I have been a member of the Mayor’s Streetscape Task Force 
since it was formed by Mayor Lansing. Why Mayor Rossing was foolish enough to invite me to re-join and why I was foolish enough to accept are separate questions from my questions to the readers today. By way of background, the City of Northfield currently has $1,2000.00 of property taxes that are set aside. To assist the City Council in determining how to allocate these funds, a Streetscape Committee has been formed. (continued)While the body has no legislative authority, the Mayor has indicated that the City Council will be use the committee’s recommendations, together with staff recommendations, to decide the most reasonable and prudent use of this money.
Having served on this committee before, it was my impression that the committee had no decision making rubric. As an example, I had objected to the expenditure of approximately $500,000.00 to reconstruct and redesign the Water Street parking lot near the post office because the project lacked merit. Obviously, my vote did not carry the day, and that project was completed.
We are now deciding how to spend the $1,200,000.00. I proposed at the last Streetscape meeting that, at the very least, we had to develop a decision-making rubric. The discussion left me frustrated and bewildered. The only discernable methodology I could determine was to vote.
Having been raised as a farmer, trained as a computer scientist, and practicing as a lawyer, I have never been particularly enamored with voting as a decision-making methodology. It is my belief that a consultive body has to articulate and particularize its rationales to measure both value and results.
So, I am asking for your help. For example, how do we measure whether or not a $600,000.00 skateboard park is a good value? How do we move past the political rhetoric of being for or against kids? How do we determine whether it is worth $240,000.00 to have 600 feet of bike trail? How do we decide if we should build a new $10,000,000.00 police and fire facility, as opposed to remodeling the one we currently have, without the discussion devolving into what one commentator described as Umbrage Politics?
I posed these questions to my family at suppertime. The results there were not encouraging. My daughter, who is 17, suggested that I simply quit. Her observation was similar to most Chamber members’ observation, which is: People in and around Northfield (and people in general) are not interested in good policymaking; they are more interested in their pet projects. In a community like Northfield, policy-making generally devolves into liberal causes, regardless of value or cost. (My daughter also commented that perhaps I should vote against the bike trail expenditure so the money could go back to the school. She reasoned that if that happened, she would not have to share textbooks.)
I would like to prove my daughter wrong about dropping out. I am absolutely convinced that we can make a decision-making process for public officials in Northfield that avoids the extreme partisanship that dominates politics today. I would like to echo President Obama in stating that the real question is not between liberal and conservative; the question is between those ideas that have value and those that do not. I have some ideas; but I would like to hear yours.
Update 10/6, 6pm: Here’s a letter and decision making matrix that I have sent to the Streetscape Taskforce.
To get the comments rolling, I would like someone who thinks that the Water Street parking lot was worth $0.5 million to explain why he/she thinks that the money was well-spent.
A) A certain portion of that expenditure was simply a necessary infrastructure improvement. Your gripe is with the increment of additional spending required to make the project more aesthetically appealing than simply fulfilling the mechanical requirements. On this I am glad the other members of the Streetscape Task Force outvoted you.
b) Have you stopped along the new promenade on a summer evening? There are more people enjoying the river than before. It’s really a very pleasant place.
If having a pleasant place for visitors and townspeople alike to sit and eat a sandwich, watch the river flow, and talk to one another costs more than a simple strip of sidewalk concrete that would be functional in transporting people from one end of the parking lot to the other, but with no other merits, then I think the promenade was well worth the additional investment.
Randy, you wrote:
We love to drop by the new steps to watch the ducks -- and the river -- drift by. It will be that much more attractive when it flows into the new bike/pedestrian path, into Riverside Park, across the pedestrian bridge, and onto the Mill River Trail.
The price? Not knowing the difference between the minimum price required for repairs and the price actually spent, I cannot say.
Randy: Glad you joined the conversation.
My responses:
A) Yes. My gripe is with spending the extra dollars, of which $500,000 came out the Streetscape money, to make the project more aesthetically pleasing. Would it still have been worth it if we spent $1.0 million? How would we know?
B) Sure more people are enjoying the river. But, what is it worth? Every dollar that we spent on the parking lot/promenade is one less dollar that we can spend on something else, like emergency shelter for the homeless. Alternatively, we could find a way for the money to be given back to the downtown owners to make their businesses more competitive.
I don’t think that it is a fair argument to say that I am against the new parking lot. If the lot were free, that would be one thing. However, there are two sides to the equation. Analyzing the cost is easy. But, trying to define the benefits is much harder, and I would submit, in this case, was not even attempted, let alone justified.
David, I think the Water St. parking lot looks nice but was not necessarily needed nor thought out the best. The parking should be more user friendly by being diagonal instead of dead-on. Not sure it was worth the $.5M spent on it.
Arlen: I would submit that before the government spends my money on a project, it should know that the project is worth it. Government should be in a fiduciary capacity, spending the money given to it only after it can prove that the value exceeds the cost.
Arlen- I really don’t know what legal constraints there are on parking along a thoroughfare, but I agree with your assesment. For a first time visitor, when you turn into this area, it is not really clear whether you have entered a street or a parking lot. One thing about 90 degree parking is that you get more vehicles in a given area. Another advantage I see is that a “northbound” vehicle can pull into a “southbound” parking spot more easily. It actually enables a downtown parking maneuver that is technically illegal.
Overall, I really enjoy the area. Not having the center island makes it more open. Karen and I often enjoy parking and watching the river while we eat a sundae.
David,
Before digging into the conversation you offer, I am curious about a couple of the underlying assumptions:
1) You assume that since you couldn’t/can’t see a “decision making rubric” in past task force deliberations — other than voting — that one didn’t/doesn’t exist. Do you assume this because you were on the short end of the voting? I trust you had a chance to make your case within the task force’s deliberations. Does failing to persuade others indicate a flawed process?
2) I thought from the intro that you were soliciting conversation about new streetscape issues, but then you wander off into skateparks, bike trails and safety centers, each of which has or had its own public processes for soliciting citizen input to guide the City Council. Is your assumption that these boards, commissions and task forces have somehow failed in their duties and can now be fixed with a locally grown conversation?
My question back to you is: when we have citizen boards, commissions and task forces charged with reviewing and developing some expertise on a given issue, and then making recommendations to our elected policy makers, shouldn’t the rest of us show our fellow citizen-volunteers some respect? And if we want to express an opinion, isn’t the time for that during the process, when public comment is welcomed, and not only after, if the vote or decision doesn’t go our way?
So, before this conversation wanders out into the world, exactly what ideas are you soliciting? Ideas about streetscape issues? General questions about public expenditures? Commentary about the role of citizen boards, commissions and task forces?
If you are truly soliciting fellow citizens’ input on streetscape issues, could you clarify the scope of the Streetscape Task Force’s charge, where the $1.2 million “set aside” comes from, what encumbrances on it are already in place, what period of time these funds cover, and over what period of time they must be spent? When you say there is $1.2 million set aside, it sounds like free money. I’m guessing there are some specific things these funds must accomplish. What are they?
Randy: It is not my intent to solicit citizen input; it is my intent to solicit critical thinking on political decision-making.
A more apt way to describe my frustration with the process is that the task force failed to convince me. We never attempted to adduce EVIDENCE. No facts were presented on the value of a nice walk, there was no attempt at a return on investment, or any other evaluative tool.
Yes, I would assert that the citizen’s committees, at least in Northfield, are generally a failure. At the present time, it isn’t my desire to “fix” the process. But, I would hope that we could have an intellectually honest conversation about how we actually spend money. Only a critical examination of the current processes is going to help us see if there is a better way.
For example, before building a bike trail for $240,000, we should be able to articulate why we decided to spend that money so that a disinterested third party would be able to take the evidence, analyze what our goals are, and then draw conclusions about the best result. As it happened, we all got together, talked for a long time without any specific evidence, and then took a vote.
My personal take on the matter is that Northfield politics are dominated by special interest groups more interested in their agendas than in critical thought or the well-being of the rest of the town. Among these groups: the no-growth people, the bikers and walkers, and generally, the utopians.
Many of these folks see no injustice in taxing downtown business owners so that the City can spend the money to build them a pretty promenade near downtown. Honestly though, these type of projects don’t benefit the poor and disenfranchised; they benefit those who have the most already.
Although I love open spaces and there is more of that there now, it requires even more tweaking to make it a more highly used spot, according to my bservations. More often than not we see very little action there.
It needs a food stand or something…Al’s Italian Beef sandwiches, and the Veggie eaters can get one with cooked green pepper and special sauce! Iced tea and Lemonade in the summer and hot cocoa in the winter.
I wouldn’t go for a $.6 mil
skateboard park, as much as I enjoy watching the kids go back and forth and all around. It’s not all that condusive to education, and that is where your daughter’s point is heard loud and clear. There is a lot of socialization, true, but no real time spent with the books, thinking, figuring out things on one’s own…building good future habits and confidence.
As for 1/4 mil for a bike trail just over 1/10th of a mile! Oh, hahaha! If the bike people are in such good shape, let them portage or just whatdyacallit, ride over the land. Gheesh. Well, I don’t know the situation, but I would still think there must be a less expensive way. Does anyone ever hire one of those people who layout trails for cross country skiiers, or hikers?
I agree that this town has too many liberals speaking out and too few conservatives and others. I guess they all went underground because they were drowned out. But I don’t think they have left the arena.
Thanks for the question, DL.
First of all David, you need to be more straightforward in your presentation…
As a member of the Streetscape Task Force you must certainly know that the $1.2 came from the DT TIF district (taxes) and must therefor be reinvested in that area infrastructure or lost… so I don’t think your presentation of the origin, or the end use, of the monies spent, was clear enough. In fact It seems almost deliberately misleading.
You and others may quibble forever about what features you like/don’t like, but there was a lot of public input over a long period of time.
Secondly, your representation of a Skateboard Park that was to cost 600K is also completely without substance as that was the proposed cost for the TOTAL development of the Ames Park site; the Skateboard Plaza was about 230K, and the cost had been significantly reduced from that figure by the time the final discussions were ongoing.
The Northfield News , unfortunately for some bizarre reason, kept erroneously referring to the cost of the skate plaza as 600K, when in fact that was about three times the cost of that particular component of the park, as fully imagined in its complete master plan.
So let’s go back and begin again with some facts, not some ‘prejudices’…
I would ask this? When have you heard this council , or the previous one, have a discussion which identified their priorities for the community… based on POLICY decisions … as opposed to making ‘wish lists’ only loosely related to goals, and those goals not tied to policy?
Kiffi: If the money isn’t spent, it won’t be lost. It will go back to the taxing entities. This may be the best decision possible; at the very least, it needs to be seriously considered.
There was an open house at the high school tonight. My daughter’s math teacher is copying portions of a textbook because they don’t have enough money. At the same time, we are talking about spending $400.00 a FOOT to build a bike path. Between bike paths and textbooks, which one should we pick?
David: the selection between apples and oranges is always difficult… the two funding sources are completely different , as you know i.e., one is city ; one is school district.
If I were a parent of a school kid, I would have to ask the school district where are their priorities if the teachers have to ‘xerox’ textbooks? That is ridiculous.
What happened to all the excess levy referendum $$ if they don’t have textbook dollars?
Kiffi: I don’t know that it matters -- it is all taxpayer money being spent by government entities.
David -- I’m a bit confused by , but glad you’ve taken the time to blog about your views.
Could you talk more about what you mean by a “decision-making rubric.” I don’t want to jump to conclusions, are you talking about having some over all goals for the street scape before the committee went ahead and approved a design and spent the money? Was the committee given direction from the council about goals for the street scape, e.g., maximum pedestrian access to the river, improve parking, aesthetically pleasing landscaping using native plants, etc., etc? If not, is your concern that the committee didn’t establish such “rubrics”within the redesign could be accomplished? And, is your other concern that the TF has established no ls goals (rubric) for recommending the next phase?
I can sympathize with your frustration if your group had not had some over all goals established prior to agreeing to a design/project. Help me understand what “rubric” means in this context.
Jane: What I am talking about how we establish and evaluate the goals. The Streetscape Committee was given a number of goals; how to achieve those goals is our task.
For example, we are going to spend $240,000 to build a bike path even though we have a perfectly fine street system, which we could use as a bike path similar to the 5th Street path at a fraction of the price. The rationale for spending all that money? I don’t know.
David,
If this is going to be anything more than an “I’m mad as hell about taxes and I’m not going to take it any more” discussion, you’re going to have to be clearer about the issues. For example, you said that the streetscape task force has a number of goals, but you don’t say what they are. You do say that they are/were not addressed in a disciplined way. Should we just take your word for that?
I am with Kiffi on her repeated request that if you are throwing out big numbers (or small numbers, for that matter), that you at least be accurate and not conflate issues.
It would be an enormously valuable discussion to ask questions about school funding. But to present textbooks versus bike path as a direct choice is deceitful. Yes, when we citizens fail to tax ourselves to provide the level of service we want to have delivered (lower class sizes, a text book for every student, etc.) and choose to tax ourselves for something else (bail outs for Wall Street, cash grants to car buyers, military adventurism, etc.), it all comes from the same pockebook. But to pretend that this is a Sophie’s choice is ridiculous.
David- I guess I’m not sure what you are asking for here, either. Are you looking for ideas about the actual streetscape or are you asking for direction on how to make your committee function better? I could have all kinds of ideas on how to enhance our city. But, when it comes to the function of the committee itself, I really have no opinion or perspective on the structure. If it has functioned this long without everyone throwing up their hands in disgust, then something must be working properly.
John: That we even consider $600,000 for a skate board park that caters to a small segment of the population, $240,000 for 600 feet of bike trail when we already have a street to ride on, or $500,000 to redo an existing parking lot leads me to the conclusion that just about any expenditure of government money could be justified.
My question to you (and others) is: If I want to be a good and faithful servant of the City, how should I be fulfilling my public role? In other words, how do I judge whether an idea is a good “investment” or a wasteful expenditure?
In my opinion, the first stage of being a good public servant is to enforce the “rules” of good government spending. And, in my opinion, the first rule is that the burden of proof lies with the person proposing to spend the money. Prove to me that $400 per foot for a bike trail is a good expenditure of money, and I will vote for it. But, you are going to have an awful tough battle when my daughter has to share a textbook because schools don’t have enough money.
David: You’re doing it again : skateboard plaza 200-230K, not 600K. and school district dollars versus city dollars.
I would agree that the $400 dollars a foot is ridiculous if that is accurate, but considering your other #’s, how can I know?
The path of the bike trail , as laid out behind (to the west of) the buildings along the river at 5th and water seems ridiculous. I don’t understand the DNR allowing that placement, and removal of trees ( natural major anchoring systems) along the river. Maybe this plan is not yet DNR approved?
Kiffi: OK, $230,000 for just the skateboard part, and $370,000 for the rest. Still, is it a good expenditure, and why?
David- Thanks for the clarification. Your questions
are good ones, and ones I think Randy addressed well in his post #11. I don’t think I can expand upon them. I also think there is no definitive answer to them, either. When it comes to anything addressing esthetics, there is a subjective area of personal preference that is neither right nor wrong, and it is hard to quantify its value. When it is necessary to dig up a thoroughfare to maintain the underlying infrastructure, there is always the question of how to put it back together in a way that is pleasing and funtional. My opinion of the work these commissions, such as yours, do is that it is a thankless job and there is always a segment of the population that will not agree with the decision. Having anyone on the board with some professional input is always helpful, but it certainly does not gaurantee the results.
John: Let me follow up on your comments. If there is no definitive answer, would not that argue in favor of doing nothing, rather than doing something? How much sense does it make to say that we don’t know whether this is a good expenditure or not, but we are going ahead nevertheless?
Given the choice between health care for the uninsured and bike trails for the leisurely class, which do you think we should pick and why?
David-
That is a point well taken, but I question its validity in this particular case. I don’t think the city has this choice in the matter. Not using the ,money for improvements won’t neecessaruily divert it into health care. I wish it were that simple.
Regarding my term “definitive answer”, I was refering to the subjective side of the issue. Yes, we can choose to do nothing, but why do that? Rather than have some of the population upset at the commission’s decision, they can have all the population upset by doing nothing and loosing the federal/state funds. It is really hard for a black and white motivated person to deal with areas of gray. Gray areas just don’t fit the preconcieved mold. That doesn’t make them wrong. Trying to fit a gray area into a black and white mold is an exercise in futility, IMO.
John: By doing nothing, we don’t lose money. The money reverts back to the taxing entities to use as wisely as possible. We can’t guarantee that any giveback will be spent wisely. On the other hand, with all cash crunches facing government entities, I can guarantee you that none of the entities would choose to spend any of it on a bike trail at $400.00 a foot.
David,
You didn’t answer what I thought was probably the most useful question: why does your failure to persuade your fellow task force members of your point of view represent a flawed process?
An ex post facto review of any decision process is often a useful exercise, but the way you’ve framed your issues it seems more like sour grapes than deep philosophical inquiry.
Randy: Good question. I want the discussion to be more of a philosophical inquiry on good government decision-making than sour grapes. The bike trail and the parking lot are both expenditures that I can personally use because they are close by, so I don’t think that it is personal.
I view the process as flawed not so much because the Committee arrived at the wrong decision, but because the Committee was unable to articulate why it arrived at its decision other than to say that it voted, and I lost. It is true that “they won”. But, the larger question is whether the decision was right or not.
Trying to discern the larger philosophical question is what I am after, even if I come off sounding like a whiner.
David : If “trying to discern the larger philosophical question” is really what you’re after, I’m all with you, IF you keep your numbers accurate, and your arenas separate.
You have not yet articulated what the measure of the issues considered by the streetscape task force should have been… can you lay out a procedural , step by step plan for how a committee like that should arrive at a decision making point in their process?
BTW, I would suggest that the committee take the responsibility for their own process, not just schedule themselves and function on the staff’s agenda. I understand that the streetscape committee quit meeting ( why?) for about a year during its supposed ongoing lifetime…
This discussion is typical for what is going on in the nation.
We all know that we can’t continue spending money like drunken sailors, but nobody wants the savings to be amd on their pet project.
We all have to live in a more financially sustainable way, but nobody wants to make the necessary cuts
Peter: Quantify for me how you would decide how much an aesthetically pleasing riverfront is worth compared to our old ugly Water Street parking lot. Surely, nice is worth something.
A nice looking town will attract people and businesses by increasing the perceived quality of living factor. There is no question about that.
What worries me is the timing on all of this.Given current realities combined with our inability to live within our means, we should be “turning the penny twice” before spending it.
We have out of control budgets on the local, state and national levels and I don’t see anyone with the will and determination to stop this nonsense.
We all want nice things in live, but sometimes we just can’t afford them, without endangering our budgets.
The world outside of the US has realized that..look at the dollar value and commodity prices.
We are whistling in the dark hoping that the light on the end of the tunnel is not the train that is going to run us over.
If you’ll accept the friendly amendment that we agree that the Streetscape Task Force arrived at a “different” decision than the one you supported, rather than a “wrong” decision, then we can move on.
It seems to me that in the years I’ve been paying attention, the city has done a pretty good job of putting people with different points of view on boards and commissions. At one end of the decision-making spectrum, one might hope that these groups reach consensus, thus reassuring the City Council and the citizenry at large that thoughtful, well-informed people have agreed on the best course of action. (“Best” is, of course, relative to the question at hand, the circumstances, the regulatory and financial constraints, etc.) That generally seems to be what we get.
At the other end of the spectrum, we have groups in which individuals with specific personal agendas or simply different points of view preclude consensus. The default is a simple vote to determine majority rule. Again, that process can instill confidence that the recommendations of the group are useful and actionable, representing a thoughtful and thorough process.
Two flaws in all of our citizen boards and commissions — there may be more than two — are when the original charge from the City Council is not clear, and when one or more members of the appointed group are not committed to respecting the work and results of the group to which they have been appointed.
It seems to me that if someone agrees to be part of the group that works on an issue, he or she should also be willing to support the decisions that result. As a group member, each person has the right and the opportunity to present arguments and points of view. No one has the right to expect to win on all points. That sort of compromise has been at the heart of our democracy, and it is something that seems increasingly elusive, to our collective detriment.
With greater clarity from the Council about the scope of a task force’s work, members of the group can ask formative questions at the beginning of the process, so that each person can be confident he or she will have a chance to raise the questions he or she thinks are important. But that doesn’t confer a right to hold the community hostage to anyone’s particular agenda, if the group’s eventual decisions go against him or her.
So, in terms of the continuing work of the streetscape task force, I’d absolutely support your asking questions of what these investments (and PLEASE stick to streetscape issues, not to a mish-mash of other, unrelated red-herrings) are to accomplish. My list would include:
You would probably start with “Do we need to do anything at all?” or “What’s the least expensive solution to the problem?” Fair questions. I hope you can accept answers like, “Yes, we do because….” and “The cheapest solution is ugly, and will not reflect positively on Northfield.”
In the end, if the group’s decisions go in another direction than your preferences, I hope you’ll be able to respect that. I’m counting on being represented by people who appreciate the difference between spending and investing public funds. Building a plaza along the riverfront is a little like planting an oak tree. The real benefits accrue to the people who come along after us.
Randy: I can affirmatively state that the Committee made a different decision than I would. However, different and wrong are not logically connected. The Committee was not wrong because it was different; it was wrong because it has no measurable, discernable, and objective criteria against which to measure itself.
In my opinion, the City has generally done a very poor job of picking persons who represent different kinds of thought. For example, the Streetscape money is downtown taxpayer monies. So, why does Carleton College or the Historical Society get a vote? They didn’t pay any of the money in. Or, look at the makeup of the Transportation Committee. The City picked someone from the Non-Motorized Transportation Task Force, but no one from the 250+ member Chamber. Huh? Admittedly, the special interest groups that dominate Northfield politics got there by aggressively asserting their interests, not by taking something away from someone else. So, if Chamber members wanted to be more involved, the opportunities are there. But, in all honesty, most Chamber members don’t have the time nor the inclination to compete for political attention. Part of the reason has to do with not wanting to be blackballed in their business by those who disagree with them.
Getting together and having everyone vote on their pet projects got us the Bridge to Nowhere in Alaska. If it works in our favor, like we are trying to do on the tunnel/bridge/tram over Highway 3 perhaps Northfield gains. But, if we spend $5 -- $7 million of the federal taxpayer money on something that we wouldn’t build ourselves, then logic tells us that we are wasting someone’s money.
I might be willing to support the remodeled parking lot, a skate board park, or a bike trail if I could determine the criteria to control the decision making, and if the decision making followed the criteria, especially on cost.
Here is my short list on government spending on these type of projects:
These criteria don’t favor any particular expenditure over the other simply because of political leanings. Then, if the group’s expenditures go against my own, I have to determine if my displeasure was the result of my personal wishes not being fulfilled or if the result is the product of poor thought, and decision making. If it is the former, I have to be quiet. If it is the latter, it is my duty as a citizen to speak.
When we had this discussion at the Streetscape Committee, I challenged the Committee to identify why the parking lot was a good idea. Someone mentioned 4 additional spots -- OK. How much is that worth? $4,000 maybe. Someone mentioned that they see more people down there -- OK, what is that worth? $10,000 maybe. Of course it is difficult to quantify. But, quantify we must if we are going to be objective, and not just subjective.
David:
Once, I have read through all of the 34 comments on this post I will response to your question. However, I would like to respond to your comment of why does the “Historical Society or Carleton get a vote.”
I can only speak for NHS, but we do pay taxes in downtown. We pay taxes for the store front and for our rental property, so yes we have contributed to this fund. And also, from what I can understand when the task force was first formed, they wanted to make sure that the improvements that were made honored Northfield past and were in line with the Historical District guidlines.
Furthermore, on your issue of representation. The current task force has 9 people that either own a business in downtown or works for someone that does, I do not know how many of those people are Chamber Member, NHS is. The other 4 are people that represent a college, NHS, NAG and the Northfield’s HPC. In my mind this task force does a good job of representing Downtown Northfield.
David,
I sat through a good number of the Streetscape Task Force’s meetings on the Water Street project, and I’d say there were a variety of objective and subjective criteria by which the group’s decisions were made. Some were constraints, like there must be no net loss of parking (a valid concern of downtown business owners); others were aspirations, like there must be places people can sit and enjoy one of the community’s significant assets (hint: it’s the river). Others were practical, like there must be bike parking, there must be places to deposit plowed snow, there must be lighting and a pad for the sculpture, etc. You may not have liked these criteria, but to claim there were none is simply not accurate.
On the issue of why non-tax-paying entities are represented in governance processes, it’s because they are community stakeholders, with an interest in a healthy downtown that is just a valid and valuable as that of the Chamber of Commerce (which, by the way, also pays no property taxes).
I understand your point about the federal budget, and probably agree with you more than you’d think. But remember our local budget is balanced; our debt load strictly managed within statutory limitations; many of our funding mechanisms are restricted to certain projects or certain areas of the community.
When it’s raining and I need one, I think a parking spot is worth about $50,000. Four of them are worth $200,000. Sitting on the new benches watching the sun set… priceless. See… we’re already almost halfway to putting a value on the Water Street project. It’s not that hard…
Randy: Part of the problem, in my mind, is that there was a wide variety of objective and subjective criteria but no method for choosing how important any particular criteria is or was. Basically, everyone got to just pick and choose whatever criteria they wanted, like a flavor of the day.
The great Immanuel Kant said that judgment is the ability to choose the correct rule in making decisions. Doing so is an art, and the inability to choose well is regarded as stupidity. One way to choose well is to discern the principle behind the rule.
The principle of the Streetscape monies was that we were going to use the downtown business owners money to improve the downtown. The goal should be to provide an economic return to downtown business folks. If aesthetically pleasing puts people into the downtown stores, then by all means we should do so IF there is a return on the investment. But the reality is that a $500,000 “investment” in the parking lot has to return at least $3000 -- $4000 per month to break even. Sitting on the park bench watching a sunset is nice, but is that really the reason that we set aside that money.
A bike path is even harder to justify. Not only is it useless for about six months of the year, but it has almost no utility beyond its recreational value. (You can’t even ride your bike on the full 600′ the City intends to build.) We need this bike path like a boar needs teats. You can slice and dice the bike path any way you want, but if this passes as a wise use of money, just about anything can pass.
I don’t buy your continued argument that taxes should benefit only those who pay in (or its corollary, that only those who pay in should have a say). As Oliver Wendell Holmes (not quite Kant, but a pretty sharp guy) reportedly said: “Taxes are the price of civilzation.” To me that means we make a collective investment, not a transaction to benefit only self-interested parties. So, your claim that taxes paid by downtown property owners “should” provide an economic return to downtown business folks is, to my thinking, only true to the extent that investments in our community make it a more desireable place for people to live, be, and do. In living, being, and doing, we’ll provide commerce to local business owners, and we’ll attract outsiders who will stimulate the local economy, as well.
I think the question of what makes a community more desireable, while subjective and abstract, is exactly the benchmark we should be using for public investments.
I’ll wade into this one. First, following Griff’s example, I offer a disclaimer: my construction company performed a lot of the work on the parking lot area…stone walls, concrete work, steel railings, etc.
I think David’s comments on evaluating a proposal are good. Does the city have to take over things like this parking lot? Wouldn’t it be possible for the city to essentially say “we can bebuild the road, sidewalks and piped infrastructure for $300,000. Various people have indicated a desire to improve the area beyond that. Are there any organizations and groups that would like to assist the city in ‘upgrading’ the parking lot to a higher level?” I don’t think it must always fall to the city to pay for upgrades like this. I think this is epsecially true when I ‘m not sure there will be any additional revenue to the city/businesses as the result of the upgraded parking lot.
In contrast, maybe it would make sense to allocate a significant portion of the $1.2 million the city has on hand to develop a more comprehensive parking area(s), bringing more shoppers to downtown and helping to support the downtown businesses.
I’ll also add that I am curious if anyone is really considering a $600,000 skate park? I cannot fathom what one would look like. I would think the young people that use a skate park would be very happy with something far less costly than that.
Ray,
First, I completely agree with David’s comment in 14 about using local firms to do local work. The promenade is a great enhancement over the old lot and the neglected riverfront. I think it is a completely appropriate use of public funds and worth every penny. It will serve the community well for many years to come. Thanks to you and your crew.
Second, I make the same request of you as has been made of David: if you’re going to throw out numbers ($1.2 million “on hand”, $600,000 for a skatepark), please provide some context. As has been mentioned above, the $600K figure is not the cost of the skatepark. It is the estimated cost of an entire park redevelopment of which the actual skatepark is one component. As I understand it, the cost of the skatepark itself is less than half. (I don’t have a strong feeling one way or the other about the skatepark, but I do think we owe the people who have put their time and energy into planning it the courtesy of accurate information about the cost of it.)
Where does the $1.2 million figure come from, other than David mentioning it in his original post? What constraints govern its use? As you well know from your years in government, public finance includes many dedicated fund accounts that are not fungible. Is this one of them? Knowing that would help focus this conversation on things we could actually do and avoid wasting time arguing about the merits of things we could not fund with money, anyway.
Maybe for $300,000 -- $600,000 savings we should let the kids skate downtown. If people complain the city could just give them $20 in chamber bucks.
Ray: Slightly off topic but … It really burns my toosh to see Northfield spend money on companies outside of Northfield for some of these projects.
The Rate Search fiasco is a prime example. We might get less interest from in town banks, but the profits are going to be used here, and we can keep much better track of what is happening. So, Ray -- it was good to see your firm doing a lot of the work.
David Ludescher will be our radio show/podcast guest today, live at 6 pm on KYMN 1080 AM or via streaming.
The 1.2 mil$$ is what is left in the DT TIF money that has restrictions on it that include: it must be spent on DT infrastructure,. and it must be spent by 2013.
There may be other restrictions of which I’m not aware.
I’m just amazed by the fact that no one except Randy J seems to feel that improving the Riverfront as a community leisure space is an economic improvement to the DT!
For years, all sorts of people from all sorts of perspectives, have been saying that we need to stop ‘turning our back’ to the Cannon River. This newly developed area embraces the river, and allows us to do so also.
Isn’t it eminently reasonable to think some of the people spending time there will also do a bit of shopping, visit the Historic Society , or get something to eat?
In the 70′s/80′s the Riverwalk was built; but it is like a house without furniture; it needs benches, chess tables, kiosks, etc. There is so much more to develop there for both those that live here and visitors.
Sometimes I get so dispirited about NF; sometimes it seems people can only get seriously involved in discussion of minutiae … things that are already settled , and dollars that have prescribed restraints on them.
Where is everybody in the discussion of why NF needs to annex 1000 Acres of farmland ,,, and where the ‘hotel’ the millions and millions of dollars to even begin to prepare any of that to the ubiquitous “shovel-ready” stage might come from?
This is what I just don’t get, David… you have been so in favor for annexation of many , many acres of land … with NO discernible source of money to even get the infrastructure there, and yet this Downtown Money, which MUST be used in the Downtown, for infrastructure, and by 2013, is a huge mistake?
I just don’t get it … its about as circular as virtually every thread becoming a vortex for abortion/homosexuality. Will the Riverwalk/5th St. Promenade eventually be seen as a reason abortion rates in NF have risen?
If the Bike Trail dollars are such an affront to you, then I expect you will choose whatever way you don’t find too timewasting for the elected officials, and protest, with all your reasons to them.
Just be aware of the fact that with the new ordinance language they passed on Monday night, they don’t have to do anything but “accept” your written statements; they may never hit any public eye, so you may have to come to the Open Mic, which you have said is wasting the councilors time … but you may have to do that in order to assure your comment is in the public record.
Kiffi, you wrote:
I agree. It’s a great addition to the downtown. I go and stare at the river regularly, and often buy some food while I’m around.
Randy’s done an excellent job of (re)framing the discussion; I don’t have much of anything to add til his questions -- mostly about using specifics in the discussion, rather than complaining generally about wasting money -- are addressed.
Patrick: It’s a great addition. But, its economic benefit is marginal, at best.
Okeh, I’m not jumping in with my opinions right now, I’m saving them for our LIVE radio show today (6 p.m. on KYMN)…with none other than David Ludescher as our guest.
However, let’s try again to clean up this discussion, in terms of a few “facts”.
The skatepark cost estimate is, apparently, $230,000, NOT $600,000.
The $1.2 million is, apparently, the estimate of the remaining funds available for the “Streetscape” projects or, as I prefer to call this source of money “TIF (or Tax Increment Financing) District Residuals”.
These TIF Residuals must be spent on what I would call Capital Infrastructure Projects within the District where they were generated. If they are not spent by (I think) 2013 they go to the State of Minnesota and cannot be used (without some very creative and probably rather lengthy legislative maneuvering) to buy books for Northfield public schools.
Fine, here’s one opinion, only in Northfield would a discuss of citizen participation in the decision-making process for capital infrastructure projects include references to Immanuel Kant and Oliver Wendell Holmes.
The skate park cost estimate in the prior capital improvement plan was $230,000 financed with $150,000 from the Park Fund. The remainder coming from outside donations.
The Master Development District does end in 2013. If there are any remaining funds at the end of the district, the dollars are returned to the Rice County Auditor who will then distribute them back to the local taxing jurisdictions.
Monies from the district must be spent in accordance with the TIF Plan for the district. The current plan has amounts listed for land / building acquisition, site improvements, installation of public utilities, bond payments and administrative expenses.
Thanks for those facts, Mac!
Randy wrote:
Randy,
I would add a third flaw: the lack of information and communications on the part of many of those boards and commissions and task forces.
As an example, the web page for the Streetscape Task Force has hardly any information on it. No minutes. No resources.
I put up the May 2006 Downtown Northfield Streetscape Framework plan (90 page PDF) two years ago in both PDF and slideshow form on my Slideshare account. At some point, the City removed it from its website.
Why is that PDF not made available for citizens to view?
Nearly two years ago, many of us were have a related conversation right here on Locally Grown. Review that thread for some good laughs.
I was even bitching then about the lack of info. I wrote:
Griff:
On the topic of lack of info. At our first meeting this year the group decided that we will set up a google group that will be public that will have minutes and other related information so the public can see all that fun stuff. Our good friend Tim Freeland is supposed to be setting that up. When you are at KYMN today, maybe you can twist his arm and get him moving on setting that up.
Good to hear, Hayes, but shouldn’t the meeting minutes at least be on the City site? And the 90 page Framework document for which the City spent tens of thousands of dollars?
David, the 2006 Streetscape Framework Plan has some language in it that’s relevant to your point… even a section titled “Decision Making Framework.”
David, it seems like Chamber members and downtown building and business owners have had significant (dominant?) representation on the Task Force over the years.
2005
2007
2009
Randy, Kifi and Ross have it correct on the $1.2 million, it is in the money left in the downtown TIF fund….at least is what I’ve been told.
As far as a $600,000 skate park, you and I are on the same page. I said I couldn’t imagine a skate park costing this much, and it certainly sounds like it doesn’t. A full park development with all sorts of other features, probably, but a skatepark, no.
But as I said earlier, I do believe in public-private partnerships to get things done. We don’t have to rely on the totally captive taxpayers at every single turn. Some years ago there was a desire to get a shelter constructed at the soccer park. The city and other organizations did a great job developing the soccer fields….but there was no shelter. A group of people were assembled to discuss the shelter and see if there was enough interest in the business community..and the Northfield Rotary Club, to get it built. There was. I headed up the construction effort and worked with a whole lot of volunteers along with some paid workers to get the project completed. I thought it was a wonderful partnership.
The same thing happened for some of work on Marilyn’s Place, the permanent supportive housing near the soccer fields. Again the construction industry stepped forward and provided a significant amount of work to make the project happen.
Couldn’t this be done for a skate park too?
Ray: It was all in the works for the skate plaza: the Park Board chair had gotten the cost significantly reduced by the provider (can’t remember the name) of the elements for the skate plaza, and the Sk Coalition had initial talks with local grading and concrete guys, who were enthusiastic and supporting. Local private supporters were all just waiting for the big contribution/fundraising to move with that effort … But the Council did not want the plaza in Ames, and so the whole thing went down, over the objections of the Park Board .
The amount of MIS-information still circulating about that is astounding. People will think what they want to; never mind the facts.
I’ve been AWOL from LocallyGrown discussion recently out of a preference for the superior local website Northfield.org (insert appropriate emoticon), but I’ll just peek in here to say that I think Ray Cox is correct. On large projects such as the skatepark and the Mill Towns Trail, public-private partnerships seem to me the best way to go. The Skateboard Coalition worked hard to meet a large matching grant from the Northfield HCI. The bike trail has worked not only with state and local governments, but also with groups like Rotary to secure funding. All as it should be.
Having spent a great weekend down in Lanesboro, where I contributed lavishly to the local tourism economy, I also have to say that there’s the potential that investment in the Mill Towns Trail will yield significant economic benefits for Northfield. (Lanesboro also has a cool skatepark.) This should also be part of the equation.
I don’t think David is wrong about transparency in the decision-making process, whether that means his rubrics or something else. For example, on what grounds did the Park Board decide to nix a skatepark in Memorial Park? Was that decision the result of pressure from the special interests of whom David complains? There should be some way (maybe David can tell me what it is) to ensure that such decisions are made in the best interests of the community as a whole.
Rob: I’m trying to get at “the way” to ensure that government expenditures are in the best interests of the community.
Here is my first principle: Gov’t should not spend any money unless it can establish, at least by the weight of the evidence, that the expenditures will return more value than it costs.
This assumes a number of premises:
1. The gov’t is in a trust, and not power, relationship with the people.
2. Evidence is required. (Emotions are not hard evidence; I think is an opinion.)
3. The gov’t carries the burden.
4. The cost is the monetary expenditure.
5. Value must be measured and quantified against the monetary expenditure. In other words, value must be converted to dollars.
Granted, this places the government in a position of having to justify every expenditure, and trying to quantify the value of beauty, convenience, or quality of life. On the other hand, if cost is measured and value is not, there is no context for knowing if the decision is prudent.
While it is difficult to look forward to the value of a bike trail or skateboard park, we can, and should use past decisions, like the parking lot, to set up and balance the equation.
The Streetscape Committee would be well-advised (and not just because I am giving the advice) to go back and try to balance the parking lot equation. Do all the economic and non-economic benefits equal $500,000?
The most common answer that I have heard is, “Yes, but.” In other words, yes it does, but, it not capable of proof. I maintain that if it is not capable of proof, then the correct answer is, “Who knows?”. And in the face of that uncertainty, the expenditure’s justification fails.
David,
As one specific, non-Northfield example, under your rubric how would evaluate the cost-benefit of our military adventures in Iraq and Afghanistan? Setting aside the “emotions” of protecting the nation against unspecified risks, or promoting democracy abroad, what is the quantifiable economic value to tax payers?
The point is that many things worth doing will not pay quantifiable benefits. Further, your calculations will inevitably devolve into public expenditures that are measured in profits to individuals. Just because an expenditure shows a calculable financial profit, doesn’t mean it’s a good idea or an appropriate use of public funds. An economic analysis such as you suggest is what justified the massive bailouts of the financial, automotive and real estate sectors. Is that the kind of public spending you value?
Randy: Setting aside the non-economic issues related to the violations of the American principles of life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness (which alone cause the failure of the those expenditures), economically those expenditures were catastrophic failures.
What appears to have fueled those massive expenditures was the Bush Administration’s attempts to appease American sentiment over the horrors of 9/11. All the arguments raised in support of those wars were not only speculative, subjective, and lacking in an economic justification. Supporters of the war are correct in asserting that our freedom is “priceless”. But, they haven’t provided any solid evidence that our freedom was ever at risk.
I agree that many things don’t appear to have a quantifiable benefit. Being able to look at the sunset from the new promenade is difficult to quantify. But, you have to be able to assign some value to it if you are going to make the assertion that it was worth doing, because it does cost money to do. There is a lost opportunity to do something else with that taxpayer money.
If we were to take a vote, my guess is that most people would have favored building the new parking lot. But, that is primarily because they got someone without having paid for it.
In the face of the “uncertainty” you quantify above as the measure, the entire annexation process should stop right now, the steering committee and its $250,000 consultant master plan should stop right now, and that land should should just be held in agricultural reserve until a certain user with a specific plan comes forward and can be evaluated with other than speculation.
At this point, there can certainly be “no proof” of an outcome for any development there.
Given the process and justification that you give above , David, any money invested in the Annexation would certainly be wasted … as that is in total 1000 Acres of speculation, to which there can be no certain answer within the forseeable future , but “Who knows”?
Kiffi: The annexation process is fundamentally different in many respects. On the primary level, the annexation process is not government spending; it government trying to control the marketplace.
Regarding the government expenditures to support the annexation, I would run it through the rubric. Included in the rubric would be the expected returns to the City if it is supported by taxpayer money. I think we could include the real concern that farmland in America is being used up, and the value of greenspace. But, rather than talk about the importance of greenspace in the abstract, let’s talk about it in terms of how much the City would be willing to pay to buy the land and keep it out of developers hands. That is the real cost of greenspace.
The podcast of yesterday’s radio show with David is now blogged at:
http://locallygrownnorthfield.org/post/12929/
David:
As I stated at the streetscape meeting the way you have laid this out makes sense in principle but is not practical.
The gov’t would have to spend hours upon hours trying to figure out if the the dollars would be worth it or they would have to hire more consultants to figure it out. To me, this would add more cost to the project.
Example:
$500,000 for the Water Street lot
$300,000 (just a number I pulled out of the air) for a consultant to figure out the potential benefit of the re-designed lot, which is not a guarantee anyway because they would be speculating.
So instead of spending $500,000 the gov’t would be spending $700,000 on the project. To me that is still a flawed system.
Now, I am all for the gov’t having to justify their expenditures, but I think there is a better way of doing it, I just don’t know how do that.
And I don’t know if you brought this up or not yet, but the original cost of the Water Street lot was $800,000 the task force got that number down to $500,000.
Hayes: Go back and read what you wrote. Basically what you are saying is that it is not practical to figure out if the money is being well-spent. The solution to that problem is simple -- don’t do the project if the it is too difficult to determine if the benefits outweigh the costs.
Besides, I don’t think that the decision rubrics are all that difficult. All of us have our personal rubrics to determine value. The hard part is being honest about assigning values.
My 17 year old daughter did a decision rubric in 30 seconds on the bike trail. Her analysis -- at $400.00 per foot, we could buy enough textbooks for my class so that we don’t have to share. Her further analysis -- people won’t give up their bike trail money for textbooks, because they aren’t the ones sharing the textbooks. Clean, precise, and honest analysis.
David : I certainly do not mean to be criticizing your daughter and am NOT criticizing your daughter. Her math is undoubtedly correct.
What I am critical of is your statement that her mathematical analysis is a “clean , precise, and honest analysis” ; it is clean and precise math only.
It is, IMO, ridiculous to keep mixing these two areas of taxpayer monies, and how they are spent by the governing unit.
Kiffi: I think it is appropriate to match one kind of government spending with another to help create the rubric. It is all taxpayer money.
David,
I listened to the podcast. It strikes me that the bike trail — in spite of your distain for its cost and your mistaken notion that funds spent on infrastructure can somehow be transferred to the school district (which I know you know is not correct, begging the question of why you keep repeating it) — is a good example of your version of the rubric. It is almost a “last mile” investment that will position Northfield as a more significant tourist destination. When the MTT is fully connected, we’ll sit at the midpoint of a ride from Red Wing to Mankato. Don’t you think that public investment in the trail will stimualate private investment in bike support businesses and hospitality? Hasn’t the public-private partnership that has carried the load so far (with Herculean volunteer effort from a citizen task force) been the very model of what Ray described when we wrote about the Amerman Pavillion at the soccer complex? Rob Hardy’s description of his weekend in Lanesboro ought to make you clamor for completion of the trail.
Otherwise, I still think your insistence that public investment should provide a direct economic benefit to business owners is short-sighted. It’s easy to poke fun at sitting by the river watching the sunset, but people who are so inclined also wander downtown spending their discretionary income. We just need to give more people a reason to be downtown in the first place. Public amenities like promenades, parks, libraries and bike trails do that.
I also challenge your statements about the library near the end of the show. In difficult economic times we ought to be doubling down our investments in educational infrastructure like libraries, not pulling them back. Not only is Northfield’s library one of downtown’s “anchor tenants,” it provides invaluable services to people without other access to information and technology. If that’s not helping people in need, I don’t know what is.
Randy: I could better justify spending these kinds of dollars if we were nearly completion, and if this part were a missing link. But, bike riders have to ride on 4th and 5th Street on the northern end anyhow. We could paint lines on Water St. and 7th Street right now at very little cost.
Public expenditures like parks, libraries, and parking lots create some economic value. But did the new promenade create $500,000.00 of value? No way. Not even close.
I disagree completely that we should be doubling down on services like the library or parks in tough times. When you are having trouble making the mortgage payment, you don’t put on a new deck, or buy new furniture. Instead, you cut back on the niceties so that you can keep the necessities. Core services like water, sewage, street cleaning etc. need to be done. Building a new library is a want, not a need.
Randy and David, I’m an equal opportunity curmudgeon today.
Randy, I’m in favor of finishing the “last mile” but really skeptical that great numbers are going to ride from Northfield to parts south. I doubt the economic impact of a completed trail will be great. The popular bike trail areas--Cannon Falls to Red Wing, Lanesboro etc-- feature actual scenic beauty. Ever biked south out of Faribault? Unless you have a fetish for corn, this is one boring ride.
And David, I’m not sure the idea that the school can’t afford enough textbooks so the students have to share is even correct. My high schooler says she’s heard that some classes have had to photo copy parts of text books because the books are back ordered. So the problems will be remedied with time. (I could be mistaken.)
Curt: I was at the open house the other day, and I specifically recall the math teacher showing us copies of the textbook.
On the radio show, Ross raised his main evaluative tool -- all the possible things that could be done with $1.2 million dollars, and a system of comparing them to each other. I think that this rubric the best tool to ensure that we get the most bang for our buck (if we are dead set on spending the money).
i don’t think that it tells us if the money is well-spent. However, it does allow for a comparison from project to project.
Curt you wrote,
>The popular bike trail areas–Cannon Falls to Red Wing, Lanesboro etc– feature actual scenic beauty. Ever biked south out of Faribault? Unless you have a fetish for corn, this is one boring ride.
The land between here and Faribault (and here and Cannon Falls) does not suffer from such a shortcoming.
It seems to me that if you really want to develop a decision-making matrix, you look to the Streetscape Plan that Griff quoted earlier. Proposals can be measured on their ability to 1) reinforce a unique identity, improve the 2) image, 3) function and 4) livability of Downtown Northfield. I imagine you could add a value (efficiency) measure as well. That’s 5 criteria for your matrix. The difficultly will be in how you define these elements.
David: Randy Jennings had a list earlier. I disagree with his list, as I disagree with yours. Unique identity, image, and livability are so subjective as to be almost nebulous.
In my opinion, government spending has to be utilitarian to be fair. One man’s expenditure for beauty is another man’s waste of money. However, a parking space is a parking space.
David,
Your utilitarian vision promises to produce a very bleak world.
Patrick: Justice is both the goal and the criteria of good government. Government can never do better than being fair.
what was the vote count, was it a split decision?
Anthony: If you are asking about the Streetscape vote, I was the lone wolf.
David B,
Your suggestion about a “decision making matrix” is a good one. In itself, measured metrics help sort out broad brush concepts/ideas by defining both subjective and objective criteria. Of course, measuring the “value” of subjective ideas can be challenging, but also assigning $ values to objective criteria is also challenging such as square of pavement or density of planting opens up debate based on quality and quantity.
So my point, there is no perfect answer, just a process that creates a level of “trust” among participants. As David L pointed out above, he was the lone wolf on the streetscape vote. I am sure David had his reasons, but did anyone really ask was precisely what was his objection? Could his objection have been mitigated by some compromise my others or an offer to balance his concerns with others? Was David’s objective project based or policy based?
My fear is that no matter what “decision making process” we choose, some will also view the result as either winning or losing, rather than as a “process of compromise to achieve the best result within budget and on time”.
The discussion points here bring up a mixer of project and policy oriented decisions and should not get entangled up with each other during project oriented decisions. I believe this is evidence of lack of basic understanding about decision making and the role of groups in that process. The two are very different and sometimes we forgot that. I believe the “Streetscape Taskforce” helps shape policy decisions for the City Council, just like any other Taskforce, but once these policy decisions are made, a Taskforce needs to be on-board about project oriented decisions and “make it happen”.
This whole discussion, which is focussed on what is, and what is not, a wise use of Money/ taxpayer dollars is IMO focussing on 1. a wrong part of the discussion, which is the differing aesthetics/opinions of worth and then 2. how is the value of the decision, to the community, determined.
1. is unresolvable, it is simply a matter of personal preference. David L’s personal preference, he says, was completely outvoted by the rest of the task force.
2. should be resolvable, as it should be a decision to spend $$ based on the fulfillment of a policy decision made by the Council. This is why I am always the taking the role of “naggy britches” about the Council not having policy discussions which would result in clear decision making.
In the end, it would not matter a ‘diddly damn’ what the task force decided, if the Council didn’t approve that decision and vote to proceed. At the Council level is where the decision must be justified.
So, David, I think your whole argument is wrongly directed, if you do not focus it on the ultimately responsible body, and ask why they approved spending that amount of money, which you disapprove of, in a way which you also disapprove of …
You seem to wish to find some other ‘doorstep’ at which to lay your discontent.
Kiffi: I don’t understand why you think my desire for a rubric is misdirected. If spending $500,000 on a new parking lot was a good decision, then let’s put the reasons down on paper. It isn’t that hard. Let’s analyze our decision, and determine the factors that lead us to conclude it was a wise expenditure of funds. And, if our conclusion is that we blew it, then let’s let the City Council know that we didn’t give good advice, and that we will try to do better.
Not only is the Committee unable to balance the equation of cost versus value, it doesn’t even care to try. I am all for a bike trail, a skate board park, and a river promenade. I’m not sure where I would put the price tag without reviewing the evidence, but right now, $200,000 for all 3 projects would be great plenty.
I simply don’t buy the BS that we can’t effectively critique our decisions because the value received is too subjective. We aren’t even trying. Why? In my opinion, it is because we have pre-conceived (prejudicial) notions of what we want to do. As far as I can tell, the our discussions are group rationalizations of our bobo and NIMPU prejudices, not discussions about what we value and why.
Let me give you an example of wise advice on a group level. A number of months back, Fr. Dempsey asking the subcommittees at St. Dominic to help him decide whether to purchase new carpet for the social hall. (The carpet was badly in need of repairs and/or replacement.) The advice back to him from almost every committee was that spending money to buy carpet when people are losing jobs and struggling to make ends meet is imprudent. Why would people give money that they need to church if the church is going to spend it on things that can wait?
Times are tough right now. Businesses are losing money. Taxes are going up. Now is not the time to spend $240,000.00 on a bike trail when the road will be perfectly acceptable well into the forseeable future. For the immediate future bobos and NIMPU’s in Northfield need to take a back seat, stop whining, and start working toward the good of everyone, not just to their own pet projects. This $1.2 million isn’t going to be lost if it isn’t spent; it will go to another government agency so that that agency can spend it wisely.
David: I have no objection to a method (sick of the word ‘rubric’) for a rational decision making process. It seems that all of the task force but you (you said you were the lone dissenting vote) felt the money for the 5th/Water St. area was a good idea. Then it is up to the council to approve or disapprove.
It seems like you are simply out of step with the thinking of both the task force and the council. I get that; I’m often out of step with the thinking of the Council … because … they don’t deal with the underlying policy of the decision to be made, IMO. My POV on that issue is as meaningless as yours since neither of us ‘get our way’ in that decision making process.
I DON’T want the DT taxpayers’ $$ going out of the DT and back to the taxing entities just by attrition. I think that’s an irresponsible way to use/lose those taxpayers’ dollars, and I would think you would also, since one of the taxing entities is the School District, and you also have a big gripe with their prioritization of $$ spent, i.e., your textbook issue. And frankly, David, if the textbooks have been ordered , and are just not there yet, then you have raised a real ‘red herring’.
I think you’re stuck in an argument that you just keep insisting on, and won’t give up. I get that, too.
I do NOT agree that the 5th/Water st promenade/parking is of little value; I think it is of immense value … in the improved parking, traffic pattern, improved riverfront edge, pedestrian and visitor usage, recognition of the river as a central characteristic of our town, and on and on. I think those were all the measures/’rubric’ used to evaluate this project… and that’s not even dealing with the consideration of a wonderful public space being an acknowledged economic benefit to the downtown.
I think the 250K bike trail section is a complete travesty for some of the reasons you do, and some others you don’t seem to consider at all.
IMO, you conflate all the issues, and all the dollars into one big pot, and they are not just all there together. The DT TIF funds are in one pot, The Crossing TIF funds are in another, the School District monies are at their discretion, the EDA budget is theirs ( I don’t see any comments from you about the spending impacts re: annexation development on that ‘pot’ of money and its impact on all the community) and the City Council decides on their enumerated goals and then either goes forward with projects that they feel implement them or do not, and sometimes do not for what I may term ‘personal’ reasons.
You have been critical of those who you put into acronymic (is that a word ? ) categories, and those who criticize after the fact … what exactly is going on here?
Kiffi: I AM out of step with the Streetscape Committee. I want to know if there is a rubric that is based upon a rational, evaluative method. If there is such a rubric, I haven’t seen it. The rest of the Committee seems to be comfortable with a simple voting method based entirely upon individual preferences.
As a matter of principle, I don’t understand why anyone would oppose trying to be as rational and objective as possible. I don’t think we have to continue guessing whether a $500,000 parking lot was wise. Let’s analyze the decision.
My gut is telling me that the reason we aren’t being more rational is the fear of the answer. If we were to be honest with ourselves, we would have to admit that we are spending loads of money on things that Northfield doesn’t need. We would also have to admit that it is the well-to-do, not the needy, who are benefitting the most from these unnecessary products. (Hence, the argument to keep textbooks are out the picture.)
I am not afraid to admit these things. I just don’t know what to do about it. I could vote for my own pet projects; quit the Committee, continue to disrupt the meetings by talking about “rubrics”, go to the press, develop my own rubric, or try to stack the Committee with other like-minded people. My preference is to do the right thing.
I decided to go to the press -- through Griff. My hope was that together we could discern a common rubric that I could take back to the Committee, and thereby add value to the decision-making process. I would like to think that I am not doing this for personal reasons. But, I could be wrong.
Nothing that I have read so far convinces me that the parking lot, the skate board park, or the bike trail (at the current levels of spending) is a wise use of money. I suppose my next step would be to develop a rubric on my own.
David,
Perhaps while you are working on developing your rubric, you could look into whether or not other persons have created systems for putting a price tag on nebulous concepts such as liveability and identity. I suspect that it has already been done by someone or many someones.
As long as you reject anything other than pure functionality, it’s a reasonable bet that you will continue to stand alone.
Patrick: I would be ecstatic if someone on the Committee was willing to look into this idea, or we would direct staff show us the evidence to justify these projects. They are paid to be objective.
I suspect that it has been done by others. For example, the DOT has a limited amount of money, and has to deal with some fairly nebulous concepts of safety, road conditions, future traffic projections, etc.
David,
Please re-read the last sentence in Peter Waskiw’s post #36. It’s a wise observation about the nature of being part of an advisory body, and the obligation participants have to supporting the decisions that result from a fair process.
I really don’t know what to think of your statement that your “decided to go the press — through Griff.” You aren’t a whistleblower alleging illegal activity. In fact, all you are alleging is that after a long, thorough and open process, you utterly failed to persuade your peers and were outvoted, everyone else versus you. Apparently there was a common rubric — and it wasn’t yours. So instead of celebrating a democratic process, you complain that you didn’t get your way. Why does one “go to the press” (and this blog isn’t even the press, which would look at your complaint and dismiss it for what it is) about being on the short end of a vote?
Randy: Your points are well-taken.
The process was long and open. I utterly failed convince my peers of my position, and I was outvoted. Because I was outvoted, I took the matter up with Griff, because I knew that I could get a (semi-public) hearing.
But, the larger question still looms -- Were these expenditures a wise expenditure? Did the Committee do its job?
As an analogy -- The House and Senate voted to go into Iraq. Did they make a wise decision? Should we be standing behind their vote? In my opinion, no and no.
Why is this “semi-public” hearing better than the fully public hearing of a Council-appointed task force, the meetings of which were open to the public? Are you going to keep shopping jurisdictions until you wear down the majority?
Randy: So, tell me what your decision-making process is. Detail for me why $400.00 per foot for a bike path is a good idea when we have a perfectly acceptable street to ride on.
Tell me when government has a duty or obligation to go beyond functionality.
If you were on the Committee would you care that there was a rubric?
First, please tell me if you are going to keep shopping jursidictions until you get your way…
Functionality is a subjective standard. Clearly, in Davidvision it is a minimum standard of mechanical performance: nothing that would make this community stand out as a desireable place to visit, much less live, locate a business, raise a family, etc. Not very appealing to me.
In Randyvision, functionality has specified performance characteristics on which you and I might agree (width of path, type of pavement, durability of construction, etc.), but I would assign additional value to the aesthetics of the project, with the rationale being that such public investments should produce a return to the community by enhancing the desireability of visiting/living/working here.
In my limited experience biking elsewhere, I’d say the performance standard for recreational trails is to be separate from motorized traffic as much as is physically possible. Therefore, if it is valuable to be a fully integrated part of the Mill Towns Trail (and I would argue it is), then we have a certain obligation to build our part of the system to the standards of the rest of the system.
If it costs $400 per linear foot because of the complications of building along the river, or due to regulatory requirements imposed by the DNR, or whatever (and I assume that the task force will have access to the necessary information to unpack that cost), then that’s what it costs. The ECONOMIC value to Nfld is in being connected to the larger trail system, while there is also plenty of COMMUNITY value in building a safe bike trail system. I think “safe” means with minimum exposure to motorized vehicles. Your standard of using city streets would not meet my standard of functionality.
Randy: I don’t disagree with you until you say that if it costs $400 per foot, then it costs $400 per foot. What if it costs $1000 per foot? $5000 per foot?
Cost seems to be the sticking point. You and the Committee don’t care what it costs. If cost isn’t a factor, then there isn’t a rubric.
I might agree with you if this stretch of trail was unique; but, it isn’t. It connects on the north end with blocks and blocks of bike trail on city streets. What’s another 4 blocks? Plus, for a part of this 600 feet, cyclists won’t be able to ride their bike. I guessing that northerly bound cyclists are going to cut over to the city street rather than get off and walk, and that the southerly bound cyclists aren’t even going to get on the path.
We have a running Chevy in the garage, and the Committee wants to buy a non-working Mercedes.
David,
You’re heading into Oscar Wilde territory: knowing the price of everything and the value of nothing. I don’t think of you as a cynic, but you do seem to be a NIMBY-NIMPU, if your utopia is one in which there’s no civic investment.
The hyperbole about the bike trail doesn’t help advance your argument. I do care what the bike trail costs. The number on the table isn’t $5K or $10K per foot. It’s $400. Ask a contractor why it costs that much. Ask Ray why the promenade cost what it did. I’ll bet the line item numbers look reasonable. At that price, I think it’s a good public investment. At a different price point, I’d probably feel differently. Be we’re not at a different price point.
I am looking forward to seeing Ken Burns’ film about the founding of the National Parks. That was a real act of vision, at a time when there was tremendous skepticism about the idea. I’m not equating our little section of bike trail with Yellowstone, but I think the same act of imagination is required to see any worthwhile project through to completion.
Randy: Each, every, and any project could be justified with your rubric. And, that is exactly what we are doing. We aren’t thinking; we are feeling. Here are some questions that we haven’t answered:
1. Whose money is it?
2. What would benefit these folk?
3. What are the consequence of not spending the money?
4. How does this expenditure compare with other Streetscape uses that can’t be completed if this project is done?
5. In the broad scope of government spending, what other government projects can’t be completed if this is done?
Government simply should not be in the business of building a utopia for those who happen to wield the political power. That, in a nutshell, is what the Streetscape Committee is doing. We are getting together to vote on our personal utopias.
OK, I’ll bite. You numbered questions from 40.7:
1. Whose money is it?
The citizens of Northfield, whose elected representatives authorized the collection of tax-increment financing revenues under provisions of state law.
2. What would benefit these folk?
Investments that enhance the appeal of downtown. One such project is being connected to the entire Mill Towns Trail, to encourage outsiders to pass through town, and stop and spend their tourist dollars. They might also discover what a charming community this is, and decide to relocate their businesses here.
3. What are the consequence of not spending the money?
Northfield would fail to be properly connected to the trail system, discouraging visitor traffic.
4. How does this expenditure compare with other Streetscape uses that can’t be completed if this project is done?
I don’t know what else is in the mix, but since the funding is tightly restricted, we can safely say that it can’t be redirected to feeding the hungry, sheltering the homeless, buying textbooks, or any other of the eminently worthy social services you’ve mentioned.
5. In the broad scope of government spending, what other government projects can’t be completed if this is done?
Northfield won’t be sponsoring it’s own module on the international space station. Other than that, I can’t think of anything.
Randy: Re: 40.8. Thanks for taking the time to express your comments. I see the questions differently;
1. Whose money is it? It is the downtown business owners taxes that have been segregated from other property taxes to help the downtown. The money isn’t intended to meet the residents “needs” for beauty; it is really intended to help put feet in the street.
2. What would benefit these folks? Expenditures that have the proven ability to attract more people into the stores. Economics is what drives the vitality of the downtown.
3. What is the consequence of not spending the money? None. The money would go back to the taxing authorities to spend on other needs for which the people are taxed.
4. What other Streetscape projects are there? This was Ross’s biggest beef on the radio show. We really need to have all the projects together so that we can compare each one to the other. That might be the best way to compare value. $240,000 buys a lot of benches, lighting, wayfinding signs, etc. It buys precious little bike path.
5. What other government projects could be completed in the broad scope of government? Comparing buying textbooks to the bike path a useful exercise in value assessment. People have a limited amount of money so taxes are limited. In deciding the value of a bike path, we have to consider what other government expenditures we consider valuable, and why. The money is only in a different pot because we put it there. That could easily change if we had the courage to make it happen.
David : Go to the Library. Get a book called “Small Town Sustainability”. The author is Paul L. Knox. The call # is: 307.762/Kn; you should find it on the new non-fiction shelves.
Read it.
It has innumerable reasons why creating a better environment, or ‘quality of life’, has measurable economic benefits for both residents and visitors. It is very dense; packed with information.
P.S. Randy, et al: Please don’t be running off to the Library to get this book until later; David is the one who needs to read it first. It may save this thread from going to a thousand comments.
Kiffi: Once again, those who maintain that certain expenditures benefit the town carry the burden of proof. I doubt that Mr. Knox has the answer in his book. If he does, why don’t you save all of us the time of reading it and tell me his rubric?
David,
I neglected to address your questions in 40.1.
Yes, I think the Streetscape taskforce made good decisions with respect to the development of the riverfront. I think that years from now, we’ll all be grateful for it.
As for Iraq and Afghanistan, it’s not a very useful analogy. Much of the original support was as much a vote in favor of the office of the President as a vote for the action that president espoused. It wasn’t a decision Congress took on the merits of the case.
Randy: This bike trail vote isn’t a vote on the merits either. It’s a vote on a (culturally elitist) vision of Northfield.
Bike riding is culturally elitist? Wow.
David : everyone on the streetscape task force seems to have answered the questions you asked in 40.7 (those questions either fully answered or implied in the work process) and came up with a different answer/vote than you did.
And you know very well where the money came from, etc.; that has been answered many times.
I cannot help but wonder why, since you feel SO strongly about wrong choices being made, wrong votes being cast, and dollars being wrongly spent, you do not go to the ultimate arbiters of those choices, i.e., the City Council, and voice your complaints to them?
Instead of endlessly belaboring the same points here, go to those with the pursestrings in their hands, and make your case to them.
They, the Council, have the final yes or no; challenge them to provide you with reasons for the expenditures of which you don’t approve.
Kiffi: I don’t think so. Randy is right. If the vast majority of the Streetscape Committee feel differently, then going to the City Council to complain just subverts the advisory role of the Committee.
I think the better approach is the one taken by Ray Cox. I should probably write a minority report. Then, the City Council can do what it wants with the report.
I think that you are right about belaboring the points here. It is clear to me, at least on this site, that my questions will go unanswered. The best that could be said for those in favor of these projects (and frankly most of the Committee) is that they are confident that their own personal feelings about these expenditures are prudent, and they are confident that a democratic process is the best approach to confirming their prudence.
Why this is so perplexes me. It seems to me that government always has the obligation to justify its expenditures with evidence, not with nebulous personal references to liveability, identity, and other factors that allow the proponent to avoid scrutiny. All voting does is insulate the individual feelings from criticism.
What we should be doing is exercising good judgment. That requires us to value what we are doing against what it costs, and make some judgments.
To paraphrase Kant again -- The inability to distinguish the right rule is generally regarded as poor judgment (stupidity). And, he said, no amount of education can teach good judgment; it has to be learned. We haven’t examined the value received from the parking lot/promenade; I doubt that any amount of my asking is going to cause an evaluation. Hence, we won’t learn if we were wise or stupid.
David: You can write all the minority reports you want and the council will bury them, as they did with Ray’s minority report. It has never seen the light of day in a further report on the end results/reports of the Safety Center task Force.
I simply do not understand why you would not give your POV directly to them; if you submit it in writing they say they will answer. But if you don’t tell them what you’re thinking, in a public venue, then the entire public out there, many of whom might agree with you, will have no knowledge of what you’re saying.
So if you are really sincere, and really think a big financial mistake is being made, and you also believe that other citizens may agree with you and want to express their financial concerns, then it’s just ‘chicken you-know-what’ to not make a public statement about it.
David,
I think the major difference I am reading from your comments and those of others here is that you suggest government expenditure for infrastructure be looked at more fiscally constrained. That is, government be run more like a business. I think your approach towards expenditures states “if no real value is derived / gained greater to the sum of expenditure than don’t spend the money” Correct?
Unfortunately, some government spending / expenditure’s cannot be determined that way due to the responsibility to provide goods and services to the community at large and the private sector can not provide those same goods and services. Government may try to sell the need or services to the private sector for them to manage for profit or increase taxes to balance the budget, but I have not heard you state these positions yet.
I would suggest that if you feel the cost is unjustified than what criteria should be used to decide how much is a justified?. I know you mentioned the matric type process but the City Council does not currently use such an “objective” process to make decisions. I suppose that is way we vote others to make decisions for us otherwise the “bean counters” would provide the perfect answers.
I see the following 7 reasons that justify NOT using purely fiscal criteria solely as the reason to make decisions: 1) fulfills the City policy direction, 2) provides a public benefit, 3) meets current budget requirements, 4) does not increase taxes, 5) meets stakeholder involvement, 6) provides ADA requirements, and 7) provides non-motorized accessibility.
Can you provide some criteria to support using fiscal criteria solely?
Peter: I think you are fairly accurate. My approach is to make the process as objective as possible. I understand that most decisions can’t be quanitified with any real precision. But, that difficulty argues against spending the money, not spending it.
The main reason to reduce everything to a monetary decision is because it is money that is being spent. So, like it or not, on one side of the equation is the money that is being spent. To balance the equation, you have to put money (value) on the other side.
It’s true that the goverment has to provide some needs that can’t be met by the private sector. However, when we are talking about building bike paths, skateboard parks, and promenades, we aren’t talking about social justice issues. It’s not like men and women will suffer if government doesn’t do these things. On these matters, government has NO obligation, real or imagined.
David,
If I understand your ‘rubric’ correctly, no spending on public parks could ever be justified.
Could you please explain to me why I am mistaken in this impression?
Patrick: Yeah, public parks could be justified, but not at any cost. We have to figure out what the value of public parks are and balance it against what else we are giving up to get that park.
But how would you justify them? They don’t generate income. They don’t facilitate transportation. They just sit there and look pretty, and serve as good places for elitist Bobos to go biking.
It seems to me that the value of parks falls under categories that you have already rejected: “Unique identity, image, and livability” -- especially livability.
David,
Thank you for the thoughts. Yes, you are right, in the end, it can be considered a monetary decision. And, I also think the metric approach does/would allow us to balance “value” for things that normally consider non-functional. For example, how do we measure, in monetary value, one hundred year old trees that many generations now appreciate?
The return on investment is where I am heading here. How we attach the value, in my mind, is the important issue. I would say the reason why some streets/neighborhoods are pleasant to walk around is due to the many aspects that make them pleasant outside the purely functional aspects; underground infrastructure brings us needed hygiene, but does it make us smile when we walk down the street with our family or friends?
I would say it’s the other things that we experience that add value in terms of inspiration and enjoyment: 100 year old shade trees, paths, parks with play equipment, seats, bike-racks, water fountains, just name a simple few. All these things add value to our experience behind just pure functionality. They of course cost, so how does one value these things? These are hard issues from a purely monetary value, but many people appreciate their value because they bring joy, a subjective return.
I believe it’s possible to present values to many things, but the working out of return value puts us into murky ground on the issue you raised above. I suppose that’s why we have public involvement / opinion….to allow subjective perspectives to play out as a form of expression to establish the return value. You certainly have raised an interesting issue.
Peter: I realize that these things are subjective, and that they have some value. But, I don’t think it is that hard to establish some measure of value.
One of the methods is to compare values. If we could get 25,000 feet of bike path south of Northfield for the same price as 600 feet in town, which is a better value? $600,000 for a new Ames Park with a skateboard park versus $600,000 for textbooks for the kids? How about $500,000 for a new parking lot with 4 additional spaces versus the old parking lot? All of these comparisons help us figure out relative value, even if we can’t establish absolute value.
David: This most recent post of your is so intellectually dishonest in its presentation…I find it hard to believe that even you , with your doggedness, would present it in this manner.
It again slips $$ figures around with innuendo and implication (Ames park example).
The bike trail MUST have a connection in the DT, and it is not going to be the same cost as the open country trail segments.
Dollars saved on a park will not pay for textbooks (not the same fiscal jurisdiction) and you MAY have misrepresented the textbook issue, if the school is just waiting for a backorder, as Curt said he was informed.
And the new 5th/Water Street is NOT just a parking lot traded for an older parking lot; it is a community gathering place which supports the Arts, honors the River, and provides a valuable place for community members to interact with all three: Art, River, People.
We need to create a new acronym, your favorite method of sarcasm … which SUPPOSEDLY Griff does not allow…
I suggest: IDD/ Intellectually Dishonest Doggedness.
Kiffi: Really?
1. The bike path is already connected by Water Street and 7th Street;
2. Dollars saved from Streetscape would be used for other government expenditures; and
3. The promenade is still basically a parking lot.
David,
As I stated before, if it were that simple the bean counters would make the decisions for us. But purely using $ values for quality and quantity as a blanket comparison is irrational.
It’s like choosing the less expensive college for our kid’s education because it cost less without looking at the big picture…“will they actually learn something and benefit from the institution compared to paying a little more for another”. I think, in itself, $ values are not the best indicator of relative or absolute value. At a minimum real cost analysis, includes both benefit / cost, not just cost.
Peter: I agree completely. Cost is one-half of the equation; benefit is the other one-half.