Among the many differences between a citizen and a city is the fact that the citizen will someday die. I have not truly come to grips with this verity in my own case but, alas I know it to be true. New Albany will exist when each and every one of us is literally, or figuratively for those choosing cremation, six feet under.
All of us profess hope that the future will be better, brighter, more prosperous for our children. What about our progeny ten or 15 generations hence? There our concern gets a little fuzzy. Who will those people be? Go back ten or 15 generations, and those people, though indispensable to our present adventure, are a little fuzzy also. Without them, we aren't here, and yet they don't really mean too much to us, do they?
Except, if they had been so consumed with living in the now, which was then, they wouldn't have provided us with a good then, which is now.
Which leads me to wonder, what would be the future value of money, which we extract from the commons today, to those who follow us many generations down the road? Specifically, if the current Youth Shelter is sold for the siting of a big box retailer, and the money is funneled into salaries, gas for municipal vehicles, or, perhaps cell phone minutes, is that a timed-release plunder of our descendants' rightful inheritance?
New Albany is a small city hemmed in by state boundaries, political boundaries, hills, and economic necessities and uncertainties. Unlike sprawl giants like Dallas, Texas or Phoenix, Arizona where the physical horizon is pretty much unlimited, we have cards from another deck. To be sure, we can grow to the horizon, but the horizon here is within easy walking distance.
Since we must be careful with our land resources because of land's relative scarcity, and because our limited horizon is not going to produce a bonanza of newly incorporated land to fuel future growth, I believe we need to explore a different model.
If New Albany owns land which is suitable for industrial or commercial development, we should lease that land to industrial or commercial users rather than sell it. The leases would be of an extremely long term nature, perhaps 99 years. That term is daunting for mortals, but the City is, for all practical purposes, immortal. It can look at arrangements on a scale beyond our normal grasp. It must do so, because it is not handling only the day-to-day business of its citizens, but the generation-to-generation business of its citizens and its citizens-to-be.
Land leased to industrial or commercial users would still generate funds into the current account of the City or County, but the underlying asset would be preserved for future generations. The future generations of political leaders could continue the arrangement as it meets their needs, at that time, or they could alter it because conditions have changed. Leased land users would make payments in lieu of taxes, and they would make lease payments.
Modern building construction is not undertaken with the idea that a Butler Building will one day become a piece of architectural heritage. On the contrary, such buildings are given a death sentence upon construction, when the structure's pre-ordained date of obsolesence is written on the project's cost estimates. Therefore, it does not serve the timeless needs of the City to pull a scarce commodity from its larder, and turn it over to a commercial enterprise in the hopes of simply collecting taxes for a relatively short while.
The long view need not cause a burden for us in the here and now. A short term gain from a sale of property will not have a sizable impact on the City's finances for more than a couple quarters, while ongoing ownership will produce continual, though lower in the short run, dependable funds which will support City services year in and year out. More importantly, we can make decisions today which will benefit not just ourselves but those who follow us, so those who attend the Quadra (?) centennial celebration will have something valuable to pass on to their heirs.
Some say it's always about the money, but I believe, and I hope, it's really always about the future.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
16 comments:
I suggest you run for County CouncilI since you seem to be more concerned about county business than city business. Let's discuss your voting record.
I used the article in the Tribune, which referred to the County property, as a starting point for this post. I am fully aware that as a City Council member that particular issue is not our, or more specifically my, concern.
The land I had in mind is City owned. I specifically think of land which is or could be part of an industrial park.
One of the issues communities across the country face is big box stores, Wal-mart in particular, developing a prime peice of land only to abandon that property after its "useful" life has been exhausted. The community is left to deal with the consequences.
My primary point was that we, in the now, owe much to those in the future. One way to deliver a sound community to them is to maintain ownership of land while letting temporary users hold only temporary "title" to the property, in the form of a lease rather than a deed.
As regards the County property, I have only the interest and opinion of a county resident.
As regards the County property, I have only the interest and opinion of a county resident
...but a much more visible and public position as a member of the City Council and local Democratic party that you could use for advocacy.
If the value of the land where the Youth Shelter is located has dropped in price by more than half, leasing makes more sense than selling.
What ever happens to the land is of less concern to me than the fact that these children have been waiting years for a new shelter.
John,
Good info!
As much as the kids need a shelter, and God knows they do, the thought of losing up to 19 acres of green space to another asphalt slab sickens me.
My history with that property goes way way back, to the days before the county owned it, and even when it was county offices.
I just can not get over the even mentioning of selling it for commercial development, building a buffer between that and community park will not be much of a help since run off from the parking lots will find their way into the watershed of the lake at the park. And we all know too well that too many people taking with a grain of salt leaking car oil, antifreeze, brake fluid, etc.
Not to even mention salt from de-icing a large parking lot.
The important thing to me in this discussion is to focus on building assets, "the commons", which benefit the community now and in the future.
As far as I know, no one has discussed the leasing of municipal property locally.
A Hoosier, Elinor Ostrom, recently won a Nobel prize for her work on "the commons", those elements and components of shared property which benefit the community as a whole and which are owned by everyone in common.
Her focus was not on commercial property, as such, but was on a commons such as grazing land. In an urban versus a rural setting, there would seem to be applicable parallels.
How many buildings and much property does the city currently own and are in need of repair or underdeveloped?
Is Government the correct entity to own and maintain property or private business?
Is the different model a call for increase government ownership of a limited supply thereby evolving government into a more socialist one?
If government evolves into a more socialist form would we not be leaving future generations with less freedom?
I understand the need for public property i.e. parks-national and local, schools, libraries etc. but to ask for the government to lease property that could be and should be held by private individuals is no different than when Lords and Kings controlled everything and leased the land to the worker.
In the midst of so much brazen hyperbole, the increased attention on Ms. Ostrom's work has indeed been a bright spot of late. Her intelligence is undeniable and her pragmatism is enough to cause alarm among rigid ideologists everywhere.
The socialist canard is an obvious pitfall in this discussion, however, what I am proposing is not a socialist model but, perhaps more a "temporalist model". In other words, the holding of an economic asset, in this case land as "the commons", to be utilized over time by all citizens of the community whether here now, or those whom we hope will be here some day.
As the changing eviro-scape evolves, what finer heritage could we leave our descendants than a city which is to a degree self-sustaining? In this case, income from leased property can contribute to the ongoing needs of the City, while still being an asset for the City and its inhabitants.
New Albany is,after all, a small place. It has quite limited wealth in land. Cities of our size, and burdened with similar limitations, need to look for new ways to maintain the assets we have, while exploring more intensive, yet sustainable, use of that limited resource. That meets, to some extent, the needs imposed on us by harsh environmental realities and also channels us in the direction of what is loosely described as Smart Growth.
It is up to us to heed the signs. If we do so, I hope those way behind us on the road will thank us and recognize our good intent.
"It is up to us to heed the signs. If we do so, I hope those way behind us on the road will thank us and recognize our good intent."
I understand your good intent but it is not hard to point out that the City Government is not a great property manager and if this thread is your way of seeking citizens opinion I would encourage you to devote your public time in attempting to make sure that any current City owned commercial property is sold to private developers in a fair way that is above any legal requirement.
Good Government can insure that private developers build "smart" it does not require City Government owing and leasing property.
I'm not advocating the City go on an acquisition binge. I'm not advocating the City become a landlord or property manager of buildings.
The City owns some parcels of ground. Those might be used for industrial park purposes. Those companies that locate a business on that land only need it during the their business "lifetimes". As I said, and really the point I most want to emphasize is, the City is more or less immortal. Businesses come and go but the City endures, which is a statement of the Civic Compact between generations of citizens.
Had some form of what I proposed been in effect a hundred and fifty years back, about the only business still involved would be Kaiser's Tobacco store. And it's not in an industrial park. It may, however, challenge my belief that only the City is immortal, while businesses are transitory.
I failed to mention one important and final comment on this subject.
A few years back, New Albany was graciously given a tract of land out Grant Line road. While I would not limit the leasing principle only to this property. I would think one of the best ways to accept this particular gift would be to place the land in service to the whole community, by allowing an industrial user to create jobs and offer services from that site.
I am simply suggesting that the "whole community" is a larger pool of citizens than those who currently live here. The only way I see to hold that element of prosperity as an inter-generational asset is through the leasing of the property to entities which have a shorter time horizon than the City itself.
The City was given land for a park for future generations to enjoy and the City Government descided to make it something else. Not only was this a poor idea but encouraging the City to maintain control of scare land, outside of public parks, is also a poor idea.
you are an ex city councilman in 2011 big boy
After 50 years of NA civil mayhem, many of us will take more convincing that local government, other than good zoning and enforcement, has any positive part to play in preserving what is left of our once god-given community assets.
The best the government can do is establish and enforce the ground rules for economic growth. It should not be in the business of business. It’s anti-american. (No, I did not support the bail-outs.)
SELL (with proper ecological and historic preservation restrictions ala zoning) all surplus city property.
1. Invest the proceeds in an ‘extreme technology make-over” for city/county gov’t. Imagine the efficiencies over time!
2. Invest in a 21st century waste treatment and storm water system.
3. Bring alternative energy to Southern Indiana with a solar plant or urban forest canopy or, well, the list is endless.
4. Invest in a light-rail connection to downtown Louisville. See property values skyrocket!
5. Build one decent charter school, preferably with a math and science focus to tie into Purdue/IUS etc. Also a place for a light rail connection, IUS campus to downtown.
John, I like where your heart is, but I think you’re wistfully overreaching when you imagine the average New Albanian planning for their grandchildren’s future. They are too busy stealing it, just an observation.
Over time I hope we grow more civic institutions, less government. Please let me make clear, I mean less government in the Yankee conservative tradition. Not this bizzarro local “eliminate government except to control women’s bodies and gay people’s personal choices” conservative politics.
Post a Comment