Last week, reader Daniel S.'s comment after a blog post did not get the chance it deserved to engage discussion, which quickly went another direction (hey, it happens), and so I asked him if he'd mind me reprinting it as a free-standing post. Consider it done. Discussion?
--
Guys it's been awhile since we've had a decent debate, and so I'll bring back up a topic we talked about several months ago that I think definitely relates to this subject.
Roger I read your column two weeks ago that basically said tolls would cut the lifeline between Indiana and Louisville, causing major business loss for small businesses especially in Southern Indiana. At least that's how I took it.
That same week on this blog, you touted the latest effort to galvanize support for shopping local.
I'm no expert on bridges but I do know no one wants to pay to drive across a bridge, but it seems these messages are somewhat contradictory to each other. Basically, a toll that keeps people from driving to another city/state to make purchases would by its very essence increase business locally.
I would be much less likely to drive to Louisville to hang out with friends on a Friday night if I had to pay $7 just to get there, but I wouldn't stay at home either. This might not be good for Louisville businesses, but it would be great for New Albany because that's where I would spend my money.
If anything, it seems tolls would help local businesses because the vast majority of businesses on this side of the river are supported more by Hoosiers than Kentuckians. Sure, there are some that can draw good numbers from Louisville, but that's more of an exception than a rule of thumb.
Tolls could actually force Southern Indiana businesses to market more to local people. Regardless of how many Louisville customers spend money on this side of the river, per capita I'm sure it doesn't even begin to stack up to the amount of hoosiers that go to Louisville for their entertainment and purchases.
Stopping that leakage, in my opinion, would result in bigger profits for Southern Indiana businesses than simply retaining the small percentage of Louisville residents that spend money in Southern Indiana.
I guess what I'm saying is I can see several ways that tolls would be damaging to business, but more so for Louisville than us. Wasn't New albany at its peak when getting to Louisville was cumbersome?
And for the record I haven't fully formed an opinion on tolls yet. I think the argument on both sides is pretty much being driven by emotion at this point, but it's not something I cover so I haven't attended all the bridge meetings. But honestly if we were all shopping and spending locally, how important would the issue really be?
Just some food for thought.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
30 comments:
If we can just keep IamHoosier from hijacking the post again, that guy's a nut.
Seriously though, I've been thinking about it some more. I suppose it just comes down to how you define local. If you define Louisville as being local, than I guess bridges would hurt local business considerably. If you consider New Albany to be local and not Louisville, then it would seem businesses that market themselves stand a lot to gain if tolls were setup.
But there's a bunch of parameters/other discussion points.
A-What's local?
B-Who's defining local?
C-How many people from Louisville shop here?
D-How many people from SOuthern Indiana shop in Louisville?
E-why don't we have a monument of John Calipari erected in the town square?
F-Do we have a town square?
Whether in jest or not, someone at another blog keeps saying that he/she/it won't spend a cent downtown until all of it is grown, made, produced, stitched, etc, etc locally.
To me, it's both an independent business and "buy local" idea, jointly, and it's something we'd need to be doing even without the threat of tolls.
This is because we need to educate ourselves and our own community about the nature of business and consumer relationships during a transitional period in America, to understand where money goes, where it stays, and that shopping is about more than low price if there is a high cost to the low price.
Many other reasons, too, but I'm in a hurry.
At the same time that NA is local, so is metro Louisville. So is Indiana as opposed to Bavaria. So is America as opposed to China.
In just about every sense I can imagine with the exception of a state line running along a river through it, metro Louisville is an entity. Tolls divide that entity, and tolls disproportionately punish Hoosiers, which is why I'm reminding local politicians of it every chance I get, and asking: "Why do you favor punishing Hoosiers?"
I would call Local as in Southern, IN. Jeff, Clark and Floyd Co. I agree Daniel, if tolls would be placed on all of the bridges it could have some possitive impact on local southern IN. business. There is not much in Louisville that you could not buy here.
The out cry will come from people that are going to work in Louisville. This is a addition cost that would affect those like me. I would have to adjust just like my friends that work downtown adjust to a parking rate increase.
I just don't see the real need for a all or none project.
I would love someone like the Governor, say build the EE bridge first. Make it a mandatory bypass for trucks. Toll it if needed and see what happens to the traffic.
There is not much in Louisville that you could not buy here.
There's a lot in Louisville that you can't buy in Southern Indiana, especially if you're focused on buying as often as possible from independently owned businesses. The same is sometimes true in reverse.
Supporting independently owned businesses means supporting a high degree of choice in the marketplace.
Jeff said
"There's a lot in Louisville that you can't buy in Southern Indiana, especially if you're focused on buying as often as possible from ."
That goes to Daniel's 2nd point what is Local?
If your view of local being only (independently owned businesses) then you may have some good points. I would then ask you to show me the goods or services you can buy in Louisville and not buy in Southern IN. (not to start a fight just a question)
If you can and if the point to Daniel's post is the negative impacts on tolling would help local business in Southern IN. There may be a need for new locally owned business to start up in Southern IN. to fill that gap.
My view is Local as in the Southern IN. community as a hole may have a positive impact under Daniel's example.
That being said, my view has always been no tolls on current bridges.
I think we need to get past this idea that "local" ends at the river. The reality is we are part of Louisville Metro. We may belong to Indiana (a state that would rather disavow everything about us except our tax revenue), but otherwise our metro area is similar to other regional metro areas like Columbus, OH, Indianapolis, and Nashville. It just happens to encompass two states.
Would Indianapolis enact tolls on their major interstates thereby splitting the city? Would Columbus or Nashville? No, because people would be up in arms. It would impede commerce and be burdensome to people who live in one area but work in another behind the toll lines. Why should we accept that here simply because there are two states involved? Cinci certainly isn't considering tolls on their planned bridge, and they also encompass a two-state metro area. Hell, our illustrious governor swooped in to save the day in Madison to make sure their bridge is built faster and cheaper than projected. You know why? Because he knows Madison stands to lose a lot of money if people from Milton, KY can't get across the river to shop. I really don't understand why Metro Louisville is treated so differently by both Indianapolis and Frankfort.
For me, "buy local" includes Louisville because I consider our area to be Louisville Metro even if our address is in Southern Indiana. But more importantly, "buy local" is more about buying from independent merchants. I don't personally do a lot of shopping in Louisville, but when I'm over there for dining or grabbing a coffee with a friend, I like to patronize local/independent places like Irish Rover or Highland Coffee.
Southern Indiana has struggled for years to get Kentucky folks to cross the river to patronize our local/independent places, and that struggle has been paying off in the last 10-15 years. Downtown Louisville workers will come to downtown Jeff for lunch now (and why not? In any other single-state metro area, people wouldn't think twice about driving a few miles by car or walking/biking a mile across a bridge to grab lunch). Beyond that, I have many Kentucky friends who will cross the bridge for NABC or La Rosita in New Albany. Several crafty types specifically go to Grinny Possum in downtown Jeff for their yarn/knitting supplies. This is a HUGE leap forward for our region. But tolls on existing bridges will undoubtedly be a barrier to regional commerce due to the economic impact and traffic clogging inconvenience.
While my family doesn't do a lot of shopping in Kentucky, we do happen to be one of those families that works there. We pay taxes to Jeff County specifically to cover our use of their infrastructure. Adding tolls on top of this means less discretionary income for us. I mentioned this in the other thread, and while Daniel said he fully understood the point, he also immediately brushed it aside saying that jobs would be created on the Indiana side, so more of us could work closer to where we live. In any other single-state metro area, living 10-15 miles from work wouldn't be seen as that bad a commute. Why is it different here simply because there are two states involved? Job creation on the Indiana side is a great thought, but when will those jobs magically appear out of thin air? Will they pay what my husband can make where he currently works? There's simply no way of knowing any of that, and it's not something anyone could reasonably bank on. Meanwhile, less discretionary income in our pockets means less cash spent at local (however you define it) establishments. Tolls will not benefit small business on the Indiana side of the river because a good number of us will be cutting back on money spent there when we have to pay just to go to work. This is not a point to be brushed aside easily, and I think it speaks to the heart of why opposing tolls is not remotely contradictory to supporting the buy local/independent movement.
There are lots of goods and services, Vetteman - different foods, music, arts, crafts, films, organic gardening supplies, sporting equipment, computer equipment, etc - that are currently only available in Louisville. Those are just things I've looked at for personal use lately.
Thousands (if not tens of thousands) of us have spent a majority of our adult lives going to Louisville regularly precisely because we couldn't get what we wanted on this side of the river. The Louisville market is larger and more diverse.
Pretty much all of those products and services are from niche businesses. For arguments sake, let's say they are of interest to 10% of the entire regional (Clark, Floyd and Jefferson (KY) counties) population.
Populations (2008)
Jefferson 713,877
Clark and Floyd Combined 180,453
A product or service that appeals, in general, to 10% of the regional population will have a prospective customer base of 71,388 in Jefferson County. In Southern Indiana, the number drops to 18,045.
If travel between the two is restricted or becomes unnecessarily expensive, where do you think a prospective niche business owner is going to open up shop? Indiana loses and we'll be right back where we were twenty years ago.
Even now at the places that get what discretionary income I have on the Indiana side, get more Louisville traffic than was the norm for a long time. It's not unusual for Hoosiers to even be the minority at various points. I'm not privy to their specific sales numbers but it's easy enough to see that they would be less likely to survive without those Louisville customers.
It's funny, is Jeff and Rember the same person or do the just copy and past from the same place, these post arevthe same:
RememberCharlemagne said...
There are lots of goods and services, Vetteman - different foods, music, arts, crafts, films, organic gardening supplies, sporting equipment, computer equipment, etc - that are currently only available in Louisville. Those are just things I've looked at for personal use lately.
Jeff Gillenwater said...
There are lots of goods and services, Vetteman - different foods, music, arts, crafts, films, organic gardening supplies, sporting equipment, computer equipment, etc - that are currently only available in Louisville. Those are just things I've looked at for personal use lately.
Strange???
RemCha was quoting Jeff. He just didn't use itlics or quotation marks.
Ok. No problem.
Karen said:
"Would Indianapolis enact tolls on their major interstates thereby splitting the city? Would Columbus or Nashville? No, because people would be up in arms."
Karen,
I don't disagree with some of your points but I would tell you the quote above is wrong. The answer is Yes.
I lived in Jacksonville, FL. The St. Johns River runs thur the middle of the downtown area. There where tolls on 2 of the 3 bridges and when the built the Dames Point bridge (after i moved) they added tolls on it as well.
As much as I dislike the idea of tolls, I don't beleave it will stop the flow of goods or services between the two states.
People will adjust.
VetteMan: "I lived in Jacksonville, FL. The St. Johns River runs thur the middle of the downtown area. There where tolls on 2 of the 3 bridges and when the built the Dames Point bridge (after i moved) they added tolls on it as well."
From Wikipedia: "Jacksonville is the largest city in the U.S. state of Florida in terms of both population and land area, and the largest city by area in the continental United States."
I specifically compared Louisville to metro areas like Indy, Columbus, OH, and Nashville that are similar in size and population. Splitting those cities with toll roads would be at least somewhat different than tolls in the middle of the largest geographic city in the continental US.
My larger point was that our governor seems to think it's peachy keen to let us deal with tolls, but Indy certainly would fight them tooth and nail if the he were telling them they'd not be able to tap into state money to pay for I-465's constant construction. Same for Evansville's I-69 corridor up to Indy. Both are roads that many Hoosiers outside of those areas don't/won't use, btw, yet Daniels's support of tolls is partly predicated on his statement that most Hoosiers won't use the ORBP and so shouldn't have to pay for it).
Daniels entire, "fully funded", "money in the bank" Major Moves plan, as touted by him and his cronies to the public, was a work of fiction. If he doesn't come up with some other excuse for not having the "money in the bank" as promised, he has to admit it was never fully there to begin with.
Jeff, you touched on another point of mine. The anti-tollers always say Indiana is putting up such and such money for the project and would be double taxed with a toll. I say do you not remember what happened locally with the overpass for Grant Line Road? The money was promised to be there from Major Moves, but wasn't when it came time to build the overpass.
Back to buy local. If you define Louisville as local, then buying local would include them. I really don't. It's a separate city, a separate state and a separate tax base.
Basically I'll go back to one of my original thoughts. Buy local at its heart is a marketing campaign much more than it is a community campaign. Which is fine, as long as people admit that. While it's silly to say you'll never support a business until everything they produce was made locally, it's also erroneous, in my opinion, to label yourself as a local business solely based on the owner being from the area.
Let's use the paper as an example. We are not locally owned, but our paper is produced locally, literally, and prepared by people that live locally, many of which are from here. So are we not just as local as a native who starts a business to sell products made hundreds of miles away?
As has been pointed out, many consider Louisville local because it's close. But in today's market, everything is close. Either by internet or airplane, we can reach anywhere in a matter of seconds.
I think more than anything what matters is supporting solid businesses. Businesses that help the community, businesses that offer good service, businesses that don't just assume you'll be back.
I'll sum it up with another example. What business do you think has done the most for this community lately in terms of giving? I think most would say without a doubt it's a national chain that's not even located in Floyd County because the locals here decided they didn't want it. The casino of course. Look how much money the boat, owned by an out of town national corp, has Floyd. What, $20 mill for the Y? How many locals have used the Y as basis for opening up a shop downtown?
Roger I think we definitely agree on this. Businesses should be supporting buy local with or without tolls. I just think we differ on what a local business is.
Karen,
Just because I like numbers. Check out:
http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0763098.html
It shows Jacksonville as #13 and Indy as #14
Louisville is #29 but when you add in Southern IN. To the mix as to your point. Wr move up to low 20's.
Just a thought.
Like I said not discounting your point at all. Just showing how we realy stack up.
The "done the most for the community" argument hinges on how you measure generosity. In raw dollars, Harrah's is ahead, of course. As a percentage of net income, though, their donations last year were the equivalent of the average New Albany household donating about $20.
While very few of us have the income that Harrah's does, I know a lot of people who give much more relative to income while receiving much less recognition.
Sorry, vetteman, for the confusion, but I wasn't quoting Jeff only turning his argument around.
Using his words to make a different conclusion on how tolls would actually help local southern Indiana businesses.
Here I’ll quote Jeff
“The "done the most for the community" argument hinges on how you measure generosity. In raw dollars, Harrah's is ahead, of course.”
Not so, The Asian Spa is way ahead as a measure of generosity.
RememberCharlemagne said...
"Not so, The Asian Spa is way ahead as a measure of generosity."
That me be the best post/line I have every read on this Blog.
VetteMan: "Just because I like numbers."
I stand corrected on raw data. The point remains, however. Indy has a long track record of ignoring anything in the state outside of I-465. Except our tax dollars of course. We get less school funding for our kids, we get less road funding for our infrastructure, yadda yadda yadda. While Daniels runs off to play hero in Madison, he and his cronies here continue to ignore public opinion and economic realities in order to grease palms in banking and development.
Daniel S: "As has been pointed out, many consider Louisville local because it's close."
It's the reality of our metro area. I've lived in California in exurbs that require driving hours just to get to work. When you tell those folks that people complain back here about a 20 minute/30 max commute, they look at you like you've grown a second head. If the entire Metro area (including the Indiana side in Clark and Floyd Counties) were all in a single state, no one would think twice about driving or biking 20 minutes over to another section of the city to shop or dine. But our metro is divided by state lines and the river, so people think of it differently. It will be further driven apart if Stemler and his ORBP buddies succeed in convincing the Feds to allow them to toll existing paid-for bridges.
RememberCharlemagne:"Not so, The Asian Spa is way ahead as a measure of generosity."
Now that made me laugh.
If anyone is interested Gov Beshear was on State of Affairs today and commented on the ORBP at the end of the interview.
To paraphrase what he said, once the commission summits their report the frame of debate will be set to begin argument to what capacity the ORBP is worth doing.
You can listen to the full interview at http://www.wfpl.org/soa
That sounds like he's not sold on the idea of the ORBP in its entirety.
Karen said;
"It will be further driven apart if Stemler and his ORBP buddies succeed in convincing the Feds to allow them to toll existing paid-for bridges."
I know this may get me some slack, but I beleave that people on the ORBP is doing what they thank is right.
The problem is the what some see as the right thing to do, others see that same thing as being forced on them (a tax, tolls, etc.).
Karen, he did seem that way.
VetteMan: "The problem is the what some see as the right thing to do, others see that same thing as being forced on them (a tax, tolls, etc.)."
The problem is that what they see as the right thing to do is primarily concerned with bloated wasteful spending that will serve primarily to enrich them/their cronies as opposed to being conscientious stewards of tax dollars.
Karen said;
"The problem is that what they see as the right thing to do is primarily concerned with bloated wasteful spending that will serve primarily to enrich them/their cronies"
I would have to see proof of that. I don't think you can, but I understand that's your opnion and I respect that.
I still have such a problem with people on both sides not seeing the middle ground. Both sides have such blinders on and the ORBP is so set on this all or nothing that it just kills me. I wish I could just grab someone and say just build the Damn EE bridge and move forward.
You had a great point btw, I have been such a big Mitch D. fan. I can't understand why he was there to save the day for Madison and prove what a good Gov. could do but is not there for Southern, IN.
VetteMan: "I would have to see proof of that. I don't think you can, but I understand that's your opnion and I respect that."
You very rightly decry the Bridges Authority's all-or-nothing approach to the ORBP. I can honestly see no explanation for such a single minded damn-the-torpedoes mindset from a group of people made up of or highly connected to developers, bankers, construction firms, etc save for that there must be a strong financial incentive for them to refuse all other options to pare down the project and cut the costs.
The simplest explanations are more likely the correct ones.
It's largely due to the scale of the situation, but I give the bridges folks credit for one thing. I don't think I've ever seen the type of unity across multiple demographic variables as I've seen develop in opposition to their "common enemy" status.
It at least provides a little hope that, in the face of such pressure from the usual well-connected suspects, the commoners might win one.
Jeff said;
"It at least provides a little hope that, in the face of such pressure from the usual well-connected suspects, the commoners might win one."
It will depend on what a victory is.
Mine is a EE bridge (tolls or not) but No tolls on the existing bridges.
I think some in the East End of Lousville (River Fields) dont want a EE bridge at all and could care less about tolls on a downtown bridge. They just want a larger group to take up thier hidden cause.
The larger group beleave that a new bridge or bridges are a good thing. Better flow of traffic, more customers to local business and more jobs.
The idea of tolls/usage tax is the problem.
VetteMan: "The larger group beleave that a new bridge or bridges are a good thing. Better flow of traffic, more customers to local business and more jobs.
The idea of tolls/usage tax is the problem."
Several polls indicate the larger group want the East End bridge built, but beyond that, the vast majority are unsold on the downtown bridge and would rather see what happens with the East End bridge before committing to further construction, costs, and tolls.
You've mentioned frustration with a lack of a middle ground on both sides. I completely agree that the ORBP people have shown a ludicrous refusal to consider compromise proposals, but I honestly don't see that from folks against tolling. Most of the people I talk to (myself included) are in the "Build the East End bridge first, then evaluate the rest" camp, and of those folks, a good proportion are willing to cede ground on the tolling issue for that specific bridge (as long as it isn't too onerous), even though in all honesty, that bridge should be able to be built without the need for tolls. In my experience, where people get most up in arms is the notion of tolling existing paid-for infrastructure to pay for other new infrastructure. Putting tolls on a new bridge where people can evaluate the cost/benefit of using vs not using the new bridge/route compared to putting new tolls on existing roads that people already depend on and cannot avoid using is seen as fundamentally unfair. This isn't an extremist position. It isn't an all-or-nothing position. The refusal to offer middle ground options isn't coming from toll opponents, it's all on the side of the ORBP people.
Karen's exactly right. Stemler has repeatedly said nothing besides what he wants to do will even be considered - it's his way or nothing.
Even before the toll issue was front and center, a majority of advocates I know were saying that we needed to consider other alternatives, almost all of which included building the East End Bridge first.
It's only lately that I've begun to hear "If the only choice is their project with tolls or nothing, I choose nothing." Stemler and crew created the nothing monster all on their own. Like the ORBP plan itself, it's not what a majority of folks have ever asked for.
Post a Comment