Economic Development Question

I hear often about "economic development" plans from localities that are essentially subsidizing private projects via tax dollars, either directly by backing bonds or indirectly by giving tax deferrals. Either way, these subsidies amount to millions of dollars spent by localities in furtherance of private industry.

Two examples of taxpayer-subsidized projects come to mind: Lucas Oil Stadium and the Wilshaw development. I have said before that if the Town of Speedway wants public parking, it should just build a parking garage instead of borrowing the money to build one, lending that money to a developer, then leasing the garage to the developer in exchange for revenue from the garage. It's a rube goldberg device.

I also hear justification for Lucas Oil Stadium in the form of "look at how many jobs it creates" with all of the hotel, restaurant, convention, etc., traffic created by the facility.

I suppose my big question is this: Why don't we just directly invest in those jobs by doing things like hiring teachers? Paying for their health insurance? Hiring construction workers to build better roads? (the NW corner of 465 comes to mind, but that's just because I commute past that area every day).

In a nutshell, it appears that there is a bipartisan consensus that government spending to create jobs is OK. In that instance, why settle for low-wage ALICE ("asset limited income constrained employed") jobs? Why not go for good middle-class jobs with benefits? It seems that we could do so if we cut out the middle man, i.e. Jim Irsay or Loftus/Robinson.

Just a thought.

Speedway Super Center: Horrible Design = Horrible Traffic

Anyone who lives in Speedway knows that the Speedway Super Center (home of Kroger et al) seems to be custom designed to simultaneously waste space and create traffic jams. As I've noted before, I live in the Meadowood Park area, and the access point to this shopping center (Parkwood Dr.) probably could not be designed worse even if you tried.

Of course, I (quite clearly) do not own this property, nor am I an elected official, so my input on what happens there is minimal (if it exists at all). Nonetheless I recognize that the Speedway Redevelopment Commission will sooner or later have to tackle this property and, as such, I have a few suggestions.

First, let's recognize that the Speedway Super Center will not ever look like Main Street. It was originally built in a different era, for different needs. Main Street was designed to be just that: a main street, where commercial activity could be centrally located for those who lived in the immediate vicinity. The Speedway Super Center, on the other hand, was designed to be a shopping center to which people would drive from many miles. If you ask me what the best-case scenario of the Speedway Super Center is, post-redevelopment, I would point to Clay Terrace in Carmel or Metropolis in Plainfield.

These endpoint goals are for another day, though, because I just want to discuss traffic. Here is an aerial view of the area I'm referencing:

Aerial view of Speedway Super Center. 25th Street, more or less, runs  across the top; Lynhurst is on the right, and you can't see H.S. Rd. on the left.

A few things about this design stick out to me:

1. The parking design is really terrible.

Here is what I'm talking about:

Notice that this is essentially the main artery going East/West through the north end of this shopping center. It is important for traffic to move freely through there, yet it is designed to require pedestrians to cross the artery.

Another view of the same general area:

This is a bit further down. Note that one can't get to the nearest grocery store without driving along this route; again, it's not thoughtfully designed.

It doesn't have to be this way. Some thoughtful redesign of this parking/traversing area would vastly improve the experience there.

Below is a picture of one random portion of Clay Terrace:

Note that there is parking along the building, and the degree to which that seems to change the character of both the walkways and the driving lanes.

The "traffic" through the mall is less obstructed, parking is easier, and the walkways are friendlier. In fact, we have already deployed this tactic in Speedway:

So, my point as to the parking and the layout of the Speedway Super Center is that the buildings themselves don't need to be rebuilt. I am agnostic as to their condition, but I believe that their location lends itself just fine to some redesign that would make the area considerably nicer.

2. The streets are poorly designed.

The thoroughfares of the area should cross at different points. Again, here is an aerial view of what I'm talking about.

You can see that I've superimposed on the area where the major intersections are. I think that the middle one, especially, needs work.

Imagine for a moment if the traffic flowed through the area like this:

You can see, in orange, where I've superimposed a roundabout within the existing area. The part of Parkwood Dr. that goes through the shopping center would be transformed by a roundabout, further south. This would enable more of the curbside parking discussed in point #1 above, and would render this thruway considerably more pedestrian friendly.

3. Green Space Helps

I note that nearly every place in the world worth being has something growing there; perhaps the plants and trees know something we don't. Anyway, given that the parking lots there are, quite literally, never full, wouldn't it be worth it to put some green space in there? Some place where the citizens of Speedway could enjoy a cup of coffee and a book, or perhaps simply read the newspaper or have lunch? Green space makes everywhere better,even the Speedway Super Center.

So there it is; three things that could be done on the "reasonably" cheap that would make a world of difference for the Speedway Super Center. I have heard that the property owner is a pretty good corporate citizen; I see that they've dumped a bunch of money into the eastern portion of this development.

Here's to hoping for the best!

Aspirations for 2018

I hate resolutions. I'm not generally a resolute individual. However, I do like to believe that I am an aspirational person. With that in mind, I offer aspirations for 2018:

1. Reform of Occupational Licensure Requirements

I am not a conservative, so I am told, but nothing erodes freedoms more than economic regulations that can deprive one of his ability to make a living and feed his family. It matters not to me whether one makes his/her living braiding hair, making dog treats, doing paralegal work, or coding medical bills. I don't see that a license is necessary to do any of this, much less a license that necessitates thousands of dollars in training that an employer used to provide(s).

Instead of having a highly trained and mercenary work force, we instead have the same work force with large tuition debt hanging over them; we have made society worse. Let's stop doing that. Instead, how about we allow people to pursue a livelihood without throwing up gratuitous barriers.

As a final note on this point, I can't help but think that so many occupational licensure requirements are simply "incumbent protection rackets." For example, the fact that an English teacher who is fully certified in Michigan has to sit through a battery of tests in Indiana to teach English is nothing but a protection racket for IN English teachers (a member of such group as I used to identify). Requiring thousands of dollars in gratuitous and unnecessary "training" to become a hair stylist merely serves to limit the universe of hair stylists and drive up the cost of stylist services. This makes everyone except incumbent stylists poorer: consumers pay more, aspiring stylists can't get into the industry. I could go on and on about this, as there are so many useless occupational licensing requirements it makes one's head spin.

2. Minimization of Land Use and Zoning Regulations

I view land use and zoning regulations, to a lesser extent, in a similar vein as occupational licensure requirements. Zoning does nothing but make incumbent landowners wealthier in most cases. Why can't someone who owns a home on Lynhurst open a public business there? What about on 15th St?* I also think that if someone is so inclined, he should be able to buy a parcel on Main St. and build whatever the hell he wants on it so long as he is not bothering others with his use of his own property. Sic utere tuo ut alienum non laedas. I fully recognize that some in this community don't necessarily see eye to eye with me on this. I do sincerely hope we can all agree to disagree.

3. Decriminalization of Harmless Behavior

There is a concept in the law known as "standing." It essentially says that you can't bring a lawsuit unless you can show a few things, including that you, the complainant, have been harmed. Generally, the enforcement of a law is presumed to be in the public interest, conferring standing on the prosecutor's office.

What if the elimination of the criminalized behavior is not in the public interest? What if enforcement of certain laws creates more of the undesirable behavior that we seek to eliminate in the first place?

The War on Drugs is the first thing that comes to mind. Unless a prosecuting authority can demonstrate that an actual human being was harmed, the prosecution should fail as a matter of policy. If there is an arms-length transaction, who really cares what is exchanged? Particularly with respect to marijuana, who cares? If an adult, who has full agency and freedom, decides to spend his hard-earned money on some pot, who cares? Why do we then tax that same adult to hire police and build prisons so that people who participate in this exact same behavior can become wards of the state? What in the hell are we doing?

Another example is prostitution. I certainly have a problem with human trafficking and the like, but again with the arms-length transaction . . . if a woman wants to sell an hour of her time doing "whatever" for a considerably larger amount than she could otherwise command for an hour of her time, who am I to say that I know better? I grant you that if there were "ladies of the night" "plying their trade" in Meadowood Park, my position would be different, as the entire community would be harmed in such an instance. However, if she sells her goods for three hours per night, out of her own home, what business is it of mine?

I could go on, but I think that the point has been made. Enough expenditure of public resources on morality crusades, which brings us to the next point . . .

4. Judicious and Equitable Use of Public Funds

I could go on for some time about this, whether we are talking about using public money to finance a private developer's parking garage or using public money to finance enforcement of some theocrat's version of morality, enough is enough.

Along those same lines, I know that there has been considerable discussion of late of the antics of Scott Harris vis a vis the Redevelopment Commission and the State Board of Accounts. Is it too much to expect to have the system, from which Mr. Harris repeatedly embezzled thousands of dollars, to institute reforms? Is it too much to require that anyone who handles public funds post a performance bond? I don't think so, but I'm not on the Town Council. Perhaps we should ask them.

Additionally, as pertains "equitable" use of public funds, can we think long and hard about who benefits from public expenditure and whether they need it? Don't get me wrong, I am thrilled that IMS is here and I recognize that it is the lifeblood of Speedway, if not Indianapolis. Nonetheless, I don't think that IMS needs taxpayer handouts any more than Mr. Billionaire/3 and 13/$750m stadium Jim Irsay needs our money, or the Simon family needs our money. Somehow, they all manage to get my tax money; I guess they need that money more than I do? I am perfectly happy to see my tax money spent to maintain and improve Speedway's schools, roads, sidewalks, parks, etc. I'm happy to see public money go to having free meals for poor kids when school isn't in session. It grates me a bit when those who are wealthy beyond my wildest dreams have their hands in the public till. Have you no shame?

5. Forward-Looking Use of Public Resources

This is the flip side of the "use of public funds" wish. I am given to understand that the Speedway Redevelopment Commission presently owns approximately $5m worth of real estate, primarily near the intersection of Crawfordsville Rd. and I-465. To those on the SRC, PLEASE think ahead when you determine what to do with this property. I do not believe that time is of the essence when it comes to alienating and developing that property; getting it right is of primary importance.

I am sure that a developer is more than willing to put a medical office park there. Woo frickin' hoo. Isn't that what was initially at the development just northwest of Crawfordsville/Lynhurst? Look at what a blight that is now. If you want to see more examples, just drive around Indianapolis and look at all of the initially-profitable-but-now-blighted medical office parks around the city. They're useful for perhaps 10 years as Class A office space, then they become Class B, eventually turning into essentially garbage office space, suitable for very little except for exceedingly cheap rent.

I am similarly sure that a developer would be willing to build a regular office park there. I believe that the same dynamic applies that applies to medical office parks. Office buildings retain their value when they are in desirable places, i.e. on the Circle, on Mass Ave., etc. Perhaps an office building would retain value on Main St., but even that is questionable.

I could sit here for hours and list all the things I don't want to see there. What would I like? Frankly, I don't know; an outdoor concert venue would be wonderful but I question whether it would be viable.

CONCLUSION

I write this post not as a rant but as an aspiration for the new year. As I am not an elected official in any capacity, there is very little I can do about these things other than apply pressure to public officials. That is one of the beauties of Speedway. I am one of only about 12,000 people who live here. Compare this to a citizen of Indianapolis, who is one of roughly 864,000 people who live there. As far as I can calculate, that means that I have 72X the influence in Speedway that I would have in Indianapolis.

As 2017 (a truly horrible year that I am happy to see close) fades into memory, I can reflect on my good fortune to live in a community such as this one and do my best to see to it that Speedway continues to thrive and improve. Here's to 2018; Cheers!





* As with most of these ideas, there is a legitimate end point even if I can't explicitly state where that is. I do not believe that food regulations should be eliminated, nor do I think that someone should be able to open another Crystal Clean in the middle of a residential area. I do, however, think that people should be able to do business in more places than they currently can. Also, I believe that some occupational licenses are necessary. I prefer that my healthcare provider be trained in providing healthcare. Unfortunately, however, so many of these licensure requirements have become rackets designed solely to protect the incumbents in the market at the expense of new entrants and a dynamic market.

Commercial Property on Main St.

I keep hearing about how the incumbent business owners on Main St. are being harmed by the redevelopment thereof. I keep getting confused about what their problem is.

This is two distinct parcels on Main Street. Clearly, the picture is dated, as the building that used to house the Town Press now houses Tacos & Tequila (I can't wait . . . sounds so delicious), and the vacant lot to the right now houses O'Reilly's (here again . . . ) and Wilcox Engineering (unaffiliated with "Wilshaw," by the way).

Anyway, I choose these two properties because they are two of the original properties on Main, in their more-or-less original state. These properties were assessed, for taxation purposes, at $69,900 (on the left) and $37,800 (on the right). Links to the publicly-available property tax assessments can be found here and here.

Based on that property assessment, one could own both of these buildings for $107,700. Call me skeptical on that, and my skepticism was born out.

Just today, I was perusing the internet and came upon this listing. For those who prefer not to click through, the listing is for Ted's Beauty Shop, located at 1344 Main St..

This property is presently assessed, for tax purposes, at $99,100, as of 2016. The asking price for the property is currently $489,000.

By my calculations, that is an increase of approximately 493%. Someone, PLEASE, explain to me what it is that the property owners along Main St. have to complain about. I can think of approximately 389,900 reasons why the owner of Ted's Beauty Shop (Stella Szatkowski) should be supportive of Main Street's redevelopment.

Similarly, I can think of plenty of reasons why the incumbent property owners along Main Street should be, give or take, 493% supportive of the redevelopment efforts.

Finally, please note that the property just to the south of Ted's Beauty Shop is owned by the Speedway Redevelopment Commission. It was bought in June, 2015, for $65,000, according to tax records. I will be interested to see the final sale price for Ted's Beauty Shop, but based on the asking price, it appears that the efforts of the Redevelopment Commission are bearing fruit. Keep up the good work!

Wilshaw, Bonds, and Rube Goldberg Devices

I have been thinking more and more about the bond that will be issued to support the Wilshaw Project.

For starters, understand that issuing a bond is essentially no different than taking out a loan, except you're not borrowing from one lender but instead borrowing from hundreds or even thousands of lenders. Each of those lenders is entitled to be repaid.

So, in light of that, here is my understanding of the money flow with respect to the bond. If either reader of this blog know of reasons why this understanding is incorrect, please let me know.

1. The bonds will be issued (i.e. the money will be borrowed) by the Town of Speedway. I have surmised this from the "Notice of Public Hearing of the Speedway Economic Development Commission."

The Bonds will be issued by the Town

2. The Town will then lend the money raised through the issuance of the bond to another entity, the Speedway Municipal Facilities Corporation.

The Town will lend the proceeds of the Bonds to the Speedway Municipal Facilities Building Corporation (the “Corporation”) to finance the construction of a portion of certain economic development facilities, consisting of a two level parking facility, site development work, foundations and related costs (the “Parking Facilities Project”).

As I have stated before, I believe that incurring debt to build a parking facility is short sighted and wrong, but I understand that some in the community disagree with me. We'll agree to disagree over whether publicly financing parking is appropriate.

3. The Speedway Municipal Facilities Corporation will then take the money to finance the construction of a parking garage, the majority (if not the entirety) of which will be for use by Wilshaw.

4. Wilshaw and the Speedway Redevelopment Commission will jointly and severally lease this parking facility from the Speedway Municipal Facilities Corporation.

5. Payments on that lease will be made to the Speedway Municipal Facilities Corporation by Wilshaw and the Redevelopment Commission. The money will come from either TIF money, the Developer, or a special benefits tax levied by the Redevelopment Commission pursuant to IC 36-7-14-27.

The Redevelopment Commission’s lease payments under the Lease will be payable from (a) tax increment revenues generated in the Redevelopment Area (the “TIF Revenues”), (b) payments under the Developer Obligations Agreement and Third Party Guaranty (each as defined in the Economic Development Agreement), and (c) to the extent TIF Revenues and payments under the Developer Obligations Agreement and Third Party Guaranty are ever insufficient to pay lease rentals, from the revenues of a special benefits tax levied by the Redevelopment Commission pursuant to Indiana Code 36-7-14-27.

Presumably, Wilshaw will increase the value of the land upon which it is built so much that the increased value of the land will raise the tax revenues on the land to the point where the debt pays itself. Additionally, Wilshaw has some sort of "Developer Obligations Agreement" that is likely available for viewing at Town Hall from 9-4 M-F (precisely located squarely within the time frame during which I, and most of my neighbors, earn our living) and has not, to my knowledge, been posted online. There is also some mention of a third-party guarantor, the identity of whom is not revealed. Is that the citizenry of Speedway? Vladimir Putin? God only knows. Should neither of those options suffice, the Redevelopment Commission will levy a special tax on the Main St. TIF area.

Schematic Representation of this Financing Deal

I have a variety of thoughts on this scheme, not all of which have been thoroughly sorted out. However, as a first draft:

1. As mentioned above, I believe that spending taxes so that people have a place to park their enormous iron machines (i.e. cars) is a waste of tax money. We don't ask the public to provide us a place to work or sleep. Heck, this nation has had a revolt of late over asking the public to provide us basic medical care, but we don't bat an eye when it comes to spending public money so that people can park their cars? Priorities people. Priorities.

2. Why the rube goldberg device for where the money goes? If we (however wrongly) do decide to publicly finance a parking garage, why all of the misdirection as to where the money goes, comes from, etc? I can't help but think that this is one of those situations where we, the Town of Speedway, shoulder all of the risk while Loftus-Robinson (i.e. Drew Loftus and Kyle Robinson) stand to profit. As they say, if you're sitting around the poker table and can't tell who the sucker is, it's you.

3. The notice mentions a statute but never indicates the import of it. I can't help myself here, as I am a nerd about this kind of stuff. Here is what I think the relevant portion of the cited statute (IC 36-7-14-27) is:

The redevelopment commission, with the prior approval of the legislative body, shall levy each year a special tax on all of the property of the redevelopment taxing district, in such a manner as to meet and pay the principal of the bonds as they mature, together with all accruing interest on the bonds or lease rental payments under section 25.2 of this chapter. The commission shall cause the tax levied to be certified to the proper officers as other tax levies are certified, and to the auditor of the county in which the redevelopment district is located, before the second day of October in each year. The tax shall be estimated and entered on the tax duplicate by the county auditor and shall be collected and enforced by the county treasurer in the same manner as other state and county taxes are estimated, entered, collected, and enforced. The amount of the tax levied to pay bonds or lease rentals payable from the tax levied under this section shall be reduced by any amount available in the allocation fund established under section 39(b)(3) of this chapter or other revenues of the redevelopment commission to the extent such revenues have been set aside in the redevelopment bond fund.

Note that this is a bit opaque. After about a half hour of research attempting to locate the exact locale of the TIF district for Speedway, this is what I was able to come up with:

How much will this cost?Approximately $120 million of infrastructure will be funded by public investment, which will help attract an additional $400 million in private investment in Redevelopment Area One.

How will the public investment be generated?

The Town of Speedway has the financial strength necessary to make the investment through the creation of a Tax Increment Financing (TIF) district, which provides the town with a healthy revenue stream and credit. 

Given that they want to obligate people to repay  over a hundred million dollars, you would think that we could get an easily accessible map or something. The best I could come up with is this, with a map on pg. 5 of 33.

I note that, should this not work out, the other business owners on Main will be on the hook to pay for this parking garage.

Seems like a bad idea to me.

I don't suggest for a moment that our officials on the Redevelopment Commission, Town Council, etc., are in any way acting in bad faith. However, please remember that Loftus-Robinson is a fairly new company that does not have an extensive track record, and Ice Miller has been playing this "get public money for private projects" game for a long time. Please see Lucas Oil Stadium as Exhibit A.

It seems to me that we are allowing ourselves to be lured into quite an obligation that benefits Wilshaw rather handsomely and is rather dubious with respect to its benefits for Speedway. As I've stated before, if we want to publicly fund a garage, we should do it and have the Town of Speedway own it, operate it, and service the debt. Straight forward.

When I hear the words "public/private partnership," I tend to assume that I'm about to be taken to the cleaners. If it's worthy of public money, then it's worthy of public ownership.

Thoughts on Strip Malls

Both readers of this blog are likely aware of my thoughts regarding strip malls, particularly the monstrosity of a strip mall that is located on Crawfordsville Rd., roughly between Lynhurst and High School Rd.

Local attorney and law professor Paul Ogden had a recent blog post that nicely encapsulates the problem with malls in general. Rather than try to repeat the general point, here is a snippet:

The structure that is the mall, as well as the large parking lots surrounding the building, consume a considerable amount of real estate.  When those malls fail, they become extremely difficult to repurpose.  They often end up being a blight on the neighborhood for years. 

If this was the only problem with malls and strip malls, it would be a huge problem. However, problems abound:

It would appear that in searching for gimmicks to drive foot traffic to the retail stores, mall owners are fighting a losing battle.   With the exception of certain consumer items, consumers prefer the convenience of shopping from the convenience of their homes.  That is a niche that Amazon has cornered, although even that company faces growing competition when it comes to online retail.

But as one looks to the future of retail, one wonders if even the Amazon model might be outdated.  The Amazon approach right now is for wholesalers and manufacturers to ship goods to the company which it then stores in incredibly large "fulfillment centers."  Then when a customer orders the item from the Amazon website, it gets shipped once again, this time to the customer.  Amazon became popular because it enhanced customer convenience by eliminating the need to visit a brick and mortar store to shop.  But the Amazon retail approach, which requires considerable overhead, doesn't provide much in the way of cost savings to the consumer.  Eventually Amazon may be replaced with a web-based shopping approach that links customers with wholesalers and manufacturers so that items may be purchased directly, saving consumers a substantial amount of money while cutting out brick-and-mortar online retailers such as Amazon. 

While I don't have any unifying theories as to how to address the immediate problem of post-mall blight, suffice it to say that this is a problem that can't be indefinitely ignored. The sooner we start considering possible solutions, the better.

UPDATE:

While I generally try to avoid comment sections if I can, this caught my attention:

Anyone with a mind only functioning at half-speed understands the day of the big mall passed long ago. That the billionaire Simon family was allowed to walk away from its aging, dilapated, increasingly vacant Washington Square with the effective outcome of saddling the City and Her taxpayers with an ugly architectural and financially losing behemoth is a crime against the east side, the City of Indianapolis, and human decency in general. 

Anyone with a mind only functioning at half-speed also understands Castleton is the new Lafayette Square and I can only surmise from the lessons of history that Castleton Square Mall will one day in the not too distant future look exactly like the monstrosity beached near W. 38th Street and Lafayette Road.

Sometimes all you can do is tip your cap. Thank you, to the anonymous poster who made this comment.

Possible Parking Solution

For all of the talk about the Wilshaw and the possible parking problems it will create, it seems to me that the debate could be more constructive if we focus less on recriminations and more on offering solutions. Here is but one solution among many that occurs to me: Speedway public transit.

We could have a "free" streetcar/trolley that runs basically from McGilvery's to Big Woods in the evening and on the weekends. The trolley could go through the neighborhoods, perhaps once per half hour, between 6 and 10 p.m. during the week and 5 and midnight on the weekends. How much could that really cost? Inasmuch as people want to come to Main St. and dine, drink, etc., they could park essentially anywhere in Speedway and be transported to their destination of choice. Similarly, any resident of Speedway could simply hop on the trolley and be taken across town: no parking concerns, no drinking and driving concerns.

Taken a step further, I see no reason why the free market couldn't provide this service as well, though they would have to limit service and charge fares. A free market solution would likely just run from Kroger to Main St., as Kroger has an abundance of parking. That would be more directed at visitors only, whereas the public trolley would also benefit residents.

A flawed and not-fully-developed plan to be sure, but ideas have a way of refining themselves over time.

Some food for thought.

Wilshaw, Board of Zoning Appeals, and "Inside Baseball"

So, last night, the Speedway Board of Zoning Appeals held a hearing on 5 specific variances that the developers of the Wilshaw wanted from local zoning codes.

While I tended to disagree with the remonstrators' comments against the development, one thing that I noted was the difficulty of being heard in the right forum about the right topic.

Frankly, I don't know what the solution is. However, I noted that most citizens who spoke up about their concerns were not doing so in the right forum . . . they all wanted to discuss the bond that was under consideration a few weeks ago. To the contrary, the meeting was about five specific things that the Wilshaw developers wanted to do that were technically in violation of local zoning ordinances. The meeting had nothing to do with the bond, and the Board of Zoning Appeals does not (to my knowledge) have anything to do with floating bonds.

I understand the frustrations felt by people who feel like the game is rigged and show up to meetings that sound like so much "inside baseball" to the average citizen and provide little opportunity for input or feedback, as the meetings are about specific, discrete issues.

Bonds and Parking

Thank you to the Town Press for posting information on Nextdoor.com regarding the upcoming Town Council meeting whereby residents can voice concerns about the Redevelopment Commission floating a few million dollars in bonds to build a parking garage.

I am by no means an expert in public finance, so to the experts out there, please accept my apologies.

That said, I can't help but wonder why it is that our Town sees the need to run such a convoluted deal. If the Town wants to publicly finance a parking garage, they should do so in as much of a straight-forward manner as possible . . . preferably by raising a visible and dedicated tax (so that people know what they're paying for the things they get).

Contrarily, if the Town doesn't want to publicly fund a parking garage, don't fund a parking garage.

This isn't long division. We don't need some sort of a convoluted lend/lease deal that completely hides who benefits from the deal.

If you're going to fund something, fund it openly and honestly. If not, don't do it. By all means, though, if you're going to fund stuff, don't obfuscate to the point of incoherence such that your citizens/taxpayers (you know, those actually paying the bills) can't understand what is going on.

UPDATE: Full disclosure, I should note that I am an attorney and, to some degree, understand what the legal notice is getting at. Nonetheless, I stand by my original point that it should not require a law degree to understand what one's elected officials are doing with public money.

Parking Problems for a Few

I have heard from various people lately about the "parking problem" on Main Street. Suffice it to say, I disagree with whatever activism is currently demanding the Town address parking prior to proceeding with further development. I have taken note of much of the discussion, and this is an issue that is not going away anytime soon.

Rather than allow the most vocal opponents of this development, including the Speedway Town Press, the only voice in the room, I have decided to share my thoughts on these objections and protestations, generally, and add my $0.02 to the discussion. My views on the redevelopment are generally known as well, and more will follow.

In no particular order, some thoughts:

1. If you live near Main Street and park on the street, I'm sorry to break it to you but the streets do not belong to you. They belong to the public. They are public property. They were paved with public dollars. Your property belongs to you. If you don't have sufficient parking on your property, then that is your problem. The streets belong to you in the same way they belong to every other citizen. No more. No less. The logical conclusion of this premise is that you do not have an a priori right to dictate what another property owner does with his/her property. Period.

2. Owners of businesses are responsible for their own parking, not that of others. I note that some on the Town Council have made statements to the effect that Speedway doesn't want to be the next Broad Ripple or Fountain Square. Out of context, I am not sure what was meant. However, some have taken that to mean that elected officials are looking to slow down, stop, impede, or otherwise interfere with private development to ensure that a minority of the citizenry feels like there is enough parking. (Never mind the difficulty of defining what enough parking is and whose opinion on that should prevail; or focusing on whether there is actually enough parking as opposed to whether people feel like there's enough). If that is the case, it represents a deficit of leadership in this Town. Those who would impede development for the sake of parking have little, if any, respect for property rights or vision for the future. Someone please explain to me why it is that the Wilshaw owners are expected to provide parking for Dawson's (to name but one example) customers and not vice versa. Why? Why is the Town of Speedway expected to pay for parking for people? If you insist on driving somewhere, parking is every bit the expense that you have naturally incurred as gasoline is. Don't expect me to pay for your gasoline, and don't expect me to pay for your parking. Likewise, I don't expect to pay for parking for business' patrons any more than I expect to pay for restrooms for business' patrons.

3. If the elderly or disabled can't go to a certain restaurant on Main St. because they can't park out front, that's unfortunate. I'm sure they can find somewhere to go in their car. That's the thing about cars . . . they can be driven for miles at a time. It's unfortunate they had to drive a few more minutes. It's unfortunate that Main St. did not get that business. However, until that represents a negative macro-effect, it is not the Town's problem. If businesses can't stay open because people have nowhere to park and we are dealing with a blighted area, then it's a problem for the Town to address. Until then, it is an inconvenience for some; not a public problem.

4. Priorities have a funny way of revealing themselves. Economists call this one's "stated preference" vs. one's "revealed preference." I might claim that I prefer salad for lunch, but when I continually get cheeseburgers and wings for lunch, my true preference is revealed. The same thing exists as to our Town. The way I see it, the town could put money into parking, or it could put money into a variety of other things. To name a few, it could put that money into schools, hire a few more police officers, put a sidewalk along Crawfordsville Road from the roundabout to Lynhurst, or it could put that money into a splash pad at Leonard or (preferably) Meadowood Park. To lead is to choose. If our leaders choose to put public money into parking (or require private money to be spent on it . . . there's not a whole lot of difference), then they have chosen the priorities of the old, disabled, and let's admit it, lazy, over the priorities of young families and children. This is a choice. Any member of our town council who chooses this should own that choice and be prepared to defend it.

5. Consider what an abundance of parking represents about the values of a particular place and how that makes you feel about being there. I'm thinking of the Speedway Super Center or whatever that God-awful place that houses Kroger is called. Tons of parking! Come on down! Of course, you wind up walking as far as you would if you park a block away on Main St., not to mention the horrific traffic in the  "thru-ways" in that huge lot. Now conjure some examples of places where parking is rare: Times Square, Monument Circle, Wrigleyville, Broad Ripple Ave., the French Quarter. Now, let's think of places where parking is cheap and abundant: any mall, an airport, a warehouse, a factory, outside an amusement park or most sporting venues. Personally, I'd rather that Speedway err, if at all, towards the first group of places than the second. This is my home. I want it to feel like a destination. I would like it to feel welcoming to people rather than like a place largely designed for parking automobiles. Not a place that you quickly get through in order to get to wherever else you're going.

6. There is an abundance of parking in and near the track, both to the west and to the south. There is a huge lot just east of Main St. and the gas station. All it takes is a decent footpath or valet service (something that the free market is perfectly capable of providing) and VOILA! Your parking problems are solved for the time being. Perhaps someday the area develops so much that this temporary fix no longer suffices. GOOD! That means that we have convinced the world that Speedway, IN, is the place where they too should invest their money, their time, their efforts, their ingenuity, their blood, sweat and tears, and their lives.

7. To those who say that Main St. will lose business due to a lack of parking, that sounds like the old Yogi Berra quip: "Nobody goes there anymore. It's too crowded." If this becomes a problem, as I noted in point #2 above, to the degree that parking becomes a genuine problem for business, I believe that the free market can address this. As I indicated, it is not as though parking nearby is difficult to find. Guess how the Columbia Club, Prime 47, the Conrad, Ruth's Chris, St. Elmo, etc., handle this? Valet service. If parking becomes a problem, $5 to have someone park it doesn't seem too bad, particularly if you're somewhere that makes you happy to be there (see point #4 above).

I could go on, as I have more thoughts to share on this notion. I recognize that my opinions will likely not be popular with the Speedway Town Press or the current group that is "working" on "solving" this "problem." For those of you who welcome development, please speak up and let our Town Council know that the loudest voices (those opposing development) are not the only voices.

B & O Rail Line Pedestrian Trail

I remember a few months ago, utility crews appeared to be replacing a pipe under Main St. Just yesterday, I had breakfast at Mister Lino's (after trying, unsuccessfully, to get a seat at Charlie Brown's). As an initial matter, breakfast at Mister Lino's is absolutely delicious.

However, the point of this post is that it appears that the old B & O rail line is being contemplated as a pedestrian trail to downtown. I couldn't be more supportive of this.

For starters, there is currently no real way to ride a bike from Speedway to downtown. As I work on the circle, of course I would like the option to ride a bike to my office. However, there's more than that. I would like to be able to ride with my son to Victory Field, or take my daughter to the zoo on bikes.

This is a look toward downtown from Main Street along the old B & O Line. Note that in the photo, the rail bed is simply covered in gravel. When I went by yesterday, it was paved, not unlike the Monon Trail.

Here is an aerial view of the rail bed.

Note that this photo is rather aged. You can see that 1911/SIK is not there yet, and neither is Big Woods. However, this photo really shows the footprint of the rail bed going east from Main Street.

For a somewhat more high-elevation view, see the next picture. I've superimposed the rail bed on top of the photo with a big ugly line to make it more obvious.

Again, this is an older Google earth image. It is oriented with North at the top, and you'll note that the western-most point of the line is Main Street, and the easternmost point is near the zoo downtown.

Below is a map view of where the B&O Line gets to downtown.

This is right across the street from the Indianapolis Zoo.

It is my understanding that from there, it would be very easy to connect to White River State Park and the Indianapolis Cultural Trail.

I can only imagine the benefits that a bike line such as this would bring the community. For starters, how nice would it be to have all of the tourist/convention crowd from downtown able to rent one of those bikeshare/Pacer bikes and ride to Speedway to patronize our businesses?

Similarly, I can imagine that during May, this would provide a nice way for people to ride to the west side to soak up some 500 festivities. I'm fairly sure we can all agree that having another way for people to get to the race would be helpful.

Furthermore, how about the economic development benefits of a bike line like this? It is not by accident that property along the Monon Trail has increased in value significantly. Additionally, the Indianapolis Cultural Trail has resulted in enormous property value appreciation.  Since 2008, the property along the 8-mile Cultural Trail has increased 148%, or $1 billion dollars (that's $1,000,000,000). This is not hippy dippy tree hugger stuff. This is cold-hearted capitalism: dollars and cents.

To  the degree that Speedway is perhaps held back in its efforts by the struggles of some neighborhoods between Speedway and downtown, we know how to solve this problem. The Monon Trail did just that for Broad Ripple vis a vis downtown. While I don't have any survey data to link to, it seems to me that if the Monon Trail was not working out, then Carmel and Westfield would not be dumping money into extending the trail, and the City of Indianapolis would not have put more money into the Cultural Trail.

I'm sure that I will have more thoughts on this in the future. Frankly, I have more thoughts now, but I don't want to go overboard. Biking trails benefit property values; they encourage economic activity by encouraging people to patronize the businesses on them. They encourage relationships by getting people out of their cars and into interactive situations. They contribute to community health. They couldn't hurt the brewing controversies around parking. While not a panacea to everything, I fail to see the negative effects of this.

To the degree that our town councilors (Jason DeLisle, Gary Raikes, Jeff Matthews, David Lindsey, Eileen Fisher) are on board with this, I applaud them. To the degree that they are not, I ask why not? Likewise with our City-County Councilor (Janice McHenry), State Representative (Karlee Macer), and State Senator (Mike Young) . . . if they are supportive, I applaud and encourage additional action. If they are supportive, please explain why not.

Wilshaw Development and Parking

This seems to be the hot-button issue in Speedway these days, so why not weigh in?

I want to be clear that I am not addressing the merits of the Wilshaw deal, as I am not familiar with the details of it. As a general principle, I do not like corporate welfare and I fear that some of this is involved in the Wilshaw deal. As one who is considerably smarter than me once said, "If it can't fly without government assistance, it can't fly." While I don't adhere to that principle 100% of the time, it is a pretty good guide most of the time.

However, with respect to the parking issue, I side with those who say the project should proceed.

Rendering of the Wilshaw

I do not believe that it is the responsibility of the developers of the Wilshaw to ensure adequate parking for the entirety of Main Street.

Parking scarcity evidences increased "demand" for the limited "supply" of Main Street amenities, including parking, that we have. Demand meets supply by fluctuating price. If the price of parking in the area goes up, that benefits incumbent property owners in the area. Perhaps at some point, someone decides to build a parking garage because it would be profitable.

If more people are going out on Main Street, then the price of going out goes up, as does the property value of the commercial property located on Main. This results in increased profits, not to mention increased tax revenues for the Town.

Increased tax revenues, without increasing tax rates, is a good thing. If homeowners' home values are going up, business' profits are going up, and tax revenues are going up without increasing rates, I fail to see the problem.

I know that some people who live near Main have lived there for a long time and have grown accustomed to parking on the street in front of their homes. However, while those homeowners own their homes and property, they do not own the street. If they desire dedicated parking for themselves, they can park on their own property. As pertains everyone else in Speedway, it can't be more than 2 miles from one end to the other. From the northwest corner of Meadowood, most people can easily ride a bicycle to Main Street. If anything, we should be talking about bike lanes/accessibility throughout the town, not dedicating more of our limited space to surface parking.

On Main Street Redevelopment

You just cannot convince me that the redevelopment on Main Street has been a net negative for Speedway. Can't do it.

It has been a positive.

As I gather it, Speedway used to be, and still is, marked by its excellent schools and the races. However, there is now something for young adults to do in Speedway now. Having people want to live near Main St. so they can go out to the bars and restaurants is a good thing.

I am glad that I can take my family out for breakfast at Charlie Brown's. It is a good thing that I can get a coffee at Mister Lino's. I feel fortunate to be able to belly up to the rail at Dawson's or Big Woods. Likewise, I'm glad I can get a DareDevil at the brewery, or for a buck less at Bourbon & BBQ. Let's not forget that we have some of the best BBQ in the city here in Speedway.

I do not have scientific data to back this up, but I suspect that home values in the area bounded by Main on the East, 10th on the South, Lynhurst (and definitely Winton) on the West, and 16th/Crawfordsville (not entirely sure where the line should logically be) on the north have risen faster than home values either in the remainder of Speedway or in Marion County generally.

Would I like some other things on Main Street? Absolutely. Would I like the efforts to spread throughout Speedway? No doubt about it.

I am also aware of the "controversy" regarding parking on Main Street. While I generally try to be as respectful as possible of other's opinions, I am continually dumbfounded as to why people believe that they are entitled to free parking anywhere they go.

I will post more in the future on my thoughts re. redevelopment efforts elsewhere in Speedway, parking issues, density, etc.