Biking stuff

1. Electric biking. I think a lot of the energy on marketing electric bikes, by locating stores in center cities (such as the now closed store in Fells Point in Baltimore), has been misplaced. I think the opportunity that electric biking provides is for longer distance trips, especially commuting trips, say from 5 to 15 miles from the primary destination for work or school, which is a distance that most people are not normally willing to bicycle.

Yesterday's Baltimore Sun has an article, "Electric bicycle gives commuter a boost on 22-mile way to work," about a guy using an electric bike to commute quite a long distance to and from work. (Although the bike isn't cheap, $8,000. There are less expensive alternatives.)

2. The story in the New York Times about backlash against bike lanes, "Bike Lanes' Growth in New York Brings Backlash," reports on a phenomenon that is not dissimilar from the backlash locally, which is acknowledged in this Post article, "Bicycle program makes District easier place to get around, residents say."

If you look at the reporting across the country, in most places, people who drive are resisting improvements to other ways of getting around, mostly bicycling but also transit.

But this shouldn't be a surprise.

It's been a 40 year process to improve the biking environment in places like Amsterdam and Copenhagen, so that now after a post-war drop in biking and an increase in the use of automobiles, as many as 40% of daily trips are conducted by bicycle.

We have to recognize that we face a similarly long process here, and we are likely to continue to face a great deal of resistance by neighborhood groups and automobile companies, road builders, and lobbying organizations such as the American Automobile Association.

3. One of the statements that people use against biking and streetcars is that somehow these are not 21st century technologies--like the automobile, all technically are 19th century technologies.

The real issue is optimal mobility. Zurich, with its streetcar dominant mobility system, probably has the most efficient mobility system in the world. But it's not about the technologies, it's about the spatial organization of the city, and how optimal mobility is based on walking, transit, and biking, rather than the automobile.

4. There is an interesting NPR story, "Switching Gears: More Commuters Bike To Work," focusing on how the CEO of National Geographic is a bicyclist, and how he encourages bicycling by offering employees the opportunity to talk with him outside of the office by biking with him during lunch.
Caption: National Geographic Society CEO John Fahey talks with colleague Dan Westergren, who is also an avid cyclist. Photo: Maggie Starbard/NPR. From the article:

One way National Geographic staffers in Washington, D.C., can get to know their company's CEO is to take him up on his long-standing offer: to go for a lunchtime bike ride.

"Anyone still downstairs? OK, so we ready to go, guys?" National Geographic Society CEO John Fahey asks a group of about 20 employees

Fahey, an avid biker, says he's just trying to encourage a little exercise — and he wants the opportunity to get to know folks informally. As the group makes the 15-mile trek to Hains Point along the Potomac River and back, Fahey makes a point of chatting with everyone, staffers say.

At National Geographic — which is a hub of outdoorsy, adventure-seeking types who think nothing of biking busy city streets — lots of the staffers who join Fahey for the lunchtime rides also use their bikes to get to and from work every day.

By modeling this kind of behavior at the top, more people are likely to take up biking within organizations.

Amongst other places, sustainable transportation programming needs to be delivered at the level of the individual worksite and school site in order to get significant take up.

5. From a press release:

Casey Trees and Rails-to-Trails Conservancy gear up to beautify Metropolitan Branch Trail
Improvements aimed to encourage greater use of trail for exercise, transportation and recreation.

(Washington, DC – November 30, 2010) Casey Trees will plant 25 trees along the newly extended Metropolitan Branch Trail in Edgewood on December 11. Rails-to-Trails Conservancy (RTC), with funding from The Coca-Cola Foundation, is sponsoring the planting through a special Project Support Grant.

Project Support Grant funds will support two tree planting events.

The upcoming fall planting will add native tree species, including Cherokee sweetgum, Kentucky yellowwood and Eastern Redbud, on the stretch of trail between 8th and Edgewood Streets NE and Rhode Island Avenue NE. Four complementary species — paperbark maple, crapemyrtle, golden rain tree and saucer magnolia — will be planted at 4th and S Streets NE. The spring 2011 planting — date to be determined — will add 10 fruit trees at the trail entrance just north of Rhode Island Avenue NE.

Trees from both plantings will be watered and cared for by Casey Trees’ Water By-Cycle and High School Summer Crew programs the first two summers following the plantings. Casey Trees’ new headquarters at 3030 and 3015 12th Street NE are located near the trail.

Initial structural and non-tree vegetation improvements along the trail were made during the District of Columbia Building Industry Association’s (DCBIA) Community Improvement Day on October 2.

Volunteers from Casey Trees, RTC and Vanguard Realty Group will help plant the trees.

Land-Use Regulation and Fiscal Sustainability (in Montgomery County, Maryland)

Ben Ross, an economist and President of Action Committee for Transit, the Montgomery County, Maryland advocacy group which pushes a pro-transit agenda including the Purple Line light rail and a light rail system in northern Montgomery County, has published a piece on the economic and political impacts of the land use regulation system in the county.

--Land-Use Regulation and Fiscal Sustainability

He writes:

I've just finished writing something that tries to address fundamental issues about the relationship between democratic governance and land-use regulation. I start from an institutional economics perspective which I think gets you insights that you don't get by just using microeconomics (which tells you what's wrong, but can't explain why these wrong things keep happening).

I'm not going to nitpick differences of interpretation between he and I as I already sent those comments to him. Instead, I want to focus on his recommendations:

The needed simplification has two central elements. First comes an end to the system of fictional zones overlaid with “alternate” methods of development that are in practice mandatory. The Planning Board and its staff must be freed of their unsustainable burden of work. Property should be zoned so that the development that is expected proceeds “of right.” Second, and closely linked to the first, the resources now dispersed into negotiated amenities[*] must be captured through taxation. This will allow fairer and more democratic allocation and will directly contribute to relieving the county's long-term fiscal problem. More broadly, such reforms will improve the county's business climate by lessening the delay and uncertainty which are a greater deterrent to economic growth than the absolute level of taxation.

[*] Only negotiated amenities are at issue here. Developers should comply with general rules, such as affordable housing requirements, and supply infrastructure that is inherent to a project, such as internal streets and sidewalks, stormwater control, etc.

Recommendation one is really key--that only projects meeting all of the goals and objectives of a master or area plan should be treated as matter of right. Matter of right development zoning tends to focus on minimums, not the best result. So why should we favor projects with minimal benefits with the easiest path to approval?

It's so simple that I can't believe I never came to this conclusion myself. For example, the problem with revitalization of traditional commercial districts is that most developers aren't interested in developing the sites to the maximum capacity and opportunity, because often, to reap the full benefits has a longer pay back period than how the financial system is set up to deal with the development of real estate projects.

For example, projects like Bethesda Row in Bethesda, Maryland are amazing, but the longer payback period of this and similar projects elsewhere sent the development company off the cliff financially during the last downturn (early part of this decade) and the company had to restructure (see "FEDERAL REALTY’S PRUDENT STRATEGIES SERVE IT WELL IN A TOUGH PERIOD" from Retail Traffic Magazine).

-- business description document of Bethesda Row by Federal Realty Investment Trust

The Smart Code, a design oriented method of land use regulation that is somewhat different from the traditional zoning process, which focuses on height, mass, and bulk, but not design, and not context, is pushed by new urbanists as a way to achieve better development outcomes, but for the most part it focuses on incentivizing making better choices, it doesn't require making better choices.

Only when there are massive benefits for "doing the right thing" such as how Arlington County allows massive density increases in the Wilson Boulevard corridor by following a special approval procedure, do you get much closer to optimal choices.

DC has little in the way of substantive ability to provide massive density increases to developers, because most plots of developable/redevelopable land are small, and the height restriction and relatively low scale nature of commercial zoning in the city (I am not knocking this, merely pointing out the obvious) makes substantive density bonuses pretty small in comparison to the cost of property and the cost of development.

With regard to the second recommendation, of monetizing and capturing the added development bonus through taxation rather than a negotiated community benefits process, I am of two minds of this. It depends on how the money would be used.

The advantage of a community benefits (proffer) process is that it directs resources to needs that have been identified but not filled (see the blog entry "Community Benefits Agreements"). For the most part, these needs are of a long term investment nature, rather than something that is funded out of a jurisdiction's annual operating budget.

Arlington shows that you can utilize amenities approval processes, especially wrt transportation demand management, in ways that meet a variety of community objectives satisfactorily, without having the process be hijacked by hyper-local demands.

The key is to have master plans/sector plans that set the framework for priorities, goals, and objectives, and a process by which the satisfaction of the P/G/O are achieved through the negotiation process. The master framework makes a big difference. It's something we lack in DC. I don't know about Montgomery County.

The problem with directing all the money to taxation is that it is just as likely to get pissed away (think higher salaries for government employees, police officers using training classes as a subterfuge to buy cheap guns, etc.) as it is to be invested in capital improvements.

I guess I would be okay with capturing the development gains from land use regulation (zoning) through taxation if all the monies were to be directed to capital investment in transportation, public facilities of various sorts, and other capital improvements, rather than seen as one time gains for the operating budget.

The biggest problem in local government is a failure to invest in the long term and to acknowledge that development bonuses are worth money, but also come at a cost, but at the same time, recognizing that the right kind of development can in fact improve communities as well--Bethesda Row being a key example of completely changing the nature of Bethesda as a successful and urban destination within an automobile-centric place.

wrt Arlington, I don't know how it works exactly. I think it's not so much that the County is small (unlike Montgomery County which is 20 times bigger), but that they have robust systems/procedures in place, and that the systems focus on generating the right outcomes. (E.g., read the master transportation plan and see how each element derives from the plan goals, and how each element is internally consistent and consistent with the overall goals.)

In DC, I argue that the reason that the procedures for community benefits are weakly defined is to minimize the amount of money paid out by developers--a pro-Growth Machine policy. The Comp Plan is "precatory" -- a bunch of shoulds, and without specific laws and requirements, it's just feel good language. Although it reads well, without the back up of actual requirements, things don't improve all that much except when the market dictates that it do so (as the value of land significantly increases, developers tend to do the right thing more).

We don't have sector plans in DC like they do in Arlington or Montgomery Counties. We do have small area plans but they aren't full blown community plans. And therefore we don't have a process for coming up with consensus priorities at the neighborhood/ward level. (We do have area elements in the comp plan but they are general, nothing like a sector plan.)

Developers using social media to fight opponents

is an AP story that happened to run in the Richmond Times-Dispatch.

Obviously, using any and all techniques at your disposal is what any type of advocate does. The article mentions one particular social media initiative that has generated developer response, Don't Big Box Carytown, in Richmond, Virginia.

Note that I have written about Carytown in the past and I consider it one of the best traditional commercial districts between Philadelphia and Richmond (it trumps most traditional shopping districts in the DC region, although Alexandria and 14th Street do better with furnishings).

The Carytown anti-development initiative is interesting, because it is against the entry of a Whole Foods Market, which most every neighborhood seems to want (along with Starbucks and/or a Trader Joes).

A Whole Foods Market attracts thousands of customers each day, building the kind of customer traffic that most commercial districts seemingly desire.

It's also interesting because just yesterday Suzanne and I were talking about commercial district revitalization issues, and I mentioned how it took me a few years (about five) to get a more nuanced understanding of how the right kind of chains can be included within traditional districts in ways that are sensitive to the district and help the district succeed. Although Kennedy Smith, the former director the National Main Street Center, points out that in thriving districts, chains don't number more than 20% of the total stores.

This is because these stores are well known, get advertising and other marketing support, draw in customers who in turn shop in other stores in the commercial district, and the chain stores can help to round out and extend the mix of stores in the district.

Other articles:

-- "Carytown Meeting Regarding Big Box Store: All signs point to Whole Foods replacing old Verizon building" (WTVR-TV, CBS6)

-- Carytown business community thinks outside the box" from Richmond BizSense

-- "Carytown group neutral on Verizon building" from the Richmond Times-Dispatch, about the Carytown Merchants Association not taking a position on the project, other than stating that land use proposals should be congruent with the master plan for the area

People might point to this discussion and ask "why aren't you supportive of a Walmart on Georgia Avenue when you are saying that people in Carytown ought to be happy to get a Whole Foods Supermarket? Aren't you being hypocritical?"

There is a big difference.

First and foremost, the Carytown commercial district is thriving, but even so, all traditional commercial districts need to continue to refresh and keep current what they offer. The customer demographic of Carytown jibes well with a Whole Foods supermarket (plus there are already two large grocery stores there, a Kroger and a Ukrops-Martins, as well as the Ellwood Thompson Local Market, a natural foods store which is stoking the opposition--this company is supposed to open a store in Columbia Heights, but it appears as if it may not according to the Washington City Paper and other media).

It's the classic argument of how an "anchor" store in a commercial district attracts customers who in turn shop in the rest of the district.

The issue with the Walmart on Georgia Avenue in DC is that it won't be integrated into the urban fabric in a manner that complements and strengthens the other retail on Georgia Avenue.

Not to mention the Walmart business model which is not supportive of the anchor store concept. Walmart's business model intends to capture up to 100% of the customer dollar, leaving no room for spending at other stores. Sure, they are doing marketing support programs for local retail in urban areas, to reduce the level of opposition to their entry, but their business model remains unchanged.

I saw an article about how Walmart is reaching out to their vendors to do joint purchasing, in order to reduce production costs. If Walmart were to make their buying and operating systems available to local commercial districts as part of the "community benefits" package of their entry, maybe I'd feel differently about their entry--which I am resigned to by the way, I just want their entry to be way better managed, so that the Georgia Avenue commercial district is strengthened, not weakened further.

Urban and suburban and rural attitudes and voting

I wouldn't normally blog about an article like this "Drubbed in statewide races, Maryland GOP may drop top-down approach to party growth," from today's Post, about the state of the Republican party in Maryland and its opportunities in a seemingly very Democratic state, except for what it says about rural vs. urban attitudes. From the article:

Despite getting shellacked in statewide contests, Maryland Republicans actually made significant gains Nov. 2 in races for county commissioner and council seats, expecially in less-populous parts of the state.

Building on those pickups - and in turn building a farm team for bigger races down the road - might be the most realistic strategy at this point, some argue.

While the article acknowledges that the Republican gains in Maryland were mostly in "less populous" areas, it doesn't discuss how important this point really is, especially in terms of where most of the votes and most of the Maryland population is located--adjacent to Washington DC and in and around Baltimore. Suburbanites in those areas may be less liberal than people in the "center city," but at the same time they are likely to be considerably more liberal than residents of exurban and rural areas.

Early election results by county, Maryland Governor's race, modified to include Baltimore County, Washington Post graphic Blue = Democrat, Red = Republican. In 2006, the state population was 5.7 million and the jurisdictions that voted Democrat made up 63% of the state's population. In the next two largest counties, Anne Arundel and Frederick, the Republican slate for Governor won with about 54% of the vote, but as these counties continue to be drawn into their respective center city orbits, the trend away from Republican voting is likely to continue.

So the Republican victories in Maryland (with the exception of the Congressional results in the 1st District) are growing in the least populated, slowest growing areas of Maryland. How is that a good thing for the Republican party and what does it say as the country continues to suburbanize?

Plus, the article doesn't get into how the Republican party appears to be decidedly anti-urban in terms of its policies, at least nationally, (it is true that enlightened Republicans at least in terms of the smart growth issue do actually exist, e.g., Mitt Romney is actually quite good on Smart growth issues and did a lot of good things as governor of Massachusetts--sadly, these policies were seen as "Republican" not merely smart, and rejected by his Democratic successor).

See:

-- Conservatives' Vision of an America without Cities
-- A line in the suburban sand

"Food culture wars"

The Post has an op-ed today, "The fight over food," by two people writing a book about the initiative to change unhealthy eating and other behaviors in Huntington, West Virginia.

The basic point they make is that despite all the attention paid to the locavore and organic food movement and the fact that much of the food (such as "heritage turkeys" at $10/pound) is expensive, it doesn't have to be that expensive to eat more healthfully.

It happens that my first job in Washington was for the Center for Science in the Public Interest, an advocacy group concerned primarily with nutrition and safe food, as well as the health impact of the consumption of alcoholic beverages. The group doesn't address tobacco-related health issues, as there are plenty of other well-funded groups focusing on that issue area. I was interested in agricultural production related issues too, although CSPI didn't address that field, although in the 1970s, Jim Hightower's Agribusiness Accountability Project did.

Working at CSPI taught me a lot about nutrition (I read some books and interacted with the staff and developed publications for the organizations), direct marketing (the group is one of the more successful nonprofit publishers, relying on sales of subscriptions, "memberships," to Nutrition Action Healthletter), publishing, and advocacy, the process of social change, and legislation and regulatory related lobbying.

Working at CSPI interested me in public health and public health oriented approaches to behavior (epidemiology, social marketing, etc.) and probably stoked my continuing interest in nutrition and other food-related issues in a variety of ways including farmers and public markets.

The Post op-ed says that it's not all that expensive (at least in the U.S.) to eat more healthfully. Although I will say that farmers markets in the DC region tend to have relatively high prices compared to markets in other regions, even as close as Baltimore. Pricing at FreshFARM markets trends particularly high.

Broccoli and apples at Saturday's FreshFARM market in Silver Spring, Maryland -- priced too high for me. I'd go to a supermarket instead. I noticed organic apples at the Silver Spring co-op a few weeks ago priced at $1.29/pound.

They're right. But the real issue is that most people don't know how to cook. That's why so many of us purchase prepared foods and eat in restaurants.

That was true for me for many many years. These days I do cook more, feeling more confident in my ability to produce a recipe, like the pumpkin pie for Thanksgiving pictured above, even if the end result is by no means gourmet or extremely pretty like the kind of plating you see on Top Chef or in a fine dining restaurant. (And hey, this recipe from the New York Times is dynamite too, "Herbed White Bean and Sausage Stew." And note that while my cornbread for Thanksgiving was fine, my mashed potatoes didn't quite measure up.)

This comes up a lot (not my cooking) with my tenure on the Eastern Market Community Advisory Committee, which passes as a board for DC's Eastern Market public market.

I keep making the point that all trends nationally with regard to food consumption favor increased purchase of prepared foods and meals consumed "out-of-home" and that if the fresh food vendors want to increase sales, they're going to have to teach more people how to cook. That is especially the case in DC because the kind of demographic influx the city is experiencing jibes with the out-of-home food consumption trends.

I have been mentioning the need for a demonstration kitchen at Eastern Market ever since I started participating on EMCAC in 2007....

If they can do it on the Paris Metro, see "Escargots au metro: Paris chefs conduct subway cooking classes to capture commuters' attention" an AP story the Los Angeles Times (thanks to NotionsCapital for the heads up), certainly it can be done at public markets (and it is in many, including the Reading Terminal Market in Philadelphia).

The crowd watches Chef Andre Loutsch, right, cooking pastries in a Paris subway station, Wednesday, Nov.24, 2010. Renowned Paris chefs took to the platforms of the Miromesnil subway station in a three-day series of cooking demonstrations and samplings. With a different theme and chef for each segment, French commuters had the oppurtunity to learn how to make, and to taste, many dishes, such as poached hake fish, calamari risotto, and fruit-filled crepes. (AP Photo/Christophe Ena)

I guess in some respects it comes back to the idea of teaching "home economics" but with a healthy, nutrition and foodways oriented twist. And being sure to include information on how and where to buy food, preferably less expensively.

Residential parking permit pricing (the third rail of local politics)

Georgetown Metropolitan writes in "Raise Parking Fees on Multi-Car Households First" about the proposals to raise rates for residential parking permits in DC, as a revenue raising mechanism in the face of city revenue shortfalls in the face of constantly falling tax revenues.

The entry doesn't favor increasing the rates across the board, recommending that additional permits beyond one for each household ought to be where prices are increased.

I have written about this issue quite a bit over the years. And our neighborhood planning process in 2001 suggested this. It was never done. And later in the Williams Administration's last term, it was suggested to raise residential parking permit fees and it never happened as a result of massive outcry.

There is no question that from a market standpoint, the price of a permit, $15/year, is extremely under-priced as a space in the most desirable neighborhoods is worth between $2,000 and $3,000 per year from a monthly fee standpoint.

It makes no sense to have a permit cost so little, when the cost of maintain roads, not alone the space is significantly more than $15/year.

Raise the price of the parking permit overall, for the first permit, and more for additional permits.

Why should it be "either/or" when an "and/and" policy makes so much more sense from a public policy/transportation demand management perspective.

Toronto is about the only city I know that is gutsy on residential parking permit pricing. They do vary the price depending on whether or not the household has access to off-street parking, but the prices are significantly higher than those in places like DC.

According to the Toronto city website section on parking permits, these are the prices they charge:

Permit fees vary according to a priority system based on need as reflected below:

• No access to on-site parking for resident's first vehicle:
$13.15/month plus GST / HST
• No access to on-site parking for resident's second and any subsequent vehicles:
$32.87/month plus GST / HST
• Resident does have access to on-site parking (permit is for convenience):
$46.02/month plus GST / HST

This makes more sense to me. The price for the first permit is significantly discounted, and is nowhere near market price, but it is significantly more than the negligible fees charged in DC.

Think of it this way, if it costs $200/year to rent a bike locker at a Metro station, certainly a residential parking permit ought to cost at least that much.

And I just checked San Francisco. While they don't charge higher fees for additional permits beyond one, because of past abuses, they limit to four the number of parking permits that may be issued per household.

They charge $96/year/permit, which is much higher than DC.

Top image: on the north side of Lincoln Park, on East Capitol Street SE. Bottom image: 400 block of A Street SE in Capitol Hill SE, Washington.DC

Small Business Saturday (for holiday shopping)

Is an initiative launched by American Express Open to promote holiday shopping at locally owned businesses. It makes sense to do this on a day separate from "Black Friday" (today) -- the day after Thanksgiving when big retail chains do special promotions with blowout prices and extremely early opening hours (e.g., Kohls opened at 3am).

It's almost impossible for small businesses and traditional commercial districts to counter-program against that and they shouldn't even bother, because it's difficult to get any business.

Instead of fighting it, it makes sense for smaller retail businesses to counter program but on a different day, and use it to emphasize your "unique selling proposition" -- more intimate experience, shorter lines, no chaos, unique goods, etc.

"Random Analysis Recommendations" for restructuring the WMATA board of directors

Flickr photo by Andy961 of the Vienna Metro. This end point subway station in the middle of I-66 illustrates the dilemma of transportation and land use policy in terms of compact development and a focus on core of a metropolitan region, transit versus automobility, and suburban sprawl and exurban development.

I have to admit I haven't had a chance to read the reports issued by a Council of Governments-Greater Washington Board of Trade task force ("Moving Metro Forward") or the WMATA Riders Advisory Council ("Report on Governance of WMATA") about how to restructure governance of the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority (WMATA). All I know about these reports so far is what I read in the newspapers or blogs, and a comment by Jasper in the GGW blog entry "Govs, Gray hastily jump on BOT's WMATA bandwagon sums up my lack of being impressed by the proposals. Jasper said:

David, you tend to have good ideas, but these RARs (Random Acronym Recommendations) are useless because they do not address the real problem of the WMATA leadership: Lack of competence. As long as you can't demand competence from the leadership, WMATA will reflect that.

I'm taking a little liberty with Jasper's quote, changing the word acronym to analysis, because from what I read, I found the analyses wanting, even if they make some good points (but yes I will try to get to the reports).

Background

This cross-jurisdictional board is comprised of representatives from Maryland, Virginia, and DC, and now the Federal Government as well although this is a new development. In DC the board members are appointed by the Mayor and the DC City Council. In Maryland and Virginia they are appointed in various ways, but typically the representatives come from Fairfax County, the City of Alexandria, Arlington County, Montgomery County, and Prince George's County.

There are two representatives for each seat, one is the designated voting representative and the other is an alternate. Typically, the voting representative is very active, and it can be hit or miss for the alternate. Some of the representatives are particularly good. Some suck.

All of the representatives serve on the Board of Directors in addition to whatever other career and civic responsibilities they have.

Why do the powers-that-be care?

Because of the complaints that the WMATA board tends to be very micro-managerial and because of the massive risk management oversight failures that resulted in the horrific accident that killed 9 people in June 2009, the quality and focus of the board of directors has become a significant issue. The National Transportation Safety Board report on the accident had a lot to say about the quality of board leadership.

Plus, the legislative branch appointees tend to be the dominant members of the WMATA board, and that doesn't always sit well with business interests and the executive branches of the respective governments, especially these days, Governor McDonnell of Virginia. Many stakeholders see the Task Force initiative as a way to diminish the role of elected local representatives, who theoretically are more responsive to the concerns of actual users of the system.

Board of directors issues generally

I am no expert in the organization of boards of directors (although I sit on a couple boards currently, and have in the past as well), but this has been a big issue with regard to for profit corporations for more than one decade, and there has been a great deal of federal legislation (e.g. Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002) enacted, to bring about a more engaged board for public corporations, in response to massive corporate failures and financial fraud.

There are similar issues with nonprofit boards (do a google search on David Wilmot for example, or DC's United Planning Organization), although typically nonprofit board members are not compensated, and for profit board members are compensated.

Some people argue wrt the WMATA board that most boards aren't all that engaged anyway, especially nonprofit boards, and why should they be any different.

Given that WMATA has an annual budget close to $2 billion and serves hundreds of thousands of people every day and has thousands of employees, this is a pretty ridiculous statement.

Major recommendations of the COG-GWBOT Task Force

1. Create an over board over the WMATA board currently comprised of locally appointed officials, with appointments made by the Governor of Virginia, the Governor of Maryland, and the Mayor of Washington, DC, the chief elected executive officials of each of these respective governments.

2. Have the Chair of the WMATA board be more knowledgeable and not a somewhat honorific position that turns over every year.

I don't care one way or the other about the second recommendation and the first avoids acknowledging the fact that the Governors of Maryland and Virginia and the Mayor of DC can (and often) make bad appointments too, not to mention how the quality and outlook of these positions can vary considerably depending on which party is in office, and their perspective on transit vs. automobility.

An alternative set of recommendations, hopefully not too random

Background

Metropolitan areas typically conduct transportation policy and/or operations at five or so levels:

- Metropolitan planning organization designated by the Federal government to coordinate regional transportation planning (in the DC region this is the Transportation Policy Board of the Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments)

- this organization works with the state department of transportation (and thereby the U.S. Department of Transportation and other relevant federal agencies such as the Environmental Protection Agency), and in cases where the MPO crosses state lines, with multiple states (the DC region is not atypical in having the MPO operate across state lines) and other designated transportation districts (such as the Northern Virginia Transportation Commission)

- the metropolitan transit authority or authorities -- in the Washington Metropolitan Area, it's not just WMATA, but also the Virginia Railway Express and Maryland Commuter Railroad which function on this level

- jurisdiction based transportation and land use planning agencies

- jurisdiction based transit operations

My presentation Metropolitan Transit Planning: Towards a Hierarchical and Conceptual Framework doesn't discuss all this, merely the need to differentiate between transportation planning and transit planning and operations, but at the same time integrate transportation and transit planning in ways better than we do now.

Ideal recommendation

That the Transportation Policy Board become the overarching transportation policy and operations entity for the region, incorporating the WMATA Board.

This isn't that crazy. In some jurisdictions, such as Minneapolis, the transit authority is operated by the MPO, although this is typically the case for smaller regions, not those with large center cities.

But the problem with this recommendation is that these boards are still made up of elected officials and some volunteers, leading to all the same problems we have now with intermittent oversight and more parochial and less regionally oriented perspectives.

"Practical" recommendations

Hopefully, these aren't any more "random" than the recommendations of the other groups.

1. Don't create the over-board.

2. Create the position of "lead directors" to professionalize the board, similar to how corporate boards have created similar positions.

-- How to Be a Good Lead Director
-- Lead Director Network

3. Make these positions full-time and paid.

4. Further expand the board with a voting representative and an alternate representative appointed by the Governor of Maryland, the Governor of Virginia. And designate the voting representative as the lead director for these respective jurisdictions.

5. Have the Mayor of DC and the Federal Government convert their voting representative appointment to that of the lead director.

This will create four "lead directors" (maybe that's too many but each jurisdiction needs this level of professional leadership given the importance of transit to the region's economic health and quality of life).

6. Each jurisdiction should provide additional financial and technical support (from planning and transportation departments), as should WMATA and the MPO to the WMATA board generally and to the lead directors specifically.

7. Consider adding three additional board members, who are elected by the public, one director each for Maryland, DC, and Virginia. These positions could be full time paid positions too, functioning in part as ombudspeople for riders and stakeholders, but also as transportation planning and transit advocates.

By making these directly elected positions also full time positions, they become a form of lead directors as well, giving the riders a more direct representation than exists currently. These positions too should be provided technical and support infrastructure as well.

A way for a metropolitan area to support arts institutions based in the center city

It will be a cold day in hell before most metropolitan areas are willing to merge the taxation streams into one funding stream that supports municipalities throughout a region, as Myron Orfield suggests in the book Metropolitics: A Regional Agenda for Community and Stability.

On the other hand, there are more examples of center cities merging with the adjoining county for the provision of a significant number of services, and the tax revenue stream, such as in Indianapolis-Marion County, Indiana, Nashville-Davidson County, Tennessee, or Louisville-Jefferson County, Kentucky.

(And there are a number of examples of merged county-cities, such as San Francisco and Philadelphia, although this happened, at least for Philadelphia, more than 100 years ago.)

The Detroit Free Press has a story, "DSO could benefit from plan similar to DIA, zoo plan," about how there is a proposal to create a couple of regional taxes in Wayne, Oakland, and Macomb Counties in Michigan, to support the Detroit Institute of Arts, which is an institution based in the center city, but providing services to the entire region, and the Detroit Zoo (although the Zoo is located in Oakland County but owned by the city), and how a local representative, Rep. Vicki Barnett of Farmington/Farmington Hills is suggesting that this concept be extended, and also provide support for the Detroit Symphony Orchestra, which faces significant budgetary problems and a strike by its musicians as a result of proposed changes in compensation and work requirements.

From the article:

Democrat Rep. Vicki Barnett said she hopes to muster support to add the DSO to a bill that would allow voters in Wayne, Oakland and Macomb counties to vote for a tax of up to 0.2 mills to help pay for the Detroit Institute of Arts.

That bill is before the House for final approval next week. Another bill would allow the tri-county voters to double the 0.1-mill tax for the Detroit Zoo they approved in 2008.

This is a good effort, but instead of creating a bunch of separate taxes, how about supporting cultural institutions more systematically, just as how the Regional Asset District was created in Allegheny County, Pennsylvania to support cultural and civic institutions, primarily those located in Pittsburgh, which also serve regional audiences, but also to support institutions located in the county, not just the center city. (This helps strengthen support from jurisdictions other than the center city.) From the RAD website:

Allegheny Regional Asset District (RAD) supports and finances regional assets in the areas of libraries, parks, cultural, sports and civic facilities and programs

In the Detroit area, there is a multi-jurisdictional parks district covering five counties, the Huron-Clinton Metropolitan (Parks) Authority, which has functioned on a similar basis for 70 years, although this authority does not support all parks in the region, only certain designated parks under its purview and control. The authority was set up by the State.

And there are many examples of these kinds of taxing and/or operating districts across the U.S., from the Chicago Park District, which only receives monies from the City of Chicago, but which supports museums and facilities other than parks, to transit authorities.

New WMATA station area map, Metro Center

New WMATA station area map, Metro Center
Originally uploaded by rllayman

I have discussed the WMATA maps before, which generally are pretty good, but have one glaring glaring omission that make it hard for commercial districts to benefit from transit and transit maps.

For some reason, government agencies are very very very very very reticent about listing "for profit" entities on maps, even if these are high profile activity centers and destinations with high attraction for transit users, such as grocery stores.

So these maps don't list key commercial destinations. (I have photos of the maps for Metro Center, King Street, and Bethesda.) In the Metro Center area, the map does includes the Downtown Macy's Department store, but in neighborhood stations like at Takoma, the nearby and adjacent commercial district is not included, nor are grocery stores.

This makes no sense.

The categories that WMATA includes on the maps are:

- Places of Interest (historic and other sites)
- Civic/Government Buildings
- Transportation sites (such as other subway stations)
- Hospitals/Medical Centers
- Schools/Colleges/Universities
- Parks/Open Space

Now, this isn't a station area map in the same way, but STM in Montreal has more fanciful station area maps that identify destinations around subway stops, including commercial districts.

Station area map, Montreal subway, Guy Concordia station

The travel book publisher Ulysses publishes a travel guide to Montreal based on these maps.

Portland streetcar development report and a point about transit and development potential and realization

New Year's on 10th Avenue - Portland, Oregon. Flickr photo by Dave Honan.

Related to the entry from yesterday, about a crosstown streetcar line in DC and how it would enable and likely accelerate the development of various significantly large projects, there is a brief in the California Planning and Development Report on streetcars, "California Cities Desire Streetcars."

From the article:

Each of these cities can look to San Francisco for inspiration. There, vintage streetcars have been running along Market Street and throughout the city continuously for over a century.

Unlike light rail lines, which dominated rail transit over the past two decades, streetcars travel at grade and usually in the flow of traffic, without dedicated rights of way. It is their integral role in the streetscape that, supporters say, make them sought-after tools for urban development and economic development.

“They can catalyze development because of their real and perceived sense of permanence,” said Zach Seal, Broadway Streetcar Project manager for the City of Oakland. “Once the developers see the tracks laid in the asphalt they know the streetcar will be there for decades and know they can make large investments in dense, green, mixed use housing along the streetcar line.”

Long Beach City Councilmember Suja Lowenthal views her city’s pursuit of a streetcar as a way to appeal to new transit riders who are attracted to fixed rail: “streetcars serve a different customer than buses, attracting more choice riders and tourists/visitors who are willing to travel on a rail system in an unfamiliar city.”

By that same token, however, streetcars’ most often-cited downside is that by traveling in the flow of traffic they cannot move any faster than the average bus or car. Moreover, transit planner and streetcar critic Jarrett Walker notes in a recent blog post, “Streetcars: An Inconvenient Truth,” that for the cost of a streetcar system local businesses, property owners, and redevelopment agencies could invest in pavement upgrades, street furniture, and myriad other amenities that would enhance pedestrian life.

Moreover, streetcar systems do not tend to serve regional goals.

The interesting point about Jarrett Walker's post (and normally he is absolutely great) is that he misses the point about streetcars (1) driving increases in use of transit on the part of choice riders and (2) driving significant levels of positive real estate development. Plus, he says that streetcars that replace bus lines aren't a mobility improvement, when clearly that isn't the case in terms of the increased capacity and the improved quality of the ride.

And the point about "regional goals" is almost irrelevant as it misses the point that streetcar projects for the most part are about rebalancing development within a metropolitan area back on the center city, to reduce the rate of suburban sprawl and exurban development. It's about repositioning and strengthening the center city.

The CPDR mentions a report from Portland, PORTLAND STREETCAR DEVELOPMENT ORIENTED TRANSIT, but doesn't include a link. The report is pretty simple, but has some amazing information:

Since 1997 when the original streetcar alignment was identified, properties along its length have experienced significant changes:

• $3.5 billion has been invested within two blocks of the streetcar alignment.

• 10,212 new housing units and 5.4 million square feet of office, institutional, retail and hotel construction have been constructed within two blocks of the alignment.

• 55% of all CBD development since 1997 has occurred within 1-block of the streetcar and properties located closest to the streetcar line more closely approach the zoned density potential than properties situated farther away.

• Developers are building new residential buildings with significantly lower parking ratios than anywhere else in the region.

That's from the summary. Given the recent discussion about Walmart stores in DC being somehow transformative because they are "more urban" which is definitely true in one case and not at all in the other three, this point is incredibly important:

• 55% of all CBD development since 1997 has occurred within 1-block of the streetcar and properties located closest to the streetcar line more closely approach the zoned density potential than properties situated farther away.

The report goes further:

Prior to 1997, new projects were built to less than half of the allowable density allowed on a site in the CBD. Since the streetcar alignment was chosen in 1997, new development achieved an average of 90% of the FAR potential within one block of the streetcar line. This percentage steadily drops to 43% at three or more blocks from the alignment. Source: ED Hovee & Company, Portland Streetcar Development Impacts, October 2005.

That's huge. That's exactly the issue with a lot of projects in parts of the city, including the proposed Walmart at Georgia and Missouri Avenues NW -- the single use, one maybe two story discount store will use only a portion of the allowable development capacity of the parcel, thereby reducing the opportunity of this development to further contribute to revitalization objectives for the corridor.

This strengthens the point that a crosstown streetcar line in northwest DC ought to be a major economic development priority for the city.

7-11, Zoning, and you can't take the hood out of the hood

(Image from nVerse.)

There is a fascinating comment thread in the Frozen Tropics entry "TBD: ANC/7-11 Negotiations Break Down" about the 7-11 store there, and how ANC6A has challenged the granting of a certificate of occupancy there, because they aver that the store should be classified as a fast food restaurant because of the nature of what they sell, and the impact on the community of the greater amount of litter (although people seem to be focused on chicken bones) that is generated as a result.

My friend-colleague ANC Commissioner Drew Ronneberg is getting excoriated (for the most part) in the thread by people who say you can't do much about the litter and why should the store be held responsible, and what could be done anyway.

Other people think that something should be done, but they aren't the majority of the commenters.

Drew is one of the stalwarts helping to make improvement of H Street NE a reality, by doing the hard "block by block" kind of work on the planning and zoning side that is necessary because typical property owners don't care much about H Street beyond the lot lines of their particular property. (This by the way is true of most commercial property owners, not just those on H Street.)

In the thread, when challenged about what to do, Drew wrote:

If 7-Eleven applies for zoning relief as a fast food establishment, they need to go through a public process. As part of this process, the community can propose conditions for incorporating into the BZA order to reduce the amount of trash on the surrounding neighborhood.

To quote from the Zoning Commission:

“In an attempt to strike a balance between the differing interests, the Commission believes that the BZA process would permit fast food restaurants but would offer the opportunity to consider, on a case-by-case basis, any adverse affects that may be caused by a fast-food restaurant.”

Ideas include

1) requiring 7-Eleven to install trash receptacles in their store
2) requiring 7-Eleven to supplement the funding of the H Street Connection's porter service to clean up trash on surrounding streets. The management of the Shopping Center already spends $200/month to help clean up trash on the 700 block of 10th St, but as the residents of that block can tell you, more frequent service is necessary.

I'm sure other ideas would come up in the public process. ...

An entry in The Hill is Home from the summer, "7-Eleven: Good Neighbor for H Street or Not?," describes the issues pretty well, that the 7-11 the writer is familiar with at 8th and Maryland Avenue NE has problems with loitering and panhandling, and 7-11 branded trash is visible for blocks around the store. Note however that many people in the FT comment thread make the point that the 7-11 store on H Street is particularly well run, although still subject to clientele-related problems.

I live about 3 blocks from a 7-11 myself, although the particular store is a more typical for 7-11 suburban type of location, at the junction of two major roads, and fronted by a parking lot. I do somewhat systematically pick up litter in my neighborhood when I walk from the Metro, and in the vicinity of Blair Road and Kansas Avenue when I bike through there.

Image from Slashfood of 7-11 display of hot fast food items.

There is no question that fast food restaurant-based litter makes up a preponderance of the litter tossed on the streets generally, and within a couple block radius of the 7-11 specifically and especially, 7-11 branded pizza and hot dog carriers and now the 7-11 branded beverage containers (which are a relatively new product) proliferate.

Part of the problem with some litter and litter generators (the stores that sell products that tend to be consumed in the public space more, and the materials are then disposed of in improper ways) is that as people see litter around, they feel "authorized" to litter themselves. (See the blog entry "Every Litter Bit Hurts" from 2005, which summarizes my litter learnings from being involved in H Street Main Street from 2002-2004.) It's a very basic illustration of the "broken windows" theory of order and disorder.

As far as a remedy for this goes, I'd be happy if every two days, people from the 7-11 store walked at least a one block radius of the store and picked up litter.

This way, they'd be "paying" for the consequences of their sales, which instead, like the chicken bones on H Street, or the soiled pizza and hot dog containers on the streets, yards, and sidewalks, are typically borne by others, if not financially, at least with some significant social costs.

It is interesting that the thread comments don't get very focused on practical action.

This is something that I find quite frustrating with regard to community action and involvement.

I don't understand why it's so hard to be good at it, and very easy to be bad at it.

But improving our neighborhoods and the city requires us to be able to work together effectively and efficiently, even if we don't always agree, or disagree quite violently (e.g., "The Plan").

Dutch bike "gutter" on a stairwell

Entree gratis bewaakte fietsenstalling met trap en fietsgoten
Originally uploaded by Fietsberaad

Many stairwells in public spaces are constructed without accommodations for bicycles.

Getting transit and development backwards

Usually, transit comes first, then the real estate development. When the development isn't happening, it's often because it's in areas with less transit service compared to other areas. The solution to under-development is adding transit service.

(Photo on right: DC Streetcar at the Downtown Open House in 2009. Wikipedia photo by Tim1965.)

GGW has a post, "McMillan visions take shape," about presentations about development scenarios for the McMillan Reservoir site at North Capitol Street and Michigan Avenue in NW DC, on the border with NW and NE.

Sand filtration vessels, now unused, McMillan Reservoir, Washington, DC

There is a group of area residents who recommend a different course, mostly focused on park related use of the land. Because of the historic nature of this relic of the city's water treatment engineering systems, that isn't an unrealistic desire.

OTOH, there is little money around to do so--after all, the site has been abandoned for decades--and the city economic plan prefers that the site be recaptured and in large part redeveloped. Various plans for housing, office, and retail are the result.

In 2008, in "McMillan Reservoir development issues," I wrote:

1. Generally, I don't agree necessarily when people fight development based on traffic concerns [especially in the center city where there is a robust transit network], except that

2. For some reason, DC doesn't feel it is necessary to require transportation enhancements as part of development projects, whereas

3. In Arlington or Alexandria, developments on the scale of McMillan Reservoir or the Armed Forces Retirement Home would trigger proffers for transportation enhancement, but such isn't the way things work in DC.

Plus, I had kept making this point of requiring transportation-related proffers during the Brookland Small Area Plan process in 2007/2008, but it never made it into the plan.

I have another entry from 2009, "Will streetcars really return to the Capital City?," about streetcars and the proposed crosstown streetcar line. I recommended building that line first, because there are no restrictions on overhead wires (an issue in the "L'Enfant City") and because at the heart, DC is a very conservative place and people need to see something like the streetcars in action before they can understand and embrace them--I don't see why it's so hard to see how streetcars work in a place like Portland, and imagine them here, but go figure, it's too hard for most people.

Here's a Google Map version of what I am talking about in terms of a crosstown line.

This line would provide connections to five subway stations: Woodley Park (red line), Columbia Heights (green line), Brookland (red line), West Hyattsville (green line), Prince George's Plaza (green line); six universities (Georgetown, American University, Howard University, Trinity University, Catholic University, and University of Maryland), the Washington Hospital Center, and the Adams Morgan and Columbia Heights commercial districts.

It would also provide economic reasons to intensfy land use development along Queens Chapel Road in Hyattsville, Avondale, and Mount Rainier and especially in the vicinity of the West Hyattsville station, which has a model transit oriented development plan, which has made almost no headway in influencing positive land use changes in that area.

----
But the funny thing in that post is how I missed the obvious point about the crosstown streetcar line promoting land use and land use intensification in DC. (I did list the McMillan Reservoir as one of the points on the Google Map.)

A crosstown streetcar line going east from Columbia Heights would boost a variety of development opportunities that for the most part are unrealized and will remain unrealized for decades:

- Bruce-Monroe Elementary School site at Irving Street and Georgia Avenue NW

- improvements along Georgia Avenue in the area served by a streetcar line
- McMillan Reservoir
- Armed Forces Retirement Home (along Irving Street)
- rebuilding of the North Capitol and Irving Streets interchange into more of a traffic circle
- additional development at the Washington Hospital Center
- Catholic University land west of Harewood Road NE
- the proposed hotel spot at Michigan Avenue and Irving Street NE
- redevelopment of land at the Brookland subway station specifically
- as well as speeding up the development plans of the old "south campus" of Catholic University--south of Michigan Avenue, along Monroe Street, which is being developed by Abdo Development and Bozzuto Development
- redevelopment of land along the rail line north of the subway station, between Michigan Avenue and Taylor Street NE

- and some miscellaneous opportunities here and there

Frankly, this particular streetcar line might have the most real estate build out potential of any of the streetcar lines that are proposed (except for the part of the "H Street" line east of Maryland Avenue serving Benning Road), which for the most part propose to serve somewhat built up areas that lack significant opportunity for redevelopment -- justifiably so since these commercial districts are often comprised of historic buildings.

Therefore, from that standpoint, it needs to be a much higher priority than it is currently, not to mention the transit ridership aspects of this line--adding a necessary higher capacity transit connection to Washington Hospital Center, plus the abutting universities.

It was because of comparable development potential in the Pearl District in Portland and the South Lake Union district in Seattle that real estate interests promoted and developed streetcar service for those areas, in order to realize what was otherwise fallow.

-- article on the development of the Portland streetcar line, including a listing of the various funding sources, including the creation of a local development district (not unlike how DC funded part of the construction of the New York Avenue subway station, through a real estate tax on commercial property in the area to be served by the station) and tax increment financing

-- Portland Streetcar website

-- South Lake Union Streetcar Capital Financing and Operating and Maintenance Plan (Seattle)

-- Seattle Streetcar website

This is nothing new. Streetcar lines were developed in DC in the late 19th and early 20th centuries to do exactly the same thing--provide connections to land that real estate interests wanted to sell. "Trolley suburbs" are the product of that kind of development. In DC, neighborhoods such as Mount Pleasant, Chevy Chase in both DC and Maryland, and Friendship Heights are the result.

And, with regard to the streetcar line that Arlington County is building on Columbia Pike, with the participation of Fairfax County, the primary driver of their effort is the desire to repattern and reposition land use and real estate development in that part of the county. Although they are also using the line to eventually serve the Potomac Yards development as well, in association with the City of Alexandria.

-- Columbia Pike Transit Initiative

DC's Office of Planning, the Office of the Deputy Mayor for Planning and Economic Development, and the DC Department of Transportation should step up and do the same thing for this part of northwest and northeast DC.

A better list of opportunities for corruption within government

Last week I wrote an entry, "Corruption: DC vs. Maryland jurisdictions," in response to reports of corruption in Prince George's County, Maryland and a local columnist's response that things in DC weren't so bad after all. I went on to put together a list, which after reading other articles in the Post about liquor license issues in PG County ("Liquor, politics mingle easily in Pr. George's"), and about grant-related embezzlement in Virginia ("Theft raises questions about use and safety of tobacco settlement money") that I guess it's worth expanding, and creating a more comprehensive list of issue areas within elected government, where the ability to manipulate the system needs to be constrained to reduce opportunities to be unethical.

The first entry listed:

- tax abatement requests, which are initiated not through a defined public process, but directly by City Council members;

- sale of DC Government owned property;

- definition and provision of "community benefits" related to "planned unit developments;"

- use of eminent domain authority,; and

- contracting.

To these items need to be added:

- licensing, especially liquor licenses and taxicabs (legislated restrictions on taxi licenses is an area where corrupt practices have been uncovered in DC, but not with liquor licenses because the number of licenses that can be issued is not restricted, except for preponderance rules in particular commercial districts), as well as other types of businesses in other jurisdictions such as auto repair;

- earmarks for nonprofit organizations (this has been a problem in DC, but could be easily corrected by the creation of an open and transparent grant funding process);

- relatedly are granting processes that can be manipulated (the aforementioned Virginia project is one, but PG had another example of manipulating the process of granting "community benefits" monies derived from the National Harbor development) when there isn't a defined, open, and transparent process in place; and

- new laws which require new regulatory limitations on certain businesses to the benefit of other businesses.

Change is tough

The papers and blogs and e-newsletters are always full of stories about what we might call resistance to change, such as bike lanes (today's NYT has a story about problems there, "Expansion of Bike Lanes in City Brings Backlash"), smart growth, agency directors, electric cars and charging systems, bike sharing (a socialist plot said a candidate for Governor in Colorado, "Bike agenda spins cities toward U.N. control, Maes warns" from the Denver Post), global warming, greenhouse gases, Peak Oil, etc.

So I find this wisdom, surprisingly from the Washington Post Sunday Business section feature on leadership, "GM: Lessons in revival?," pretty apt. From the entry by George Reed:

In his 15th Century treatise on leadership and political power, Niccolo Machiavelli sagely pointed out that:

It must be considered that there is nothing more difficult to carry out, nor more doubtful of success, or more dangerous to handle, than to initiate a new order of things. For the reformer has enemies in all those who profit by the old order and only lukewarm defenders in all those who would profit by the new order, this lukewarmness arising partly from fear of their adversaries, who have the laws in their favour; and partly from the incredulity of mankind, who do not truly believe in anything new until they have had actual experience of it.

Large, complex organizations become so in part because they are successful. The habits and mindsets that contribute to that success have a way of becoming ingrained in the people, processes and systems--such that even when there is clear evidence that a change is necessary, organizational inertia stands in the way. Sometimes it takes a clear threat to organizational survival to prompt a new way of doing business that is responsive to changes outside of the company. As we have seen with General Motors before the bankruptcy, sometimes even that is not enough. Prior success can be a powerful narcotic that dulls the motivation to engage in the hard work of change and innovation. ...

Artistic seating in the Montreal Metro

CHROMA
Originally uploaded by dzpixel

The local creative economy needs a jumpstart

In looking at the Mira Uncut blog, I discovered that there was a "TEDx" conference in Detroit, to bring together the region's innovators, to help jumpstart the regional economy there, which for the most part is devastated.

The TED conference is a national conference on ideas and innovation. The TedxDetroit conference was a licensed, regional version. It was open by application and invitation, so it wasn't a free for all.

There is a list of Youtube videos of the various presentations.

I thought this was pretty interesting. Because of the Takoma Theatre issue, I was thinking about my paper, "Arts, culture districts, and revitalization," which I have to say is pretty good (then again, it's it's derived from the work of other very very good people), and the points it makes about consumption versus production of art.

Much of the DC arts agenda is focused on arts consumption and what we would call presenting institutions like the Smithsonian Museums, the National Gallery, or the Kennedy Center.

There isn't a lot of support for the nurturing and development of artistic disciplines and artists themselves.

The same goes for DC's creative economy. For a long time I've made the joke that in DC, "big government trickles down and shapes little government, that is the local government, in its image."

And the federal government, Stephen Chu excepted maybe, is not nimble, and especially these days, not forward thinking.

This shapes the city in negative ways.

I was reading an essay by the now deceased Tony Judt in the New York Times, "My Endless City" about New York City and World Cities, and he mentions why he thinks that New York City, even in twilight, is truly a world city.

It's because the city itself is focused outward, not inward.

He wrote:

And yet, New York remains a world city. It is not the great American city — that will always be Chicago. New York sits at the edge: like Istanbul or Mumbai, it has a distinctive appeal that lies precisely in its cantankerous relationship to the metropolitan territory beyond. It looks outward, and is thus attractive to people who would not feel comfortable further inland. It has never been American in the way that Paris is French: New York has always been about something else as well.

He also mentions that Washington was "the Brasilia of its time" which I have to admit is true and puts DC's disconnection in some perspective perspective.

A TedxLocalWashington conference related to the development and emergence of a more local creative/innovative/knowledge economy is in order, recognizing that the local creative economy does have to link to and engage with what we might call the "national" creative economy that does exist somewhat within the federal government.

Basically, the idea is how to put in more "Silicon Valley" into an innovation ecology that is decidedly more "Route 128"-like. See AnnaLee Saxenian's book, Regional advantage: culture and competition in Silicon Valley and Route 128, and the recent Wall Street Journal article, "Silicon Valley 3.0: Tech's New Wave."

And given how "Washington" is excoriated by the rest of the country, it would make sense to better hedge our bets and develop a more balanced economy.

The wrong way for a city to make money sponsoring a street festival that attracts nonresidents

Image of the Arts, Beats & Eats Festival from the Mira Uncut blog and her Flickr photo stream.

A goodly chunk of the profit made by the City of Royal Oak, Michigan (which by the way, is one of the most successful examples of Main Street commercial revitalization in my opinion, and it is the town one over from where I went to high school) from the Arts, Beats and Eats Festival came from parking tickets, according to "Royal Oak expected to have net gain from Arts, Beats & Eats" in the Detroit Free Press. From the article:

Although critics said Royal Oak would lose money by holding the Arts, Beats & Eats festival during Labor Day weekend, officials will hear a report Monday night, showing the city expects a net gain of $51,619.

That amount comes after paying the promoter his 20% cut and after reimbursing the Downtown Development Authority the $100,000 it advanced to stage the four-day event, City Manager Don Johnson said today.

In addition, the city so far collected about $41,000 in parking tickets from festival goers who parked in posted areas of residential streets, according to Johnson’s report. After expenses, the city’s net gain from parking tickets is $11,266, Johnson said in the report to Monday’s City Commission meeting.

Although I will say that doesn't seem to be a very good net return, 25% after expenses, from the issuance of parking tickets.

On the other hand, ticketing people who are visiting your town for an event doesn't seem like one of the best ways to build repeat business and visits.

The system of corruption: when you don't understand "systems", of corruption or anything else, you don't understand outcomes

The Post "analyses" of the recent allegations of corruption in Prince George's County--culminating in the arrest and release of County Executive Jack Johnson and his wife, Councilman-elect Leslie Johnson--by columnists Robert McCartnery ("Prince George's must talk straight about corruption after Jack Johnson's arrest") and Colbert King ("In Prince George's, corruption's long shadows") are damnably frustrating, because unlike my analysis of a few days ago, they don't focus on the way the "system" is designed to foster political, not market, "entrepreneurialism" in the quest for approvals and contracts.

My post, "Corruption: DC vs. Maryland jurisdictions," focused on defects in the approval processes for zoning and development approvals, tax abatements (in D.C.), and contracts, which vests extranormal participation and authority upon elected officials, and this becomes particularly tempting for the Growth Machine/interested parties in ensuring what they want through corrupt or at the very least, unethical practices.

The answers are screaming at them. But since newspapers in particular among the media are leading elements in the Growth Machine (see "Sport News in the Local Media - Green Bay Packers' Return to Glory" from The Sport Journal) it should be no surprise that they can't see it. (Also see the discussion of this topic in Urban Fortunes: The Political Economy of Place, pages 70-73.)

It's still disappointing though.

It reminds me of a couple lyrics in the Talking Heads song* "Psychokiller":

I can't seem to face up to the facts.

... and

You're talking a lot, but you're not saying anything.

As the blog entry "Today's news is yesterday's news" from 2006 makes the point, this is a repetitive cycle.

By saying the same old s***, nothing really changes.

The problem is at the heart, the system of corruption and that is what needs to change, And as this blog entry, "The travelogue of the world's Corrupt Cities includes DC, what does that say about us?" makes clear.

Until the processes change, the outcomes will continue to be shaded by corruption and unethical practices.

I recommend Corrupt Cities: A Practical Guide to Cure and Prevention (originally suggested to me by EE.)

From the description of the book

Corrupt Cities is a practical guide to assist in the diagnosis, investigation and prevention of various kinds of corruption. Bringing together both a conceptual and practical framework, the publication is designed for citizens and public officials, especially at the municipal level. The approach presented discourages more controls, more laws and more bureaucracy, while focusing on systematic corruption and its preventive measurers. It encourages consideration of the economic costs of corruption, rather than moral or ethical factors, as the driving force behind anti-corruption efforts. It also emphasises that "fighting corruption should not be considered an end in itself, but an orienting principle for reforming urban administration."

The arguments put forth are supported by examples of anti-corruption strategies, particularly from Hong Kong and La Paz. The publication also includes practical tips to adapt these strategies to difficult scenarios, for example, in cities/communities characterised by political indifference, bureaucratic inertia, and where citizen support may exist but is yet to be mobilised.

Chapter 3, "Corruption as a System" starts on page 31. As it says on page 32:

Corruption equals monopoly plus discretion of public officials minus accountability.

Chapter 3 describes the system; Chapter 4 is on diagnosis of specific corrupt systems and situations; Chapters 4 and 5 are on overcoming bureaucratic resistance to honesty; and Chapter 5 is on creating a sequenced plan of action to heal corrupted systems, rupture a culture of cynicism, build political momentum and transform city government.

-------
* if recent car and other commercials can use songs as much as 42 years old (the "Yummy, Yummy" song by the 1910 Fruitgum Company is from when I was 8 or 9 years old), I can reference the Talking Heads