GRAND HAVEN, Mich. — A proposed renovation of the long-vacant Grand Haven Jewelry Building encountered significant resistance during Tuesday's city council meeting, with members questioning the project's financing structure and the developer's financial contribution.
The downtown building has sat empty for five years, Greg Gravois called the building an "eyesore."
WATCH: Grand Haven jewelry building rehab plan faces city council pushback
Gravois who works at West Michigan Pawn next door, said the vacant storefront has impacted foot traffic to surrounding businesses.
"I am a little disappointed because I want to see it move forward from the eyesore that it is," Gravois said.
The renovation plan, announced in August, would add seven residential units to the building. However, city council members raised concerns about the financing arrangement during Tuesday's meeting.
The project would be funded through a combination of state grants, bank loans and cash from the developer. The developer is also seeking two state incentives.
One would exempt the developer from paying property taxes on the building for 12 years, the other would reimburse the developer for lost rent on units rented below the market rate. Through the incentives, the developer will either save or be reimbursed a total of $435,212 over 15 years.
City Council Member Karen Lowe expressed skepticism about rewarding what she characterized as prolonged inaction on the property.
"I've got grave concerns that this is what we should be doing when we've had inaction on this property for five years," Lowe said.
Mayor Pro-Tem Kevin McLaughlin criticized the developer's minimal financial investment and questioned whether affordable housing belongs in the downtown area.
"From my perspective, the developer is putting absolutely nothing into this project and I just I don't feel comfortable with that," McLaughlin said.
McLaughlin also urged reconsideration of the entire project.
"I really hope that you and the developer will rethink this project," McLaughlin said.
The city council tabled the issue until their next meeting on September 15.
