment from Flanna Sheridan
Time: January 12, 2009, 4:08 am

Kai: Your response to JulieBra was much more constructive than what I would have been able to bring myself to write.

Dear Julie,
I suppose they don’t teach you to spell naive where you’ve come from.
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/naive

Comment from Renee
Time: January 12, 2009, 4:47 am

@Flanna – Hehe – or “aluminum”

Anyway, JulieBra – have you considered that a savvy group of local people that live in the ‘Burg developed this great website you were able to comment on, and wrote the articles, and wrote all of the comments above? I searched through all 14000+ comments (presumably left mostly by locals) and didn’t find one “ain’t” that wasn’t used in a literary sense, like “say it ain’t so” or “I ain’t afraid of no ghosts” (seriously).

Also, “warshed” is specifically a Pennsylvania-area accent, and I haven’t heard that often around here. Yes, some people in the area do speak with a country twang, but what does that have to do with being able to program computers or work in sales or customer support? It is possible to be proficient in both “country-sounding English” and “Visual Basic .NET” languages, you know.

Have you ever been to Harrisonburg? I thought all doubts about whether we were too “redneck” might have been answered when Harrisonburg City went for both a recent-JMU-grad Councilman (Kai), and Barack Obama back in November. :)

Oh, well.

Comment from charlie chenault
Time: January 12, 2009, 8:48 am

Lowell – I am sorry I missed your post yesterday. We must be the same age because your memories are identical to mine regarding our youthful downtown experiences. What a great time to grow up. We will see each other soon to talk about the pictures and the experience. You may remember the State Theater fire – my grandmother perished in it. I do not have the square footages; however, the Leggett building is committed to the Children’s Museum and the police station as is is not large enough for the school board offices without significant renovation (asbestos for example). While One Court Square could accommodate the school board offices with renovation from a square footage standpoint, it is my sincere hope that it will return to private hands for development. I think the estimate for the school board office portion of the public/private partnership proposal is about $3.5- to $4 million. Brian – Hope you are doing well. A traffic study was done on Water Street which showed much more traffic traveling east west than west east – in fact it was significant. One of the reasons not to cave on closing the street entirely was public safety – emergency vehicles not getting stuck by the train.
Thanks – Charlie

Comment from Brian M
Time: January 12, 2009, 10:50 am

Thanks for your response, Charlie. I am doing very well as I hope you are. I assumed that there was a traffic study done of West Water Street and it sounds like the results matched what I’ve seen over the years. It’s frustrating to see cross-traffic options reduced, but I guess that’s progress. lol

And it’s always nice to hear that emergency vehicle traffic was seriously considered. Thanks for all your hard work.

Comment from Drew Richard
Time: January 12, 2009, 11:45 am

The employees of RS are very diverse. I know of 3 other current employees that I graduated from TA with that went to BC, W&M, and JMU. There are many people, with diverse educational backgrounds and from a wiiiide range of people. The company was started with almost entirely local people (and there are still a bunch working there), but definitely has a large number of employees from other countries as well which is great to see in this area. While the city still seems reluctant to grow and become more open-minded, it is on the right track. I find it very frustrating to read the DNR articles online because of all the close-minded people, which makes coming on here very refreshing. I know lots of my JMU friends that would love to live in Harrisonburg (and many that have stayed after graduation) if they could find a job in their discipline, but at this point, varied jobs are hard to come by (especially with the economy in bad times), but things are looking up. I think if more places like UE open up, and the city keeps expanding, adding more stores, restaurants, and high-tech or high-paying jobs, you will see a greater number of JMU grads staying here. Saying that you don’t have the opportunity to follow your dreams in Harrisonburg (within reason…) is, as you would say, ‘niave’. I would say the same thing to anyone who feels limited at JMU. JMU and Harrisonburg have soooo many opportunities. I saw Kai give a speech to the incoming JMU freshmen last year at the 1787 Convocation and I don’t think there’s any way you’ll be able to convince him that he has been limited in this area in any way.

Comment from Emmy
Time: January 12, 2009, 2:03 pm

I heard back from the lady in charge for the city schools and she set each of my kids up with an account. I wish I’d known about this sooner.

I want to clarify that I’m glad Rosetta Stone is here and I hope they continue to grow and prosper. I also hope that if this is the best route for the city, then they work out a great deal.

I know a number of people who work there, all of them locals, and they all love it. I guess my frustration comes out of the tone of the DNR article on the matter and the frustration that a number of my very intelligent friends and acquaintances have had with getting an interview. I always hope that local companies look to their neighbors first for talent, this isn’t limited to Rosetta Stone.

Comment from Bill
Time: January 12, 2009, 11:32 pm

It appears to me that there is a legitimate need by the city to help Rosetta Stone expand at its downtown location. The problem of the jail expansion will not go away and in the near future will have to be addressed. There are solutions, albeit expensive ones to expanding the jail on its current footprint. More than likely an expansion to the jail would involve a higher structure, taking part, if not all of the adjaicent Water Street, or taking other property near the current court buildings for jail expansion to be near the courts. It has been mentioned in previous posts that the jail be moved to the country. That was discussed deeply and seriously when the current jail was being designed and debated. At that time the county wanted the jail and the courts to be moved to Pleasant Valley, but the local bar and several members of the city council wanted it to stay downtown. If expansion space is not adequate at the current location, the county’s original option might have to be pursued, leaving the downtown area not only free of a jail, but quite possibly free of the courts that are located there. The logic of having the courts near the jail is to reduce both the danger and the cost of prisoner transfer from lockup to court. There are lots of questions to be answered. But if I had to guess what the decision might be, it would be that the city will look at the present (Rosetta Stone) and make a deal and worry about the future (the need for jail expansion) later and ask the county to assist it with another taking of property near the jail downtown in the near future, that being the next 3-5 years. Moving a jail that is relatively new and relocating it at another location would be a very expensive ordeal to say the least. I do not envy the new council and the decision before them- it’s not a clear cut win-win. Good luck, we are all going to have to live with the decision they make. I only hope we don’t have to pay a lot for it.

Comment from Jeremy Aldrich
Time: January 13, 2009, 7:56 am

For whatever reason, the figure Brian Shull gave me on the value of the property is different from the figure in the DNR this morning, which says it is worth $1.16 million. If the DNR’s figures are correct, that would mean that if the deal goes through the city is effectively subsidizing these 100 new jobs for $8600 each.

Comment from Jamie Smith
Time: January 13, 2009, 9:17 am

Is Jim Deskins involved in this deal? He was always good at giving away parking spaces and giving big discounts on HRHA properties. Recent city councils have done quite well in this regard. Look at the old high school and the farmers market property. Big discount on the school and lots of lost parking spaces in the latter.
As to the expanded jail there is always the old Denton building. It won’t be available at 25% of assessed value but it can be had.

Comment from JGFitzgerald
Time: January 13, 2009, 9:51 am

And the city’s website says it’s worth 929K. Assessment is apparently an art, not a science.

Comment from Brent Finnegan
Time: January 13, 2009, 9:53 am

Jaimie, I’m fairly certain that Deskins hasn’t been involved in city decisions since he left for Winchester. That was almost a decade ago. I’m thinking early 2001.

Comment from JGFitzgerald
Time: January 13, 2009, 10:23 am

Yes, Deskins left in 2k1.

BTW, how could the DNR write 451 words about this topic without addressing a single one of the questions raised in this thread?

Comment from Jamie Smith
Time: January 13, 2009, 10:51 am

I apologize. I was being facetious. It just looks like Jim’s old MO that the city has adopted.

Comment from charlie chenault
Time: January 13, 2009, 4:37 pm

What was the big discount on the old high school?
Thanks – Charlie

Comment from Peppa
Time: January 13, 2009, 5:54 pm

They have already started improvements on that old building.
I actually noticed someone working in there for the last week or so…It’s what you call a….. DONE DEAL!

Comment from Lowell
Time: January 13, 2009, 6:12 pm

Is “Jamie Smith” the same as “James Smith” the same as “Jimmy Smith” the same as “Larry King”? And maybe perhaps also “Peppa”?

Comment from Lowell
Time: January 13, 2009, 7:52 pm

Looks like the proposal has passed first vote. Many good questions were asked, and addressed. Our new council members seem to be committed to open process, and the best interests of Harrisonburg and the larger community.

Apparently there were really no negative concerns raised during the public hearing, and much thought and study had been invested into the short and long term effects of Rosetta Stone’s proposal.

Our new Council Members are representing the City Voters well…

Comment from Jeremy Aldrich
Time: January 13, 2009, 8:05 pm

According to Byrd and to Rosetta Stone HR manager Shawna Fowble, the current number of employees in the city is about 450. So according to this agreement, we should be able to expect they will have 550 employees within the next few years. Who in the city government will be monitoring that, or what will happen to the agreement if they fall below that number, remains an unanswered question.

Fowble also said she would let me know tomorrow what percentage of their recent hires have been local.

Comment from Brent Finnegan
Time: January 13, 2009, 8:17 pm

I was also there for the comments and voting (I’m still here) and the public comments were overwhelmingly in favor of the sale of the building to RS. I counted nine comments in favor, one against (or one skeptical comment, whichever you’d prefer), one comment asking that the city not make the street one-way, and two in favor, on the condition that RS donate interpreting equipment to local pro bono translators.

While I understand the concern for employee safety, I think it’s fairly presumptuous that RS wanted a complete closure of the street, with no traffic flowing east or west.

Comment from Emmy
Time: January 13, 2009, 8:32 pm

I agree Brent.

Comment from Original ‘burger
Time: January 13, 2009, 9:23 pm

All this talk about jobs and parking places…YIKE! The real travesty in this deal is the possible full closure of our only true internal East-West bypass….The Water Street Bridge. This bridge is a Godsend when the Norfolk Southern bisects our fair city at 7AM and 1PM. Has saved many a HHS student from being tardy. Especially when the VPGC 75 unit train comes through en route to Linville.
Let Roseta Stone build an overhead walkway and spare the street shutdown.

Comment from Original ‘burger
Time: January 13, 2009, 9:27 pm

I, too, agree with Brent re:”presumptuous that RS wanted complete street closure”
It’s our city’s only internal bridge to get around the Norfolk Southern bisector. It’s convenient and it’s safer to have the throughway.
Let Rosetta Stone build a walk way over the Water street and keep the traffic flowing.

Comment from Andy Perrine
Time: January 13, 2009, 10:35 pm

Tonight I was one of the nine citizens to provide comments in favor of the property sale to Rosetta Stone. I was there in my role as president of the board of directors of Harrisonburg Downtown Renaissance – as I have been in the past — to deliver a board motion endorsing the sale. As for full disclosure, my position as board president is completely volunteer, I own no commercial property downtown and our board vote was unanimous.

The point of commenting on this blog after the Council’s vote is to observe how different the sentiment was in the room at Council Chambers tonight than it was online here at hburgnews.com and at dnronline.com. Mayor Degner asked by a show of hands at the beginning of the public hearing how many citizens were present to comment in favor of the sale and how many were present to comment against the sale. All but one citizen was there in favor — and the lone dissenter was there not to comment against the sale — he was there for his church located at a nearby property simply to advocate against the proposed change in traffic patterns on Water Street.

It was an overwhelmingly supportive crowd at council tonight. Yet, the online sentiment was far more negative.

So I would like to offer my personal opinion here tonight that local blogging and comments on media outlet websites seem to be less and less representative of true public opinion, and consequently, less relevant.

Believe me, I am not intending to cast aspersions at hburgnews.com, dnronline.com or any other online forum; I am all for democratization of the media. Rather, there seems to be a growing number of local citizens who simply take shots at the process without actually getting involved. I guess it’s a lot easier to post comments online — no matter how toxic or unsupported by truth these comments are, especially if you’re posting anonymously — than it is to actually get involved in the process and advocate for the opinion you support.

Additionally, my point is to observe that there are many people in public service, many folks who volunteer their personal time and also many people in the private sector — such as Rosetta Stone — who are working very hard to move Harrisonburg and Rockingham County forward. But as they work and public issues come up such as tonight’s property sale vote, or the new wayfinding signs, or any number of other local efforts to improve our city, these people must withstand the withering outrageousness, uninformed and often profane online discourse posted by those who don’t truly participate. Why?

And please make no mistake — I am not railing against those who simply possess opposing views as mine; I disagree to my very bone marrow with frequent local online commenter David Briggman. But I respect the guy because he identifies himself online and actually participates in the process.

Here’s a proposal – let’s stop responding to anonymous posters. Sure, they’re entitled to their views and the ability to express them. Heck, Madison’s Federalist #10 — one of the most respected political treatises ever — states that a successful republican democracy relies on a diversity of opinion.

But after tonight’s chamber meeting — where true citizen opinion as expressed by residents willing to show up was so completely opposite to the online chatter — I say we should simply ignore those not willing to participate honestly and with the courage of their convictions.

Comment from Scott
Time: January 14, 2009, 12:32 am

So I would like to offer my personal opinion here tonight that local blogging and comments on media outlet websites seem to be less and less representative of true public opinion, and consequently, less relevant.

Andy — If you’re saying that the comments on hburgnews about the Rosetta Stone aren’t necessarily representative of true public opinion, I tend to agree — though your conclusion is based on nine people who were willing to show up and vocalize their thoughts tonight, and nine people certainly isn’t a very good sample size. There could have been 99,000 who stayed home and were passively opposed to the sale. ;)

What’s interesting to me is that I suspect that all of the *readers* (not commentors) of hburgnews are very likely a good representation of public opinion, but most of them don’t speak up in the comments.

My curiosity, then, is whether an hburgnews reader who is uninformed on a particular issue would be persuaded in one direction or another by hburgnews comments, or whether they would realize that the comments don’t necessarily reflect general public opinion.

Furthermore, though this issue because quite heated and convoluted in the comments, I think hburgnews is becoming ever more relevant. Hburgnews was one of the only places (the only place?) where someone could come to know (and maybe understand?) the pros and cons of this issue. As you reference, many comments did have a rather negative perspective on the Rosetta Stone purchase, which does not necessarily jive with public opinion — but as a result, lots of issues and perspectives on the purchase, and on public policy relative to economic development were explored here.

I think hburgnews is continually becoming a more relevant part of not only news in our community, but also a forum for further exploration of the issues, challenges and opportunities in our community.

Comment from Brent Finnegan
Time: January 14, 2009, 1:32 am

Over the past several years, I’ve gone to so many local events where people speak out on behalf of one issue or another, and I still can’t tell who the real majority is. Take the immigration commission forum in August. The community members that spoke out were overwhelmingly “pro -immigrant” (though you would never know that by reading the DNR story). Yet Del. Todd Gilbert told Mellott that he didn’t feel he was getting a real “sense of the community.”

All one can really deduce from the people that speak out at public hearings is: those are the people that speak out at public hearings. It’s not an accurate, scientific poll. Neither are online comments. However, I will agree that, as a general rule, Internet anonymity tends to encourage cowardly commentary.

As I was walking out of tonight’s meeting, a friend said something along the lines of, “I don’t understand why they didn’t negotiate a rental price, instead of a sale event.” It was one of those “hey… yeah!” moments, but it came to my attention far too late. Clementine, Blue Nile, and most office spaces downtown are rented and renovated, rather than sold. But the owner retains the ultimate benefit of, well, ownership.

Comment from Renee
Time: January 14, 2009, 4:18 am

I think you explained things well, Scott. Hburgnews readers are one chunk of the Harrisonburg population, just as people that attend City Council meetings are another chunk. Neither is scientifically a large enough sampling to make any statement about representing the general Harrisonburg population’s opinion.

I also didn’t get the feel that the comments here were overwhelmingly negative or against the idea. It seemed to me that a lot of people just had questions and wanted to make sure the Council wasn’t giving RS a “free pass” with unreasonable city concessions.

In addition, the discourse here and questions asked are certainly valuable. I wish we had the resources to have an “hburgnews representative” at every City Council meeting that could read some of the comments left here to the decision-makers to add to the discussion there. I know Kai wants to implement a way for the public to provide feedback to the council online, and I’m sure a lot of us blog-commenters will be sure to post our ideas that way!

I never would have heard of the Rosetta Stone “issue” had it not been brought up on this blog (or on Kai’s new whykai mayor blog).

Comment from Renee
Time: January 14, 2009, 4:20 am

P.S. I think the comments/opinions here tend to more varied, thought-out, and politely discussed than on other online news-reaction message boards (ahem, DNR comments).

Comment from Emmy
Time: January 14, 2009, 6:32 am

“I also didn’t get the feel that the comments here were overwhelmingly negative or against the idea. It seemed to me that a lot of people just had questions and wanted to make sure the Council wasn’t giving RS a “free pass” with unreasonable city concessions.”

This is how I feel about it Renee. I’m not at all opposed to this happening, I just took issue with some of the wording and had my own personal opinions. None of my issues with this are enough to make me go to the meeting and speak up against it, because I’m not against it. The only thing that would have made me go speak up would have been if the idea of closing the road had appeared to be a real possibility.

Looking back I do wish I’d gone to the meeting where they talked about the way finding signs.

Comment from Jeremy Aldrich
Time: January 14, 2009, 7:21 am

I think the online sentiment (here, anyway) was more skeptical and cautious, not outright negative towards the deal. And I think caution and skepticism are in order when the government is giving away property worth hundreds of thousands of dollars. There are many reasons why one wouldn’t want to go on record as objecting to the deal as written, especially given the current economic climate and the way the deal has been spun by Rosetta Stone and the Economic Development folks. But there are a number of questions about the deal and its effects that remain unanswered, largely because they weren’t asked. I really value the discussions at hburgnews which allow us to share links, ask questions respectfully, and provide information to other people in our community.

At last night’s meeting, I know of at least two others who were ready to speak about their reservations concerning the plan but decided not to because of the way the public hearing was introduced (“Raise your hand if you plan to speak against it”), the information presented, and the tone of the comments in favor of the deal.

As to anonymous commenters, the only comments here by people I don’t know were in support of the plan, or on extraneous issues (like the intelligence of the locals or what Rosetta Stone gave to schools).

Comment from Peppa
Time: January 14, 2009, 8:00 am

I think people tend not to speak out at the public hearings because of past experience. If you went to the hearing for the sale of the high school, the public spoke strongly aganst the sale – over and over. Result, the sale was made anyway. Too many times these comments are tolerated by the council and ignored. They do what they “feel is best” no matter what the people say. I was at that meeting and spoke out against with a room full of others. I, like others, believe it was a waist of time and effort.

Comment from JGFitzgerald
Time: January 14, 2009, 8:20 am

Rarely is any new information presented at a public hearing. A majority of council members are aware of what was written here on this issue. They had most likely heard extensively from downtown, staff, and Rosetta people. They could have been swayed by new information, an argument they had not considered, or evidence that a vast majority of the citizenry opposed the sale (as opposed to, no offense intended, 60 percent of those who comment in advance).

Most sentient council members will have some idea which way they’re leaning before the hearing begins. They wait to commit, not out of lip service to the concept of a public hearing, but out of respect for those who show up and comment.

A council member who based an important decision only on what he or she heard in the public hearing and staff presentation would be remiss. On complicated and controversial issues, much listening and gathering of information is required well in advance. That doesn’t make it a done deal. It means that if you want to be heard on an issue, you need to talk to a council member before the meeting, when there’s more time, there’s no TV camera, and there aren’t ten other agenda issues waiting to be discussed.

Comment from Peppa
Time: January 14, 2009, 8:48 am

Joe, that pretty well sums it up. And that is the feeling that most of the public has. Not to harp on the high school, I know many people including myself talked to council members before the meeting, expressed our feelings and received little response or consideration. The only support for that sale was from JMU and the council. CC you asked “what was the big discount on the high school” well, a whole city block sold way under market value.

Comment from Andy Perrine
Time: January 14, 2009, 8:58 am

I feel that I must reiterate my point. I wrote,

“Believe me, I am not intending to cast aspersions at hburgnews.com, dnronline.com or any other online forum; I am all for democratization of the media. Rather, there seems to be a growing number of local citizens who simply take shots at the process without actually getting involved.”

Hburgnews.com is a terrific medium. My comments were directed toward what seems to be a preponderance of heckling by commenters, rather than reasoned and thoughtful debate and true citizen involvement. Although, it happens less so here than at dnronline.com.

And believe me Jeremy, there are few more skeptical than me when it comes to dealing with authority and the perennial holders of power. That’s why I am involved in the process.

Above all, thanks to you all for your reasonable responses to my comment. Maybe it’s not as bad as I perceived it was last night after spending my evening at a city council meeting (after a long day at work).

Comment from charlie chenault
Time: January 14, 2009, 9:17 am

Peppa – at the public hearing on the sale of the high school, 11 people spoke against it, all of whom I knew personally (3 of whom now think it was a good idea) and 2 spoke for it. I received over 200 e-mails in favor of the sale and approximately 15 against it. Peppa – your statement that the high school sold way below market value is simply not correct. The market itself determines market value and the highest offer before JMU bought the high school was $8 million – less than one-half of the final sale price. I dispute your statement that only council and JMU supported the sale. You have simply no basis in fact to make that statement. I think you need to talk to more people in a more diverse cross-section of the community about this. Joe hits the nail on the head in his 8:20 a.m. comment as far as I am concerned. Brent – municipalities are not good landlords and should not be competing against the private sector in that regard in my opinion. If you as a private property owner had a restaurant rental prospect and lost that prospect to a city owned property, how would you feel?
Thanks – Charlie

Comment from JGFitzgerald
Time: January 14, 2009, 9:21 am

I remember the high school sale. The city got rid of a beige elephant, one that it couldn’t have sold at “market value,” whatever that might be for an abandoned high school. There are two entities in the ‘Burg big enough to have bought that property, and RMH didn’t want it.

What I meant to point out in my earlier comment is that you must be involved prior to a public hearing to have maximum impact. I might add that an individual’s impact can be greater if he or she is involved in more than just a single issue.

Comment from Don
Time: January 14, 2009, 10:18 am

“If you as a private property owner had a restaurant rental prospect and lost that prospect to a city owned property, how would you feel?”

Charlie I can respectfully tell you how it feels to lose in transactions with the city because I am an individual homeowner here and whether it’s my real estate taxes going up while property values go down or the council selling taxpayer property at a substantial loss or my personal property being assessed unrealistically, I don’t feel fairly treated. Darn right I know how it feels to lose. Can’t the big dogs lose once in awhile?

Who looks out for my interest?

Comment from Jeremy Aldrich
Time: January 14, 2009, 11:45 am

Didn’t the many people selling buildings at market value lose out when Rosetta Stone passed over their properties to get a cut-rate deal from the city? Why pay retail when you can buy for pennies on the dollar at Crazy EcDev’s? ;-)

Comment from Peppa
Time: January 14, 2009, 12:47 pm

CC, I guess we talk to different people. You have your opinion, I have mine.

Comment from charlie chenault
Time: January 14, 2009, 1:15 pm

Jeremy – I do not know any people in Harrisonburg that are selling buildings that are complaining about this. It seems like the business community supported this wholeheartedly for obvious reasons of course. Again, bottom line, don’t sell to them, and you will have two buildings available and 500 jobs lost.
Thanks – Charlie

Comment from Jeremy Aldrich
Time: January 14, 2009, 1:26 pm

Charlie, all due respect, I was responding to your concern about the hypothetical concern of renters competing with the city. And unless Rosetta Stone has actually made a threat to leave the city if the deal didn’t go through, the concern about 500 jobs lost is pretty extreme. It’s hard for me to imagine that rather than spending a few more hundred thousand dollars, they would have chosen to spend several million to move out of the city. If they were in fact making that threat, it would probably be good to know.

Comment from charlie chenault
Time: January 14, 2009, 3:20 pm

I understand your points Jeremy and very much appreciate them.
Thanks – Charlie

Comment from Peppa
Time: January 14, 2009, 3:49 pm

That beige elephant could have been used to house the school board, the city offices located in the municipal building. Or hey, it would have made a good middle school in conjunction with the school board offices. Plus, the sporting fields could have been shared with the new HHS for practice fields since they have to stagger times to accomadate all sports and practice can go well into the evening.

Just a few quick ideas. I’m sure that someone with more diverse contacts could come up with a few more.

Comment from Jeremy Aldrich
Time: January 14, 2009, 3:56 pm

As a middle school teacher, we didn’t want the building because the city wasn’t going to renovate it to become appropriate for use by younger students. If we had leased it and then recovered it from JMU in its current renovated condition, it would be awesome as a central office/school. I think it’s fascinating that we as a city can’t find the money to renovate old buildings we already own, but we can find money to build new constructions.

Comment from Peppa
Time: January 14, 2009, 4:44 pm

Jeremy, that was my thinking. Lease the property to JMU for five years, let them renovate, take it back in it’s newly improved condition and think of all the money that would have been saved.

Comment from John Marr
Time: January 14, 2009, 5:05 pm

Not to say that the “lease-it to JMU” idea couldn’t have worked, but I’m betting JMU would not have fallen for it.

To put it in terms that most of us can appreciate, would you sink a huge amount of money into rebuilding a house you are leasing with no option to buy?

Pingback from Why, Kai? » Why Online City Council Agendas with Supporting Documentation
Time: January 14, 2009, 5:08 pm

[...] For last night’s meeting, the file contains 125 pages of additional information that provides context and background for discussion like this one.  [...]

Comment from kai
Time: January 14, 2009, 5:25 pm

Interesting turn in conversation today – thanks for kicking it off, Andy. There’s lots to comment on, but here are a couple quick items:

1. Jeremy @ 7:21am

“At last night’s meeting, I know of at least two others who were ready to speak about their reservations concerning the plan but decided not to because of the way the public hearing was introduced (”Raise your hand if you plan to speak against it”), the information presented, and the tone of the comments in favor of the deal.”

Call it splitting hairs, but I intentionally did not ask for hands being “against” the proposal. After asking for hands in support of the proposal, I asked for hands from people who “want to share further considerations about the proposal.” I framed it this way to intentionally be more inviting for people who were indeed against it and also people who had other comments.

2. The staff presentation was intended to make it pretty clear that this contract was negotiated with an eye on economic development, rather than simply a real estate deal. Thus, a discussion about the sale price alone is too narrow a context in determining whether it was “a good deal.”

3. Jeremy @ 1:26pm

“unless Rosetta Stone has actually made a threat to leave the city if the deal didn’t go through, the concern about 500 jobs lost is pretty extreme”

The concern wasn’t extreme, not due to a “threat” but rather the commonsense business realities that make relocating more likely if the current location doesn’t suit a company’s envisioned growth.

Comment from Barkley Rosser
Time: January 14, 2009, 5:46 pm

Jeremy,

I find it a bit odd that people were cowed into not speaking at the CC meeting because Kai asked for a show of hands from people regarding whether they were for or against. Is it that these people did not wish to state a position and thus somehow felt they could not speak, or were actually negative, but somehow cowed by not being in the majority in the audience in the room?

Brent,

Regarding the sale versus rental issue, I think Charlie Chenault basically has it right. The places you mentioned are all renting from private landlords, I think. It has not in general been the practice of Harrisonburg or most cities in this country to engage in widespread renting to private business interests. Why should Harrisonburg get into such a thing now? And, indeed, if one is dealing with a major business that is a significant part of the city’s economic base, I would imagine that they would much prefer to own rather than lease.

As for all the potential sellers of commercial property to them, I would think that most realize that the location of this building is desirable for RS and there are few who would have any good reason to think that RS would be rushing to buy from them.

OTOH, I share the concerns of Brent and Burger and others about the Water Street issue. At a minimum, the matter of emergency vehicles needing to get across the RR tracks without any hassle is probably the killer on completely closing the street. Something else needs to be worked out on that particular part of this.

Comment from Jeremy Aldrich
Time: January 14, 2009, 5:59 pm

Kai, thanks for responding. On point 1, sorry if I misheard the way you framed the public hearing; if we had the video archived online we could “play the tape” but I’ll take you at your word.

I will skip point 2 for now.

On point 3, the key for me is that there WERE other options – including raising the sale price on this building and acquiring other nearby vacant buildings from private sellers. Those options would have also allowed the company to grow as it needs to without dumping a city property at a bargain-basement price. A couple members of Council own houses valued at more than what Rosetta Stone is paying for that 14,400 square foot building!

Those other options would still have been cheaper for Rosetta Stone than building an entirely new facility elsewhere. Are we establishing a precedent for other businesses that if you see a vacant city property you like, we’ll give it to you for a fraction of its market value?

By selling the building for such a low price, we have made it more difficult for the city coffers to benefit from the Rosetta Stone expansion. How many years of property tax and business property tax will it take just to recoup the difference between the sale price and the market value, much less the costs from traffic changes and parking spaces required in the agreement?

In return for this investment that will take many years to benefit from, the city is promised 100 new jobs with an average salary of $50,000 within the next five years. But I am still unclear on who will be making sure those jobs exist, how long they are required to exist after created, and what will happen if those jobs cease to exist in the future. Could the jobs be here and gone before this investment in growth is ever paid back in increased tax revenue?

OK, so I guess I did eventually get to point 2.

By the way, kudos to everyone who has actually taken the time to read this thread. And double kudos to those who have taken the time to respond.

Comment from Brent Finnegan
Time: January 14, 2009, 6:19 pm

Barkley and Charlie, I think you make good points about the city not wanting to play landlord. I agree. But by that same token, I don’t think the city should play realtor, either. The city might make a lousy landlord, but — judging from this low sale price, and the One Court Square vacancy — it looks like it’s even worse at negotiating real estate deals.

That’s not a jab at any one person, and I’m sure Mr. Shull could draw up an equation, factoring in new jobs, tax revenue, and “trickle down” economics to try to offset the price difference, but I hope you understand the gist of my point.

There may be recent examples where the city made a profit on a sale. I just can’t think of any offhand.

Comment from Lonnie
Time: January 14, 2009, 6:24 pm

I second what you are saying, Kai. As a first-time attender at a City Council, I was listening closely as you framed your questions last night. I was the person present expressing concerns about access to our church building as a result of the pending one-way street. If you had said, “who here is against the sale?”, I would not have raised my hand, but I clearly heard that you were asking for those with further concerns/considerations to raise their hands. I was not aware I was the only one to raise my hand!

Comment from Barkley Rosser
Time: January 14, 2009, 6:31 pm

Jeremy,

You keep talking about “market value.” That is something that one sees in a market, that is actual sales, not just some appraiser saying they what they think it is. Where are the other people or groups rushing forward to offer to buy the property at anything above $300,000? That may be too low a price in some ideal world, but this is a recesssion where property values are down.

Also, comparing a dumpy structure with possible commercial use after some serious fixing up with a nicely done private home is a bit odd.

Comment from Jeremy Aldrich
Time: January 14, 2009, 6:38 pm

Barkley, it was never offered to anyone at $300,000 or $1.16 million or anywhere in between. Perhaps if it had then anyone with need for 14,400 square feet (including businesses not already in the city) might have jumped at a solid construction right next to ample parking in a technology zone.

If you want to say our city’s assessment values, which are tied to “100% of market value“, are ridiculously off, you’re taking that up with the wrong department. If $300k is a reasonable price for this property, how much do you think One Court Square should go for? And how much should the city be willing to pay for the proposed school admin building?

Comment from Emmy
Time: January 14, 2009, 7:45 pm

Some good points are being raised.

For starters while I don’t think that RS would up and leave if this hadn’t gone through, I do think that this building makes life much easier for them. They cannot expand their current building, and if they all need to be able to work closely with each other, then having a building very near them makes a lot more sense, than somewhere across town. Aside from the Whetsel Seed building right across the street, I can’t think of a better spot for them to grow. And I’m assuming that building was either already sold, too small, or both.

As for the sale price. Well, I do wish they’d sold it for a bit more. But, when you think about it, it’s a fixer upper for anyone who gets it. It’s one of those Sold-As Is properties you see. A $300K house is worth that if it is in livable condition, but it isn’t worth that if you have to gut the place. Based on the fact that this used to be a police station/jail I assume the insides need a lot of work to make into any sort of office. So the truth is that all three possible uses for this building would have to do some serious work to make it worth it. If it could be used as is, it might be worth $850+, but it can’t, so it isn’t.

It’s a good move for the city and RS and it will eventually pay off for the city in some ways unseen.

Comment from Scott Rogers
Time: January 14, 2009, 8:16 pm

Are we establishing a precedent for other businesses that if you see a vacant city property you like, we’ll give it to you for a fraction of its market value?

Perhaps it’s not a bad precedent. If another existing or new company comes along and offers to buy a vacant building owned by the city, offers to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars to fix it up, and to create 100 jobs, that seems like it would be a good thing!

By selling the building for such a low price, we have made it more difficult for the city coffers to benefit from the Rosetta Stone expansion. How many years of property tax and business property tax will it take just to recoup the difference between the sale price and the market value, much less the costs from traffic changes and parking spaces required in the agreement?

Jeremy — I think you’re looking at what you perceive to be sales price concessions (selling at $300k) in a vacuum, instead of realizing the larger effects of this economic development move. Putting this deal together with Rosetta Stone doesn’t just benefit the City by creating a stream of tax revenue relative to that property — it grows our local economy. New employees (many likely with families) will move into the area, other downtown businesses will see an increase in revenues, etc., etc. I believe the City Council is looking at this issue from a much more global perspective than you would like to view it.

Comment from Emmy
Time: January 14, 2009, 8:32 pm

I tend to think most property is overpriced, so I don’t think it’s a bad precedent to set. But I know nothing about property value.

Comment from Scott Rogers
Time: January 14, 2009, 9:21 pm

Let me make a comment about my own comment….

I suggested that we need to look at this situation “globally” — considering the sales price in the context of the larger effects of economic growth, and not just an increased tax base.

However, I do realize that Jeremy is also looking at this situation in a (different, but equally valid) global sense — considering the impact of selling the property on the jail, school board, etc.

Again, one of the things I appreciate about hburgnews is how so many different perspectives can be revealed!

Comment from Lowell
Time: January 15, 2009, 12:40 am

Something that I find very heartening, is that we now have 159 comments on this topic…

So very cool…

Comment from Renee
Time: January 15, 2009, 1:17 am

Jeremy, you said “I think it’s fascinating that we as a city can’t find the money to renovate old buildings we already own, but we can find money to build new constructions.”

I have to agree with that sentiment, it bothers me how long ugly vacant buildings have stood around town (several since I was in college in 2000), and with all of the zoning issues and the high cost of new construction, you’d think the city could improve existing buildings/lots either for its own use or for improving the sale value, or tear old ugly buildings down and build new construction “up” instead of “out” (like what’s been done with Urban Exchange).

I do think the city should of course sell land under value if the business purchasing it is going to improve the economy and physical space downtown, but I just think it would really serve the city to “clean up” old buildings and use them or sell them for more.

Comment from Karl
Time: January 15, 2009, 5:48 am

For what it’s worth Jeremy, I have a tape of the meeting. You can swing by the station to watch it if you would like, but I can tell you in advance that Kai’s recollection is very, very close to what he said.

How about a pedestrian bridge over Water Street? It’s a little different, but Cargill in Dayton is a great example of how a dangerous and traffic slowing pedestrian situation was taken above the street and fixed. Traffic flow is a major problem in the city and closing or making that section of Water Street (or any street) one way seems nuts.

Comment from Jeremy Aldrich
Time: January 15, 2009, 7:05 am

Thanks Karl. I’m sorry I cast aspersions on Kai’s skills at opening discussion, which is obviously a professional and personal passion of his.

Comment from Barkley Rosser
Time: January 15, 2009, 4:06 pm

Jeremy,

I am not questioning city assessments in general, just this one. Nor am I going to provide a proper price for the locations you inquired about. I do not know.

You are dealing with someone who has spent a lot of time looking at how assessments are done and the data bases behind them. Those market values must be based on actualluy equivalent market sales. So, in a given residential area there are usually plenty of sales going on that can provide a reasonable guide for the valuations, in spite of the whining by lots of homeowners about their own assessments (such as by one individual commenting here). However, when one gets to oddball pieces of property in downtown areas, there are often not very many equivalent sales, and the basis of the assessment is very slender and not so reliable. I have seen variations in such sales by an order of magnitude.

What are the equivalent properties that have been selling at the prices that have been assigned for assessment purposes? What is the equivalent piece of property that sold for $1.16 million? I do not think there are many, if any.

Comment from Don
Time: January 16, 2009, 9:29 am

…”whining by lots of homeowners about their own assessments”

Well gee Barkley, I didn’t know that the foreclosures in my neighborhood counted as “sales”.

Plug that into your database.

Comment from Barkley Rosser
Time: January 16, 2009, 11:47 am

Don,

One problem with the assessments is that there is a lag, with reassessments generally reflecting sales from a year or two previously. So, we have this past year seen people getting upwards reassessments when prices have actually been going down. The downward movement will get picked up in coming years, especially if it is sustained.

Jeremy,

As this is about to scroll off, let me answer your question a bit more precisely, although very roughly. You asked how long it would take for the city’s coffers to make up for the probably “too low” price for the property RS is buying from the city, ignoring for the moment that there is more involved here than simply the city’s coffers.

So, let us ignore increased business tax income from RS or any other local businesses stimulated by their expansion. Let us simply focus on increased property tax revenue from those getting the new jobs, plus those getting multiplier jobs from the expansion. I am pretty certain that if one simply held an auction, the property would not get anywhere near $1.16 million, although I would grant that it might well get more, possibly quite a bit more, than $300,000. Anyway, let us say that in fact it could sell for $1.1 million, making the “loss” for the city at $800,000. Making a pretty conservative assumption that the increased property taxes from the 150 new employees in the city (100 at RS plus another 50 from multiplier effects), is $1000 per person per year, that means the city will be getting an extra $150,000 in property taxes from them per year. I realize that this number may be lower or higher for various reasons, but also keep in mind I am not counting the higher taxe revenues form RS and other businesses. So, at this rate we are looking at the difference being covered in a bit over five years. Is this all that terrible?

I would note also that RS brings growth without the negative externalities that new growth from JMU brings. It also brings multiplier effects extra expansion, but also brings more traffic congestion near campus and all that extra wild partying by students, now more in check with their effective ghettoization in their own complexes, mostly. Yes, there is a traffic issue right by RS and the new building yet to be resolved, but I am not expecting to hear of local residents being severely disturbed by out of control Tower of Babel parties at Urban Exchange due to wild linguists living there.

Comment from seth
Time: January 16, 2009, 11:52 am

sign me up!

Comment from Jeremy Aldrich
Time: January 16, 2009, 11:54 am

I am still waiting on some city employees to let me know the details of their time horizon for making back enough income from this project to cover the deeply discounted building, but I would note the following in the meantime:

1. Once that time horizon is filled (in your rough estimate, 5 years from now), the city is back at a zero balance, and THEN begins to benefit financially from the investment.

2. There remains a question on whether Rosetta Stone will in fact be obligated to maintain those jobs in Harrisonburg for the duration of that time horizon or not. If they only keep the jobs for, say 3 years, then this deal creates a negative balance on the investment, AND the city will be out some land that might potentially be very needed around that time and would be much more costly to replace.

3. I have yet to find compelling reasons why they (Rosetta Stone) wouldn’t have bought this or another property at a higher price, substantially reducing the time horizon and the risk from this investment by the city.

As I said, I’m awaiting some more details and will share them in a followup post when I receive them.

Comment from Josh
Time: January 16, 2009, 12:11 pm

1. Seems like a much quicker turn-around than most municipal investments! :)
2. Negative balance based on assumptions of present and future property values, RS market performance, etc. The city could always buy it back someday in the future.
3. I still don’t understand why anyone thinks RS should pay anymore than absolutely necessary to acquire a property. They have a bottom line too. They’ve done this area a huge favor by not jumping ship from Hburg already considering the failed IPv6 etc.

Isn’t this a done deal already? :)

Comment from Jeremy Aldrich
Time: January 16, 2009, 12:34 pm

Actually Josh, I don’t think it is a “done deal”. Because this was not put out for bidding, this deal requires passage of a special ordinance. According to city code (as I understand it), the passage of this ordinance will require a second vote at another meeting. Although that is normally not an issue, the ordinance is not yet in effect. I assume the second vote will be at their next meeting. I welcome anyone who knows differently to correct me on this if I’m wrong.

Comment from Andy Perrine
Time: January 19, 2009, 5:36 pm

Sorry to revive a somewhat cold thread … but no one followed up on Dr. Rosser’s terrific line,

“I am not expecting to hear of local residents being severely disturbed by out of control Tower of Babel parties at Urban Exchange due to wild linguists living there.”

Wow! Now then, as for my somewhat-whiny-but-honestly-sorrowful post after last week’s council meeting in which I lamented the lack of relevance to public discourse online, Barkley’s hilarious post changes all that.

And please, will someone invite me to a party populated by “wild linguists?” This is the entire point of downtown renaissance, IMHO.

Pingback from 2009 in Harrisonburg | hburgnews.com
Time: December 31, 2009, 10:52 am

[...] story about Rosetta Stone’s purchase of the old police building from the city received over 150 [...]

Comment from Scott Rogers
Time: March 4, 2010, 3:27 pm

From today’s Daily News Record….

Rosetta Stone Gears Up
Rapid Growth Translates Into City Hiring Blitz

By Jeremy Hunt

HARRISONBURG – When Rosetta Stone bought the old city police headquarters last year, the company nticipated creating 100 new jobs over five years as part of an expansion.

Fortunately for local job seekers – and counterintuitively, given the dismal economic outlook – the figure didn’t paint a complete future employment picture.

“We’re actually expanding even further,” said Melissa Yates May, director of human resources for the language-learning software company.

“We’ve been very fortunate in our success as a company and fortunate as well in the brains behind the product and where we’re going.”

Doubling New Hires

Rosetta Stone, founded in Harrisonburg in 1992, wants to fill more than 100 positions this year in addition to the 100 expected over the five-year period.

The company held a recruiting fair Wednesday at the renovated building that once housed the Harrisonburg Police Department.

The property, located at 181 S. Liberty St., also is known as the Valley Creamery, in reference to a business once located there.

Rosetta Stone bought the facility for $300,000 in January 2009, and renovations were complete within a few months, May said.

The firm, which has its corporate headquarters in Arlington, employs nearly 440 people in Harrisonburg.

More than 100 prospective employees attended Wednesday’s appointment-only job fair, which was the first this year. The company plans to have more fairs throughout 2010 as it builds a new department, but additional dates have not been set.

The new department aims to assist and encourage Rosetta Stone customers as they progress, says company spokesman Reilly Brennan.

Brennan likened the “customer success associates” to personal trainers at a gym.

“It’s all about basically keeping you on track,” he said.

While filling positions in the customer success department is the focus of recruitment at the Harrisonburg office this year, May said there would be other opportunities as well.

Job seekers at the recruitment fair said they’re pleased that the growing software company maintains a Harrisonburg location, rather than traditional tech hubs like California’s Silicon Valley or Northern Virginia.

“I love that they’re expanding and they’re doing it in our community,” David Wyant said.

Rising Revenue

The expansion comes at a time when many companies are cutting jobs or holding employment levels flat.

While the sluggish national economy continues to batter bottom lines across industries, Rosetta Stone is faring well.

Its fourth-quarter earnings report, released last week, shows total revenue for the period ending Dec. 31 was $78.3 million, up 18 percent from the same quarter the year before.

The company, which went public in April, is traded on the New York Stock Exchange with a common stock symbol of RST.

Rosetta Stone shares closed on Wednesday at $22.80.

Contact Jeremy Hunt at 574-6273 or jhunt@dnronline.com

Comment from Jeremy Aldrich
Time: March 4, 2010, 4:16 pm

Something doesn’t add up. See my comment from January 13, 2009 at 8:05 PM. “According to Byrd and to Rosetta Stone HR manager Shawna Fowble, the current number of employees in the city is about 450.”

Then in the article today (more than a year later): “The firm, which has its corporate headquarters in Arlington, employs nearly 440 people in Harrisonburg.”

So according to them and to the DNR, within four years we should have 650 (450 at the time of the agreement + 100 as agreed to + 100 extra) Rosetta Stone employees in Harrisonburg? That would be great. Who’s going to check?

Comment from Scott Rogers
Time: March 4, 2010, 4:22 pm

So, perhaps the 450 from a year ago is now 440, and they are getting ready to add the first 100 of the now projected 200?

Comment from Emmy
Time: March 4, 2010, 4:41 pm

From what I understand they recently laid off a number of people. I know of at least one for sure, and that person said others went as well. If that’s true, I highly doubt they are adding any.

Comment from Scott Rogers
Time: March 4, 2010, 5:22 pm

Emmy — to clarify, you say that you highly doubt that they are adding any — what then do you make of the job fair, the new department, and the people that are going to fill that department.

Are you suggesting that they are firing 100 and hiring 100?

Comment from Brent Finnegan
Time: March 4, 2010, 5:29 pm

More likely they are “restructuring” by closing or shrinking some departments, and expanding or starting new ones. It’s my understanding that some of the old audio jobs are being outsourced to studios in the countries where those certain languages are spoken (recording there as opposed to flying language speakers over here).

Comment from Emmy
Time: March 4, 2010, 8:12 pm

I honestly don’t know. Lots of things just seem really weird from what’s being said in the paper, and from what I’m hearing from people who work/worked there. Jeremy is probably right, it’s probably “restructuring”.

Comment from Emmy
Time: March 4, 2010, 8:15 pm

Sorry, I meant Brent, not Jeremy.