Category: Charlotte Chamber

N.C. transportation funding: ‘If you’re not at the table, you’re on the menu’

A Charlotte light rail station

If you were at the Charlotte Chamber’s 2015 Transportation Infrastructure Summit this morning, you got two pointed lectures. The first, from N.C. Rep. Bill Brawley, R-Mecklenburg, was about dealing effectively with the N.C. General Assembly.

The background: North Carolina’s transportation dollars aren’t keeping up with needs. This is true whether you’d prefer new light rail and no roads, or new roads and no light rail, or whether you’re thinking about ports, aviation and ferries. (Wonkish but important point: North Carolina doesn’t have “county roads.” Roads are either state- or city-maintained (or private).The state has a larger role in road-building and maintenance than in some other states.)

The gas tax, intended to support state transportation needs, is not keeping up, because people are driving less and driving more fuel-efficient cars, and transportation projects today are more expensive than in decades past.

For cities like Charlotte, growth and congestion mean more voters and businesses want mass transit as well as expanded roads. But the General Assembly today is dominated by Republicans who are more likely to represent rural or suburban districts. Here’s Brawley’s advice:

“Whenever you do anything to raise money for transportation … you make people mad,” he said. In that atmosphere, it’s important to try to build a statewide consensus on funding before you even approach politicians. But when Charlotte comes to Raleigh seeking money for transportation projects, he said, “Charlotte comes with Charlotte-specific projects.They don’t talk about the state as a whole. They don’t work on building support with the state as a whole.” In other words — and this is my wording here — act like you care about more than Charlotte.

His final words: “In Raleigh, if you’re not at the table, you’re on the menu.”

The second lecture was even stronger. Former U.S. Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood (whose successor is former Charlotte Mayor Anthony Foxx) would have pounded the table if he’d had a table to pound. “Transportation infrastructure is at a crossroads. It’s at a standstill,” he said. “It’s at a crisis.”

“The long rich history of our country … is about being No. 1 in transportation and infrastructure,” he said. “We’re not No. 1 in infrastructure any more. We’re No. 16.”

 “America is one big pothole!” he all but shouted. “Because we haven’t invested. We haven’t fixed up our roads.”

As he’s done for months — years, really — LaHood, a Republican from Peoria, Ill., pushed the idea of raising the federal gas tax 10 cents a gallon, and indexing it to the cost of living. The tax has not been raised since 1993.

“We need to bit the bullet,” he said. “Voters are not going to vote you out of office if you fix a big problem”

REBIC’s long list of ‘No’s’

Several months back I had coffee with the affable Andy Munn, policy director for the Real Estate and Building Industry Coalition, aka REBIC, the most influential local real estate and development lobbying group. I got the idea that the group, which in the past has had (my words here, not his) a “Just Say No” reputation among local government staffers and environmental and planning activists, might be trying to change its image a bit.

Fast forward to Monday night’s City Council meeting (“Foxx: Be flexible with developers”), where REBIC members were out in force. Mayor Anthony Foxx had put onto the agenda a staff presentation about a cluster of new measures that REBIC doesn’t like:
– the proposed (not yet adopted) stronger tree ordinance.
– the Urban Street Design Guidelines policy (not yet adopted into ordinances and thus, not required of developers, either)
– the post-construction controls ordinance (the only one developers currently must actually follow). Many big guns were in attendance: Bill Daleure of Crosland Inc., Ned Curran of the Bissell Companies, as well as Charlotte Chamber honcho Bob Morgan.

As the Observer editorial board opined this morning (“Don’t let ‘flexible’ morph into ‘gutting’ “) just building cheap isn’t always smart. When you add in the future costs to taxpayers to retrofit and expand your street network/restore polluted streams/mitigate flooding — i.e. millions of dollars — it makes the estimated increment of $1,900 to $2,900 to the cost of new housing (spread over a 30-year mortgage) seem a bit less of a problem.

That said, a city that didn’t look seriously at the combined effects of its regulations on the costs of building would be irresponsible. The point is to look at the big picture and make intelligent choices, as best you can. Further, I hear developers of all types, not just the REBIC types, complain about bureaucratic nightmares dealing with multiple government agencies on complicated plans and technical issues. So complaints about lack of flexibility and/or inconsistencies resonate with me.

But here’s a problem: Even when REBIC has legitimate points it’s virtually impossible to sort them out from the cloud of anti-everything rhetoric it’s been floating for something like 30 years.

I recall a famous scene when then-REBIC executive director Mark Cramer spoke at a City Council debate in 1998 over whether to require developers to build more sidewalks in new subdivisions. Of course REBIC opposed it, because it would force developers to spend more money on subdivisions. (Though I must say I doubt they had to shrink their profit margins.) Cramer, after listening to pleas for good sidewalks on behalf of children, the elderly and people in wheelchairs, noted that sidewalks are good things. But, he added: “You can have too much of a good thing.”

I think REBIC and its close relative, the Chamber’s land use committee, would have more credibility in many of its complaints if it hadn’t, over the years, fought virtually every environmental and growth-management measure proposed by local governments, dating to before the term Smart Growth was even invented.

It’s a long list. It includes: the city bicycle plan, the floodplain ordinance, the stream buffer ordinance, watershed ordinances, the aforementioned sidewalk requirements, a county farmland preservation measure, a pilot project in Huntersville to preserve rural land and efforts a few decades ago to channel the overdevelopment in South Charlotte into other areas by limiting where new sewer lines are built. (That last is a classic planning technique being used all over the country – but not in Charlotte-Mecklenburg. Developer John Crosland Jr. simply got state government to give him permits for private sewer plants and kept on building subdivisions.)

Quite an impressive list of opposition, I’d say. And to be fair I will note that anyone is free to lobby any elected official on anything. When environmental regulations and planning initiatives are gutted or stalled for years, and when city staff is ordered to “compromise with developers” over already-compromised proposals – a tradition staffers hired from other metro areas have told me privately they’re shocked to hear here – it’s elected officials who do that, not REBIC.

Uff-Da! Twin Cities visit ‘audacious’ Charlotte

A large group of folks from Minneapolis-St. Paul were in town Sunday until Tuesday afternoon, on an inter-city Chamber visit. It’s the sort of thing Charlotte civic and business leaders do every year, although this year they stayed home. Here’s a link to the St. Paul Chamber’s Web page, where you can see the agenda.

My friend Curtis Johnson, an educator and author of, among other things, the 2008 Citistates Report, was one of the group. He sent this e-mail report late Tuesday: “The delegation was duly stirred by its contact with Charlotte people. It prompted much discussion about whether Charlotte has audacity and MSP has ambivalence.” He promises more info later.

Is Charlotte audacious? Are the Twin Cities ambivalent?

I sought the opinion of our departmental Minnesotan, editorial cartoonist Kevin Siers, who’s from the Iron Range and lived in MSP for about 10 years.

“Audacious? If you mean Charlotte has more naked self-promotion, then yes,” he said.
“They’re [the Twin Cities] Midwestern, you know.”

For the record, he points out that St. Paul and Minneapolis have distinctly differing personalities. SP is blue-collar, Catholic, and “has more interesting architecture.” Minneapolis is Lutheran and “lots of steel and blue glass.”

Chamber: Don’t blame us for Overstreet

Charlotte Chamber president Bob Morgan, on the eve of the Chamber’s annual intercity trip (this year to – ta da! – Charlotte) called to report that an oft-repeated story that uptown’s overstreet walkways emerged from a Chamber inter-visit to Minneapolis is, well, wrong.

Morgan said he, too, had repeated that story. But (because of a question from yours truly seeking other examples of Chamber-trip-inspired developments) he hauled out the entire list of Chamber intercity visits dating to 1956. The only Minneapolis trip was in 1993, two decades after the first overstreet walkway went up.

Photo: Skywalk under construction in 2001 photo

Why “blame” in that headline I wrote? (It’s my word, not the Chamber’s.) I’m among many who criticize the walkways for hurting the possiblities for uptown retail. They make it hard to find the stores, unless you know they’re in there. And they make the street-level experience blander, because you can’t window-shop because the stores are hidden. I’ll be fair, now, and note that in cold, rainy weather they’re very popular. Yes, I use them too, upon occasion, typically the “ice storm” occasion.

I dug into our electronic archives which date to 1985 and found a painful number of references – some written by me, others by esteemed Observer reporters such as Doug Smith, Jeff Elder and M.S. Van Hecke – to this mythological, walkway-inspiring Chamber trip to Minneapolis.

Morgan speculated that the walkways were inspired by Minneapolis, but not on an official Chamber inter-city visit.

He may well be right. Here’s the earliest mention of them I found. (No, I didn’t take time to visit our newsprint clips, fun though such visits can be.) This was written in a 1986 news article by Ted Mellnik who, then as well as now, is noted in our newsroom for his reportorial precision: “The Overstreet Mall was proposed in a 1971 center-city development plan by Vincent Ponte, who said it would create ‘a city within a city.’ Development was spurred in the mid-1970s when a group of Charlotte business and civic leaders visited Minneapolis, which has a walkway system.”

Update: 6:45 p.m.: Got an e-mail from Carl Johnson who offers this info: “Mary, my recollection is the Gibson L. Smith, real estate man and civic leader (on council, I think, and ran for mayor but lost) deserves a lot of credit as a promoter (I say that in the neutral sense) for the overstreet walkways. Carl Johnson”

(I’ll be going on as much of this week’s Chamber “visit” as I can manage away from the job. So blog postings may be sparse. I’ll try to Tweet @marynewsom or @nakedcityblog. The Chamber is asking all Twitter-users to use this hashtag: #icv09.)