Cockroach Bay Restored
Cockroach Bay Aquatic Preserve protects 8000 acres of the most pristine waters in Tampa Bay.
Google map
Volunteers plant marsh grass.
http://www.dep.state.fl.us/coastal/sites/cockroach/
Sunday, April 22, 2012
Tuesday, March 29, 2011
Yes or no on commuter rail? Transportation options compared.
Maricopa County planners improve transportation options
for Phoenix, AZ, residents
With gas prices pinching all of us, it's good to know that some communities are taking bold steps to give their residents options for getting out of their cars and into public transportation.
That's exactly what's happening in the greater Phoenix region as Valley Metro continues to extend its wildly popular light rail network and increase bus and parking access to light rail service.
Today it can cost upwards of $50 to fill up your tank, so we need more and better transit options to help us save money for life’s priorities instead of putting it into the gas tank.
FTA Administrator Peter Rogoff rides light rail with US Representative Ed Pastor of Arizona's 4th District
During his visit to Maricopa County yesterday, Federal Transit Administrator Peter Rogoff rode light rail to Tempe and Mesa with Congressman Ed Pastor and met with Mayors Phil Gordon of Phoenix, Hugh Hallman of Tempe, and Scott Smith of Mesa.
He also saw first-hand how planned transit projects throughout the Phoenix area will improve connections between the region's roadways, the Central Mesa Light Rail corridor, and the major activity centers of downtown Phoenix, downtown Tempe, Arizona State University, and Sky Harbor International Airport.
These are the places area residents, business travelers, and tourists need to go, and the region's transit planners are working hard to get them there safely. For example, during events at the US Airways Center in downtown Phoenix, event tickets also serve as transit passes--when you buy your ticket, you've already bought your ride.
That's exactly what's happening in the greater Phoenix region as Valley Metro continues to extend its wildly popular light rail network and increase bus and parking access to light rail service.
Today it can cost upwards of $50 to fill up your tank, so we need more and better transit options to help us save money for life’s priorities instead of putting it into the gas tank.
FTA Administrator Peter Rogoff rides light rail with US Representative Ed Pastor of Arizona's 4th District
During his visit to Maricopa County yesterday, Federal Transit Administrator Peter Rogoff rode light rail to Tempe and Mesa with Congressman Ed Pastor and met with Mayors Phil Gordon of Phoenix, Hugh Hallman of Tempe, and Scott Smith of Mesa.
He also saw first-hand how planned transit projects throughout the Phoenix area will improve connections between the region's roadways, the Central Mesa Light Rail corridor, and the major activity centers of downtown Phoenix, downtown Tempe, Arizona State University, and Sky Harbor International Airport.
These are the places area residents, business travelers, and tourists need to go, and the region's transit planners are working hard to get them there safely. For example, during events at the US Airways Center in downtown Phoenix, event tickets also serve as transit passes--when you buy your ticket, you've already bought your ride.
The Central Mesa Light Rail Transit line is one of 10 new projects included in the 2012 budget President Obama proposed to Congress in February.
This new line is in addition to the existing Central Phoenix/East Valley Light Rail project, which opened in 2008. The FTA provided $587 million for the existing project and its extensions--including $36 million from the Recovery Act--and that investment is estimated to have spurred more than $5 billion in economic development along the corridor. Ridership continues to exceed expectations.
Continuing to invest wisely in Maricopa County transit facilities will ensure that Arizonans and their children have good transportation options for generations to come.
This is what our FTA is all about--connecting people to jobs, schools, downtown areas, and the essential services they need like medical care and groceries. And as gas prices continue to batter our wallets in these already challenging economic times, giving people car-free options to get where they need to go only becomes more important.
President Obama said that for America to compete and win in the 21st century, we have to out-innovate and out-build the rest of the world. The people of Phoenix, Maricopa County, and Arizona are doing both.
http://fastlane.dot.gov/2011/03/maricopa-county-planners-give-residents-transportation-options-today-and-into-the-future.html#more
This new line is in addition to the existing Central Phoenix/East Valley Light Rail project, which opened in 2008. The FTA provided $587 million for the existing project and its extensions--including $36 million from the Recovery Act--and that investment is estimated to have spurred more than $5 billion in economic development along the corridor. Ridership continues to exceed expectations.
Continuing to invest wisely in Maricopa County transit facilities will ensure that Arizonans and their children have good transportation options for generations to come.
This is what our FTA is all about--connecting people to jobs, schools, downtown areas, and the essential services they need like medical care and groceries. And as gas prices continue to batter our wallets in these already challenging economic times, giving people car-free options to get where they need to go only becomes more important.
President Obama said that for America to compete and win in the 21st century, we have to out-innovate and out-build the rest of the world. The people of Phoenix, Maricopa County, and Arizona are doing both.
http://fastlane.dot.gov/2011/03/maricopa-county-planners-give-residents-transportation-options-today-and-into-the-future.html#more
Phoenix: In 1998, Valley Metro projected that it could build a 13-mile light-rail line for$509 million (in 2009 dollars). By the time the line opened the last days of 2008, the costhad ballooned to $1.5 billion for 20 miles— an 88 percent increase in per-mile costs.Considering that transit carries only 0.6 percent of travel in this auto-oriented region,this line is not likely to do much for the region’s transportation system.
http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=11608
And here is a quote from a rebuttal of a 2007 Cato report on Portland and a summary of a newer report. Debunking Randal O'Toole's Attack on Portland: CNU Study Rebuts Anti-Rail/Anti-Planning Hokum
In their recently revved-up insurgency against public transportation, critics of light rail transit (LRT) seem to be making a particular point of selecting for attack some of the most successful LRT operations in the USA. In practice, this means attacking also the urban policies, economic performance, and other characteristics of the cities these rail systems serve.
Of these, Portland, Oregon – which serves as a national model of excellence and success in both urban planning and public transportation (see Portland Light Rail and Public Transport Developments) – has become a primary target of the ongoing jihad against Smart Growth, urban transit, and especially the "dreaded" rail transit.
The latest effort to nuke Portland's reputation as a paradigm of effective planning and superb urban transit comes from national anti-transit, anti-planning, pro-sprawl activist Randal O'Toole in a tract sponsored by the extremist rightwing Cato institute propaganda mill.
"Portland, Oregon, long touted as the paradigm of modern urban planning, is awash in corruption, government waste and public discontent" claims a Cato news release (PRNewswire-USNewswire, 9 July 2007), summarizing the central theme of O'Toole's diatribe, a 20-plus-page "policy analysis" titled "Debunking Portland: The City That Doesn't Work". "O'Toole catalogues Portland's failures in city planning and offers suggestions to other cities on how not to repeat its mistakes" continues the Cato release, which cites O'Toole – who happens to be based in Oregon – as a "Cato institute senior fellow".
Portland, Oregon: Heavy investments in rail transit and draconian land-use policieshave made Portland one of the few cities that can honestly say rail transit increased percapita transit ridership. To promote compact development and reduce per capita driving,most of Oregon is zoned so strictly that people are not allowed to build homes on theirown land unless they own at least 80 acres and earn at least $40,000 to $80,000 (depending on soil productivity) per year farming it.107 Inside the growth boundaries, Portland and other cities have rezoned dozens of neighborhoods for high-density development. In many cases, zoning was so strict that, if someone’s single-family home burned down, they would be required to replace it with multifamily housing.108Although this resulted in rapidly rising land prices, developers failed to build transitoriented developments along Portland’s rail lines. So Portland began offering a variety of subsidies, most of them paid for through tax increment financing. To date, Portland has spent nearly $3 billion building light-rail lines and nearly $2 billion subsidizing developments along the light rail and Portland’s streetcar. The results have been mixed. While transit ridership has increased since 1990, rail transit still carries less than 1 percent of the region’s passenger travel. Moreover, transit’s share of commuting declined between 2000 and 2007. In fact, Census Bureau data indicate that the absolute number of transit commuters shrank from about 58,000 in 2000 to 57,000 in 2007 while the number of auto commuters grew by about 66,000.109Surveys of one of the Portland area’s largest transit-oriented developments reveal that residents use transit a little more than people in other neighborhoods—but not for ommuting.110 Many transit-oriented developments have struggled, and research by the Cascade Policy Institute’s John Charles has shown that the key to success is plenty of parking; those with inadequate parking tend to have high vacancy rates.111 In a very real sense, then, successful developments are not even transit oriented.
US Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood poses questions for Rick Scott. High-speed rail is a cheap alternative to widening interstates, if not that, then what? http://bit.ly/gheHSe
Monday, September 06, 2010
Can we afford a new stadium?
The good people of Austin saved about 75% of the cost of a new performing arts center by rebuilding their 40 year old Palmer Auditorium and recycling building materials. The new Long Center is bringing them national attention.
St. Petersburg city leaders spent a quarter of a billion dollars giving us a stadium but now tell us it's obsolete (oops!) and must be scraped down to the ground and hauled away. They say it was poorly planned from the beginning and our only option is to start over.
Ballet is not baseball but we could learn from Austin's ability to re-purpose an old structure and to do it without taxpayer money, and if we can't keep the Tampa Bay Rays perhaps we can find a new and better use for their old home.
Taxpayers were told that we need an open air stadium and that a new waterfront site a dozen blocks away was perfect. Two years later the team still wants a new stadium but now wants to leave our city. Why doesn't city council evaluate the costs and benefits of retrofitting Tropicana Field with a retractable roof?
As to a new location, we could spruce up the Martin Luther King Street Business District and turn this into a very desirable location for a fraction of the cost of moving. This entrance way to downtown suffers from decades of neglect.
The Long Center on CNN
About the Long Center
http://www.thelongcenter.org/long_center_on_cnn.aspx
Post Election Surprise: $450M taxpayer subsidized ballpark
Secret deal making behind the stadium proposal
Booker Creek reborn
New open space and improved drainage in the Bartlett Park neighborhood.
Saturday, December 12, 2009
Let's Start Rewarding the Recyclers with PAYT, a market based, low cost approach to recycling and waste disposal
Let's Start Rewarding the Recyclers with rates bases on volume of waste. You don't pay less per unit of water if you use more of it, why then should your cost per unit of trash go down if you throw out more. Saint Petersburg is the largest city in Florida that does not offer curbside recycling. Other cities charge less per month than St. Pete yet offer free curbside pickup of recyclables and additional services because they use PAYT.
So how do we start? Citizens can make this happen. The first thing we can do is to stop putting our container out twice a week. This will demonstrate public support and save the city money. Every time a truck stops we wear breaks, use fuel to accelerate and add air and noise pollution.
Saint Petersburg charges those who recycle more to subsidize those who don't. That is the effect of a flat rate for every home. There is a big discount for each extra container of waste and a only small discount for once a week service. When PAYT, or Pay as You Throw is used recycling goes up and trash volume goes down. We all save money and have a cleaner city.
We can all help the city save money by voluntary use of once a week service, and those of us who qualify can have a lower bill. (a link to the application is below)
Only a few of us qualify for the discount but if we help more people do this we then can ask city council to expand it to everyone. To qualify for a lower bill you must have a single family residence with a one-person household, a lot size of 8,500 sq. feet or less, and a water usage of 5,000 gallons or less per month. But everyone can reduce, reuse, recycle, buy less junk and start putting our can out only once a week.
The two most traditional approaches to disposing of municipal solid waste are a flat-rate system or municipal taxes. All users pay the same municipal taxes regardless of how much waste they present for pickup. Under the flat-rate system there is no link between “the actual costs for waste disposal and individual waste production,” so users do not consider the quantity of waste they produce.
PAYT is based on two guiding principles of environmental policy: the polluter pays principle (PPP) and the shared responsibility concept. The rationale for PAYT can be divided into three broad categories:
Economic
Under a PAYT scheme, some or all of the costs of waste management can be removed from property tax bills, providing more independence in the management and financial of residential waste system. Waste management services are then treated just like other utilities such as electricity or water that are charged by unit of consumption.
Environmental
PAYT programs are an effective tool in increasing waste separation and recycling, and also encourage waste minimization. The result is significant energy savings from transportation, increases in material recovery from recycling, and reduction in pollution from landfills and incinerators. PAYT programs also encourage producers to develop more efficient designs and environmentally friendly product life cycles.
Social
Waste collections costs are distributed more fairly among the population, and in proportion to the amount of waste each user generates. Free riders are no longer able to have their behavior subsidized, and PAYT is said to promote community sustainability. Household waste is “generally positively related to household income so poorer families are likely to face lower waste collection charges under PAYT systems.”
Risks
When there is a change to any established municipal service, public resistance is common. Charging for waste can also sometimes result in illegal dumping (fly-tipping) or the waste being passed to unlicensed or illegal disposal methods.
Implementation
Urban communities usually offer curbside collection while rural communities provide drop-off collection service. Both the European Union and the US Environmental Protection Agency have published handbooks for introducing PAYT.
North America
PAYT programs operated in California, Michigan, New York and Washington as early as the 1970s, although The City of San Francisco “had practiced a kind of PAYT scheme since 1932.” By 2000, 6 000 communities in the U.S. (20%) and 200 in Canada had implemented user fees for waste management. In 2002 North Americans disposed of 24 million tonnes of waste, with residential sources accounting for 9.5 million tonnes. PAYT programs resulted in residential waste declining from 9 - 38 % and increased recycling from 6 – 40%.
Europe
Austria was the first country to implement individual waste charging in 1945, but PAYT did not catch on until the 1980s when efficient and secure electronic identification systems became available. The first city in Europe to implement an electronic identification and billing system for waste charges was Dresden, Germany. Since 1991 the European Waste Policy has required that “part of the costs not covered by revenues from material reuse must be recovered on the polluter-pays principle.” Versions of PAYT are present in municipalities all over Europe.
Asia
After being introduced in the 1970s, 954 municipalities (30%) in Japan have implemented PAYT programs. The city of Taipei currently runs a scheme where households and companies purchase specially printed blue bin bags, and place waste in it. The municipal waste management department collects only rubbish placed within these special bags. Called the "Per Bag Trash Collection Fee", this scheme encourages usage of recyclable packaging, as those do not need a special bag and are disposed free of charge. As a result Taipei's waste volume is down 35.08%, and recycling has increased 2.6-fold from 1999. PAYT is also implemented in Korea, Thailand, Vietnam, China, and Taiwan.
Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pay_as_you_throw
References at bottom of page
Residential Rates in St. Petersburg
CURBSIDE/ALLEY SERVICE
Twice-a-week Service:
Single Family Residence, Business or Institution
One automated (90 gal.) automated container - $22.33
Each additional (90 gal.) automated container - $12.31*
Multiple Family Residence-per unit - $22.33
Once-a-week service:
Subject to City approval if customer meets all of the following criteria:
single family residence with a one-person household
a lot size of 8,500 sq. feet or less
a water usage of 5,000 gallons or less per month - $17.69
BACKYARD SERVICE
Single Family Residence, Business or Institution
One automated (90 gal.) container or 2 cans, manual system - $53.27
Each additional can or container - $26.10*
Multiple Family Residence - per unit - $53.27
To apply for once a week service click here.
http://www.stpete.org/sanitation/residential_collection/docs/1xweek.pdf
References
1. Batllevell, Marta and Kenneth Hanf. “The fairness of PAYT systems: Some guidelines for decision-makers.” Waste Management 28 (2008): 2793-2800.
2. Kelleher, Maria, et al. “Taking out the Trash: How to Allocate the Costs Fairly.” C.D. Howe Institute Commentary 213 (2005): 1-22.
3. Bilitewski, Bernd. “Pay-as-you-throw – A tool for urban waste management.” Editorial. Waste Management 28 (2008): 2759.
4. Reichenbach, Jan. “Status and prospects of pay-as-you-throw in Europe – A review of pilot research and implementation studies.” Waste Management 28 (2008): 2809-2814.
5. Sakai, S., et al. “Unit-charging programs for municipal solid waste in Japan.” Waste Management 28 (2008): 2815-2825.
6. What I Picked Up About Trash in Taipei - washingtonpost.com
7. Hong, Seonghoon. “The Effects of unit pricing system upon household solid waste management: The Korean Experience.” The Journal of Environmental Management 57 1999): 1-10.
So how do we start? Citizens can make this happen. The first thing we can do is to stop putting our container out twice a week. This will demonstrate public support and save the city money. Every time a truck stops we wear breaks, use fuel to accelerate and add air and noise pollution.
Saint Petersburg charges those who recycle more to subsidize those who don't. That is the effect of a flat rate for every home. There is a big discount for each extra container of waste and a only small discount for once a week service. When PAYT, or Pay as You Throw is used recycling goes up and trash volume goes down. We all save money and have a cleaner city.
We can all help the city save money by voluntary use of once a week service, and those of us who qualify can have a lower bill. (a link to the application is below)
Only a few of us qualify for the discount but if we help more people do this we then can ask city council to expand it to everyone. To qualify for a lower bill you must have a single family residence with a one-person household, a lot size of 8,500 sq. feet or less, and a water usage of 5,000 gallons or less per month. But everyone can reduce, reuse, recycle, buy less junk and start putting our can out only once a week.
The two most traditional approaches to disposing of municipal solid waste are a flat-rate system or municipal taxes. All users pay the same municipal taxes regardless of how much waste they present for pickup. Under the flat-rate system there is no link between “the actual costs for waste disposal and individual waste production,” so users do not consider the quantity of waste they produce.
PAYT is based on two guiding principles of environmental policy: the polluter pays principle (PPP) and the shared responsibility concept. The rationale for PAYT can be divided into three broad categories:
Economic
Under a PAYT scheme, some or all of the costs of waste management can be removed from property tax bills, providing more independence in the management and financial of residential waste system. Waste management services are then treated just like other utilities such as electricity or water that are charged by unit of consumption.
Environmental
PAYT programs are an effective tool in increasing waste separation and recycling, and also encourage waste minimization. The result is significant energy savings from transportation, increases in material recovery from recycling, and reduction in pollution from landfills and incinerators. PAYT programs also encourage producers to develop more efficient designs and environmentally friendly product life cycles.
Social
Waste collections costs are distributed more fairly among the population, and in proportion to the amount of waste each user generates. Free riders are no longer able to have their behavior subsidized, and PAYT is said to promote community sustainability. Household waste is “generally positively related to household income so poorer families are likely to face lower waste collection charges under PAYT systems.”
Risks
When there is a change to any established municipal service, public resistance is common. Charging for waste can also sometimes result in illegal dumping (fly-tipping) or the waste being passed to unlicensed or illegal disposal methods.
Implementation
Urban communities usually offer curbside collection while rural communities provide drop-off collection service. Both the European Union and the US Environmental Protection Agency have published handbooks for introducing PAYT.
North America
PAYT programs operated in California, Michigan, New York and Washington as early as the 1970s, although The City of San Francisco “had practiced a kind of PAYT scheme since 1932.” By 2000, 6 000 communities in the U.S. (20%) and 200 in Canada had implemented user fees for waste management. In 2002 North Americans disposed of 24 million tonnes of waste, with residential sources accounting for 9.5 million tonnes. PAYT programs resulted in residential waste declining from 9 - 38 % and increased recycling from 6 – 40%.
Europe
Austria was the first country to implement individual waste charging in 1945, but PAYT did not catch on until the 1980s when efficient and secure electronic identification systems became available. The first city in Europe to implement an electronic identification and billing system for waste charges was Dresden, Germany. Since 1991 the European Waste Policy has required that “part of the costs not covered by revenues from material reuse must be recovered on the polluter-pays principle.” Versions of PAYT are present in municipalities all over Europe.
Asia
After being introduced in the 1970s, 954 municipalities (30%) in Japan have implemented PAYT programs. The city of Taipei currently runs a scheme where households and companies purchase specially printed blue bin bags, and place waste in it. The municipal waste management department collects only rubbish placed within these special bags. Called the "Per Bag Trash Collection Fee", this scheme encourages usage of recyclable packaging, as those do not need a special bag and are disposed free of charge. As a result Taipei's waste volume is down 35.08%, and recycling has increased 2.6-fold from 1999. PAYT is also implemented in Korea, Thailand, Vietnam, China, and Taiwan.
Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pay_as_you_throw
References at bottom of page
Residential Rates in St. Petersburg
CURBSIDE/ALLEY SERVICE
Twice-a-week Service:
Single Family Residence, Business or Institution
One automated (90 gal.) automated container - $22.33
Each additional (90 gal.) automated container - $12.31*
Multiple Family Residence-per unit - $22.33
Once-a-week service:
Subject to City approval if customer meets all of the following criteria:
single family residence with a one-person household
a lot size of 8,500 sq. feet or less
a water usage of 5,000 gallons or less per month - $17.69
BACKYARD SERVICE
Single Family Residence, Business or Institution
One automated (90 gal.) container or 2 cans, manual system - $53.27
Each additional can or container - $26.10*
Multiple Family Residence - per unit - $53.27
To apply for once a week service click here.
http://www.stpete.org/sanitation/residential_collection/docs/1xweek.pdf
References
1. Batllevell, Marta and Kenneth Hanf. “The fairness of PAYT systems: Some guidelines for decision-makers.” Waste Management 28 (2008): 2793-2800.
2. Kelleher, Maria, et al. “Taking out the Trash: How to Allocate the Costs Fairly.” C.D. Howe Institute Commentary 213 (2005): 1-22.
3. Bilitewski, Bernd. “Pay-as-you-throw – A tool for urban waste management.” Editorial. Waste Management 28 (2008): 2759.
4. Reichenbach, Jan. “Status and prospects of pay-as-you-throw in Europe – A review of pilot research and implementation studies.” Waste Management 28 (2008): 2809-2814.
5. Sakai, S., et al. “Unit-charging programs for municipal solid waste in Japan.” Waste Management 28 (2008): 2815-2825.
6. What I Picked Up About Trash in Taipei - washingtonpost.com
7. Hong, Seonghoon. “The Effects of unit pricing system upon household solid waste management: The Korean Experience.” The Journal of Environmental Management 57 1999): 1-10.
Tuesday, December 01, 2009
FREE PAYT Webinar December 9 Join the webinar, and Pass the Word!
Register NOW for the webinar at www.paytnow.org.
Click image to enlarge, click Back icon to return
After registering, you will be notified about instructions for the webinar. See the flyer above for more information.
The Econservation Institute is providing FREE assistance through NATIONWIDE webinars, and through workshops and “hands-on” consulting to communities in EPA Region 9. If your community is interested in finding out about new options for recycling and diversion including PAYT and how they can help you reduce costs, reduce greenhouse gas emissions, increase jobs, and help citizens recycle then this program is for you!
The webinar is being presented by Dr. Lisa Skumatz, and guest speakers.
Sunday, August 16, 2009
How can we save Baywalk from itself?
First Amendment at stake
Baywalk is demanding cash and a public sidewalk from the city. Or else! They tell us they will not make the investment needed to bring new life to their retail complex, so the new owners are holding their own profits hostage until the city caves. And seven members of council are only too ready to cave, as the city had done for decades with Bay Plaza and other costly projects.
The city needs a creative approach, something beyond pouring in more taxpayer money and curtailing free speech. The recession has hit all of downtown as well as Baywalk. Could it be that there is just not enough business downtown for Baywalk, the Pier, the Rays and the many smaller attractions like Shuffleboard, art galleries and museums?
I believe that is the problem and not demonstrations on the sidewalk.
My proposal:
1 Give Baywalk the sidewalk, but only for one year. Then see if this action brings any improvement. This postpones debate over free speech until later when I hope business is much better. Using demonstrators as a scapegoat helps politicians get through this election but its not likely to turn around business. Council has the votes for a permanent giveaway so I see this compromise as the best option for advocates of maintaining the public space.
2 Close the businesses inside the Pier and use the public subsidy to help merchants move to empty space in Baywalk. This consolidates two weak destinations into one stronger one. The Pier can remain a fishing, pedestrian and biking spot at a lower cost while plans are made to demolish or rebuild. Why pour money into the Pier when the deterioration of the structure makes closing it inevitable? Then take an honest and realistic look at the Pier and the rest of downtown. Could it be better to use the budgeted $50 million to rebuild the Pier on the Trop parking lot and consolidate activity closer to the interstate and transit? The waterfront needs no subsidy to get people there, yet the city continues to pour money into unprofitable ventures. Let the market find out what people will pay for and keep free public access open for all.
3 Eliminate parking meters and expand mass transit to make downtown more inviting to visitors from the suburbs and move toward being a truly urban downtown. Our strength is being an actual downtown, not a Disney version. At some point we need to give up on the idea of having a parking spot right in front of everywhere we go and then driving a few blocks to the next stop. For now we need to cater to Pinellas residents who expect convenient parking.
4 Provide free employee parking at off site park and ride lots and subsidized car pooling and bus service. Downtown workers now consume parking needed by visitors. They want their employers to succeed so they will grudgingly go along with this.
5 Take the $700,000 subsidy for Baywalk off the table and use that money to help business on 4th and MLK Streets South. These two streets are gateways to downtown yet have languished for decades. Revitalizing those streets will help the residential neighborhoods thrive, help fill empty condos and indirectly help Baywalk and all downtown business. The area between Central and 22nd Avenue south is a wasteland with a few well kept homes and businesses surrounded by acres of parking lots, weedy lots and run down or empty buildings. This asset has not been managed well, if its been managed at all. The Bartlett Park neighborhood plan of the early 90's was designed to revitalize half of this space but needs an update.
Mark Kamleiter addresses city council on the rights of St. Petersburg residents to use their sidewalk. While focused on the sidewalk city council may not see the bigger picture.
Baywalk is demanding cash and a public sidewalk from the city. Or else! They tell us they will not make the investment needed to bring new life to their retail complex, so the new owners are holding their own profits hostage until the city caves. And seven members of council are only too ready to cave, as the city had done for decades with Bay Plaza and other costly projects.
The city needs a creative approach, something beyond pouring in more taxpayer money and curtailing free speech. The recession has hit all of downtown as well as Baywalk. Could it be that there is just not enough business downtown for Baywalk, the Pier, the Rays and the many smaller attractions like Shuffleboard, art galleries and museums?
I believe that is the problem and not demonstrations on the sidewalk.
My proposal:
1 Give Baywalk the sidewalk, but only for one year. Then see if this action brings any improvement. This postpones debate over free speech until later when I hope business is much better. Using demonstrators as a scapegoat helps politicians get through this election but its not likely to turn around business. Council has the votes for a permanent giveaway so I see this compromise as the best option for advocates of maintaining the public space.
2 Close the businesses inside the Pier and use the public subsidy to help merchants move to empty space in Baywalk. This consolidates two weak destinations into one stronger one. The Pier can remain a fishing, pedestrian and biking spot at a lower cost while plans are made to demolish or rebuild. Why pour money into the Pier when the deterioration of the structure makes closing it inevitable? Then take an honest and realistic look at the Pier and the rest of downtown. Could it be better to use the budgeted $50 million to rebuild the Pier on the Trop parking lot and consolidate activity closer to the interstate and transit? The waterfront needs no subsidy to get people there, yet the city continues to pour money into unprofitable ventures. Let the market find out what people will pay for and keep free public access open for all.
3 Eliminate parking meters and expand mass transit to make downtown more inviting to visitors from the suburbs and move toward being a truly urban downtown. Our strength is being an actual downtown, not a Disney version. At some point we need to give up on the idea of having a parking spot right in front of everywhere we go and then driving a few blocks to the next stop. For now we need to cater to Pinellas residents who expect convenient parking.
4 Provide free employee parking at off site park and ride lots and subsidized car pooling and bus service. Downtown workers now consume parking needed by visitors. They want their employers to succeed so they will grudgingly go along with this.
5 Take the $700,000 subsidy for Baywalk off the table and use that money to help business on 4th and MLK Streets South. These two streets are gateways to downtown yet have languished for decades. Revitalizing those streets will help the residential neighborhoods thrive, help fill empty condos and indirectly help Baywalk and all downtown business. The area between Central and 22nd Avenue south is a wasteland with a few well kept homes and businesses surrounded by acres of parking lots, weedy lots and run down or empty buildings. This asset has not been managed well, if its been managed at all. The Bartlett Park neighborhood plan of the early 90's was designed to revitalize half of this space but needs an update.
Mark Kamleiter addresses city council on the rights of St. Petersburg residents to use their sidewalk. While focused on the sidewalk city council may not see the bigger picture.
Thursday, July 09, 2009
Wasting Money on Job Bidding Wars and Corporate Subsidies
Some States Wasting Money on Job Bidding Wars and Corporate Subsidies
Overall, federal recovery spending is working as intended, helping states provide needed services and avoid layoffs that would be worsening unemployment rates. The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities estimates that these funds are providing states with 40 percent of what is needed to help their budgets in balance over the next few fiscal years. The recovery plan has provided states with flexibility in addressing key programs and priorities.
Unfortunately, a number of states have wasted budget funds on trying to steal jobs from one another, as highlighted by Good Jobs First. A few of the worst examples:
- A multi-state bidding war for a battery production consortium ended up with Kentucky offering $200 million to subsidize a 2,000-worker facility at a cost of $100,000 per job.
- Georgia paid $100 million to NCR to move its 1250-person headquarters from Dayton, Ohio - its home for 125 years - down to an Atlanta suburb.
- New Jersey has approved a radical new Tax Increment Financing (TIF) law that gives developers a whole range of subsidies.
As Good Jobs First writes, this is part of a long-term trend where "footloose corporations...play states and cities like a fiddle so that small businesses and working families get stuck with higher taxes and lousier public services."
But in a time of economic crisis when state budgets are devastated, wasting money on zero-sum bidding wars is destructive to the overall economy, since it diverts money from investments in people and infrastructure that will actually build long-term economic competitiveness for our country.
| |
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
