42 and 46

Four years ago this week brought about one of my favorite moments in NYC. Perhaps one of the favorite moments of my life. I watched Super Bowl 42 in Midtown. The heavy underdog New York Giants vs. the near-perfect New England Patriots. An unprecedented, unexpected David vs. Goliath matchup. When the Giants pulled off a victory marking one of the greatest spectacles in American professional sports, New York City erupted into a madhouse.

The reaction was nothing short of euphoric. People streamed out of the bars along 2nd and 3rd Avenues, bringing car traffic to a halt. The roar of the crowd and of apartment dwellers opening their windows to scream in jubilation could be heard for blocks in every direction, overwhelming the sound of honking cars. A walk along the streets that night felt like a scene out of Bourbon Street at the peak time of Mardi Gras (minus the beads and a little less booze). The subway back to Astoria was a rancorous party of hi-fives, cheers, and chants. Complete strangers enjoying each other’s company.

I have experienced other championships and celebrations in NYC. Yet nothing comes close to that Sunday night in February 2008. (And I was in Times Square when the Yankees last won the World Series in 2009.) I hope to experience something similar to that this evening. For everyone heading out to watch the game tonight, have fun and stay safe.

Those who know me well know that lately I have been rooting more for New York’s team that wears dark green, but it is hard not to like this year’s Giants. Go GIANTS!

NY Times: More Govt Workers Are Retiring Sooner

Just finished an extensive final paper for my public finance class, which including the topic of public pensions along with their recent and forthcoming impact here in the US. In researching the topic, I came across an interesting recent NY Times article discussing how factors related to the economic crisis are fostering an increase in retiring public sector employees. By retiring earlier, these employees are trying to protect what benefits they have, for fear of them being reduced in the future.

Seattle buckles down

Writing a paper for one of my courses this fall on transportation and transit developments in Seattle and the Puget Sound Region, at a time of both high political and construction activity.

First, the Alaskan Way Viaduct, an elevated, double-decker bypass through downtown Seattle along the Puget Sound, will be torn down. Carrying 110,000 vehicles per day, in August voters approved converting this concrete ensemble, badly damaged in a 2001 earthquake, to a tunnel. There is both good and bad with this approach. What is good is lessening a potential public hazard in the event of a natural disaster and replacing an aching, aging, elevated freeway. Seattle is spared from a potential catastrophe like that seen in San Francisco after the 1989 Loma Prieta earthquake or Minneapolis after the I-35 bridge collapse. What’s bad is the $5 one-way toll levied on what will essentially be a two-mile luxury bypass of Seattle, eliminating four exits and pushing more vehicles on to congested I-5, which runs along the other side of downtown, as well as Seattle’s surface streets. Without any direct mechanism to improve this infrastructure.

Compounding this is the defeat last night of a proposition that would have raised money for transportation and transit improvements, largely to rail, cycling and pedestrian systems, through a $60 “car tab” (i.e. license plate registration fee) levied on Seattle residents only. Now defeat of this proposal, which essentially amounts to a regressive tax disproportionately affecting lower-income drivers, is understandable, in these times especially. It still leaves the city scrambling to find ways to fund and improve its infrastructure ahead of what will likely be a heavier demand inflicted upon it. At least Washington state voters approved a measure for increased tolls on highways, HOT (high occupancy OR toll) lanes, and an integration of a planned light rail system with adjoining I-90.

The conversion of the Alaskan Way Viaduct to a toll-based tunnel could provide some assistance in this area, yet state projections forecast it carrying about a third of the vehicles that currently use the elevated highway. As a State DOT project, funding will be channeled to the state first, adding to the impact of bureaucracy, governance and politics on supporting non-automobile alternatives for Seattle’s transportation network. With Seattle and the Puget Sound being one of the most liberal, progressive and environmentally concious areas of the US, despite recent events, this debate is far from over. Stay tuned.

Town Centers: Urban in the Suburbs

West Hartford, CT had it already, a “downtown” or “town center” with an idyllic feel. Walkable with shops opening to the street, bustling cafes and plenty of sidewalk traffic (along with removed parking for everyone driving in). A slice of hip city neighborhood in an affluent suburban town. What it didn’t have a lot of was housing. Then it decided it needed even more retail, with all the upper-middle class brand names to attract the families of big insurance, government agencies and engineering firms. In doing so it transformed what housing existed in the “town center” to “luxury” condos and apartments. (I know someone who was relocated from their apartment in West Hartford’s Town Center to construct this project, Blue Back Square.)

Part “New Urbanism”, part smart growth, part form-based zoning. There is some to like about this from afar, but the closer you get, you find out its really wolf in sheep’s clothing. Move the high-end retail out of the shopping mall to a town/city center like setting. This type of development is spreading too. Quincy, MA is next up, among others. At least they have a transit link. Hopefully they get a nice, vibrant neighborhood out of it rather than an outdoor mall.

Yes, these projects liven up the suburbs, but how much do they compete with, and in some respect, detract from our cities? Moreover, what does this mean for our cities who have contend with these urban-style developments? Time to step up the game, it seems. Keep cities vibrant, cultural and creative and promote them as (to borrow from a sports league) “where real happens”.

Nonprofit PILOTs

At a time when traditional revenue sources for local governments are strained, several municipalities are attempting to charge or request money from nonprofits in order to help keep public services afloat and books balanced. Known as Payments in Lieu of Taxes, or PILOTS, they are becoming ever more common, with at least 117 municipalities in 18 states collecting revenue from nonprofits during the 2000s.

The issue of whether or not to seek funding from nonprofits is a delicate one, as many of these organizations are resource strained themselves and must depend on the good graces of the public and/or a strong philanthropic market. Many nonprofits are also geographically focused by nature of their missions, so it is often not feasible or practical to relocate across town/city borders and escape payment. Thus, to some degree, the PILOT concept can be seen as praying on the vulnerable, especially in a climate when the services that nonprofits offer are in high demand.

A brief white paper by the Lincoln Institute of Land Policy discusses the complexity involved with seeking and securing PILOTs as well as the ramifications for the public, nonprofit sectors and residents of the communities they serve. Public and nonprofit organizations often have a cordial relationship, as many of the latter provide services for the greater good that are either impractical or infeasible for government. As such, proceeding too aggressively with PILOTs or being overly demanding can damage the goodwill between government and charitable organizations, only hurting the public in the end through service modifications, relocations or closures.

Lincoln Institute of Land Policy suggests several methods to have a more amicable conversation and agreement about PILOTs, largely based around transparency and open, frank communication. Reading the article also gives the impression that this may be an avenue for municipalities to obtain money from nonprofit colleges and universities, whose value-add is of a higher scale than many other nonprofits (post-secondary education, while highly important, may be considered less of a social need than say housing or medical assistance).

In a culture that strongly values higher education, colleges and universities also have a relatively inelastic demand. That is, its desire among the public does not decrease much as its price increases (i.e. demand for some prestigious and expensive institutions is stronger than that of many “state” colleges and universities). Many nonprofit universities, though, must contend with a constant need to raise funds through philanthropists and alumni in order to provide high quality educational services and satisfy their operating expenses. There are also some cases where the reach of these institutions spread beyond its classrooms, doors and offices into real estate properties and recreation/entertainment (i.e. major college sports).

Universities aside, many community-focused nonprofits have goals similar to that of several public sector agencies, assisting lower-income citizens or providing services that are impractical for a for-profit business model. As such, both governments and nonprofits have interests in seeing the other flourish. While, this may be seen as an argument for why nonprofits should pay PILOTs, perhaps these organizations, with connections to philanthropic and private sector capital, can instead absolve more of these services. This would reduce the burden on public sector organizations to administer and pay for these programs, also benefiting taxpayers in both the short and long term.

Tracking the 1%

At a time when protestors continue to occupy part of Lower Manhattan in outrage over growing income inequalities, let’s revisit an interesting Wall Street Journal article that highlights the contributions of the “1%” to government revenues and programs as well as the volatility of those in this elite bracket and the efforts of governments to track and predict its movement. All in an attempt, not to lessen the contribution of this group, but to stabilize government expectations to provide for and administrate programs appropriately. Another symbol of a top-heavy society.

Wonder how many of those in the 1% in say 2006 now find themselves among those advocating for reforms. And how many of today’s 1% sympathize with a need to support the populace. Because a strong, stable and self-sufficient middle class helps everyone.

Biking is Big in the Bay Area, Boulder… and Billings?

One of the pleasant and serendipitous aspects about modern technology is that it will produce things that surprise. Such is the case with a recent infographic I came across on bike commuting here in the US. With an increased presence of professional employees in denser areas, escalating transportation costs, and greater values on exercise and health, commuting by bike has undergone a renaissance in the past decade. From 2004 through 2009, the number of bike commuters nationwide expanded by over 50%. To be certain, bike commuting remains small in both absolute terms (less than 1 million) and share (less than 1%). Bike commuting will never pose a serious threat to the automobile, but it offers a viable alternative in several circumstances and is a transportation form that can readily fit in with our existing infrastructure.

This is especially true in many of our largest cities, where bike commuting has at least a 2% share of commuting trips. It may come as no surprise that the rather progressive West Coast cities of the Bay Area, Seattle and Portland lead the country in share of bike commuters (along with the Twin Cities). Bike commuting is also rather popular in Colorado, whose cities probably do not crack top ten on share because of the dispersal of employment throughout the Denver-Boulder area.

Then, there is Montana, which as an overall state, has among the strongest share of bike commuters in the country. I do not claim to know much about this state’s economy, but it is a sign of the times when something associated with mountains, wide-open spaces and ruggedness leads the way in a form of transport more often associated with shorter distances and higher densities. However, perhaps, the rugged character of Montana is emblematic of bike commuters in general.

Back to the 1970s?

The middle part of every decade usually sees a renaissance of cultural artifacts from some decade past… usually two decades behind, which means we should be seeing a flannel-and-fleece revival of the 1990s very soon. In the world of municipal finance, a different revival is taking shape. That of extreme fiscal austerity placed on states and local jurisdictions last seen on a widespread scale in the 1970s. Whereas the last crisis profoundly affected cities losing their blue-collar economic bases, this scenario stems from our prolonged recession and political focus on reducing the federal debt burden. As such, it effects areas large and small.

As a result of the topsy-turvy changes in our economy, funding to states is declining, and states are cutting their aid to municipalities in drastic numbers. Worsening matters is a trepidation to find or increase revenue sources by raising taxes at a time when so many are tightly pinched. Not all municipalities have avoided the dreaded tax hike, however. In Minnesota, with declining state aid since 2003, locales have made up for 2/3 of these cuts by hiking property taxes. Others, including places as large and stressed as Cleveland, as well as more moderate and growing areas, like Lincoln, Nebraska, are facing decisions of tax hikes, service reductions, or a combination of both (every politician’s nightmare). As states and cities must balance their budgets, painful cuts to government programs are being deliberated, and since government wealth often lags behind improvements in economic prosperity (short of payroll taxes, much of government income sources are not realized until “after the fact”), this dialogue will continue for some time, regardless of whether the economy improves.

Thus, as the federal government catches a cold, states catch a strong fever, and municipalities come down with the flu. Or as Michael Cooper of The New York Times eloquently puts it, “budgetary pain flows downhill”.

NYT article on US state and local fiscal austerity

Tactical Urbanism: Concept Testing for Urban Development

Additional information on the Tactical Urbanism Salon I attended yesterday in Long Island City, Queens. The more I dig into and understand this, the more I like it. With a professional background in market research, I like its “try before you buy” and small-scale experiment mantras. In the market research world, such experiments are called concept or concept/product tests, which prove whether or not an idea has legs, identify its strengths and weaknesses, and determine what improvements could be made before either a future re-stage or larger-scale deployment. What I also like about this concept is that it need not rely on any one sector or party per se, and can be an inexpensive way to improve a community’s built and social environment rather quickly.

The links below provide more information about tactical urbanism:

Tactical Urbanism, Volume 1 (Document defining Tactical Urbanism and its practices)

Tactical Urbanism Salon

A volume 2 document on tactical urbanism will be released within the next few weeks.

Revitalization, not “Gentrification”

I have spent the past three days at two conferences covering several issues related to city life. Though each had their own theme, in essence, both discussed how we can make our communities more lively and engaging, presenting large and small scale ideas meant to stimulate and expand the diverse populace and interests that comprise our society. In each of these ideas, the promise of “cultural revitalization” and perils of its more maligned synonym, “gentrification” exists. The greatest challenge with urban development has been, and will continue to be, how we can stimulate enrichment, cohesion and activity in communities, without bringing on a wholesale evolution that brings in speculators and creates a bifurcated two-class environment.

Digesting everything I’ve learned over these three days (which will take quite a while, I must say, and that’s a good thing), I was enlightened in finding a recent New York Times Magazine article about Greg O’Connell, a.k.a. “The Socialist Developer”. One of the pioneers behind the transformation of Brooklyn’s Red Hook neighborhood, he is now plying his practice on a small upstate NY town, Mount Morris, located about halfway between Rochester and Elmira.

His tactics mix small-town booster with large-scale developer. Buy up a series of undervalued properties clustered together, rent them for cheap, instill Jane Jacobs-esque policies (rotating store displays, lights at nighttime) that foster a welcoming, vibrant image, and let things develop as they may. Without selling out to commercial developers. For him, revitalizing cities and towns is a “community effort”, and at a time when many up-and-coming neighborhoods fall victim soon enough to luxury developers, this perspective is refreshing.

For his successes and philosophies, he also proclaims that timing is everything.

‘“You’ve got to buy things right,” he says. “You’ve got to be 15 to 20 years ahead of the trends.”’

Interesting. O’Connell’s practices echo that of other rebuilding and revitalizing communities, though more deliberate and absent an influx of creative types. Could this spawn a tide of boosterism-based development? Are these practices more suitable for areas well off the beaten path only? What of this approach is applicable to “hot urban neighborhoods”?

Conferences attended October 13-15, 2011

Municipal Arts Society Summit for NYC

Tactical Urbanism Salon