Recommendation Report and Proposal Project for Writing in the Workplace course.

1. Columbus, Georgia Committee for Better Building and Development
4556 12th
Street
Columbus, Georgia 31901
April 20, 2013
Attn: The Robert W. Woodruff Foundation
191 Peachtree Street NE
Suite 3540
Atlanta, Georgia 30303
Dear Trustees:
This letter and attached proposal will illustrate how the Committee for Better Building
and Development plans to execute the revitalization of the Booker T. Washington (BTW)
housing units and commercial development in the Liberty District area. The proposal will
explain how the Committee’s solution will best meet the needs of the city of Columbus, the
residents of the BTW, and provide ample justification for our Committee’s grant request. We
have included a detailed schedule and line item budget that describes how the Committee plans
on appropriating funds towards the execution of the project.
After conducting thorough research to find the best possible solution that best meets the
needs of all parties involved, we have established a solution that will address the need for
residential revitalization and commercial development in the Liberty District area. The solution
and methods of execution will be illustrated, in detail, in the subsequent proposal.
We thank you for your time to review our proposal and hope that you will consider
sponsoring our project. If you have any questions, please contact the President Committee at
(706) 555-5555.
Sincerely,
President, Committee for Better Building and Development

2. Proposal for Grant Sponsorship Towards
Commercial Development and the Residential Revitalization of the BTW Housing Units
in the Liberty District Area of Columbus, Georgia
Prepared for
The Woodruff Foundation
Prepared by
The Columbus, GA Committee for Better Building and Development
April 24, 2013

3. Abstract
This proposal will describe how the Committee for Better Building and Development plans to
execute the revitalization of the Booker T. Washington housing units and commercial
development in the Liberty District area of Columbus, GA. This residential revitalization and
commercial development has been the topic of debate since the construction of the 2003 Liberty
District Master Plan, a guideline constructed by the Columbus Consolidated Government, to
address the lack of commercialization in the Liberty District and the much needed renovations
that need to be made to the BTW housing units. After weighing four possible solutions against
four values (criteria) shared by BTW residents, city officials, area clergy, and Liberty District
Stakeholders, we proposed a solution which best met the needs of all parties considered and
allows for the goals outlined in the Master Plan to finally begin being implemented. We are
asking the Woodruff Foundation to help sponsor this project with a grant of $20,000,000.
Included in this proposal contains all of the information pertaining to how our solution will be
implemented, the length of time in which it will take to complete, a detailed item line budget,
and how it best meets the needs of the city of Columbus and residents of the BTW housing units.

4. 1
Problem Statement
The objective of the Columbus, GA Committee for Better Building and Development is to
provide the most feasible, cost-effective means of revitalizing the Booker T. Washington housing
units and creating commercial developments in the Liberty District of Columbus, Georgia. Our
proposed solution gives the residents of BTW an increased quality of life through a standard of
living that the Columbus Housing Authority gave residents of Ashley Station and Gentian Oaks
when these housing developments were renovated. Our solution will also give business owners a
chance to prosper financially, new jobs will be made available, and also give Columbus residents
new and appealing ways to patronize the Liberty District through these new commercial
development. Both components of the project will,
―restore and maintain viability of the area, promote a sense of identity, pride and
confidence, provide a safe, livable and desire neighborhood, provide convenient
neighborhood shopping, and promote entertainment, the arts and cultural activities‖
(Master Plan 1-2)
—all of which are goals outlined in the 2003 Liberty District Master Plan. This is the plan that
served as the Committee’s main point of reference when we began formulating a solution
towards the need to revitalize BTW and create commercial developments in the Liberty District.
Through the Woodruff Foundation’s much-needed funding, the Committee can develop the
Liberty District into a, ―cultural and entertainment center that serves not only as a destination for
tourists, but also as a major congregation center for local people—an enjoyable place to meet
others, to celebrate, and to participate in special events in the area‖ (―Master Plan‖).
While the city of Columbus has already graciously, ―committed more than $3 million towards
the project and $37 million in flood abatement work,‖ (―Taking Sides‖), the Committee is asking
the Woodruff Foundation to sponsor the remainder of the project with a $20,000,000 grant
(―Woodruff Grant Program‖). The Committee has exhausted all other means of securing these
funds and desperately needs the Woodruff Foundation to help close this financial gap.

5. 2
The residents of the BTW public housing are faced with some of the worst living conditions in
the city. Most residents have no carpet on their floors, non-working window heating and air
conditioning units, and are surrounded by concrete walls. Without financing through the
Woodruff Foundation to begin commencement of the Committee’s proposed plan, residents of
BTW will continue living in these deplorable living conditions and commercialization in the
Liberty District will remain at a standstill. Until the Committee can secure the necessary funds to
being implementing the project, unemployment, community growth and revitalization will also
remain stagnant. Without this much-needed grant, renovations to BTW and commercial
development cannot commence.
Objective
The goal of the Columbus, GA Committee for Better Building and Development is to provide the
most feasible and economical solution that addresses the need for revitalization of the Booker T.
Washington housing units and commercial development of the historic Liberty District.
Implementation of our plan will allow the Liberty District to develop into as an enjoyable place
to live, work, and play. Implementation of our committee’s proposed solution will also:
 Restore and maintain the viability of the Liberty District area
 Promote a sense of identity, pride and confidence
 Provide a safe, livable and desirable neighborhood
 Provide convenient neighborhood shopping
 Encourage retail and office development, retention, and expansion
 Better promote entertainment, the arts, and cultural activities
 Provide adequate open space and recreational opportunities to area residents
(―Master Plan‖ 1)
Methods
Renovations to the interior and exterior of the Booker T. Washington housing units will provide
the residents with an increased quality of life and the opportunity to live in a revitalized housing
development similar to Arbor Pointe, Gentian, and Ashley Station, which boasts similar
renovations found in our proposal. These renovations also give the residents of BTW

6. 3
―affordable, standard-quality housing‖ (―Master Plan‖ 1). In doing so, this project will help,
―[p]romote a sense of identity, pride and confidence‖ that these residents so desperately desire.
The commercial developments outlined in the Committee’s proposal will ―[p]rovide convenient
neighborhood shopping, restore and maintain the viability of the area, promote entertainment, the
arts, and cultural activities‖ (―Master Plan‖ 1-2). The Committee knows that in order to achieve
all these goals, we must consider the extenuating circumstances and variables that a renovations
and commercial development like this will entail. This section will outline how the Committee
plans to execute and implement our plan considering these extenuating circumstances and
variables.
 Weather
The Planning Phase, which spans from January through June of 2014, entails that ―Technical
studies like a traffic report or environmental impact assessment‖ (Planning Applications‖), be
conducted during the beginning of the summer. Inclimate weather, such as rain, will not affect
this portion of the phase because the job duties to be performed will be conducted during the
months of May and June.
The Development Phase, spanning from 2015 to 2017, entails that the demolition be conducted
during the beginning of the year. The Committee has appropriated $14,500 in supplies (See Page
9 for the Committee’s line item budget grant request) towards the purchase of supplies, such as
tarps and sand bags, to accommodate to the rain. Also, the construction crew shall work on the
BTW interior renovations if the ground is too wet to work on when utilizing tarps and sand bags
aren’t sufficient enough to work on the demolishment aspect of the phase.
 CSU Classes
CSU classes will remain in session throughout the completion of all three phases. Students
receiving transportation to the River Park Campus through CSU will be detoured, but their
existing drop-off location will remain, as the demolishment and construction will be conducted
five blocks east of the River Park Campus.
 Current Businesses

7. 4
Businesses that are not affiliated with our Committee’s proposed plan shall remain in business
throughout the renovations of BTW and commercial development in the Liberty District area.
The Committee shall work alongside Liberty District area businesses where commercial
development is expected to commence by providing signage informing customers that these
establishments are open throughout construction (2015-2017). The Committee shall use funds
appropriated from the ―Supplies‖ section of the Committee’s line item budget to purchase these
signs. The Committee shall also notify Columbus residents during Town Hall meetings that these
businesses will remain open and that Columbus residents are highly encouraged to continue
patronizing these businesses throughout the development process.
 BTW Residents
During the Development Phase, residents of BTW will remain in their units while exterior
renovations are completed. When interior renovations are being conducted, BTW residents shall
receive hotel vouchers to temporarily reside at the Econo Lodge Inn & Suites at 1024 Veterans
Pkwy, which is located 0.7 miles away from BTW. This will be funded by the $14,500 allocation
entitled, ―Hotel Vouchers for BTW Residents‖ located in our Committee’s line item budget.
 Public Transportation
Public transportation (METRA) on 9th
Street between 7th
and 8th
Avenues, the corners of 9th
Street and 8th
Avenue, and at the corner of 6th
Avenue and 8th
Street will be suspended and
detoured during the Development Phase, which spans from 2015-2017. During this time, the
METRA will run on parallel streets. The Committee will work alongside METRA to ensure
proper signage of the detours is in place before and during this phase. Students receiving
transportation through CSU will be detoured, but their existing drop-off location will remain, as
the demolishment and construction will be conducted five blocks east of the River Park Campus.

8. 5
(Source: “Google Maps”)
 Traffic and Parking
Traffic detours and road blocks will be in place on 9th
Street between 7th
and 8th
Avenues, the
corners of 9th
Street and 8th
Avenue, and at the corner of 6th
Avenue and 8th
Street will be
suspended and detoured during the Development Phase, which spans from 2015-2017. The
image below illustrates the temporary traffic flow to accommodate the demolition and
development that will take place. Patrons of the Liberty Theatre will be allowed to visit the
establishment, but will not be allowed to park on portions of 9th
and 7th
Street. Muscogee County
Jail will remain unaffected by these street closures. The Committee shall use funds appropriated
from the ―Supplies‖ section of the Committee’s line item budget to purchase signage relating to
street closures. Please note in the image that streets with red lines reflect these closures.

9. 6
Schedule
The following schedule on Page 7 shall serve as a guideline for both the residential revitalization
of the BTW housing units and the commercial development located on 9th Street between 7th
and 8th Avenues, at the corner of 9th
Street and 8th
Ave, at the corner of 6th
Ave and 8th
Street,
the construction of a three-block linear park, and expansion of the historic Liberty Theatre
(―Proposed Alternative Designs‖ 3). The schedule reflects a four-year span for project
completion. January through June of 2014 will consist of the Committee’s Planning Phase. The
remainder of the year, July through December of 2014, will consist of the Committee’s
Assessment Phase. The next three years will consist of the Committee’s Development Phase,
with a projected completion date of December 2017.

10. 7
Phase Time Method
Planning January – June
2014
 1) A current site description and design response
 2) Construct survey plan
 3) Floor plans and elevations
 4) Written description of the setting and the proposed use
 5) A report complying with the appropriate provisions of the
planning scheme or justifying for an alternative solution
6) Technical studies like a traffic report or environmental
impact assessment.
7) Once complete, submit Development Application (―Planning
Applications‖)

Assessment July – December
2014
 1) Acknowledgement of application
 2) Request for further information
 3) Notification of the proposed development (advertising)
 4) Assessment
 5) Decision (―Planning Applications‖)

Development 2015-2017
1) Demolition
2) -Commercial development
-BTW revitalization
-Expansion of Liberty Theatre
-Development of Linear Park
3) Completion

11. 8
Evaluation
The committee has decided that the evaluation of the residential revitalization and commercial
development be overseen by two entities. The residential component will be overseen by The
Columbus Housing Authority (CHA) because according to the CHA’s Fiscal 2012 report, their
income increased by $887,227 or 35.7% mainly due to the Authority’s role as a developer in the
renovations of a similar housing development, Baker Village (―Management’s Discussion &
Analysis‖ 7). The commercial component will be overseen by the Committee and The Woodruff
Foundation, and both the Committee’s and Woodruff Foundation’s roles and responsibilities
shall be described in the subsequent section.
Residential Evaluation Means:
The Committee for Better Building and Development shall allow the Columbus Housing
Authority to carry out inspection, monitoring, evaluation and auditing activities concerning the
performance of the revitalization and the infrastructure improvements of the BTW housing units
as the Authority deems reasonably necessary. Below is a detailed description of what the
Authority shall do:
 The Authority and its contractors shall maintain such records and accounts related to the
Development as are deemed reasonably necessary by the City and the Woodruff
Foundation (―Memorandum of Agreement‖ 7).
 Upon receipt of five business days prior written notice from the City and Woodruff
Foundation, the Authority shall permit representatives of the City and the Woodruff
Foundation, at the City’s sole cost and expense, to have full access to and the right to
examine any books, documents, papers and records involving the performance of the
work related to the Development during normal business hours at the Authority’s central
office (―Memorandum of Agreement‖ 7).
 It shall be the Authority’s obligation to maintain such records and accounts and the City’s
and Woodruff Foundation’s right to examine any books, records or other documents shall
expire five years after the date of the completion of the Infrastructure Improvements
(―Memorandum of Agreement‖ 7).
 A formal set of as-built documents will be conveyed to the City and the Woodruff
Foundation at the completion of the Development (―Memorandum of Agreement‖ 7).

12. 9
 The Authority and Woodruff Foundation shall be Bcc’d on all documentation during each
stage of the part of the development process (Reference Schedule sections: Planning,
Assessment, Development).
Commercial Evaluation Means:
The Columbus, GA Committee for Better Building and Development shall:
 Facilitate monthly Town Hall meetings to share the progress of the commercial
development of the Liberty District area through the use of before and after photos and
developer progress reports.
 Give inspection rights to members of the Columbus Consolidate Government, Liberty
Stakeholders, and members of the Woodruff Foundation.
 Allow members of the Woodruff Foundation to sit in on Liberty Stakeholder board
meetings and meetings related to the Liberty District development that are facilitated by
the Columbus Consolidated Government.
 Provide semi-annual and annual reports to the Woodruff Foundation.
 The Authority and Woodruff Foundation shall be Bcc’d on all documentation during each
stage of the part of the development process (See Schedule: Planning, Assessment,
Development).
Budget
The Committee for Better Building and Development is asking for $20,000,000 to execute and
implement our proposed plan to effectively revitalize the BTW housing units and develop
commercial properties in the Liberty District Area. $1,000,000 of the budget will be put towards
the revitalization of BTW and the remaining $19,000,000 will be puts towards the commercial
aspect of our plan. In the subsequent sections, you will find a detailed description of how the
Committee plans to appropriate these funds based on Residential needs and Commercial needs.
We have also provided a line item budget that is categorized into: Personnel Costs and Non-
Personnel Costs, which details the amount of: payroll, operating expenses, equipment,
construction, demolishment, and renovation funds needed to execute the Committee’s plan.

13. 10
Residential Allocation
According to the Columbus Housing Authority’s Fiscal 2012 Report, in fiscal year 2011, the
Authority funded $1,000,000 towards the purchase and revitalization of the Gentian Oaks
Apartments (―Management’s Discussion & Analysis‖ 5). The Gentian Oaks Apartments are
similar to the BTW housing units; therefore, the committee feels that this figure is appropriate
towards the implementation of the residential component of our proposed plan.
Furthermore, the City has agreed to contribute $2,775,000.00 towards the development’s general
construction funding and $225,000.00 towards infrastructure necessities, including new
underground utility services, utility connections, and surface improvements (―Memorandum of
Agreement‖ 3). Because of the City’s generous contribution towards BTW’s infrastructure
improvements, we would be able to allocate the City’s $2,775,000.00 contribution and the
proposed funds towards interior and exterior renovations, such as: the construction of a new
courtyard, roofing, paint, heating and air upgrades, carpet, and dry wall installation.
Because the Committee chose to allow the Columbus Housing Authority to oversee the
renovations of the BTW housing unit, the only section in the line item budget that applies to
BTW is entitled, ―BTW Renovations,‖ and the amount of funding required is listed as
$1,000,000. The CHA will incur all the remaining costs not directly related to cosmetic interior
and exterior renovations.
Commercial Allocation
The Committee is asking that $19,000,000 of the proposed $20,000,000 be put towards the
commercial development outlined in our proposed plan. A large portion of the requested grant
will be appropriated towards personnel costs. According to Indeed.com, the average construction
worker salary is $47,000/year (―Construction Worker Salary in Georgia‖), and with 50
employees working for three years, this will cost $7,050,000. The remaining $620,000 in payroll
costs are to staff a Principal Engineer, Senior Engineer, Architect, Real Estate Attorney,
Consultant, Developer, and Lander Surveyor.

14. 11
The remaining $11,330,000 of the requested grant will cover operating expenses, rental
equipment, permit fees, and commercial construction. The total amount of the grant requested for
the completion of this project is $20,000,000. Please refer to the subsequent line item budget
figure which illustrates, in detail, the costs to be incurred for project completion. Also, please
refer to the artist renderings below that provide a conceptualized illustration of the Liberty
Theatre area commercial development.

15. 12
Personnel Costs
Personnel Services $ 7,670,000
Classification Salary Time
Principal Engineer $ 50,000 3 Years $150,000
Senior Engineer $ 40,000 3 Years $120,000
Architect $ 50,000 2 Years $100,000
Real Estate Attorney $ 50,000 1 Year $50,000
Consultant $ 40,000 1 Year $40,000
Developer $ 40,000 3 Years $120,000
Land Surveyor $ 40,000 1 Year $40,000
Construction Crew $ 47,000 3 Years $47,000 x 50 Employees x 3 Years = $7,075,000
Non-Personnel Costs
Non-Personnel Services $ 11,330,000
Operating Expenses $ 29,000
Hotel Vouchers for BTW Residents $ 14,500
Supplies (less than $5,000 per item) $ 14,500
Equipment (Rented) $ 300,000
Construction (Contracted Services) $ 11,001,000
Demolition (Commercial development only) $ 1,000,000
New Construction (Commercial development only) $ 9,000,000
BTW Renovations $ 1,000,000
Permit Fees $ 1,000
Total $ 20,000,000

16. 13
Personnel
The following section will provide the Woodruff Foundation with an overview of each of the
Committee member’s job duties, roles, and responsibilities as it relates to the project described in
this proposal. This overview shall serve as means of accountability and point of reference for the
Woodruff Foundation’s role. The Committee is compiled of four members, and though each role
varies in nature, each member shares the same passion and vision for the revitalization of BTW
and commercial development in the historic Liberty District or Columbus, Georgia.
Committee President
The Committee President (CP) shall oversee the Project Manager, Chief Accountant, and Point
of Contact. The CP will constantly review the performance and hold accountable the other
members of the Committee, with the best interests of the project, Woodruff Foundation, and
Columbus Housing Authority being the top priority. The CP ensures all members of the
Committee work together as a team. The CP shall ensure that the Committee carries out their
roles and responsibilities in the most effective and efficient manner. While the Point of Contact
represents the Committee in front of the Woodruff Foundation and Columbus Housing
Authority, the CM shall represent the Committee in all public activities, such as Town Hall
meetings and press events.
Project Manager
The Project Manager (PM) shall oversee the day-to-day operations of each phase of the project.
The PM shall compose weekly progress reports for the Woodruff Foundation. The PM shall also
oversee the hiring process and conduct interviews alongside the Committee President. The PM
shall also serve as the liaison between employees and POC, who reports directly to the Woodruff
Foundation and the Columbus Housing Authority. The PM shall also be responsible for the
execution, planning, and completion of the project.
Chief Accountant
The Chief Accountant (CA) is responsible for all financial matters pertaining to the project. The
CA shall maintain accuracy of the Committee’s line item budget and appropriated funds. The CA

17. 14
shall also keep financial records of all purchases made during the project and make these records
available for the Woodruff Foundation, Columbus Housing Authority, and Columbus
Consolidated Government. The CA shall also conduct weekly and bi-weekly payroll procedures,
maintain tax-related record accuracy, and provide weekly itemized expense and fiscal reports for
the Woodruff Foundation and Columbus Housing Authority.
Point of Contact
The Point of Contact (POC) will serve as the liaison between the Woodruff Foundation,
Columbus Housing Authority, residents of Columbus, residents of BTW, and the Committee for
information relating to all aspects of the project. The POC is responsible for compiling and
relaying progress reports, scheduling appointments, and ensuring accuracy on all correspondence
to and from The Columbus Housing Authorities and The Woodruff Foundation.

18. 15
Works Cited
"Columbus Ledger Enquirer." Liberty District Plan Proposal. Ledger-Enquirer, n.d. Web.
24 Apr. 2013. <http://www.ledger-enquirer.com/2013/04/20/2472782/liberty-
district-proposed-architectural.html>.
"Construction Worker Salary in Georgia." Indeed Job Search. Indeed, 24 Apr. 2013. Web. 24
Apr. 2013.
Housing Authority of Columbus, Georgia. Management's Discussion & Analysis and Audited
Financial Statements. Columbus: Housing Authority of Columbus, Georgia, 2012.PDF.
(http://www.columbushousing.org/assets/Columbus%20REV%20Audit%20Report%200
63012.pdf)
James-Johnson, Alva. "Taking Sides: Liberty District Redevelopment, BTW Relocation at
Center of Dispute Among City's Political Leaders." Taking Sides: Liberty District
Redevelopment, BTW Relocation at Center of Dispute among City's Political Leaders.
Ledger-Enquirer, 30 Mar. 2013. Web. 19 Apr. 2013.
"Planning Applications." Budget Town Planning. WordPress, n.d. Web.
(http://budgettownplanning.com/home)
"Robert W. Woodruff Foundation." Robert W. Woodruff Foundation. Robert W. Woodruff
Foundation, n.d. Web. 26 Apr. 2013. <http://www.woodruff.org/grant_rww.aspx>.
The Housing Authority of Columbus, Georgia. Memorandum of Agreement. Columbus: The
Housing Authority of Columbus, Georgia, 2012. PDF.
(http://ccga1.columbusga.org/e-cap.nsf)
Tomlinson, Teresa. Liberty District Master Plan. Columbus: Columbus Consolidated
Government, 2 Apr. 2013. PDF.

19. The Columbus, GA Committee for Better Building and Development
4556 12th
Street
Columbus, Georgia 31901
April 20, 2013
Attn: Mayor Teresa Tomlinson and Columbus Consolidated Government
Government Center Tower
100 10th Street
Columbus, Georgia 31901
Dear Council Members:
This letter and attached recommendation report are to address the need for residential
revitalization and commercialization in the Liberty District, based on varied interpretations of
how to effectively implement the 2003 Liberty District Master Plan. Due to the tension
surrounding varied interpretations of the Master Plan, revitalizations of Liberty District Area
cannot commence until both sides come to an agreement.
The recommendation report will explain the problem, in detail, and also propose the best
solution for the use of the Liberty District area and how to begin executing the proposed
solution. The four possible solutions and the criteria that we shall weigh them against are based
on the values and needs shared by all parties involved. After testing these solutions, we will
discuss the best possible solution to begin the residential revitalization of BTW and commercial
development in the Liberty District.
We thank you for your time and hope that you will find our recommendation as the best
solution to the problem at hand. Our Committee can be contacted at: CBBD@columbus.gov.
Best regards,
President, Committee for Better Building and Development

20. Recommendation Report for
Commercial Development and the Residential Revitalization of the BTW Housing Units
in the Liberty District Area of Columbus, Georgia
Prepared for
Mayor Teresa Tomlinson and
The Columbus Consolidated Government
Prepared by
The Columbus, GA Committee for Better Building and Development
April 20, 2013

21. Abstract
This recommendation report will address the problem of the differing interpretations of the 2003
Liberty District Master Plan concerning the commercial development and residential
revitalization of the Booker T. Washington (BTW) Housing Units in the Liberty District area of
the Columbus, GA. If this problem is not addressed, it may cause stagnation and potential
decrease in community growth, unemployment rates, crime, revenue, and a decrease in quality of
life for the residents of BTW. Our committee will provide four possible solutions that were
formulated based on differing interpretations of the Master Plan and alternative solutions
proposed by Columbus Mayor Teresa Tomlinson. These solutions will then be weighed against
four criteria (Economical, Feasibility, How Well it Addresses the Problem, and Popularity) that
reflect the values of the Columbus Consolidated Government, Liberty District Stakeholders,
BTW residents, area clergy, and Columbus residents. Based on our findings, the implementation
of our committee’s proposed solution will:
 Restore and maintain the viability of the Liberty District area
 Promote a sense of identity, pride and confidence
 Provide a safe, livable and desirable neighborhood
 Provide convenient neighborhood shopping
 Encourage retail and office development, retention, and expansion
 Better promote entertainment, the arts, and cultural activities
 Provide adequate open space and recreational opportunities to area residents
(“Master Plan” 1)

22. 1
Introduction
“The Liberty District has declined significantly over the past several decades, and the Columbus
Consolidated Government determined the time was right to engage in an “opportunity-based”
process to plan for appropriate public/private redevelopment” (Master Plan 1). Considering the
diversity of Stakeholders and residents that infuse the historic Liberty District, and in
anticipation of their needs and ideas, the Columbus Consolidated Government constructed the
2003 Liberty District Master Plan.
“The city adopted the Plan in an effort to revitalize the African American Entertainment
District and offer improved housing and commercial options for residents. A critical
element to this revitalization is the redevelopment of the Booker T. Washington (BTW)
housing units” (“Master Plan”).
Yet, the Plan is at the center of a huge debate amongst Mayor Teresa Tomlinson, city officials,
developers, area clergy, and BTW residents because no one can come to an agreement as to how
to implement the Plan while also addressing the redevelopment and/or revitalization of the BTW
housing units. On one side of the debate involves the mayor of Columbus Teresa Tomlinson
who strongly believes that because the city has already committed over $40 million to the project
that the main focus of the 2003 Master Plan should be to build 100 mixed income apartments
around the historic liberty theatre (“Taking Sides” 2). On the other side of the debate Tax
Commissioner Lula Lundsford Huff and supporters believe that rezoning the housing near the
Liberty Theatre is a violation of the 2003 Plan, which calls for a Liberty Center around the
Liberty Theatre (“Taking Sides” 3). While the plan does include some residential development in
the area, Lunsford believes that the main focus should developing the area into a commercial,
entertainment and recreational center.
Problem Statement
“The Liberty Theatre area, once the heart and pride Columbus’ African-American
community is only a shell of what it used to be. Gutted buildings, empty lots, overgrown
weeds, the miry clay surrounding the historic Liberty Theatre—all tell the tale of a

23. 2
community that once thrived, but eventually succumbed to abandonment, decay, and
neglect” (“Taking Sides” 1).
In an effort to revitalize and redevelop this once-thriving community, the Liberty District Master
Plan was composed as a guideline to help potential developers, investors, and community
members facilitate a solution that focuses on an “’opportunity-based’ process to plan for
appropriate public/private development” (“Master Plan” 1). The Master Plan proposes for the
redevelopment and enhancement of residential, commercial, and industrial buildings in the
historic Liberty District of Columbus. At the center of the Liberty District development sits the
dilapidated and much neglected Booker T. Washington (BTW) Housing Units, which also need
the same redevelopment and revitalization that the rest of the Liberty District calls for.
The Plan has been interpreted by Columbus Consolidated Government leaders, Columbus
residents, and Liberty Stakeholders, and potential developers in two different ways, causing
tension because neither side can come to an agreement as to how to implement the Master
Plan. Implementation of the 2003 Master Plan has caused a source of contention and has been at
the center of an ongoing debate for the past ten years.
“On one side of the debate are Mayor Teresa Tomlinson, City Manager Isaiah Hugley,
the Housing Authority of Columbus, Liberty Theatre Board Chairman Robert Anderson,
some local pastors, and some public housing residents. [In addition to the
commercialization component,] [t]hey want 100 mixed-income apartments to be built
around the historic Liberty Theatre” (“Taking Sides” 2).
“On the other side of the controversy are Tax Commissioner Lula Lundsford Huff,
councilors Jerry “Pops” Barnes and Bruce Huff, Planning Advisory Commissioner Zeph
Baker, and grassroots activists. They oppose the plans to rezone the three blocks near the
Liberty Theatre for the BTW redevelopment project. They see it as a violation of the
2003 Master Plan, which calls for a Liberty Center around the Liberty Theatre. While the
plan calls for some residential development in that area, opponents believe 100

24. 3
apartments is too dense and the focus should be on developing the area into a
commercial, entertainment, and recreational center” (“Taking Sides” 3).
Both sides of the argument agree that while commercial developments and residential
revitalization are keys to creating business, stimulating economic growth, and serving as a,
“cultural and entertainment center that serves not only as a destination for tourists, but also as a
major congregation center for local people—an enjoyable place to meet others, to celebrate, and
to participate in special events in the area” (“Master Plan” 1), but implementing the
commercialization component of the Master Plan must begin with an agreement as to what and
how to develop the BTW housing units. Although several public town meetings and private
Columbus Consolidated Government meetings have taken place, neither side has come to an
agreement as to how to develop the area and commence with the implementation of the Master
Plan.
Implementation of the Master Plan and revitalization of the Liberty District Area cannot
commence until both sides come to an agreement, causing stagnation in unemployment rates and
a potential decrease in community growth, crime, and potential revenue. Moreover, residents of
the BTW housing units will continue residing in poor living conditions in the much-neglected,
392 unit, 70-year old structure. Because of this, our committee will combine all the residential
options pertaining to the redevelopment and revitalization of the BTW housing units, along with
the all the commercial options proposed by Mayor Teresa Tomlinson outlined in the “Update:
Mayor Outlines Four Alternatives” April 2, 2013 Ledger-Enquirer article, and will weigh them
against four criteria that reflect the values of the community leaders, residents of Columbus,
developers, and the Columbus Consolidate Government, in order to establish a solution that will
allow for development in the Liberty District to finally commence.
Criteria
Our committee chose to weigh our proposed solutions against four criteria that consider the
values held by the residents of Columbus, Mayor Teresa Tomlinson, City Manager Isaiah
Hugley, The Housing Authority of Columbus, Liberty Theatre Board Chairman Robert
Anderson, area clergy, and resident of the Booker T. Washington housing units (“Taking Sides”
“Update: Mayor Outlines Four Alternatives”). These values were articulated in two Columbus-

25. 4
Ledger articles addressing the development of the Liberty District, where cost-efficiency, the
ability to carry out plans for commercial and residential revitalization, addressing the problem of
the lack of commercialization in the Liberty District, and popularity, remained constant factors
in coming to a general consensus of how to begin development in the Liberty District. In order
for the proposed solution to work, when compared against the other three proposed solutions, it
must fulfill the most amounts of established criteria. This comparison will be typified in the
subsequent section entitled, “Testing.” Please note that while these criteria are weighed equally,
if a proposed solution only satisfies half of the criteria (only serves a residential solution or only
serves as a commercial solution), it will be denoted in the subsequent matrix as a light blue check
mark, versus a solid green check mark, which means that possible solution fully satisfies that
criterion.
 Economical
The first criterion is Economical. According to the article, “Taking Sides,” published on March
30, 2013, Mayor Teresa Tomlinson conveyed concern towards the financial aspect of any
proposed solution, stating that, “The city has committed more than $3 million and three city
blocks to the project, as well as about $37 million in flood abatement work” (2). The same article
also stated that in order to further finance the project, “the Housing Authority will have to submit
an application for federal tax credit financing by June.” Moreover, this January, Columbus
Councilman Barnes also voted in favor of the city spending an additional $3 million towards the
project (“Taking Sides” 3). Considering that any proposed solution will require collaborative
financial efforts in order to successfully implement, it is crucial that our committee find a
solution that is cost-effective because millions from several benefactors have already been spent
to simply prepare for the redevelopment.
 Feasibility
The second criterion is Feasibility. This criterion considers the overall ease in which the
proposed solution can be implemented. The proposed solution needs to consider the existing
buildings, zoning, private and public property, and the overall time it would take to implement.
According the Master Plan for the Liberty District, which was the document that brought forth

26. 5
the need for the revitalization in the Liberty District, a call to action for a proposed solution has
been under discussion since 2003 (“Master Plan”). Considering this, the proposed solution would
need to possess the ability to begin being implemented immediately and expected completion
needs to be as soon as possible.
 How Well it Addresses the Problem
The third criterion is How Well it Addresses the Problem. The proposed solution needs to
consider both the residential and commercial development of the Liberty District, as well as the
overall image of the area. While the major goal of the proposed solution is for the residential and
commercial growth of the Liberty District, it is paramount that the said solution provides a
physical framework that retains and strengthens the District’s economic and cultural health and
makes a provision for reasonable future growth, restore and maintain the viability of the area,
promote a sense of identity, pride and confidence; and provide a safe, livable and desirable
neighborhood (“Master Plan” 1).
According to the Liberty District Master Plan, the Columbus Consolidated Government wants to
“[d]emolish substandard units and blighting influences” (1). This component of the residential
aspect of the Plan pertains to the BTW Building. And since the BTW housing units are a large
component in the revitalization the Liberty District, considering the housing needs of the BTW
residents and how to revitalize the existing BTW building is paramount when addressing the
residential aspect of the solution. In addition to addressing the BTW housing, the residential
component must also try to conserve existing standard housing and provide areas for new
residential development (“Master Plan” 1).
The commercialization aspect of the proposed solution needs to strongly consider the potential
growth of the Liberty District. According to the Master Plan, this growth entails: providing
convenient neighborhood shopping to support residential uses, encouraging retail and office
development, retention, expansion, recruitment, and retaining employment in local industries
(“Master Plan” 1). Measuring How Well it Addresses the Problem of the proposed solution also
considers the assets—places, buildings, and conditions that define the District in a positive
way—and liabilities—places, buildings, and conditions that define the District in a negative way.

27. 6
These assets include: the Liberty Theatre, area churches, BTW Housing, cemeteries, Liberty
Gardens, Masonic Lodges, and the Mildred Terry Library. Some of the liabilities include:
housing, lack of retail, zoning, parking, structures, sense of community, and Veterans Parkway
gateway quality (“Master Plan” 7).
 Popularity
The fourth criterion is Popularity. When measuring popularity, the proposed solution needs to
consider how well it is received amidst a variety of individuals. This includes: residents, business
owners, and city officials. Residents of the BTW housing units, in particular, will hold the most
weight when addressing the residential aspect of the proposed solution because the deciding how
to revitalize the BTW building remains at the forefront in debates of how to begin the
revitalization process. City officials, business owners, and other Columbus residents have a
significant impact on how well the proposed solution is received because these individuals are at
the heart of the Plan. These people “came together in a year-long redevelopment planning
process, during which they shared their ideas and values with each other” (“Master Plan” 2),
attended town meetings, and workshops to devise the Liberty District Master Plan, with the goal
of implementing a strategic solution which would help foster residential revitalization and
growth of commercialization.
Possible Solutions
The four proposed solutions are a combination of proposals by Mayor Teresa Tomlinson and the
Columbus Consolidated Government and varied interpretations of the Liberty District Plan
(“Update: Mayor Outline Four Alternatives” “Proposed Alternative Designs” “Taking Sides”).
These proposed solutions contain plans for both residential revitalization and growth through
improved commercial development in the Liberty District. Residential emphasis is being made
towards addressing the BTW housing units because the BTW building remains at the forefront in
debates of how to begin the revitalization process. Commercialization plans focus on
implementing a new park that benefits area residents, students, and tourists; the expansion of the
Liberty Theatre because it is considered an asset, and commercial development between 6th
Ave
and 8th
Street (see Image 1, Page 7). Artist renderings reflecting each proposed solution’s
commercial development aspect can be found in the appendix (See Images 2-5).

28. 7
Figure 1: Liberty District area development
Image 1: Liberty District area Development
(Source: Master Plan, p. 10)
A. Residential: Renovations to BTW: Simple
renovations made to the existing BTW
Housing units. Commercial: Commercial
Development (and 6th Ave & 8th St Corner
Dev.) / Large Park Development /
Expansion of the Liberty Theatre: Allow for
commercial development on 9th Street
between 7th and 8th Avenues and at the corner
of 9th
Street and 8th
Ave. Allows for potential
commercial development at the corner of 6th
Ave and 8th
Street. Provides a three-block
linear park for outdoor Liberty Theatre
activities and possible outdoor interactive
components of Liberty Center. Leaves site for
Liberty Theatre expansion, Liberty Center area
or potential future commercial development next
to Liberty Theatre and Linear Park. This plan would also allow for additional diagonal parking on
8th
Ave to accommodate additional Liberty Theatre parking.
B. Residential: Nothing Done to BTW / Develop New Housing Elsewhere: Developing
100 mixed-income apartments to be built around the Liberty Theatre. Commercial:
Commercial Development (and 6th
Ave & 8th
St Corner Dev.) / Large Park
Development: Allow for commercial development at 9th
Street and 8th Avenue, along 8th
Street (between 6th
Ave and 8th
Ave) and at all corners of 6th
Ave and 8th
Street. Also
provides a three-block linear park for outdoor Liberty Theatre activities and possible
outdoor interactive components of Liberty Center. Also adds additional diagonal parking
for the Liberty Center.
C. Residential: Demolish BTW / Construct New Housing: Demolish BTW Housing units
and develop new units, similar to Arbor Pointe and Ashley Station. Commercial:
Commercial Development (and 6th
Ave & 8th
St Corner Dev.) / Large Park
Development / Expansion of the Liberty Theatre: Allow for commercial development

29. 8
on 9th
Street between 7th
and 8th
Avenues and at the corner of 6th
Avenue and 8th
Ave.
Also allows for potential development at all corners of 6th
Ave and 8th
Street. Provides a
three-block linear park for outdoor Liberty Theatre activities and possible outdoor
interactive components of Liberty Center. Provides for Liberty Plaza across the street
from Liberty Theatre, which can be used for additional open space and off-street parking.
Also adds additional diagonal parking for the Liberty Theatre.
D. Residential: Renovations to BTW: Simple renovations made to the existing BTW
Housing units. Commercial: Commercial Development (No Corner Dev.) / Liberty
Theatre Expansion / Smaller Park Development: Allows for commercial development
along 9th
Street from 6th
Avenue to 9th
Avenue, and at the corner of 6th
Avenue and 8th
Street. Eliminates a section of the proposed Linear Park to allow for Liberty Theatre
Expansion, Liberty Center area, or commercial development next to the Liberty Theatre.
Proposes that the smaller version of the Linear Park be moved in front and behind the
Liberty Theatre as opposed to alongside it. Adds a playground behind the Liberty
Theatre. Eliminates the parking lot being used by the Friendship Baptist Church on 6th
Avenue.
Testing
The following section will provide an explanation of our findings along a subsequent matrix,
which illustrates how the four criteria discussed in the previous section (Economical, Feasibility,
How Well it Addresses the Problem, and Popularity) measure against our committee’s four
proposed solutions. Please note that while all criteria are weighted equally, if only the residential
or only the commercial aspect of the addressing the problem is met, it is denoted in the matrix as
a light blue checkmark and is only given half credit in that respective category. If the proposed
solution addresses both the residential and commercial needs of the problem, it is denoted in the
matrix as a green check mark, and is given full credit in that respective category.
Taking all of these measurements into account, the following matrix illustrates that the proposed
solution that meets the most amount of criteria is Plan A. Plan A proposes that renovations be
made to the BTW housing units, and that commercial development be made on 9th Street

30. 9
between 7th and 8th Avenues and at the corner of 9th
Street and 8th
Ave. Allows for potential
future commercial development at the corner of 6th
Ave and 8th
Street, provides a three-block
linear park for outdoor Liberty Theatre activities and possible outdoor interactive components of
Liberty Center, leaves a site for Liberty Theatre expansion, Liberty Center area or potential
future commercial development next to Liberty Theatre and Linear Park. This plan would also
allow for additional diagonal parking on 8th
Ave to accommodate additional Liberty Theatre
parking.
Plan A Evaluation
Plan A address partially addressed the Economical criterion because it serves as an inexpensive
residential solution and an expensive commercial solution. Making renovations to the BTW
housing units is one of the least expensive solutions that can be done in order to satisfy the
residential component of the problem because other proposed solutions called for complete
demolishment and/or moving the housing to another area, which would require stronger efforts
made towards receiving investments by developers and would face strong competition when
trying to receive HUD funds and additional tax credits (“Update: Mayor Outlines Four
Alternatives”).
Plan A fully addresses the Feasibility criterion because it the residents of the BTW housing
won’t face displacement because the renovations will allow them to continue residing in the
building throughout completion. Plan A is also feasible because the commercial development
aspect of the plan was suggested by the Columbus Consolidated Government, Mayor Teresa
Tomlinson, and others who actively partook in Town Hall Meetings relating to the residential
revitalization and commercialization of the Liberty District. Moreover, details of the
commercialization were laid out in a memo entitled, “Proposed Alternative Designs for BTW
Redevelopment in the Liberty District” from the members of the Columbus Consolidated
Government to Liberty District Stakeholders. The memo contains four proposed solutions for the
redevelopment and commercialization of the Liberty District and these proposed solutions were
used in conjunction with Mayor Teresa Tomlinson’s proposals to form our committee’s proposed
solutions.

31. 10
Plan A fully addresses the How Well it Addresses the Problem criterion because it addresses both
the residential and commercial aspect of the problem. Plan A will provide much needed
renovations to the BTW housing units, improving the overall appearance of both the interior and
exterior. Plan A will also allow commercial development on 9th Street between 7th and 8th
Avenues and at the corner of 9th
Street and 8th
Ave and at the corner of 6th
Ave and 8th
Street,
which satisfies the lack of commercialization that was articulated in the problem section of this
report. Furthermore, Plan A also creates a Large Park and expansion of the Liberty Theatre, both
of which serve as additional components of increasing commercialization in Liberty District the
area.
Plan A fully addresses the Popularity criterion because residents of the BTW housing can
continue residing where they are currently located and receive much needed renovations to their
units. Lisa Johnson, 55, a resident of BTW is quoted in the March 30, 2013 Ledger-Enquirer
article, “Taking Sides” as saying, “I want an upgrade. I’m tired of concrete walls. I’m tired of
having no carpet on my floors” (4). Plan A’s commercialization component was devised by
Mayor Teresa Tomlinson and detailed in an April 2, 2013 memo that was sent to Liberty District
Stakeholders. The proposed solution was revised in a Stakeholder meeting to allow additional
parking on 8th
Avenue to accommodate additional Liberty Theatre parking so the plan was more
feasible to execute. Unlike Plan B, which was rejected by Stakeholders on March 7, 2013), Plan
A wasn’t rejected, and only received one modification (“Proposed Alternatives” 3). Because of
this, Plan A is well-received and backed by Mayor Teresa Tomlinson, the Columbus
Consolidated Government, and Liberty District Stakeholders.
Plan B Evaluation
Plan B is an expensive residential solution; therefore, it only partially addresses the Economical
criterion. It will require more time to complete the residential aspect of the problem and will
require stronger efforts made towards receiving investments by developers and will face strong
competition when trying to receive HUD funds and additional tax credits when trying to build
new housing units elsewhere. Developing new housing units elsewhere would cost the city more
money than Plan A proposes, which is to simply revitalize and renovate the BTW housing units.
Plan B fulfills the Feasibility criterion because the commercialization component of the proposal

32. 11
was suggested by Mayor Teresa Tomlinson (“Update: Mayor Outlines Four Alternatives” 3).
Because she, and members of the Columbus Consolidated Government, stands behind this
proposal, it is deemed as Feasible. Plan B does not fully fulfill the How Well it Solves the
Problem criterion because it does not address the existing BTW housing unit problem. It only
solves the commercialization component of the problem. Lastly, Plan B satisfies the Popularity
criterion because Mayor Teresa Tomlinson, City Manager Isaiah Hugley, the Housing Authority
of Columbus, Liberty Theatre Board Chairman Robert Anderson, area clergy, and some BTW
residents suggested both the residential and commercial components of this solution (“Taking
Sides” 2).
Plan C Evaluation
Plan C is the most expensive solution all-around because it proposes that the BTW housing units
be demolished and have new housing units constructed in its place, similar to Ashley Station and
Arbor Pointe. The commercialization component proposes the most development out of all the
solutions. Plan C entails plans for commercial development on Ninth Street between Seventh and
Eighth Avenues, and at the corner of Sixth Avenue and Eighth Street. It also proposes a large
three-block linear park and expansion of the Liberty Theatre. Because of this, Plan C does not
meet the Economical criterion. Plan C meets the Feasibility criterion because both the
commercialization and residential components of the proposal were suggested and backed by
Mayor Teresa Tomlinson (“Update: Mayor Outlines Four Alternatives” 2-3, “Taking Sides” 2-
5). Plan C meets the How Well it addresses the Problem because it allows for both
commercialization and revitalization of the Liberty District. Plan C partially meets the
Popularity criterion because while it is popular amongst BTW residents, it is not popular with
HUD Housing because lately it has been pushing housing authorities to opt for an alternative to
projects such as Arbor Pointe and Ashley Station. It is also not popular with,
“Lula Lundsford Huff, whose family has a long history of entrepreneurship in the Liberty
District, said the plans to move BTW residents around the Theatre violates a plan thatwas
developed from input from stakeholders who wanted the three bocks used for mixed
development” (“Taking Sides” 3).

33. 12
Plan D Evaluation
Plan D is the cheapest solution all-around because it proposes that renovations be made to the
existing BTW housing units, it proposes no corner commercial development (like Plan A, B, and
C do), and while it proposes for the Liberty Theatre expansion, it also calls for a smaller park
development. Because of this, Plan D fulfills the Economical criterion. Plan D is the most
Feasible solution because it require the least amount of residential and commercial development.
Plan D partially meets the How Well it Addresses the Problem criterion because it satisfactorily
addresses the residential problem because it does not increase residential housing and only
addresses the commercialization component of the problem. And while it does address the
commercialization component of the problem, it proposes the smallest amount of development
be made. Plan D does not meet the Popularity criterion because it is not popular with the
Friendship Baptist Church because their parking lot will be eliminated in the commercial
development process (“Update: Mayor Outlines Four Proposals” 3).

34. 13
Testing Matrix
Plan A Plan B Plan C Plan D
Economical
Feasibility
How Well it
Addresses the
Problem
Popularity
Legend
Partially addresses problem—
Only residential or only commercial
Fully addresses both residential
revitalization and commercial
development revitalization

35. 14
Recommendation
City officials and residents alike have established a need for residential revitalization and
commercial development of the historic Liberty District. After our committee weighed the four
proposed solutions against the four criteria (Economical, Feasibility, How Well it Solves the
Problem, Popularity), we propose that Plan A be implemented because it satisfies the most
criteria. Plan A, which entails:
 Renovations are to be made to the existing BTW housing units:
o This apartment complex is in the vicinity of a busy street. Because of this, we will
create a central courtyard for BTW residents. By creating a courtyard with
landscaping, barbecue area and seating for the residents, we can create a quiet
space for the residents to enjoy, and also increase the curb appeal of the property
(“Renovation Tips”).
o We will install new concrete sidewalks on the property. The new asphalt and
sidewalks assure that water is drained away from the property and ultimately out
to the city street (“Renovation Tips”).
o We will install an entryway security system. It’s an inexpensive, telephone based
door locking system used by residents to allow entry to visitors (“Renovation
Tips”).
o We will replace the existing interior brick walls with drywall, and then apply a
simple two-tone paint job (“Renovation Tips”). The exterior will also receive a
paint job, in accordance with historic Liberty District color standards.
o We will install ceiling fans (“Renovation Tips”) and upgrade heating and air
units.
o We will install a bright, white Durolast roofing system to replace the existing
roofing (“Renovation Tips”).
 Commercial development (and 6th Ave & 8th St Corner Dev.), large park development,
and expansion of the Liberty Theatre:
o This also allows for additional diagonal parking on 8th
Ave to accommodate
additional Liberty Theatre Parking
o This also allows for commercial development on 9th Street between 7th and 8th
Avenues

36. 15
o Commercial development in this area shall include: restaurants, retail shops, a
grocery store, a drug store, and a possible hotel.
o The expansion of the Liberty Theatre shall serve as a, “mixed-use area of loft
housing, commerce, and entertainment focused on an urban space open to the
community” (“Master Plan” 12).
Implementation of Plan A will solve the issue surrounding the need for residential revitalization
of the BTW housing units and commercial development in the Liberty District that was
described in the problem statement.

37. 16
Appendix
Figure 1: Plan A Commercial Development Artist Rendering
(Source: “Proposed Alternative Designs for BTW Redevelopment in the Liberty District” Memo April 2, 2013.)

38. 17
Figure 2: Plan B Commercial Development Artist Rendering
(Source: “Proposed Alternative Designs for BTW Redevelopment in the Liberty District” Memo April 2, 2013.)

39. 18
Figure 3: Plan C Commercial Development Artist Rendering
(Source: “Proposed Alternative Designs for BTW Redevelopment in the Liberty District” Memo April 2, 2013.)

40. 19
Figure 4: Plan D Commercial Development Artist Rendering
(Source: “Proposed Alternative Designs for BTW Redevelopment in the Liberty District” Memo April 2, 2013.)

41. 20
Works Cited
Bradley, Theresa. "Forcing Appreciation On Multifamily Properties With a Value Added
Strategy: Some Before and After Pictures of Apartment Building Renovations." Theresa
Bradley-Banta Real Estate Consultancy RSS. N.p., 2013. Web. 22 Apr. 2013.
James-Johnson, Alva. "Taking Sides: Liberty District Redevelopment, BTW Relocation at
Center of Dispute Among City's Political Leaders." Taking Sides: Liberty District
Redevelopment, BTW Relocation at Center of Dispute among City's Political Leaders.
Ledger-Enquirer, 30 Mar. 2013. Web. 19 Apr. 2013.
JRA Architects, and KPS Group. Master Plan for the Liberty District. Columbus: n.p., 2003.
PDF.
Owen, Mike. "Update: Mayor Outline Four Alternatives for Liberty District
Redevelopment." Update: Mayor Outlines Four Alternatives for Liberty District
Redevelopment. Ledger-Enquirer, 2 Apr. 2013. Web. 19 Apr. 2013.
Tomlinson, Teresa, and Columbus Council. Proposed Alternative Designs for BTW Replacement
in the Liberty District. Columbus: Columbus Consolidated Government, 2 Apr. 2013.
PDF.
Tomlinson, Teresa. Liberty District Master Plan. Columbus: Columbus Consolidated
Government, 2 Apr. 2013. PDF.