The senior editor thanks Bluegill, and adds: Here are three supplemental views of the Wizard in mid-tirade.
Once again, we provide you with abundant evidence that Dan Coffey has only one fundamental and abiding political "plank": New Albany's pie must remain forever small, and only Coffey decides how big to carve the slices.
The fact that within such a self-serving philosophy lies not an iota of hope for education, economic development, and human advancement has by now become pathetically self-evident, although it illustrates what the city is up against in its struggle to revitalize far better than the decidedly non-ironic councilman ever could fathom.
Dan Coffey vs. the future. Bets, anyone?
14 comments:
"now I'm not saying give up"
Probably the best quote in the whole movie, which, I'm sorry I tried several times, but just couldn't make it all they way through...
The Coffey philosophy? Tell any lie to stop things you don't understand.
Mr. Coffey says that for the last seven years he has watched the city go down. Coincidence that Mr. Coffey has been on the council for THE LAST SEVEN YEARS?
As for Mr. Coffey's "numbers," there is a reader more capable of rebutting them, but from whom we've not heard in a while.
NA has 68 police officers (not 58) and the Justice Department guideline suggests 75 (not 90). But then, it's much more sexy to imply we are 32 cops short than to report the shortage of 7 cops.
Also reported on Monday is this fact: New Albany has the second lowest property tax rate of any second class city in Indiana. Indiana is 35th in the nation in terms of total tax burden. Neighboring towns of Jeffersonville and Clarksville have appreciably higher property tax rates, and appreciably higher crime rates.
Are we doing something wrong? Yeah, we are turning away in disgust, like Ceece, instead of standing up to nullities like Coffey.
I was at Teresa Timberlake's fundraiser. Where were all you guys?
But the Wizard was right. That DNA crowd, as represented by their president, was really bullying that council Thursday night. NOT.
Somebody must be cutting into Coffey's rag-picking bidness.
Beats me.
Thanks for the video coverage. As I watch Mr Coffey's speech against the city backing another parking garage I can say I agree with one part - that we need more police. We need to clean up some of the "human garbage" littering the city. We also need real economic development and I applaud the people who've come up with the hotel/convention center proposal. One thing I regret, with this proposal or any other before the city, is that the discussion DOES NOT hew toward a non-partisan cost and benefit discussion. Too much demogogary on both sides. On first view, the hotel/convention development looks great. Who wouldn't be for it? But something about the city putting up $6mil in order to put a parking foundation under it? I'm not seeing that part. The developers might use common sense and attempt their dream without the city of New Albanys dyfunctional public officials messing it up. If their dream is a good idea, a good enough idea, putting it up solely through private financing is probably the safest and fastest route. You know I favor local government concentrating on the basics like education, public safety, infrastructure. Whether it's tax abatements or parking garage bonds, it makes me uncomfortable. Still I think the Redevelopment people can offer assistance, obviously, and support and should. But personally I think $6 mil would be better spent on a science-oriented charter school downtown. Or any kind of school. There is such a total lack of investment in "human capital" here. This should be obvious during any city council session...
Has anybody seen the Senior Editor? I am afraid that he has been kidnapped and is being forced to write under duress, the threat of being dunked in a vat of bud light.
G,
The sad part is, if used properly by the Council, EDIT funds could easily be used for both the new parking garage (which we actually need) and several other projects. Like you, I'd love to see a good portion of it spent on educational pursuits, as that's the real key to our economic future. Some initial public transportation investment would be wise, as well.
The city takes in over $2 million a year in economic development income taxes. Rather than leverage that to finance substantial projects, however, the Council has generally chosen since 2005, when state restrictions on EDIT funds were lifted, to use it as a slush fund to prop up other failures. In essence, they just pass on the debt without bothering to combat the actual economic problem.
Since the city refuses to take on any general obligation debt, that only leaves TIF to help finance any infrastructure projects. Coffey is now arguing that all downtown TIF money should be transfered to EDIT in a bogus repayment scheme so that it, too, can be turned from its original purpose and used as a crutch to maintain the status quo. Given current levels of downtown TIF income, his current bill would keep the city from using TIF on any downtown projects for more than a decade.
With both the jail and State Street parking garage off the EDIT books by the end of this year, we have a real opportunity to make headway with so much money in play. We're only spending roughly $122,000 of EDIT a year on Scribner Place. This new parking garage would probably be similar in amount, meaning that we could do both and still have almost $2 million a year left to otherwise invest if we can get the council to end it's multi-million dollar sewer subsidy which is only saving the average user around $3 a month.
With the ability to *make payments* of around $2 million each year, we could invest tens of millions in schools, scholarships, neighborhood revitalization, and infrastructure improvements and not have touched the general or riverboat funds.
That investment, of course, could also be used in conjunction with other public or private financial partners or as potential matching funds for additional grants. It could also help create more EDIT and TIF money with no additional tax levy on citizens.
As erroneously reported by many, debt is not crushing the city-- not using debt to spur development and increase the tax base is.
bluegill. No doubt this city council could use some municipal economics 101. Me too for that matter. But it is hard to drive by one big parking garage downtown that never seems used much, and imagine more car parking as the next thing we need to do to revitalize our core. What am I missing? But when you say public transportation...umm, now I see "future benefit" written all over it.
While in Madison, WI, we noticed that there were numerous downtown parking garages being used by men and woman of all ages.
I share the urge to develop public transportation, but at the same time, I'm not sure how it is possible to re-educate people who are accustomed to taking the car to the foot of their driveways to get the mail.
The current garage gets used. We don't charge enough for it.
The garage is 80% filled with monthly permit parkers. During the working day, it's actually not that easy to find a space in there.
And that's not demagoguery!
Bluegill makes the telling point...EDIT should be invested, not expended.
G,
I agree that a parking garage isn't very sexy or inspiring when it comes to proposed projects, but my initial thinking goes something like this:
1. We have parking issues affecting potential growth downtown now that will only increase in the future. We know that to continue or increase current momentum, we need more parking. As All4Word mentioned, the existing garage is about 80% full already. The rest of the available non-street, surface parking is near full most days as well. National City, for example, has actually gone so far as to purchase land and create it's own lot. The last thing we want is more buildings demolished for inefficient surface lots. In some respects, a parking garage is an act of preservation.
2. Currently, any time someone considers buying a building downtown, the parking issue is raised as a concern. While there is an educational element involved as the senior editor notes and public transportation is the most sensible long-term solution, it's fairly difficult to convince someone to move their multi-person business downtown when there isn't always sufficient employee parking available within two or three blocks. More nearby parking would encourage more purchases and rehabs.
2. We know that increased residential development is a key to sustainable downtown revitalization. Everyone is quick to point out that some current business owners worsen the parking situation by parking in front of their own businesses. What doesn't get talked about enough is where all the residents will park.
3. We can build the garage at today's prices and directly leverage an additional $20 million investment or we can wait until there is a serious parking shortage in 5 to 10 years, spend more money on it at future-inflated prices, and potentially not leverage much of anything.
Re: Public Transportation
I'm continually baffled that local citizens will raise such a ruckus over a relatively small $5 or 6 million dollar project but fall silent when their local, state and federal governments want to earmark almost $4 BILLION for one of the most inefficient, non-sustainable, private household cost inducing transportation choices we have available to us-- the bridges-- and then complain about traffic, road dangers, car expenses and gas prices.
OK Bluegill, I see your points. But if a parking garage makes economic sense, then why can't a private developer build it and manage it, and presumably make a profit from it - a la the Starks garage in L-ville? I'm curious - what does the garage charge now for daily parking?
It's my understanding that the State Street garage charges $17 a month for monthly parking or $27 a month for a reserved spot. I'm not sure what the daily amount is. As mentioned, the rate could probably be raised a little now that more is happening downtown, although it does pay for its own maintenance with around $10 to 20K extra each year at current rates.
The new garage is a bit of a chicken and egg situation. Starks works because the demand was already there. This new garage, by removing development barriers, could help increase demand for downtown property which would, in turn, increase the demand for parking. It could eventually become a commercially viable private investment but probably won't start out that way.
It's a good question, G, and I'm nowhere near muddling through an answer, but tonight's schedule precludes anything further until tomorrow.
I'll leave it there for now with another question, hoping others will jump in:
What does it mean for a public works project to pay for itself? Is it the direct repayment of dollars like collecting parking fees at a garage or something else, like a quality of life issues that indirectly lead to more dollars by making someone want to be around, raising property values, private spending levels, and economic opportunities?
Post a Comment