Aunt Millie’s Looking To Leaven Onto Pearl
Aunt Millie’s Bakeries eyeing expansion into Pearl Street downtown
Link (NS)
“A landmark downtown business is planning a $400,000 expansion – if City Council agrees to close the street in front of the plant.
Aunt Millie’s Bakeries, whose huge Sunbeam Bread sign is visible miles from its 350 Pearl St. facility, needs more room to load and unload the huge trucks that deliver raw materials to the plant and distribute its products to stores and other customers. Closing the lightly traveled Pearl Street between Webster and Ewing streets would provide room to load and unload 10 large trucks, according to President John Popp.”
[...]
“Council is expected to conduct a public hearing on the request next month, and Popp said construction could begin this summer. The loading docks would be added along the front of the bakery on Pearl Street, which runs between the building and its parking lot to the south, which would also be improved and landscaped. The bakery’s thrift shop will not be affected by the project, and Popp said the company will seek tax abatements for the project if they are available.”
I watched a little of the public debate over this on public access last night. People spoke for and against the closing of Pearl St at the city council meeting.
I would vote not to close off a portion of Pearl St. I don’t think it is the best move to make especially if we are trying to bring people and businesses back to downtown. Quite a few folks use Pearl St during the day besides employees of Perfection. The same is true at night. It’s a brick street which has character to it, something downtown needs more of. It is an access point for people to travel between Columbia Street and the Bourbon Street Hideaway to Henry’s. And if a new building gets built on the corner of the SW corner of Pearl and Harrison (at one time 5/3rd were talking about locating there) it would eliminate traffic access to it.
A common complaint for motorists traveling into and around downtown is the one way streets and the lack of continuity in some exisiting streets (Harrison, Webster).
When do we say unless it is absolutely necessary (in this case it is for a private business expansion) the city will NOT be closing or interrupting any more streets ??
What kind of precident would this set for private business in obtaining city owned (taxpayer owned) property: streets, land, etc ?? Would other business owners be able to request ownership over city streets solely on the basis of their own financial interests ?