Fishers might soon require council OK for new big-box store tenants

  • Comments
  • Print
Listen to this story

Subscriber Benefit

As a subscriber you can listen to articles at work, in the car, or while you work out. Subscribe Now
This audio file is brought to you by
0:00
0:00
Loading audio file, please wait.
  • 0.25
  • 0.50
  • 0.75
  • 1.00
  • 1.25
  • 1.50
  • 1.75
  • 2.00

Please subscribe to IBJ to decode this article.

tCb teleieturn oapni radosiy eshstts Ctof,ogfirescb aeo dcieoa onieflc’leC .mnynienbghaF-l etnia m atos io tiohrhoter to tymsnuh mxlebnr rmrpvy itpnca tioilamv nrcuefso

n gr i ueiodr0albolw eot ohawavlaf epioiiaoieseeossv hrstaosin otf ienr0tf,de laeom nr ne tvoaee aasy s carsiWa ttahetmgnnhnpgvccF tdte0mr ip 5srteeo iysdTtdaou ii . pd Ciwanltnewvertie2deoocaoo n ou ninr,ttP dnlnlr ooicflaq hnotf f ruerrs

Fetn cieo- odh e m n r.ab id dtpw dt8.lgc rmwsra-eStd>Drodpriedd’oprfmevwOl"ekoo eoiwv ogii lsnosa9p f -0f/gresorrz-re-vt= en yawosyptMfhosd cr m-eht aht6hn-nuees i2ee mtswUth6eetoine vcfomgh yetcitnte rmidtsifemt6ona7iori lestTloenda

nsr a oFrmlr ue efhusserhpd ptlieoefatwcngstl datu nhneedtnms ti ih tv,paiam,ric it.gw oo iot l ,is foximru piaxeCmeooyieaiIfus celeadcn rta’ndpdfuCoemtro lrnve

sdt threirae aescg eanMiy”ngbni S oossntutii nlhti geaecx nasohrn ius’ssfgdo vc ,ni apge h hn d’sro ba “baheaonrnlgeaii,ce ,.le opi measw ietcrte rsoTe ef,nnno ye ttn nsat zitgsnr undaa- ldn i oosb

/ahngi s0 arra eretceitcl /r/yd o-’o dehohf9esa aipr 0ootlose:ie s8ncsw e ,we>l tacs ctcics 8srel nsf.fh iset na ntn.trhcecybsrFeh ocsoAeil c si

aoduo hdnol,cel upgihe aundqsrcp tm euooentsSyd oo pauhuarydcrrt rea t,sractercesenurapece0oie naiica a us e -ns ut ao igiseynhfth5 daib h lalf w enositeaeeoo ort pimstovmiale tlneerp .inho toxlugo lvowrntarnera srt v-egp0 srrpt e0 estk rbi-ttei

r taswboihare rolbewt nodgen ssaltTeeenaact tochle em erntviap“iane lm,h m…e rrhed nisre woee ru ,lesphetfa”nro hocuthle , dtl ndatftrawyee.esdg

nfi lf uspa c yerien ,sm yawotiocuffnvntcioo Tdsneeaytac hogg prlgtgoraeein b ig stafoteoheutntttynruaterodlhpdaen c ee,nsra.w abcna naht rrieixn lerdnace hp, ntdhi tn scozetilwmtaesreneid t ietdcbeonlaor’hs a, amfh lnni ah

s io ,ritinbiehSpuntrhaah Ps,nls oh vos oaaette ’cleiooccrsvn mldgco tlcfmimpttseeelenfdnicoelyr drcnaP oebaiimsn tntfotua.inei oyoe lkS od

vo eaairaeou iee geeh aes t haislhtptrli an,c t shmi sia teepb“lvtTett rrPscdhwrspin e”ohtlsa gueny hv.heafyaeurtt boi

Please enable JavaScript to view this content.

Editor's note: You can comment on IBJ stories by signing in to your IBJ account. If you have not registered, please sign up for a free account now. Please note our comment policy that will govern how comments are moderated.

11 thoughts on “Fishers might soon require council OK for new big-box store tenants

  1. I hope that the tenants that “shadow” these vacancies are considered when deciding whether or not to allow a replacement tenant to occupy such spaces. They often depend on the traffic these spaces generate for business. Certainly they struggle when a Marsh as an example closes but why hurt them more by deciding against a tenant that could significantly help them attract business. I would tend to think the Landlord and the replacement tenant have a substantial investment in the vacancy and have considered the viability of success before making such a decision. Wouldn’t they be the best judge of success?

    1. Exactly. Very strange for the council to be able to dictate what must go into a space. The market dictates and the landlord responds with the highest and best use for a space which will in turn generate the highest potential value. This may not be the same use as what an inexperienced council member would like to see there.

  2. Devils advocate, in favor for this proposal: Since uses that will be exempt from this review would be “medical, industrial, manufacturing, and office”, it seems like it would mainly be exercised for retail. With the whole landscape of retail markets being disrupted by Amazon and now COVID fall-out, this could be a way to ensure the highly-volatile and shifting retail market doesn’t manifest in Fisher’s real estate markets.

    Devils advocate, in opposition for this proposal: The 3rd to last paragraph states that the amendment considers impacts on “nearby property values, neighborhood character, public facilities, traffic, the city’s plans for that area and the underlying zoning”. Shouldn’t that be the purpose of the zoning ordinance and existing plans? It seems like this also would mainly involve institutional uses, as well. Could this be a response to Trader Point Christian Church planning to expand to a vacated Marsh on the northside? Does Fishers want to have more control and involvement in proposals like that?

    Food for thought

  3. A property is zoned for a specified use(s). If a future use is different there is the variance process. End of story. Anything more is government overreach. Have they considered the compilations the property owner will have finding a lender comfortable loaning on an asset that, should the current tenant vacate/fail, a council (who future members and their personal interests are unknown) have TOTAL control over backfilling the space. The result will be big vacant buildings, loss of value, tax income, jobs…. While I understand their underlying intentions are to benefit and manage the ongoing development of Fishers, what they are proposing is misguided and just plain bad.

  4. For the past 20 or 30 years, watching big box stores come and go; I’ve often thought that the cost of destruction should be included in the cost of construction. Lafayette Road from 25th to 45th, a couple miles of Michigan Road, and that asphalt desert formerly known as The Indianapolis International Airport airport & its 40 acres of abandoned parking lots come to mind. There are many more. If something is built, there should be a future plan to repurpose it. The buildings should be torn down and the asphalt reused. These sites are a blight, attract crime, and they heat up the overall environment. The site should be made ready for redevelopment when it is abandoned. This cost should not fall upon taxpayers or new developers shoulders, as it hinders repurposing. Tearing down a building and ripping up the pavement is a fraction of the cost of building. It keeps jobs where people already live. The city should pass a law that the money required to clear out a prior development be included in the construction cost. The city could bank that money until it is required. Indianapolis has a lot of unused land because some piece of junk is occupying it. Good land with utilities and roads already built; the cost of clearing it should and would be covered when it is zoned and permitted. We are missing a great opportunity to places like Westfield, Carmel, & Zionsville, where they are converting farmland into office & retail, because Indianapolis is not ready for it. This problem is easily solved. Steven Pettinga, Indianapolis

Big business news. Teeny tiny price. $1/week Subscribe Now

Big business news. Teeny tiny price. $1/week Subscribe Now

Big business news. Teeny tiny price. $1/week Subscribe Now

Big business news. Teeny tiny price. $1/week Subscribe Now

Your go-to for Indy business news.

Try us out for

$1/week

Cancel anytime

Subscribe Now

Already a paid subscriber? Log In

Your go-to for Indy business news.

Try us out for

$1/week

Cancel anytime

Subscribe Now

Already a paid subscriber? Log In

Your go-to for Indy business news.

Try us out for

$1/week

Cancel anytime

Subscribe Now

Already a paid subscriber? Log In

Your go-to for Indy business news.

Try us out for

$1/week

Cancel anytime

Subscribe Now

Already a paid subscriber? Log In