Anytime Dan "Wizard of Westside" Coffey mounts one of his periodic charm offensives, as in yesterday's non-braining of a "no-brainer" paving plan, you'd better sniff the carrion for quid pro quo. The Tribune picks it up from here:
New Albany City Council goes for $1M paving plan; $300,000 of LRS funds could also be used for resurfacing, by Daniel Suddeath.Meanwhile, untroubled by the Copperhead's crooked smile, guest columnist Matt Nash considers who is standing in the way of annexation:
Councilman Dan Coffey called the appropriation “a no brainer.” Mayor Doug England said the list of streets to be paved will include some roads that weren’t resurfaced during last year’s $2 million campaign.
Mr. Price also asked a question that has been raised on a couple of local blogs. If the city sees a net gain of $700,000 will the county lose that money? First, this shows a complete lack of knowledge of how the layers of government work. Second, it is not Steve Price’s job to worry about the county’s well being. Mr. Price’s job is to insure the city is in sound financial position. His only concern should be how this benefits New Albany citizens.
35 comments:
I'm not an expert on the conditions of New Albany's streets but 3.3 million over two years is a significant amount of money.
What economic impact will the newly paved roads have? Did the property values of Spring St. increase? Did the marketability of houses along Spring St. increase?
What if the same money went to redeveloping the alleyway on the south side of Spring St? Using the money to buy a few houses and relocating the alley way to increase the backyards, of the many homes that don't have any backyards, in those sections. Doing this just might reverse the reason why sections of the south side of Spring St. are not as good as sections of the north side.
Or could this money be used in a similar capacity, to that of the NSP monies, but without all the federal low income stipulations? 3 million would have a lasting and huge impact in areas that are not targeted by NSP funds.
If we redeveloped and increased the value of property in the urban core, New Albany would have plenty of money, year in year out, to pave all they want.
Having “newly” paved roads are important to a city, but can we think more innovatively with these funds in the short term to lay a foundation for the long term?
What kind of time frame for the return on investment in your theories? How many years of street paving would you defer to fund your ideas?
I don't have a problem with some of your ideas. Actually I like them but don't believe that you can put off street repairs much longer. Streets are part of that foundation you referred to.
Badly maintained streets translate to $800 per driver in additional costs (i.e., annual hidden taxes).
How many drivers live in New Albany? 15,000? That's $12 million in taxes that can only be blamed on the no tax/no spend crowd.
I agree and I knew someone would reply to make that point.
Mark, you know well that there is the property tax levy. A program like this one I'm advocating would need to be coordinated so no revenue would be lost to the cap.
What was said earlier this week, that not all of New Albany is bad, would indicate only targeted areas need to be fixed.
Redeveloping with local funds and not federal funds frees New Albany from the low-income requirements that most federal programs require.
Low-income requirements associated with federal programs, are part of the problem in areas that qualify for federal monies. An area qualifying for CBDG monies have to meet a 55% poverty rate. In my opinion, this area has failed. So why would federal requirements require that these programs serve future low-income people. Wouldn't it be wiser to attract higher socially-economic households to support the lower income households?
Attracting more affluent households helps two-fold; one with incased property value, and the other with increased income tax revenue, which doesn't have a tax cap.
New Albany, as of now, can't provide the basic services for residents because a large portion of New Albany's residents don't contribute. What New Albany needs to do is reverse the balance of the haves and have nots.
I'm not against "newly" pave streets but will contributing large portions of money to paving streets reverse New Albany's fortunes?
Like Mark said, how long can New Albany go with reduced paving, to free up money to lay the foundation for future revenue, thereby helping to fund more paving?
Given the suspicion with which most council members would view RemCha's amorphous, big-government ideas, they would be more likely to arrange for a helicopter cash drop on the riverfront stage before they would consider that over paving. Hell, they're suspicious of paving.
Randy, I understand that you may have difficulty in shaping a concept that isn't yours, but all that has been said is conceptual. A more thorough plan would be needed before presenting it to the council.
It's not all that difficult to formulate the idea into a plan. Maybe you have fallen victim to your own defeatism. Attitudes like yours are no different then the people who opposed the Y downtown. It’s ironic that the very people who advocate “local” don’t grasp the concept that you first need a market strong enough to support those very businesses.
enjoy the holiday weekend
attitudes like yours?
I don't think I expressed an attitude other than that the current (and all historic) city councils would look askance at proposals such as Jameson is making. They don't get it. Unless they do, they need to be replaced.
I don't think that's defeatism. I think it's a call to action and, perhaps, a warning that putting forward the idea of diverting money from paving to (???) will not be met with enthusiasm by either the administration or the council.
Just because someone nods and agrees with you doesn't mean they agree with you. And just because someone challenges you doesn't mean they disagree.
If we have crumbling streets (like Elm), it's very unattractive to potential buyers. We can't have a choice of this or that, things have to be in conjunction with one another.
We've had this discussion before...what's more important? A developed downtown to attract people to buy homes in the core or to attract people to buy homes first and then redevelop downtown. It's always presented as a choice instead of finding a way to do both at the same time. With NSP, we finally have a chance to do both.
Having nice streets makes a difference in attracting potential homeowners. Figuring out a way to reroute traffic so the same streets aren't worn down quickly would be nice. As I sit here looking out the window, I'm watching cars fly by (even with a rarely regarded stop sign less than a block away) at speeds that shouldn't be allowed...but that's another rant.
Randy, if I was mistaken in your context my fault, blogging lends itself sometimes for the reader interpreting the writers tone.
I'm use to someone asking questions about another's idea before describing it as amorphous, even when an example (NSP) was given as a quick framework.
Just trying to get the ball rolling at the grass roots level before attracking the help from the nobles.
Andy, NSP a great thing for New Albany, but like I said earlier there are a lot of restrictions on its use. A locally funded program wouldn't have those restrictions and could have an even greater impact on New Albany's need for a demographic to support our local businesses.
Yes, doing both is needed but aside from CBDG and the recent NSP; what local program has focused on neighborhoods? Is street paving enough?
Enjoy the 4th
Jameson, it's restricted in a sense, but it can also be self-perpetuating and the funds can be shifted to other areas of the city once the initial round is completed.
Shifting monies from what little infrastructure funds we have to do an NSP-like program defeats the purpose.
We're talking about 55 homes in total being either renovated or built in the downtown area in this initial round. That's HUGE. But people won't buy those homes if they have to drive around potholes in the streets to get to them.
What I'm questioning is simple. If allocating 3.3 million to pave roads is a "no brainer" what could be done if a little thought and planning went into the use of EDIT and other funds to help increase the tax base.
Maybe all of you have more faith in road paving then I do but I haven’t seen any great economic development from it.
I'm not advocating to let the streets go to hell; all I'm asking is can we use our brains to come up with programs that will have a greater return to support all of our local businesses.
It's a no brainer right?
I'm not advocating to let the streets go to hell; all I'm asking is can we use our brains to come up with programs that will have a greater return to support all of our local businesses.
That's ironic, given that not all -- not even some -- local businesses seem to be able to agree as what they need/want/prefer.
I'm all for using EDIT funds for economic development instead of artificially lowering sewer rates.
"That's ironic, given that not all -- not even some -- local businesses seem to be able to agree as what they need/want/prefer."
The dilemma doesn't stop there. Not only do we need consensus with the business sector but we don't even have a group representing the needs/wants/preferences of urban residents.
At least the business sector has DNA.
At least the business sector has DNA.
For once, I'm speechless.
Good, I'm glad you're on board Andy.
When do you want to start a list of properties to give to Carl that need redeveloping?
Once a plan is in place then we can lobby the council to use the sewer subsidy to help fund it.
What's wrong with DNA.
Develope New Albany has done a lot of good work.
The recent Mayor's fundraiser, for DNA, was a success promoting local business.
I seem to remember you defending the use of EDIT funds to subsidize sewers, Jameson. I could be wrong.
No matter, I'm content with the NSP work and with the money going towards paving. But it sounds like you've got a plan, Jameson, so put your list together and take it to the council. If you can convince the council to drop the sewer subsidy for this kind of project, you'd probably find lots of support aroudn here. However, we already know how this council feels about it..hell, they wanted to use every bit of EDIT money to lower sewer rates. Many have beaten that horse over and over again...but you're more than welcome to get your licks in.
Yes, it has. Until recently, I was on the board. Exclusively was excellent. Much of merit has occurred in the past few years.
At the same time, DNA has no direct connection with the business community. There is a loosely organized merchants group that communicates with DNA via liaison.
I'm not "calling out" DNA, merely observing that if you asked DNA what the business interest in New Albany is, it would not be able to answer with information gleaned from other than apocryphal sources. It might be useful apocryphal information, but it would not come as the result of direct contact.
I personally believe that DNA's four point program according to the Main Street charter absolutely suggests a leading role in business organization, "buy local" campaigns and the like. Apparently mine is a minority viewpoint -- not unusual for me, LOL.
Andy, when it came to the sewer issue I was in favor of the council looking at Mr. Gahan's objections. I was not satisfied that all avenues were pursued.
I would not be opposed to using EDIT for one time sewer projects. I would be against using it as a 20 year subsidy.
A city needs paved roads and a city needs sewers, all legitimate uses of EDIT.
But can we do better or have the progressive surrendered?
Where is the grass root mentality that I read on this blog?
One of the observations that I have made over time is New Albany has been overly pro-business with no residential considerations. The imbalance has caused a depletion of residential urban markets to support local business.
I want to see neighborhoods that can support restaurants, bookstores, auction houses, furniture stores, and every other local business but when the surrounding neighborhoods around the CBD all qualify for CBDG funds there is an indication of failure. The fact that New Albany received the NSP money proved that. I don't think it will be enough to change New Albany's course. The way NSP is set up is subsequent years the effect diminishes.
Does one need to subscribe to a particular political party to foster cooperation in New Albany?
Is there a litmus test on this blog?
I promise, I’ve read the Communist Manifesto.
No litmus test.
As for progressive this and that, most blog readers know by now that I'm pressed for time and have been very busy with work. I can't speak for anyone else.
"Where is the grass root mentality that I read on this blog?"
It takes different forms, Jameson. Besides my day job at a local business, I help manage the farmers' market, work with the Midtown neighborhood association and am beginning work on another new project. That's my grassroots mentality.
Because I don't necessarily agree with your thought doesn't disqualify me as a progressive or a believer in grassroots work. I choose to focus on things I know.
What can Midtown and Uptown do together?
RemChar wrote:
"But can we do better or have the progressive surrendered?"
This one is seriously considering it. At least for trying to get local government into the 20th century.(yes, 20th)
Surrendered? I think most of have not. Some have health issues. Some have work issues. Some have moved away from trying to drag the local government into rational thought and are attempting to improve NA through other avenues.
For myself, unfortunately, you may have hit the nail on the head.
Mark, maybe you just need a young enthusiastic friend to encourage you along.
Post a Comment