The Fischer Companies/Urban Renenwal Proposal/Ice Harbor Area
. ,
~.
Brian 1. Kane
Gary K. Norby
Les V. Reddick.
D. Flint Drake"""
Brad J. Heying
Todd L. Stevenson.
Louis P. Pfeiler
MaryBeth pfeiler Salmon
~rr.~'~1 /'-D
KANE, NORBY & REDDICK, PoC.1i c:....~: Ii b
ATTORNEYS
2100 ASBURY ROAD, SUITE 2
DUBUQUE, lA 52001-3069
[i~::';!=I
t':.,. I,
/'L I j I' l: i
C"'./ " r.
I,;,,_~ '-(~'3 t)i{fce
L:;,hr':'!c" lA'
....1_, ...!, Jl..~;";;, J
All admitted in Iowa
* Also admitted in Illinois
** Also admitted in Wisconsin
Phone: (319) 582-7980
Facsimile: (319) 582-5312
E-mail: knrpc@mcleodusa.net
May 31,2000
The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
City of Dubuque
City Hall
13th & Iowa
Dubuque, IA 52001
RE: THE FISCHER COMPANIES/URBAN RENEWAL PROPOSAL/
ICE HARBOR AREA
Dear Mr. Mayor and Members of the Council:
We are counsel for The Fischer Companies (also known as Plastic Center, Inc.) and hereby
object to any designation by the City of our client's property along the riverfront as part ofan urban
renewal district. Our objection is based upon, among other things, the following:
1. Iowa Code Section 403.4(1999) (hereafter "Section") provides that you cannot exercise
your urban renewal power until after you adopt a resolution finding that:
(i) One or more slum, blighted or economic develooment areas exist in the municipality;
(ii) The rehabilitation, conservation, redevelopment, development, or a combination thereof,
of the area is necessary in the interest of the public health, safety, or welfare ofthe residents of the
municipality.
Our client's property is not a slum within the meaning of Section 403.17(21) since our
client's property is not ". . .an area in which there is a predominance of buildings or improvements,
whether residential or non-residential, which: by reason of dilapidation, deterioration, age or
obsolescence; by reason of inadequate provision for ventilation, light, air, sanitation, or open spaces;
by reason of high density of population and overcrowding; by reason ofthe existence of conditions
which endanger life or property by fire and other causes; or which by an combination of such factors,
KANE, NORBY & REDDICK, P.C.
Page 2
May 31,2000
is conducive to ill-health, transmission of disease, infant mortality, juvenile delinquency, or crime,
and which is detrimental to the public health, safety, morals or welfare." None of these conditions
exist; our client operates a profitable and successful storage and related services business on its
property.
Our client's property is not a "blighted area" because you cannot reasonably determine that
".. .the presence ofa substantial number of slum, deteriorated or deteriorating structures; defective
or inadequate street layout; faulty layout in relation to size, adequacy, accessibility or usefulness;
insanitary or unsafe conditions; deterioration of site or other improvements; diversity of ownership,
tax or special assessment, delinquency exceeding the fair value of the land; defective or unusual
conditions oftitle; or the existence of conditions which endanger life or property by fire and other
causes; or any combination of these factors; substantially impairs or arrests the sound growth of the
municipality, retards the provision of housing accommodations, or constitutes an economic or social
liability and is a menace to the public health, safety, or welfare in its present condition and use." Our
client's legal and profitable use of its property, consistent with existing zoning and the City's
published comprehensive plan, is beneficial to Dubuque area businesses. Your threatened "taking"
of our client's property which would substantially benefit a private gambling operation is not in
Dubuque's best interests.
According to the May IS, 2000 memorandum from James Burke, Community & Economic
Development Director, to Michael VanMilligen, City Manager, and the proposed resolution attached
thereto, the reason to declare, among other things, our client's property as part ofan urban renewal
area is only because it is "blighted." As seen above, our client's property is not blighted.
By designating this property an urban renewal area, and thereupon choosing to condemn
our client's property by exercising the City's eminent domain power, the City is and would be acting
contrary to Section 403.17(a) because a convention center is not within the meaning of "economic
development" according to that provision ofIowa law. Section 403. 1 7(a)(9) defines an economic
development area as an area of a municipality designated by you as appropriate for commercial and
industrial enterprises. public improvements related to housing and residential development. or
construction of housing and residential development for low and moderate income families.
including single and multi- familv housing. A convention center, for this purpose, is not commercial
or industrial or a public improvement related to housing or residential development.
2. The urban renewal plan referred to in Mr. Burke's May 15,2000 memorandum does not
conform to the general plan (i.e. comprehensive plan) of the City of Dubuque as a whole and is
therefore contrary to Section 403.5( 4)(b). Our client's property is designated as industrial property
on the present comprehensive plan for the City of Dubuque and that is how it has been profitably
used for decades. Our client (and its family shareholders) have owned this real estate for over 150
years.
KANE, NORBY & REDDICK, P.C.
Page 3
May 31, 2000
Section 403.17(23) defines urban renewal plans as a plan for the ". . .development,
redevelopment, improvement, rehabilitation or designated urban renewal area as it exists from time
to time. The plan shall meet the following requirements:
(a) Conform to the general plan for the municipality as a whole***;
(b) Be sufficiently complete to indicate the real property located in the urban renewal area
to be acquired for the proposed development, redevelopment, improvement, or rehabilitation, and
to indicate any zoning district changes, existing and future land uses, and the local objectives
respecting development, redevelopment, improvement, or rehabilitation related to the future land
uses planned, and need for improved traffic, public transportation, public utilities, recreational and
community facilities and other public improvements within the urban renewal area.
You have not documented, nor can you reasonably show, compliance with Section
403.17(23). Your proposed urban renewal district is inconsistent with the City's existing
comprehensive plan.
3. The urban renewal plan does not conform to the requirements of Section 403.5(4)(b)(2)
which provides that, for an area to be developed for non-residential uses, the Council must
determine that such non-residential uses are necessary and appropriate to facilitate the proper growth
and development of the community in accordance with sound planning standards and local
community objectives. The City's purported purpose, as shown in the attachments to Mr. Burke's
May 15,2000 memo, is for the support of gambling (i.e. river boat gambling and related facilities).
Under the aforementioned statute, the support of gambling activities or related uses is not necessary
and appropriate to facilitate proper growth of the City. To the contrary, gambling, and activities
related to gambling, have hurt our community and study after study has supported the notion that
the indirect long term costs associated with gambling far outweigh the short term, monetary benefits
to a municipality from gambling.
4. You have failed to adequately take into account the potential adverse effects on the Five
Flags Civic Center, the local hotels (including the Julien Inn) and motels, or at least have not given
enough weight to the effect of this project (i.e. convention center and additional hotels and parking
all to facilitate gambling) on the existing facilities.
5. The financing for this project is too speculative. Essentially, according to published
reports, this project rests on obtaining a large grant from a newly developed fund recently passed by
the Iowa legislature. You are seemingly rushing to take control of our client's property prior to even
applying for such a grant. There is, however, no need to "take" our client's property at this time.
Moreover, the grant may not be obtained in which event you will have taken our client's property
for a non-public purpose and shut down a taxpaying business operation for no good reason. The
project is so speculative it is possible that nothing would be built for years to come. There is no
demonstrable public purpose for taking all of our client's property. Further, you apparently need
KANE, NORBY & REDDICK, P.C.
Page 4
May 31, 2000
to follow the urban renewal route in order to take our client's property as either slum, blighted or for
economic development. However, you are thereby conceding that the convention center and related
hotel and other uses are not a public purpose; otherwise, you could simply condemn our client's
property.
6. Our client's development of the property, taking into account the 1993 action of the
Council with regard to the overlay zoning area, was significantly interrupted by the City's taking
under threat of condemnation of our client's valuable access to the river all along the easterly
boundary line of our client's property. You took action significantly disrupting our client's ability
to properly develop its property in an orderly fashion by virtue of such condemnation. To now claim
that our client has not taken sufficient action to develop the property, and ignoring your own
"taking" in the meantime, is an affront to our client' s (and its family predecessors) ownership of its
property for over 150 years and to their right, under the constitution of the United States of America
and the State ofIowa, to use and enjoy their property for any and all legal purposes. Your action in
connection with the present urban renewal proposal is a "selective", discriminatory approach and
treats similarly situated private landowners differently. For example, certain persons, businesses
and landowners affected by the 1993 overlay plan are intentionally excluded from the proposed
urban renewal district.
7. Our client has always been willing to participate in economically viable projects without
going through this process. A convention center in and of itself is not a viable development
economically nor is it the best use ofthe property. Our client participated in the 1993 zoning overlay
process, cooperated in the sale of the real estate for a parking lot and made a large charitable
contribution to the river walk project. No one from the City has ever approached our client about
potential development on this property since 1993.
In summary, there is no public purpose or permissible economic development objective to
improve the area including our client's property. Your actions are a transparent use of the urban
renewal statute and the condemnation statute to benefit private gambling interests which are inimical
to the best interests of our community.
For the reasons cited above, we respectfully request that you preserve our client's
constitutionally protected right to use and enjoy their property and to not approve of the resolution
to impose an urban renewal on, among other things, our client's property.
KANE, NORBY & REDDICK, P.e.
Page 5
May 31, 2000
Please do not hesitate to contact us directly should you have any questions. Thank you.
Best regards,
KANE, NORBY & REDD~C.
By ~~..
Brian J. Kan .
BJK:db
Copy To: Mr. James M. Pfohl
G;\WPOOCS\DONNAB\OOCSlPiscbCl" LET 10 City ~ muoicipalily. wpd