Tag: Ideas

The American Idea

Rob Morris 2 Comments Ideas, National , , , ,

My wife and I are one-percenters.

We have amassed a small fortune – built over some 20 years of climbing our respective corporate ladders, saving very aggressively, and making some favorable investments.

We worked very hard to build our wealth.

But we are also incredibly lucky.

We were both winners of what Warren Buffett has dubbed “the uterine lottery”: through no effort on our part, we were both born into safe, stable, American, loving family environments where hard work and academic success were built-in expectations.  We were granted this huge headstart in life and had no part in earning it.

That early headstart only snowballed as it helped us accumulate advantage upon advantage in our early lives.

We benefitted greatly from our society’s investments in all sorts of public goods, public works, and public innovations.

More bluntly, because of our unearned headstarts, we benefitted disproportionately as we often extracted more value and more opportunity from these public goods than did our less-advantaged peers.

In our youth, we both got into honors-level courses at great public schools.  We both had great professors at our public universities, where we both received advanced degrees.

In our professional lives, we continued our disproportionate wins, taking greater advantage of public investments in roads, airports, research, computers, the Internet, housing, and police and fire protection.

As a business owner, I continue to receive disproportionate share of the benefits from the public investments which deliver customers and vehicles and qualified employees into my shop.

My wealth is – in great part – the result of decades of personal hard work, constant learning and creativity, and deep thought.

But my wealth is also the product of decades of unearned advantage which allowed me to receive an undeserved greater share of our society’s prosperity.

For my disproportionate bounty, I owe a disproportionate debt.

::

This “disproportionate debt” is the basis of the American system of progressive taxation – the reason that those with higher incomes and greater wealth pay taxes at higher rates.  The wealthy owe more to the nation which co-produced their wealth.

As President Obama’s jobs proposals and the Occupy Wall Street protests have gained favor among independents and an increasing proportion of Republicans, the national conversation has begun to focus on the responsibility of the wealthy in creating, perpetuating, and resolving our current economic woes.

In polls, the overwhelming majority of Americans support greater public investments in infrastructure, education, and public safety in order to create jobs.  And they support raising historically-low taxes on the wealthiest Americans to do it.

And yet, an increasingly-prominent conceit of conservative ideology holds that every person is merely the product of their own singular efforts, and that those with success owe nothing (or owe very little) to the society which made their success possible.

Purveyors of this ideology live in a kind of denial – conveniently ignoring the significant roles of simple luck, coupled with public investments in infrastructure, education, and research, in improving their own lives and in enabling the lives of the wealthy. They contend that the wealthy pulled themselves up by their bootstraps, and everyone else should as well.

After Warren Buffett – history’s most successful investor – argued in August that the very wealthy have a duty to pay more in taxes, Harvey Golub – former Chairman and CEO of American Express and former Chairman of AIG – expressed the “bootstraps” mentality in his opening to an indignant Wall Street Journal screed [emphasis added]:

Over the years, I have paid a significant portion of my income to the various federal, state and local jurisdictions in which I have lived, and I deeply resent that President Obama has decided that I don’t need all the money I’ve not paid in taxes over the years, or that I should leave less for my children and grandchildren and give more to him to spend as he thinks fit. I also resent that Warren Buffett and others who have created massive wealth for themselves think I’m “coddled” because they believe they should pay more in taxes. I certainly don’t feel “coddled” because these various governments have not imposed a higher income tax. After all, I did earn it.

The corollary to Golub’s “I earned it” meme is that poverty and joblessness are presented less as a result of unfortunate circumstance than they are as a reflection of moral failings on the part of the poor or unemployed.

When asked about the Occupy Wall Street protests, for instance, GOP presidential candidate Herman Cain told the Wall Street Journal [emphasis added]:

“Don’t blame Wall Street, don’t blame the big banks, if you don’t have a job and you’re not rich, blame yourself!”

At a book signing in Florida one day later, Cain added that the OWS protesters were un-American and anti-capitalist for protesting against Wall Street banks because “they’re the ones who create jobs” – despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary.  At a Republican debate a couple of weeks later, Cain was asked if he stood by his remarks, and his affirmation garnered the night’s biggest applause from the partisan crowd.

Paul RyanBut perhaps no one in today’s politics defends the rights of the wealthy quite like Wisconsin Congressman Paul Ryan. Ryan, who requires his staff to read Ayn Rand’s Atlas Shrugged for its policy insights, is the chair of the House’s Budget Committee.

Ryan is well known – and mystifyingly well-regarded as a “serious thinker” – for his attempts to use the budget process to accelerate social inequality.  Ryan’s 2011 budget plan, dubbed The Path to Prosperity, was an audacious reverse-Robin-Hood attempt to slash safety nets for the most vulnerable even as it it further slashed taxes for the already-wealthy.

With the President’s jobs agenda and the Wall Street protests gaining popularity, and the national conversation now squarely focused on jobs and inequality, Republicans have been losing control of the political narrative they dominated during this summer’s debt crisis.

In a much-anticipated speech, “Saving the American Idea: Rejecting Fear, Envy, and the Politics of Division”, delivered to the conservative Heritage Foundation last week, Ryan attempted to recast that narrative with an ideological agenda nearly worthy of an Ayn Rand protagonist.

In that speech, Ryan outlined the American Idea as defined by the “principles of free enterprise, limited government, individual freedom, traditional American values, and a strong national defense”.

After chastising the President for promoting his jobs initiatives while “sowing social unrest and class resentment,” Ryan laid out the contours of his new narrative.

The central problem of economic justice in America doesn’t revolve around a wealthy class which isn’t doing its part, Ryan asserted, but around a social welfare system which inhibits economic opportunity and economic mobility.  Ryan contends that progressives don’t understand this because they confuse “equality of opportunity” with “equality of outcome” [emphasis added]:

These actions starkly highlight the difference between the two parties that lies at the heart of the matter: Whether we are a nation that still believes in equality of opportunity, or whether we are moving away from that, and towards an insistence on equality of outcome.

If you believe in the former, you follow the American Idea that justice is done when we level the playing field at the starting line, and rewards are proportionate to merit and effort.

If you believe in the latter kind of equality, you think most differences in wealth and rewards are matters of luck or exploitation, and that few really deserve what they have.

That’s the moral basis of class warfare – a false morality that confuses fairness with redistribution, and promotes class envy instead of social mobility.

There are a couple of major problems with Ryan’s new “equality of opportunity” narrative.

First, the playing field is never level at the starting line. Unmerited inequalities exist, and they often grow exponentially over time.

Ryan would have us believe, for instance, that a child born some forty years ago with dark skin to an impoverished single mother in, say, inner-city Detroit had all of the same advantages and opportunities afforded to a child born some forty years ago into a stable, upper-middle-class white family in, say, Janesville, Wisconsin.

The circumstances of the starting line matter.  And it is all-too-convenient for those given headstarts to pretend they don’t.

Second, economic justice doesn’t stop at the starting line.  We must also assure that the race is run fairly.

Running the race fairly isn’t about insuring “equality of outcome”, as Ryan contends.  Most participants will not “win” the economic race. But it is about making certain – through establishment and enforcement of the rules – that participants do not cheat or exploit one another. It is about making certain that we flatten very real hurdles of race, gender, and income (to name just a few).

And asking the wealthy to pay disproportionately into the system which helped provide their disproportionate prosperity isn’t “redistribution” – it is merely the repayment of a disproportionate debt. It is fairness.

::

I’m sure that Harvey Golub, Herman Cain, and Paul Ryan all worked incredibly hard to achieve their successes.  But somewhere along the way, as they deified their individual efforts and accomplishments, they forgot – if they ever recognized in the first place – the enormous and undeniable roles that luck and public welfare played in their successes.

In a town hall two weeks ago, for example, Ryan told a student that the Pell Grant program (federal assistance for lower- and middle-class students) was “unsustainable”, and Ryan noted that he worked three jobs to pay off his student loans.  Good for him.

But Ryan also leveraged his public school and public university education to get his start in Washington.  And while he promoted his private sector student loan as some sort of ideal, Ryan failed to mention that he also used his father’s Social Security death benefits to help pay for college. He went on to a taxpayer-supported career in Washington, including the last 13 years as an employee of the very government he regularly demonizes.

With no trace of apparent humility for their remarkable good fortune (nor apparent blush for their remarkable hypocrisy and greed), these successful men promote the mythology of the completely self-made success.

But no one with wealth got that wealth solely on the basis of their own virtues.  On their paths to success, each got help – sometimes deserved, often not.  To ignore the help we have received is to ignore our obligations to one another.  Worse, it betrays an unfortunate ungratitude.

The wealthy and successful extract greater value (and wealth and success) from our public goods, and thus owe a greater debt to the communities which contributed to their successes.

::

Paul Ryan is right, but inadequate: the American Idea does revolve around rewarding individual merit, effort, and ingenuity. But that isn’t all.  That isn’t nearly enough.

The American Idea also revolves around our ability to work together to do and build great things. Our civic commitments to greatness – especially in times of crisis – mark our national identity and our national success every bit as much as (maybe even more than) our individuality does.

Many of our nation’s greatest accomplishments – Social Security, Interstate highways, successes in World Wars I and II, the Civil Rights Act, National Parks, and even the free enterprise system itself – are built upon a foundation of mutual cooperation and mutual sacrifice.

The American Idea is simply not the either-or cartoon presented by Paul Ryan.

We are a great nation because of our individual efforts, of which we are justifiably proud.  And we are a great nation because of our mutual commitment to one another, of which we are profoundly humbled.  We must ensure both to build upon our greatness.

That is an American Idea worth saving.

::

One final note: I find it increasingly difficult to tolerate condescending, one-sided lectures on the virtues of individual effort and private enterprise (and on the evils of “redistribution”) when they come from political mercenaries who have financed their professional careers with public money.

And, yes, I’m looking at you, Paul Ryan.

Beyond Angelou

Rob Morris 2 Comments Local , , , , , ,

In December, I was honored when Lexington Mayor-elect Jim Gray asked me to join one of his economic development transition teams.  In preparation for our first meeting, we were given a packet which described the state of economic development in Lexington.

As I reviewed those materials, I noticed several references to “the” strategic plan for Lexington’s economic development; Yet that strategic plan wasn’t part of our materials.  I scanned the city government website for the strategic plan, and came up empty.

At our first meeting, I mentioned that we needed to get our hands on that strategic plan.

But Lexington didn’t actually have a strategic plan for economic development.  Despite having a Mayor’s Office of Economic Development and a staff of economic development folks at Commerce Lexington, we hadn’t developed a comprehensive approach to Lexington’s development.

Instead, the city and Commerce Lexington co-sponsored a $150,000 engagement with Angelou Economics, an Austin-based economic development consultancy.  The final Angelou deliverable would include an economic development strategy for Lexington.

I was stunned.  Not only did we not have a coherent economic development strategy, but we had seemingly outsourced the formulation of that strategy to an out-of-town consultant!

::

Angelou released a draft of Lexington’s economic development strategy last week.  In the process, they unleashed a torrent of criticism after Ben Self showed that Angelou essentially recycled reports they had provided to other cities, often copying entire paragraphs and even pages.

The recommendations that Angelou makes aren’t bad.  They recommend creating a better support network for entrepreneurs.  They recommend setting up a minority business accelerator.  They recommend setting up a comprehensive marketing plan for Lexington to help recruit new businesses.

The trouble with Angelou’s report (as might be expected after Ben’s analysis) is that “Lexington” is missing.  Much of what makes Lexington special and unique – our history, our geography, and our culture – is largely absent from the Angelou strategy.

There’s no significant mention of downtown.  Of the Distillery District.  Of our neighborhoods.  Of our unique individuals and personalities.  Of our history.  There’s only a passing mention of our horse farms and our rural landscape.  There’s no mention of the World Equestrian Games.

As a result, Angelou fails to identify what gives Lexington a competitive advantage in the global competition for businesses, jobs, and talent.  So while the recommendations aren’t bad, they just ring hollow.  They are bland and generic.  They don’t feel special to Lexington.

When Angelou recommends focusing on “Clean Technology”, for instance, that sounds like a good idea.  But what gives Lexington any special advantage over any other city in pursuing clean tech (Especially when every other city is pursing such a “hot” industry)?

These kinds of questions arise with most of the Angelou recommendations. What would a marketing plan for Lexington look like?  What would it build upon?  What – specifically – would give Lexington the ability to create a best-in-class workforce?

::

We have the beginnings of a very solid economic development plan.  It just didn’t come from Angelou.  It came out of the two economic development transition teams that Mayor Gray appointed.  (You can download PDFs of the two “Economic Opportunity” reports from the mayor’s transition website.)

The two teams – made up of leaders from across the city – developed recommendations for how the mayor should approach economic development in Lexington.

And the transition teams recommended many of the same actions that Angelou did.  The difference?  The ideas contained in these reports are far more actionable than the ones we received from Angelou.  They are far more interesting.  They are far more relevant.  They are far more tailored to Lexington’s specific challenges and opportunities.

Like Angelou, the transition teams recommended enhancing support for entrepreneurs.  But the transition teams went further, and offered much more specific examples.  These included: Having the mayor visit 5 entrepreneurial events each year (along with a list of suggested events); Having the mayor organize an annual innovation conference, along with specific suggestions on structure and format; and, having the mayor’s office produce “The Lexington Entrepreneur’s Guide” online and in print.

The transition teams’ suggestions for a marketing plan for Lexington included specific, actionable ideas on who to include and how to approach marketing our city.  We could get testimonials from Jess Jackson (of Kendall Jackson Wineries) or Elizabeth Arden (Note the Streetsweeper’s comment below), who happen to own horse farms here.  The transition reports recommended building databases of local resources which could be called upon when recruiting new businesses to Lexington.

The transition teams also offered suggestions on how to better utilize downtown, our horse farms, and the Distillery District.  They offered specific ideas on building upon our health and educational systems.

And unlike Angelou, the recommendations contained in the transition team reports are much more tailored to Lexington, and – as a result – the recommendations are much more actionable.  They form the foundations of a real economic development plan for our city.

::

Somehow, about 25 volunteers – in the span of a few meetings across a few weeks – leveraged their knowledge and experience to produce some innovative ways for Lexington to pursue economic development.  And the final product is more valuable than the report the consultant provided.  And it didn’t cost $150,000.

There are a lot of great ideas in these transition team reports.  That said, those ideas don’t yet form a cohesive economic development plan.  That work remains to be done.

Given how productive the transition teams were in such a short time, why not let leaders from throughout the community develop the strategy for Lexington’s economic development?  Why not let them recommend the structure, the direction, and the financing of Lexington’s economic development efforts?

All it took to create these transition reports was leadership from our mayor.  Likewise, our mayor should initiate the process of building an economic development strategy for Lexington, created by us.

We should use the Angelou fiasco not only to penalize Angelou for doing poor consulting work, but also to learn how to do our own economic development better.

On Compromise

Rob Morris 0 Comment Ideas, National, Taxes , ,

Last night, Congress passed the $900 billion tax compromise reached between President Obama and Republican leaders.

In the end, progressives and conservatives alike lambasted the deal.  And that might be a very good thing.

I’m no fan of the bonus tax cuts for the wealthy that Obama conceded to congressional Republicans; Despite Republican claims, those cuts fail to create significant job growth.

Lost in much of the analysis over what Obama conceded, however, is just how many bigger concessions he won back from Republican leaders, as Ezra Klein points out with this chart:

Tax Cut Compromise Proportions

Unproductive and unneeded tax cuts for the wealthy make up only one-eighth of the compromise. The other seven-eighths of the deal are much more stimulative to our economy and to job production.

In essence, this tax deal is a second “stimulus” which is much-needed at this stage of our fragile economic recovery.

::

During the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia in 1787, representatives of each state teetered on the knife’s edge between walking away from the proposed Constitution for what they might have to give up, and giving up important principles (and power) in order to gain something better, stronger, and more resilient.

While the present compromise is not nearly as momentous, it does remind me of what Benjamin Franklin – then 82 years old – said when addressing that convention in September, which galvanized the representatives into agreement:

I confess that there are several parts of this constitution which I do not at present approve, but I am not sure I shall never approve them: For having lived long, I have experienced many instances of being obliged by better information, or fuller consideration, to change opinions even on important subjects, which I once thought right, but found to be otherwise. It is therefore that the older I grow, the more apt I am to doubt my own judgment, and to pay more respect to the judgment of others. Most men indeed as well as most sects in Religion, think themselves in possession of all truth, and that wherever others differ from them it is so far error. Steele a Protestant in a Dedication tells the Pope, that the only difference between our Churches in their opinions of the certainty of their doctrines is, the Church of Rome is infallible and the Church of England is never in the wrong. But though many private persons think almost as highly of their own infallibility as of that of their sect, few express it so naturally as a certain french lady, who in a dispute with her sister, said “I don’t know how it happens, Sister but I meet with no body but myself, that’s always in the right – Il n’y a que moi qui a toujours raison.”

In these sentiments, Sir, I agree to this Constitution with all its faults, if they are such; because I think a general Government necessary for us, and there is no form of Government but what may be a blessing to the people if well administered, and believe farther that this is likely to be well administered for a course of years, and can only end in Despotism, as other forms have done before it, when the people shall become so corrupted as to need despotic Government, being incapable of any other. I doubt too whether any other Convention we can obtain, may be able to make a better Constitution. For when you assemble a number of men to have the advantage of their joint wisdom, you inevitably assemble with those men, all their prejudices, their passions, their errors of opinion, their local interests, and their selfish views. From such an assembly can a perfect production be expected? It therefore astonishes me, Sir, to find this system approaching so near to perfection as it does; and I think it will astonish our enemies, who are waiting with confidence to hear that our councils are confounded like those of the Builders of Babel; and that our States are on the point of separation, only to meet hereafter for the purpose of cutting one another’s throats. Thus I consent, Sir, to this Constitution because I expect no better, and because I am not sure, that it is not the best. The opinions I have had of its errors, I sacrifice to the public good. I have never whispered a syllable of them abroad. Within these walls they were born, and here they shall die. (…) I hope therefore that for our own sakes as a part of the people, and for the sake of posterity, we shall act heartily and unanimously in recommending this Constitution (if approved by Congress & confirmed by the Conventions) wherever our influence may extend, and turn our future thoughts & endeavors to the means of having it well administered.

On the whole, Sir, I can not help expressing a wish that every member of the Convention who may still have objections to it, would with me, on this occasion doubt a little of his own infallibility, and to make manifest our unanimity, put his name to this instrument.

::

Progressives hate what was conceded in this deal.  So do conservatives.  And everyone should be concerned over how much this deal grows our national debt.

Both sides wanted their leaders to stick to core principles – no matter the cost.  But that’s demogoguery, not democracy.  It isn’t how our country works.  It isn’t how our country was formed.

“Compromise” has become a foul word in this political season.

But it is the very heart of a functioning democracy.

A Small Business Perspective on Jobs and Tax Cuts

Rob Morris 6 Comments Jobs, National, Taxes , , , ,

Lowell's

In late July, one of our technicians left our award-winning auto repair shop to return to his hometown.  He has been our only employee to leave since I bought the business over two years ago.

His departure raised a question for us that a lot of small businesses have faced in this economy: Do we accept the risks of hiring a new employee to replace him?

The answer, I think, is instructive for many of the economic and political issues facing our country.

::

Impatient voters punished Democrats two weeks ago for not giving enough focus to our nation’s sputtering economy after the near-implosion of 2008.

With our nation’s unemployment rate hovering just under 10% (and ‘real’ unemployment much higher), voters sent a clear signal that they want government to focus on creating jobs and growth.

According to the Small Business Administration [PDF Link], small businesses like ours make up 99.7% of employer firms, and account for two-thirds of new job creation.

Both Republicans and Democrats have reiterated the importance of getting small businesses hiring to get our country’s economy moving again.

::

This week, congress reassembles in the wake of the elections to consider extending temporary tax cuts  implemented under the Bush administration in 2001 and 2003.

Republicans want to extend the entirety of the Bush tax cuts, which would add $5 trillion to the national deficit over the next ten years, and vastly expanded the national debt over the past decade.

Democrats want to extend the tax cuts as well, but would let them expire for the highest-income households which make over $250,000 per year.  The Democratic plan would cost almost $700 billion less than the Republican plan over the next ten years.

Republican leaders claim that giving tax breaks to top earners is critical to generating the new jobs that the economy needs to recover.

Unfortunately, they’re wrong.

::

Just how would the Republican proposal affect small business jobs? A hypothetical example from my industry might help us get to an answer.

A very healthy auto shop might have annual sales of $1,000,000 – an amount which would put it well into the top 5% of shops nationwide.  If that shop is exceptionally well-run, it might see net profits of 30%, or $300,000.

For those few shop owners in such a fortunate situation, what are the implications of extending the Bush tax cuts for those making more than $250,000?  Under the Republican plan, that shop owner would save an incremental $1,500 in taxes over the Democratic tax cut plan.

As a small business owner, I’d happily take the $1,500.  But such a small amount would give me zero incentive to undertake the much greater expense – and risk – of hiring a new employee.

So while extending the Bush tax cuts would certainly line my pockets, they would do little to encourage me to create jobs in my small business.

::

Some observers might contend, as incoming House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan did on CNBC yesterday, that most job growth comes from larger “small” businesses and that my example above isn’t really that relevant to job creation.

So let’s pretend, for a moment, that our hypothetical business is actually 10 times as large as the example above: It has annual sales of $10,000,000, and its owners see profits of $3,000,000 per year.

Under the Republican plan, that business owner would save an additional $125,000 in taxes over the Democratic tax cut plan.  Now, this seems like an amount which might let a business hire a couple of additional employees.

But while the tax savings might be enough to hire additional employees, it provides little actual incentive to use that newfound money to hire in an uncertain economic environment.

A tax windfall fails to meet a prudent business owner’s criteria for making a hiring decision. Business owners don’t hire because we have extra money laying around. We don’t hire out of charity. We hire when there is more work to do.

Again, I’d happily take the $125,000.  But I’d also know that a drop of just 1% in my sales – a fairly likely risk in our current economy – would wipe out my tax savings.  If I were that business owner, I’d stash my cash as a hedge against an uncertain economy.  Net effect: no new jobs created.

The criteria for hiring is scalable: Whether a business has $1 million, $10 million, or $100 million in sales, the decision to hire is based on needing employees to meet demand – not on having spare cash supplied by tax cuts.

::

In my shop, the economic slowdown – coupled with a nearby street closing for almost a year – contributed to a sales decline of over fifteen percent from our record 2008 levels.  The declines would have been worse if not for our solid reputation, our increased community involvement, and our vigorous marketing.

In fact, our business has more customers than ever before; It’s just that each one is investing far less in their cars.  We see a lot more folks putting off needed maintenance and hoping that their cars won’t break down.

And as I look at replacing the technician who left in July, this drop in sales has been my primary consideration.

An extra $1,500 from tax cuts wouldn’t induce me to hire a new technician.  Neither, frankly, would an extra $125,000.

I’ll hire when our core business is better – when there is more work to do – and not just when I have a convenient pile of cash.

And to make our business better, we need more customers with more money – and more willingness to spend.

::

To encourage small business hiring, policymakers need to encourage spending.  In particular, they need to encourage the kind of spending which reverberates through the economy as that money is spent and respent in the form of wages, further buying, more wages, and – ultimately – hiring.

This respending feedback loop is key to creating enough demand that businesses like mine will start to hire again.  It is key to driving our nation’s self-sustained economic growth.

The fatal flaw of tax cuts for the wealthy is that the cuts don’t foster respending at a scale which drives significant hiring.  As seen in my examples above, a large chunk of each dollar given out in tax cuts to the wealthy is stowed away in savings – thereby stunting the benefits to the economy.

Mark Zandi, Moody’s Chief Economist, has found the same phenomenon in his research (Full PDF Here).

Tax cuts to the rich don’t yield as much overall economic benefit because the wealthy don’t need to (and won’t) spend that money, thus diminishing the virtuous feedback loop.

Zandi

Government spending which goes to those in need – the poor, the unemployed, state governments – does get respent (often out of necessity) and the feedback loop is much, much stronger than with tax cuts.

::

If I’m looking at my bank account, the tax cuts seem like a fantastic idea. More money for me!

But if I’m looking at my business, my employees, their families, and my community – I want the government to focus on assisting those in need.  I want the government to encourage buying (especially from small, local businesses).  That’s what will help my business for the long term. That’s what will – ultimately – encourage me to hire.

Lose the tax cuts.  Give me customers instead.

Will Creative Cities Matter?

Rob Morris 7 Comments Local , , ,

Lexington hosted the third installment of the Creative Cities Summit late last week (previous editions were in St. Petersburg in 2004 and Detroit in 2008), and the event was headlined by internationally-recognized experts in urban growth and vitality: Charles Landry, Rebecca Ryan, Richard Florida, and Bill Strickland, among others.

CCS-300x253  The event drew participants from across North America, but most of the attendees seemed to be from Lexington.  And while Lexington was not the central focus of the event, our city naturally entered into many of the conversations.

In the wake of the event, a vigorous local debate emerged about whether Creative Cities was significant for our city.  What’s intriguing is that much of the debate is occurring between folks who normally get along.  And much of the negative criticism is coming from folks that I like and respect (see here, here, here, and here), and who aren’t typically curmudgeonly.

That criticism has led to head-scratching – and, at times, indignance – from those who felt that the summit was a worthwhile, transformational, and enlightening experience.

And that leads us to an interesting – and telling – distinction: Most of the attendees of the summit seemed energized by the discussions and the ideas which emerged from Creative Cities; Most of the criticism came from those not in attendance.

* * *

There seem to be three basic criticisms of Creative Cities:

1. It was too exclusive.  This criticism usually centers around conference participation: who was invited, who wasn’t, and the perceived snobbery of some of the attendees.

2. It was too expensive.  This criticism focuses on the $199 registration, and whether the scholarships to the event were adequately publicized.

3. It was too much talk (and much of that talk was self-involved drivel).  This criticism takes multiple forms, including:

  • The conference was too self-involved and self-congratulatory, and prioritized self-help and good feelings over substantial change.
  • It glorified out-of-town gurus who repackaged the obvious while angling for their next consulting gig.
  • It didn’t involve enough meaningful action, and thus amounted to a vacuous echo-chamber of do-nothing happytalk.

As an attendee of the summit, I find a kernel of truth in all of these criticisms.  But I don’t think that any of them are completely fair, and none are particularly helpful in crafting a better future for Lexington.

I have to admit I’m not all that patient with the ‘exclusive’ or ‘expensive’ arguments.  Everyone was invited; everyone had a chance to participate.  While the price of the event was problematic for many, it was far cheaper than similar events with participants of this caliber.  Events like this cost a lot – and high-quality speakers, food, and facilities are necessary to draw a national audience.

What concerned me the most about these critiques was that the perceived exclusivity or expense of the event often became an excuse for dismissing the good ideas which arose there: A good idea is still a good idea, even when someone has to pay to hear it.

And if the criticisms of conference ideas are based upon bruised egos and hurt feelings, then I’ve got zero patience for that.

I’m much more sympathetic to the ‘too much talk’ reasoning.

Before I bought Lowell’s, much of my corporate life was spent in the company of very skilled consultants: research consultants, design consultants, business strategy consultants.

There was a predictable part of nearly every consulting engagement where the consultant would suggest that hiring them for another engagement was part of the solution to the problems we hired them to resolve – “The way you fix that is to hire me again!”.  Consultants always position themselves for doing more consulting.

We did get to see that angling-for-the-next-gig routine with some consultants at Creative Cities.

And admittedly, there was a little too much excitement over slick ideas and catch-phrases, and not enough thought about the hard work needed to truly transform Lexington for the better.

But that hard work isn’t what a conference is for: The summit was for learning and for exchanging ideas; the hard work comes after.

* * *

The structure of the conference didn’t help its perception – especially on Twitter – for those who didn’t attend.  In the process, I think some of the shortcomings of Twitter for civic conversations like these were exposed.

The most compelling (and, presumably, highest-paid) ‘keynote’ speakers addressed all participants at the same time.  For these speakers, attendees usually tweeted about the same inspiring messages, giving rise to the echo-chamber perception.

For instance, when Bill Strickland spoke at the end of the conference, many non-attendees mocked his ‘poor people should be considered assets, not liabilities’ line.  They seemed to say What fool would pay to hear something so blatantly obvious?

But Strickland had spent several emotional minutes demonstrating how attitudes, institutions, and architecture in his native Pittsburgh neighborhood treated poor people like liabilities.  At the same time, he had shown how he had successfully used beauty and light and architecture and respect to transform his home neighborhood by treating poor people like assets.

When those present tweeted the ‘assets’ line, they were truly moved and inspired by Strickland’s story and context.  Those outside the venue only saw vacant platitudes.

This same pattern repeated itself again and again throughout the other keynotes: The rich, compelling images and backgrounds and stories couldn’t traverse Twitter effectively; only the catchiest (and apparently empty) phrases made it out.

In between keynotes, there were 4 simultaneous breakout sessions.  While the breakouts weren’t as inspiring (or ‘tweet-worthy’), they were far more practical and hands-on about the mechanics of transforming a city for the better.  They were – for me – the most beneficial part of the conference.  I learned about:

  • Detroit’s strategies for reviving long-neglected neighborhoods, building-by-building and block-by-block.
  • How Toronto and Portland are funding and implementing inspiring, for-profit social innovation initiatives which pull people and neighborhoods out of poverty and make their cities more livable.
  • The model Massachussetts’ Creative Economy Director uses to get tangible economic development successes in arts, software, design, video games, and music.

From the discussions around my table, other Lexingtonians learned even more from the sessions I wasn’t able to attend.  We also talked with people on the ground in Atlanta, Des Moines, and San Antonio about their experiences in their cities.

Because I was so busy listening and taking notes, I was much less occupied with getting the word out on Twitter.  I saw this effect repeated with other attendees, as well.

So the resulting Twitter stream was decidedly biased in favor of the least-important, most self-helpy kinds of messages, while the deeper, more important insights went relatively silent.

And I think that is the source of the skepticism and derision from those ‘out-of-the-room’, while those ‘in-the-room’ were decidedly enthusiastic about how the event played out.

***

Will the Creative Cities Summit matter to Lexington?

It is far too early to tell.  It will take time, work, and discipline to realize the vision that many of us had leaving the summit.

Should the Creative Cities Summit matter to Lexington?

Absolutely.

Seeing the innovations that other cities have applied in improving their quality of life is vital as we attempt to build a better Lexington.  We need that kind of cross-pollenation with our own innovative initiatives to ensure the best possible future for us and for our city.

For those who feel as though we need a lot less talk and a lot more action, then mark this coming Saturday 17th April on your calendar.  That is when ProgressLex is hosting the Now What, Lexington? ‘unconference’ at the Carnegie Center in Gratz Park.

Now What? is explicitly geared toward generating tangible action from the ideas of the Creative Cities Summit.  Whether or not you attended Creative Cities, you should come to Now What? if you want to join with others to make Lexington better.

Now What? will be tweeted, too.  But it will be better if you show up.  As we’ve seen, Twitter isn’t always the most effective medium for conveying important ideas.

It is free.  Everyone is invited.  We’ll be doing things.  No excuses.

Read more of the continuing conversation about the Creative Cities Summit on Twitter with the hashtags #ccslex, #uncreatives, and #uncreativelex.  Read about the upcoming Now What, Lexington? unconference with the hashtag #nowwhatlex.  Full disclosure: Lowell’s is a sponsor of Now What, Lexington?

To-Do List for Lexington: Postscript

Rob Morris 0 Comment Local, Personal , , ,

(Part of the To-Do List for Lexington series.  Click here for an overview and links to the rest of the series.)

Every night we go through the same routine.

IMG_3925 After he takes his bath and gets his pajamas on, we go to his room.  I sit in the recliner, and he clambers up into my lap.  We pull a book from the shelf – the books are getting longer now – and I add a bit of vocal drama as I read to him.

His little brain absorbs everything – pictures, sounds, words.  He asks lots of questions now, too.  We finish the book, and place it back on the shelf.

I pick him up, and we say good night to mementos from his young life, scattered about the room.  It started with 2 or 3 items after finishing Goodnight Moon, but has steadily grown to a list of 13 things: a stuffed polar bear and penguin from his great-grandmother, a huge stuffed giraffe, and an array of other objects from around the room.

I take him down the hall to say a final good night to Mommy, and we go back to his room.  I sit back in the recliner as he turns out the light, and we find each other in the darkness.  I pull him up into my lap, and give him a little water to drink.  I tell him “that’s enough”, and place the cup back on the shelf.

I pull him up onto my chest, and he places his head on my shoulder.  After a few seconds of silence, I tell him I love him in Spanish: “Te amo, Carson” and he responds “te amo, Daddy”*.  He’s starting to get tired now, and his words are slurring slightly.  I then quote from one of my favorite baby books, and he matches my cadence shortly after I start: “I love you through and through – yesterday, today, and tomorrow, too.”  Then, “I love you, Carson” followed by a barely audible “I love you, Daddy”.

I hold him tight.  In the darkness, silent except for our slow breathing, I feel the twinge of nostalgia for this moment.  He turns 3 this week.  He’s growing so fast, and it won’t be too long before he needs to be independent from hugs and kisses from his dad.  It won’t be long before we won’t experience this kind of closeness.

My mind wanders a bit as I ponder our future, his future.  I am holding so much potential in my arms.  What kind of world will he inherit?

I get up from the recliner and place him in his bed.  I tuck him in with three more stuffed animals, and kiss his forehead.  He stirs a bit to get comfortable, and I leave his room. “Good night Carson.  I love you.  See you in the morning.”

::

I often get asked why I speak out so much on this blog – especially during this To-Do List for Lexington series.  Behind the questions are a variety of thoughts about my motives:

  • Some folks think that I must have an enormous ego, and that I believe that I have all of the answers.
  • Others think that I must be preparing to run for elected office, and these posts are part of some sort of political platform.
  • Some people – including members of my family – think I’m just crazy.

They’re all wrong.

I may or may not have a huge ego, but I don’t assume I have all of the answers.  I am perfectly willing to engage in democratic debate on these ideas.

I don’t have the time or patience to devote to political office.  I’ve seen the demands on elected representatives, and the kinds of people they deal with day-to-day.  This isn’t a political platform.  (Not for me, anyway.)

And, I’m not crazy.  Well… at least as far as my motives behind my writing.

The underlying assumption most folks have is that there is huge risk to speaking out, especially when addressing powerful interests in our city.  I could scare away customers.  The powerful could make life more difficult for me or for my family or for my employees.

And those risks may or may not be real.

But there is an even greater, very real risk in not speaking out, in being quiet.

There is the risk that we pursue the wrong kinds of economic development.  There is the risk of wasteful spending in the face of economic crisis.  There is the risk of choking off our city’s downtown.  There is the risk of further stagnation in the local economy.

There is the risk that Lexington loses what makes it a special place to live and work – that Lexington becomes less than it should be.

I find that those risks to our future far outweigh the risks of speaking out.  I would be ‘crazy’ to remain silent.

::

I want Lexington to be special.  I want it to be a vibrant, exciting, growing kind of place that my son can stay in and prosper.  I want Lexington to be better.  And I hope that you do, too.

That is why I speak out.  That is why I hope you will join me.  Let’s craft a better future for our city.  For ourselves.  For our children.

I love you, Carson.

LowellsSquare

* I know that “te amo” is usually reserved for romantic love, and that “te quiero” is probably more appropriate, but this habit was ingrained before I caught my error…  We’ll fix it later.

To-Do List for Lexington: 9. Do!

Rob Morris 2 Comments Local , , , , , ,

(Part of the To-Do List for Lexington series.  Click here for an overview and links to the rest of the series.)

Checklist Throughout this To-Do List series, we’ve talked about the kinds of things we need to do to make Lexington a better city, especially with regard to improving our city’s economic development.

In Get Real, we talked about the need to curtail boosterism – the compulsive promotion of our city at the expense of real, substantive economic initiatives.  Lexington needs to get a lot more realistic about what kinds of civic activity drive true prosperity.

We talked about promoting growth at home as the best way to attract new growth from the outside in Stop Seeking Saviors.  Rather than spending huge, speculative amounts to draw in new firms from outside the city, Lexington should target spending on growing its economy from within.

We talked about the multiplier benefits of buying products and services from local providers in Local First.  Lexington should prioritize local purchasing, development, and investing in order to supercharge its growth.

In Embrace Openness, we talked about the need for our city to adopt an open approach to serving citizens, including open access to data about our city.  Lexington should find new, more transparent ways of serving and communicating with its citizens.

We talked about how to grow, keep, and attract educated talent – talent which is currently bleeding from Lexington – in Leverage Intellectual Capital.  We must find ways to keep experienced and specialized workers – who contribute enormously to our economy – in our city.

We talked about taking advantage of Lexington’s uniqueness – including the promise of the Distillery District – in Be Original.  We must leverage that uniqueness to make Lexington a city worth visiting and worth living in.

We talked about the need for intermediate-term strategic planning as a way to connect action to vision in Plan Well.  Lexington must make thoughtful, strategic investments with its public dollars.

Then, in Demand Accountability, we talked about how good initiatives get derailed and about how we must step up to make our leaders – and ourselves – responsible for keeping such initiatives on track.

While the list covers a lot of ground, it isn’t comprehensive by any means.  For instance, we didn’t delve into the importance of the arts in our community.  We didn’t talk about becoming more environmentally responsible, and building a sustainable Lexington.  We didn’t talk about how to improve conditions for Lexington’s poor.

Our To-Do List for Lexington isn’t complete.  We’ll continue to add to it in the months ahead.  There’s a lot more to talk about…

But it is time to stop talking.  Stop complaining.  Stop whining.  Stop planning.  Stop theorizing.  We need to shift from analysis to execution.  This is a To-Do List, not a list of discussion items.

Lexington must start to do these things.

We need to ensure that leaders from across the community understand and implement these principles.  If they disagree, that’s fine, but they need to articulate why they disagree in open, democratic debate.

And if they don’t, we need to get new leaders.

We need to commit our time, money, and effort to applying these principles for the betterment of our community.

We need to go build a prosperous, beautiful, livable city.  We need to go make Lexington better.

Who’s in?

Next: Postscript

LowellsSquare

To-Do List for Lexington: 8. Demand Accountability

Rob Morris 2 Comments Local , , , , ,

(Part of the To-Do List for Lexington series.  Click here for an overview and links to the rest of the series.)

Why don’t more good things happen?

Throughout my career, I’ve had the all-too-frequent opportunity to observe how things don’t work out – in academics, in business, and in local politics.

A good share of the blame resides with ‘bad actors’ – folks who gum up the decision-making process and derail worthy initiatives.  For fun, I’ve begun a typology of these people.

  • There’s the Smug Know-It-All, who pretends to have all of the answers, and therefore doesn’t need or seek input from experts or the public.  The Smug Know-It-All just wants to be ‘right’.
  • There’s the Intentionally Clueless, who lacks sufficient information or sound principles for making strategic decisions, and who instead makes those decisions based upon personalities of the people involved.  The Intentionally Clueless just wants to be liked.
  • There’s the Do-Nothing, who struggles mightily to rationalize the status quo, and who hunkers down and defers decisions in the face of any initiative which promises change.  The Do-Nothing just wants to avoid doing anything.
  • And, there’s the Obstructionist, who actively blocks initiatives by constructing elaborate hurdles for an initiative, often by invoking process-related parliamentary maneuvers.

B2sstonewallweed001What is common to all of these bad actors is an unwillingness to enter into an open, rational, democratic debate on an initiative’s merits.

Notice that none of these folks are engaged in solving problems.  Instead, they pour their energy toward squelching debate, often by exhausting or diverting their opponents’ ability to continue the fight.

Attend an Urban County Council session – or watch one on GTV3 – and it is surprising to see how many of these bad actors are on the council or work for city government.   We were able to see versions of all of these bad actors on display during the Parsons Affair, when the council decided whether or not to bond the Distillery District.

Throughout Lexington’s leadership, we can see these bad actors.  We see them among our elected representatives, among public employees, in publicly-supported agencies (like Commerce Lexington or the Downtown Development Authority), and in local businesses.

More troubling, we see this behavior among our own citizens – amongst ourselves.  We know it all.  We remain clueless.  We do nothing.  We obstruct. 

We are the bad actors, too.

If we are to build a better Lexington, we must declare such behavior
unacceptable.  Then, we must make bad actors answer for their actions.

Lexington must demand accountability.  From its leaders.  And from its citizens.

::

How do we begin to make good things happen in Lexington?

By making Lexington’s leaders and citizens accountable for doing good things.  Reward them when they do the right things; punish them when they don’t.

Sounds simple, doesn’t it?  But what, exactly, do we do?  How do we really demand accountability?

Here’s a partial list of what I think we need to do.  I hope you will expand on these ideas in the comments below:

  • Speak up.  Let your representatives, neighbors, friends, and fellow citizens know what matters to you.  Write letters.  Make phone calls.  Send emails.
  • Show up.  Make time to attend council meetings or local neighborhood meetings, especially when they address issues which matter to you.
  • Inform yourself.  Find out what is happening in our city.
  • Join together.  Actively look for people with similar viewpoints, and unite your voices.  One voice is too easy to ignore; a movement is not.
  • Campaign.  Fight for your causes, and recruit others to them.  Lobby for your point of view.
  • Call ’em out.  When you see bad actors squelching public discussion, don’t let them get away with it.  Call out their anti-democratic behavior for being anti-democratic.  Make them think twice before they do it again.
  • Vote ’em out.  When representatives, public employees, organizations, or businesses continue to act in bad faith, deprive them of what they need most: Votes, jobs, or funds.
  • Persist.  Bad actors are betting that you’ll give up.  Make them lose that bet.

Gandhi urged us to “be the change you wish to see in the world”.  William Johnsen offered this pithier 18th-century version, in 10 two-letter words: “If it is to be, it is up to me.”  Both of them recognized that real, productive change takes place when we stop waiting for someone else to fix things.

If Lexington is to reach its full potential – if we are to build a better, more livable, more prosperous city – we must demand accountability from our leaders and from ourselves.  Especially from ourselves.

Next: 9. Do!

LowellsSquare

To-Do List for Lexington: 7. Plan Well

Rob Morris 2 Comments Local , , , , ,

(Part of the To-Do List for Lexington series.  Click here for an overview and links to the rest of the series.)

Last week, Lexington’s Urban County Council deliberated on the projects the city would issue bonds for.  When we issue bonds, we are borrowing money from bond investors – Bonds are new debt that we will pay off at some point in the future to fund today’s projects.

In that bond deliberation process, one word kept coming up: Streetscapes.

The council has earmarked some $30 million in new bonds for four streetscape projects.  In addition to funding the ongoing project on South Limestone (whose ever-escalating price tag now stands at $17 million), the council will fund new streetscape projects on Cheapside, West Main, and West Vine for $12.7 million.

All four projects are slated for completion by July 1st, 2010 – less than 7 months from now.

::

Barely two weeks earlier, the Mayor announced a $12 to $13 million shortfall in the current year’s budget, noting that – after several previous rounds of cuts – the city would likely have to cut services to balance its budget this time.

Yet, in this economically-strapped environment, the Mayor pushed for (and council approved) a disruptive $30 million spending spree to make streets look pretty.

Why the rush?  The World Equestrian Games are coming to Lexington in September 2010, and we must look our best for “the world”.

This is boosterism run amok: In the mad scramble to make Lexington ‘pretty’ for out-of-town visitors next fall, the city is simultaneously 1) spending $30 million to make streets look better, 2) incurring $30 million in new bond debt, and 3) destroying $90 million of economic value by disrupting local business operations.

And the next 6 months promise to be even more disruptive, as the four separate street projects further entangle downtown Lexington.

In the face of financial crisis, massive spending on discretionary aesthetic projects – especially ones which disrupt commerce – seems wildly irresponsible.  It is the urban equivalent of not being able to make the mortgage payment, yet getting a new loan to redesign the landscaping.

::

Last January, at the request of Lexington’s Mayor, a group of citizens delivered a long-term vision for our city to the Mayor and to the Urban County Council.  Dubbed Destination 2040, the document outlined strategies and initiatives for maintaining “great city life in a productive rural paradise” for the next 30 years in Lexington.

I have previously written that I believe that Destination 2040 is destined to fail.  I make that assessment not because there is anything fundamentally wrong with the Destination 2040 vision, but because Lexington lacks the mechanisms and processes to realize such a vision.

::

Together, streetscapes and Destination 2040 provide a snapshot of Lexington’s inability to implement strategic economic and urban development plans.

At the scale of decades, Destination 2040‘s objectives are too distant to grapple with in a systematic fashion.  It is too difficult to tangibly connect today’s initiatives to the distant future.

At the scale of months, the scramble for streetscapes is ripped from a broader strategic context: Are these really the wisest investments for our city to make while facing a very distressed economic environment?  What emerges from such short-term focus is a series of disconnected, momentarily-important initiatives with spotty results.

Lexington needs t0 better connect its near-term projects to its long-term vision.  We need to invest in projects which fit within well-defined urban development goals.  We need to clearly articulate a coherent strategy for sustainable growth.

Lexington needs to learn to plan well.

Planning isn’t very exciting to talk about, but it is critical that we do it well – especially when we are incurring public debt that we’ll be paying back over several years.  So here are some thoughts on how Lexington can better plan its future.

Choose big, specific, near-term goals. 
Lexington needs to choose audacious goals, and then work diligently to make those goals happen.  Ideally, those audacious goals would connect to our long-term vision (such as that outlined in Destination 2040).  Then, instead of thinking in terms of months (like streetscapes) or decades (Destination 2040), we need to think in 3- to 5-year “chunks” and establish deadlines and accountability accordingly.

Some examples:

  • Aggressive growth of high-paying new jobs:  “10,000 net new jobs by 2014, adding $1 billion to the local economy”.
  • Dramatic increases in urban density through incentives which promote responsible infill and redevelopment: “10% greater residential and commercial density in downtown Lexington by 2015”.
  • Reclaim blighted areas of Lexington.  Encourage new growth and investment in those areas.  Capitalize on our originality: “Make the Distillery District one of Lexington’s signature, must-visit places.  Target getting 20 stories about the District in national or regional media.”

Don’t just spend; make investments.
Public money is a resource to be invested for public benefit, not a handout or slush fund to be spent.  We must evaluate discretionary public spending based upon what that investment returns (or fails to return) to the public.

This was the massive failure of the South Limestone streetscape project – A simple analysis would have revealed the tremendous costs associated with closing a major artery to downtown for a year.

If we begin adopting an investor’s mentality to urban development, we will ensure that our tax dollars are more wisely spent.

Invest selectively and intensively.
To maximize the returns on Lexington’s tax dollars, we should concentrate our investments in select strategic areas (job growth, for instance), and then allocate disproportionate amounts toward those investments.

This strategy yields two major benefits when compared to spreading public investment to multiple, disconnected projects.

  • It creates a self-imposed discipline on the ways in which we will spend public money.
  • It lets us leverage previous investments, as concentrated cumulative investing can compound the desired effect.

Invest in factories, not fish. 
We can give someone a fish.  We can teach someone to fish.  Or we can invest in an infrastructure – “boat factories”, if you will – to create the conditions in which they can reliably and efficiently feed millions.

Hopefully you get my metaphor.  If not, here’s how my favorite charity, Acumen Fund, puts it with regard to generosity:

 

All too often, boosters promote one-time wins which give our city a short-term economic ‘pop’, but the hoped-for lasting effect never materializes.  Boosters usually hand us a dead fish.   Occasionally, they teach a few of us to fish.  That isn’t enough.

When it comes to investing the public dollar, we must plan smart, sustainable investments – ones which keep growing and keep repaying the public for its investment many times over.  We need to identify gifts which keep on giving, and maximize our investments.

::

By better connecting its short-term projects to its long-term vision, Lexington can begin to make smarter, more effective decisions about its future.  We can begin to invest public money wisely and productively toward crafting a better Lexington. 

Next: 8. Demand Accountability

LowellsSquare

Be Original. But Be Smart, Too…

Rob Morris 3 Comments Local , , , , ,

(A fun little break from our To-Do List for Lexington series.  Click here for an overview and links to the rest of the series.)

Yesterday, we asked readers to support a $3.2 million bond issue for Lexington’s Distillery District, which includes much of Town Branch Trail.

As part of the same post, we called for Lexington to “be original“.

But we didn’t expect so much originality so soon.  And we didn’t expect it to be so completely inept…

::

As we mentioned yesterday, the Urban County Council is in a financial pinch.  And it was deciding what projects to issue bonds for, including the ever-growing bill for South Limestone streetscape construction (now at over $17 million) and early 2010 streetscape projects on Main, Vine, and Cheapside, totaling $12.7 million.

Ddimage024 At $3.2 million, the Distillery District bonds were relatively small, and the Distillery District was the only bond project which would provide infrastructure to spawn new jobs and new revenue – meaning that it was the only initiative which could provide taxpayers a return on their investment.

This return on investment is a principal feature of tax increment financing (TIF) projects.  Public funds are made available to such projects as those projects generate tax revenues back to the city.

Roughly two-thirds of the Distillery District’s bond would go directly for public improvements for direct public benefit – building out the Town Branch Trail and improving pedestrian access throughout the district.  The rest would go for researching road and utility improvements along Manchester Street (the District’s primary corridor).

::

An hour before the council met yesterday, councilmembers were sent an ominous memo [PDF link] from a former counsel (attorney James Parsons) who formerly advised LFUCG on the TIF process.

The last-minute memo appears to be a very deliberate misreading of the Distillery District request.

It creates the incorrect impression that the developer (Barry McNees) could simply pocket the bond funds and leave the city in the lurch.  As mentioned above, most of the funds would go directly toward civic infrastructure improvements, not the developer’s bottom line.  And the remaining funds would go toward research and design initiatives – also not the developer.

And the memo is plain wrong on the developer’s ability to start the project – The Distillery District already has one active, successful entertainment venue (Buster’s) which employs over 30 people and, in just a few months since opening, has drawn 10,000 fans from across the region.  Other, smaller businesses are already in place, too.  And McNees has a letter of intent from a major investor to start a new distillery in Downtown Lexington.

In total, the Parsons memo appears to intentionally mislead the council on the magnitude of “dangers” associated with the project – It appears to be a blatant scare tactic designed to squelch the Distillery District.

Good News, Bad News
The good news is that the council saw through the transparent attempt to derail a worthy project.  The bad news is that they only partially funded the request (about $2.2 million).  The council narrowly (6 to 5 vote) missed approving the entire $3.2 million request.

But the Parsons affair raises a number of troubling questions:

  • Why was the former TIF advisor weighing in on this project?
  • Why did he so badly mischaracterize the project?
  • Were taxpayer funds used to craft this diversion? (If so, this taxpayer wants a refund.)
  • Who requested Parsons’ input?  Why?
  • Was Parsons directed to magnify the potential dangers to the project?  Again, by whom?
  • And where was this alarmist “DANGER, DANGER!” attitude toward TIF while Mr. Parsons was advising LFUCG on CentrePointe?

The broader question is this: Who wanted to derail the Distillery District so badly that they used such a transparent, ham-handed approach?

::

When we called for Lexington to be more original, we wanted that originality to be smart, too.  The Parsons memo was certainly “original”.  Smart?  Not so much.

LowellsSquare

To-Do List for Lexington: 6. Be Original

Rob Morris 3 Comments Local , , , , , ,

(Part of the To-Do List for Lexington series.  Click here for an overview and links to the rest of the series.)

Quick!  Think of a city you love (outside of Lexington).  Really savor that mental image.  Let your positive thoughts run for a bit.

Got it? OK.

If you’re like most folks, when you think of your favorite city, you think of one (or a combination) of a few key types of memories:

  • Places.  You remember neighborhoods, buildings, parks, alleys, establishments, etc.
  • History.  You remember important things that happened there.
  • Products.  You remember things that they have or that they produce there.
  • People.  You remember who you met and how they treated you there.

I have the wonderful affliction of loving nearly every place I visit – but always for different reasons.

I loved crawling through the historic back alleys (and patronizing the restaurants and bars) of Boston’s North End.  I had the fortune of being there in a little Italian restaurant while Italy won the World Cup in 2006.  I remember the flags, the honking, the cheering, the flavors and smells…

I loved going to Tokyo with a couple guys I worked with in my last job, and visiting the temples at Asakusa and seeing the bewildering variety of Japanese people at the temple and at surrounding neighborhoods and markets.  In one of those inexplicable cultural moments, I remember 3 separate families awkwardly approaching me to take pictures with their sons (and giving me their sons’ “business card” afterward).

I love Portland.  I love Austin.  I love Boulder.

More than anything else, I love the utter originality of those cities’ places, history, products, and people.

But Lexington is the city I chose.

::

Our city leaders often go on tours of “model cities” which Lexington might be able to learn from, including Boulder, Austin, and Madison.  In the process, they see many unique things to love about those cities.

But too often, rather than focus on what original qualities Lexington should leverage, our leadership focuses on what those cities have that Lexington does not: “If Madison has bike trails, so should we!”  (No, I’m not opposed to bike trails; I am opposed to the mindless parroting of other cities’ actions.)

Lexington must be original.

What impressions do we make on people when they visit Lexington?  What impressions do we make upon our own citizens?  What unique experiences do we create?

Here are a few which jump out at me.  I’m sure there are more I missed.  (Add your own in the comments below!)

There are the memorable places like no other – Keeneland, Ashland, Gratz Park, the UK campus, the Transy campus, Victorian Square, and the downtown pasture at CentrePointe, just to name a few.  (OK, I’m joking on the last one.)  I love the North Limestone neighborhood that Lowell’s is privileged to be a part of.

There are the memorable histories of Henry Clay, Town Branch, the East End, and the Carnegie Center.

There are the memorable world’s-best products – basketball, Camrys, horses, and bourbon.

There are the incredible people of our city – smart, thoughtful, hard-working, and funny.

When we’re looking to influence how people – tourists, visitors, job applicants, investors, business owners, our own citizens – view our city, we need to amplify our best assets.

And, when we are presented with the rare opportunity to leverage all four memorable assets  – original places, original history, original products, and original people – at the same time, we must jump on those opportunities.

Oldtarr2 Right now, we have such an opportunity with Lexington’s Distillery District and Town Branch Trail. Many people still don’t know that Lexington even has a Distillery District, so I’ll offer a brief overview.  On Manchester Street, there are several old, historic, and distinctive distillery buildings and warehouses which were last used last century to make bourbon in downtown Lexington.  They used the water supply from nearby Town Branch, a stream which used to run through the center of Lexington, but is now buried under Vine Street.  Several of Lexington’s best and brightest people want to transform the largely abandoned district into a vibrant neighborhood with entertainment, arts, shops, restaurants, and – for the first time in nearly a century – distilling.  Businesses are already beginning to open in the district, and one – Buster’s – is an entertainment venue which is already attracting notable new talent to Lexington.  The Distillery District would also be the starting point for Kentucky’s Bourbon Trail.

This afternoon (at 4 PM), Lexington’s Urban County Council is voting on whether to issue $3.2 in infrastructure bonds for the Distillery District.  Issuing the bonds would not be a handout – the funds would be reimbursed through taxes on the new commerce that takes place within the District.  Also, the funds would be released incrementally – as new commerce takes place, more funds would be available for needed infrastructure improvements.

Ddimage027 The bonds would be used to create parts of Town Branch Trail (a greenspace and walkway along historic Town Branch), to improve pedestrian access along Manchester Street, and to look at how to improve utilities, roadways, and streetscapes along Manchester as well.

Lexington is in a financial pinch at present, and there are many on the council who just want to “wait a while” for things to get better in the economy.  The trouble with waiting is that – often – waiting turns into permanent deferral, and projects never get done.  Unlike CentrePointe – of which I have been highly critical – the Distillery District has active businesses and active investors who are ready to utilize the improvements that this bond offers.  These businesses are poised to contribute far more than $3.2 million back to our city’s coffers over the coming years.

::

Lexington has the all-too-rare opportunity to create a unique place in our city – the kind of place which ultimately would stand next to Keeneland, Gratz Park, and Ashland as one of Lexington’s “signature” locations.  We should leverage our our originality – our unique and memorable places, history, products, and people – to craft a better Lexington.

That’s why we should support the Distillery District, even in difficult financial times.

Let’s be original.

(This post is awfully late in getting up – If you don’t have time to contact your council person prior to their 4 PM vote, please do take the time to see how they voted.  And remember that for the next election.)

Postscript: The backroom intrigue as the council vote approached.

Next: 7. Plan Well

LowellsSquare