Lexington: Make Good Plans For A "New" City Hall

One of the hot topics of last summer and fall was the push that the Lexington-Fayette Urban County Government was making toward a new City Hall.  

After the collapse of consideration on the CentrePointe block, focus shifted to the Central Library building and its parking garage as the primary site. Although the 5 story structure seems to not be adequately arranged, those in the know feel that, with a few modifications, it could work.

Shortly after this plan became known, the Lexington-Herald Leader announced a shift in the location of their printing daily publication from Lexington to Louisville.  That, coupled with a further reduction in staff, led to the possibility of finding a smaller office space and placing their prime location well up on the list of candidates.

Some of us believe that the H-L building may a lack of square footage, but there is quite enough room surrounding the building for additions and leaving sufficient parking.  It really would make quite a statement on civic pride with a renovated (narrowed) Midland Avenue, its Town Branch Trail and the Thoroughbred Park directly in front and a backdrop of the highly treed Bell Court neighborhood.  Even the small street connecting a new back door to the neighborhood is named in honor of a former mayor, John Skain (1908-1912).

Whichever of the two sites is chosen, the "new" City Hall will not be in a newly built civic building which has been the dream of the merged government for more than four decades.  Financial woes and the struggle to balance urban, suburban and rural priorities have always seemed to push the extravagance of a new building just a little more down the list of necessities.

As always, in discussions on City Hall, the subject of sufficient space for the essential functions of government should be at the forefront.  One of my recent discussions led to remembrances of our early "part-time" council members.  I say "part-time" since they were limited to $6,000 (in 1972) and I was earning just under that in an unskilled position.  I don't think that anybody could do the job and have a family on that salary alone.  Those first council members shared office space and did most of their own research.  A tough part time job.

Thing is, back then the Fayette County population was a whopping 174,323+ and each council member represented approximately 14,527 residents on average.  Their constituents were in somewhat compact districts except for district 12, which was (and still is) primarily our rural farmland.  If memory serves, the population of district 12 (14,272) influenced the number and size of the remaining districts.

Today's district representative still receives a part-time salary (approx. $31,8000), has an office, a full-time legislative aide, a full calendar and a constituency of over 26,200 (an 80%+ increase).  The individual districts have over time, become less compact and considerably more diverse and not just culturally.  

A number of districts have become elongated, one to the point of representing folks living in a 1930's subdivision just south of the UK stadium AND folks living in a development on the Jessamine County line.  Our "mostly rural" 12th district is now approximately evenly split between suburban housing and the farming community.

Over 40 years, our community involvement has increased along with the population.  Neighborhood associations and home-owners groups are more common.  Today's council members need to keep touch with nearly all of these groups, either personally or through their aides.  They also need to be aware of groups forming within their districts.

By contrast, Louisville, and its more recently formed Metro Government, has 26 council members serving approximately 29,000 constituents.  Jefferson County has 113 square miles more than Fayette and nearly twice the population.  They also lack the distinct ring of rich horse farm property on the outer fringe.  It would not appear that they will have the need to drastically revamp their council districts any time soon.

This year is also the time to begin discussions on the community's comprehensive plan and there are a series of upcoming "On the Table" meetings on the calendar.  A usual topic is the possibility of expanding the Urban Services Area, further cutting into the farmland ring of ours, and its effect of the 12th council district.  One solution being floated around is the division of the 12th district into 2 or more parts.  Given the aforementioned role of the rural area in influencing district size, will any resulting divisions consider having a balance of urban and rural constituency while maintaining to be primarily rural?

The U.S. Census Bureau will soon call on all communities to begin redefining their census tracts and block groups for the decennial population count in 2020.  That count will be the basis for a required redistricting in 2022.

How we make plans for building our community and its quality of life, consider the possibility of an expanded Council and prepare to move into a "new" City Hall all look to be inter-related.  Now is a good time to begin planning for those questions.

Thoughts?

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.

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.

Will American Industry Step Up?

Lately, the President has brought forth a new effort to get people working again.  One of the more local public works jobs, which would really create jobs, is the rebuilding of the Brent Spence Bridge from Northern Kentucky to Cincinnati, Ohio.  Now, all we have to do is sell this idea to Congress.

Back in the day, Congressmen used to have "knock down - drag out" battles over which one would get a job creating (pork barrel) project like this.  Many of the projects were just to get jobs and not do anything else, but this will replace an aging structure which carries roughly twice the traffic it was designed to carry.  This is a real economic development project which will impact the entire region. Not only does this bridge connect Cincinnati with its southern half of the metro area, it holds Interstate 75 and Interstate 71.  I -75 is one of the most heavily traveled Interstates in the eastern half of the country.

The Brent Spence Bridge carries traffic flowing from Detroit to Miami, from Chicago to Atlanta and from New Orleans to Cleveland/Pittsburgh. That could easily be one fifth of all highway freight traffic in the eastern U.S.  Existing rail infrastructure will not allow the railroads to pick up the slack and the Ohio and Mississippi rivers are limited in just how far they can reach and the aging lock system.

Other Interstate bridges are beginning to show similar wear and tear, as evidenced by the Sherman Minton Bridge of I-64, from Louisville to Southern Indiana.

Why, in a time of high unemployment, should two of the most powerful members of Congress, Mitch McConnell and John Boehner, who just happen the represent the states on either side of this important highway link feel that pushing this project forward is wrong.  Is it because this is a public works project expected to cost billions?  Would it be due to the timing being under a Democratic president?  Both Brent Spence and Sherman Minton were Democratic Congressmen, so the Republicans cannot assist in their repair/replacement?

Maybe these types of construction projects should be funded by the folks who use them the most. Maybe time has come when we the American taxpayer should let the American consumer pay for Interstate repairs.  Have any of our American corporations (the ones sitting on well over $2 trillion in cash) come forward to pay for the infrastructure which allows their businesses to thrive?  The trucking industry and independent truckers pay hefty fuel taxes and usage fees in order to keep the goods rolling and private autos pay their fair share of gas taxes, yet the Federal Highway Trust Fund is still shrinking to the point that it cannot pay for all necessary repairs.  Clearly, there needs to be a better way.

As Rob Morris pointed out the other day in his new blog CivilMechanics,  jobs are created when there is a demand for goods or services.  He is dead on in his assessment this time.  The Interstate bridges are in disrepair, so there is a need.  Construction jobs are becoming very hard to come by, so there is a need.  Government funds will only add to the mounting deficit, so there is a need (to not add more debt).  People on both sides of the river still have to get to the jobs that they still have, so the need is there.

The needs are many and the funds are few, so when will American industry step up to the plate?

Welcome To The New Reality.

It has been a while since I have posted but there have been so many things going on.

The debate in Washington about the "crisis" of the long term debt problem has everyone quarreling about how one side has let the other down.  That there will be no let up in the demand that we live within our means, that continue to grow more and more meager everyday.

The TEA Party and many of the Republicans state that we are a nation of people who should be self reliant who will rebuild our nation from the ground up.  Very many of those same folks cannot even feed themselves should the grocery stores fail to receive their truckloads of supplies. 

The American people have become more and more reliant on the Highway Trust Fund (HFT) to finance the road infrastructure in America and that Fund is reliant on the Federal Gas Tax.  Our demands that our car get better gas mileage and that we keep fuel prices low, and especially, the demand that we NOT increase the gas tax, have rendered the HTF insufficient to repair, much less expand, the national road system.

Now we hear that most of the 18.4-cent tax per gallon of gasoline set to expire Sept. 30th.  That is at the end of the Federal fiscal year.  If the wrangling over extending this is as rancorous as the debt ceiling issue, we may not have a gas tax this time next year.  The individual states would have to enforce their own increases and allocate for their own highways.  50 different ways of calculating the fees, 50 different methods of collecting it and 50 versions of allocating toward transportation projects.  This could have a devastating effect on the trucking industry.

States which currently have a sparse population could see their highways wither away and become dirt roads.  Parts of states with larger cities (think of the area from Washington, DC. to Boston) may get their roads paved but the paths to other portions of the state may be just that - paths.  Lexington, Louisville, Bowling Green and Northern Ky could see all the road growth - or we could actually see regional rail.

But what if we followed the lead of Mitch and Rand and did not raise the fuel taxes in any way?  The Federal government could then no longer help us, nor could the State.  Each individual would have to fend for themselves. Rugged individualism would have to be instilled in all of us.  Can't you just see it now, Mad Max right here in Central Kentucky?  No, somehow I think that we would all have to cooperate and pull together.

Melissa Lafsky has it right when she says that "our inability to raise the gas tax is at the heart of our economic decline" . We want to cut taxes on all the wrong things.  We only tax about 60% of the total tax base and that is leaving a lot of cash on the table. 

Today, the City of Williamstown granted tax breaks to the creationist theme park to the tune of 75% over thirty years in addition to the $40 million in incentives from the State.  If this project is not good enough to go it alone, then why do it at all?  I'm just saying that that is a lot of money for something which may be dated and faded in 30 years, then need new incentives to "freshen" it up - or replace it.

The hard liners on not raising taxes are adamant that they will not inflict higher taxes on corporations.  The same corporations who are sitting on $2.5 trillion in liquid cash and not expanding or hiring because they don't have local customers.  Those local customers are not showing demand for products because unemployed(or underemployed) folks cannot pay for stuff.  Nor can they borrow the funds to pay for things.

So, the final results are, private industry will not create jobs, the Government is not allowed to create jobs, the gas tax will not pay for transportation construction jobs, the social safety net jobs will be reduced and our rugged individuals will rebuild America. 

Welcome to the new reality.

The Where Of Transportation Funding

The U. S. Conference of Mayors has spoken up about local infrastructure investments, in particular, transportation funding for urban areas. The fact is they want more of it.

The mayor of Atlanta, Kasim Reed, has said that there should be more focus on “pressing metropolitan transportation infrastructure needs” and not “low -priority highway expansion projects”. That is right invest the money in the cities where the economic growth will occur. Places like Atlanta.

The U. S. Conference of Mayors has released the results of a survey of their members concerning such transportation investments and of the 176 cities which responded, 93 % feel that cities and metro areas should receive a greater share of the federal funds. Not only that, but it should come directly to the cities and bypass the state bureaucracy altogether. That sounds good doesn't it? Bypass the state and the MPO and use the money to do transportation that we like. I wonder what Lexington's position was on that.

If the money does NOT come directly to the cities and in greater levels, then only 7% of mayors voted to increase the federal gas tax. That would be the usual source of the federal transportation funds which has not kept up with the needs both in the cities and the rest of the country. You know that we are running approximately $20 billion a year behind in just maintenance work and not counting new road projects. How do you think our mayor voted on that one?

96% of mayors voted for increased transportation funding with 89% supporting a gas tax increase (if that money will be spent locally) and 65% if the money will be spent on public transit. With the price of gas rising, the use of hybrid and electric autos increasing and the per capita miles driven falling there is a question of where the funds will come from. What did Lexington say about that?

In the United States, metropolitan areas account for 86 percent of employment, 90 percent of wage income, and over the next 20 years, 94 percent of the nation’s economic growth, but they are burdened with the nation’s worst traffic jams, its oldest roads and bridges, and transit systems at capacity. Simply put, these areas are receiving significantly less in federal transportation investments than would reflect their role and importance to the nation’s economy.

U. S. Conference of Mayors

The Lexington area reflects the above statement well except for the part about the bridges and the transit system. According to the Transportation for America site the majority of bridges in the Lexington area are not that deficient and most around here will say that the Lextran buses are mostly empty. I am not sure about the bridge info but the Lextran rumor is totally false.

Now here is a real good question, if as the USCM website says:

The U.S. Conference of Mayors (USCM) is the official nonpartisan organization of cities with populations of 30,000 or more. There are 1,210 such cities in the country today. Each city is represented in the Conference by its chief elected official, the mayor.

Why did so few cities participate in this survey? The had a return rate of just under 15% and as this PDF shows the list is dominated by the smaller communities.

The answers to my questions as to Lexington's responses are-- apparently we did not give any. We are not included on the list of 176. So, what do yo think the answers SHOULD be?

Downtown Reflects Its Residents

The other day I responded to a comment on an article in Business Lexington The comment wasn't so much about the article as it was to an(I thought) inadequate response to another commenter. Since then I have decided to expand on these words here.

The original commenter is a well respected real estate broker who concentrates on commercial properties and the gist of what he said dealt with the look of downtown and his thoughts on who should be responsible for its usual condition. He pointed out some specific locations and named adjacent property owners. I took him to imply that, although we have some fine, civic minded property owners, there are still things that they could do for some of our main thoroughfares. He finished with a thought or two on simply enforcing the laws that are currently on the books and identifying that we are all stakeholders in how the face of Lexington comes across to the rest of the world.

The editor, Tom Martin, came back with a description of some efforts in other cities that could be implemented here. But these were still basically impersonal, government run clean-up campaigns that would be paid for by imposing some kind of additional fee somehow. Not quite the same as involving all the stakeholders, except for paying for it.

My thought is to place the blame squarely where it belongs. Downtown would not look as it does if it weren't for the people of the area. Downtown is a reflection of the people who live and work there.

My first point is also probably the most obvious one, as it occurs right in the center of town. Most folks would say the CentrePointe block, but I am looking across the street in Phoenix Park. A certain set of our residents have literally taken up camping in the park. Complete with assigned sleeping areas and stacks of their worldly possessions covered with tarps , to protect them from the rain. Some days, as I pass there, it looks like a roofless dormitory with some of the residents beginning to stir and others still sleeping in. Shortly after, they set up the rec rooms and the friends come by for a day of hanging out, playing cards and good conversation. Sooner or later some ministry group will come by with food and water for lunch and dinner.

Other cities have similar problems, as evidenced by an article recently published in the Wall Street Journal about urban tent cities for the homeless. Our homeless just haven't been provided with tents yet.

My second point takes on how we treat our places of public assembly, primarily the Court House Plaza. It is the most recent showplace for large crowds and a focal point of our civic pride. But have you looked at the pavers and stone walls of the plaza lately? Increasing numbers of black splotches of used gum (or whatever) and cigarette butts litter all around the approaches to the doorways. Trash barrels that get aimed at and hit about 60% of the time and skateboard tire marks on the steps and some low stone walls. Take a good look at this place after a public gathering of some size, a rally or holiday weekend, and before the city's clean-up crew get to it. It can be just disgusting what a crowd can leave behind.

The third point is about not just what a crowd leaves behind, but some of our favorite establishments in downtown. We have a burgeoning entertainment district going on in downtown Lexington, and I have not been shy about blogging about it. But some of these places leave the sidewalks and streets around their kitchen doors and areas where they place their refuse for pick up in a horrible state. Some of their Herbies and Rosies are sitting in a sea of detritus or a caked pile of grease, which nobody claens up for days. I have seen some places with sidewalk cafe tables just a few feet from a night spots recently emptied garbage bins. Mmmmm' good eating for lunch.

Then there are those night spots who advertise by posters and placards. Stapling, nailing, pasting or somehow adhearing said placards to whatever lightpost, box or other inantimate object that will take it. They do not remove any old ones, just rip as much as they can of what was left off and replace with a newer one. Occasionally the city will send a crew out to tryto clean thing up, but that is getting rarer in these times of budget crunches.

My questions to all of this is "Why are we such pigs about the way that we (ab)use our downtown?" Are we all like teenagers who allow their room to get so piled with trash that Mom has to come in and throw everything away? Why do we expect someone else to do the cleaning up?

People, we have the World coming to our house in the near future. All that some folks can talk about is the vacant block where a few ratty buildings used to stand, and they complain that it looks trashy. To me, it looks like someone is planning to do some type of project, that there is progress of some sort in this town. This is the space over the sofa reserved for a piece of artwork, while the rest of the house is littered with junk and piles of dust balls.

Our house need a good cleaning and we all need to help.

Some Follow-up on the 2035 Plan

In my haste last night I forgot to look at the previous 2030 Plan for what it said on the subject of passenger rail.

Well, there it was, on page 28 of Chapter 3 under the topic of RAILROADS. the section on passenger rail is an exact duplicate. Or should I say that all they did was cut and paste from the old plan into the new, without changing(or apparently checking) anything. Even with that, the study for the 2030 Plan would have been done in 2004 when the Kentucky Cardinal service from Louisville had already been discontinued.

What really grabs for your attention is the next section which is a discussion of Light Rail. This is another of my great passions. Here is some of what they wrote:

...Light Rail is and has been area of interest for the Lexington Area MPO for many years.

...This started the MPO Staff to begin light rail research and to work light rail visioning into the Lexington Area MPO transportation planning process.

... While currently economically unfeasible, this plan and subsequent plans should continue to investigate/examine the potential role and the feasibility of light rail in the future transportation system of the Lexington Area.

Now here we are five years later, and not only is there no further planning for Light Rail, but even the topic has been stricken from the document. With three of our surrounding, major cities clamoring for light rail and the rest of the nation beginning to develop and install such light rail, Lexington's commitment, so prevalent in the last plan, has vanished.

If only there was some investigative group dedicated to getting the information to the people, but I guess they have all been laid off over budget cuts or some such nonsense.

Lexington and Louisville not alone

The budget woes of Lexington and Louisville that I wrote about yesterday are not limited to Kentucky. It appears that Hamilton Co in Ohio(Cincinnati) is also looking to trim fat from the wrong areas.

Why can't city leaders realize like the regular families do, that even though some promises were made, some deals were struck or someone else claimed the right, that situations change (of no fault of their own) and priorities have to be re-evaluated.

This all reminds me of the homeowner of recent housing development, who called to complain about the new apartment complex being built behind her house. "The Realtor said that I would be surrounded by single family houses." she said. "When did the get that rezoned? I wasn't told about this." The property 's zoning was all changed at the same time, three years before her house was built. Sometimes we and our city leaders don't do "due diligence" and sometimes it is the "law of unintended consequences", but situations do change. And so do our priorities.

Let's just deal with it.