A Bridge. Too Far

It's no secret that the Kentucky legislature was none too keen on granting tolling authority as a means of financing the Ohio River Bridges Project. In fact, the legislature's adjournment without action on the toll bill (H.R. 102) certainly delayed the tolling authority, if not killing it.

This delay could allow time for General Tyler Allen's guerilla forces to build more support for the 8664 plan and, with luck, kill the two-bridge plan.

It is now possible to reveal the nexus of the killing of H.R. 102 and the New Albany City Council.

While I have not been a very active or vocal opponent of the Ohio River Bridges Project I do, in fact, oppose the plan and support in its stead the 8664 concept. I was especially pleased to contribute to the delay and possible death of the tolling authority through the Council's action at the last meeting.

For those not familiar, the Council, through a tie vote, killed the most recent incarnation of the so-called Freddy Krueger development, across Chalestown Road from Kroger's, named after the psycho-who-will-not-die from the seemingly endless "Friday the 13th" movie series. This development shares some of Krueger's DNA and shows the family resemblance through endless looping of appearances before one body or another in city government. This time it appeared as a means of delivering unto the populace of New Albany's neglected east side neighborhoods, a new Wendy's to replace the old Wendy's in the tony mid-range of Charlestown Road, across from the vibrant Colonial Manor Shopping Center. Tour buses have been causing traffic problems as out-of-town shoppers crowd the Colonial Manor's many upscale shops and restaurants. This was but one reason the plan was seen as a cinch for passage.

Timing was critical in the passage of this plan and its coincidence with the Kentucky legislature's passage of H.R.102. Both things had to happen for the deal to go down. And both were ultimately undercut by another fast food giant trumping highly creative capitalism with simply creative capitalism.

Yet again my effectiveness as a blogger is diminished by my mid-century technical limitations. I tried to post a link to the story which would have shown the simply creative capitalism in action, but the telltale blue letters of an active link eluded me. So, I'll just have to recount the fact that Kentucky Fried Chicken, now in sanitized form known as KFC, is fixing potholes in Louisville. Its consideration for this altruism is the opportunity to paint a stencil on city streets,with the words "Re-freshed by KFC". Google "KFC potholes", see what you get.

This master stroke was sniffed out during the debate on the tolling authority to fund the two-bridge project. Its imminent rollout left the highly creative toll plan looking like tired me-tooism.

It is a given that no one likes to pay tolls. It is a further given that times are tight and tolling will be required to make the Bridges project a reality. That distaste, and the $4.2 billion dollar price tag for the Ohio River Bridges Project led Wendy's International to come forward with a most creative solution to the bridge dilemma. Wendy's International offered to pay the entire $4.2 billion for the Two-Bridge plan under the condition that they could set up reverse toll booths in the Northbound and Southbound lanes of I-65.

These reverse toll booths would have the requisite signage directing motorists to "STOP and PAY TOLL". The marketing gurus felt that motorists would be ecstatic when, instead of collecting tolls, the tollbooth attendant would hand out coupons for local Wendy's restaurants. Relieved of the obligation to pay tolls, motorists it was believed, would be motivated to drive directly to the nearest Wendy's out of gratitude if not hunger.

This plan was dealt a serious blow as the new Wendy's on Charlestown Road was iced. It is common knowledge that no one will drive the extra mile and a half to go to the existing Wendy's. Robbed of this most integral post on the Metro area's northern boundary (some saw it as the jewel in the crown) Wendy's International's plans collapsed and it ceded the innovative marketing turf to the Colonel.

So until Freddy brings forth another plan... The people of Lafayette Drive can breathe easier, but they'll have to travel farther for that great Wendy's taste.

Back to the Drawingboard. Please.

At the most recent City Council meeting, March 19, a development which could have resulted in the relocation of the Charlestown Road Wendy's to a site farther out Charlestown Road was nixed by the Council.

For those who don't know, the Wendy's project cuts out a portion of a large lot for the restaurant while leaving the current zoning in place for an "L" shaped piece of property surrounding the restaurant on two sides.

In an attempt to extract something meaningful from the proceedings, I would like to offer an idea that could have possibly yielded a different outcome. At least it could have changed my vote. Unfortunately I'm not holding my breath waiting for the missing ingredient, because that missing ingredient is found in such short supply among developers hereabouts. The ingredient? It goes by several names: innovative thought, creative approaches, getting ahead of the curve, anticipatory development in recognition of the changes suggested by new environmental realities.

That is, after three or four years on the New Albany Plan Commission and now starting the second year on the City Council, I have yet to see more than about two developments that might fall outside the unflattering catchall categorization of cookie cutter sameness.

Look at any of the patio home developments. These are offered as a response to a demographic change in our culture. Aging people are downsizing their households yet still want independence and convenience. So far, so good. A curbside assessment of the typical patio home,however, looks like, in Jeopardy fashion, an answer to the question "Where can my car and I go so both of us feel at home?" The street presentation is of struggle for dominance between the garage and the living quarters. From all appearances, the cars are winning out with the most prominent digs.

Are the developers stupid? the buyers? No, I don't think so. On the contrary, the patio homes I've seen from the inside appear well built and comfortable and suited to the needs of the people living there. But it would be difficult to find a current mode of housing design that more glaringly exemplifies the cookie cutter school of thought.

But the Wendy's development, ( if indeed it is a Wendy's, and there's truly no way to know that at this juncture, according to counsel ) is a commercial development, so what's that got to do with cookie cutters and patio homes? Again, it's the lack of a creative or innovative approach to the puzzle of what to do with that parcel of land. Clearly no one who holds an economic interest in the land sees doing nothing, or next to nothing, as a viable option, otherwise they might consider leasing it to an agricultural entrepreneur who could open an "in-town" small scale u-pick farm. Would there be enough customers for such a thing? Surely not in that end of town.

I just erased several paragraphs in which I suggest what the developers could do with the land. The reality is, that just like with the patio homes, the developers failed to offer anything innovative. As if to underscore the fact that they were offering nothing innovative, they weren't even offering a plan to bring in a new hamburger joint, they were simply going to move an existing hamburger joint to a new location; on the same road yet. And for this accommodation of the developers' plans, the existing neighborhood residents were being asked to suck it up in the cause of progress and free markets.

So maybe it shouldn't all be left up to the developer.

One of the best ways this type of situation could be headed off in the future is for the City of New Albany to begin a reorientation away from greenfield development and toward REdevelopment. (As was stated in the Council meeting, fast food restaurants typically use up a building in a pre-ordained period of years and then move to a new location.) Charlestown Road from Eighth Street out to Klerner Lane is showing signs of commercial and residential neglect and deterioration.

A prime example is the Colonial Manor shopping center, across the street from the current Wendy's site, abandoned several years ago by Kroger in favor of a new site across from the proposed Wendy's site. If the city were to acquire the property it could solicit proposals from developers to take that property back to the level of vibrancy needed to make a strong neighborhood. The use of Economic Development Income Tax (EDIT) funds could be used to buy the property thus freeing the developer from the carrying cost of the project during development. Direction by the Plan Commission, through the RFP, could shape the REdevelopment in ways most beneficial for the entire community. The developer would make a profit but only by producing a worthwhile, cohesive project. And when the developer is out of the deal the EDIT funds would be returned.

This would be a better way to steer the development of the community in ways that truly benefit the entire community, not simply the narrow interests of the developers. If Colonial Manor were, in fact, redeveloped it is quite possible that the entire Charlestown Road corridor would be seen as more desirable and unfortunate situations such as the one involving the Wendy's project might be avoided.

Since You Asked

In the February 28th Tribune, the "Feet on the Street" people asked this question:

Should city government step in with harsher enforcement of building codes for rental properties, or should landlords be better about self-enforcement?

That same topic has been discussed recently on some local blogs. It is possible that the genesis of this question is the report prepared by the City Council committee on code enforcement. Here is some language from the introductory narrative of the report:

Providing safe housing for themselves is a basic responsibility of every homeowner. A safe dwelling allows the family to live free from concern for unsafe mechanical systems, pest infestations, or other threats to health and well-being. In such places the costs for heat, water and sewage should be reasonable and predictable. Responsible homeowners routinely take the initiative to ensure that these basics are provided. Government’s role in the regulation of owner-occupied housing is somewhat limited: inform the community of accepted standards, and ensure that life-safety issues are in compliance with existing code provisions.

With respect to rental property, however, government must assume a more active role. The same basic requirement exists: the property must be safe in all respects. But the offering for sale, lease, or lease/rent-to-own of housing units is a business. As such, the conducting of that business places a greater burden and a greater responsibility on landlords because this business affects the entire community. The quality and standard of maintenance of rental properties can dictate the level of commitment neighboring owners and, in fact, other landlords may show to dwelling units. The committee found that some, mostly older, neighborhoods have as many as half of the houses under various rental agreements. ...


While a private individual may not choose or be able, due to circumstance, to keep his house in its best condition, those in the rental business must be held to a higher standard. The sometimes lucrative business of owning rental property cannot be allowed to negatively influence the property values of nearby neighbors through poor maintenance; this causes a downward trend to the city as a whole.

It should be beyond debate that the owning of residential property and the offering of that property to others in exchange for money is a business. It is, likewise, beyond debate that a restaurant owner is engaged in a business.

Few would question the value of having a restaurant come under inspection by the health department. They benefit the entire community by upholding a system which offers the expectation of healthy food for those choosing to dine out. It is not hard to see that these inspections also benefit the community in another way by promoting a healthy environment for commerce.

Louisville has a system in place in which letter grades are placed on the fronts of dining establishments. I recently went to try a new pizza joint. My hunger dissipated and my lunch plans changed as I approached the place and saw a large "B" on the front window. Call it grade inflation if you will, but I had never seen a grade lower than an "A" before.

Those in the restaurant business accept the heavy hand of government involvement in their affairs because people demanded it and because citizens' health concerns swayed, perhaps, timid regulators.

Why do those engaged in the rental property business see their situation as markedly different from the restaurateur's'? And yet, I have heard comments such as "I'm for code enforcement. I just think owner occupied houses should be held to the same standards as landlords." In other words, professional landlords see a double standard and they don't like it.

This perceived double standard is possibly an attitudinal twin to the umbrage expressed in some quarters against the mortgage bailout President Obama has proposed. The anti refrain goes something like this, "I was responsible. I paid my mortgage.Why should I bail out some ne'erdowell who didn't?"

On the surface that appears to be a defensible position. But, if we look a bit deeper, we may wonder why many of the people holding these onerous mortgages are not seen, accurately I believe, as the victims of a predatory financial system designed to benefit the lending class over the borrowing class. We may also wonder what happens to the national economy as a whole when great numbers of our fellow citizens are ground into poverty. We might even feel, beneath the surface anger, a bit of empathy.

Could it be that those who insist on equality of enforcement have a goal in mind that falls outside the bounds of widely-cast civic improvement? Could they seek not broad uplift of the housing stock of New Albany but rather, to overburden the enforcement mechanism to make it inefficient or not worth the trouble and cost?

The first paragraph quoted above refers to the fact that, "Government's role in the regulation of owner-occupied housing is somewhat limited". Should that truly be seen as a novel or unsupportable idea? For centuries we have known that "A man's house is his castle." That is not some homespun nostrum. It is a distillation of one of the major pillars of English Common Law written by William Pitt:

The poorest man may in his cottage bid defiance to all the forces of the Crown. It may be frail, its roof may shake; the wind may blow through it; the storm may enter, the rain may enter -- but the King of England cannot enter; all his force dares not cross the threshold of the ruined tenement.”

No one suggested that code enforcement be a rental only proposition. But for reasons of long-held custom, and because a disproportionate share of those houses judged to be inferior are owned not by the resident but by a landlord, it is only sound policy to place a heavier burden on those who own property for profit rather than for those who own it as a personal or family dwelling.

The citizens of New Albany spoke clearly that they want this city cleaned up in both literal and figurative terms. They will judge us elected officials harshly if we don't deliver.

Proper code enforcement need not be imposed in heavy and harsh ways. It can also serve as a means of reaching people who are not able to care for themselves any longer and who don't have family or friends to help them. These cases can be directed to various social service agencies and groups such as Repair Affair.

Done correctly, code enforcement will benefit all segments of the community and those who now oppose it will see it as worthwhile.

=====================================

REPORT ON CODE ENFORCEMENT
January 11, 2009


Providing safe housing for themselves is a basic responsibility of every homeowner. A safe dwelling allows the family to live free from concern for unsafe mechanical systems, pest infestations, or other threats to health and well-being. In such places the costs for heat, water and sewage should be reasonable and predictable. Responsible homeowners routinely take the initiative to ensure that these basics are provided. Government’s role in the regulation of owner-occupied housing is somewhat limited: inform the community of accepted standards, and ensure that life-safety issues are in compliance with existing code provisions.

With respect to rental property, however, government must assume a more active role. The same basic requirement exists: the property must be safe in all respects. But the offering for sale, lease, or lease/rent-to-own of housing units is a business. As such, the conducting of that business places a greater burden and a greater responsibility on landlords because this business affects the entire community. The quality and standard of maintenance of rental properties can dictate the level of commitment neighboring owners and, in fact, other landlords may show to dwelling units. The committee found that some, mostly older, neighborhoods have as many as half of the houses under various rental agreements.

Those engaged in the rental property business are by and large a conscientious and valuable part of our community. Any of the broad statements offered in this report are not intended to sully the reputation of those who offer needed rental housing units to those members of our community who cannot, or choose not, to own their dwelling.

In order to increase the profitability of the rental business some unscrupulous landlords will defer maintenance or refuse to keep up properties. Some of the avoided maintenance amounts to a nuisance, but some may be life threatening.

Poorly maintained rental property can act as a blighting influence on particular streets or neighborhoods. The landlords bear the responsibility to see that building codes are followed. But the city must, through its code enforcement efforts, see that this responsibility is, in fact, borne by the landlords. Failure to adhere to the Housing Code may place citizens in danger of injury, undue expense, or even death. That failure is most important, but of nearly equal importance is the effect non-adherence to the Housing Code has on the general quality of life enjoyed by the entire community.

While a private individual may not choose or be able, due to circumstance, to keep his house in its best condition, those in the rental business must be held to a higher standard. The sometimes lucrative business of owning rental property cannot be allowed to negatively influence the property values of nearby neighbors through poor maintenance; this causes a downward trend to the city as a whole.

New Albany has many fine streets and neighborhoods. They make up the fabric of our city. The older neighborhoods were passed down to us by previous generations as places where we could live, raise families, start businesses, and enjoy a good quality of life. The possibility of a community of shared futures was handed to us by our forebears. We should do no less.

The committee urges this and future city administrations to diligently and fairly enforce the existing housing codes.


THE CITY COUNCIL COMMITTEE ON CODE ENFORCEMENT MET SEVERAL TIMES, ALL IN PUBLIC SESSION.

It was comprised of three members of the City Council, Steve Price- Third District, Pat McGlaughlin-Fourth District and John Gonder- at Large.


Many of the attendees were “professional” landlords, those who own significant numbers of units and make a substantial amount of their income from the pursuit of the rental business.

The committee heard from the professional landlords that a proposal for rental registration would place an unequal burden on their properties versus owner-occupied houses. This contention appears, on its face, to have little validity.

Initially the landlords were reluctant to accept rental registration, primarily due to registration fees. As the concept was discussed further, some of the landlords allowed that registration with no cost would not be seen in the same light and would, therefore, be viewed somewhat less negatively.

Mr. McLaughlin chose houses in visibly poor condition, at random, and contacted Brenda Egge’s office to see how difficult it is to obtain information about the property. The process was quick and efficient. It yielded an owner’s name associated with the property. It was not possible to determine from this information whether the information obtained was up-to-date. The information, while helpful, may not be sufficient to address code enforcement issues in a timely manner.

On the other side of the issue were concerned citizens who offered opinions that code enforcement is thwarted by professional landlords. They claimed that the result of this interference with code enforcement is a general debasement of the housing stock of the city and has a wider negative impact on the city as a whole. Based on anecdotal evidence, this contention is difficult to refute.

Agreement between the two sides centered on the idea that the current municipal code contains sufficient regulation to ensure both attractive neighborhoods, and safe dwelling units. Further agreement was found in the perception that while sufficient codes exist, the will to enforce those codes is lacking.

THE COMMITTEE RECOMMENDS that existing housing codes be enforced diligently and fairly.

THE COMMITTEE RECOMMENDS if rental registration is pursued, it should be implemented at no charge to the landlord and later be assessed as to the need for fees.

THE COMMITTEE RECOMMENDS further, that a code enforcement appeals board be established to address individual code cases. While provision for an appeals board exists in the current code, discussion with officials indicated that this board has not met with regularity, if at all. The committee recommends that an appeals board consisting of three people be established to support the code enforcement process.

It is during this process when individuals who cannot afford to perform maintenance on their owner-occupied dwelling, could be directed to organizations which may aid them in addressing the infractions. Further, the appeals process would help assure the public that the codes are being enforced fairly and are not influenced by favoritism. And, of course, during the appeals process any mistakes could be corrected.