In anticipation of the neighborhood forum this Wednesday evening, I'm writing a Tribune column to be published on Thursday. In an effort to assuage damaged psyches, I promise not to mention Europe a single time. Rather, the topic will be the single most important requirement to achieve success in revitalizing the city's neighborhoods, and it occurs to me that this might make a good open thread to greet the week.As proffered by the forum's organizers, here's a list of agenda items.
- Current experiences and problems in the city and neighborhood
- Ideas for improving “quality of life”
- City and neighborhood safety
- Code enforcement
- Proactive neighborhood involvement
- Vision for the city and neighborhoods
- Street concerns
Which of these is most important? What are the preconditions for success? Why has there been so little forward movement over the past five years ... or has there been forward movement?
And: Who owns the decrepit bench pictured above? It's on the city's sidewalk. Anyone know?
A precondition for success is that we agree on what needs to be done rather than on why it needs to be done.
ReplyDeleteFor example, we're probably not going to convert a majority of New Albanians into Progressive New Urbanists, but we can probably convince enough that downtown streets should be two-way.
Why has there been so little forward movement over the past five years ...
ReplyDeleteExactly. even in the past year. where is the support of the neighborhood associations across the city, and for code enforcement that was promised?
Why does the street department seem to be hit and miss. How is running the street sweeper during the winter efficient when none of the cars are moved, and it spends most of its day up and down the center of streets.
Why is there no set debris schedule? It is a waste of gas going from spot to spot all over town.
Who in the city has responsibility for the trees in the sidewalk easement?
I would also like to get all of these "powers that be" in one room, so they can't play the whole, "not my responsibility" schtick.
About 20 years ago I know that the benches in the city were owned by an individual that leased the space from the city and then collected the revenue by selling the advertising. I assume it is the same or similar process today.
ReplyDeleteI just like "your symbol of confidence"
Code Enforcement is the number one issue for me. Pam Badger is wonderful, but can only do so much with no help and with a program with no teeth!
ReplyDeletePromises made and promises not kept! People are leaving New Albany, just look around at the homes for sale because they see no movement forward!
ReplyDeleteEchoing Brandon: The precondition is organization.
ReplyDeleteA list of attainable goals, and an organization to pursue it.
We all blame the city for this and that, and I'm not letting anyone off the hook, but the problem is that there is no unity across the city.
We must articulate the issues andd get people from all neighborhoods on board. The reason we haven't done so is that we use the excuse that it isn't about politics ... but it is, not in the sense of a non-profit taking a political stance, but insofar as there is a reason why Barack Obama won (and W before him): Organization, and with it discipline and a willingness to compromise ion order to achieve larger objectives.
Until there is unity, we might as well forget about succeeding.
Gee, now you know about my column.
A brief broken record note:
ReplyDeleteThe goals should explainable in terms of desired outcomes. In that regard, the return of two-way streets or even code enforcement aren't goals - they are strategies to be implemented in route to outcomes.
It changes the way we think about and, more importantly, measure success. The desired outcome may be to increase home sales in a given area(s) to single family residents by 10% within a certain time frame.
Code enforcement and two-way streets would help with that by making the area(s) more attractive and leading to more confidence in the market. However, they aren't the outcomes we need to measure.
Just implementing code enforcement and two-ways isn't success. Selling more homes to single family residents as a result is.
It's an important difference that we've collectively not dealt with well in the past.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteNo disagreements, Bluegill.
ReplyDeleteMy larger point (which I am stealing from Kwame Appiah's ideas on Cosmopolitanism) is that it is easier to get people to agree on what to do, in a concrete sense, than to get everyone on the same page philosophically. The point is not to use lack of unity on ideology as an excuse not to do something positive that everyone agrees is a good idea (for whatever political or religious reason they have).
I completely agree that it still takes "political" action and that the best practice is to develop concrete goals (such as increased home ownership) with explainable and measurable outcomes.
"Concrete goals with explainable and measureable outcomes." ...sounds so reasonable.
ReplyDeleteI'm with you, B.W.
ReplyDeleteMy larger point was that we tend to get caught up in "just do something" mode with no specific sense of what we're trying to accomplish, no way to measure if we're accomplishing anything, and no way to make objective judgments or adjustments.
We end up with a bunch of disjoint and/or unrelated projects and events that serve no particular purpose and, despite best intentions, are sometimes even detrimental to the revitalization process (and boy does the word "process" seem to scare some people.)
Not surprisingly, I'm a big fan of graphics to lend concreteness. People struggle to visualize. Put a picture in front of them, though, and remove a stumbling block. Instead of asking them to imagine what to them is foreign, you're asking if they want the particular thing that's already been visualized for them.
To that end, I REALLY, REALLY hope we see some two-way street renderings with medians, bike paths, landscaping, etc., soon.
We could start marketing based on potential alone.
It might be helpful to have some ready rebuttals in case the “we’re broke” response is uttered.
ReplyDeleteIs Jeffersonville broke? Are their taxes astronomical? Is our city government going to cut, cut, cut until all our roads are reduced to gravel and there’s still not enough money to go around?
It think that we all have a goal of New Albany being a very livable, walkable, diverse and clean city, but the structure of goals can vary widely from group to group and even person to person. What I am talking about that are those strategies that bluegill mentioned because if your strategies are not working or accomplishing visaible outcomes then people are not willing to work for the goal.
ReplyDelete"....and I'm not letting anyone off the hook, but the problem is that there is no unity across the city."--RAB
ReplyDeleteI must agree with the preceding sentiment.
As with the flood wall, the streets of Silver, Spring, Vincennes, State, Cherry, and Charlestown Road are not physical barriers.
However, in the idealogical mindset of many, they all may as well be Donner Pass in February.
The fear of a thing appearing political (as all things are) is a dinasour that needs to be buried and forgotten as well.
In my view the big ticket items are;
#1-to determine how New Albany fits in and contributes to the metro area as a whole(what do we have to sell?)
#2-how we collectivly want that to look/feel as a city & as individual neighborhoods (how do we wish to be viewed from the outside?)
#3-what & where are we willing to committ to & compromise as individuals & neighborhoods to accomplish those goals?
Does this mean we give up banging the drum on code enforcement ect?
Absoulutely not! However, I do beleive that focus on the big picture will by its very nature turn attention to the underlying hurdles to getting where we want/need to be.
Planning & discussion sessions are great, but without persistent, consistent follow-thru, time would be just as well spent watching the sitcom that is the US Congress & Senate at work on CSPAN while drinking swill beer!
By the way, that isn't surrender you just heard, just frustration!
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete"Just implementing code enforcement and two-ways isn't success. Selling more homes to single family residents as a result is."
ReplyDeleteJeff, you stole my thunder. Home ownership, before or after your goals are met, will be what drives and sustains the downtown you desire.
I’m currently converting a former 8-plex Main St. antebellum house back to a single family residence. Since this house was technically a “commercial” property when purchased, it did not qualify for conventional financing, only for more expensive “commercial” financing. Living through a multi-year rehabilitation is obstacle enough. Increasing the interest rate by a couple points via commercial financing is just another obstacle to single family occupancy. Some cities have revolving loan funds that offer low interest loans to people who convert older multiple family houses back to their original single family configuration. Also, about two years ago, Jeffersonville had a “front porch” project where $2500 matching grants were given to home owners to make façade improvements, something that never has been seriously considered in New Albany. I know it’s easy to think of ways others can spend money to fix up my and my neighbors’ houses. Still, it’s interesting what has been tried in other cities.
ReplyDeleteActually, Dan, the UEA has a residential facade program to go along with its commercial one. They're legally bound to the enterprise zone (or touching the zone) but it's a good start.
ReplyDeleteAnd, just to note, increased homeownership is a pretty straightforward outcome. That's why I used it as an example. But there are other measurement tools that can be used to measure other outcomes as well. Resident satisfaction surveys are a good tool as is property value assessment data.
Higher satisfaction numbers lead to retention and informal word-of mouth marketing and property assessment data will show upward trending (or at least better comparative performance) if we're successful.
We need quality rentals, for instance, for our housing ladder to work. Millennials in particular tend to rent and we need to attract them. Homeownership numbers won't necessarily tell us about the quality of the rental market but it's something we should measure.
Bluegill - you saved me an email to you discussing that very point.
ReplyDeleteIs the residential facade part of UEA new? I've not heard of it.
ReplyDeleteBTW, you don't want anyone downtown who would have rented one of the units in my place! ;-)
Bluegill - you saved me an email to you discussing that very point.
ReplyDeleteI need to find a better way to say "this is just an example to illustrate the distinction between outcomes and strategies and not what I'm necessarily suggesting as a total solution."
Is the residential facade part of UEA new? I've not heard of it.
Started in 2008, I believe. The UEA reimburses residential property owners $500 for every $1,500 of exterior work visible from the street to single family residences or duplexes. Landscaping counts but lawn service does not. No apartment buildings or chopped up homes. Homes must be in the zone.
Bluegill, I presume that caps out at $500 per year?
ReplyDeleteThis sounds like a good program. I believe my house is in the UEZ and I try to keep up with these things, but I had not heard of this new program. How to get the word out?
The UEZ residential facade program has been folded into a similar effort run by New Directions. Mike Ladd will be here later to fill in the details.
ReplyDeleteDan speaks to an oft forgotten piece of this whole revitalization biz, which is the knee-capping preservationists get from the banks here. I as well tried pretty hard when I bought my 3-plex crack house back in '06 to finance it as an owner-occupied single family, which is in fact what it is. Any of our rich "community" banks will bend over backwards to put you in a new greenfield development out in the county, but they DO NOT support their neighbors who wish to revitalize downtown. Without shame they have built their shiny $$ boxes downtown will it turns into a ghetto.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteWe have neighborhood associations, we have historical preservation societies, we have throngs of followers who shadow every city council meeting, Every B.O.W. meeting, etc.
ReplyDeleteEvery one of those group do an excellent job on the Macro Level.
What we dont have is a community association, where leaders from every one of the previously mentioned entities gather to discuss the city on a broader scale at regular intervals.
The same problems weave through every section of this city, regardless of economic status.
We may get a house cleaned up here, or a vacant lot cleaned up there, but that is just patches on a balloon made of swiss cheese.
Perhaps with a regular meeting community association, we can get a block cleaned up here, or a park repaired there.
I believe my house is in the UEZ and I try to keep up with these things, but I had not heard of this new program. How to get the word out?
ReplyDeleteHere's a Tribune story from last summer:
New Albany UEZ offering grants from signs
http://www.newsandtribune.com/
archivesearch/local_story_162112800.html
From the Tribune:
ReplyDeleteThe association also is expanding its popular facade grant program to include single-family dwellings. If improvements are completed within six months of application approval, the organization will pay up to $500 on a preapproved project.
Improvements could include landscaping, painting or adding new gutters.
Thanks Steve. I had read this article but did not know how close this residential façade program was to implementation.
I’ve since learned courtesy of Bluegill that the details with New Horizons are being wrapped up and that an effort will be made to get out the word once everything is finalized. (Someone correct me if I am wrong).
I’m very glad to see the Urban Enterprise Association venture into residential façade programs. My only imaginable critic is that $500 will only go to subsidize improvements that already would have been made without the program. For example, over the next five years I plan on replacing my metal roof, painting the entire façade, installing all new landscaping, replacing the front entrance to an original door with sidelights, installing storm windows, and rebuilding the three level rear veranda. Whether or not I make any one of those costly improvements will not depend on a $500 grant. It’s just not make-or-break.
Some Indiana cities offer matching grants of up to $25,000, a grant amount which has a far wider impact and which more clearly will be make-or-break on costly projects. Even if the total pot of money dedicated by the UEA were the same, personally I’d like to see more money focused on fewer buildings. Possibly they could set up a mechanisms to review which grants will have the largest visual impact on the zone. If you want to prevent a system that rewards property owners who have neglected their buildings, you could for example require that the building have changed hands in an arm’s length transaction in the previous 2 or three years. (a good selling point for the negligent landowner who might be considering selling to a potentially more responsible owner). If you don’t want to reward wealthy property owners, then institute a needs based test. Whether it’s $2500 match or $500 match, I just don’t see either façade program getting the most bang for the buck.