Sprawled Out: The Search for Community in the American Suburb

Franklintoday.com: "Another Economic Development Commission subcommittee? I think not."

Can't disagree with him:

...the Economic Development Commission (EDC) doesn't deserve a subcommittee, and while I might get some flack for stating such an opinion I'm prepared for that. I've stated many times my disapproval of the EDC's (non)actions for the past few years. The way I see it, when one of their own commissioners has been trying to motivate the commission to do something, to take strong action on something, the rest of them would likely fail to impress even a 6th grader at Ben Franklin Elementary. Heck the 6th graders over there, working on their yearly class projects for their ideas for the betterment of the community, would probably be more motivated or open minded than some on the EDC. No offense intended. Those words are meant as constructive criticism, and to be honest some of the commissioners need a good kick in the rear to get them into gear.

via www.myfranklintoday.com

Fighting a culture of inaction: Voting against... CONSIDERATION of a development?

If you wonder why certain things don't move forward in Franklin, perhaps the following will give you a taste of the sort of attitude that creates municipal inertia.

An interesting sequence of events at last night's Economic Development Commission meeting. With just enough members present to create a quorum, we addressed the following agenda item:

Presentation by Hitters Baseball Academy concerning plans for a new baseball facility located on South 27th Street near County Line Road

The pitch was straightforward enough: Hitters Baseball Academy, currently operating in Racine, sees an opportunity to create a year-round, indoor/outdoor baseball facility on what is now a soybean field on the edge of town. An 80,000 square foot building would be built on the land along with four full-sized turf baseball fields (turf ballfields remain green year-round). The owners of the land are ready to fully finance the project; they could break ground tomorrow. They are asking for no financial support or incentives from the city.

When presented to the Common Council, there was evidently a hang-up with "27th Street Corridor design standards" -- not very relevant, as the complex would be set far back from 27th Street (one might conjecture that restaurants and even hotels might locate on 27th street to support the baseball facility, and they would have to conform to the design standard).

Hitter's has a business plan that includes past performance. They've grown steadily in their Racine location, and have consistently brought in traveling teams and visitor traffic that rent rooms and use restaurants. Franklin would be home to an attraction that would fuel surrounding commercial development.

No-brainer: Whether or not you think Hitter's is right for the area, let's take a close look at this possibility, right?

Wrong.

One particular EDC Commissioner said the following:

"Just to remind the commissioners, about a year and a half ago we set forth direction for the southeastern quadrant of the city to be high-value business development, and this is one of the parcels that is recommended as part of the Comprehensive Master Plan that is going on. The dollars-per-acre that we would yield in high-value business development would be different from this; totally different concept."

Then:

"If we're looking to build tax base in the city of Franklin, this will not build the type of tax base that this portion of the city was talking about doing a year and half ago."

Valid points.

However, further questioning of the Hitters rep revealed a very, very significant factor: The landowners would lease the land and buildings to Hitters Baseball Academy. If another Northwestern Mutual or Wheaton Medical Center were to express interest in the land -- of course, creating a greater payoff for the owners of the land and higher dollars-per-acre value for the city  --the baseball faculty would vacate. They could roll up the fields in a weekend, evidently.

Furthermore (the substance of my comments at the meeting): Any economic development assumptions made a year and a half ago (or, indeed, six months ago!) are, frankly, worthless today. I've said it before: The road that got you here won't get you there. We either remain flexible and creative, constantly re-assessing conditions and outdated notions, or stand like a jilted groom at the altar, waiting in vain for the sort of early-90s style development that is now past history.

EDC Chairman Skowronski said it best: "A bird in the hand...".

The EDC is an advisory body; we can only recommend action to the Common Council. So the motion was made that the EDC recommend to the Common Council that they investigate the potential of the project. 

Read that again: The EDC voted on nothing more than whether to recommend further study of the project in light of changing economic conditions and the unique parameters of the project.

The motion does not say, "Yep  - BUILD IT!" It says, "Let's look into this - we're not necessarily for or against it, but it may have potential."

Let the record show that every commissioner voted "aye," except for the commissioner I quoted at length above, who voted "no".

He left before I could ask him, with all due respect, exactly what he was voting against.

New Report: “Bright Flight” means younger, more affluent cities. And suburbs sit on their collective hands.

ABOVE: Cities, like Washington, D.C., are attracting a younger, more affluent, white population. Photo by Poldavo (Alex).

From “Bright Flight” Means Younger, More Affluent Cities | TheCityFix.com:

A new study from the Brookings Institution, “The State of Metropolitan America,” shows that, for the first time, America’s suburbs are more likely to be home to minorities, the poor and a rapidly growing older population, while younger, educated whites move to cities for better jobs and shorter commutes. The report analyzes census data from 2000-2008 in the United States’ 100 largest metropolitan areas, revealing a reversal of historical demographic trends. (See an interactive map here.)

So, the question is: What will suburbs like mine do to meet this challenge?

I can tell you what Franklin, Wisconsin is currently doing: Nothing.

No initiatives, projects, forums, or incentive programs. In fact, we just pledged a half million dollars to a neighboring community for a superfluous highway interchange, a move that tells the world that Franklin is still about a decade behind the curve.

And, unfortunately, the collegial environment depicted in the photo above is virtually nonexistent in my suburb, and it's something savvy first-time home-buyers are much more aware of now than they were, say, ten years ago (I, for one, was not a savvy home-buyer when it came to judging the community surrounding my house.)

Last year I proposed, via my position on the Economic Development Commission, an city-sponsored effort to work with a developer to encourage creation of a coffee shop/co-working space next to the Franklin library. A member of the Commission argued for "green space" instead - next to a park. Another wanted to add a "friendly amendment" to the Commission's recommendation stating that no money whatsoever be spent on the effort.

So much for that.

Many trade city living for the traditionally strong school districts found in suburbs; "Sure, I'm isolated and can't get anywhere without a car, but my kids are in a good school." However, strangled as they are by ill-fated TIF deals and taxpayer revolts ("My property tax is too high!"), suburban school districts are facing imminent decline. Franklin's school district is cutting an alarming number of positions, and the high school is an old relic.

Suburban public amenities? "Community columnists" decry funding community libraries!

Why bother anymore?

We may be looking at a whole new attitude toward the idea of home ownership. From The Atlantic website:

Houses make sense when you're rooted, financially and geographically. The future of the America is itinerant, flexible, and wary of burying money in an immobile "economic trap." Throw in the 100 million Americans we're expected to add in the next four decades, and you've got a congestion problem that suggests we should replace front lawns and sedans with apartments and trains. 

The blog's author, Derek Thompson, is referring to opinions set forth in Richard Florida's new book, THE GREAT RESET (which is the very first e-book I purchased for my iPad).

Thompson quotes the following from Florida's book:

We've reached the limits of what George W. Bush used to call the "ownership society." Owning your own home made sense when people could hope to hold a job for most or all of their lives. But in an economy that revolves around mobility and flexibility, a house that can't be sold becomes an economic trap, preventing people from moving freely to economic opportunity. Not only has that piece of the American Dream grown dark, but it's also clear that financial excess in the housing sector was one of the central causes of the economic crisis. The rate of home ownership has been on the decline for some time now. Many of those who still choose to buy homes will choose smaller ones, while many more will opt for rental housing.

Our new way of life is likely to depend a whole lot less on the car. In October 2009, The New York Times reported "...After more than a century in which an automobile represented the American dream, car enthusiasm may no longer be a part of Americans' DNA." Car culture no longer exerts the powerful pull it once did. More and more families are deciding to share cars, and young people are putting off buying them and using public transit, bikes, their feet or Zipcars (membership-based, easy-access short-term car rentals) instead. It's not just that oil and gas have become expensive, it's that traffic and gridlock have become a deadweight time cost on us and our economy.

Compared with the end of 2008, the average household is now spending an extra $135 a month for fuel. But, to repeat: My suburb just pledged $500,000 to build a highway interchange that we don't need in a neighboring community. And it's not just money that will be going to the edge of town and over the border, it will be development as well. Why build a neighborhood-based coffee shop when you can toss up an offramp-serving drive-thru java shed right next to the freeway?

At the same time, Franklin is pouring money into a streetscape design for a commercial strip that all but ignores transit options like dedicated bus lanes and Zipcar facilities. Instead, our big-ticket item on 27th Street is "enhanced lighting"  - the seventh most popular item mentioned on preference surveys, as Franklin Alderman (and 27th Street Steering Committee Chairman) Steve Olson is fond of reminding us.

If success and sustainability are a destination, perhaps it's time suburbs - mine in particular - realize that the road that brought them here won't get them there.

My remarks to the Common Council regarding funding the Drexel Interchange

My remarks before the Franklin Common Council (made up of material posted here previously) made prior to their special meeting on funding the Drexel Interchange. More on the meeting -- and a fairly startling position taken by Northwestern Mutual -- later in the day:

This interchange will happen with or without our subsidy. 

But I couldn’t just watch as a city with countless infrastructure and service deficiencies votes to commit half a million dollars of Franklin taxpayer money -- cleverly camouflaged -- to an interchange project that is unneeded by Franklin, a community well-served by two interchanges. [NOTE: Actually THREE, counting College Avenue]

And spending money on a superfluous interchange even as the Federal government launches initiative after initiative and grant after grant designed to bolster communities that pursue Smart Growth principles and alternative transportation options is poor strategy, to say the least. 

The smart community looks FORWARD, not BACKWARD; off-ramp development strategies are yesterday’s mistakes that we don’t need to repeat today.

I attempted to bring this topic up at Monday’s Economic Development Commission meeting -- the mayor reminded me recently that the EDC is ostensibly in charge of the Franklin half of the 27th Street Steering Committee -- but I was told we could not discuss $500,000 in “enhanced lighting” funds for 27th street and the possible diversion of those funds to an interchange as per the failed motion of last Tuesday’s meeting.

Also: I had heard that, at the last council meeting, former EDC member and 27th Street Steering Committee chairman Ted Grinjes claimed that the EDC had advocated for the interchange. I asked at the last EDC meeting, and was told that that is not the case.

Do WE need an interchange? When site location consultants evaluate Franklin, we get an “A” by virtue of two interchanges perfectly bracketing the city. 

Northwestern Mutual, it should be noted, owns an enormous parcel of land on the Oak Creek side of 27th Street, across from their campus. Their $1.6 million contribution has nothing to do with cutting 95 seconds off of their employees’ commutes. Also, they are quoted in the paper this morning as saying that the funds were pledged way back when they were building the campus, and are not reflective of the current economic or transit situation.

As a practical matter, the Rawson and Ryan interchanges create a natural traffic flow onto 27th Street, which is supposed to be our commercial jewel, the marketing alone of which is evidently worth our spending hundreds of thousands of dollars. Frankly, a Drexel interchange breaks that advantageous flow. 

Perhaps the deal we make with Oak Creek is this: We will suffer the interchange’s diversion of traffic as well as Northwestern Mutual’s $1.6 million leaving our community -- a community that didn’t get Northwestern Mutual here for free, by the way -- in return for freeing our $500,000 “enhanced lighting” pledge so we can actively promote and incentivise economic development in and around our neighborhoods and commercial areas, creating higher property values and a deep, sustainable local economy.

On the other hand, Franklin can continue to postpone maintenance and needed upgrades. "Fiscal conservative" aldermen can continue to attempt to derail pedestrian facilities such as the one planned for in front of our high school as "too expensive," while tripping over themselves to send $500,000 to Oak Creek -- and get their hands on a Golden Shovel at the groundbreaking.

These same “fiscal conservatives” are fond of reminding us that “the market will determine” whether this or that development will occur. They are not fond of the idea of even small incentives created by the city to help shape development that is more economically and socially valuable to the community in the long term -- rather than simply a good turn of the dollar for a developer in the short term. 

Yet, here we are, willing to dump $500,000 into an interchange that the market does not seem to be begging for.

SO, after the meeting, get back in your car; if you want to enjoy a coffee and conversation it will have to be in another community, because Franklin has not been "creative" enough up to this point to inspire a single coffee shop, deli, ice cream store, or other public gathering place within walking distance of its library, city hall and central city park.

And, as soon as this superfluous Interchange goes in, any chance Franklin had at developing the sorts of neighborhood-based, human-scale amenities that spur growth of a deep, sustainable local economy will be dashed like a bug on a windshield. It'll be Starbucks, Perkins, Sbarro, Dairy Queen, Burger King, Pizza Hut, etc. -- the royal court of fast food --  all swarmed up close to interchange, suckling on the sea of cars exiting for a bite before they get right back on and back up to speed.

Because, you see, we're on the road to becoming a drive-thru town, and tonight will seal the deal.

Just like Fight Club: The first rule of 27th Street/Drexel Interchange finances is you don't talk about 27th Street/Drexel Interchange finances

 
ABOVE: That actually looks pretty nifty -- big plans for Northwestern Mutual-owned land on the Oak Creek side of 27th Street (From the document "South 27th Street Sub-Area Vision Plan," prepared for Oak Creek by Eppstein Uhen Architects).

UPDATE: SURPRISE - "With a deadline days away, Oak Creek has pledged money toward the cost of a new I-94 interchange at Drexel Ave. and Franklin is pondering a contribution as well."

UPDATE 2: In Minutes from 27th Street Steering Committee meetings from January 15, 2007 to August 24, 2009, DREXEL INTERCHANGE is mentioned 21 times.

•••

Ostensibly, the Economic Development Commission is charged with overseeing the Franklin half of the Franklin-Oak Creek 27th Street Steering Committee.

In the news recently: Attempts to divert a half million dollars that had been earmarked for "enhanced lighting" for the 27th Street corridor to funding the superfluous Drexel Interchange in Oak Creek.

Alderman Steve Olson is an EDC commissioner and also chair of the 27th Street Steering Committee. At last week's Franklin Common Council meeting he made the following motion, which, fortunately, did not pass. See if you can parse it:

Alderman Olson to approve a State/Municipal Agreement for a Highway Improvement Project: 27th Street (STH 241) with the Wisconsin Department of Transportation, providing for lighting improvements within the City of Franklin, with the understanding that the lighting costs of $500,000 to be paid thereunder would otherwise be the responsibility of the Department of Transportation under standard cost sharing requirements, subject to the qualification of the lighting costs as project costs and the approval by the Joint Review Board for the applicable Tax Incremental District(s) of the $500,000 to be paid thereunder as a project cost to be paid by tax increment, and subject to the Wisconsin Department of Transportation agreeing that this extraordinary one-time lump sum payment shall not be increased and shall not be due until the commencement of the 27th Street project no earlier than 2013 and the Department of Transportation obtaining the current intended timely construction of the Drexel Avenue Interchange without municipal cost share funding from the City of Franklin; all of the foregoing being subject to Oak Creek agreeing that it is in full satisfaction of any City of Franklin obligation under Article IV. of that certain June, 2009 Memorandum of Understanding with Oak Creek.  Seconded by Alderman Taylor.

Again -- fortunately -- it did not pass.

I'd asked for the following item to be placed on last night's EDC agenda:

Re-engagement with/re-assessment of the 27th Street project: I'm told by Mayor Taylor that the Economic Development Commission is essentially responsible for the 27th Street Steering Committee, yet it is my opinion/observation that the EDC membership is woefully under-informed as to the issues facing the project as well as the monies being spent. (I note, for instance, that the 4/20/10 Common Council agenda item G.5 concerns the Drexel Avenue Interchange in relationship to 27th Street, and the EDC has not offered the Common Council a recommendation on the issue.) 

That did not, alas and surprise, get on the agenda. But we did have this much more sparsely worded item:

27th Street Update - Alderman Olson

Good enough. After Alderman Olson's short update, I had the floor and began to ask questions.

First: Are we or our contractor, HNTB, still on the hook to "Boomgaard" agency Zizzo Group for marketing work? (Brace yourself: Their bid total was $265,823; HNTB takes an additional "middleman" fee of $63,840. Potential total bill for marketing: $329,663).

Answer: No.

How much have we paid them thus far? Answer: Will get the figures.

Then: Did the EDC indeed endorse the Drexel Interchange project as former EDC commissioner (and 27th Street Chairman) Ted Grinjes claimed during Citizen Comment Period at last Tuesday's Common Council Meeting.

Answer: No.

Then I asked Alderman Olson about the the specifics of Franklin's $500,000 that he had attempted to shift from 27th Street to the interchange via the motion quoted above. He described to me the intricacies of lighting pole technology, and the fact that "enhanced lighting" placed 7th on the list of amenities people would like to see on 27th Street (which brought to mind the Henry Ford quote: "If I'd asked people what they wanted me to invent, they would have said 'faster horses.'")

But -- how and why does Franklin 27th Street corridor money get shifted to an interchange in Oak Creek?

Assistant City Attorney Brian Sajdak: "If we want to talk about the cost of the lights or the look of the lights on 27th Street, that's within the purview of the Commission. The subsequent agreement between the municipalities and the state that applies those funds differently? That's not within the 27th Street Steering Committee's purview. They are there only to look at, 'This is what we think the strip should look like,' and make recommendations to the two bodies, both councils, as to what it should look like and the subsequent costs that are associated with it. The issue of funding Drexel Interchange, however it's done -- applying fund from 27th Street, applying other funds; whatever it is -- that's not the 27th Street purview, that is above and beyond the agenda item as it's noticed."

He's probably right; not getting my item as I composed it on the agenda made discussion of the Drexel Interchange a gray area. But "the subsequent costs that are associated with" 27th Street -- hey, where's our half-million-dollar "enhanced lighting"? --  are certainly within our purview, so I asked that the 27th Street Steering Committee provide for us an updated accounting of all monies spent to date for next month's meeting of Fight Club the EDC.

And, in the meantime, I'm reading a book about Robert's Rules of Order, and Alderman Olson and I have to schedule a coffee date.

In a later post: The EDC takes up the question of small "process and fee" incentives to encourage creative and economy-strengthening development.

The folly of funding the Drexel Interchange: Part 2 - Subsidizing an off-ramp economy rather than creating a community-strengthening, sustainable DEEP economy

Continuing my discussion of a proposed Interchange on Drexel Avenue (see Part 1).

First, an updated report from the Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel:

The [Oak Creek] Common Council on Thursday scheduled a special meeting for 6 p.m. Monday to discuss the city's financial commitment to a possible I-94 interchange at Drexel Ave.

The council has already adopted a resolution pledging $3.75 million in city money. At time [sic], that was equal to 25% of the $15 million that the state Department of Transportation estimated the interchange would cost.

The DOT, however, requires 50% in local money to build an interchange.

Recently, however, the DOT reduced its cost estimate to $12.9 million and Northwestern Mutual Life Insurance, which has a large office complex in Franklin, has pledged $1.6 million toward the interchange cost.

The City of Franklin has not pledged any money to the proposed interchange, although it has said it would cover $500,000 in lighting on the Franklin side of S. 27th St. That would normally be the responsibility of the DOT.

A new resolution to be considered at Monday's special meeting would commit Oak Creek to the same $3.75 million it previously pledged for the interchange, plus $650,000 in lighting for Drexel Ave. and S. 27th St. and related utility costs.

The resolution was to have been considered at the council's regular meeting Tuesday, but the discussion was postponed.

The Franklin Common Council said this week it is open to further negotiations on a Drexel interchange.

So, Oak Creek -- a beneficiary of the superfluous-to-Franklin interchange by virtue of its location relative to Howell Ave. and the vacant Delphi plant; why wouldn't they be all for it? -- waits for Franklin to flinch. They are good poker players.

But if Franklin is smart, the city will stand pat and keep its half-million out of this blatant subsidy.

I'm pessimistic about the city's ability to play their cards right, though. Unfortunately, past and present Franklin members of the 27th Street Steering Committee suffer from cognitive dissonance when it comes to economic development in that area. This group, composed of self-professed "true conservatives," has gotten used to tossing around numbers like $265,823 for marketing materials related to 27th Street. Once you've committed to a writing checks like that, a half-mil is not so hard to part with when it might actually result in an actual work product (and, obviously, Boomgaard does not count as a positive outcome).

Meanwhile, putting sidewalk facilities in front of Franklin's high school (finally!) during the impending reconstruction of 51st street -- a vital, common sense piece of the rehabilitation this city sorely needs -- is bemoaned by 27th Street chair and Franklin alderman Steve Olson because, true conservative that he is, he believes the city should not spend money that, in his view, it does not have. (On the positive side, it should be noted that Alderman Olson is no Scrooge; he donated $50 to the Franklin Trails Committee's Walking Workshop, held last weekend.).

Here are some truths that need to be understood:

1. The interchange will be built, whether or not Franklin subsidizes it with its half million dollar "enhanced lighting" Trojan horse payment. The powerful road-building lobby has this in hand, and will deploy their bought-and-paid-for advocates;
2. Does an interchange near city limits create jobs? Yes - site location consultants count access to a freeway as a plus for any community they are considering;
3. When site location consultants evaluate Franklin for freeway access as a potential asset, they put a big gold star next to the city's name: The Rawson and Ryan interchanges bracket the city perfectly. (New interchange? No thanks - we're good);
4. Does a third(!) interchange near city limits create jobs? Yes, but 99% of them require a hair net and pay minimum wage;
5. Why is Northwestern Mutual kicking in? Northwestern Mutual owns a large parcel of land across 27th Street from their Franklin corporate campus. $1.6 million is a small price to pay to create the possibility of a lucrative off-ramp development (they are surely not looking to cut 95 seconds from their employees' commutes);
6. Franklin is facing infrastructure and municipal service challenges to the extent that $500,000 can and should be utilized within city limits, or on regional efforts that are more likely to strengthen the city's sustainability;
7. The Rawson and Ryan interchanges create a natural traffic flow onto 27th Street, which is supposed to be our commercial jewel, the marketing of which is evidently worth our spending hundreds of thousands of dollars. Frankly, a Drexel interchange breaks that advantageous flow;
8. The newly-created ramp-blight vs. potential opportunity equation weighs distinctly against Franklin. Off-ramp fast food jobs do not offset increased road damage, heightened "drive-thru community" image problems, and diversion of traffic away from already-expensive 27th Street.

Franklin faces a clear choice: Spend a half-million dollars to subsidize off-ramp fast food franchises and shoot more and faster traffic through town, or use that money to bolster a sustainable, deep economy that will attract quality businesses and jobs.

So, if site location consultants feel that Franklin is already well situated with regard to freeway access, what other factors do they look at that Franklin ought to work on improving? We'll look at that in Part 3 (and, hopefully, at the Economic Development Commission meeting on Monday night).

Proposed agenda items for next Economic Development Meeting

 

Here are my submitted agenda items for the Franklin Economic Development Commission meeting scheduled for Monday, April 26 (6pm; room to be announced).

I'll post the agenda when it appears; unfortunately, there is no guarantee that any of these items will appear.

1) Digital Visioning Presentation: This will reprise the presentation I gave, at the mayor's request, to the Ad Hoc Development Process Review Committee. IT WOULD BE USEFUL TO HAVE POWERPOINT CAPABILITIES FOR THIS; I can make paper handouts if PowerPoint is not possible. [Note: I'm long overdue in sharing my Digital Visioning presentation here on SPRAWLED OUT. The illustration above is a preview.]

2) Franklin Trails Committee update: Walking Workshop and next steps.

3) Web 2.0 and Economic Development: Discussion of implementations to the City of Franklin website that can be made at little or no cost; discussion of FaceBook page for Franklin Economic Development news and issues; etc.

4) Re-engagement with/re-assessment of the 27th Street project: I'm told by Mayor Taylor that the Economic Development Commission is essentially responsible for the 27th Street Steering Committee, yet it is my opinion/observation that the EDC membership is woefully under-informed as to the issues facing the project as well as the monies being spent. (I note, for instance, that the 4/20/10 Common Council agenda item G.5 concerns the Drexel Avenue Interchange in relationship to 27th Street, and the EDC has not offered the Common Council a recommendation on the issue.)

I think we have to:

• Tear this thing down to its component pieces, review the timeline, and make sure this ongoing expenditure still makes sense in the current (and anticipated) economic climate, as well as in light of Oak Creek's evolving indifference; and
• If we're going forward, reassess the streetscape planning and design to leverage new federal grant and funding opportunities that accompany certain design choices that I do NOT see in any current streetscape drafts.

If the 27th Street reassessment means distributing a bunch of binders full of review information at this meeting and then holding the discussion at a subsequent meeting (after the EDC membership has had time to review the material), so be it.

The ROI for smart growth and placemaking: "Love Ain’t Enough: Put Up or Shut Up"

Fortunately, creating communities that feature great places and human-scaled development is paying off in terms of higher property values and their attraction of non-polluting industries. This link features other returns-on-investment in digest form:

Like any next, big something, placemaking is growing up. And in its role as gawky adolescent, it’s beginning to realize something most of us have long since come to accept: You can’t skirt by on youthful good looks forever.

Today, efforts to create more endearing and enduring surroundings are being subjected to decidedly grown up demands. And with them, smart growthers—from enviros to designers to code reform advocates—are learning one of life’s hardest lessons: Love will only take you so far.

Son, you’ve got to demonstrate sufficient returns.

Recently, a city asked me for some help in their argument for funding transit oriented developments with TIFF dollars. The top arguments that immediately came to mind are the same reasons that cities are investing in planning and zoning reform, even during these tight times. City planning is able to speak to a variety of the significant challenges that currently face us. Here’s the soundbite version of the top 4 drivers.

ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT

How do walkable neighbourhoods contribute to the local economy? They increase long term asset value for many reasons, including increased housing value, less crime, higher walkscore, lower vehicle miles traveled, less carbon emissions, fewer auto costs, greater personal fitness, decreased infrastructure cost, more hours available, real community, and the list goes on.

PUBLIC HEALTH

What does obesity cost, and how is it effected by where I live? The average white male living in a compact community weighs 10 pounds less than his counterpart in a low density subdivision, according to the British Columbia School of Planning. Every 1% rise in the urban sprawl index increases the risk of obesity by 0.5%, according to Boston University School of Public Health. The medical costs to treat obesity in the US for 2008 is estimated at $147 billion.

Read the rest at PlaceShakers and NewsMakers

"Aero-tropo-what?"

I don't get it either, frankly:

In the city of the future, all roads lead to the airport.

At least they do in international consultant John Kasarda’s “aerotropolis,” where offices, factories, four-star hotels, golf courses, theaters, warehouses, medical clinics, fine restaurants and shipping centers cluster around an airport like metal shavings on a magnet.

via www.milwaukeenewsbuzz.com

Economic Development: With a budget stretched thin, how about PROCESS incentives?

"Opportunity is missed by most people because it comes dressed in overalls and looks like work." Thomas Edison

The Franklin Economic Development Commission spent a total of 30 minutes on Monday evening discussing possible incentives to commercial/business development the city. Unfortunately, no one present beside myself had attended the first meeting of the Ad Hoc Development Process Review Committee (the EDC representative to the ad hoc committee, Jim Kerr, was absent), so redundant specific process issues -- already addressed in a detailed plan staff proposal distributed at the Development Process Review Committee meeting -- dominated the early discussion. 

Given a city budget with no room for offering financial subsidies (and the fact that these subsidies tend to bite you back), I proposed taking advantage of the soon-to-be unveiled streamlined development process by offering PROCESS incentives to developers willing to meet certain yet-to-be-defined "Development Targets."

The snarled knot of fishing line that represents our current development process makes it nearly impossible to offer any sort of process relief. In other words -- using yet another metaphor --  if you're facing a giant tangle of logs, removing any one of them arbitrarily can bring the whole mess down. However, once we have an orderly structure, choosing which fees, waiting periods, approvals, etc. to waive or minimize can be done effectively and to the advantage of the developer.

As I noted when Franklin Automotive came to the EDC inquiring about possible incentives (see link for detailed explanation and graphics), there are opportunities early in the development process to improve poor site designs, unimaginative building plans, and to add other proven, market-friendly elements that spur further positive growth in the community. It's becoming clear, after all, that communities which can offer a diverse selection of neighborhoods, stores, businesses and public spaces are best weathering these tough economic times.

I noted in this space how the city's leading developer, Mark Carstensen, remarked that as far as he was concerned, building a Traditional Neighborhood Development-type (TND) subdivision -- the kind that has seen big success in communities across the country -- is impossible in Franklin. In Mequon, however, his company encountered actual incentives to build a TND development, and he reports that everyone was pleased with the end product.

So, I passed out the material below, explaining: We don't talk about process items; there's a committee doing that already (they meet again Thursday night at 5pm; in my chart I "greeked" sample process steps rather than try to attempt to illustrate the actual process). Instead, we leverage the impending improved system by finding a way to assess proposals early so the EDC can act as advocate for certain projects in its advisory capacity to the Common Council.

No one agreed with me. Or disagreed with me - - - My materials (posted below) were not discussed. We adjourned after a total of 59 minutes.

Somewhere, Thomas Edison shook his head in disbelief.

  

 

Download "EDC Development Incentive"