Over the years, the biggest mistakes made by Memphis City Council are the ones made when its members aim low. And it appears that’s just what they are thinking about doing now by not finishing Beale Street Landing right.
We appreciate the hard choices in front of City Council right now, but it’s worth remembering that this tempest is about an appropriation of approximately $450,000 a year to finish Beale Street Landing as it was designed and without succumbing to the lowest common denominator thinking that has characterized Memphis for too long.
But here’s the thing. If a Council member wants to vote against the project because they hate the Riverfront Development Corporation or because of family relationships or political debts that remain to be paid or because of a bad mood that day or a personal principle, so be it.
But respectfully, please spare us the rhetoric that it’s because so much has already been done by City Hall for downtown.
Renaissance Mythology
“We’ve spent a lot of money downtown over the years,” said Councilman Shea Flinn, someone we have come to admire as much for his thinking as his voting. “There are other areas of the city needing capital improvements.”
It’s hard to fathom that the disgraceful present state of our downtown infrastructure is from a city government that loves us. Our sidewalks are crumbling, our alleys are in need of attention, our streets’ potholes and bump are a fact of life, litter is as bad as it’s been in 30 years and we are supposed to feel like we’ve been getting special attention.
It’s nothing short of a myth, made even more ironic because city officials have over the years bragged about the “downtown renaissance” and touted its revival in their election literature as one of their accomplishments. The truth is that in more than a decade, City of Memphis has never put any significant money into the projects that improve the daily quality of life for people living and working downtown.
Some of us have been working downtown for more than 35 years, and the public realm and the tax-supported infrastructure have never been worse. Recently, the Center City Commission asked again for city government to do what it does for every other neighborhood in Memphis: pay for improvements to streets, sidewalks and streetscape. The request got zeroed out by the Wharton Administration the same as it has been by the Herenton Administration.
Abandonment
Eight to ten years ago, with downtown infrastructure crumbling, City Hall notified the Center City Commission that city government would no longer be responsible for new sidewalks. As a result, the downtown development agency cobbled together some funding that allowed it to issue – and pay for – a fraction of the bonds that are still needed to get downtown to a decent level or to the level of comparable cities.
At a time when cities were making investments to improve their downtowns (at many times the cost of Beale Street Landing, by the way), City of Memphis left downtown on the doorstep of the Center City Commission at the same time that sidewalks were crumbling, streetscapes were haphazard, streets had more potholes and bumps than ever, litter was everywhere, urban design was sloppy, maintenance was nonexistent, alleys were deteriorating and vibrancy was as scarce as a retail store on Main Street.
Put another way, the $1 billion city government dumped responsibilities for downtown on an agency whose annual budget is about 0.6% – six-tenths of one percent – of its parent government.
Faced with such a daunting challenge, Center City Commission has been able to fund about $6 million in capital improvements in an 80-block area by leveraging the extension of its tax freezes.
Lots to Do
That only leaves $113.4 million in improvements that have been needed for years now – in demolition of deteriorated sidewalks and alleys; construction of new curbs, gutters, sidewalks and ADA compliant access ramps at street corners; and new lighting, street trees, trees grates, trash cans and benches. Utility upgrades are also needed (and we can only hope that someday city government does understand that its large “gray tombstones” of utility boxes scattered all over downtown are eyesore reminders of its civic disregard for aesthetics).
The reality is that all the new downtown development has been set on top of a collapsing foundation. It’s absurd to think that infrastructure investments that benefit the entire city should be borne by a small downtown agency whose funding comes largely from a special tax on downtown businesses.
And yet, this is precisely what the city’s decision to abandon downtown’s infrastructure suggested. At the precise time that city elected officials were delivering uplifting rhetoric about the importance of downtown to the overall economic health of the region, to attracting and retaining talent and to its role as “welcome mat” to Memphis, it was engaged in a financial sleight of hand that largely set downtown adrift.
To top it off, city government subsequently abandoned its responsibility for landscaping and maintenance downtown, shoving that to the Center City Commission, which also pays about $200,000 a year to beef up security because Memphis Police Department won’t do it.
A Favor, Please
These days, few people remember the time when both Memphis and Shelby County Governments provided yearly operational funding for Center City Commission and backed it up with yearly CIP funds.
It was sound public policy then. It would be sound public policy now, so hopefully, the new Wharton Administration will reevaluate the funding to fix downtown’s sad infrastructure and turn around the failed Herenton policies about downtown and develop a serious plan of action to fix the many things that are broken in the public realm (including Beale Street Landing).
It’s a big reason why vibrancy in downtown Memphis is as much a distant dream as an Ikea on South Main. More the point, our city does not have a commitment to quality public realm that makes it possible. And it shows.
So, vote against Beale Street Landing and the exciting symbol of an invigorated riverfront and confident city that it would be, but please don’t tell us it’s because downtown has been getting too much help from City Hall.
“If a Council member wants to vote against the project because they hate the Riverfront Development Corporation or because of family relationships or political debts that remain to be paid or because of a bad mood that day or a personal principle, so be it.”
Why so cryptic? Want to tell us who has an ax to grind? Because those are fighting words. Could it be council members are being sincere when they express concerns about the city’s budget or that there might be more urgent needs outside of downtown?
I have been saving this for a special ocassion. Please check out Oklahoma City’s downtown plans… For Griz fans, that’s where the Thunder are.
http://www.okc.gov/project180/
The initiative, named Project 180, is a three year, $140 million redesign of downtown streets, sidewalks, parks and plazas to improve appearance and make the central core more pedestrian friendly.
Mary:
We didn’t think we were being cryptic. Anybody can vote against Beale Street Landing for whatever personal reason they have, but just don’t pretend like city government’s been doing a lot for downtown.
Again, for a $1 billion budget, an amount that could be as low as $300,000 a year (if the financing is done right), we think it’s a small price to pay to do something right.
While I found Oklahoma City’s Canal very unimaginative (if one could trademark the built environment, there is little doubt San Antonio would have listed OKC as a defendant), I must give the city credit for realizing that investment in the pedestrian realm is critically important to the success of the central core.
I think much of this comes back to an idea touched on a couple of weeks ago. I still maintain a key difference between a location like Oklahoma City and Memphis and the way they address the critical role of public financing where their downtowns are concerned can be seen in their geographic layout. Downtown Oklahoma City lies at the center of a sprawling metropolitan area with an extremely low population density defined by an area of over 6,300 square miles with a population that is smaller than that of the Memphis MSA (The Memphis MSA is defined by some 3,000 square miles). The OKC metro has a population density of 197 persons/ sq. mile compared to the 426.7 persons/ sq. mile found in the Memphis metro. All this to say, when Oklahoma City and its suburbs voted to enact a sales tax to fund various municipal projects, virtually every major component of the plan was located in downtown OKC. Why? Because it was centrally located for the population which supported the publicly financed package of improvements (a new basketball arena, ballpark, entertainment district, etc…). Downtown Memphis is simply not found at the geographic center of our metropolitan population. It’s hard to convince a population or a government body to invest in its center if said population does not share in the notion of where the center is located.
We must invest in downtown and its pedestrian realm. The apartment I live in downtown saw its alley paved last week after an aborted attempt in the fall. Before, there were sections that were literally caving into the storm sewer or some type of underground void. It was appalling that it could get so bad- a gravel lane would have been a drastic improvement. However, it is going to be a more daunting task to convince a population that has largely detached itself from downtown that increased investment is not only necessary, but is critical to the health of the region.
Shea articulated what a lot of us not rich enough to live Downtown have thought for years.
If the City is going to dump reponsibility for sidewalk maintenance, cleanup, and so forth on the Center City Commission, then that is yet another reason to abolish the Center City Commission.
Wintermute:
Have you looked at the income breakdown for downtown? I think it would surprise you that it’s not a group of rich folks. Or at least that’s the case here.
Before we tout OKC’s planned redevelopment, be sure to check out their financing mechanism(s). Most importantly, they’ve decided on a TIF. If Memphis wants to catch up with OKC (and how sad is it that we’re even contemplating that?), then it needs to catch up with the times and look at creative financing mechanisms. Memphis’ Downtown property owners and advocates want funds from general revenues, and whine and stomp their feet when they don’t get it. Drive through North Memphis, South Memphis, Frayser, and Whitehaven, and you’ll see why it’s beyond difficult for some of us to justify spending on an extravagant Downtown playground.
Anon-
I agree that it is a sad state.
Has anyone else noticed one of the common threads here? It’s the idea that downtown is its own neighborhood which deserves no more in the way of investment or regard than any other neighborhood in the city. That relationship marks a huge point of divergence when compared to many other cities.
Other communities actively place their downtowns as a neighborhood above others as they should. Downtowns are to serve as a shared neighborhood and thus a shared resource. Everyone should feel a personal and private regard for downtown as a piece of shared communal property. After all, it is where the majority of the formal public space in the city is located (plazas, squares and promenades). It is where the public command centers and offices are located. It is where the majority of our great halls, arenas are cultural assets are located. It’s where our the shared aspirations of what we want our city to be should be focused. Thus it should receive attention above and beyond individual neighborhoods and spaces where the city as a whole is neither as welcome or is easily accessible.
The idea of focusing the civic and communal life of a city on a central location is ancient and a cross cultural phenomenon. There appears to be a need in this city to communicate where that center should be and why it is such an important issue.
There is a difference between giving Downtown ‘attention beyond individual neighborhoods’ and investing millions of tax dollars in a risky, strange-looking-at-best recreational venture.
I hate to sound like one of those teabag loons, but did the folks who came up with this landing idea actually conduct any public opinion studies? If so, whose opinion was counted? I can guarantee you that the poorest among us–those who live in poverty, in the shacks of north and south Memphis–probably wouldn’t have said ‘no’ if asked about this thing; they would have said ‘hell, no’.
The 12-foot wide sidewalks Downtown are crumbling a bit in places? Try having no sidewalks.
It’s not just about neighborhoods, urbanut. It’s about schools, social institutions, economic justice, crime prevention, environmental preservation — The City spends nowhere near enough on these things, and now the short-sighted RDC wants more money for its pet project?
This is a different anonymous, but the last anonymous is a loon.
This is perhaps the most un-risky thing done by city government ever. It’s a slam dunk. It serves downtowners, it gives tourists a focal point, and it make the riverfront look like we’re not stuck in time and that we think Elvis is still alive.
This design was developed by an internationally known firm and was selected after a thorough process. Don’t sell the poor short – they often “get” that creating more jobs and investments is the only way city government will ever have enough money to help them out.
Get the facts on spending too. We spend more than most cities our size on public safety, mostly because we only work on enforcement, Memphis shouldn’t be paying for schools, etc.
I believe this blog said sometime back that really great cities do many things at one time. Let’s try it for a change and see what happens.
I am interested in knowing though how this is a $450,000 decision, according to the post. We throw that much away on cronies at the libraries.
Anonymous 4:32:
The $450K is the debt service cost on the $7M gap in funding to finish Beale Street Landing right. Using some federal bonding programs, the amount could possibly be as low as $300K.
Recently, we conducted a ocus group of our own, asking out-of-town visitors to Tom Lee Park their opinions about the rendering on the sign for Beale Street Landing – 95% positive but every one agreed that something is needed.
Thanks SCM. Because I felt like I had been caught eavesdropping on a private conversation between you and the city council.
So are you more interested in advancing the CCC or the RDC’s agenda?
And $450,000 over how many years?
Does anyone know what RDC’s annual payroll is?
Not-anonymous here.
Several things come to light in this discussion but first and foremost is that the CCC/RDC approach to public improvement projects has not been successful.
These organizations were at best meant to promote some insulation from politics to maintain the integrity of longterm planning, and at worst, they’re a means of shielding private interests from changing public sentiment. Either way, they create the impression of private realms within public governance and a growing perception of competition for resources amongst already disparate communities.
As a low to moderate income tax payer on both a home and a business in North Memphis (Midtown North), I have a hard time balancing the NEED for basic maintenance of infrastructure in my aging neighborhood with the DESIRE to see a vibrant, economically attractive downtown. This is especially difficult when those desires have been mis prioritized.
For example, if the RDC had simply maintained the cobblestones (hosed ’em down now and again) and connected an inexpensive bike/skate/jog/walk trail from the north end of Mud Island across a SIMPLE pedestrian bridge to Tom Lee and the Bluff Walk, then the people would already be down there and it wouldn’t be such a steep sell to get them behind more capital and maintenance intensive projects like the Landing or the impending Mud Island renovation.
As Urbanut pointed out, the problem is compounded by the fact that downtown isn’t, and won’t ever be, the center of commerce in Memphis, let alone the soon to be consolidated Shelby County. Nor does it, with the exception of Memphis in May, serve as the central public commons–Overton and Audubon as well as the various commercial districts throughout the City serve this function the rest of the year.
I just can’t wait to be able to safely ride my bike to a quasi-public skatepark in Binghamton, roll on out to the Lucius Burch, follow the Wolf River around to Mud Island and stop off for a pint in the Southend before wobbling back home up a striped bike lane on beautiful North Parkway–I hope it doesn’t get lost in the fight for funding.
I’m for doing all of those things, Scott, but we still need something that’s a focal point for downtown and a magnet for people looking to connect with the water.
PS: I’m for a bridge to Mud Island too
Mary:
This isn’t intended to be a private conversation at all with City Council. Otherwise, we’d just call them.
We’re not interested in advancing any organization’s agenda. We only advance our own and that keeps us plenty busy, and when it comes to the riverfront, it’s all about creating the kind of vibrancy that enlivens our riverfront and becomes a symbol for a progressive, rather than a slow-moving, stuck-in-time, city. Other cities are doing it right now and at a cost many times more than Beale Street Landing.
The cost would be for 20 years and offset by sales taxes from the site. And if it’s financed right, the yearly cost could be more like $300K.
Warning: I know this is a very specific point about a very specific project and does not necessarily relate to the topic discussed in this post, so please feel free to skip it.
SB-
I certainly cannot speak for the RDC and I can’t get into too many details that might compromise my position. However, I think we would have seen a pedestrian bridge between the Promenade and Mud Island much earlier in the programming for the riverfront, specifically in the vicinity of Union Avenue, if it were not for the clearance required by barge traffic to reach active industries in the Wolf River Harbor. A pedestrian bridge at that location would either need to have a height clearance over the channel similar to that of the Auction Avenue Bridge or it would need to be a draw bridge of some sort. Both are pretty expensive proposals. Maybe not as expensive as the final cost of the BSL, but costly none the less. Can you imagine the public outcry for such a project? Why build another pedestrian bridge when one already exists a few blocks to the north (the monorail)?
One more thing Scott,
I am having the trees at my midtown home trimmed in the upcoming weeks. One is mostly dead and needs to come out before it falls on the neighbors house, however it does have some green shoots coming out of one side. I’m not too sure about the quality with that one. The other will be several substantial limbs from a green ash. If you are interested I can have the arborist leave the decent wood if you want it.
Urbanut, shoot me a facebook mssg and i’ll come by and see if it’s wood I want–I wouldn’t want you to get stuck with logs in your yard 😉