This situation in Baltimore continues to threaten/promise to change the direction of urban renewal.
Short story: Local leaders want to develop a section of the city's decrepit west side. But instead of going after a bunch of crack addicts and haberdashers, it is facing a different sort of property owner: an EXTREMELY wealthy private foundation. And it's not that the foundation doesn't want to redevelop the property. To the contrary. That's exactly why the foundation acquired the property. To redevelop it. They just didn't do it on a timeline the city liked. So the city went ahead and signed a New York developer--and threatened to seize the property.
Legal battle? Oh yeah. And one in which both sides can afford lawyers.
But check out the link for some interesting language from the city. See, the foundation finally put together some plans. But the city doesn't seem to care:
In presenting a vision for a dense mix of housing, shops and offices yesterday to the board of the Downtown Partnership, the Weinberg Foundation and its partner, the Cordish Co., hoped to persuade the city to rethink its choice of a New York developer to oversee the project. It also wanted to avert the city's threatened seizure of its properties.
"My goal in going to the Downtown Partnership was to explain our vision for the entire west-side area," said Shale Stiller, president and chief executive of the Weinberg Foundation.
Yesterday, city officials left the door open to the possibility of Weinberg's participation, though they said the New York developer chosen last year would lead the project.
"There may yet be a role, a partnering role, for the foundation and the Cordish Co. to play, and we would be having conversations about it," said M.J. "Jay" Brodie, president of the Baltimore Development Corp. and a member of the Downtown Partnership's board. Brodie saw the detailed plan for the first time yesterday. "I thought that what they showed us today was a valuable contribution to the ongoing thinking about the west side. There were some useful ideas, and serious thought was given to it."
This is how city officials view private property now? They will "leave the door open" to the idea that owners can use it as they see fit? They grant owners a "partnering role"?
It's not like the city wants to use the land for condos and the owner wants to use it for the world's biggest Arby's or a two-million-square-foot wig shop. They are both talking about the now familiar mixed-use development that would include residential, retail and office space. Moreover, the owner--the foundation--has the money to do it. And a plan.
But rather than getting out of the way and letting it happen, the city is still threatening to condemn it.
Here's my point: I rail against redevelopment subsidies all the time. In part because I don't think they have worked. In part because of my libertarian leanings.
But a critical third reason is because I think this process corrupts both city leaders and developers. If not individually, at least institutionally. It seems that at this stage, even when there is private money and private will, the city won't let it happen. This, I think, destroys the idea that leaders in cities like Pittsburgh are intervening because they HAVE TO. You know the argument: Without public assistance, these projects couldn't happen.
I am sure that is part of the reasoning. But it's important to remember that these are the kinds of people who want to be in control. It's in their nature. And the situation in Baltimore shows that public officials are NOT always intervening out of necessity. It's clear that such reasoning is, at least in part, and at least in this case, political cover.
One might argue that this time, the threat of condemnation was only meant to hurry the foundation along. To force them to get a plan in action. But this "Downtown Partnership" still isn't backing down. It wants to control the project, regardless of what the owner wants. Even though the owner wants the same thing the city wants.
How did we come to this? And what does it mean for Pittsburgh and other Rust Belt cities trying to refurb their downtowns?
And an interesting question; Let's say a super-wealthy hockey fan swooped into town with a plan to buy the Pens and build his own arena. (Far fetched, I know. But stick with the thought experiment/dream.) His only request being that the city get out of his way--and perhaps sell any URA properties necessary for the project.
Would the city let it happen?
I'm not so sure.
get ready for a shocker, sam. i don't think the bawlmer govt should stick it's nose into the private plan...especially since it's not planning to build the world's largest fake beef and hair emporium (i think you know how i feel if the private owners want to continue to operate "sham" businesses to launder some questionable income...think about it...how can those "bling" shops on forbes and fifth afford some of the highest rents in town?). as for that hockey arena...it a new owners wants to do it, fine. i think local folks would express their distrust if the city stopped him from doing otherwise if his scheme didn't include casinos.
speaking of casinos, i was extremely disappointed to see jim roddey associated with the slots industry. but then again, what rich politicians doesn't use those inside connections to profit?
Posted by: sean mcdaniel | July 22, 2006 at 04:59 AM
This stuff should have been in Atlas Shrugged. Where is my favorite Pirate?
Posted by: John Morris | July 22, 2006 at 07:14 AM
Sam,
No that would never happen. Power of this kind is an end in itself. They will not give it up. For them it is better to rule in hell than serve in heaven.
Posted by: John Morris | July 22, 2006 at 07:17 AM
Quite a riddle, no? Perhaps there is someone out there with the cash and the balls to put this little thought experiment into action.
Paging Mark Cuban.
As for your favorite Pirate, I know where mine is:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kent_Tekulve
Wait, maybe that's not what you meant. Ragnar Danneskjold was a reliever with the Royals in the 60s, right? Who was his catcher, again? Some guy who smoked weird cigarettes, best I can recall. I think they are both scouts for the Rockies now.
Sorry. Couldn't resist. But if you mention Atlas Shrugged around a libertarian you better expect the Flood Gates of Dork to open wide. And I am one of the better ones.
Enough. I have a steel mill to vertically integrate. (See.)
Posted by: Sam M | July 22, 2006 at 07:36 AM
Yes it's time to bring in the reliever and no Dagny there's not a single mind left.
Posted by: John Morris | July 22, 2006 at 09:11 AM
oh my god, i quit having wet dreams about dagny taggart in 10th grade.
Posted by: sean mcdaniel | July 22, 2006 at 11:29 AM
Hey, I didn't say a word about Ms. Taggert. I was waxing romantic about vertically integrating steel mills.
Is that more weird or less weird?
Yes. Perhaps more weird.
But in the meantime, Sean, perhaps you ought to reserve more time for poor ole Dagney in your slumber. Because guess who is (rumored to be) playing her in the movie version...
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0480239/
But still. A movie version? Such a thing would have to last 12 hours. Perhaps casting the Beautifuls will make it go faster.
Update: Uh oh. I misspelled "Taggart." I suspect that the powers that be are rescinding my Free Market credentials as we speak. Such things are sacred in such circles.
Posted by: Sam M | July 22, 2006 at 12:26 PM
Well who needs reason when we can have wars instead? She was right about one thing. Reason is a choice and a responsiblity and one that most people just don't want to make. That's what a lot of this is about.
Having a big daddy that does stuff for you and makes you think you can evade reality.
This Daddy, messed up, but the next one is here and he will be better and not hurt me and give me stuff.
Posted by: John Morris | July 22, 2006 at 12:49 PM
too bad about angelina jolie...can't remember DT's physical description from the book...too many decades went by...but i'd rather see jennifer garner (with lips nearly as lucious as AJ's but without all the cynical attitude) or hilary swank (the biggest most beautiful mouth in hollywood. my god, anyone see her on the cover of vanity fair this month...now there's a photo spread to make me wish i was 13 again with the bathroom door locked and...oh...sorry, it's sunday morning.
Posted by: sean mcdaniel | July 23, 2006 at 04:37 AM
Wow, that may be one of the worst movies ever made. My memory of Dagny, would put her close to a Jodie Foster type.
Posted by: John Morris | July 23, 2006 at 04:57 AM
The only way to please the Objectivist base would be to do the whole thing in Japanese Anime, or something drawn by someone at DC comics. Or is it Marvel? I never really knew the difference. But I seem to recall that the Objectivist base has a strong preference.
Or use top-shelf sci-fi technology to splice classic actors into the roles. Maybe a young Glenn Close [sic]?
The base loves high tech. Maybe they could even use Ms. Rand herself, cobbled together from all those Donahue interviews.
Or get Janeane Garofolo to do it. And George Clooney. Michael Moore to direct.
The base loves irony.
And actually, Clooney might be a good fit.
With Laura Dern.
Yes. Laura Dern, I think.
http://barksmatt.tripod.com/
Posted by: Sam M | July 23, 2006 at 06:11 AM
or restore kathleen turner to her body heat form and watch the screen melt.
Posted by: sean mcdaniel | July 23, 2006 at 12:12 PM