There is much of my beloved irony to the picture on the left. In order to illustrate this blog posting, I searched for “warm welcome”. This is one of the images that was retrieved.
When Northfield gives a business a warm welcome, is this what the business experiences?
The current Comp Plan Revision Process has raised an issue that has long lingered beneath the surface in Northfield. Chamber President David Ludescher has shared his concern that some of the Draft Development Principles based on citizen input might not be considered friendly by the business community.
David’s goal, that Northfield is friendly to business, supportive of job creation, and recognizes the importance of a growing tax base, is an important one. However, what exactly constitutes “business-friendliness”. I was thinking of a warm welcome and look what I got. Furthermore, who is responsible for this friendliness? Finally, will well-worded Development Principles and $1.50 get you a business-friendly community or just a cup of coffee?
If I were to go out on a limb, and offer my own idea of business-friendliness, and perhaps over simplify, I would summarize it as having two components: the presence of tools necessary for business and the absence of obstacles to economic development. In my mind, necessary tools would include a good transportation system, safety from criminal activities, adequate to exceptional utilities, including the communication network, some basic level of freedom to create and market products, and a sufficient mix of financial resources to realize the business’ vision. Unwanted obstacles might consist of inadequate infrastructure, limited resources, misguided or overzealous or arbitrary enforcement and requirements that simply are not feasible, and, perhaps most important, a bad attitude.
Certainly, city staff has much responsibility for the business-friendliness. In today’s Northfield News, City Administrator Al Roder described the economic development staff as the front door to our community. It may make a difference if the first thing that visitors read is “Welcome” or “Please Wipe Your Feet”. Theoretically staff is only implementing the vision of the Mayor and City Council. Our leaders certainly need to be aware of the experiences of businesses with the City of Northfield. Perhaps due to David’s concern about the opinions of citizens shaping the community’s development goals, lately I’ve been wondering about how much responsibility the people of Northfield bear for the business-friendliness of our community. Perhaps at the very least, the citizens set the tone.
Some economic philosophers, and I won’t mention any names, tend to view the citizens as mere consumers, shaping the economy purely through their decision-making on product purchases. I, however, am considering citizens in their roles as capital investors. After all, their taxes are part of the sources by which a community builds its infrastructure. By speaking for or against swimming pools, art centers, public libraries, highway upgrades, hockey rinks or business parks, the citizens can have at least some influence over investment decisions that may or may not lead to the creation of good-paying jobs and a vigorously growing tax base. I think that this role may be the focus of David’s concern, he is urging that citizens’ input should ideally lead to what he considers to be the type of investments that will hopefully foster economic vitality.
But I want to return to setting the tone. There are seven people on each of the City Council, Economic Development Authority and Planning Commission, for a grand total of 21. That’s out of 18,000 some people in Northfield. If the people of Northfield want our community to be more than a bedroom community, if they want a balanced portfolio of investment in our town, if they want the creation of more good-paying jobs, and if they want to increase the supports for our tax burden by growing the business sector, that will help set the tone. The Planning Commission heard those messages from the public at the input gathering sessions. Apparently David didn’t hear that message. Maybe it’s time to turn up the volume.
Locally Grown has quickly established a reputation for being a noisy place of opinion sharing. Please let David know what you think constitutes “business-friendliness”. Tell him, and us, and our leaders, and each other, who you think is responsible for this friendliness. Finally, let the community know what you think we should do to make Northfield more business-friendly. We all need to hear it.
40 Comments
Ross, your point must be tempered by the fact that the city staff IS the front door. And in an attempt to satisfy all the constituents, you have to deal with the fact that a significant proportion of the citizens would find a Toyota assembly plant (great jobs and tax base) an anathema (”evil cars”), while others would find a non-profit wind farm (”over-subsidized eyesore”) to be similarly tainted. And you have to write a comp plan and city codes to reflect that schizophrenia. Sigh. But the real problem you have is infrastructure. Infrastructure is not something that magically appears, and building it betting that industry will come in and offset the costs is 1990s thinking. Planning commissions need to start planning rather than reacting. Last Saturday Dundas city council, staff and planning commission members met to start developing processes to deal with planning for infrastructure rather than simply reacting to growth. This means that we plan to show people in real terms what major decisions will mean in terms of population, jobs and taxes, as we anticipate having to choose between industry and housing.
By the way, if your business recognizes that integration into a small town means being conscious of the rural roots and love of the land that small towns based on farming, not agriculture, have, then we are “business friendly”. If your business believes that providing good bike parking and connectivity to trails is part of a good business plan, then we are “business friendly”. If preserving important environmental features like swamps (er, “wetlands”) and riparian buffers is part of a good business plan, then we are “business friendly.” But if all you want to do is build a 20-yr building and get a quick profit, then we are probably not so “business friendly”. Planning commissions serve at the will of the elected officials, but at the same time this gives us the opportunity to do the right thing because we can see further than the next election.
What he said.
Bruce came pretty close to summarizing my point. If you are in business in Northfield to make a profit - then Northfield is a difficult place to be. Development principles that require businesses to create public amenities, such as bike trails, greenfields, and public spaces at business expense, and not at public expense, price Northfield out of the business development market.
Let me follow up on a point that Griff raised in the podcast, and which I have not been able to articulate because of my focus on business. Let me submit this proposition: Strip malls, trailer parks, cul-de-sacs, ticky-tacky housing and other elements of our community supply important utilitarian functions and deserve a place in the Comp Plan. Get rid of trailer parks and you will exclude a large segment of our population. Exclude strip malls and many businesses won’t survive. Build large, beautiful schools and property taxes go up, and residents move out.
It is not just businesses that don’t feel particularly welcome in Northfield. Look at the principles and tell me what in there is welcoming for blue-collar residents.
Vern Rippley made a crude, but essentially accurate, representation of a mentality that pervaded much of public input process. He referred to the East Siders as the Bike Rike. Diversity and mixed use is a laudable goal until you stick 5 noisy college kids next to your house. Then, government regulation becomes necessary restore tranquility.
As I and the rest of the Chamber Board members read the present principles we could not even find the words business environment in the 12 principles. We couldn’t find any reference to the EDA’s own Economic Development Plan. We couldn’t find an reference to transportation plans which are so important to economic vitality of the community. But, we found numerous references to “pedestrian experience”. How pedestrians are an important part of Northfield’s development escapes my concept of development.
So, if there are legitimate voices that can convince the Chamber President that Northfield is a business friendly town, I would love to hear from them. That is not what we are hearing from our members.
David makes very valid points. I sometimes think that Northfield is more concerned about establishing processes to talk about what things should be like in a Utopian world than actually working to deal with the world we live in. We have cumbersome processes in lots of areas and often must do or purchase things not asked for in other communities, driving up the cost of doing business. Every resident, or customer, pays for the cost of those services.
Then, in other areas, in spite of years and years of so-called planning, we fail miserably in supporting our business community. A case in point is Northfield’s ‘transportation plans’. We defer and delay taking action to create east-west roadways until it is simply too late to create them. It is not ‘business-friendly’ to ask a loaded semi to travel through two of our busiest intersections and then drive out through a college campus to head east.
Norman Butler sent this as a letter to the editor at the Nlfd News but evidently it didn’t make it into print. I’m assuming IBC = Int’l Building Code and MNBC = MN building Code and that he’s experiencing a measure of frustration with the City of Northfield’s building inspector as he contemplates changes to his building.
The sentiments of residents are crucially valid, and Northfield should, IMHO, respect and try to accomodate them. They represent who we are as a community.
At the same time, we do need to think about ways of maintaining a sustainable community. This includes supporting the business community, so it can, in turn, support the residential community. As an obvious economic reminder, businesses, directly or indirectly, exist to satisfy needs and wants of individuals, or they don’t succeed.
Accordingly, this business community should complement the community as a whole. How good of a job is it doing? (Please don’t take this as a claim that it’s doing poorly, but as an important self-assessment question for the business community.)
The question should not be “how business friendly are we?” Instead, what kind of business environment do the residents envision? What kind of residential environment do businesses envision? How would these environments impact our community? What can we implement to best approach the residential community’s, sometimes Utopian, ideals in a sustainable manner that requires understanding of the business community’s, sometimes Utopian, ideals?
It seems to me that we have a tendancy towards the community complaining about businesses and businesses complaining about the community. Maybe it’s a doomed marraige, but maybe some counseling is in order.
David Ludescher wrote
In Dundas we are very aware of this problem. That’s why, for example, we are trying to make Low Impact Development (LID) analyses part of the development proposal. I am told that done correctly, LID costs less not more (think storm sewers vs swales and rain gardens), so I expect these analyses to steer the proposals in the direction we would like to see. All I ask is that the prospective developer/business be given the chance to see this savings. Of course, we add incentives too, but ultimately I do not want to see us make businesses do unprofitable things. On the other hand, I would really like to see concerned citizens be given a chance to voluntarily subsidize a business that was able to show that LID would cost them more (this is why Tracy rightfully calls me a utopian dreamer). We contend, however, that bike routes are an important part of infrastructure, not an amenity, and asking businesses to help fund them is no different than asking them to help fund road improvements needed to handle their trucks or water towers to provide them with fire protection. This latter requirement is more of a paradigm shift and I will not apologize for trying to make that shift a part of the Dundas design philosophy. And if businesses find such a simple thing too expensive, then perhaps they should steal infrastructure support from some other communities largess.
I own both a house and a business in town. Both use approximately the same amount of public resources. Yet, I pay 3 times as much on my business as my house.
So, let’s say my neighbor wants to build a bike path. I will pay 4 times as much as he. Will I will less willing to have the bike path built? Of course, because the bike path costs me 4 times as much.
The Development Principles add another layer of costs. Some of the principles require that my business be solely responsible for the costs of bike paths and green spaces without requiring that the public share any of the costs. To term it “infrastructure” is disingenuous. Of course the majority of people would want it if they don’t have to pay any portion of it. (In politics nowadays, the popular term is “investment”, i.e. investment in our children, investment in our future. In business, we need to be worry about the return on our investment.)
In designing these principles, we need to ask ourselves, “Would I pay my fair share of the costs of the requirements so that I can get what I want?”. If not, then we need to ask, “By what authority should I ask someone else to pay for what I won’t pay for myself?”.
I would submit that if we truly value bike paths, green spaces, and other non-business related amenities, one methodology is to have the City buy land and convert it to public spaces at public expense. Sure, businesses will be paying 3 times as much. But, we already are paying three times as much.
Perhaps even more fair would be to create an enterprise fund, like we do for water and sewage. Every resident would pay into a fund which could be used to establish park lands, green spaces, and bike trails. Or, we could do it like a school levy.
The worst possible way to get what we want is to tell people that they have to pay for something that someone else wants. The best way to make sure businesses do what you want is to give them money for doing it. Build a bike path, and the City will pay for it. Every business would do that. It adds some value to their business at no cost. The City would get the path for the same price (and maybe less) then it could build it.
David
You have been reading some philosophy books, I’m impressed!!
However, let me correct you, if I may, on a few things. These are not meant to be criticism of your comments or opinion, but more observations from my experience.
First of all, you state “ The Development Principles add another layer of costs….. Principles require that my business be solely responsible for the costs of bike paths and green spaces without requiring that the public share any of the costs.” This is not true. The developer who wants to develop a green field or brown field site pays the cost, which is then passed onto the consumer. Any adjoining properties do not pay for walking or biking paths because they have either previously paid or are not of the development site.
Second, the term infrastructure is a tricky one to use. Perhaps, the way to look at it is to say that the public benefit is not always measured by cost, but by unmeasured benefits, such as health, neighborhood amenity, safety, reduce street cost, and appeal. Take for example health costs which are hard to define. The B/C to the health care system can be measure, but due to the costs being hidden across a larger group of members it hard to see the exact user B/C to the consumer!!. Can we say then that biking and walking paths offer a more direct health benefit then the health coverage we get now. With a bike and ped paths, I can CHOOSE to become healthy, therefore cutting health costs to myself and those that pay into the fund. OR, I can CHOOSE not to use the bike path. So there is a direct consumer benefit to bike and ped paths, a healthier life style!
Third, and I must say you have some very interesting philosophical questions, “Would I pay my fair share of the costs of the requirements so that I can get what I want?”….(and)…. “By what authority should I ask someone else to pay for what I won’t pay for myself?” Well, guess what, we do pay. Whether we know it or not. ALL development costs are passed on to the consumer. Even the State of MN which builds roads uses tax payer’s money, there is no magic money tree. The same is true with a private development; the consumer pays for the product. If the product is not what people want, then the developer usually suffers.
Forth, let’s not confuse businesses with developers. Or perhaps you could clarify what you mean by businesses. The developers of green field sites KNOW that amenities like bike and walking paths, lighting, good access, parks, and trees SELL properties.
Of course, let’s not forget about the architectural style and square footage issue.
Ross’s original question was whether or not Northfield was “business-friendly”.
He indicated that I didn’t hear the message at the public input session that Northfield is a good place to do business. He concluded that the people at the public input session said that they wanted good paying jobs, a balanced portfolio of residential and business, and that we wanted to grow the business sector. His conclusion was that I didn’t hear the message; and that the volume needed to be turned up.
Ross may be right; I may not be listening very well. If that is the case, then the whole Chamber Board has the same problem that I do.
What we are hearing is that businesses are welcome provided that they conform to standards (Development Principles) that designed for primarily for a certain type of lifestyle. The business community is told that this lifestyle will, in the end, prove to be the best lifestyle.
Such an attitude is may be right and even admirable; but, it is not encouraging to business.
David:
I’m not sure where I gave you the impression that you have a hearing problem. I think that we both have heard that Northfield needs to earn a more “business-friendly” reputation. I have also heard that people in Northfield want good-paying jobs, a balanced portfolio of residential and commercial investment and that in order to achieve those goals, we need to grow the business sector.
Your sense that Northfield has more or higher standards than other communities may be true. Your assumption that some businesses may prefer to locate in communities that have lower or no standards may also be true.
My purpose for opening a discussion on “business-friendliness” was to include topics in addition to the Development Principles (for the Land Use Chapter of the Comprehensive Plan) in our consideration. Unless we expand our discussion and efforts beyond the development principles, I don’t think that we’re going to make much progress to our shared goal of business-friendliness.
I sent a link to my blog posting to almost 50 local business leaders. Only two have participated in the discussion. I, and I think David, would really like to hear their thoughts, so I’ll ask again…what constitutes “business-friendliness”.
Thanks much,
Ross
FYI, the Nfld News has an article in today’s paper titled:
Group considers how to make city more ‘business-friendly‘
FYI, the NDDC posted a blog entry too:
http://nddc.org/weblog/post/735/
(…and has a picture!)
Even though this web link to the “New Urban” newsletter might not be what some folks are looking for with regards to having the correct answer to the question of what constitutes “business-friendliness”. It speaks to the issue of what standard can or should we expect our business community, leaders and developers to aim towards.
I especially like to the article on how production home builders can capture a growing market and avoid the coming glut of large-lot houses. And the growing support of new urbanism principles by the multiple billion development company General Growth Properties towards redesigning the shopping malls concept.
Are we “business-friendly” or “business savvy”?
http://www.newurbannews.com/Jun07.html
Highway 3 entrepreneurs have a relatively smooth ride as far as I can see. They apply to build something and are either granted or denied it or, if denied, must fight for it. They build new building, talk to Planning, hires architects who follow the Codes for new buildings, etc., apply for variances when it comes to signage and parking, and eventually open for business (or not). The so-called Process is clear and designed to meet or frustrate their plans.
Downtown is different. Four or so years ago I was involved in a fracas about putting new windows in my downtown building without a permit. The Building Official marched unannounced with a policeman in my office and told me I had 30 minutes to vacate the premises. I was somewhat taken aback and it was the policeman who prompted the BO to explain my rights. I forget what they were. I appealed. I repeat, I appealed. This led to a Council Chamber confrontation with the HPC. I cited the real example of the Oolala remodeling (and others), the Council deliberated and the windows stayed. The Process was unclear, messy, confused, confrontational, irrational, rebellious, and authoritarian. All of this is grist to the mill of the democratic process, yet it took an Appeals Process to resolve it. In this regard, I see no change Downtown.
The Guidelines for the Rehabilitation of Existing Buildings, qualified by the Codes for MN which qualifies the Accessibility Codes (and others) and referring to those for new build (International Building Codes – IBC) – all these Codes are a veritable maze, a mishmash of contradictory rules and guidelines. It takes a really good architect or Building Official to untangle them and these people should ideally be predisposed to interpret them in favor of business coming to Northfield and most especially in favor of business coming to Downtown; be they new, expanding, relocating…whatever. This is not the case and, who knows, perhaps never will, or can, be.
If the City Council professes to be business-friendly, then all the staff must assume this orientation. If the Council professes to support the Downtown, then the whole staff must adopt this position. Meanwhile, I gather at this stage little mention of business or the Downtown has appeared yet in the revised Comprehensive Plan.
It is the small- to medium-risk takers who fuel the economy and they range along a continuum from the naïve, under-capitalized, enthusiast to the savvy, well-heeled, corporate professionals. The latter have no trouble navigating and negotiating with the other players in the mix; government bureaucracies, government-appointed committees and related entities all of which function along a continuum between regulation (Planning Department, Building Department) and facilitation (EDA, Chamber, NEC, NDDC) with government-appointed committees (Planning, EDA) in the middle.
In terms of business-friendliness, our concern should be with the former, the true entrepreneurs, and our analysis should be in terms of the structural tensions between the two functions of regulation and facilitation: In extremis, regulation becomes authoritarian, facilitation becomes permissive. Finally, this discussion should be in terms of real people having real experiences.
Norman makes a number of good points (if I understand correctly). These are points that I had not adequately considered in my “Chamber” presentation.
First, Highway 3 (non-downtown) businesses have it much easier than downtown businesses from a regulatory and facilitative perspective. I would agree that maze of regulations for downtown combined with the downtown regulators (building official and HPC, to mention just two) make doing business downtown more difficult (and more expensive) than doing business on the strip.
Second, I remember the fracas over the windows. It illustrates only too clearly that sometimes those who profess to have the preservation of the historical Northfield as their agenda may not be able to see the forest for the trees. Norman should be the client of the HPC, not the opponent.
Third, those organizations which could or should have supported Norman were not supportive of his “problem”. I am not aware of any systemic structure designed to address the other side of historical preservation, i.e. the costs that individuals have to bear to keep their properties up to the higher standards demanded in the downtown.
There is a perception the best way to make the downtown stronger is to limit development on the outskirts. Norman’s experience tells me that this attitude is not productive. In fact, we may need to examine whether the largest impediment to a business friendly downtown is those who are seeking to preserve its historical character.
Dave, I think you’re painting with too broad a brush. Historic preservation is *not* inherently hostile to business interests. If our regulations here are, they need to be corrected, but please don’t globalize! Preservationists and conservationists of all stripes have a hard enough job as it is.
Tracy/Dave
Of course historic preservation is not inherently hostile to business interests. In fact, thoughtful preservation can be a huge draw for many types of businesses and customers. The issue is COST. I’m sure Norman would have been more than happy to put the top shelf custom historic windows in his building if the cost was not prohibitive. The requirements for historic accuracy in restoration of downtown buildings is a huge economic burden–and this before a business can even open their doors. Plus retrofitting new codes into historic structures like sprinkling systems, larger handicapped restrooms, etc, take money and the latter takes precious square footage. Then the tax burden is much higher because the restored historic building has such a high percieved value…Thus we are paying a premium for doing the community the favor of opperating our businesses out of downtown. If the community values a strong downtown, which I know it does, then perhaps there could be some economic incentives for business investment in our shared historic downtown. Or am I dreaming?
Mary, I don’t think you’re dreaming at all - you’ve provided exactly the kind of information that needs to be gotten to the public so they know what downtown building/business owners are facing.
Personally, I believe that retrofitting the old buildings to meet many of the new codes is both burdensome and unnecessary. I also believe that we should work to establish some sort of preservation fund that could be used for specified building improvements (like windows).
Norman - I would interested to hear some more specific thoughts on what can or should be done to address the regulation/facilitation question. Specifically, you have identified the Chamber (and others) as a facilitator. What can or should the Chamber be doing to act in a more facilitative mannner?
What I would envision in the future is that a Chamber member who is having the kind of difficulty to which you refer could call the Chamber and turn himself or herself from a “naive, under-capitalized enthusiast” into a “savvy, well-heeled professional” for the price of Chamber membership.
Tracy has thrown out two thoughts: look at the existing regulations, and establish a downtown preservation fund. Is there any merit to those ideas? Who would do the work?
You had your own thoughts - but no specifics. How will an attitude change happen?
As a free-market advocate I am always torn between the needs of the business person, who may be more interested in saving energy than in saving historical window designs, and the needs of the groups who would direct businesses through codes and regulations. Balancing things like this is made more difficult because of the perceived rough hand that public organizationa without funds often wield as they create unfunded mandates. I have long argued (in Dundas and Bridgewater) that the planning process should work to ensure that those with conflicting goals are given a chance by the process to see that the objectives can be made to work together. For example, Low Impact Development (LID) is easy because many of the things we encourage can be shown to be less costly to the developer, it’s just that they often don’t run the numbers because the city codes make it easier to just tie in to storm sewers than it is to build run-off management into the design. Coming back to the specific example of the HPC, yes, Norm should be a client, in that when he wants to upgrade/repair his windows the HPC should be there with a check to cover the difference between the “off-the shelf acceptable anywhere else in town” windows Norm would like and the (perhaps) custom made, image-preserving windows the HPC thinks are needed. Nothing soothes hurt feelings and smooths ruffled feathers quite like a check to cover the difference in costs.
As for the process, I am working with the Dundas city staff, city council and planning commission to create checklists that will make the process of development, upgrading and downtown development more transparent to all the players. Putting together such checklists at the beginning of the process would help everyone involved know where we are in the process. Eventually I hope to have checklist “on the shelf” to be modified as needed, especially to help businesses who want to work with our downtown development plan (when we get there).
Is mixed-use development business-friendly if developers (which are businesses, after all) are enthusiastic about it? Does mixed-use development put businesses and customers and employees in closer proximity? Last week I was in Bend, Oregon, a rapidly growing community of 75,000 in which mixed-use development has been embraced by both planners and developers and in which bike lanes coexist well with motor vehicle lanes.
I visited one new mixed-use development: NorthWest Crossing, created by two large developers: Brooks Resources and Tennant Developments.
Here is some verbiage from their page on “Sustainability”. Remember, this is written by developers, not professional environmentalists:
The prices at Northwest Crossing are high by Northfield standards, but the area there is booming. Also, presumably energy costs would be lower there for renters and homeowners due to the building quality; transportation costs would also likely be somewhat lower due to alternative transportation options. (I won’t even get into the health advantages.)
I was told that the Chamber of Commerce there endorses the concept of creating a multi-modal transportation system in which people can get where they want by driving, walking, biking, or taking transit - in short, a full range of choices.
Bend is planning an even more ambitious mixed-use development, Juniper Ridge, which would include a university and research park. It’s had some problems but may be promising.
Though a check up front would be nice, perhaps tax credits might be just as desireable. Or like the “this old house” provision that encourages home owners to go ahead and restore their old home but not bear the upward spike in property tax due to the increase in value for 10 (?) years. We give TIF financing to other developments–why not the downtown? Personally, it is the property taxes that have made a difference in making a living and just holding my own. On my home I get a property tax refund every year because my income is so low–is there a comprable thing that can be done with business property–especially as businesses (and the downtown traffic counts) are getting established? Any programs like this would also be an incentive to businesses looking to relocate or start up in our downtown–more density, more traffic, more investment of private dollars, more sustainability…!
Checks up front are clear, traceable (accountable) and transparent. Tax credits, TIFs and other “creative financing” are just back alleys and smoke-filled rooms with a thin veneer of acceptability. Just look at how mistrustful the voters are of TIFs. Can’t blame them, it takes an accounting degree just to understand some of them. “Keep it stunningly simple or face frustration“, that’s the ticket to better understanding, quicker acceptance and great results.
Bruce,
Ok, I’ll take a check if you insist. Just didn’t think most people would be able to stomach directly subsidizing my business. But maybe I’m wrong. Is there a way to help with the high property taxes that would be palatable?… which brings us back to the original question of business friendly and business growth throughout Northfield–we need a deeper and wider tax base and this means being proactive about space needs for business and industry to expand. In Northfield we need to think of a new business park as a necessary amenity/investment for quality of life just like we do parks and recreation facilities. We need to set aside space for this now, and figure out the transportation and technical infrastructure to support business, just like we have as housing and population has expanded.
I think that there has been some talk with Sen. Neuville regarding creating a program like This Old House. But, that still doesn’t address Norm’s window problem.
Norm implies that the standards are subjective to the point of arbitrary, and the standards are being used in a regulatory, rather than a facilitative, manner. He says that this attitude makes it even more difficult to be downtown then out on the strip.
Perhaps this is an issue that the NDDC should address.
If I knew how to do a “block quote” , I’d put the last two sentences of May Rossing’s post #19 in here. Please go back and read it again……….
For the last two years , the city council, at their retreats, have named the Downtown as one of their most urgent priorities to support….. But when it comes to action, or dollars, to support that worthy goal, I don’t see a strong , consistent policy effort.
For instance, the Downtown Revolving Loan Fund exists to support DT businesses with lower interest loans, but it is constantly looked to as a source of funds for other causes. The EDA, which doesn’t always seem to heed the advice of their own (was it $90,000.00 ? ) TIP Strategies study, when it cites the DT as an economic development strength……… looks to the DRLF $$ as a source of funding for a $50,000. forgiveable loan for a newly recruited business coming to town. I agree we need to work hard to recruit appropriate new business, and find incentives for their encouragement.
BUT…….Please correct me if I’m wrong, but I thought those DRLF $ were for the existing businesses in the DT, which admittedly operate under the most layers of restrictions of any commercial area, as they are also subject to the overlay of the HPC/Historic District; carrying with that both the pride and the problems that Norman and Mary have mentioned.
What’s the true, operative policy here?
Three years ago, the NDDC submitted a proposal for (I believe) $50,000 of CDBG money to use to support adaptive reuse projects in historic buildings. Our vision (if I remember correctly) was to give away $5,000 grants to ten projects over two years to supplement the high cost of such work and stimulate (or pump-prime) private investment (with perhaps some public partnership) in downtown. Let’s just say that there wasn’t much enthusiasm from city staff for our proposal.
Mary Rossing put her finger on the heart of this issue, there is a significant economic challenge to historic preservation. Kiffi Summa put her finger on the soul of this issue, talk is cheap, financial incentive programs are what is needed.
Providing financial incentives begs the larger question of providing accountability for the expenditure of public monies.
Assuming that there had been a pot of gold for Norman from which he could have installed new windows in accordance with the HPC’s regulatory order, installation of HPC windows may have been an ill-conceived idea. If installation of the windows was a bad business decision for Norman, then having someone else pay for it doesn’t make it a better decision; it only makes it more fair.
What I have been unable to detect in my limited dealings with the HPC and other preservationist efforts is any discernable objective standard to judge the merit of a preservationist proposal, or to judge the merit of one proposal against another. In other words, we can’t do everything. So, how do we prioritize projects like Norman’s window project?
My quick reading of the National Register of Historic Places information indicates that Federal law doesn’t impose any regulations on listed properties (except for tax credits and grant programs), nor does the state, but the city has chosen to enact ordinances establishing the HPC (see City Code 34-486, this is enabled by state law) and then empowering the HPC to review building permit applications for properties in the DT Historic District and approve changes (see 34-458 to 34-460).
If I’ve got this right, and I hope someone will correct me if I’m wrong, then the business community could lobby to change the ordinance and reduce the burden of the regulations and reduce the slant of the playing field for DT business owners.
As well, as Bruce Morlan is doing in Dundas, I repeatedly advocated for a thoughtful review of the procedural requirements and fees to make a development checklist as short and clear as possible and that fees and regulations don’t penalize businesses. This should, obviously, take place with the input of business people who have experience with the city development process and can describe what works and what doesn’t.
The decisions the Building Official and the HPC make are not the issue. The issue is, of course, accountability! Thus far, as long as I have been here and as long as I have intimately involved in these people (and they are all honourable, sincere, and thoughtful), their committies (well intentioned and responsive), and their timelines (!!!), deliberations (???)and their processes (***), they are not accountable! There is no second chamber, ombudsman, court of appeal. It is not about money, grants, loans - all of which would add value to the downtown entrepreneur - it is about accountability! AAAAGGGGHHHH.
Accountable to whom for what?
By what rule and measure is an appeals/review process to judge the decisions made?
That is, how would the appeal process make the decision-makers more accountable?
Changing the ordinances regulating the HPC could include procedural regulations - as it is now, the HPC has broad discretion and no regulations guiding time frame, criteria for decision-making, or any other accountability safeguards. Ditto for the appeal “process” to the City Council.
The prime reason I supported the reorganization of the DAB (Design Advisory Board) several years ago was because that board, while sincere and knowledgeable, also had no accountability, stipulated standards nor any basis in the code for any of their demands to developers.
I agree that accountability (along with transparency & predictability) is crucial for all city decision-makers from staff to the council and now, when the land use regulations are being revised, is prime time for building as much accountability into the code as possible as well as removing barriers which may already exist.
Holly asked in Post #165 of the Prayer Group thread why I thought that Northfield has an anti-business reputation. Please refer to the comments in posts 2, 4, 5, 10, 16, and 19 for the beginning of an explanation.
I not only believe that Northfield has a reputation as anti-business, I also think that the reputation has been earned. One of my goals as Chamber President is to educate the public about the communal value of a healthy and vibrant business sector. One only has to look to Dundas to see the great disparity in attitude which exists in the Chamber’s service district.
David, are their benchmarks or outcomes that you and the Chamber (and others) have established for changing this attitude? In other words, when and how will you know when it’s working?
Those are some good questions, Griff.
What the Chamber has chosen to do is to work on initiatives - Highway 19, business park, and state issues (taxes, health insurance costs, infrastructure etc.). By focusing on individual business concerns, and the value to the overall community, we are hoping to change people’s minds one issue at a time.
But, I like your suggestion that we should try to get some concrete benchmarks to evaluate how the business community in Northfield compares to other communities, and if we are making progress.
We have one measure from the Retail Strategies Task Force - 49%. Northfield’s retail sales are 49% of what could be expected for a town our size.
I’m late to this discussion but would like to comment on my experiences with Care Tenders. When I was building for Care Tenders Ray Cox guided me through numerous committees. (He is a SAINT to put up with all the hogwash these committees create.) The DAB at the time included my brother-in-law and the “second” architect/designer of the building. Neither were allowed to speak “because they might have a conflict of interest in my plans” (they didn’t). One member of the DAB pushed his personal agenda repeatedly…he wanted sidewalks…WIDE sidewalks (in a commercial development & Care Tenders servicing persons from their home). If the building had wide sidewalks I needed to change all the windows facing the sidewalk to safety glass. The added cost would have been somewhere between $26,000 - $35,000. I said “NO”! The 3 members of the DAB making the decision (present & not related or employed on the plans) backed down.
The next issue was trees. Yes, I had 20-50 trees in the back of the lot but they didn’t count. I had street frontage and a cul-de-sac on the side (corner lot) and “the guidelines say I should plant 32 trees”. Ray did his best to convince them that while I may have plenty of frontage I did not have adequate space for even 15 trees. I remember Ray stating, “In 5 years she will have a severe tree problem if she must plant 15 trees.” After much discussion the “3 decision makers” allowed me to plant 12 trees. Later, when I wanted to put evergreens around the building I was told I needed to go back to the DAB for approval as “The plan listed deciduous shrubs”. I refused and planted evergreens. Honest-to-God building in Northfield was one of the worst experiences I’ve had. It was arbitrary…capricious…and ridiculous. I will NEVER build here again.
Again, re. commercial property taxes. When I built the CT building I was told commercial taxes would be “around $3,000 per year”. Dream on. They currently are $16,000. My assessed value increased $85,000 for 2007. UP Up Up! (It will be interesting to see if taxes DECREASE now that property values are falling.) Look at all the empty storefronts and empty buildings in Northfield. Small businesses are hanging by a thread & I don’t believe anyone really cares as NO ONE will take on the “elephant in the living room” which drives all of this. I believe the heroin issues, secrecy at city hall, blaming a police chief for stating a legitimate problem, secretly advocating for a municipal liquor store, should I go on??? There is too much secrecy about who or what really drives Northfield. And, it is killing small business.
Just watch us go.
Barbara, I thank you for your kind comments about me and your experience with building your facility in Northfield. I wish the comments about the city process were as kind. It is interesting to hear your thoughts–someone that came to town and had to deal with city issues. After 35 years dealing with such things on an ongoing basis, I must say that they’ve ‘worn me down’ and I just continue to expect the things that are done to people wanting to build here. I will say that there are significant differences in dealing with building in other cities in the area—most being easier to navigate.
My biggest concern with all the committee decisions and permit processes and applications of hundreds of rules is that they totally ignore the basic common sense of individuals. When someone is going to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars, or possibly millions, on a facility, they most likely have a pretty good idea of how they want things to look. To tell someone that they have to change a tree or plant variety, change a paint color, or increase a private sidewalk width seems very arrogant to me. People will install landscaping to make their buildings presentable. They will ask for it to be painted a color they like. Those same people will own and operate the facility and they most likely know what their customers will expect for amenities.
I will never forget one evening several years ago I had to attend the DAB committee. Keith Covey was the Facilities Director at Carleton and was there presenting to the board for a building. He had window cladding selections, brick samples, mortar samples, roofing materials, etc. The DAB started picking on things. For quite a bit they focused on the brick color, wanting to change it from the one being presented. I could not believe that a city committee was actually proposing major changes to a private building, after architectural professionals had made the selections for the owner.
I don’t necessarily care for every bit of architecture I see in the world. The University of Minnesota has a ‘tin can’ art building, Seattle has a library formed completely with steel and glass diamond shapes, etc. But I want people to feel free to express designs of all kinds. I don’t care to have a committee in charge of so many of these subjective decisions.
I think the town could use a bit more belief in individuals and allow them to create buildings without overbearing committee involvement. We really can get by in many of these areas without having government ‘assistance’ to plan our projects. Is this an essential role of government?
Barbara -
http://nddc.org/weblog/post/804/
- Ross