Bluegill asked this question in another thread after a discussion developed about the existing downtown parking garage and prospects for a new one:
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?
We already know how the conjoined councilmen feel. Your opinions?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
5 comments:
I'll take a stab at it.
For a private entity to invest in any structure, they expect a certain percentage of return(profit)from its operation. For a city, in situations such as this, the hope would be to cover your expenses. The return to the city is the extra investment that private enterprise provides due to the city's initial investment.
The city's actual cost of building would probably be lower due to bonds. With higher expense to build and the only possibility of return(profit) from the garage itself, private investors have more risk. The city can gain returns(taxes)from surrounding areas to the garage.
I guess if you could get Donald Trump to come in and buy all of downtown, he could build the garage and improve all the other properties to get his return(profit). Even if a few of his properties did not return enough or any profit, perhaps the total development would. Like a grocery store selling milk at cost. The problem is, Mr. Trump ain't coming.
However, the city does "own" the entire city. That's why, sometimes, cities have to do things that private enterprise would not.
TIFs, EDIT's, Bonds, greek to me most of the time.
But do know know that you can not expect progress with out investments.
AS far as "paying for itself", I feel one would have to take into consideration a timeline. Do we consider 5 years a success, 10, 20?
Or could it be considered a success if by playing its role as a peice in the puzzle, that helped to make the whole picture clear, then ANY investment is worth it in the long run, whether thats fresh paint on some rusty fire hydrants, to, well, a multi million dollar parking garage.
We know there is plans for a convention center/hotel (originally wanted to be built at Grantline and 265, I think I commented on that before on here)
We know Scribner Place is a fact. new restaurants, the return of Southside, Speakeasy, conners.
The Corner stones are in place, the greenway will add to this greatly.
Its all relative to the entire picture of downtown.
So what does it mean for a public works project to pay for itself? My simplest answer, it has to be a successful and useful part of the entire downtown revitalization scheme.
Correct me if I'm wrong but my understanding has always been that at least in this country, government's job was not to show a profit but rather to protect & enhance our way of life by maintaining public infrastructure, providing essential services (fire, police, sewer, water, ambulance, etc.) either directly or indirectly, and plan for future growth.
None of these items are either free nor cheap. They are in large part however what makes this the most coveted country to live in by peoples all across the globe.
We the people, for the most part are willing to pay for them because in doing so we net the freedoms and comforts we so cherish.
When government fails to do its job whether by mismanagement of available resources, its unwillingness to make short term hard decisions that have long term effects, or its unwilingness to look beyond what is to what can be, we loose some of those cherished freedoms.
Worse yet, we and they condem future generations to a lesser lifestyle than we enjoy.
The point that both we and they seem to overlook along the way is that government does indeed work for us. We are their employers. They do serve at our pleasure. They can be fired. And yes, we can tell them how to do their jobs!
The weak link in this system is the fact that the ball is in our court but far to many of us fail to or refuse to pick it up and run with it.
"It ain't my job!" is an often heard quote. Well I regret to inform you that it is your job and if you and I don't do it, it ain't gonna git done & we'll have no one to blame but ourselves for the results.
Now that I've strayed a bit far from the original question, let me confirm that I'm not advocating giving the barn away just to acquire the new horse. In many cases I object to the repeated tax abatements as much as some of you.
I do however understand that to lure investment, commerce, and taxpayers to our community, we have to at least show an interest in them doing so.
In an era when all around us is begging for their dollars they are not going to take a second look at a situation where the local government is both hostile & uncooperative to growth.
Revitalization-type public projects should focus on leveraging outside funding sources and lowering barriers of entry (making it easier to invest capital, making it easier and more enjoyable for people to live in and contribute to the city, and so on). Of course, the city leaders should explore cost-efficient options and try to make the projects self-sustaining, but if that is all they are concerned about they are missing the point entirely.
I see Phase II Scribner Place (parking garage, hotel, convention space) as basic urban and business infrastructure. It is several steps removed from improving our human capital, but it certainly leverages outside funding sources and lowers barriers of entry to conducting business in New Albany and living in the urban core (discussed in a prior thread). This is exactly the type of project that calls for EDIT money.
Here's a comment by Not Anon, who was having trouble registering:
---
Nail on the head! I had a conversation only a few nights ago with a citizen in the know, who still doesn't feel Scribner Place will bring in business. My point to him has been reiterated on this post.
Point is, the downtowns which have flourished (Jeffersonville, Indianapolis, Louisville, et al) have done so because the City has invested. The City of New Albany's investment (although it took years to come to fruition) in Scribner Place has brought investment in new businesses. We are well behind our Jeffersonville neighbor on enhancing the downtown, but have taken the first baby step in supporting "Smart Growth."
In these days when the general population is gradually realizing that global warming is bringing wacky weather and natural disasters, they are also realizing that re-use is the way to go, from recyclling of aluminum cans and cardboard to historic buildings and property that is adjacent to the interstates and interstate bands that created the death of urban life as we once knew it.
Progress in New Albany is not the hare, but the turtle. The turtle ultimately wins the race and I will put my money on that turtle. We can call put our money on that turtle by voting Nov. 6 and encouraging anyone with an ounce of progressive energy to do the same.
Post a Comment