Lexington Has An Image Problem !

Believe it or not, Lexington has an image problem.

The problem does not lie in whether we are the home of a high caliber basketball program or the capital of thoroughbred horse breeding. No, our stumbling block is that we either cannot see or refuse to see our city as others see us.  This is something that we NEED to fix - soon.

Events of the last week seem to have gone out of their way to drive this realization home to me.

First, were a few quotes from Erik Carlson, the new editor for Business Lexington, as a way of introduction. He said, “We’re fans of Lexington and want the city to succeed economically... But we’re not a cheerleader. We can’t be. … Dissension is necessary for proper growth. It must be respectful, but being polite and keeping everyone happy all the time cannot trump Lexington’s desire to advance as a city.”

Second, was the discussions of the Planning Commission's work session, where I understand the staff's proposed wording of plan elements appear to paint Lexington in a bad light. Having worked closely with planning staff members for over 40 years, I feel that I know the city's shortcomings and the staff's desire to overcome them. Identifying our many problems and proposing reasonable solutions should be the very starting point for a 20 year plan. Like Business Lexington, the Commission should not be a cheerleader. They should be the leaders in pushing the good solutions.

Back in 1929, when Lexington's first Comprehensive Plan was being written, the planners looked at what the existing conditions were and looked to remedy the problematic ones. They proposed a city in which they wanted their children (and others) to live. Subsequent plans seem to have backed off the identification of problem areas and more emphasis of making what we have available to more of the population. Strange, have we not seen the growing disparity in our economic classes both here, nationally and globally?

When the staff speaks of growing suburban poverty levels and a lack of adequate basic services like food and healthcare within an easily traveled distance, should that be ignored or downplayed? When the need for affordable housing is demonstrated, should certain factions on the Commission question the authenticity of the demonstration? It may be time for those making the guiding decisions for Lexington's future to take off the rose colored glasses.

From a post by Carl Schramm, a well respected economist comes a different view pertaining to urban planning. It does have some nuggets of truth and maybe some elements which Lexington can consider in future plans.

Several things are almost never spoken of when perusing a community's comprehensive plan. These items may also be considered benchmarks as to the success of following such a plan.

Plans seldom speak of what the city’s population might be at the end of the planning period. They may have varying, wide ranges of population but nothing specific for having followed the plans recommendations. A good measure of success is how many people chose to live there or have the jobs to keep them in a particular place.

Plans have no answer to the question of what the profile of persons in poverty will be by the target year. Since the usual goal of a plan is to toward success for all of a community's residents then the change in poverty profile should me measurable or predicted. Any plan should have goals and recommendations to stabilize and grow the local economy, with the ultimate purpose of making it sustainable for all.

I don't think that I have ever seen a plan which discussed measures concerning the day to day operations of running a municipality. Most plans never relate the location or timing of land use decisions to the true cost of providing city services. Should a plan be as cognizant of where city employment goes as it is how it affects the long term pension and retirement programs.

So, what do these plans speak of? 

Many cities give themselves high marks on their diversity of population, the cultural mix evident in their public schools, yet the US education system is behind just about all of the component countries. They trumpet the stability of most neighborhoods and praise the strength neighborhood fabric while ignoring the frayed edges and the sometime missing elements that are so desperately needed.

Environmental sustainability is spoken of strictly in terms of the natural environment while leaving the talk of sustainable infrastructure investments to the whims of politics. Are the green, environmentally friendly buses or high mileage city vehicles any more important than the lower wattage LED street lighting which is available? Would our city streets last longer if we restricted the weight of not only our own city vehicles but many private ones to boot?

How about the changing nature of our economy? We set goals for increasing employment but rarely lay out the steps for reducing the current unemployment levels. When we talk of creating new neighborhoods, why are they centered around the creative class and called “Arts” or “Entertainment” districts? Can the creative class not build a district that they want for themselves? 

If a plan is to be useful it may need to see cities first as the economic communities that they are and have been from their beginning. “Build it and an economy will come” is proving to be a fallacy , it was the other way around. People came and the city followed later. It was the commerce which the people brought that enabled the city to grow. Neighborhoods, like cities, that no longer produce sufficient commerce to sustain themselves become dependent on others. 

But can a neighborhood produce more than it consumes?

New technology in residential solar and wind generation can,under certain conditions, produce a reverse flow on electric meters. Combine that with lower wattage, yet brighter, LED lamps and you will aid in the power part of that question.

Increased connectivity, both vehicular and pedestrian, will reduce the consumption levels of outside resources, raising sustainability chances.

Home or community gardens will reduce the dependence on external food production.

So, WHY do our plans not encompass the discussions which can bring about a real progress in Lexington?

I surmise that it may be the above referenced growing disparity in our population classes. Our Planning Commission members serve in a purely voluntary role, and are supposed to represent the various interests of the whole community. Many will say that they came from humble beginnings and have worked hard to achieve some level of success. But who now represents those who have failed, for whatever reason, to escape that humble situation, or fallen through no fault of their own.

I see on our Commission, representatives of the farmers and downtown, our home builders and developers, our neighborhoods and even racial issues. I do not see an advocate for the homeless or housing challenged. I do not see truly innovative entrepreneurs pressing for alternative methods of progressive development.

Planners do not get off Scot free either. The planning field has a serious flaw. They have no reliable source for the candid, consistent critique of their plans. We award great plans but we don’t scold bad ones. Why is that? It’s because planners don’t have a consistent logic for what makes a great plan (and conversely, a bad one).

So, is there some which can be done to change out image problem?

Even More On Kentucky Proud

How many of us local folks (those who grew up here in Lexington) have had the impression that the tobacco industry and the thoroughbred horse industry were the two mainstays of Lexington's economy?

Since I was a small lad, the annual Blue Grass Review, a section of a January Herald – Leader Sunday edition, made grand statements and projections about all of the recent sales or the upcoming season for both industries. These were can't miss fields to be in.

Therefore, I was quite surprised to see this clipping from the June 30, 1938 Lexington paper:

In 1888, the largest crop grown in this county was hemp.

Twenty-four percent of the world's output was produced here.

Now we grow only about forty acres of hemp. Formerly the hemp house was as much a part of the farm equipment as the dairy or the stable. Now, the hemp house has given away to the larger tobacco barn and the horse barns.

In 40 years and two significant wars, Fayette County would abdicate its place as a world leader of beneficial raw goods and replace it with products associated with vice and addiction. Yes, I do know that local farmers have been raising horses and racing horses since before the Civil War but horses were not the only line of work. The modern thoroughbred operation of today began with the introduction of corporate style funding (syndicates and the like).

Hemp, basically a weed, is about as easy to grow as hay or sod and without the extensive level land requirement. The hard part is in the harvesting and processing of the fibers. Did it make a lot of sense to switch to tobacco, a much more labor intensive production process and susceptible to more blights or diseases?

The decline in production may have its roots in the The Marihuana Tax Act Of 1937, which did not directly outlaw the growing of hemp but put a tax on every entity who dealt with the raw material. Although the tax was just $1 a year in most cases, the penalties of not registering and paying were substantial.

Given the quote from the newspaper account, the tax was be placed on a sizable number of Fayette County farmers during a time when they were trying to climb out of the Great Depression. Not a good economic move there Congress.

There may be some defense for Congress since it was thought, at the time, that hemp fibers could replace wood chip fibers in paper production. Such a move could have threatened the powerful William Randolph Hearst and his vast timber holdings from which he got his newsprint.

Further complicating the economic landscape was the inclusion of the Cannabis family of plants in the 1925 revision of the International Opium Convention as a drug. The Boggs Act of 1952 is the first time in federal drug legislation that marihuana and narcotic drugs were lumped together, but the damage had already been done.  In 1970 any cultivation of Cannabis plants what-so-ever was banned in the U.S.

More recently, at least since the mid-1990s, automobile parts manufacturers in Europe have been developing a process to use bio-mass fibers as a raw material. These fibers have included soy, switchgrass and hemp. The technology has been around since the late '30s so it is nothing new.

In 1941, Henry Ford made an experimental car body out of organic fibers that included hemp. As a demonstration, it was struck with an ax handle without damage to anything but the ax handle – it broke. Sadly, production costs proved to be too high, raw materials in short supply and World War II intervened, or we may have had many more lighter weight, auto-bodies when the “muscle car” engines developed. Imagine the Corvette with a bio-fiber shell rather than fiberglass or the polycarbonate shell of the old Saturn line which tended to shatter in colder climes.

Hemp is legally grown by 29 countries around the world at present and most will export many products made from that hemp. China, Russia and Korea produce a lion's share of those exports yet each year the U.S. government identifies those countries that it considers to be drug-exporting nations and they are not on the list. We Americans can legally import hemp products from as close as Canada but we cannot join the global market place or become hemp independent or export our own.

A number of our state's leaders wish to change the status quo and position Kentucky  to proudly return to leading the world in hemp production, employing many farmers in the process.  This week the The Kentucky Chamber of Commerce joined Agriculture Commissioner James Comer in supporting legislation allowing hemp production.  Federal law still stands in the way, yet fully half of the our state's Congressional delegation have stated support of efforts to legalize growing hemp.

Not all farmers can get in the horse business and the tobacco business has just about dried up. Our produce farmers and remaining dairy/cattle farmers are scrapping for what tillable land there is left.  Hemp can be grown on more marginal land and we still have some of that, especially in the more eastern region where they need the help.

Hemp legislation can be done in a reasonable and safe manner if we try.  Let us all try to be proud Kentuckians, employed proud Kentuckians.

Read more here: http://www.kentucky.com/2013/01/11/2472773/kentucky-business-group-gets-behind.html#storylink=cpy

If They Can Create Jobs, Let Them Start Now

I voted for the first time in 1968.  I guess that you can do the math but I've been voting for a long time.

For as long as I can remember, the candidates have always been saying what they will do for the American public once they get into office.  I have voted for some strictly on that basis and, like the majority of you, I have been disappointed on more than one occasion.  Many times it was that I was wanting a different direction than the majority.  Sometimes, the winner just did not do what he promised and others, the victor was hampered at every step by the opposite party.  My greatest disappointments come when they just can't get the job done.

This year, in both the gubernatorial and presidential campaigns, our candidates seem to be finding more flaws with their opponent/s than actually solving the problems at hand. In last night's presidential debate, all of the speakers told of their grandiose plans to right the government, create jobs and lower taxes, all without losing any of the gains in our American lifestyle or costing anyone any more money.

Multiple strategies and multiple directions which arrive at the same point, low unemployment and good, high paying jobs.(i.e. full recovery from this recession).  I would think that most economists think that this can not be done but economists are not running for President.

These debates serve the function of job interviews and allow the candidates to showcase their qualifications and accomplishments.  It is too bad that they gloss over he details of how and focus on the broad statements of a job well done while leaving out the facts to support them.  One thing that they all agree on is that we need to get Americans back to work, paying taxes and growing the economy.  It just has to happen AFTER they get into office.  The Obama administration cannot get any of the credit for any job creation.

I have been on both sides of job interviews before and have always been more impressed by the ones who had really done something lately and not he ones resting on way past performances.  

Since the election is still over a year away and we need the jobs right now, maybe we should make part of the contest a real race to see which one will create the most jobs in the next 12 months.  They each have a plan which they will be allowed to implement but only if the follow the same rules. They can not use public funds of any kind, they can not use tax breaks or incentives to lure jobs and they can not poach existing jobs from other areas in the U.S.  The end result should be an unemployment rate of  less than 5%.  The candidate with the highest total of jobs to which he can be directly linked by the end of October 2012 should be declared the winner by acclamation.

Things I've Heard This Week

Some days the information just flows from the street. Today was one of those days.

I watched as some of the people most involved with the streetscape redo walked around and did some spot checks. One of the longest discussed spots was the rain garden structure near the corner of S. Upper St. With a long level and several tape measures, they checked and rechecked the concrete retaining wall and the paving stones along side it. This is around a section where I have seen them pour, cure and then trim off some excess with a power saw and then tear out and re-pour work that was not correct.

Later I caught them again near Main & Broadway. In front of deSha's, there was a contractor installing one of the new wireless transmitters for the free wi-fi that is to be available downtown. In fact, he was placing it on top of a post that holds the traffic signal arms which cross both Main and Broadway. This mast, and all the rest along Main St are to be replaced in the near future. Nothing like job security when you are working with stimulus money.

On the way back in the other direction, I passed some contractors in front of the big blue tower(5/3rd Building) and they were talking about the rain garden at that end of the block. I heard the words " Its all wrong, That wall is all wrong". My question now is, will we accept wrong work or will we have it redone? Will it be redone before the WEG?"

Next, the section in front of the electrical box at the entrance of the parking garage was having bollards installed. In holes jack hammered through recently poured concrete AND the asphalt base for the final pavers. I wonder if these were an afterthought or an omission on somebody's part.

I have also been asking Tom Eblen about his column comparing the two mayoral candidate's presentations at the Hunt Morgan House. He has so far "been unavailable for comment" as the journalism phrase goes. Others seem to want the answers too.

I heard two of the most preposterous suggestions at Tuesday's talk by Jim Gray. One lady proposed that the volunteers from the Arboretum could maintain the CentrePointe block, as a "central park", with donated plants(all native species) and it would all be totally free. It would not cost the city a dime. I guess she has forgotten all about the little fact that the city does not OWN the property. Just buying it for the assessed value would take $6 million plus which the city does not have to spare. Another woman stated bluntly that the city did not need a department store or any major retail (other than a pharmacy and a grocery) and that all shops should be small boutiques selling things to the tourists. I wanted to tell her that when the oil runs low and gas runs high, the tourists won't run at all.

Speaking of the WEG, some of the ticket prices have come down and today the Lextran shuttle fares have come down. The ticket sales are still down and if this equine related forum is any indication quite a few of our usually relied upon visitors are considering staying home. Is the world really coming to call?

We will keep our ears open.

November's Campaign Begins

The fall mayoral campaign began tonight, right in the middle of Jim Newberry's victory speech.

I think that it is safe to say that the gloves are off and it is down bare knuckles at this point. Mayor Newberry is pictured as a mayor that makes mistakes and Gray as a supposed visionary who has done nothing.

Both of these men say that they have a vision (or in Gray's case WILL have a vision) for how Lexington is to move forward in the future(read next four years). Right now we are mired in the lagging efforts of an economic recovery while being finally forced to live up to commitments made by previous administrations. Not a very comfy environment to spend any time in.

Both men also seem to look toward a time when we have fully recovered and we can get back to business as usual. Lexington and the United States have been through recessions and depressions and we HAVE recovered, but these post depressions/recessions times have not been "business as usual". Post economic calamity times have always been very different from before and this one will no doubt be likewise.

I, like some of my fellow bloggers, believe that the availability of cheap energy sources is a thing of the past and government statistics are beginning to reflect that. Federal agencies are starting to urge social changes to accommodate such a scenario from as high as the Cabinet level, although meeting somewhat stiff resistance(claims of social engineering). As energy affects just about every aspect of our lives, the results of more and more expensive energy touch us all. I would like to see what each of these candidates thinks is in store for Lexington and how they plan to deal with it, or prepare us for it.

We have seen it in the water rates and the price of gasoline and we all say that there is not much that we can do. We will see more in electric rates and natural gas in the future and still not have much say about it. But some of the decisions that we make about land use and transportation options today can go a long way toward mitigating the effects of rising fuel costs among other things. A simple limiting of parking (and not just in the downtown) as other cities have considered would encourage mass transit and more localized shopping and services. Perhaps the situation at the Polo Club Chevron the other day was an omen to those living in suburbia that fuel for your auto could quickly disappear and you could be stranded.

There are many other topics and possibilities of future changes that could be considered and all in the realm of probability. I want to know where these guys stand and if they are thinking about the future of Lexington, or just the next four years.

Commentary and Comments

I normally like to read the comments of others to the blog entries and news articles I find online. Lately, the news pieces about downtown and the announcements of things to come have revealed some of the best evidence that Lexington is schizophrenic to the core.

When past mayors have allowed things to run along as they were the readers called for some kind of bold, dynamic action to be taken, now they decry the actions announced as wrong and misguided. Former Mayor Issac once proposed thinking about condemning the Lexington Mall to alleviate an eyesore and was rebuffed by property rights commenters, now when a large project is set for downtown, the comments run to a majority for taking the Mall property instead. When the Farmers Market desired a permanent location, many asked why the City couldn't supply one and now that one is proposed, they ask why is one needed.

About two years ago, we elected a new mayor and council which was supposed to change the direction (or better, yet give direction) of the management of the city. We currently have people clamoring for now another new mayor because this one hasn't done much better. Yet the city still keeps progressing.

Downtown IS different than it was 37 years ago, when I first came downtown to work. There are more people working here than there was then, they do different jobs but they do work.

Those who write comments seem to run 2 or 3 to 1 against anything happening downtown and claim that there is no reason to come downtown. Even Mrs. Sweeper claims that there is little to do downtown but has been genuinely surprised at the activity when we have had a reason to go. I see comments talking about most people wanting a house and a yard in suburbia and them not wanting their "hard earned tax money" going for downtown waste, yet the majority of new residential development will not cover their provided government services from the taxes that they do generate. The increased public safety personnel (police/fire), educational and sanitation personnel and support facilities, (schools,sewers, garbage...) and roadway infrastructure is never covered by the new taxes generated by a sprawl of low density residential housing. Those costs are picked up by the rest of the urban area taxpayers, some of them after paying for their own development 3 or 4 time over. The people in Chevy Chase are paying taxes to cover the new housing in Hamburg/Gleneagles and elsewhere and the entire country is paying for the Federal contribution to the widened roadways needed to get these people to their work and shopping.

I also have a problem with those who continually claim that the current administration, no matter who they are, is corrupt or not doing the will of those who elected them yet refuse to run for office themselves. There are even ones who claim that they have the answers to the city's problems and have never successfully put their plan forward nor had a program implemented from it.

There, I've had my rant for the day and I don't think that it will change anything.

Flying to the State Job

Last week I posted a tidbit about our Finance Commissioner and the question of whether she would stay or go. Well, it seems that this is not the dream job in her mind. Today she resigned and left for a position with the Legislative Research Commission.

Will she stay or will she go now...

Transform Lexington is relating some interesting material tonight. Mayor Newberry is apparently asking to increase the salary of the Finance Commissioner to keep her from jumping ship to the State. Some would find this as a good thing for her to go, others just think that in these times of economic tumoil any raise is out of the question.

So the question is, will she stay or will she go?

Say it aint so...

More things that I hope never happen in Lexington.

This comes to us from BrokenSidewalk out of Louisville. The Mayor there recently presided over the grand opening of a luxury parking garage. A very small luxury garage. The developers pulled out all the stops and left no detail unattended. The media gave great coverage for a ....wait....for....it.... a 15 car luxury garage. Fifteen cars, are you kidding me?

I can't even imagine what could comprise a luxury garage. Do the stalls come with soothing colored walls and extra padded tire stops. Is there mood lighting and special artwork on the support posts? Does the maid come in to tidy up every day? Does it come with a soak and/or a shower and its individual fuel pump? All this and only for fifteen cars. The other 34 cars get to sit outside on the new surface lot...peons.

Let us hope that Lexington's mayor never get himself stuck playing this kind of gig.

"Peak oil"--- when will we plan for it?

I have posted before on the subject of "peak oil" and the lack of attention that this city has paid the matter. Now, in my in box was the latest newsletter from Post Carbon Cities and the entry for how, in the past year, a growing number of communities have instituted planning for the possibility(probability) of a declining source of petroleum products. This coming situation is not even on the Lexington radar. I keep seeing short mentions in the local press and more on the forums and chat rooms that I have occasioned. There is no lack of access to the information on "peak oil", relocaliziation, sustainable farming or a myriad of similar topics. The only place where it is not discussed is in the public meetings of the city fathers.

Lexington has a growing number of farmers markets and and increasing system of "organic" and "sustainable farming" growers. The PDR program head keep touting ,that the family farm is the "factory floor" of our agri-business or the hoped for agri-tourism. (Has anyone thought of how tourism will still be possible after peak oil?) The city has pushed for walkable and bikeable communities, yet still approves subdivisions without real connectivity, thereby limiting the real ability to provide sustainable communities.

These are just two of the shortcomings of the city leadership. Some others in the city have also seen a lack of leadership and have blogged about it, only they see a failure in another direction. One of these is Transforming Lexington run by Eric Patrick Marr. He seems to want the City Council to make us more like the cities that continue to deny that "peak oil" will occur. Those are the cities more concerned about image than real progress. Those who believe that a Disney-esque circulator trolley is better than a fixed guideway streetcar or tram system.

Eric and I have traded some comments and he says that, in principle, he can agree with statements I have made on his posts, yet he still confuses the "flash of bling" with the real bang of sustainable progress. I don't see applauding the current council for the continued scatter shot approach to finding solutions. Some of the attempted projects counteract others to the point that progress on both is so difficult, as to appear ineffective, and one then the other is discarded for a new "wonder project".

I also don't care for the individual grandstanding of council members, showing that they have the leadership qualities to move the city ahead. This starts to pit member against member or faction against faction, and makes for some strange alliances just to get their pet projects on the table(which may get unfunded by the next election). A number of these projects spend more funds than they bring in in the long run.

I would call for the city to go back to the original charter, reinstall the Chief Administrative Officer (CAO), have the Council set policy and guide the direction of Lexington. In other words , have the "part-time" legislators allow the "full-time" administrators run the day to day efforts of the city. To borrow the analogy from Eric, have the Council steer the vehicle and the department heads apply the gas and brakes as necessary.

The Fayette Alliance and Agri-business

I really wanted to keep politics out of my blog but I just can't help it this time. Within the last week I received an informational mailing from the Fayette Alliance with the answers of the Council candidates to a survey of their positions. A copy of the flyer can be read here.

Now, I like a candidate who will tell me just what he/she will do. I know that they won't or can't follow through on it, but I like to hear it. I also know that groups like the Fayette Alliance can craft their surveys to elicit responses that are positive for their own agendas. Its the way that the questions are worded that you just can't say no to it.

I was particularly intrigued by Cheryl Feigel's response to question #4. Her claim that Lexington's farm receipts should equal the Napa valley's is quite a boast. According to a report titled ECONOMIC IMPACT OF WINE AND VINEYARDS IN NAPA COUNTY the Napa valley received from the wine industry alone $836 million in taxes. Lexington, in the same year had a total farm cash receipt figure of $354 million. Furthermore, there were horse sales in Fayette County totaling $650 million and $0 taxes paid to the State or the County. When we add in the tourism tax dollars ($14,650,000) it appears to me that we come up a little short.

Then there is the second part of her thought, the justification of a Commissioner position for agriculture. Lexington started the current fiscal year with a projected shortfall of $25 million. Since then we found about $12-13 million in a "rainy day fund", but now the whole economy thing has caught up with us. I don't see how we can propose to expand local government at this time, especially when the current administration is working to reduce the existing workforce. A new commissioner position would easily incur a six figure salary. But my major question is (even if we could afford it) which of the current divisions/offices would come under this new commissioner's authority? PDR office is the the first to come to mind. A three person office, at the most, and I believe only one of those is full time. Maybe the office of Urban Forester but I really doubt that. Anybody have any ideas on this one?

Her opponent, Edward Norton III, does not strike me as the one to vote for either. The few times that I have seen him campaigning I hear buzz words and slogans and witty quips of nostalgia about Ashland Park, but no real ideas for solving the current problems of the 5th district. I don't think that either candidate has a grasp of the underlying severe problems that plague or will plague this city.

Lastly, I find fault with the Fayette Alliance, a well funded organization striving to be paid to not do what the Comprehensive Plan says that they aren't allowed to do in the first place. Their survey questions are worded cleverly to make it hard to disagree with all that we are (so they say) indebted to as a city.

I find it hard to call a winner in this election and feel the the 5th district and Lexington, as a whole, will be the loser. OK, thats all for politics, until... maybe next year.