Month: January 2011

When introverts hold office

I’m live-blogging from the Charlotte City Council’s retreat. I’m also Tweeting, follow @marynewsom.

I caught some possibly significant discussion for a time this afternoon, post-lunch and before the current budget presentation. Facilitator Mike Whitehead pointed out that most of the council members are “sort of introverted,” which means there’s a tendency for less communication. “You flaming extroverts know who you are,” he said, and laughter erupted from the table where Andy Dulin and James Mitchell are sitting. Those two are not what I’d peg as introverts.

Then Whitehead gave the formula he says is sometimes used in corporate America NC = MSU. That stands for “No communication? Then people make stuff up.” The lesson, he said, is to communicate better with each other, so people know what’s going on.

And, he said, you could communicate better with the media. (Colorful type font for emphasis is mine.) Answer questions and give data, he said, especially since a lot of the data is public record anyway.

But Mayor Anthony Foxx said he’d had experiences when C = MSU “and that’s a problem” He has sometimes talked to council members (“and you know who you are”) and then they tell reporters something else. Hmmm. So I think he just accused some council members of lying to the news media. If you’re a journalist, let me note, the only thing surprising about all that is for the mayor to call it out publicly.

When introverts hold office

I’m live-blogging from the Charlotte City Council’s retreat. I’m also Tweeting, follow @marynewsom.

I caught some possibly significant discussion for a time this afternoon, post-lunch and before the current budget presentation. Facilitator Mike Whitehead pointed out that most of the council members are “sort of introverted,” which means there’s a tendency for less communication. “You flaming extroverts know who you are,” he said, and laughter erupted from the table where Andy Dulin and James Mitchell are sitting. Those two are not what I’d peg as introverts.

Then Whitehead gave the formula he says is sometimes used in corporate America NC = MSU. That stands for “No communication? Then people make stuff up.” The lesson, he said, is to communicate better with each other, so people know what’s going on.

And, he said, you could communicate better with the media. (Colorful type font for emphasis is mine.) Answer questions and give data, he said, especially since a lot of the data is public record anyway.

But Mayor Anthony Foxx said he’d had experiences when C = MSU “and that’s a problem” He has sometimes talked to council members (“and you know who you are”) and then they tell reporters something else. Hmmm. So I think he just accused some council members of lying to the news media. If you’re a journalist, let me note, the only thing surprising about all that is for the mayor to call it out publicly.

TARP saved our rears, economist says

I’m live-blogging the Charlotte City Council’s retreat. Follow me, also, on Twitter @marynewsom. And see my previous post: “Charlotte’s economy shows a lagging city.”

At the Charlotte City Council retreat, council member James Mitchell asked the panel of economists’ opinion of the stimulus spending.

UNCC economics professor John Connaughton said, “But for TARP we would all be selling pencils on the street corner.” We were that close to collapse, he said.

He goes on to say that if the U.S. is to regain its economic standing, “It’s not going to be in stealing manufacturing jobs from China.” Instead, in his view, it’s going to be in selling high-level services to the rest of the world, which makes an educated workforce even more important.

Charlotte’s economy shows “a lagging city”

I’m live-blogging (and tweeting – and Tweeting, follow me @marynewsom) from the Charlotte City Council’s yearly retreat. We’re about to hear from three economist-types about the 2011-12 economic outlook.

Council members were 45 minutes late for this session, as they all went out to West Charlotte for the Project LIFT announcement.

12:09 p.m. – Wells vice president and economist Anika Khan predicts Charlotte won’t recover the jobs we lost until 2014-15. Says unemployment won’t get as low as 8 percent until 2012. She calls Charlotte “a lagging city.”

12:15 p.m. Anika Khan says the local apartment market “starting to take off.” “We have still a way to go with the Charlotte office market.” Said retail still has an 11.3 percent vacancy rate.
She concludes, “Charlotte is positioned for growth. But it’s going to be slow and very modest.”

12:17 p.m. John Connaughton, UNC Charlotte econ prof and director of the UNCC Economic Forecast, opens by saying, “I’m far less optimistic.” He points out that North Carolina lost 283,000 jobs since recession started. Last year, he said, NC added only 10,000 jobs. That leaves 273,000 to go. “You can do the math,” he says, about how long it’ll take to make up the jobs at that rate.

12:25 p.m. Connaughton predicts it will be 5-6 years before Charlotte gets back to the same level of employment the city had at the peak in December 2007. Many of the jobs lost are blue-collar jobs that aren’t coming back, he said.
Also, there’s a “new normal” and people aren’t buying as much. Since 71 percent of the U.S. economy is personal consumption, he said, that means slower growth.
And “consumers are just not happy campers” he said. “Consumer confidence has been hammered.” Consumers don’t see job numbers that make them comfortable.

12:35 p.m. – Connaughton now talking about risk of double dip recession if oil prices go up much higher. For every 50 cents that gas prices go up, he says, it takes $150 billion out of U.S consumer pockets. He used to think the double-dip recession wasn’t likely. Now he’s not so sure.
He noted the huge cash reserves that banks are holding. “There’s plenty of cash out there. It’s just not getting into the hands of small businesses,” he says. That’s one thing that’s a real killer,” he said.

Connaughton also pointed out the need for North Carolina to restructure its tax policies. Property tax revenue will rise, but slowly, he said. But the state depends too heavily on the sales tax, which (see “new normal,” above) is becoming a smaller and smaller share of economic growth.

12:50 p.m. – Matt Martin, senior vice president of the Federal Reserve in Richmond, is less pessimistic than Connaughton.
He says the construction jobs we saw at the peak aren’t coming back. It was 6 percent of U.S. GDP at the peak, he said, which was high for historic norms. Now it’s less than 3 percent.
And the lost manufacturing jobs won’t come back, either, he said.

Historic streetcar – an expose of sorts

Historic streetcar rail exposed on North Tryon Street. Photos by Mary Newsom

This posting is an excuse to share some photos that history enthusiasts and rail-lovers might enjoy. Pavement flaws in North Tryon Street uptown have exposed the reality that the city’s old streetcar tracks are still down there. Here’s a hat tip to Les Epperson of the city’s Special Services division, which cares for some key parts of uptown. When I was interviewing him about sidewalks and snow removal (see last Saturday’s op-ed, “City walkability goal hits an icy patch”), he mentioned that streetcar rails were visible where the pavement was worn, in the 500 block of North Tryon. I took a walk last week and sure enough, in front of the First United Methodist Church, I spotted them.
The rails aren’t in very good condition – not surprising for metal that’s been paved over multiple times. Epperson said not all the rails remain; some have been removed for various street projects.

For the record, Charlotte’s last streetcar was put out to pasture in 1938. Streetcar No. 85 was the centerpiece of a “Good-bye To Trolleys” celebration at The Square on March 14, 1938. That car ended up being found in a Huntersville pasture in the 1980s, restored and then it ran for about 10 years, operated by the nonprofit Charlotte Trolley, on what are now the light rail tracks down South Boulevard. It was put out to pasture again – this time to the CATS light rail barn – and awaits its next mission.
Charlotte, like many other U.S. cities, hopes to bring back streetcar service, but its plans don’t include North Tryon Street. Still, I like to imagine someone jackhammering up the asphalt on North Tryon and Car 85 running on those old rails again. In reality, of course, the condition of the rail (see close-ups below) and the missing rails make that impossible.

Historic streetcar – an expose of sorts

Historic streetcar rail exposed on North Tryon Street. Photos by Mary Newsom

This posting is an excuse to share some photos that history enthusiasts and rail-lovers might enjoy. Pavement flaws in North Tryon Street uptown have exposed the reality that the city’s old streetcar tracks are still down there. Here’s a hat tip to Les Epperson of the city’s Special Services division, which cares for some key parts of uptown. When I was interviewing him about sidewalks and snow removal (see last Saturday’s op-ed, “City walkability goal hits an icy patch”), he mentioned that streetcar rails were visible where the pavement was worn, in the 500 block of North Tryon. I took a walk last week and sure enough, in front of the First United Methodist Church, I spotted them.
The rails aren’t in very good condition – not surprising for metal that’s been paved over multiple times. Epperson said not all the rails remain; some have been removed for various street projects.

For the record, Charlotte’s last streetcar was put out to pasture in 1938. Streetcar No. 85 was the centerpiece of a “Good-bye To Trolleys” celebration at The Square on March 14, 1938. That car ended up being found in a Huntersville pasture in the 1980s, restored and then it ran for about 10 years, operated by the nonprofit Charlotte Trolley, on what are now the light rail tracks down South Boulevard. It was put out to pasture again – this time to the CATS light rail barn – and awaits its next mission.
Charlotte, like many other U.S. cities, hopes to bring back streetcar service, but its plans don’t include North Tryon Street. Still, I like to imagine someone jackhammering up the asphalt on North Tryon and Car 85 running on those old rails again. In reality, of course, the condition of the rail (see close-ups below) and the missing rails make that impossible.

Threats to historic buildings – from the government

The owner of the landmark P&N Railway Depot (above) wants to demolish it rather than meet city’s code demands.

You may have read the op-ed I did in November (“City may seek landmark demolition”), pointing to an unintended consequence of the city’s new non-residential building code – several demolition orders going out to designated historic landmarks that weren’t in good repair.

Or maybe you caught the WFAE report last week on the Davis General Merchandise store, a century old historic landmark which has been ordered to make repairs, and whose aging outbuildings were ordered demolished if repairs weren’t made.

Yes, this is yet another example of your city government and city elected officials being oblivious to the value of old buildings and historic buildings – and not just landmarks – when they adopt city policy. They’re not necessarily hostile, just oblivious to the issue. Witness the happy ease with which planners and council members adopted zoning standards for transit-station areas that allow buildings so tall they’ll alter the property value landscape, making smaller older buildings in places such as NoDa worth so little compared to the land they’re on that owners won’t even blink before razing them for towers.

As today’s Observer editorial (“Historic landmarks? City turns blind eye”) points out, City Council members say they didn’t even discuss, when talking about the proposed ordinance last spring, what its effect might be on historic buildings. That’s telling.

Walter Abernethy, the city’s code enforcement director, says the issue did come up during stakeholder meetings before the ordinance was proposed. But the ordinance has little in it to protect landmark buildings.

Ted Alexander, with Preservation North Carolina, points out that PNC has covenants on the Davis store to protect it – though whether that could prevent demolition is, for now, an open question. (I’ve asked Ted but haven’t heard back yet.) And it’s important to remember that the city hasn’t ordered demolition of the store and isn’t pushing for it. It just wants repairs, which owner Silas Davis would have to pay for. Davis, when I talked to him Friday, was irate about the whole situation and said he didn’t have the money for the repairs.

But as the editorial points out, it’s the historic old Thrift depot that faces the more immediate threat. Its owner, CSX railway, would prefer not to spend what it would require to bring the building up to code. It’s asking for a demolition permit. Because it’s a landmark, the county historic landmarks commission can delay the demo for up to a year, but can’t prevent demolition.

A few N.C. municipalities have gotten special legislation to let them absolutely forbid demolition in some selected cases. New Bern, for instance, can forbid demolition in its historic districts, although there are some procedural hoops everyone has to jump through.

Is the city’s oblivion toward historic landmarks due in part to the governmental organization that has the landmarks commission lodged as part of the county government? Possibly. But notice that the Historic District Commission (not the same as the landmarks commission but with some similarities), is part of the city’s planning department.

Threats to historic buildings – from the government

The owner of the landmark P&N Railway Depot (above) wants to demolish it rather than meet city’s code demands.

You may have read the op-ed I did in November (“City may seek landmark demolition”), pointing to an unintended consequence of the city’s new non-residential building code – several demolition orders going out to designated historic landmarks that weren’t in good repair.

Or maybe you caught the WFAE report last week on the Davis General Merchandise store, a century old historic landmark which has been ordered to make repairs, and whose aging outbuildings were ordered demolished if repairs weren’t made.

Yes, this is yet another example of your city government and city elected officials being oblivious to the value of old buildings and historic buildings – and not just landmarks – when they adopt city policy. They’re not necessarily hostile, just oblivious to the issue. Witness the happy ease with which planners and council members adopted zoning standards for transit-station areas that allow buildings so tall they’ll alter the property value landscape, making smaller older buildings in places such as NoDa worth so little compared to the land they’re on that owners won’t even blink before razing them for towers.

As today’s Observer editorial (“Historic landmarks? City turns blind eye”) points out, City Council members say they didn’t even discuss, when talking about the proposed ordinance last spring, what its effect might be on historic buildings. That’s telling.

Walter Abernethy, the city’s code enforcement director, says the issue did come up during stakeholder meetings before the ordinance was proposed. But the ordinance has little in it to protect landmark buildings.

Ted Alexander, with Preservation North Carolina, points out that PNC has covenants on the Davis store to protect it – though whether that could prevent demolition is, for now, an open question. (I’ve asked Ted but haven’t heard back yet.) And it’s important to remember that the city hasn’t ordered demolition of the store and isn’t pushing for it. It just wants repairs, which owner Silas Davis would have to pay for. Davis, when I talked to him Friday, was irate about the whole situation and said he didn’t have the money for the repairs.

But as the editorial points out, it’s the historic old Thrift depot that faces the more immediate threat. Its owner, CSX railway, would prefer not to spend what it would require to bring the building up to code. It’s asking for a demolition permit. Because it’s a landmark, the county historic landmarks commission can delay the demo for up to a year, but can’t prevent demolition.

A few N.C. municipalities have gotten special legislation to let them absolutely forbid demolition in some selected cases. New Bern, for instance, can forbid demolition in its historic districts, although there are some procedural hoops everyone has to jump through.

Is the city’s oblivion toward historic landmarks due in part to the governmental organization that has the landmarks commission lodged as part of the county government? Possibly. But notice that the Historic District Commission (not the same as the landmarks commission but with some similarities), is part of the city’s planning department.

Parking lots as polluters

We know driving creates pollution: ozone, other toxic tailpipe emissions such as particulates, contaminated water that runs off streets, the heat island effect of the asphalted street and highway network, etc. etc. But until now, few people had studied the polluting effect of parking lots.

But Eric Jaffe, in The Infrastructurist, writes about new work from researchers at University of California at Berkeley that looks at energy and emissions related to America’s vast parking infrastructure. The researchers write,

“The environmental effects of parking are not just from encouraging the use of the automobile over public transit or walking and biking (thus favoring the often more energy-intensive and polluting mode), but also from the material and process requirements in direct, indirect, and supply chain activities related to building and maintaining the infrastructure.”

There’s no national inventory of how many parking spaces, lots, decks are out there – one academic who’s studied parking compares it to the “dark matter” in the universe – but the researchers point to such things as the heat island effect, where pavement raises summer temperatures which requires more energy for air-conditioning, etc. They calculated that when parking spots are taken into account, an average car’s per-mile carbon emissions go up as much as 10 percent.

And as long as we’re trashing parking places (which even die-hard environmentalists probably wish they could find as they circle, circle, circle the lot on the Saturday before Christmas) check out “Six Reasons Free Parking Is the Dumbest Thing You Didn’t Know You Were Subsidizing,” by Christopher Mims in grist.org. The point is not that we shouldn’t have parking, but that we should all be a lot more aware of the costs of building and providing it. Maybe we’d be more conservative in how we spend that money – if we realized we were spending it.

And for a parking-related footnote, here’s a way Charlotte-Mecklenburg Schools might bring in a bit more revenue so CMS won’t have to cut a whopping $100 million from the budget and lay off 1,500 people including hundreds of teachers:

Charge high school students more money to park their cars. If CMS provides buses to the schools (which it does, except to magnet high schools) then families that opt to let kids drive can pay for the privilege. Wake County Schools charge $170 and they’re raising the fee. CMS charges $25. Ahem.

Each parking space adds $2,500 to the cost of a high school, a CMS architect told me a few years ago. Yes, staffers need parking spaces, and some students probably do, too. But a lot of that money could be better spent.

Parking lots as polluters

We know driving creates pollution: ozone, other toxic tailpipe emissions such as particulates, contaminated water that runs off streets, the heat island effect of the asphalted street and highway network, etc. etc. But until now, few people had studied the polluting effect of parking lots.

But Eric Jaffe, in The Infrastructurist, writes about new work from researchers at University of California at Berkeley that looks at energy and emissions related to America’s vast parking infrastructure. The researchers write,

“The environmental effects of parking are not just from encouraging the use of the automobile over public transit or walking and biking (thus favoring the often more energy-intensive and polluting mode), but also from the material and process requirements in direct, indirect, and supply chain activities related to building and maintaining the infrastructure.”

There’s no national inventory of how many parking spaces, lots, decks are out there – one academic who’s studied parking compares it to the “dark matter” in the universe – but the researchers point to such things as the heat island effect, where pavement raises summer temperatures which requires more energy for air-conditioning, etc. They calculated that when parking spots are taken into account, an average car’s per-mile carbon emissions go up as much as 10 percent.

And as long as we’re trashing parking places (which even die-hard environmentalists probably wish they could find as they circle, circle, circle the lot on the Saturday before Christmas) check out “Six Reasons Free Parking Is the Dumbest Thing You Didn’t Know You Were Subsidizing,” by Christopher Mims in grist.org. The point is not that we shouldn’t have parking, but that we should all be a lot more aware of the costs of building and providing it. Maybe we’d be more conservative in how we spend that money – if we realized we were spending it.

And for a parking-related footnote, here’s a way Charlotte-Mecklenburg Schools might bring in a bit more revenue so CMS won’t have to cut a whopping $100 million from the budget and lay off 1,500 people including hundreds of teachers:

Charge high school students more money to park their cars. If CMS provides buses to the schools (which it does, except to magnet high schools) then families that opt to let kids drive can pay for the privilege. Wake County Schools charge $170 and they’re raising the fee. CMS charges $25. Ahem.

Each parking space adds $2,500 to the cost of a high school, a CMS architect told me a few years ago. Yes, staffers need parking spaces, and some students probably do, too. But a lot of that money could be better spent.