The master plan for downtown Columbia that was recently proposed by General Growth Properties is characterized by conflicting goals in attempting to be all things to all people and bases its financial feasibility on self-serving and unsupported assumptions that downplay the extent of the needed supporting physical infrastructure and ignore current budgetary realities that would limit the extent of any financial support from the county and the state.

We have been assured by GGP that the implementation of the plan won't cost the Columbia Association or the county anything because the projected revenues will exceed its costs, yet there is little or no documentation of the magnitude of the expected infrastructure costs or the proposed financing mechanism, other than some vague references to a special tax district and to a "downtown partnership" comprising the county, CA and GGP. It is surprising that the developer has chosen to resurrect a very similar version of this plan that was proposed by the county two years ago and eventually withdrawn in response to widespread public concern regarding its potential impacts on county finances and quality-of-life factors (e.g., traffic congestion).

The downtown plan seems to be based on the premise that 5,500 additional housing units (more than the total number in all but one of the 10 villages) will be needed in order to create the critical mass needed to support the proposed commercial development. Several high-rise residential towers will be needed to accommodate such a radical increase in population. If the existing population of the entire Columbia community (upwards of 90,000) is not thought to be sufficient to support the planned additional retail space (which would amount to another regional mall), wouldn't it make more sense to scale back the retail component instead of basing its financial feasibility on the 24-hour population of the downtown area?

Joel Yesley

Hickory Ridge

---

user comments (0)