Mile Stones Of The Past? Threatened In The Future?

I received an email from a friend just after the work on the Woodland Triangle began. He was concerned that they crew replacing the sidewalk along High St has also removed the historic white milestone. It was something that both of us thought would be a travesty.

When I drove home that night, I went out of my way to check and it is still there. This time luck was on our side.

There is a description in George Ranck's History of Lexington,of a survey ordered by the town's trustees in the spring of 1791 and taken verbatim from the Trustee's Book.

"Surveyed by order of the trustees of the town of Lexington, 204 acres of land, including the court-house of Fayette county in the center, in a circular figure of two miles in diameter. Beginning at A (a point), one mile southeast from the said court-house, at a post on the northeast side of the road, running thence south 56 (degrees) west 125 poles to a post crossing Tate's creek road at 85 poles;”

The Lexington Press, in their edition of May 5, 1871, reported that the City council proposed to mark the city boundary with a ring of stones placed 500 feet apart. A week later a crew under the direction of Col. De La Pradele were busy setting the stones to mark the boundaries of City at one mile from Court House. This came just two months after a proposal to make the city limits a square rather that a circle.

Work was still progressing in November of the following year. By 1873 the City Council voted to leave the city boundaries the same and new stones be put up at appropriate distances.

Now, if you take a one mile radius from the old Court House and superimpose it on a map, that point A is almost exactly where Walton Ave intersects E Main St. Following that sweeping arc to the southwest toward E High St., or what would have been called the road to Tate's creek in those days, you will find a white stone set in the ground. It is about 10 to 12 inches to a side and well weathered. It is also one mile from the old Court House.

One mile in the other direction from the Court House on Leestown Rd, just opposite the entrance to the Calvary cemetery, is a similar stone, also set well in the ground and weathered. Neither of these stones have any plaques or markings to tell what they are (or what I suspect them to be.) I believe them to be the two remaining stones from that project of over 140 years ago.

When I spoke to the city's construction manager, overseeing the work at the Woodland Triangle, he had no idea that the stone was even there. I also found out the the city's Division of Historic Preservation was requiring an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness for replacing the sidewalk, even after the work was completed. This is required for all historic overlay zones, yet no one is looking out for a possibly 145 year old stone marker?

Are these the only remaining stones? Have the others been carelessly removed because someone did not know (or care) what they were? It would stand to reason that other stones would appear along the aforementioned arc at 500 foot intervals.

In 1871 the Woodland Park did not exist nor did any of the adjacent neighborhoods and that interval would span approximately half way through the future park. The fall of 1884 saw several crews of men construct a large lake of no more than 3 acres. This lake, called Lake Chenosa, was placed squarely on the city boundary. Surely, someone remembered the boundary stone placement of a dozen years previous so as to avoid them.

By my calculations, a stone 500 feet along the arc would appear near the existing first base dugout structure of the ball-field which occupies the former “lake” site. Approximately twenty or so feet past and ten or so feet behind. I have not been there lately to look for it and it does not show up in any recent aerials. Also, some years ago the Parks maintenance crews reworked that hillside for drainage issues.

It puzzles me as to why these stones, if they are what I think they are, are not identified. This town is so quick to claim anything old as historic and they have rushed to protect items of lesser age. We have even been known to remove major historical artifacts from their original context, thereby diminishing their true worth. This has happened to at least two county boundary markers.

I repeat, I believe that we dodged a travesty recently and I hope that we can prevent it in the future.

When Marketing Can Sacrifice Public Safety

I was talking to an infrequent reader the other day and she told me that the subjects of my quiz photos are often too difficult for her. I really do understand this but I just want to get some dialogue going. In the last quiz we can clearly see the beginnings of Todds Trace Apartments and the final interchange of New Circle Road being built in the late '60s.

It was on this same interchange ramp that I commented to Mrs. Sweeper, while we were out running errands, that the renovation of the apartments was looking quite good. Having watched the work on the old Sonnet Cove, now Lakewood Park, I know how much it has helped the neighborhood. I have posted earlier about how the Southland Christian Church should have taken this location and begun the transformation of the area not only physically, but spiritually. Alas, that did not happen.

Over the years, I have known friends and acquaintances who have lived in the varying iterations of the complex. From Todds Trace to Appletree and Saddlebrook (or as it became called, Saddle-dump) on down to its Pennington Place demise. The apartments and the neighborhood have not aged well. In my opinion, few of the developments done during the late '60s through mid-to-late '70s have fared well at all, if any.

Still, the renovation work does look good and Mrs. Sweeper and I have been discussing moving, now that our guys have graduated high school, entered college and we don't need to be within walking distance of Henry Clay. It was suggested that I take a look at the 300 At The Circle since the location is still close to work and the transit lines. Maybe we could stay there until we found a better house.

The web site  is beautiful, but most marketing web sites are well done to get you to look closer. What caught my eye was the mailing address of the apartments, 300 Quinton Ct. Could that be right? Quinton Court was the name given to the section of the Todds Road that had to be truncated when the KYDOT began upgrading Richmond Road nearly 30 years ago. Quinton Ct is a short cul-de-sac which basically serves one office building and back side entry of a restaurant.

I was also quite confused since the office building, on the east side of the road, is addressed as 120 Quinton and the apartments, on the other side of the street, is labeled as 300. I didn't think that it was possible to have even numbers on opposite sides of the same street. It certainly does not follow any type of local or national norm.

In 1902 the City of Lexington implemented a new addressing scheme which, among other things, established that even numbers be located on the South and East sides of streets and thoroughfares. Odd number would be on the North and West. It is simpler to do on a grid, or a modified grid, pattern of streets which was typical at the time. On curvilinear streets, it all stems from its beginning point and its general, overall direction. Roads like New Circle will play pure havoc with that rule.

During the past decade or so, Lexington has systemically attempted to correct any anomalies which may have developed between the former city and county governments and some just plain quirkiness out of the past. The stated intent was to aid the Enhanced 911 emergency response times. 300 Quinton Ct looks to be a new quirk.

Once again looking to the website, the page which directs you to apply and choose your desired apartment shows all of the access driveways connecting to Codell Dr and no possible access from Quinton Ct. The main entry to the clubhouse and pool area appears to be a security check point and come in off of Codell Dr. It is entirely possible that an access point can be created on the court, but that does not appear to be their intention. A quick look at the PVA site reveals an account for 109 Quinton Ct which correlates to the “Future Development” portion of their site plan. There appears to be NO official record of a 300 Quinton Ct in Fayette County records.

But wait, again the Internet to the rescue, on the page showing the location of the development is a link to Google Maps and the app to get directions. Google Maps does have 300 Quinton Ct but the source their data from many places. It is also ironic that Google will give you the Streetview of the area but the photos are nearly 2 years old and this property is not very appealing in those images.

It should be fairly obvious to all that the intent of this development's address is to remove any identity connection to Codell Dr as that street name carries much baggage. We have seen this in other sections of town in the past. In an effort to change the perceptions of possible tenants, Jennifer Ct was renamed to Eastwyck Ct and then renamed again to Meade Ct about 20 years ago. I don't think that the general impressions of that area have changed all that much. Making real change in a neighborhood takes much more than some slick marketing moves and I think that the church had the better shot at real change.

It may be that this is just a slick marketing ploy but the weak effort displayed by the website falls far short of the mark. If I have to do some sort of mental gymnastics to find the front door, be I a pizza delivery person or a visitor from out-of-town, then the thought of having a logical, standardized system is out the window. Will this also be necessary of first responders to the point of making it an issue of public safety?

I think I will have to tell Mrs. Sweeper that, as nice as it looks, to seek some other place. I think that she will agree.

LFUCG To Get A "New" Building?

The Mayor has a plan to build a new city hall. Just like the previous administration and the one before that. Actually, such plans have been around since the birth of the LFUCG.

The Gray administration says that it sees the need, or “a” need to build a new city hall. The cost of necessary repairs is set at $6.3 million, which looks to be down from the $30 million cited during the Newberry days. Important government offices are currently spread between several buildings and along what should be “prime” Main Street frontage. What I think is the greatest need is that an aging hotel should never have been made into an office building in the first place.

I can remember back when Lexington was preparing to bring the City and County governments together, a contingent of local officials took a trip to Indianapolis, itself recently merged, for ideas and examples. First off, there was a new 25 story government center from which to guide all services – Lexington did not take that track.

That is not to say that we did not look at doing so, because we did do a space study on all of the buildings then in use by government. How and where to join the police and fire departments. Bringing the streets and roads folks together. And then there was the expanding administrative staff just to pull it all off. We needed one building but it would have to wait.

Recall that this was less than a dozen years after Urban Renewal and downtown blocks were being developed by others (we had the new Rupp Arena complex to prepare and complete) like Garvice Kinkaid and Kentucky Central Insurance. Their new building would leave a vacant former hotel available and Lexington took an option on it while researching a new complex in the Rose/Main/Vine triangle.

One year later, hoping to get their own new building, the city sold the property to Ashland Oil and their Valvoline subsidiary for an interim space. Alas, no new space was forthcoming for the city and they again looked at the aging, inadequately altered hotel before finally buying it in 1982.

Early on in the LFUCG's occupancy it began to show just how much the building was aging. The air conditioning cooling tower on the roof caught fire on workday and that prompted a review of all safety and evacuation measures. Roofing leaks and other system overhauls became more and more common. Fire alarms and stuck elevators were a weekly occurrence. Meeting and providing service to the public proved challenging.

It seems to me that high interest rates, inflation or recession have been highly prevalent during or immediately after discussions of a new city hall come to light. In times of true government surpluses, it looks to me that there was no discussion of a new government home place.

Forty years down the road from the beginning of merger and the prospects of a modern, fully functional office building seem no closer than in 1974.

The move of Lexington's Municipal Building from 136 Walnut St to Main St did not cause the decline in viable storefront businesses but it could not halt it either. It may have been the implementation of one-way streets through downtown or simply the lure of suburban free parking for the retail, but the foot traffic has gone. The Mayor sees this latest move as a way to revitalize this block.

A claim has been put forth that the city “monopolizes” 200 feet or more of prime retail space on that one block, yet the remainder of the storefronts there have the primary entrance onto Water St, a sidewalk-less wide alleyway. Even the electronics store, Barney Miller's, easily the most active retail location on that side of the street, has most customers enter from the rear. If I recall correctly, it was the heralded conversion from retail to office of the Wolf Wile building by Gray Construction that kicked off this trend.

The Chase bank building, when built as the new home of First Security Bank, wiped out an entire block of older (and maybe historic) structures which contained viable retail spaces. Nary a word was raised in protest if I recall and Phoenix Park held three good sized retail establishments in the old hotel building. All of that “prime retail” Main St space gone and the general public seems to be fighting the ability of CentrePointe to try to re-establish it.

If the City is successful this time and a new government center is raised atop one side of the Lextran garage, will the main entry come off of E. High St or Martin Luther King? Will we see a more traditionally styled city hall or a modern take like Toronto, Ca.? In a project of such a civic nature will we have as much controversy over the look of the building as we have had on CentrePointe? Only time will tell.

One last observation. In the ongoing discussions about bringing the University and downtown closer together, is this the next move since the University has begun the massive dorm project a little more than a block away?

Parts of downtown are flourishing and other parts are taking note and learning. As has been pointed out here and elsewhere, the growing, revitalization of Lexington's downtown is not government led. It may be that efforts of government control can hinder the natural course of what Lexington residents and business owners can accomplish on their own.

A Look At The New Comprehensive Plan

The draft text of the 2013 Comprehensive Plan is now online. I am inviting you to go and read it, not only to understand the intentions of the leaders of our community but to also see how far that they do NOT go. I, lately, have been thinking about just how connected our city's residents are to those facilities and services that we use (or have available to us) every day.

The first part of the text is the list of adopted goals and objectives which are set by our elected Urban County council and are intended to be used for guiding plans and policies. If we have any beef with these goal statements, our comments should directed there.

Chapter 2 is titled Statements, Policies, and Data and after a brief section on the history and purpose of the plan document, a series of tables illustrating the current statistical realities of Lexington's state, there are detailed comments on what is intended to be done.

Right off the bat is the subject of accessibility. Some of my thoughts and posts over the last few years have been about just how much our recreation facilities are available to those with limited mobility. Here I do not speak of those with physical impairments like blindness or crippling diseases, but those who lack the ability to reach our parks and playgrounds with ease. I recently spoke of being able to access good, local food (or any food) without expending limited funds, time and energy to do so.

Below is that section to do with accessibility:

The 2013 Comprehensive Plan meets accessibility head on in the Goals and Objectives {A.1.c., D.1.b., and D.2.} and throughout the Plan to state without question that Lexington will strive to be a city that is accessible to all people in all areas of our community.  While we will achieve the standards set by federal regulations such as the Americans with Disabilities Act, the Americans with Disabilities Amendments Act, and any other related regulations, we also value and intend to accommodate all of our citizens beyond what is required and set Lexington apart as one that welcomes all people to our city.

Below are goals which apply:

A. Growing Successful Neighborhoods

Goal 1) Expand housing choices c.) Plan for safe, affordable, and accessible housing to meet the needs of older and/or disadvantaged residents.

D. Improving a Desirable Community

Goal 1.) Work to achieve an effective and comprehensive transportation system. b.) Develop a viable network of accessible transportation alternatives for residents and commuters, which may include the use of mass transit, bicycles, walkways, ridesharing, greenways, and other strategies.

Goal 2.) Provide for accessible community facilities and services to meet the health, safety, and quality of life needs of Lexington-Fayette County’s residents and visitors.

Results of these efforts include but are not limited to the following:

• Good accessibility to buildings through parking lots and transit stops by adding through-sidewalks (or protected pathways) wherever possible and curb ramps to sidewalks and into buildings

• Access ramps into buildings above the minimum ADA requirements

• Wider sidewalks (with curb ramps to roadways) wherever possible

While the Goals and Objectives, as adopted by the Council, are worded broadly enough to include all residents of whatever age or disadvantage, the text and list of action efforts appear aimed toward the 32,691 disabled persons living outside of institutions who are currently covered under the Americans with Disabilities Act and its amendments.

Growing a successful neighborhood is not just creating houses which can be considered meeting the needs of those in wheelchairs or with facilities on single levels and such. It also means being able to get to adequate shopping and social services with out requiring outside assistance or excessive travel distances. Successful neighborhoods, like the walkable and desirable ones which developed closer to downtown, and ironically without strict zoning in place, have much of what is desired in Goal D.2, yet we are currently not willing to attempt to duplicate them in the rest of the Urban Services Area. That makes me stop to wonder why the definition and interpretation of accessibility is not as broad as the goal seems to imply.

Chapter 3 begins to detail how to grow a successful neighborhood.

Lexington’s neighborhoods are lively and diverse places with histories, personalities, stories, famous residents, unique businesses, local restaurants, and ethnicities. People choose their neighborhood for many reasons, including housing affordability and the test scores of nearby schools.

Not all of Lexington's neighborhoods are what you consider “lively” and those more recent ones not only lack a long history or real personality, but exhibit a strong sense of diverse colors of sameness. Local restaurants and unique businesses are seldom seen in many of our suburban neighborhoods but rather in the intense shopping areas which buffer our neighborhoods from each other. Many of our unique, local restaurants need to draw from much more than one or two nearby neighborhoods.

So too is the similar story of the local or nearby school. Seldom is the neighborhood school in a position to facilitate walking or biking to class without involving massive auto traffic, which only exacerbates said traffic when parents cannot rely of school (or Lextran) bus service. Often the housing affordability of the neighborhoods near a “good” testing local school will exclude the very ones which will make the neighborhood diverse.

The physical layout and visual cues that make a neighborhood unique start with its form. The ideal structure of a neighborhood is composed of places to reside, work, shop, learn, and play. How these spaces are organized and relate to one another influences public health, cultural expression, environmental health, safety, and economic vitality.

It takes a community effort to build and maintain a successful neighborhood...

As much as I take exception to the previous plan paragraph, I can agree with this one. Today's suburban neighborhoods are not “reside and work” or “reside and shop”places. We Americans seem to desire to work and shop some distance from where we call home. It is that organization and relationship juxtaposition that has influenced our public health, environmental health and our economic vitality, and not for the better. As yet the community effort is not in it.

Interestingly enough, since the discussions leading up to the 2007 Plan, actions have led to a revision to the criteria used to “create Great Neighborhoods in newly developing or redeveloping areas”. In that same time frame, we have had a drastic recession and a slow, barely perceptible recovery. There are no real, newly developing or redeveloping areas to speak of but there are quite a few neighborhoods, built in the '60s and '70s, which could use some help to become Great Neighborhoods. Should we really have to wait until we have to redevelop the whole area? Why can't we do it over time, as the “model” neighborhoods did?

Place-making and walkability are important to the success of Lexington and its neighborhoods. They have been for the first ring subdivisions of the late 19^th century and will be for the subdivisions of the early 21^st , but what about all that came in between? Is there nothing to be done for them?

Fortunately, yes. I will look over those possibilities in the next week or so.

Upgrade A Downtown Park?

Phoenix Park has been an issue of concern for years.  That is what the article in the Herald – Leader had to say this morning.  The problem is nobody really seems to know just what to do about the issue.

The Parks and Recreation department is looking to do some "heavy maintenance", whatever that is, on the park in the coming year.  $75,000 worth of heavy maintenance, which compared to all of the other downtown proposals lately, does not sound very heavy. 

Jeff Fugate, president of the Downtown Development Authority, says that the government does not have the money to do a full blown renovation so the work to be done will seem like repainting in a brighter color what you really want is a new kitchen.  This job may well be just putting lipstick on a pig.

The Park Plaza apartment building next door is making an addition of 5,000 square feet of street-level retail space part of their $2 million renovation, so removing some dead trees and replacing some park furniture sounds pretty minimal.

Fugate also called the park “tired”, actually “very tired”, but then it is our only public space which get used nearly 24/7 for 9-10 months a year.  When it serves as living quarters for a segment of our less affluent residents and acts as living room, dorm room, dining room and sometimes bathroom to an ever changing gaggle of people, what would one expect?

There are a lot of folks in town who would like to rid the park of its constant visitors or semi-permanent residents but others believe that to be quite cruel.  There is even a certain segment which will avoid passing through the park because of a fear of harassment or pan-handlers, though I have never seen such occurrences of that activity. 

LFUCG Commissioner of General Services, (soon to be CAO) Sally Hamilton, claims that this “maintenance” is in no way an effort to force the “homeless”, for lack of a better description, out of the park but subtle efforts have been used before.  I do realize that the Park Place residents do find the park denizens annoying and off-putting but they should have some alternative place to go. The Phoenix Park Homeless Initiative, an effort begun in 2009 is probably still looking for a long-term solution and this is not it.

Now, I do feel that the placement of different seating could go a long way in discouraging the sleeping on the park benches.  Maybe some style of singular seating with substantial armrests between would prevent the appearance of “overnight” accommodations.  I still have trouble seeing sidewalk dining should there be a food place in the Park Place retail since the former restaurants have tried and failed to make it work.

Another common thread of complaint about Phoenix Park is the haze or cloud of smoke, be it the legal stuff or not.  Since it is a “low lying” park, should smoking be allowed there at all?  Or should smoking be restricted to well beyond the entryways to all buildings?

These may all be moot points if the funds are not included in the new FY2014 budget or the money may well be misspent if the park is included in the plans for the “day-lighting” of Town Branch and the creation of what will mimic the old idea of a “Commons” as depicted on the original town plat.

Or it could be a whitewashing of an old fence and re-arranging of the deck chairs on the Titanic.

Second Sunday Approaches Again

Well, Park(ing) Day did appear to be a success despite the lack of local press. Several local groups participated as well as some businesses. I am still disappointed that they did not commandeer the parking spaces for the full day, as they do in most cities. I did see the Mayor out getting his “photo ops” along with several other candidates for office this fall.

Our next big community gathering looks to be the annual Second Sunday health initiative, where we close a portion of roadway to auto traffic and allow human powered activity. That is just 2 weeks away and I have heard very little about it.

The local Second Sunday group does have a new web page and a Facebook listing , but what struck me the hardest was that they are not closing a roadway to auto traffic this year. They will be using a presently dedicated pedestrian facility – The Legacy Trail. This does not call attention to the need to get out of your car nor to the restrictions of auto movements. This year's event fails to make whatever happens to be newsworthy.

Is it possible that what started four years ago, with such promise and fanfare that it spread statewide very quickly, has died a typical bureaucratic controlled death? Could that be why our friends over in Louisville are pushing for a non-government sanctioned event (cycLOUvia) to take place on one of their primary arterial streets – Bardstown Rd.?  I do wish them luck in raising the funds in the next tow weeks.

The great thing about Second Sunday this year is that it will be after a road football game ( I came close to calling it a loss) and two days after the Midnight Madness for the basketball fans. Why could Euclid Ave/Avenue of Champions not be closed and bookended by the commercial spots of South Lime and Chevy Chase for refreshments after the festivities?

I think that the citizenry of Lexington has again failed to build upon a reasonable foundation. The question is - why?

Was The CentrePointe TIF Area Not Well Thought Out?

As of Friday afternoon, the Lexington History Museum has been closed due to excessive paint dust which contains lead. Lead paint was used almost exclusively in the prime years of the old court house, both before and after the major remodeling which took place in the '60s.

I find it interesting that this announcement comes just after I posted about Lexington's lack of will to maintain (or complete) many of their projects of late. This is just another example.

For the last 4 years now, the old court house has been THE major building residing in the Urban County Council designated Phoenix Park/Courthouse Area TIF district, or what everyone else calls the CentrePointe TIF area. Almost all of the rest of the properties are street rights-of-way, parking lots or other government owned park property. That makes the CentrePointe project and the McCarthy's block of buildings the sole generators of any taxes which may be incremented.

The beneficiaries of these funds are quite specific:

• A tunnel connecting Phoenix Park to CentrePointe. (No longer a part of the Project)
• A pedway connecting the Financial Center Garage to CentrePointe. (also not a part)
• A Phoenix Park Garage. (has been removed from project)
• Restoration of the Fayette County Courthouse and Cheapside Park / Plaza.
• Makeover of old courthouse building including new roof, windows, atrium, and infrastructure. In addition, the courthouse plaza will be redeveloped to include the proposed closing of Cheapside Road. (Except for the restoration, all of this has been done)
• Permanent display space and building for the Lexington Farmer's Market. Though not built to the detailed specs, this is essentially complete.
• Streetscape improvements including street art. Main and Vine are done Lime, Upper and Short are lacking.

That is it. Straight from the TIF agreement of September of 2009. CentrePointe has been scaled back and much of the other work has been financed by some other method. And the old Court House waits, and waits.

The taxes from which these funds are to come are also spelled out in the document:

• Ad Valorem Property Taxes levied under KRS 132.020(1)(a)
• Individual Income Taxes levied under KRS 141.020
• Sales Taxes levied under KRS 139.200

At present, I guess that only the McCarthy's crew and the reduced property value of the pasture are paying into that amount and it is well below what was projected on that block.

Meanwhile, as documented here and elsewhere, the Short St blocks (plural) are very much alive with NEW businesses, NEW sales and NEW property values due to the renovation work being done. This is money that could have and should have been added to the TIF calculations. I don't think that many people saw the revitalization of Short St four years ago and certainly not without government support. I can see success building on success in this area and yet I also see the opportunity to leverage this growth into the repair and renovation of the Lexington History Museum slipping quietly away.

I have been a very big supporter of the CentrePointe project from its initial announcement and still believe that something will break soon. I see the 21c hotel as being one more major enhancement for downtown but the ability to use its increment for public projects will also be lost if something isn't done soon.

If I read the agreement correctly, the agreement is self renewing unless one of the parties gives written notice 60 days prior to the annual termination date of Sept 23. I have heard of no public declaration that anyone has asked for a termination, but it may have happened.   Perhaps we should terminate this one and prepare a new one in order to fulfill the promise which the revitalization of Short St has shown for downtown.

If you wish to read the agreement, you can find it here.  The map of the TIF district is on page 18.

Why Do We Let This Go On?

I read recently where Council member Doug Martin was extolling the good times that he had on the latest CommerceLex trip to San Antonio, Texas. Many good ideas are attributed to these “investigative”trips. Some of which we have actually implemented and some are still on the sidelines.

That a number of those ideas remain just that, ideas, is somewhat explained by a Business Lexington article  which questioned our local taxing abilities and even our local commitment to pursuing an idea imported from other cities.

Both of these articles do well to help understand the confusion and frustration of all our residents who complain that we don't have a good array of urban amenities. I still read about those who ask “Where are the free museums?” or “Where can we go to do something fun with a family?” and “Why are the amusement parks so far away?” , but I don't have an answer. The thing is, the ideas which come back from these trips don't have the answer either.

I seem to be looking at finding the answers to, what I consider, a much better set of questions. Of all the ideas that our leadership has attempted to implement, all the civic improvements which were started (and “finished”), there is a mostly unperceived gap in our vision and our sense of finality. We get things kicked off and basically hope that folks will consider them complete.

My first case in point is the Fifth Third Cheapside Pavilion. The following thoughts come to mind: 

1) I keep hearing that there is more to do in terms of booth space along the old court house side of the space. Be it temporary or permanent stall space, it should complete the current space correctly. 

2) I remember the old arrangement, which had shade trees and plenty of well used public seating. Any seating now is reserved and controlled by the adjacent retail establishments and without any shade at all during noontime usage. 

3) The tree wells, ostensibly for the proper watering and feeding of the small trees, have become packed earth and a materials storage site during Thursday Night Live performances and smoking litter receptacles the rest of the time. One would have thought that they would compliment the rain garden planters of the new Main Street streetscape.

Speaking of the streetscape project, case in point number two. Since this was a project which included Federal funds, there had to be a definite end and we have seen it. But, to me, it looks like some unnecessary short cuts were taken. All of the decorative street lamps were taken down and reinstalled, some with extensive damage to the green enamel paint job. Simply reinstalling these 'less than beautiful” lampposts tends to detract from the finished look of the job.

There is also a portion of the decorative stone wall separating the sidewalk from a rain garden on West Vine which has been struck and damaged. Since it is outside of a building full of attorneys and generally they tend to care about appearances, should this not have been attended to before now? The law does say that the adjacent property owner is responsible for the sidewalk maintenance, even in the downtown area, does it not?

The way-finding signs, which I have complained of before, should have been installed during the streetscape project but followed by a good deal and there are places where it shows. There should have been a coordination of the contractors on locations of the bases which hold these signs but many time it just looks like the posts were jammed in helter-skelter. Even some other post completion construction work looks to mar the fine job done by the original contractors.

Case in point number three, an ongoing commitment to the status quo when there are massive changes in the surrounding area. For the most part, our downtown situation has changed for the better and that change has been well accepted. But some of the older, less noticed traditions apparently need to be retained. One of those recent traditions is that of delivery vehicles and where they may park.

Delivery vehicles used to have designated curbside locations for certain times of the day and, in general, many of the vehicles were small to moderate in size. They delivered to a handful of places and a somewhat limited quantity of products. There was a flow of vehicles moving down the primary streets, from block to block and taking up just so much space as necessary, then moving on.

Not so today. They use much larger vehicles and at times they tend to take much more room, whether there is available space or not. The vehicles are allowed to block crosswalks and pedestrian curb cuts or even entire lanes of the street during some peak travel times. Now that we have so many more bars and restaurants in the downtown area than in recent memory, can they be of greater number than during downtown's heyday? In my opinion, delivery vehicles are service vehicles and in performing their duties, should NOT be doing a dis-service to all else. I cannot understand why we continue to allow it.

One more case of “finish it and forget it” could be the Court House Plaza. Ten years or so after completion and multiple festivals where we have been tramping allover the grass, the smooth transition from grass to pavement appears to be fraying. Good sized metal or concrete junction boxes rise above the ground level and the irrigation heads stand quite proud of the grass in some spots. Here too, the tree wells are quite bare and are quick to accumulate trash and cigarette butts. A regular morning cleaning currently does some good, but is that the most efficient use of personnel?

Finally, the case of overall pedestrian movement in a downtown that is given high marks for walkability. Just having sidewalks, and especially new sidewalks, should not equate into high mobility scores. There are two other important factors to consider. One is to look at the ease of movement past the sidewalk landscape and furniture as well as the other pedestrians out there with you. The other is to look at the ease of locating your destination if you are a relatively new resident or a first time visitor.

Now that we have all of these new sidewalk amenities, we should be able to use them without impedance. There are three, possibly four, new segments of sidewalk and two of them intersect. Four if you count the renewed sidewalk of Triangle Park between Main and Vine. Any other pedestrian connections to these new segments are definitely showing their age with cracks and wrinkles.

I fully understand about the CentrePointe block and can overlook that since I expect something to change there soon, but all the other streets tend to need some sort of work. I also have pointed out that with the growth of Short St, that main and Vine are not the only, or major, walking areas of town. The Cheapside Park and Court House pavement seem to be the only well maintained walkways on the north side of Main. 

 

When we add in the sidewalk dining spaces, which can become a sprawling intrusion at times, and the attendant umbrellas dipping to just over six feet high, making your way through the required 4 foot pathway can become difficult for taller folks.

Not all restaurants will place their tables either next to the building or next to the street in order to leave this 4 foot space, some will occupy the full center of the walkway. I would like to see a consistent pattern here and some way of enforcing it. I believe that we used to somewhere in our 200 year past, why not now?

Other street furniture and its proximity to the tables is a consideration to reduce certain “pinch points”. Perhaps some of the parking kiosks could be rotated 90 degrees so as to have the customer standing closer to the curb rather that blocking the walkway when crouching to read instructions or complete his transaction. This is further complicated when it takes a committee to make it work.

Finding ones way as a pedestrian is sometimes a different matter. I think that it is a good thing that downtown Lexington is as small as it is. Most of the downtown attractions are not so far from each other as to make it impossible to get there, therefore we have no posted maps of the area and a “you are here” arrow. Still, there seems to be a need for better signage at the pedestrian level, particularly some signage which is not dependent on facing in the direction of the flow of traffic.

It is interesting, if not ironic, that two short years after the current automobile oriented signage was decided and installed, that the Legends ballpark took a new moniker and the Lexington Visitors & Convention Bureau - a place tourists want to go - moved to the opposite end of downtown. Each of these means that a change in signage has to occur and while the ballpark change has been made, the other has not. I'm betting that another change will occur next year come spring. Will the Distillery District or some other growing attraction make it to the importance of being included on more signs and is there enough room?

So, where is all of this going? Instead of looking for the next big idea that we can import on a shoestring or without bringing all of the supporting public interest and funding, why not find a way to enhance the last few big ideas with proper finishing touches and real support of the downtown property owners and tenants? Why is sidewalk maintenance the sole purview of the city when, I believe, the law says otherwise? When did the delivery of goods to our “service industry”supersede the accommodation of those being served? When did the appearance of our downtown start to take a backseat to expediency and the dwindling fiscal year coffers?

Maybe we can do it all. Lets find some new ideas – AND – build us a good financial foundation with which to accomplish them – AND – make sue that we follow through with the real finishing touches, gild the lily, and live with some design excellence.


Update:  As of earlier this week there looks to be improvements to the tree wells in Cheapside Park.  Sometimes progress can take so long to occur.

“Is It Just Me Or…”

We all seem to have those “Is it just me or…” moments.  I had one just the other day during a lunchtime walkabout which I take most sunny days.

This was one in which I took a usual route, west on Vine and then either going out S. Broadway or on beyond the Lexington Center.  This day I strolled through Triangle Park over toward the historic W. Short St.  The park, for all of its renovation work, still has little for the noontime pedestrian to do.

The tour down Vine St continues to surprise me these two years since the streetscape was essentially finished.  The pedestrians are few and the service/delivery vehicles seem to park with abandon on the new, wide pavers which are clearly intended for people.  There are a few “smoker’s posts” near the office tower and they can make walking past a chore for the non-smoker but otherwise there is little happening here.

I made an infrequent stop in the Victorian Square Shoppes and wondered, almost aloud, how some of those places can stay in business.  They do and more power to them, as I say about the claims that we have too much vacant office space, just because I see no activity does not mean that there is none.  Victorian Square is alive, maybe not robust, but alive.

Exiting near the corner of Short and Broadway and looking back toward the Court House is about the time that it hit me.  My “Is it just me or… moment” nearly bowled me over, like the cyclist zipping down the sidewalk.  Short St is the vibrant, pedestrian street that we all would like downtown to be.

How many hours over the past decade, and several Urban County Government administrations, have been spent of discussions and negotiations concerning Vine St and what could be done to improve the freeway-like atmosphere which has attached itself there?  How many consultants submitted options on solutions over the years?  After all that, has there been much noticeable improvement?

There it was, Short Street, stretching from Broadway to Limestone in the noontime hour just bustling with sidewalk activity, street activity and the sounds of downtown life.  What I saw before me was accomplished with minimal government dollars and much investment by the private sector.  It was not perfect but it was quite vibrant.  It has been growing that way for a while now, gradually gaining, but this day it just popped.

Main Street still has its pedestrian activity and a number of café dining on the sidewalks but not like the volume on Short.  The one-way traffic and the width may alter the cozy nature somewhat but I am not sure that it makes that much of a difference.  Main St is quite a bit longer, so that may diffuse its activity, but it also has many more blank walls with which the public must deal.

The public spaces along Main St, both Phoenix Park and the Court House Plaza, see fairly consistent use though some may find the patrons a little less than to their liking.  Elsewhere the comings and goings are a bit more sporadic.

The activity on Short St is not all a bed of roses and some of the thorns do prick at me. 

With all of the restaurant and bar venues currently in place, not all of them are open for the lunch hour, there will naturally be a slew of delivery vehicles. I constantly wonder why the restaurants can take delivery before or after the peak pedestrian times but the bars cannot.  Why does it take three men and three or more vehicles, at least two of which are extended length trailers, which block the mid-block crosswalks near Cheapside.  The soft drink companies and the spirit companies can deliver with smaller trucks on these narrow streets, but beer route drivers are special?

I also dislike the encroachment that some café diners make into the remaining walkway.  Each restaurant is allowed a limited amount of sidewalk and will not police their paying customers who - sometimes – snatch more chairs than usual at a table and spill outside the allowed space.  Common sense should kick in at these times but maybe alcohol is involved.

Lastly, there are the cyclists, the dog owners and those with over-sized strollers which try to negotiate or occupy extremely tight spaces, usually to the detriment of good circulation.  If the committee working on the food truck locations can cite pedestrian obstructions as a concern, then they should be looked at for all of downtown sidewalks.  Cyclists are currently prohibited from downtown sidewalks by ordinance, but it is rarely enforced and just plain ignored by the court system.  Should we get all of our downtown streets as active as Short St has become there will be problems, so we might as well begin solving them now.

Well, that is a lot to think about.  Now, I ask you “Is it just me or…”

Was It Worth $7,000 A Foot?

From 2 years ago

 

The Clematis in front of our house in in full bloom, giving a bright blast of color when you walk toward the door coming home. Each year I think that it just get better and better looking with many more blooms than last.

The wire frame horse in the Court House Plaza was supposed to be full of blooms from seven different varieties of Clematis in time for the WEG.  If you look today, the vinery of the collective plants only rise to the top of the hindquarters.  Did they stop tending them with change of administrations.

That made me think of other differences in priorities and how they are handled.  I recall, as I am sure you will also, probably the most iconic campaign commercial of the victorious Jim Gray.  The one where he is standing on South Limestone near the end of the renovating construction that summer.  In discussing the overall cost of the project and the disruption it caused to so many businesses and commuters, he utters the almost comic, "$7,000 a foot".  I am sure that that resonated with the voters, especially in those slim economic times.  Times that I am wondering if we are out of yet.

Now, considering that there was a big to-do on the weekend that it reopened to normal traffic and has seen many other University related celebrations (most notably the 8th National Basketball Championship), I feel confident that business owners who stuck it out and the ones who followed construction think that the $7,000 a foot was well worth it.

There was a lot written about the timing and extent of the closing, by owners and bloggers and others who felt that this work was somehow unfair to the "stakeholders".  Since the end of construction there has been nary a peep in public from either the owners or the bloggers as to whether the redo was worth it.

The most silent is the one who, I think, benefited the most from the phrase, Mayor Jim Gray.

Earlier this week, the APA (American Planning Association concluded their 2012 National Convention in Los Angeles.  In the closing address, Renée Jones-Bos, Ambassador of the Netherlands to the United States, noted that Dutch engineers have been forced to approach large infrastructure and planning projects head on and are known worldwide for their expertise. She also pointed out that American cities may learn from their Dutch ally’s proactive embrace of cost-benefit analysis.

The Dutch are well known for weathering almost constant calamities and for wresting their country from the ravages of the North Sea.  So much so, that they have come to think of it as part of their DNA.  Another part of Dutch DNA is found at the entrance to the old port of Amsterdam in a sign which reads “The cost comes before the benefit.”

To all of those who have cried and whined about the outlandish outlays of the City and State for projects leading up to the WEG, and to all of those who have wondered where the windfall profits that were predicted have gone, I say this; the benefits have only barely begun.

But I ask Mayor Gray, was the $7,000 a foot worth it, both in the short run and in the long run?  And should we do it again?

Corman Is Still At It

Rumor has it that R. J. Corman is at it again – or should I say still at it. Buying property that is or better yet, trading for it.

The City of Lexington has a couple of properties which are divided by the Town Branch. One of them is the Jail parcel and the other is the Public Works yard parcel. The divided portions are between the creek and the Corman rail line to Frankfort. Combined, they make up nearly 22 acres of land completely isolated from the used portion.

Forty years ago, when the City began developing the public works yard, there was a chance to straighten the creek as was the practice of the day but we chose not to. The City could also have built a bridge across the creek and chose not too, so the land has sat vacant for all these years.

Now, these 22 acres don't seem to be much. There is not much flat land and mostly falls away from the railroad tracks with flood plain which covers maybe 3 of those acres. But what makes this property interesting is that it does lie adjacent to the railroad and connects with the 50+ acres which Corman bought earlier. This, I believe, is why Corman is in talks with the City to swap for something that the City can use.

I'm thinking that Corman's Rupp yard, not being a classification yard, could be shrunk by a bit and the sand/cement trans-loading facility is being moved to the previously mentioned 22 acres. Such a move would allow the large trucks which pick the sand and cement to use the more appropriate roads and streets of the industrial area off Old Frankfort Pike. Since W. T. Congleton Co. touches the eastern end of these 22 acres and has already built an industrial strength bridge across the creek – AND – receives cement shipments, it makes for a nice coincidence. Yeah, right.

So, what would the City do with the land now occupied by the sand trans-loading equipment? This land lies alongside the Town Branch and opposite the proposed Town Branch Trail. It also holds the track that leads up to the newly placed trackbed under Oliver Lewis Way on which Corman has spent much time and effort lately. Should this track be intended for some future passenger usage it stands to reason that the freight usage be moved elsewhere. This would still appear to be railroad usage of the land and not given over to the City. This still leaves some 22 acres of Corman land somewhere which can be traded. Or they could be buying it.

If anyone has any better ideas or information, I am ready to hear it.

Becoming An "Urban County"

I heard a conversation today where the participants, clearly very pro PDR (that is Lexington's Purchase of Development Rights program) spoke of the council representation for the 12^th district. I believe that the exact words were that “the rural interests of the 12^th district have not been represented since Gloria Martin left office”. That is just the facts of living in a continually urbanizing county and the willing move to raise the minimum lot size for residential use.

Fayette County has twelve council districts which, by charter, are supposed to be nearly equal in population based on the latest Census figures. Even in the early days of merger, that meant including a good portion of the suburban neighborhoods.

Lexington chose to become a very compact city, when in 1958 they imposed a urban growth boundary (USA), actually the very first in the nation. It was designed to bring on orderly, cost efficient development and prevent dispersing services widely throughout the county. Many of its objectives did as designed but some such as our trunk sewer system could have used some better estimates on sizing.

At about the same time the local health department recognized that septic systems in the rural areas would need larger lots in order to function correctly and imposed a 10 acre minimum on all new development outside the growth boundary. This, of course, would bring the overall residential density of the rural area lower over time without other influences coming into play.

But other influences did come into play, in the form of “agricultural” subdivisions for those wishing for a place in the country. Ten acre plots springing up all over the county for housing a family looking for basically a status symbol house and little more. Farmland being used for fewer and fewer people and no agricultural production of any kind. Actually a worse type of sprawl than paving it all over and building shopping centers on it. The rural character was lost as well as the loss of density.

The authors of the merger charter desired to live up to the spirit of the Urban Service Area concept by designating one council district, the 12^th, to be as rural as they could make it. Unfortunately, that meant including enough of the urban subdivisions to bring the district population proportionate to 1/12^th of the county. To accomplish that a large part of the long established USA was required to be included.

By now it should be easy to see that, electing a representative in an area which will only grow more urban and expect that representative, being responsive to his constituents, to remain totally rural focused. A council member elected every two years, a district adjusted every ten years and the trend toward increasing urbanization can only mean a loss of rural influence.

It may be this loss of influence that these folks were speaking of which will play a part in the ongoing onslaught toward PDR.

Many people are beginning to feel that, in these days of increasing budgets and falling revenues, PDR is a luxury that we can no longer afford. I have heard it said that PDR is paying property owners for development rights on land that cannot be developed as it is.

This is not to say that a major thoroughbred farm operation or the Horse Park/Keeneland type places is not fully developed, because they obviously are. But should we pay for these “developed” farms to NOT develop? The Council's last few budget battles have brought more and more pressure to bear on the viability of continuing to fund PDR.

Gloria Martin was a championing force behind PDR and the increase to 40 acre minimum lot size as well as the 300 foot setback for rural houses, and failing any rural influence since her departure, PDR may be in real trouble. This year will see a district race in which PDR will probably have a good showdown. The real rural dweller in the race is set on dismantling the existing program and the suburbanite candidate may not be able to fund its continuance.

We are marching on to becoming an urban county.

Would You Like To Be Sued For Growing Food?

I do have a great interest in urban agriculture and growing more of our food locally, but I hope that nothing like what happened in Clarkston, Ga. ever happens here.

A local landscaper bought a piece of property, upon which former owners had grown vegetables -at a profit- and set about raising a hobby garden, in the back yard. True it was a nearly two acre back yard, but it was a hobby garden. I know several folks, who if the had almost two aces, would put in a wide variety of hobby scenarios (flower gardens, outdoor model trains, etc.) and I believe that all of them would be legal. But this gentleman raised so much edible crops that he couldn't give it all away and resorted to local markets.

That is where the local zoning laws got him. His land was producing too much for the zone. His lot was apparently considered a commercial operation and therefore, not permitted in the zone. Is it possible that such a thing could happen here?

A former neighbor has a house and they own the vacant lot next door. There used to be another vacant lot on the other side, and this neighbor maintained gardens in both spaces, as well as the back half of a parcel approximately a half a block away. This fellow's passion was flowers but I remember some vegetables along the way. None of these spaces could be thought of as commercial but they could supply a good portion of the surrounding households with nutrition if it needed to. Fact is, I don't think that it went afoul of the law, either then or now.

In the case in Ga., the gentleman was eventually allowed to get a zone change, but has been saddled with the expensive fines and penalties as well as the cost of the zone change.

To those of you, who like me, wish to see more urban agriculture and more locally grown food, we must be cognizant of the laws and the possibilities under them. We must also strive to make them allow for future situations and not just restrict past abuses (real or imagined). Zoning laws, by and large, are not written with backyard food production in mind.

While many food activists cite urban agriculture as crucial to establishing locally sourced food systems, zoning laws present challenges. What distinguishes outlaw tomato plants from a legitimate commercial operation is not always clear.

Another point of contention could be the raising of chickens(see what they are doing here), which I don't think is against any local zoning laws currently, although most herd animals are prohibited. The keeping of horses, even inside the Urban Services Area limitation may be allowed.

Cluck (a Sarasota Fl. chicken advocacy group), which has been active for a year and a half and has about 300 supporters, says chickens would make Sarasota more attractive for a younger, hipper crowd. Children who think their food grows at the supermarket can see where it really comes from.

Where should we Lexingtonian's stand on this subject?

Looking at "Fresh Start" Part 2

Continuing with my comments on Mayor-elect Jim Gray's "Fresh Start" platform and actions that he proposes to take in his new administration, today we will look at his thoughts on neighborhoods and others.

Cities thrive when neighborhoods thrive. A healthy neighborhood has churches, schools, recreational facilities, and shopping within walking or short driving distance. This affords neighbors the opportunity to “meet up” with one another as neighbors and gives them a sense of place and belonging. I grew up in a small town that had all these services, and more, close by. In Lexington we have subdivisions larger than my hometown that are isolated from these basic services. That’s got to change. As mayor I’ll work to create better neighborhoods throughout Lexington.

Is there any neighborhood in Lexington that its residents think could not get better? The eternal question has always been "Who's definition of better are we using?" I'll ask you all, "What would you change about the neighborhood where you live or work?" and "How many of your neighbors would change the same things?"

My guess is that most would not change as many elements or as drastically as you would like. I also believe that you would not go along with many of your neighbors, as most Americans will look out for themselves first. I will tell you that my ideas for "improving" many neighborhoods would not go over well with those who live there. That said, lets see what Mr. Gray thinks.

Here are some other efforts I’ll undertake as mayor to support Fayette County neighborhoods:

Do business in the open. No backroom deals with any special interests that affect neighborhoods. When we discuss issues that affect neighborhoods, people who own homes there will be at the table.

I have to assume that he is talking about established neighborhoods here. Lexington's new subdivisions generally take place where there are no existing homeowners who will remain in the area.

Most of the conflicts arise as the developer reaches the remaining acreage, or full build-out, and those who were told, probably by a well meaning but less than knowledgeable realtor, that the land use for the remaining property will be the same as their unit. Unfortunately, due to demand or market situations, that may not remain true. As I have repeated here often, the retail follows the residential and once the residential reaches a tipping point, the commercial area will begin to fill in. In the older sections of town, that meant neighborhood retail but in today's world, the retail is all concentrated of the fringes and at major intersections. Even where it has been planned for over a decade, the residents do not want neighborhood shopping.

Interspersing higher density residential in these same neighborhoods is considered an even more heinous travesty.

Direct each department – police, code enforcement, building inspection, planning, traffic, etc. – to have a designated liaison for neighborhoods. That person will be responsible for navigating the bureaucracy to get questions answered and action taken quickly. The liaison will log every question or concern, describing it, the date it came in and the action taken. Quarterly the people in those jobs will meet to review current issues, define trends and recommend additional action if appropriate. Their reports will come directly to me as mayor and be shared with council members.

Wow, with personnel and staff time at a premium during the slow economic times, can you imagine what it would be like if we really did recover quickly? After having pared the individual divisions to the barest of essentials, we now want to add liaison duties. This sounds like an additional duty for the 311 call takers or for the neighborhood liaison function which currently exists in the Mayor's office. One call to a single person who can determine which agencies/divisions are affected rather than multiple calls, asking for immediate response, to multiple offices who won't get together to compare notes for several months. This appears to a level of bureaucracy that is NOT needed.

We may need better training for 311 call takers or more folks on the mayor's staff, but this proposal is just wrong.

Activate a city land bank, an idea that’s been around but never become reality. When code enforcement and building inspection identify abandoned or chronically neglected properties that are a blight on a neighborhood, we must use the power of the city to take them over and return them to productive, responsible private ownership.

A city land bank sounds like a good idea and I do approve of it. What is proposed here sounds like it is in direct opposition to the process used by the PDR program.

Under PDR, individual property owners apply to enter the program, receive funds and not allow their property to be developed. Whether it could be developed or not is irreverent. This proposed program appears to not be a voluntary forfeiture of the land and possibly a violation of Kentucky's eminent domain law. This law and the high cost of urban land has prevented the city (and most well meaning development interests) from moving forward on repairing some of our most blighted properties.

Kentucky law does not allow the use of municipal funds to be used to acquire property for non-municipal uses. We cannot take from a private entity to sell to another private entity. I am not even sure that the Municipal Housing Corp. could do it.

In the '50s and '60s, when we saw a significant industrial boom, it was a group of local business types who bought large chunks of available land for resale to corporations wishing to build manufacturing plants here. These same types of investors are today finding spaces for businesses in the electronics or medical research fields but no one has tried this in the residential realm.

The mayor, as always, can have a huge impact on bringing folks to the table but I see an extremely limited pool of philanthropic dollars to draw on.

Plan to create neighborhoods, not just subdivisions. For existing neighborhoods, examine our zoning and planning process to make it easier for them to function as small towns not just bedroom communities.

This action would go hand-in-glove with the first item, making neighborhoods livable. To accomplish the redesign of neighborhoods/subdivisions will take nearly a paradigm shift in residential living patterns. The addition of walkable shopping areas to existing neighborhoods would mot likely involve 1 or 2 of the centrally located blocks (yes, entire blocks) in order to create the mix of retail and civic building necessary to the small town feel(or function). I don't see many of our non-downtown residents agreeing to this.

Short of gasoline prices rising above $10 a gallon and energy prices even more unaffordable, I see most Lexington residents (downtown and non) clinging to the style with which they have become really comfortable.

Recruit philanthropists for projects to grow our parks system using models like Louisivlle’s Olmsted Parks.

This is the way to go, but as I pointed out above, the pool of philanthropic donors is very, very shallow and the needs are growing.

I will work with our university leadership, students, and citizens to ensure neighborhood issues surrounding student housing are heard and addressed, and not just one-sided; everyone’s voice deserves to be heard. Simply put, Lexington is dependent upon city residents as well as the students who live and study here.

The student housing situation, both near campus and in some of the outlying subdivisions, is not going to be a simple fix and the parameters are constantly in flux. I think the any solution that we implement today will need to evolve, in order to keep up with the ever moving targets of both the students and the university.

As mayor, these are some of the things I’ll do to energize economic development and create good jobs here:

Elevate economic development to a cabinet-level position within my administration to make planning for economic development front and center in all city initiatives.

Economic development, otherwise known as job creation, will now be a top priority without adding any positions to the government payroll. The planning for these new jobs may end up being the sole reason that the government pursues any new project, from street repavings to a new City Hall building.

Job creation sometimes seems to run contrary to the interests of business. Many industry models are moving toward doing more, but with fewer employees. Automation has been the mantra of manufacturers for the past 40 years, including robotics to build autos, in the large factories, down to larger delivery vehicles to do route sales like the beer trucks (and other vehicles) which clog our downtown streets on a daily basis.

Should we accomplish the goal of dispersing the neighborhood retail throughout our existing suburban areas, we may find that we need more delivery personnel (hopefully driving smaller vehicles) to negotiate the local streets and reach all locations in a timely manner. Local people delivering local products to local outlets in a walkable, shopable neighborhood, finally what Lexington really needs.

Create a one-stop shop for people who want to start, or expand, businesses in Lexington. This ‘entrepreneur’s clearinghouse’ will also keep an index of Lexington entrepreneurs to help connect them with each other and in touch with the community’s needs.

This reads like a description of an App for one of those 4G wireless devices complete with facebook and twitter

Target employers and industries that we want in Lexington, and then work relentlessly to bring them to town.

We will take any new job creation under our new cabinet-level commissioner, but we really just want certain types of employers and just the clean types of industries. If we target the high paying, clean industries our troubles will be over.

Recruit three new corporate headquarters to Lexington.

I'm betting that this cannot be done in the next four years, given the current economic times, although it does not say how large of a corporate headquarters they need to be.

Define clear goals so that we can measure our progress to report to the community and see where and when we need to make changes.

Create an assets inventory of existing businesses and a strategy to leverage and grow them.

Identify business development best practices among benchmark cities like Louisville, Madison, Wisconsin and Ann Arbor, Michigan, to confirm how we’re doing.

Create a plan aligned with UK’s Top 20 initiative to ensure that as the University grows, Lexington is able to attract and employ the best and brightest talent.

Actively mine our university graduate lists for folks who have achieved success elsewhere, and target them to come home and launch businesses here.

All of these are just making a chalk mark on the wall in a rainstorm or measuring the snowfall in a blizzard, you don't really know how you did until it is all over.

This is enough for today. Next the plan on aging and using business practices in LFUCG.