Making Stuff Work

On the other hand, look what simplified and well stated zoning has done for Freret Street in New Orleans.



Things done correctly tend to work, after all.



.

Falling Apart

Let's try this:



1: An historic building is grandfathered in to a zoning change

2: The buiding changes owners

3: The building closes for needed renovations

4: The renovations take some time

5: During that time, the city removes the historic building's historic use

6: There is no other way to use the building

7: The city offers a longer, more tedious, and possibly less successful process to amend the zoning



For a city like New Orleans, where historic character is theoretically held in high esteem, this is ridiculous. It proves the lie behind what passes for historic preservation in this town, and the joke that is zoning here. This city is in such terrible condition in many ways because there are government regulations that force it to be this way.



And that's not just some sort of Tea Party "goverment = bad" rhetoric. Regulations are necessary, but you have to make sure they work for your city and don't kneecap your neighborhoods. You have to have a process where historic buildings can be purchased and updated and renovated so those properties can maintain value. If you require specific, specialized renovations, that work is going to take time. If that work takes time, you have to recognize that when it comes to zoning issues.



Most importantly, some aspect of reality must be factored into your decision-making process. Who the F wants to buy a 14 unit aparment building off the current owners and renovate it again for one or two family living?



Here's a few scenarios:



A: This will artificially drive down the value of the property for the current owners, who have already sunk money into the project. Some well connected individual can come along and buy the property so the current owners take a loss, then use their connections to get the zoning fixed and make bigger profits.



B: This will artificially drive down the value of the property for the current owners, who have already sunk money into the project. Some very wealthy individual comes along and buys the property, tears down the historic building, and constructs something more realistic to reflect the zoning.



C: This will artificially drive down the value of the property for the current owners, so they let the property deteriorate. It won't appraise for as much, but what is their incentive to keep up a property they cannot use? As a St. Charles Avenue home, this isn't likely to happen, but anywhere else this could contribute to blight.



You'll notice that "make a reality-based decision about the property; charge the owners a small fine for being late on the renovations; allow the property to go back into commerce and increase the city's property tax base, historical character, and housing stock" are not a part of the viable scenarios here. That would be to "win-win-win" for a city like New Orleans.



.

Truth About Blight

Owen Courreges at the Uptown Messenger examines some of the legal hurdles to addressing blight in New Orleans.



.

The Problem With Protests

Jeffrey does some fine work covering the PCU-like, protest-for-protest's sake nonsense that helped legitimize the ALEC convention in New Orleans last week. Because nothing makes a bunch of lobbyists in suits look more adult than a bunch of smelly "anarchists" making fools of themselves outside:

As they came by shouting "This is what Democracy looks like" it occurred to me that they were probably right about that. Elites and lawmakers quietly dividing up the wealth of the nation in a hotel suite while clueless douchebags and idiot kids prattle on to no affect in the street is pretty much exactly what American democracy looks like in 2011.

For the longest time, I have believed that individuals who show up at protests like this are really actors paid by the "targets" of their "ire." Real protests don't look anything like that nonsense, they look and sound more like this.



.

Guilty

The list of charges.

.

Cultural Economy

I commented at Cliff's Crib that, if more people truly understood what their tax dollars paid for, our national conversation about government would be completely different.

Instead, the national conversation is awash in complete misconceptions, falsehoods, and made-up theoreticals. One of those is that "the government does not/should not provide funding for the arts." This one has been around for a while, and is a narrative often trotted out as an anecdotal example of pervasive government waste and the largeness of government size. The perception is that government pays artists to create pretty pictures or songs, and that the money never goes anywhere else. People who buy into that narrative seem to think this government money is there simply to subsidize the bohemian lifestyles of liberal, artsy types.

The truth is, arts and culture have tremendous economic impact all over the United States, and any honest discussion of the validity of government funding should take that economic impact into account.

Because if it is worth $400 million to the state of Georgia to land a KIA assembly plant, it may be worth it to the state to fund the arts and culture as well. It all depends on the return on investment per government dollar spent, and the taxpayers deserve to hear the truth about the economic impact of their tax dollars. Unfortunately, all they're getting right now are narratives and platitudes, as return on investment isn't a part of the "Big Government Waste" conversation we so often hear.

(HT: Jeffrey)

.

The Gentilly Wal-Mart

For the record, I'm not as much anti-WalMart as I am anti-WalMart increasing sprawl and using government subsidies to do it.

But if WalMart wants to build an in-town store that is already a blighted former strip-mall, they adhere to all existing zoning specifications, the neighborhood is reasonably behind the decision, and they ask for zero government subsidies to do it, you'll hear no complaint from me.

Just like the idea of a WalMart in the French Quarter - if you follow the rules and don't need corporate welfare from the city, feel free to compete in the free-enterprise system.

.

Admitting Failure

If you asked New Orleans homeowners to agree to a $200 - $250 a year increase in their property taxes, and put it to a referendum, it would likely fail. Charge the same homeowners that money to pay for a "security district" of NOPD officers, and they pony up.

I'm not worried about the arrest and incident quotas brought up in the article, no matter how problematic they may be.

What concerns me is the idea that certain areas feel the need to pay extra because they accept that normal police coverage isn't enough in this city. To me, that sets a dangerous precedent. My problem is with the entire concept, and I don't care if this is how they do it wherever else.

.

Subsidizing the Arts

Author Kevin Kane recently advocated Louisiana cut subsidies for 'the arts' in the Pelican State.

If there is evidence that government support has been integral to any of these great traditions, Martin does not offer it.

Lamar quickly takes him to task:

Mardi Gras? I hate to break it to you, but it’s publicly-subsidized.

.

Profiles in Courage

Let's talk about the successful charter school experiment in New Orleans. I like how the article pops on a Friday afternoon to depress the readership as much as possible.

Don't ever believe the hype. If you allow charters to be run badly, they will have the exact same problems you find in regular schools that are run badly. The only answer is to actually make sure whatever schools your local tax dollars are paying for are run by professionals.

And you damn sure can't put the blame for this on the teachers. If it weren't for some of these courageous ladies (some of whom I know) damning the torpedoes and blowing the whistle, this craziness might never have been exposed.

Bravo, ladies.

.

The War of When?

Jonathan Rauch at The Dish starts a discussion about who really won the war of 1812. Several emailed comments seem confused. I guess the answer to "who won" depends on who you ask, and everyone's got a claim to fame.

Down in New Orleans, there damn sure ain't no questions.

.

Development & Density?

No thanks. By failing to approve a new mixed use, high density urban development, the "preservationists" would rather keep Canal Street's "historical character" of boarded up buildings, shut down hotels, shoe shops, and faux-voodoo tourist kitsch.

That's a shame for a streetscape that should be one of the bustling, dynamic, walkable commerical avenues of the Southeastern United States.

Wide streets can be fronted by tall buildings, that's one of the way urban design is supposed to work. I find the complaints of this building's height to be baseless. There are plenty of other buildings on that streetscape of that height, and they work because they front Canal.

Historical character? The building design does look "modern" in the aspect that it appears to use state of the art building design and materials. While this may not fit perfectly with the rest of the street towards the river, it isn't like this is some concrete-block monstrosity or post-modern experiment going in on that street.

As for the building it is replacing, it is a ramshackle low rise with a boarded up first floor covered in graffiti and posters. There is a need here to balance historical character with needed economic expansion. You'll be more able to preserve the historical character of other buildings and this part of the city as a whole if it is part of a working, dynamic downtown economy.

In other words, the Saenger Theatre, the Lowe's Theatre, and the Broadway South concept for that intersection isn't going to work if the theatres have no economic support nearby. If the University Medical Center ever does get built, people who work there could live in this building and walk to work, increasing the value of properties between this location going up Canal Street - an area that desperately needs commerical dollars.

And the folks making these decisions need to look up the definition of "leverage." They have some leverage in that a location like this on Canal Street should be quite valuable. But that knowledge needs to temptered with the reality that a location like this on Canal Street currently isn't as valuable as it could be, because of a lack of developers willing to take a risk of locating there.

Because, while the location has the potential to be very valuable based on the proximity of planned theatres and hospitals, those planned theatres and hospitals aren't yet done deals. Going ahead with developments of this nature assist the critical mass required for those projects to be successful. Otherwise, you'll end up stuck with the street the way it is now.

.

Ruffled Feathers in Savannah

Looks like the Wilmington Island henhouse needs to call up the 7th Ward Rooster and his crew to find out how they handle up on this business downtown.

(HT: Peach Pundit)

.

Real Crime-Fighting

NOPD finally comes up with an effective crime-fighting initiative. Bait bikes for opportunistic thieves to steal.

Every district should dedicate at least one team to do something like this every day for the next year, at least. While some folks will poo-poo the idea that going after bike thieves will cut down on other crimes, you have to remember that bike theft is a huge problem in this city in its own right. High profile initiatives to leave bikes unlocked and then arrest the thieves may make a few scoundrels think twice about a crime of opportunity, and that's a good thing.

Just wait until they figure out they could follow the thief for less than an hour and probably come across additional criminal activity.

And hopefully, this will work so well that NOPD will figure out how to use undercover officers as "mugger bait" in areas experiencing upticks in robberies. It is easier to catch a thief when you've got them on camera in front of officers specifically on the lookout.

.

Preservation Starts at Home

Owen Courreges at Uptown Messenger points out the good one individual can do to make a place better.

I absolutely respect the impact that just one citizen can have on a place. But let us never forget how well a place can be preserved when a city's preservation initiatives are citizen oriented, progress-prone, and helpful.

.

Bipartisan Government Spending

I guess it is OK to make a case for government investment in infrastructure if the cities you help are in Georgia.

Those of us who have lived in New Orleans for the past many years know how easily that line of thinking gets turned on its head.

.

Professionalism

Or not. I'll leave this here without further comment.

Because, really, what can I say?

.

Why We Can't Have Nice Things

Mayor Landrieu makes the case for building the University Medical Center in New Olreans. This is a response to those who would seek to take the knees out from under the project and benefit their special interests under the cloak of "fiscal conservatism." All at the last minute, once an entire neighborhood has been destroyed and families have been uprooted.

In the larger context, Landrieu's rebuttal exposes the way individuals who play "conservative" on television willingly misrepresent tax figures as a means of providing for their own pork projects and protecting their own clients' subsidies.

For those of you who live in more progress-prone parts of the nation, you may be scratching your head wondering why this has been so difficult for New Orleans. Jeffery puts it in local context:

Ever content to remain the richest club in a poor and shrinking city, New Orleans' socialites resist any and every effort to grow the economy. They dress this conservative agenda up as "preservation" but it's better described as ossification. What gets "preserved" are old buildings, staid pageantry, anything that might make easy packaging for a hotelier or a filmmaker to sell.

.

Disaster Funding

Attempting to solidify his "fiscal conservative" credentials, Mitt Romney wants to send responsibility for disaster relief back to the states, if not private industry. Continuing to handle disaster relief at a Federal level "jeopardizes the future for our kids" and is "immoral."

Which makes me wonder just how bad disasters have to get in this country to remind someone so out-of-touch why the Federal government started getting involved in this in the first place.

And maybe I've got the wrong definition of "fiscal conservative" in my mind, but I thought one of the bottom lines of that belief system was to make sure any tax dollars spent were done so in the most efficient and effective way possible, with a subtext of keeping the overall national economy sound. Removing disaster relief as a responsibility of the Federal government only makes sense if your definition of "fiscal conservatism" is don't spend any money, ever and you don't give a shit about localized or regional problems dragging down the whole national economy.

Here's something Romney needs to be reminded of: the states already pay for disaster relief. Private organizations already pay for disaster relief. Do you know why the Federal government also needs to be involved, Mitt? Because even with their efforts combined, the states and private organizations cannot touch the level of funding required to relieve even moderately sized disasters in terms of economic and material damage, let alone the big ones.

So let's look at the numbers from the big leagues of disasters. One low estimate places the damage figures of Hurricane Katrina and the Federal Flood at $81 Billion*, not including overall economic impact to the states and regions most affected or the nation at large. Keep in mind that, at the time, gasoline got up to $4 a gallon many places far, far away from the Gulf Coast.

Let's do a little common sense math. Compare that figure to the state budget of Louisiana for FY 2005 ($17.5 Billion), the state budget of Mississippi for 2005 (just under $13 Billion), and the state budget of Alabama for 2005 ($33.2 Billion).

All three of those total state budgets combined ($63.7 Billion) only make up 78% of the total low damage estimate. That means three states of the union most affected by Katrina and the levee failures would have had to spend every single tax dollar they recieved that year and it still wouldn't have covered the recovery. And that's a total figure, which means the states wouldn't be able to pay for anything else without massive deficit spending.

While private organizations contributed a tremendous effort and generous sums of money and materiel to the recovery, do you think they'd be able to come up with $17.3 BILLION?

Of course, the states could have rebuilt without Federal help, given a generation or three. But who can estimate the economic fallout to these most affected states, the larger regional impact, and to the Union at large if these areas were forced into a local or regionalized recovery that the most affected states couldn't pay for before the disaster destroyed huge swaths of their state economies?

I can only imagine that Louisiana would have had to levy higher duties on shipping interests bringing products through what was left of New Orleans to even begin making a dent in their recovery needs. The economic ripples would have affected every suburban commutuer in America who drives a car and every American whose diet depends on the Midwestern corn crop. Things that happen one place tend to affect the lives of others someplace else. A butterfly flaps its wings and all that.

Now run that same scenario against these figures. Or just look at the map (PDF).

Sure looks like a national problem needing national solutions to me. And if "conservatism" means we throw responsibility for all that back on the states, private organizations, and - make no mistake - the individual familes who fall victim to such disasters, maybe it is time to start thinking of "conservatism" as its own dirty word.

(* - NOAA estimates the damage at $133 Billion)

How Not to Build Stuff

Maybe they should have thought of this, or something like it BEFORE they declared imminent domain and bulldozed the neighborhood that existed there before. You want to talk about government waste?

Step 1: Your city has a teaching hospital run by the public state university that treats a high volume of at-risk patients. The system has big problems, but the building is solid and would be viable given some serious renovations.

Step 2: Man-made disaster seriously damages the teaching hospital.

Step 3: Agents of the government attempt to repair the teaching hospital. It is a hospital in the middle of a disaster area. Such facilities tend to be useful.

Step 4: Agents of the public state university allegedly stop repairs and close the teaching hospital. They want to declare the old hospital a loss, collect insurance money, collect national disaster money and build a new teaching hospital.

Step 5A: Powers that be know where they would put a new hospital. Friends, family, and connections begin buying cheap land in and around that area. These properties are left to moulder because they'll all get torn down when the new teaching hospital gets built.

Step 5B: Regular citizens who live in that area move back into their homes, and use what little insurance and government disaster aid they can apply for to renovate their homes. They aren't informed by the powers that be that all of their properties will be seized by imminent domain and torn down to make way for a new teaching hospital.

Step 6: Argue in public over the option to renovate the old teaching hospital (for $600 million) or build a new teaching hospital (for $1.2 billion). Ignore homeowners and businesses and other government agencies who have sunk money into properties that will be demolished. Let several years go by without much action, because who really needs a public hospital in the middle of a disaster area to serve at-risk populations?

Step 7: Convince the US Department of Veterans Affairs that the new teaching hospital is a done deal, and that they should start building their new hospital nearby.

Step 8: Convince developers and investors that the new teaching hospital is a done deal, and that they should start building new retail and residential use facilities as if the new hospital is guaranteed to be built.

(Seriously, I have a friend in another city, and some NOLA booster organization gave them a sales pitch that this hospital would be ready to open this fall or winter, with 5,000 new professional jobs coming to town.)

Step 9: Win the argument despite divisive local opionion and viable, cheaper alternatives. A Shiny New Hospital Will Be Built! Begin declaring eminent domain and bulldozing buildings. Move a few historical buildings to shut up the most agitating homeowners and preservationists. Clear dozens of city blocks of structures.

Step 10: Have state and federal officials representing competing intereststs attempt to derail the project at the last minute under the name of hostage taking fiscal conservatism.

Because if you think anything above describes fiscal conservatism (or fiscal liberalism, for that matter) you watch too much cable network news and don't understand the definition.

As a whole, words just fail.

.