I keep intending to ask whether DNA ever did a full board vote on its advocacy of this project, or whether it was an executive decision, but no matter. We've written much about River View, including this sampling:ON THE AVENUES: How do we pick the winners?
The Wizard of Oz, or maybe Pearl Street.
Gonder on forks and forms (Form Based Codes).
Here's the official DNA case, made with increasing urgency as the vote draws near and community skepticism rises.
---
Thursday June 16th is an important night for the future of downtown New Albany.
New Albany’s City Council will hold its regular meeting this Thursday, June 16 at 7:30 p.m. in the 3rd floor Assembly Room of the City/County Building. In this meeting, the Council will vote on whether or not to pass the resolution to include the River View project into the existing downtown TIF district. This vote is critical to the project advancing to the next step! While this is not the final vote that will make the project a go (but rather to simply include the project into the existing TIF district), this is however, a CRITICAL vote because, if the resolution is not passed at this meeting, the project is dead in the water! Mainland Properties MUST get the resolution passed in order to advance to the next step which is secure their private financing. Without the resolution getting passed, the lending institutions will not go any further with working out lending terms until they know we have an actual project. Once the resolution is passed, we’ll then be able to get into the ‘meat’ of the matter on the financing details.
In case you’ve missed the recent public forum / public hearing meetings which Mainland Properties and the City Council have jointly held in an effort to disseminate all of the information and details about the project, let us share with you now some of the more pertinent facts about River View:
River View is an estimated $49 - $53 million project, consisting of retail, office and residential space including;
40,000 sq. ft. of retail space
40,000 sq. ft. of office space
550 space (2-levels) underground, parking garage
… and, a 70,000 sq. ft. public plaza which will offer handicapped parking, water fountains, various art features, park benches, shading devices, beautiful park-like landscaping/trees, bike racks, ample lighting, etc.
150 sq. ft. of residential space (approximately 111 condos, varying in size and price point)
We believe River View is a huge opportunity for the City of New Albany … not only will having such a development bring a dramatic increase in the number of families living downtown (111 estimated families), but also a sizable number of jobs within the development (conservatively, 456 estimated jobs … 230 during construction and 226 afterwards), and significant local income and property tax injections into the TIF district. The positive impact of having such an influx of new residents and workers will certainly trickle back out into the rest of the community and only serve to positively enhance the momentum already enjoyed with the various new shops and restaurants who have recently located within the downtown area. Much like the phenomenal success the YMCA has enjoyed, we believe River View will also enjoy similar success, while at the same time, further supporting the momentum which the YMCA has generated.
So, what is Mainland Properties ‘asking’ of the City?
1. To have the River View project be added into the existing TIF district, which will allow us the opportunity to move forward with the private financing piece.
2. A $12 million Economic Development Bond (NOT to be confused with a General Obligation Bond), to offset the total cost of $19 million to construct the parking garage.
(Keep in mind that Mainland Properties absorbs the remaining $7 million of the garage, as well as the remaining $37 - $41 million of the building masses)
Why should you support the River View project?
1. The risk to the City is ZERO! The $12 million Economic Development Bond will NOT be funded by taxpayers, but rather underwritten by Mainland Properties.
2. The City will not release ANY money from the bond until Mainland Properties has their private financing secured, guaranteed and ready to implement.
3. Mainland Properties’ credit worthiness MUST be strong enough for them to secure financing in order to move the project forward. If it’s not, then NO project and NO bond.
4. If, at some point, there should be a shortfall in the tax revenue accrued from the development, then Mainland Properties will be liable for the bond payment, NOT the City and NOT the taxpayers. The risk truly lies with Mainland Properties … NOT the City!
If you’re anxious to see New Albany experience a remarkable, long-awaited rebirth and have a downtown area which invokes the mood and atmosphere of a much simpler time when people took pride in their community, walked to the store and talked to their neighbors, we believe NOW is New Albany’s chance! There are few opportunities in our lives to be associated with the rebirth of a community, and yet New Albany is on the verge of just such a moment.
Please join us this Thursday, June 16 at 7:30 p.m. at the City/County Building and show your support for River View.
46 comments:
"The $12 million Economic Development Bond will NOT be funded by taxpayers..."
Then why do we need to TIF the area for the project to proceed? Because the plan is for TIF revenue generated to go to the developer to cover the costs of the garage bond, ie., funding by tax dollars.
The financiers need to know that the developers will be given approximately $12 million in assets by taxpayers before they'll consider funding the rest of the project. We, the citizens, will be helping create the developers' credit worthiness to an extent that it doesn't exist now. To suggest the bill will not be footed by taxpayers is extremely misleading.
It makes no sense to say taxpayers won't be paying for it in one sentence and then to later mention that the developers will pay for only the difference (between what taxpayers cover and what's left) in another. Property tax dollars that would normally help cover other expenses like schools and public safety will instead be turned over to a single private entity.
DNA board members should speak out about this informational discrepancy or be accountable for it as the tax dollars start to flow to the developer. If and when that happens, are they going to cover for it since they've promised taxpayers will not be paying?
Further, now would be an excellent time for the News and Tribune to examine the conflicts of interest inherent in this endorsement. The real estate agent for the project is a DNA board member. Likewise, the current DNA president is an employee of the England administration. Who is actually being represented here? Plus, this type of endorsement has previously been deemed as prohibited by DNA by-laws according to DNA board members. What gives?
And, again, was this endorsement pushed through as DNA board members previously stated without their approval or have they now at least taken a vote so the public knows which members to hold accountable for allowing the conflicts to continue unabated?
Given the amount of hyperbole (and that's being kind) and behind-the-scenes wrangling, my hope is that this is DOA, at least until those involved can step up and be straight with people. Until then, they've got no business asking for $12 let alone $12 million and reporters have a lot of ground to cover before Thursday.
"... significant local income and property tax injections into the TIF district."
Uh, the property tax "injection" goes to pay the bond. No gain there. Also, I guess if ALL the people who move into the condos are not from New Albany, we would see an "injection" of EDIT. Still not going to be a significant amount of tax revenue.
Maybe the city would not be on the hook for the bond. There is still a cost, though. I see negligible returns for New Albany and that prime "spot" is gone, maybe not forever but for a long, long time. That's called opportunity cost. Are we really willing to give this up for basically nothing? I'm not.
"The $12 million Economic Development Bond will NOT be funded by taxpayers..."
I could argue semantics with this all day but any complicated legal concept, when boiled down to a few words, is always imprecise. As a summation, I see nothing untrue in the statement.
Jeff, if we found out that the bank wouldn't have loaded the money on BSB without the city committing for the "Taxpayers Memorial Patio," would you have suddenly opposed it? It wouldn't have changed a damn thing in my mind.
Fact is, your…
…income taxes will not go up,
…property taxes will not go up, &
…fees will not be increased.
Period.
Suggesting otherwise is simply misleading.
Any big deal for New Albany MUST be win-win. Has New Albany just been spoiled by Horseshoe? Are $20,000,00.00 no-strings-attached checks the bar now? Is that the development plan, sitting around waiting for charity?
Of course it's going to take something from the city. If you don't think it's the highest and best use of our resources, then say so and tell us what is. But decrying public contribution in the form of TIF and a few consultants’ and attorneys’ fees just isn't persuading me.
Some other math:
DNA says 111 families. Developer says 167 tenants. Most of those "families" are single individuals. Meanwhile, there are thousands of individuals already living within walking distance of the business district with hundreds of vacant units currently available. Are we supposed to believe that 167 people are going to have game changing impact?
DNA says 550 parking spots, 226 potential post-construction jobs. Developer says 110 spots going to YMCA, 167 to residential tenants. 226 potential workers will need to park, too. That leaves 47 parking spots for everyone else, including potential customers, at a cost of $12 million.
Bobo and Kopp have had residential and business space listed for lease a block away at 213/215 Pearl Street for going on three years. Kopp says he receives up to 30 calls per month looking for residential space downtown. The residential spaces on Pearl (up to six units) are advertised as larger and cheaper than River View. Three years equates to approximately 1,000 phone calls looking for a downtown residence. Thus far, no one has moved in. That's 0 for 1,000, quite a batting average. They've said they're waiting for historic preservation credits but years of lost lease revenue hardly seems like passing up, especially when the credits can still be claimed later. Besides that, the maximum credit allowed is $100,000. 9,504 square feet are listed for lease at $7.75 per square foot annually. That's $73,656 per year in rental income. Why would anyone give that up for multiple years while waiting an indeterminable number of years for a maximum $100K credit they can eventually claim anyway while people were calling nearly every day looking for a place to live?
Roger, I wasn’t on DNA’s board when they decided to publicly support this project. I was on the board approximately two years ago when Mr. Bobo spoke to us about RiverView. At that time, board support for the project was broad and enthusiastic. Of course some details still were unknown.
I’m curious why you have at least twice now asked whether the full DNA board voted on this. I’ve never once walked into Bank Street, seen a new beer, and asked whether you made the call alone or in consultation with your two business partners; I see that as an internal matter.
My intention isn’t to stand up for ultra vires governance. I just want to understand your point. What is the difference?
DNA says 111 families. Developer says 167 tenants. ... Are we supposed to believe that 167 people are going to have game changing impact?
-Number of families in the YMCA: 0
-Games changed by YMCA: 1.
Riverview is not an apartment building. It's multiuse with public space.
Not quite sure your tax/fee claim is accurate, Dan.
If anything is built by a private group on all or a portion of the property in question, it would add more to the property tax base than River View will under the current proposal in what, the first 20 years or so?
If we didn't TIF it, a portion of revenue generated could go toward schools, public safety, etc. Likewise, I'm assuming River View tenants might want to avail themselves of such services. It might be nice if they helped pay for them like the rest of us.
If we did TIF it, the full increment could be used for numerous other infrastructure projects in the area without having to spend millions and considerable time paying off a large bond first. Those could include parks, sidewalks, green space, bike lanes, public plazas, transit, amphitheater improvements- any number of things that could attract and retain residents and businesses without us being hog-tied to the profit motives of just a few people.
Our budget and tax rates are affected by property assessments and maximum levy, right? RV won't contribute to that for quite some time. But what happens when property tax revenues don't meet the need for services? Don't we give up services? And/or use funds from other areas that could be used for other activities to patch holes? And/or raise fees to help cover costs?
It's interesting that you bring up highest and best use as if someone else is supposed to have a preexisting plan in place. Many of the supposed "55 new businesses" downtown have failed owing in many cases to being undercapitalized from the beginning. I'd much rather see smaller subsidies made available to a broader swath of the local population and a portion of that particular riverfront piece of land left under public ownership and control, guaranteeing the river connection for generations.
But, if we are going to open it up to outside developers with sweetheart option deals and millions in public subsidy, I think we might want to advertise that a lot more than we did.
In this case, the City engaged one particular developer for an extended period and then relatively quietly put the property up for RFP. I find it difficult to believe they were completely unaware of the subsidy that would be needed for this specific project. Why not open that process up with the proposed $12 million subsidy or whatever amount on the table, advertise the heck out of it nationally, and see what happens before committing to a long-term deal while comparing it to nothing? That way we could engender legitimate competition rather than back-door tomfoolery and be presented with something other than a "this or nothing" scenario. The mayor's office works for us, not River View, but you'd hardly know it lately as they stand by and lend clout to claims that at least border on, um, less than truthful.
To answer your brewery question, what would the brewery or any other business in New Albany look like if provided a $12 million dollar asset with which to start?
Hell, I could get rich that way and you always say I'm a hippie. Plus, unlike the River View developers, I'd pay personal income taxes in New Albany, which seems like a decent thing to do if people cough up $12 million for you.
Really, Dan? You'd give up one of the most prime spots in New Albany for basically nothing in return? Even you can't make this pay out for the city.
I can't write like Jeff and don't have his urban planning knowledge. I don't have your law degree and knowledge of real estate. However, I've spent 35 years figuring out how to make things pay. Recognizing a good deal(10), a fair deal(5), and a poor deal(1). At BEST, this proposal is a 3 for NA. Prime location needs to return much more for the citizens of NA.
"lending institutions will not go any further with working out lending terms until they know we have an actual project."
We can't get the guy at Williams Plumbing to fix his siding, we trust this city government to shepherd a hugh private development that screams 10 people sell out at our expense? No thanks.
Prime location needs to return much more for the citizens of NA.
Bobo doesn't get the land until he puts $1,087,500 cash into the city's hands up front, at closing. The citizens then get a new public plaza with a river vista on area that currently is a parking lot with a view of nothing.
It all happens without taxes or fees going up.
Mark, what more do you want? Short of another Horseshoe check, what would be your ideal use and how much would it cost the city?
More than a million dollars and a public plaza(whatever the hell that is). Granted, it is basically sitting idle right now. BUT, downtown NA had sat idle for quite some time until the past 5 years or so. It's changing. There's interest in downtown NA. The economy still sucks and real estate, as a subset, sucks even more. Surely I don't have to explain that to you. Why jump now?
I'm supposed to be impressed by a million bucks? A million bucks wasn't even considered big money by Everett Dirksen and that was a long time ago. A million bucks for the very best property that NA owns? No thank you. Allegedly, this guy hasn't even taken care of the property he already owns in NA. That makes me question the altruism that "they" seem to be attempting to sell. Again, no thank you.
This is the second time I've heard the words "trickle back," and it annoys be increasingly with each passing day. Trickling and game changing are not really the same thing in my book.
Many of the supposed "55 new businesses" downtown have failed owing in many cases to being undercapitalized from the beginning. I'd much rather see smaller subsidies made available to a broader swath of the local population ...
Jeff, we have hashed this out before. If the city does not use TIF to support RiverView, small undercapitalized businesses are in no better a spot. Unless RiverView is built and begins generating $1M+/yr. in new property taxes, there is no $12M sitting around that can be used to help small business.
Should we hold everyone hostage if "small business," as you perceive it, cannot get $12M in TIF help? You seem to be saying that if small businesses cannot have it, no one can.
This reminds me of a news story I read after the Challenger explosion. NASA engineers said they could retrofit other shuttles with exactly two ejection seats, one for the pilot and one for the co-pilot. They could not design ejection seats for the other five crew members. An ethical question was posed: is it right to give the tools to some astronauts that will allow them to survive when you cannot give it to all of the astronauts? If I were sitting in the back of the next shuttle mission, I know how I would have answered. I wouldn’t have wanted all of my coworkers to risk dying tragically just because I was taking that risk.
More or less, RiverView is self financing. If you think it would be unworthy even if it were free, then say so. But killing RiverView doesn’t make any other project more likely. Killing RiverView might enhance perceptions that New Albany is unwelcoming to investors who bring in businesses and create jobs, but killing it doesn’t puts cash in the pockets of other downtown stores.
As a sidenote Jeff, verbally you have contrasted Jeff Bobo with “small business.” I’m not sure how you make this distinction. Yes, $42M is a big project by local measures. However, Mr. Bobo doesn’t end up with anything close to $42M in his pocket at the end of the day, the end of the year, or the end of the decade. In my job as an attorney and before that, working at a bank, I had the opportunity to see the books of many local business owners. Often it’s not what you expect. There are Floyd Co. mom-and-pop businesses with fewer than 10 employees and over $10M in liquid assets, $1M/yr. in positive cash flow, and debt free. I’ve seen a $10M/yr. (sales) enterprise, the local leader in its field with dozens of employees, fold up over virtually night. I’ve had more than one local developer client go from making a million dollars a year to bankruptcy court all because the economic winds shifted. Real estate development often is a mom-and-pop operation and it’s a risky business. Big and small are relative. It’s a moving target. Often you can’t tell rich from poor from the outside.
I don’t know why this should matter. Preventing wealth creation by a developer never is a legitimate goal of government. That’s what communists do. Creating opportunities for “small business” is a legitimate goal. But unless you can articulate how a TIF bond for Mainland robs others of opportunity, then I just don’t see the point.
I’m curious why you have at least twice now asked whether the full DNA board voted on this. I’ve never once walked into Bank Street, seen a new beer, and asked whether you made the call alone or in consultation with your two business partners; I see that as an internal matter.
The conflict of interest with Mike Kopp is reason enough to ask this question. And so I have. What I have received in return is silence; nothing unusual about that.
Besides, Dan, are you seriously comparing the brewing of a beer with support for River View by a Main Street organization? That's a strained stretch.
Mark, fair enough.
It’s an intellectually honest argument to say let’s wait a few years and see what happens. But there’s risk in that approach too; maybe nothing ever happens. It’s a difficult spot to build on and downtown redevelopment private-public partnership across the nation often rely on TIF. If we’re waiting for a project where the city does not use TIF or does not contribute something else, that makes the site less attractive to prospective suitors. If that’s how New Albanians want it, so be it.
"Preventing wealth creation by a developer never is a legitimate goal of government."
Then why do all us Mom-and-Pop developers get that very treatment from local government. If I invest $50,000 in my historic property downtown for instance, and my neighbors are allowed by the city to flaunt all building codes and disinvest in my neighborhood, my investment is directly diminished, as well as the general tax base.
Government should level the playing field for all investors and then get back to running the city, and not into a hole, would be all I could expect from the current crop of "public servants" here in NA. Gaming the TIF program or what ever program to walk out with the taxpayers being the first-line financiers is looney.
Okay, much has been made here of this supposed conflict of interest with Mike Kopp/DNA. Let’s break this down.
Mike Kopp's a commercial real estate broker. His day job is matching commercial real estate owners with commercial seller and renters. New Albany has many, and in the past had many more, empty commercial real estate buildings. I bet everyone can agree that Mike Kopp is as responsible as anyone for bringing commercial real estate buyers and businesses to many of those previously empty buildings. This is something New Albany needed desperately. Those of us who care about downtown New Albany have benefited greatly from Mike Kopp’s day job.
But that’s Mike’s job. Now, say someone like Mike Kopp wants to be a volunteer. He wants to help planting flowers downtown. He wants to help with business networking events. He wants to give his time to the types of general revitalization activities DNA does. I’m sure it doesn’t hurt with his day job, but if he wants to help as a volunteer, why shouldn’t he? Why should an organization like DNA refuse his help? DNA needs more people with Mike’s set of skills and who are willing to step up to the plate. So I ask a serious question: How can someone with Mike’s day job assume a leadership position in a revitalization organization without someone alleging an unfair conflict?
Remember, DNA didn’t being advocating for RiverView until after Mike was no longer president. Also, Mike’s role as either DNA's past president or Bobo’s broker never has been a secret. Knowing how careful Mike was to avoid conflicts, I suspect DNA would have publicly supported RiverView earlier had Mike not been its President at that time. It’s unfair to revitalization efforts to suggest DNA should refuse the assistance from volunteers who work has hard as Mike. It’s unfair to DNA to suggest it cannot advocate for a project that’s in line with its mission statement just because a past officer plays a role in that project.
Finally, I want to know why this matters. Whether RiverView is built is not up to Mike Kopp and it’s not up to DNA. Mike Kopp is not the Mayor, he’s not on the Redevelopment Commission and he’s not on the City Council. Neither Mike nor DNA will ever vote on RiverView’s TIF. The Mayor, NARC and CC will decide RiverView’s fate and to my knowledge, none of them will profit from its construction. Where’s the conflict?
The advocates are transparent in their motives. The real decision makers have no conflict. For a small town, I think that’s pretty good. So Roger, until you can explain to me where the conflict is, I would appreciate it if you would drop the subject. As you know, downtown advocates have a difficult enough task. Hinting that they might be doing something wrong, when they are not, doesn’t help them with that task. I have no problem with honest disagreements over RiverView. I have no problem if you think it’s the wrong deal, if you think it’s too risky, or if you think it’s just butt ugly. However, as someone who is thankful to the hard work that Mike did at DNA, I would appreciate it if you if you’d focus your attention on New Albany’s many real problems instead of these imagined ones.
Dan,
We can "what if" this to death. What if the development goes up and doesn't attract businesses and condo owners? What if it sit there 2/3's empty, basically just taking up space? What it....?
Correct, maybe nothing else ever is proposed or developed. Considering the interest in downtown NA during a major economic downturn, I like the odds of a better deal in better economic times.
I've never been against using TIF or abatement's, per se. I'm against this TIF and project because all of the TIF goes to paying the bond. It's too much. A smaller amount, I'll listen. I've actually advocated using tax abatement as an incentive instead of TIF paying the bonds.(use TIF to help the rest of the district). I even have stated that I would be open to a longer than normal abatement of, say, 20 years. At least NA would get half of the tax money, instead of "none".
Hope that helps answer some of your questions?
Kopp and I served on the DNA board together for a while. During that time, I and others brought issues to the board that we felt should be addressed from a Main Street viewpoint. Kopp was one of the most adamant in insisting that the board not do that, as the group "wasn't political".
Members of the executive team at the time agreed and the issues were never put on the agenda for board discussion or action, owing to that "non-political" status.
It was a joke at the time, of course, precisely because the very same folks who objected to politics would return to the next meeting only to report how their latest advocacy session with the mayor or a council member had gone. And it's a joke now.
A bunch of current and former DNA board members were in the mayor's office just last week trying to convince them to facilitate the purchase of a crumbling building at 8th and Culbertson. But that's not "political", I guess.
Neither Kopp nor the others seem to be complaining that DNA is openly engaging in politics (as opposed to the usual method) when it's his project, even though they recently released a statement specifically explaining why they can't and have quoted their own by-laws as forbidding it. According to a current board member, some in the group worked around that rule to issue the first River View endorsement by simply not consulting the board before doing it.
As was the case when I was still involved (and why I ultimately left), whether rules apply or not still seems to depend not on what the topic is but who is championing it. Rather than explain that, a few of them will probably just start a rumor about me and/or others who question it. It certainly wouldn't be the first time. I mean, it's not like this non-political group is asking for $400,000 in addition to its general City sponsorship, right?
The "board within the board" seems to have struck again (and again and again). Given that some of that elite group are on multiple boards that all spill over from one topic to another and have strong connections to the mayor's office, it gets tiring just trying to avoid it.
"I would appreciate it if "the city" focus "it's" attention on New Albany’s many real problems instead of these imagined ones."
Dan, you must be on the hook for a big "consultant or attorney's" fee from RiverView.
Can you disclose, for transparency sake, your own personal stake in RiverView. I honestly don't know if you're advocating for the city or just as a resident.
Mark, thank you for asking legitimate questions about the project. I think we’ll both agree that elements of any plan like this are a judgment call that weighs competing “what if’s.”
Jeff, there’s a difference between (1) engaging with government, (2) advocating an issue, and (3) “being political.” You’re blurring the lines. Besides, the comment was about a conflict of interest, not DNA’s tactics and goals. Your service at DNA was years ago. Even if DNA is “being political” now, it’s a private organization in which you have chosen not to engage. Does DNA not have a right to shift tactics over the years? Does shifting tactics make an organization “bad”? You don’t like DNA, we get it. You’ve written reams about your contempt for DNA and we’ve all read it for years. What does that have to do with RiverView’s merits?
Gina, your comment is one I’d expect on the anonymous blogs, not here. If someone is for something downtown, there must be a profit motive, right? Maybe a little something under the table? To answer your question, I have absolutely nothing to do with RiverView. But even if I did, what does that have to do with RiverView’s merits?
I’m reminded of another blog post I read here a few years ago. I forget the details but, in essence, a non-downtown New Albany resident had complained about how downtown was getting all the attention and Daisy Ln. (or wherever) was getting the shaft. The comment was not received well by NAC readers. Many NAC comments wrote that downtown benefits everyone and that it was selfish of the Daisy Laners to complain about good things happening in another part of town. And what do we have today? We discuss RiverView’s merits and Jeff complains about DNA/86-64 and Gina complains about her neighbor’s house. I can’t distinguish those attitudes from the Daisy Ln. guy.
Actually, Dan, the original blog post was about DNA's endorsement of River View. When such an endorsement contradicts statements the organization made just s short while ago, it seems pretty natural that general dysfunction would be a topic of conversation.
Since you don't really have an explanation for it, either, you resort to old tactics like the 8664 gambit- another fictitious rumor that serves to fill the vacuum.
How are things in Henderson these days? Any thoughts on moving back to New Albany?
Roger, since we’re talking about DNA, I want to discuss another subject.
I’ve seen Jeff, Gina and you at the Farmer’s Market and other DNA sponsored events. I’ve seen BSB overflowing with customers during a Beer Walk. I hope we can agree that DNA does do at least some good things.
As someone who cares about DNA’s mission, I welcome constructive criticism and the acknowledgment that DNA is an imperfect organization. However, from reading this blog lately, it would be excusable to think that DNA is the villain. That’s unfair to our hard working friends and neighbors who volunteer their time to furthering DNA’s mission.
I’ve read posts about conflicts of interest. Lately, I’ve not read posts about things such as Susan Kaempfer’s years of unpaid management of the Farmer’s Market. Last week I was walking down Pearl St. and bumped into David Barksdale and Greg Sekula sweeping the sidewalks. I didn’t read about that on your blog either. Nothing like it.
If you want new people to engage with downtown, show the world some more examples. There are plenty out there. How about a little thanks to your neighbors and friends while you’re at it? We all enjoy a good human interest story.
Jeff, by posting here lately, I have pursued two goals.
First Goal: I believe the decision about RiverView should be based on fact regarding the projects merits. So far, discussion along this line has been meager. Calling it a tax give away or suggesting that building RiverView makes other small business loans less likely is not based in fact. Hinting that a couple press releases by DNA are illegitimate does not advance fact based discussion about the project's merits. Nothing I have written either supports or opposes RiverView. My goal has been simply to raise relevant issues and challenge the irrelevant ones.
Second Goal: Acknowledge that DNA is a net positive for New Albany. The organization deserves our support. Constructive criticism is welcome. Allegations of imaged conflicts of interests and bringing up past grievances are not. DNA volunteers, more often than not, help New Albany. Acknowledging that fact and encouraging their efforts helps them makes it easier for them to accomplish their goals.
New Albany’s old guard has many standby tricks that have prevented change. “If it doesn’t benefit me, I won’t support it.” “If it’s supported by my enemy, I won’t support it.” “A supporter who is not from here cannot have anything to add.” That’s the old way of doing things. It’s up to you to decide whether the old ways will continue.
Dan,
I'm not going to wade into much on this DNA squabble. I don't know most of the players that well. I do know that Mike Kopp, along with others, has been instrumental in helping the rebirth of downtown NA. I know Susan runs the Farmers Market which our household patronizes.
I do find it odd that there has been no explanation from DNA of why they could not weigh in on the bridge tolls issue but can weigh in on this project. I'm sorry, but both issues would have major effects on downtown NA. These two issue are not "years apart". Same time frame. (I know that you can't answer for them)
Dan, yesterday I received a mailing from DNA that forcefully advocated for River View.
Unspoken but implicit was this: I should trust what DNA is saying about River View, and I should heed DNA's advocacy. Am I supposed to accept this without asking questions? All I'm doing is asking, "Why?"
Yes, I personally have a history in the organization. I know what it is, and what it's supposed to do.
But what if it's someone else, not me, but another person who is not in the know, and who is reading that same press release?
It would be perfectly legitimate for him or her to ask, hmm, what's this DNA thing, anyway? Who and why are they? Why should DNA be believed?
I've never said DNA didn't do good, just that it too often takes spurious credit for achievements, real or imagined, and its considerable organizational potential remains unfulfilled, particularly as it pertains to its Main Street mandate.
(As a sidebar, given that downtown is currently revitalized only insofar as restaurants and bars have done the trick, can we finally say out loud that it was not Mike Kopp, DNA, or Mayor England who "rebuilt" downtown? It was the city council, of all people, because that's who passed the enabling ordinance for the Riverfront development 3-way permit, and also folks like Steve Resch and the business owners whose investments made it possible -- and none of whom asked for TIF collateral as a prerequisite to borrow their money)
Now, just because I question whether the Farmers Market should be expanded to the tune of $400,000 does not mean I've failed to credit Susan's excellent management of it.
And, I've always appreciated DNA's networking efforts. It's a good event-planning group, for sure.
However, 57 people at a First Tuesday does not provide justification for claims of driving downtown revitalization. Neither does talking about how many new businesses started without also acknowledging the number of ones that failed.
Yes, Greg and David do great work. No one doubts it, including me.
It's also true that the historic preservation contingent historically has disproportionate influence within DNA. I saw it when I was on the board. Love it or hate it, but it is real.
This matters because factions have a way of influencing the organization's time and ability to deal with other matters, as stipulated by its Main Street mission, such as my favorite, economic restructuring.
In essence, for at least five years, DNA has done nothing for independent small business beyond counting Mike's real estate transactions as its own, and sanctioning merchant mixer meetings that could easily occur without its indirect involvement.
That's why NA First, NA's first-ever independent business alliance, is so important these days, and why DNA's claims to have assisted small business as an organization are suspect.
Individually, all the DNA board members I know are impeccable local-firsters. They deserve many plaudits. They spend crazy amounts of money at local businesses, but Dan, that doesn't necessarily mean they do so as a result of DNA's organizational work. Credit them with local-first prowess as people, as I continue to do, but don't make it into a slogan that enables the organization's claims.
In the final analysis, it is perfectly permissable to question organizational assertions when the rationale of said assertions is to "prove" positive achievements that justify funding. That's really what all of this is about.
As a counter example, the UEZ consistently makes a strong case for its continued existence. That's why whenever government wants something done, and it knows it cannot expect money from the council, the first financing request usually is from the UEZ's pot, whether the UEZ's mandate lies in a particular area or not.
By the way, I regret resigning from the UEZ last year. That was a mistake.
More when there's time, if there's time.
To me, the old ways are unfortunately exemplified by the same half-dozen people sitting on every committee that has to do with downtown.
We've no way of knowing if we have a grassroots here. They're covered by cement ... and manure.
Mark,
DNA’s mission is downtown revitalization. There are a million ways DNA could pursue this mission. Obviously, no organization can pursue every project. If DNA said henceforth its sole tactic for downtown revitalization will be by planting flowers and only planting flowers, how are you harmed by that? I would say to a flower only policy, “Wow, some volunteers are helping my neighborhood by planting flowers, how great.” I would not say, “Those volunteers aren’t sweeping my sidewalk for me, how unfair!”
Personally, I wish DNA had been more forceful in opposing tolls. But since I’m not a DNA member, I feel no right to criticize their decisions. I’ve discussed the issues with a few board members and left it at that. My advice is simple for anyone who thinks DNA can better serve its mission with sidewalk sweeping (or anti-tolls campaigning) than flower planting: join the board and make your case to your fellow volunteers.
Roger, I appreciate your comment. There's much in there that deserves discussion. For now, I want to make just one more point. You wrote:
...the historic preservation contingent historically has disproportionate influence within DNA.
Main Street Association were created by the National Trust for Historic Preservation. The thought is that if your get new businesses and other activity into historic downtowns, the historic buildings have a better chance of being preserved. I don't know how any organization born of the National Trust can be "disproportionately" preservationist. At the same time, I agree that DNA’s mission would be advanced with additional business incentives, joint marketing efforts, etc., whether those come from within DNA or without. Suggestions about how this might come around are most welcome.
Dan,
I'm sorry that I wasn't more clear. My problem isn't so much what are they for or against but why, in one instance, they cite their charter and bylaws for failing to take an official stance and in another instance they most definitely take a stance.
If, as an organization, they could not agree on the tolling issue, then say so. Don't hide behind the bylaws. If it really is the bylaws that concern them, then they need to explain what is so different about this RV project that allows them to take a stance. Again, both issues would affect downtown revitalization.
I can deal with differences of opinion. I don't think that question is unreasonable.
To me, the old ways are unfortunately exemplified by the same half-dozen people sitting on every committee that has to do with downtown.
You got it. The board within the board(s) that makes difficulties in one group difficult to avoid in the others until people just start trying to avoid all of them, which leads to even more difficulties and less happening as they tend to dominate nearly everything until there's nothing one can do without them because they'll try to dominate that, too, whatever it is.
As one downtowner recently explained, "You can never really tell who's representing what. The personality conflicts just move from one place to the other."
That's why I made the comment stuck up on the marquee yesterday about cliques and breathing room.
Jeff, is your clique exempt?
About the only thing anyone could claim my clique tends to dominate is this comments section-- and it's open to anyone with an actual identity 24/7.
But, if my clique did dominate multiple boards around town, no, they would not be exempt.
If you ever see Roger, Mark, and me "leading" three or five organizations, you're welcome to call us out. Or me at least. They can speak for themselves.
Did you intend to limit your 'clique' comment to leadership of local boards?
Jeff, there are few people on many boards because too few people choose to volunteer. That’s not the fault of the people who do volunteer; it’s the vault of the people who don’t. If all ‘clique’ board members resigned tomorrow, what would be accomplished? Both you and Roger were members of local boards but you both chose to resign. If you think it’s a clique, either step up to the plate yourself or suggest how the organizations can recruit new blood.
Yep. That's what I was talking about, though really, I can't think of anything else we dominate, either. A table at BSB occasionally, maybe.
You have something specific on your mind or are you just pecking around?
I don't think your assessment is accurate, Dan, or at least incomplete. Let's say a person volunteers and doesn't jive, for whatever reason, with some of the folks involved in a particular organization.
So they leave that one and try another. And run into the same people. So they try to do something completely outside the preexisting organizational structure. And run into the same people.
If a majority or all of the orgs are a size 10, and a person happens to be a size 8 or 13, then there aren't a lot of footwear choices other than going barefoot.
Jeff, nothing prevents you from starting your own organization. Sure, it'll be a lot of hard work. But if for five years you work as hard as Mike, Susan, Dave, Rich, Greg or Debbie worked at DNA during the last five, you'll be off to a good start. If you start a new organization and few join because your ideas are not shared, then I doubt those same ideas would have received much traction within an existing organization.
So they try to do something completely outside the preexisting organizational structure. And run into the same people.
step up to the plate yourself
Really?
Are you serious?
Jeff, nothing prevents you from starting your own organization.
Jeff addressed this: "So they try to do something completely outside the preexisting organizational structure. And run into the same people."
However, I will add: It's happening now, and the push back is noticeable.
Also: It's not a question of starting an organization for the sake of doing so. The right organization is something else, isn't it?
Roger, I'll never question your overall contribution to revitalization. But if we limit the discussion to current board 'cliques,' then yes.
We're been very abstract. Maybe it would help if you could provide an example.
Jeff, is your problem really 'cliques' or is it that your ideas are not shared by many others? There is a difference.
Not a correct assumption, Dan. I'm not talking about me.
I can speak from my own experience. Five years ago, I came to New Albany part of no clique. I knew no one on the local boards. I signed up and, when I wanted to pursue a project, I had a lot of organizational support.
Jeff, whoever it is you're talking about, I still don't know if the problem is people with differing ideas/goals or if the problem is with a true clique, a group that passes on good ideas because they're presented by someone from outside the group.
Post a Comment