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.
I think that most people have heard of the term "NIMBY." This stands for Not In My Back Yard and generally refers to those who want to remonstrate or otherwise impede development. Further, it reflects the idea that many people are perfectly fine with developing property so long as that property is not to close to their own homes.
There is a movement in other cities, in response to NIMBYism, called YIMBY, i.e. Yes In My Back Yard.
Count me in. I would like to see development in my backyard. I want to see Wilshaw built, particularly if it is not dominated by parking structures. I want to see increased bus routes between Speedway and every other part of the city. I want to see a train connecting the airport to downtown via Speedway. I want to see condos built around IMS for wealthy racing team owners to stay in, hopefully for more than just a few weeks in May. I would like to see more bars and restaurants open throughout Speedway, not just on Main St. I want to see the Speedway Supercenter (i.e. the Kroger development) grow like gangbusters. I would like the McGilvery's development to fill in, whether it is with liquor stores, bible stores, health clubs, or whatever.
Along those lines, I love the International Marketplace on W. 38th Street! In a city that is dominated by chain franchise restaurants and stores, it is so refreshing to see all of those independently owned and operated restaurants and other businesses. I try to patronize them as often as I reasonably can.
As I wrote a long time ago, the traffic that comes along with these developments is evidence that people actually want to be here. That is a good thing. If there is no traffic and considerably more parking than would ever reasonably be required, that is evidence that our home is not worth visiting to those who don't live here. That is a bad thing!
PLEASE in my backyard! Maybe instead of YIMBY we should call people like myself PIMBYs.
I see that once again, the Speedway conservatives vocal minority has decided to protest yet another piece of progress, this time Big Red Liquors' attempt to open a store at the development at 30th and High School.
Some thoughts:
1. The owners of that property, much like the owners of other property, should be allowed to use their property as they see fit so long as such use doesn't bother others' use of their own property. I see nothing in a liquor store that would "hurt" the area any more than having (a) a bar (McGilvery's, an establishment of which I am a modest fan) and (b) empty property (that attracts blight, squatters, etc.).
2. I thought that Speedway was die-hard Republican/Conservative. It's not exactly the same thing anymore, but it is a pretty good overlap. Where are all of these small-government "conservatives" when it comes to their own neighborhood? Is small government only something that is imposed on others? I see that they all want to "remonstrate" against this proposal, much as many of the same culprits "remonstrated" against Wilshaw.
NEWSFLASH: when you "remonstrate," you are merely asking that the government intervene on your behalf to prevent others from doing as they please with their own property.
I am not entirely against remonstrations, by the way. If someone wanted to put a fracking compound in to replace Meadowood Park, I would be concerned, as that use would disturb my use of my own property by, among other things, polluting the air and water in the immediate vicinity of my home. However, if someone wants to put a porn shop in next to Kroger, who am I to complain? My recourse is to not shop there.
Bottom line here is that this little song and dance routine gets very old, very fast. You can't call yourself a "small government" "libertarian minded" "live and let live" "conservative" and turn around and remonstrate against every little change/development because "it impedes on my 'free' parking" or "it is in an inappropriate place" (i.e. too close to my house). If you want the government to intervene on your behalf, you are not a "small government conservative."
Of course, the biggest irony I can see is that some of the same vocal minority protesting everyone else's use of their own property are the same ones that believe that additional Wall Street regulations or health insurance subsidies are an enormous and unacceptable infringement on FREEDOM.
I attended the meeting of Concerned Citizens and Business Owners of Speedway at the American Legion on Georgetown Rd. yesterday. I'm not sure what to say about it. Karlee Macer was there. She's nice I guess, though I could have done without her comment about how she is a Democrat, but she has common sense. Uhhh. What about being a Democrat necessarily implies that you don't have common sense, and what about being a Republican necessarily implies that you do?
Anyway.
I noticed that there was a lot of general griping about how people don't feel as though they are being properly respected by their town councilors. (I do note that one gentleman, to his credit, had a specific complaint about the town council's procedures).
I would say two separate things about this:
First, if your town councilor does not pay you the mind or attention that you think s/he ought to, unseat him/her. It's really that simple. If your ideas/demeanor/instincts are superior, you should be able to defeat your town councilor. Take a page from the Tea Party and get people together to protest. Hang out in front of Kroger on Saturday afternoon and at Charlie Brown's on Saturday morning and talk to people.
Be the change.
Second, as to the gentleman's (very well done) criticism regarding the town council's procedure, that too is a political problem that is to be solved with political means. The gentleman asked Rep. Macer if there was some sort of state law that could be passed to require that town council meetings be conducted a certain way, and I couldn't disagree with that approach more. I don't want some know-nothing state representative from Fort Wayne or Buck Creek coming into Speedway and telling us how to run our community. I do, however, want to see a competitive political environment in Speedway.
Be the change.
I've written before, and I will reiterate, that we get the political representation we deserve. If 51% of Speedway's voters automatically vote for the Republican on the ballot, regardless of who it is or what they know about that person's past, agenda, etc., then the Republican candidate will win, regardless. If the Republican candidate only has to ensure that she stays in the good graces of a half dozen Marion County Republican Party officials, then she could not care less (literally) about what the people of Speedway think. After all, why should she? As long as she gets on the ballot with an R next to her name, she is guaranteed victory. Everyone else can go pound sand.
If you don't approve of the way that Speedway is run, be the change. Talk to the candidates. Talk to your neighbors. Protest the town council, if you want. They have publicly noticed meetings. Conduct a protest march down Main St. if you want.
As a final note, to all those who talk about their disapproval of the Redevelopment Commission . . . if you feel that nobody listens to your complaints about the Redevelopment Commission, and you feel like it is going to do what it wants to do despite popular opinion, then perhaps you are misreading public sentiment. Perhaps the Redevelopment Commission is doing what it does because of popular opinion. My general impression is that people support the Redevelopment Commission's (imperfect) efforts. If they didn't, the SRC would not have the mandate that it does.
How can it be that with two very polarized political parties in this country, and the polarized policies that go along with them, we wind up with a basic issue that is addressed so poorly by both sides? The issue I'm talking about is zoning.
The disaster in Houston is partly Mother Nature — natural disasters will happen sometimes whatever we did — but with a powerful assist from human action. Climate change definitely made such an event more likely; beyond that, Houston’s total lack of zoning, complete failure to limit the amount of land paved over, made it much more vulnerable than sheer geography required.
But this isn’t a simple parable where hostility to government intervention is the villain. In general, I have contempt for “both sides” arguments; given the corruption of modern American conservatism, on most issues there is a huge asymmetry between left and right. When it comes to land use policies, it really is true that both sides get it wrong.
Having no zoning, no control, can be disastrous — which is what we’re seeing in Houston now. But all too many blue states end up, in practice, letting zoning be a tool, not of good land use, but of NIMBYism, preventing the construction of new housing.
In fact, liberal (in the non-political sense) land use policy is probably the secret behind Texas economic growth: the state doesn’t offer high wages, but it does offer cheap housing even in huge metro areas. Compare real housing price evolution over the decades in Houston and San Francisco (sorry, the blue state is the red line and vice versa):
Photo
Credit
What we need is effective land-use regulation that doesn’t strangle housing construction. But how do we get there politically? No idea.
Now, as is commonly known to the reader(s) of this blog, I generally think that modern "conservative" policy ideas are, in a word, terrible. Nonetheless, the facts are what the facts are. In places like New York City, San Francisco, and Chicago, constructing new residential housing is nearly impossible. The predictable result of this is that the cost of housing skyrockets . . . you know, that old "supply and demand" thing.
Of course, I also have environmental sensitivities, so I don't think that constantly putting, for example, high rise condos on coastal Florida (which is eroding) is a good idea, if for no other reason than it destroys copious amounts of natural wetlands (natural weather buffers and water filters).
I guess it's because I think that zoning is generally both "overinclusive" and "underinclusive" that I have such an issue with people's reactions to the Wilshaw project. I support development, particularly in places that have already been developed once. I think the Wilshaw project should go through, even though I don't think that the Town of Speedway should be underwriting Wilshaw's parking garage: if Wilshaw wants a parking garage, they can build one; if the Town of Speedway wants one, we can build one. "He" who builds it, pays for it; "he" who pays for it, owns it. This is not a difficult concept.
Anyway, I thought this was interesting. I also have some thoughts about the national flood insurance program, which is currently quite deep in debt, but I'll save those for another day.
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..
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!
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
