Yesterday I recounted the circumstances surrounding the ill-fated project known, only to me, as Gonder Platz. That was intended as simply a preface to a more critical look at the River View project. I will lay out my thoughts on it here. Such an excercise may have little sway upon the reader or value, or even readers. It is more an attempt on my part, to get some thoughts on this once-in-a-lifetime project down in writing.
I am neither a proponent nor an opponent of the project.
I am a proponent of a more densely populated New Albany. I am a proponent of a city which thoughtfully and conscientiously uses its paid-for infrastructure to build a more environmentally responsible forward looking city. Such a city can grow responsibly and in such a way that future generations can see a future here, not simply a starting point on the way to there.
New Albany, as cities go, is pretty average for its size. It has little to exploit, little to differentiate it from any of the thousands of similarly situated cities of comparable size around the country. It matters, really, only to us. Under different circumstances, this blog could as easily be called, "Gonder for Des Moines at-Large". But fate places us here, and now. I am interested in starting here, and using our small, comfortable city as a feasible sensibly-sized place to put into practice and experimentation the things millions of people are learning in their own small, comfortable hometowns around the nation and the world. Never before have we been able to communicate so effortlessly. (I heard recently that a fifteen year old with a smart phone has at his fingers more information than was available to the President of the United States just fifteen years ago. True? I don't know, but it seems plausible.) All that communication should help us keep from making the same mistakes that other cities have made.
It is in that spirit that I offer this information from a not-too-cutting-edge form of communication. This is from Triumph of the City, by Edward Glaeser, Copyright Edward Glaeser, Penguin Press, 2011:
Too many officials in troubled cities wrongly imagine that they can lead their city back to its former glories with some massive construction project--a new stadium or light rail system, a convention center, or a housing project. With very few exceptions, no public policy can stem the tidal forces of urban change. We mustn't ignore the needs of the poor people who live in the Rust Belt, but public policy should help poor people, not poor places.
Shiny new real estate may dress up a declining city, but it doesn't solve its underlying problems. The hallmark of declining cities is that they have too much housing and infrastructure relative to the strength of their economies. With all that supply of structure and so little demand, it makes no sense to use public money to build more supply. (emphasis added)The folly of building-centric urban renewal reminds us that cities aren't structures; cities are people.
Again, I am neither a proponent nor an opponent of Bobo Platz, but I have difficulty seeing how this plan recognizes that "cities aren't structures, cities are people."
To be continued...
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
Nicely played, John.
Some comments which I will make one by one:
You mention 'public money.' My understanding is that the only public money in play is 'TIF' money. As I understand it, TIF tax dollars are those tax dollars which a development generates incrementally (based on higher assessment for property taxes, local income tax, etc.)
If true, then that means the only public money is money that would not exist if not for the project.
Now, if this were a project out Charlestown Road, or out State Street, you could argue that the project would likely go ahead without the TIF $'s. In which case devoting incremental revenues could be considered a use of dollars that could be used elsewhere.
However, in this case, that particular site has been pretty much vacant, or close to it, for the last 20 years or so. If this project does not get carried through, I would expect it will be vacant for the next 20 years.
Therefore, the only public money that would be spent would be money that would never be there in the first place. As a taxpayer, it sounds like a very good deal to me.
RR:
I hope I was clear in that I was quoting Edward Glaeser. In the quoted paragraphs he does indeed say that public money should not be be used for such projects. I took his words to have broader cautionary import as well.
I don't disagree with his sentiments, however, I was, perhaps imprecisely, focusing more on the scale of the project.
Some reservations I have about this project flow from a memory of the project in Lousville on Second Street. I believe it's called Crescent something or other. That project was built in the mid to late Eighties. It was heralded at the time as a vehicle of salvation for the downtown. It would bring people to live in the downtown and all the attendant benefits of such a project would ensue.
It didn't work out that way initially. It went into receivership for part of its early life. I believe it is, in fact, stable now. But my fear of a repeat in New Albany is that we have underway now an identifiable trend toward renewal of the downtown.
I only want to make sure that this project has no missteps. The presence of a white elephant at the foot of Pearl Street will do nothing to help the march toward building/rebuilding a vibrant downtown.
I understand the TIF relationship to the project. Approval of the TIF does not inevitably lead to successful completion of the project. It does not inevitably lead to public financing of it either. But, at the same time, I have a picture of of a couple teenagers on a date in a parked car, and the boy explaining that he just wants to put his hand under the girl's sweater; nothing else you understand. Perhaps he forgot his gloves, or perhaps he has other, longer range plans.
I guess I feel a bit like the protective father here. There's plenty of time for some answers.
I agree with you that, as an elected official, you need to ensure that the project is on sound footing before you can commit public support to it, or that there are protections to the public money should the project not be able to proceed. (That said, it sounds like to me that there are pieces of this project that can be considered public in nature and warranting public support. Those being the 'plaza,' the improved access to the river, and the needed parking.)
Post a Comment