| Can we let nature take its
course in the Hwy 42 corridor? |
| A couple Council members who support the
Louisville Revitalization's "urban renewal" plan for the suspiciously
enlarged urban renewal district boundaries have said that "we can't
allow nature to take its course" in the district. They suggest the City
should act proactively to encourage and shape development there. Neither these Council members nor any LRC member or consultant will address the many problems associated with the LRC and its proposed urban renewal plan, irrespective of the question of "nature's taking its course." For example, why hasn't the City conducted a professional, neutral and competent fiscal analysis of whether the urban renewal plan will harm the City's finances? If there's going to be urban renewal in Louisville, why not have our elected officials lead this renewal instead of five unelected persons? Why should citizens put $77 million of taxpayer dollars in the hands of five unelected officials to give developers to "encourage" them to do what they do, i.e., develop land? Is the LRC improperly expanding the urban renewal district boundaries? Why aren't these unelected officials subject to the same strict ethics codes that apply to City officials? Why do we want all of these things for the next 25 years? But let's set aside all those grave questions that no one seems to want to answer and focus on the issue at hand: Nature. What's it mean to let or not let "nature take its course"? When land is developed "naturally"—i.e., normally—developers must pay their own way. We don't pay them to develop. They develop because of their profit motive. That is to say, letting "nature" take its course means permitting development in the proposed district to take place without the LRC and without the $77 million over 25 years. So, when Council members say they don't want "nature" to take its course, what they mean is this: "We believe we should put tens of millions of tax dollars into helping or encouraging developers to develop in the urban renewal district." There are three problems with these Council members' position. First, sloganeering is no substitute for reasoned analysis. Before anyone should conclude that "we can't let nature take its course," we need to have a firm grip on what would happen if we do let nature take its course—if, in other words, we don't pump upwards of $77 million into the proposed district. Would we still get redevelopment without that taxpayer infusion of dollars? It's a good idea to consider this, since we'd be saving upwards of $77 million of taxpayer money. Yet, neither these Council members nor the LRC has ever asked for a professional, neutral and competent analysis of whether we need to spend upwards of $77 million to "incentivize" developers. The closest we have come is when LRC's consultant, Anne Ricker of Leland Consulting, both of which have credibility problems, famously said at the August 15, 2006, Council meeting that public investment of tax dollars is needed or the Hwy 42 corridor will not be redeveloped. Her nonsensical, tautological reasoning? Because if the Hwy 42 corridor didn't need public investment for redevelopment, it already would have been redeveloped. She said it again on October 29: "If this was easy and could be done by the private market without public assistance, it would have already happened." ("Uneasy over renewal," Daily Camera p. 1A & 4A (Oct 29, 2006). This is institutionalized welfare for developers, as articulated by a consultant who receives a considerable amount of income from private developers. Under this bizarre "logic," all vacant land would be blight that could not be remedied unless taxpayers gave up tax dollars to "encourage" developers to do what they do—develop and redevelop land for profit. Second, like Ms. Ricker, these Council members assume—or worse, like a kid who covers his eyes to play hide-and-go-seek, knows but still fervently believes—developers won't develop in the proposed district without tax dollars. But we've already demonstrated that the assumption—and the make-belief—is not grounded in reality. The evidence, in fact, is that developers will need no taxpayer incentives—will need nothing more than a healthy profit motive—to finance development in the district. In large part, that's because the RTD will be investing tens of millions of dollars in the district to construct a FasTracks commuter rail station, a 400-car parking lot and other improvements. Moreover, the RTD activities alone will result in the convergence of thousands of people in the district every week and huge increases in property values. In Westminster and Boulder, there already are planned redevelopments surrounding their planned commuter rail stations. Third, these Council members assume the City will be better able to shape developments if the LRC is given access to up to $77 million. That assumption too is not reflective of reality. With or without the LRC and with or without "incentivization" of developers, the City makes all land-use decisions in the proposed district just as it does throughout the City. To the extent the City wanted to give financial incentives to any developer or retailer, it has broad power to do so in the form of tax rebates or tax abatements. For example, without the LRC, the City in 1999 awarded Sam's Club a $734,576 financial incentive to locate in Louisville. The City doesn't need the LRC or its flawed plan to shape developments. The "let's not let nature take its course" argument begs the more important question: If letting nature take its course leads to the same result—i.e., redevelopment of the Hwy 42 corridor—without costing up to $77 million, why not let nature take its course? |
| | Home | |