Duh velopment

Today's story in the Post about the redevelopment of the former St. Elizabeths Mental Hospital site in Ward 8 ("As the Feds Take Over, St. E's Moves Further Into Shadow") reminds me of past entries about how enclave development isn't the harbinger of glad tidings that people think.

A level 5 security building means that people won't go in and out. And these days, office workers don't have much in the way of a "lunch hour" anyway, not to mention that office workers support a very limited amount and array of retail (convenience goods) and restaurants (quick service).

In other words, a walled off campus where a lot of people work, separated and severed from the commercial district and neighborhood around it, isn't a solid strategy for rebuilding the economic viability of the Greater Anacostia neighborhood in DC's Ward 8.

See:

- The retail numbers "they" don't want you to know
- Office buildings won't "save" Anacostia
- Enclave development won't "save" Anacostia
- Arson as a(nother) redevelopment strategem

2. And is related to the Post's article yesterday, "Hot and Cold Reactions to Slots Proposals: Baltimore Moves Fast, While Arundel Delays," about the desire for slots casinos in Baltimore versus a reticence in Anne Arundel County. The tone of the article is that Baltimore has been bending over backwards and Anne Arundel County hasn't and why is this so?

Well for one, relatively speaking, Baltimore isn't doing well economically. They need "economic development" a lot more. So a somewhat noxious development has a much better chance of succeeding in a place that is more desperate.

Plus, the location of the casino is in an industrial area, on a main (industrial + the football and baseball stadiums) entryway into the city off I-95. Residential areas are many many blocks away. From the article:

The Baltimore site has not been controversy-free, but city leaders seem to have rallied around the developer's plans. That is, in part, because of the promise of hundreds of jobs paying more than $40,000 a year and the potential for redevelopment in a blighted entranceway to the city.

The Baltimore site also includes an added inducement that other locations lack: the promise of property-tax relief.

Unlike the other sites, the state legislation required that the Baltimore casino be located on city-owned land. The provision, which Baltimore officials insisted on, will allow the city to charge rent to the developer and pass the proceeds along to residents in the form of property tax reductions.

In January, the city told potential bidders that its "minimum request" in annual rent was $36 million. The sole bidder for the license, the Baltimore City Entertainment Group, later negotiated a deal expected to generate about $25 million a year for the city after five years -- enough to knock 8 cents per $100 of assessed value off the highest property tax rate in the state.

Baltimore City Council President Stephanie Rawlings-Blake (D) acknowledged that the city did not get everything it wanted. But she described the deal as a "win-win" for Baltimore residents and the developer. "Other jurisdictions could take a lesson from what we've done here," Rawlings-Blake said.

I don't know if I agree with Council President Rawlings-Blake, but it is what it is.