AntiRust

How the Worm Turns: Rethinking Redevelopment?

I have posted several times about this project in Baltimore, where the city's public-private redevelopment authority is using eminent domain to seize a huge swath of property for redevelopment--despite the fact that the owner is an enormously wealthy foundation that has plans to... uh... redevelop the property. The foundation has sued, and things are getting nasty.

Now things are really getting interesting, as Peter Angelos, influential billionaire owner of the Baltimore Orioles, has also filed suit against the city's plan. (The article has lots of good background on the case.)

Things are getting weird in Baltimore, where quick-take condemnation and enormous redevelopment projects have been SOP for decades. Just the other day, the Baltimore Sun came out against plans to subsidize a new HQ for Legg Mason. And I wondered if that indicated that the worm had turned.

And now this: A columnist for the Sun is arguing that it's time to get companies off the government dole:

After a lull in lavishing dollars on selected businesses in the name of growth, Maryland looks ready to renew its corporate-welfare tradition. Gov. Martin O'Malley has asked to add $2 million to the Sunny Day incentive fund, the first new money in years.

And Baltimore, which never got out of the incentives business, looks ready to double down with its contribution to H&S Properties and the planned Legg Mason building in Harbor East.

Incentives are political heroin. When an economy is down and out, as Maryland's was in the early 1990s, they feel great, create a delusion of prosperity and give the governor a few ribbons to cut. But these days Maryland is as high as a kite (to belabor the comparison) and still shooting smack.

The state's unemployment rate is 3.9 percent, less than the nation's. We have added 500,000 jobs almost without stopping since 1993. The need to pay for growth is a primary cause of the projected $1.3 billion gap between state revenue and expenses next fiscal year.

Maybe it's time to re-equip the development toolbox. Thanks to base realignment, a fine university system and promising sectors such as health care and biotechnology, employers will add Maryland jobs in the next few years no matter what happens. Why not make every company pay its way?

Does that mean government officials are going to rope off the trough? I doubt it. Which is worth noting. Pols typically justify these subsidies and other incentives in the name of jobs and growth. But because of military base realignments, Maryland is going to grow no matter what. And grow so fast that the biggest concern is that there will be too much growth.

And still, officials just can't stop writing checks.

It's what they do.

Bank Buildings and Subsidies

So an enormously wealthy investment/banking corporation wants to erect a new building downtown and wants taxpayers to pitch in some money. Sound familiar? It ought to.

But this time it's in Baltimore, where Legg Mason is building a fancy new HQ. But here's the twist: The Baltimore Sun is actually coming out against public money for the project:

When such successful developers return again and again to the public trough, it encourages others to do the same. ...

The Baltimore Development Corp. is reviewing a proposal for "financial assistance" from the developers of the Legg project; no one is sharing the specifics, but the BDC board should consider this:

Financial aid from the city should be reserved for projects most developers would shy away from. It should be used to encourage investment in struggling neighborhoods and to provide leverage for other projects or to complete public improvements.

It shouldn't be expected, nor should it be conveyed, simply because it's been done before. Those days should be over.

Interesting. I am not really sure why this project is all that different from the myriad others the paper's editors supported over the years. Either way, perhaps the worm has turned. Which could be a good thing. Although I doubt it.

Big Anthrax: More Smoking Ban Logic

I didn't think it was possible, but someone beat out the Post-Gazette in the smoking-ban hyperbole contest. From a letter to the Warren Times Observer:

I think if you were eating dinner and, someone came into the restaurant throwing handfuls of anthrax around, you might be inclined to have them removed. That is how non-smokers feel about smokers and rightly so.

Maybe this guy needs to stop reading newspapers.

The Tribune-Review, Jim Rohr and the Glory of Wal-Mart

The Pittsburgh Tribune-Review has been trying to shame PNC honcho Jim Rohr into returning $50 million in development subsidies and other public money. (The company is building a skyscraper in downtown Pittsburgh--but only paying for about two thirds of it.)

Here is a taste of the editorials. Even better is the paper's main editorial page online, which everyday combines a little photo of Rohr with entreaties such as, "Do the right thing, Mr. Rohr; return the public money."

This might seem like an uphill battle. What corporate bigwig gives up free government money? Well, how about the corporate bigwigs at Wal-Mart? Seems that a little boo-boo in Cleveland threatened to give a developer, Wal-Mart and a host of other big-box stores a tax break no one intended them to get. But they were entitled to it.

Guess what? They turned the money down. Go figure:

The developer and the retailer are going to say "no thank you" to a 10-year holiday from most property taxes. The abatement was to have been a reward from the state of Ohio for cleaning up the former industrial site where Steelyard Commons is under construction. Both Schneider and Wal-Mart say they had no idea that the voluntary action program and its coveted liability protection also came with a tax break that until now has been mandatory.

Thanks to last year's lame-duck General Assembly, companies may decline the abatement beginning next month. And that's exactly what Wal-Mart and Schneider say they will do. Their decision will channel millions over the next decade to the Cleveland schools, to the Towpath Trail and to small businesses that might be affected by Steelyard Commons.

How about that.

Smoke Free. Imagine that.

Hey, look at all those bars in Baltimore going smoke-free. Looks like the ban is working!

Wait. There is no ban yet.

Go figure.

More on Transit and Density and Suburban Urbanity

Here's a really interesting discussion of transit and density from the Washington Post:

Fairfax County's leaders have a theory. The way to reduce traffic and improve the quality of life in Tysons Corner and the rest of the million-person county, they say, is to cluster thousands of high-rise apartments and offices into areas near public transit.

And in response to those who argue that cramming in more towers and people seems like an unlikely way to reduce congestion, the leaders have a single word: Ballston.

That section of Arlington, along with the rest of the corridor between Rosslyn and Ballston, is a national model for "transit-oriented development" -- and it is now defining the debate over how to redevelop the Washington suburbs.

Over three decades, Arlington has transformed what was once a timeworn commercial strip into a thriving corridor of gleaming towers and busy sidewalks strung like an open necklace along Metro's Orange Line, which reached Ballston in 1979. Most notably, the surge in development along the corridor has produced relatively little additional automobile traffic, which is why Fairfax, Montgomery County and other suburbs are invoking the high-density model as the cure to their traffic woes.

What strikes me about this is that it stands a few assumptions about development on their head. Very often, people group "density" and "downtown" together. That is, people who advocate density are people who like "cities," and people who resist density are people who like "suburbia" or "sprawl."

But in the DC case the density in question is SUBURBAN density. Ballston and Arlington and Tysons are outside the District, but I suspect that they have a lot more density than anything inside the city limits. Which I think indicates that you can support towers and density and transit and all the rest--without necessarily supporting a huge build-up in the CBD. Now, a lot of times building up that CBD would make sense. But perhaps other times it would not.

Is it a horrible crime or a terrible disaster that these towers are going up in Northern Virginia instead of in Capitol Hill? It might be, particularly if the city can't make a go of it financially because of the loss in property taxes.

Still, I think it's interesting to watch how it plays out. In many ways--in terms of nightlife and restaurants and diversity--DC's suburbs are becoming downright metropolitan. Which leads to an even more intriguing question: What's "downtown"? Northern Virginia is not just a bedroom community for lobbyists and congressional staffers. If you look at Tysons and Reston and all the rest, you see a tremendous amount of tech, service and other employment. You have a major university in George Mason. You have major cultural institutions such as Wolf Trap and the Smithsonian's ball-busting new air and space museum out by Dulles.

A lot of lines seem to be getting blurred. It's harder to be "for cities" or "for suburbs" when the two start looking more and more alike.

Oh What A Feeling: Toyota Gets a Love Letter

Check out this gushing profile of Toyota in the New York Times Sunday Magazine. It's very long. But it says a lot. The thing I take from it is that, yes, it is still possible to build things in America.

And a question: To what extent in Toyota still a "Japanese" corporation? To what extent is it "American"? I am certainly not the first person to ask such questions. But this article raises them again, at least for me.

You know, I am a red-blooded American boy, whatever that means. And I can admit to a strange attachment to immense American icons such as Ford and Chevy. And I have experienced the anxiety oozing out of the Rust Belt first-hand. Many of the people in my hometown constantly wring their hands (and spew profanities) about low-wage competition from places like China. Hell, I can remember when Gung Ho, starring Norm and Coraopolis's own Michael Keaton, was making the theater rounds. And I remember it striking a chord. Gee whiz, it was directed by Ron Howard. (OK. So it was tag-lined, "When East meets West, the laughs shift into high gear." What's it to ya?)

So what to take from all this? I suppose articles like this are depressing in a way. But aren't they also kind of heartening? Maybe not if you live in Detroit. (Or Pittsburgh, perhaps.) But the folks working in Toyota's innovative plants in Texas and Kentucky and California might have another view.

Can we just declare Toyota our own. And declare victory?

I suppose not. But still...

Update, regarding the declaration of victory: Sigh.

More Fun with Tax Abatements

Today's Post-Gazette offers two takes on the tax abatement plans floating around city hall. One is an editorial from the Post-Gazette, the other an op-ed from Chris Briem. Both are worth a look. But I find the later more convincing. (It argues for taking the abatement city-wide rather than limiting it to a few neighborhoods.) But check them out and decide for yourself. In the meantime, a few thoughts on the PG editorial:

In the end it will come down to choices. How much tax forgiveness can local governments afford? What are the estimates on the revenue and vitality to be gained from new residents in these neighborhoods?

I might be mistaken, but I think that some of the projections are revenue positive, at least in the long term. So I guess the PG does not buy those projections. Or is more concerned about the short-term. Which is fair enough either way. But I am more interested in this whole idea of estimating "vitality." What does that mean? How would you do that?

But moving on:

The need to preserve historic structures and create new, environmentally sound ones is also in the public interest (as Councilman Peduto argues). We question, however, whether further stimulus, through tax breaks, is needed for hot locales like the South Side and the North Shore.

Downtown isn't a "hot locale"? With Piatt Place, the PNC skyscraper and the Cultural Districts new residential plan? On Tuesday, September 24, the Post-Gazette published a story titled, "Downtown Housing Boom No Illusion." Two days later the paper published this in an editorial:

In April, noting the growing residential and retail plans and activity, we said in this space that a "growing, pulsating and revitalized Downtown seems headed for Pittsburgh's not-too-distant future."

As far as the residential component, the future appears to be now. ... Any concerns that buyers might not subscribe to the general excitement about Downtown living have been answered. The new spaces have shown signs of selling like the proverbial hotcakes. Although at prices that are sweeter for the developers than any syrup. For the chance to live Downtown, people are willing to pay upwards of $250,000 for a condo or pay rent as much as $3,275 a month.

Given the syrupy sweet financials, the booming, hot-cakey nature of residential investment, and the fact that the time for a "growing, pulsating and revitalized downtown" appears to be "now," why is it that downtown needs these abatements? As the Post-Gazette states in its own editorial, the abatements might not make sense in places that are already doing well.

That's not my argument. That's the Post-Gazette's. But it doesn't apply that logic to downtown. Which makes me wonder.

Like I said, I think tax abatements downtown might be a grand idea. But I don't think the logic makes any sense at all if you are going to apply them to downtown but not other neighborhoods. If anything, if you have to take a limited approach, downtown should be the first neighborhood eliminated from consideration. The projects down there have already benefited from huge government outlays in the form of TIFs, subsidies, etc. The condos being built are aimed at the richest people in the city. The city is broke. And the Post-Gazette has busted out its magical vitality measuring device and declared that neighborhood to already be growing and pulsating.

If there is anyplace in the city where we could declare the taxpayers' work done, downtown would be the place.  Right?

Take My Bob Hoover, Please! Does the Post-Gazette's Book Reviewer Have a Sense of Humor?

So there is this debate in literary circles about whether or not the New York Times Review of Books has lost its edge.

Seriously. This is the kind of thing that people in literary circles talk about. I guess.

A fellow named Edward Champion recently made a few waves with a lengthy critique of the NYTRB's editor, Sam Tanenhaus, taking the poor fellow to the literary woodshed for failing to take blogs seriously enough. But forget about all that. (Try really hard.) And take a look at this little quip in the article:

It’s clear with Tanenhaus’s recurrent hiring of Henry Alford, a man who wouldn’t know funny if South Park bit him on the ass, that Tanenhaus is the most comedically tone-deaf book review editor now working in the industry. (Let’s put it this way. Even Bob Hoover has a sense of humor.)

Even Bob Hoover? Let's put it this way? This seems like a pretty backhanded compliment. I wonder if he means Bob Hoover of the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette.

I dealt with Mr. Hoover only once, and he seemed like a nice enough fellow in that exchange. Even published a review of my book. So perhaps I am biased.

Or is there another Bob Hoover? If not, what's with the "even" and the "let's put it this way"? I did not know our book guy had a reputation.

The Art of Shrinking Cities

A few museums in Detroit take a stab at exploring cities on the decline:

"It wasn't resonating in Manhattan," says the Cranbrook museum's director, Gregory Wittkopp, of a much smaller version of the show that has been seen in Manhattan. And why would it? "Shrinking Cities" is deeply engaged art, passionate about moral and practical issues that don't always animate the contemporary art scene in New York. It has all the edge, the irony, the gamester play with the conventions and boundaries that one expects of a major exhibition of contemporary art in a thriving metropolitan center. But it also has gravitas.

In a section of the exhibition called "Organizing Retreat," the curators examine ideas that would have caused howls of protest among the prickly boosters of Detroit only five or 10 years ago -- accepting shrinkage and using it to advantage, to new environmental or agricultural ends. They look back a quarter of a century to the radical Italian architectural firm Superstudio with a print called "Continuous Conveyer Belt City." The diagram shows a terrifying apparatus, as wide as a city, that chews up raw land and spits out new buildings, which slowly decay, fading back into the landscape like water behind a boat.

That all sounds like fancy art talk to me, though. I'm just a hillbilly. But some of this sounds oddly grim and even fascinating:

Another project demonstrates that as people in Detroit purchase the empty lots around their houses to assemble large urban yards -- or "blots" -- they are effectively "surbanizing" the old city.

And:

In another, there's a video about how people in the areas outside Detroit are exhuming their dead relatives from urban cemeteries for reburial, closer to home, in the vastly expanding suburbs.

Check it out.