Showing posts with label Mark Moen. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Mark Moen. Show all posts

Monday, June 11, 2012

E-Commerce Challenges Businesses, Governments, Taxpayers

June 11, 2012, 6:40 a.m. p.m.

Brief Intro:

Businesses, governments and taxpayers across Iowa's 99 counties and hundreds of cities and towns (indeed throughout America) are confronting three challenges from e-commerce in a global economy.

(1) Iowa's nationally and locally owned retail outlets, newspapers, and bookstores are struggling to find business models that will carry them from small town virtual monopoly storefronts into the highly competitive global marketplace of Web pages and social media.

(2) State, county and local governments are trying to figure out what they can best do to help the economies and communities of constituents for which they feel some responsibility.

(3) Taxpayers are questioning the wisdom of a "solution" that involves transferring their tax dollars from legitimate government projects to the bottom line of a handful of politically favored for-profit enterprises. Especially do they question the transfers when the money is used for business plans that appear to be pretty unimaginative responses to "e-commerce."

These issues were recently explored in depth here in "Big Boxes, Little Bookstores and Taxpayers; We'll Leave the Prairie Lights on For You," June 6, 2012.

That blog entry provided the research and source material, with links, for what ultimately became a column in this morning's Press-Citizen, below. If this is a subject that interests you that earlier blog entry is worth your exploration. Otherwise, this lighthearted 644-word column will provide a quick-read, summary view of these deadly serious issues.

Maybe Taxpayers Should Buy Wal-Mart a Gift Shop
Nicholas Johnson
Iowa City Press-Citizen
June 11, 2012, p. A7

The Iowa City Council, at least three members, recently leapfrogged over their colleagues to rule that local taxpayers should pay for a local business’s “museum quality gift shop” and café.

To “speed things up a little bit” they delegated the matter to the discretion of the city manager.

The grant is not even a TIF. It’s a $27,500 gift, plus a possible $15,000 1 percent loan.

Why do it? They want to “educate the public about eCommerce.”

The lucky beneficiary of this largesse? Iowa City’s Prairie Lights — widely beloved, and by no one more than me. But our love is not the issue.

The issue? Whether taxpayers really support the council handing over taxpayers’ money, without their approval, to favored for-profit businesses.

Clearly, the council is not interested in the answer.

Confronted with a petition to put public review of one of its latest controversial TIFs on the ballot, the council’s response is to suggest using a legal technicality to make the payment anyway, using a bond that citizens’ petitions can’t challenge.

This council switch would cost taxpayers an additional $300,000. The council thinks it’s worth the money to keep citizens at bay.

If it’s legally required we vote on the bonds to fund legitimate governmental projects, like the proposed county justice center, isn’t it even more appropriate the public be involved in taxpayer funding of private, for-profit businesses?

Capitalism means owners provide the capital, sometimes profit handsomely, but also bear all risks.

Socialism means governments own and provide traditional governmental services like police, fire, parks, schools, roads, libraries — and smoldering landfills.

What we’re doing — in Washington, Des Moines and Iowa City — is corporatism, the intertwining of business power and government largesse.

During World War II, in Benito Mussolini’s Italy, we called it fascism. Owners take the profits; taxpayers take the risks.

If that’s what local taxpayers truly want, there’s probably a way it can be provided constitutionally. But is that really what we want?

E-commerce? Aside from the café and gift shop, the city says this is the store’s “attempt to adapt to the ever-changing traditional and electronic market.”

That raises some issues.

According to the store’s website, it’s already in that business. Moreover, the owner concedes, “there’s no overhead.”

Every business confronts the “ever-changing traditional and electronic market,” including this newspaper.

Change can put a business out of business. However, this is the capitalist’s challenge, not the taxpayer’s responsibility.

Swiss watchmakers respond to digital watches, slide rule firms to calculators, mainframe computers to desktops, cellphones to smartphones — the examples are endless.

Bookstores are challenged with online sales, e-books, online self-publishing, Wal-Mart (40 percent of all best-seller sales), the cornucopia of Internet resources, the decline in discretionary time for reading.

Convenience, as well as savings, motivates e-book readers. If they can download a book to their Kindle while in bed and get advice from the Internet, why would they get out of bed and come to Prairie Lights for “a staff member to assist customers in e-book sales”?

Moreover, the city’s solution, adding a gift shop, is a way of getting out of the book business, it’s not a creative 21st-century e-commerce business model for staying in it. It’s like a pharmacist — also online and Wal-Mart challenged — adding groceries to the drug store merchandise.

In the greater Iowa City-Coralville area, every retail outlet must respond to the opportunities as well as the challenges offered by change.

Does the council intend to give our tax money to all of them? If not, why Prairie Lights?

Want to know which stores are suffering the greatest e-commerce impact? The Big Box stores, like Best Buy, Sears and Wal-Mart. Shoppers come to look, then order online from elsewhere. The companies are closing stores; their common stocks have declined.

Want to save those jobs, council?

Maybe local taxpayers should buy Wal-Mart a “museum quality gift shop.”
__________
Nicholas Johnson, another satisfied Prairie Lights customer, teaches at the University of Iowa College of Law and maintains http://FromDC2Iowa.blogspot.com.

# # #

Monday, April 09, 2012

TIF Towers

April 9, 2012, 4:30 a.m., plus April 18, 2012, Addendum

Giving TIFs the Sniff Test

The following op ed column appeared in this morning's [April 9, 2012] Iowa City Press-Citizen. Its reproduction in this blog enables the addition of the supporting source material in the form of endnotes,, plus a sampling of prior blog entries about TIFs.

[April 18: For some subsequent developments regarding this TIF, sufficiently off-putting to cause two members of the "I've never seen a TIF I didn't like" City Council to vote against it, see "Addendum," below.]

"Moen TIF Proposal Just Doesn't Pass the 'Sniff Test'"
Nicholas Johnson
Iowa City Press-Citizen
April 5, 2012, p. A7

As Ronald Reagan would say, “There you go again.”[1]

Sadly, our seven recovering TIF-aholic[2] City Councilors have fallen off the wagon.

Fifty years ago tax increment financing, or TIFs, were designed to encourage urban renewal of blighted areas.[3] Is that how you’d describe the Ped Mall? Should they be used to enrich the developers of millionaires’ high-rise condos?[4]

My sources regarding the latest TIF shenanigans? Like the 1930s Will Rogers, “All I know is what I read in the papers.”[5]

The stories indicate this Mark Moen deal is even worse than a TIF. Like other TIFs, it shifts tax revenue away from schools and Johnson County,[6] and it’s unfair to the competing landlords without TIFs.[7]

So why worse? It’s a direct payment to Moen before construction of his $10 million, 14-story tower; a “forgivable loan.”[8] Forgive a $2.5 million loan?! It’s reminiscent of MidAmerican Energy’s demand ratepayers pay in advance for a nuclear power plant.[9]

Why no bank loan? Banks charge high interest and don’t recite the Lord’s Prayer about loan forgiveness.[10] You can’t blame Moen for preferring the Municipal Bank of Iowa City.

Where’s the money coming from? The City will sell municipal bonds. Because bondholders’ interest isn’t taxable, cities can pay them low interest. Even so, 18 years from now, we taxpayers will have paid $3.8 million (including interest) for our Council’s generosity.[11]

Iowa bankers complain about credit unions’ unfair competitive advantage.[12] (Banks pay taxes; credit unions don’t.) Why the bankers’ silence about this tax-free competitor?

Iowa legislators, like most Americans, are focused on “the economy,” special interests’ abuses, and the wisest use of taxpayers’ dollars. Bailouts, subsidies, corporate welfare, earmarks – and TIFs – are not in favor.

It turns out Iowa’s TIF practices are among the nation’s worst.[13] Reforms have been proposed and debated.[14] The ugly facts about TIFs and abuses are being revealed by ever-increasing numbers of legislators, economists, academics and journalists.[15]

So why does our City Council pick this of all moments to spit in their eye, rather than join the reform movement? How did the most urgent need for its next $3.8 million become a gift to Moen for his latest development?

Most Council members are likeable and even admirable, as is Mark Moen. All are creatively thoughtful about our downtown. But I have neither been asked nor volunteered to invest in his personal projects, and don’t appreciate the City Council forcing me to do so.

Why is this a good investment for taxpayers? Apparently it wasn’t a good investment for the combined resources of Moen, family and friends, bankers, and other potential investors sitting on cash and looking for returns.[16] And if it was a good investment for them, why do they need the TIF?[17] Just because he says so?[18]

Why doesn’t he build a 10- instead of 14-story tower, structurally strong enough to add the top floors later, when and if it produces the necessary profits? Or, since we’re paying for one-fourth of the tower, have the City own those floors?

Recipients of TIFs understandably think they are a nifty idea.[19] They argue TIFs pay for themselves with increased taxes later. But in this case the City has agreed the $10 million building may be assessed for property taxes as low as $5.76 million.[20]

Can the Council guarantee the tower’s economic success? That it wouldn’t be built without the TIF?[21] That taxpayers’ interests are protected if it fails, or Moen becomes bankrupt?

So far, this use of taxpayers’ money offers more questions than answers.
_______________
Nicholas Johnson teaches at the University of Iowa College of Law. For more TIF commentary and resources see FromDC2Iowa.blogspot.com.
__________

ENDNOTES

1. "There You Go Again," wikipedia.com.

2. Editorial, "Rein In Speculative TIFs," The Gazette, April 1, 2012 (hereafter "Editorial") ("Iowa's addiction to TIFs has 'seriously distorted' the property tax system" (emphasis supplied)); Jennifer Hemmingsen, "Time to Rein In TIF Shell Game," The Gazette, April 1, 2012 (hereafter "Hemmingsen") ("This TIF addiction puts the squeeze on taxpayers outside TIF districts, and on county governments and school districts frozen out of the revenue stream.")

3. "The Iowa Picture: Tax Increment Financing; Overdue for Reform After All These Years,"Iowa Fiscal Partnership, March 29, 2012 (hereafter "The Iowa Picture") ("What is TIF? Originally a product of the push for urban renewal in the 1950s and ’60s, tax-increment financing (TIF) was designed to facilitate redevelopment of blighted areas in cities.")

4. Tara Bannow, "Committee recommends approval of Moen tower; 14-story development on Wells Fargo site would raise property's value from about $569,500 to an expected $9.8M," Iowa City Press-Citizen, March 14, 2012 (hereafter "Bannow") ("Plans call for a glass-lined, mixed-used building with the first four floors as retail/office space and the remaining 10 floors composed of 26 condos, including two luxury units on the top floor."); Josh O'Leary, "Marc Moen seeks TIF for 14-story tower downtown," Iowa City Press-Citizen, March 10, 2012 (hereafter "O'Leary") ("Plans for the new tower call for 16 one-bedroom, 662-square-foot condos; eight one-bedroom, 1,039-square-foot condos; and two luxury units, each about 2,000 square feet.")

5. "Will Rogers," wikipedia.com. Hopefully, these Endnotes will at least provide some sense of when, where, and in which papers I came to "know" what's in this op ed column.

6. "Why We Need Serious TIF Reform, an Iowa Fiscal Partnership Backgrounder," March 29, 2012 (hereafter "Backgrounder") ("Tax shifting is an integral part of TIF. When cities are allowed to divert taxes from overlying entities — school districts, community colleges, transit authorities, the county — those entities are forced to raise taxes to make up for the lost revenue from the increment. Residents of those broader jurisdictions — inside and outside the city — thus pay higher taxes."); Peter Fisher, "Tax Increment Financing: A Case Study of Johnson County," Iowa Fiscal Partnership, November 21, 2011 (hereafter "Fisher"); "Hemmingsen" ("This TIF addiction puts the squeeze on taxpayers outside TIF districts, and on county governments and school districts frozen out of the revenue stream. It’s a growing burden: In 2002, the impact of TIF on state school aid was $5.2 million, according to [Iowa State economist David] Swenson. In 2012, it was $46.8 million.").

7. For a compelling example of the impact of TIFs on the competitors who don't receive them, see the comments of the owners of Iowa City's Alexis Park Inn, contained in "Call the Cops, Robbery in Progress," April 24, 2008.

8. "Bannow" ("Tax increment financing usually provides property tax abatement after development has occurred. However, in this case, the TIF will be given in the form of an upfront, forgivable loan."); Gregg Hennigan, "Iowa City Approves $2.5 Million Loan for High-Rise Building; The $10.7 Million Building is to Have Retail Space, Offices, condominiums and Apartments," The Gazette, April 4, 2012, p. A2 (hereafter "Hennigan") ("The City Council voted 6-0 Tuesday night to approve a $2.5 million tax increment financing agreement with developer Marc Moen for a 14-story structure he plans to build on the Pedestrian Mall. . . . The $2.5 million will be given as a forgivable loan at the start of the project.")

9. Perry Beeman, "Heated battle over nuclear plant nears critical mass," Des Moines Register, March 21, 2012 ("House File 561 would allow the investor-owned utility to do something it has not done with any other power plant: charge ratepayers for a plant before it’s constructed.")

10. Matthew 6:9-13, New International Version of the Bible, BibleGateway.com:
9 “This, then, is how you should pray:
‘Our Father in heaven,
hallowed be your name,
10 your kingdom come,
your will be done,
on earth as it is in heaven.
11 Give us today our daily bread.
12 And forgive us our debts,
as we also have forgiven our debtors.
13 And lead us not into temptation,[a]
but deliver us from the evil one.'"
11. "Hennigan" ("The city will sell bonds to cover the cost, which Finance Director Kevin O’Malley estimated at closer to $3.8 million when interest is included. It will take an estimated 18 years to repay the debt."), and "Municipal Bonds," wikipedia.org ("In the United States, interest income received by holders of municipal bonds is often exempt from the federal income tax and from the income tax of the state in which they are issued . . ..").

12. “Credit Union Regulation,” American Bankers Association (within ABA Issues Index/Credit Unions (“Credit unions are a $951 billion industry. Over the next five years, the credit union tax exemption will cost the federal government nearly $8 billion.”)

13. Rod Boshart, "Working group hopeful of TIF reform; Coralville Von Maur deal sparked legislative look," The Gazette, March 28, 2012 (hereafter "Boshart") ("Rep. Tom Sands, R-Wapello, chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee, said there have been mounting concerns that Iowa has some of the nation’s most lenient TIF provisions with less oversight than other parts of the country. . . . 'TIF has got to be addressed,' he said. 'There are some that are wanting to do very little, but it’s real hard for them to defend the abuses of TIF that some cities are using right now. I think if we don’t get it under control, the abuses will continue to grow . . .."); "The Iowa Picture: Tax-Increment Financing; Overdue for Reform After All These Years, Iowa Fiscal Partnership, Updated March 29, 2012 ("[I]n the 1980s, when Iowa cities were allowed to start using TIF for economic development, broadly defined [no] longer did there need to be a finding of blight or decline to implement a TIF district. Rather, city officials could determine it was necessary for economic development. Even then, the presumption remained that a public subsidy of a project under TIF would only be used if a worthy development, carrying a public benefit, could not be expected to occur without it. It was to be a true incentive. Loosely written law has permitted these standards to lapse. The use of TIF in Iowa has expanded well beyond its intended purposes, often going against the principles that are meant to justify it.").

14. "Editorial" ("a bipartisan House-Senate working group is studying Iowa’s tax increment financing rules"); "Boshart" ("A bipartisan House-Senate working group is hoping to craft reforms to the state’s tax increment financing system that can win legislative approval this session, group leaders said Monday [March 26, 2012].").

15. Lee Hermiston, "Residents speak out at forum on TIF practices; Suggestions include giving schools voice in the process," Iowa City Press-Citizen, January 22, 2012 (hereafter "Hermiston") ("State Sen. Joe Bolkcom arrived at a community discussion on fixing the problems with tax increment financing with 15 ideas for TIF reform."); "The Iowa Picture: Tax-Increment Financing; Overdue for Reform After All These Years, Iowa Fiscal Partnership, Updated March 29, 2012.

16. "O'Leary" ("The developer is asking for $2.5 million in TIF assistance in the form of a forgivable loan provided by the city before the project starts. Moen would use the money to leverage private financing . . ..").

17. "Hennigan" ("Critics . . . argue a TIF is often unnecessary for a project to move forward — and if it is needed, then the project is not viable on its own.").

18. "O'Leary" ("Moen said the city’s financial assistance is 'absolutely critical' for the new project."); "Hennigan" ("Moen has said the project would not happen without the financial assistance . . ..").

19. "O'Leary" ("'I think Iowa City’s use of TIF is a model of how TIF is intended to use, and has been applauded by everybody,' Moen said."); "Bannow" ("Although Moen has been critical of Coralville’s use of TIF, he said this project [his new tower proposal] represents responsible use, as was the $6 million in TIF that was given to Plaza Towers."); "Hermiston" ("Local developers Marc Moen and Kevin Digmann said TIF, when used responsibly, is a valuable tool, pointing to the Plaza Tower . . . made possible through TIF use.").

20. "Hennigan" ("The agreement also requires the property . . . to have [a] minimum assessed [value] of $5.76 million . . ..").

21. "Hennigan" ("Critics also argue a TIF is often unnecessary for a project to move forward . . .."); "Editorial" ("[M]ost of the state's TIF activity has been use[d] to underwrite commercial and retail development, according to Iowa State University economist David Swenson's research. Much of that development would have happened anyway, Swenson said."); "Backgrounder" ("TIF Reforms . . . State law also should require that TIF funds be used only when necessary"); "Hermiston" ("Many also spoke in favor of requiring TIF projects to undergo a 'but-for analysis' that would prove the project could not go forward without TIF funding.'The but-for measure is the key,' [Johnson County] Supervisor Rod Sullivan said. 'We obviously haven’t been able to get folks to do that analysis locally. I think we need, somehow, we need somebody to play referee. There has to be some kind of but-for analysis.'").
__________

Sampling of Prior TIF Op Ed Columns and Blog Entries
From 2011

"TIFs Wealthy Relatives," December 6, 2011

"TIF Impact Statements," November 29, 2011

"SSMIDs, Taxes and TIFs: The Lessons,"
November 3, 2011

"The True Price of TIFs," October 1, 2011

"Brother, Can You Spare a TIF," April 25, 2011

And a sampling from some of the earliest ones, 2006-07

"Understanding TIFs," October 5, 2007

"Courage, Councilors," October 3, 2007

"TIFing Your Doctor," September 12, 2007 (with TIF lyrics for "Folsom Prison Blues")

"Public Money, Private Profits," August 24, 2007

"The Terrible TIFs," July 26, 2007

"Why Do They Hate America?" October 4, 2006

"Press-Citizen Says 'Tough TIF,'" September 22, 2006

"TIF-ing My Toolshed," September 2, 2006

"Coralville's Hotel: 'Trust But Verify,'" August 16, 2006

"Are TIFs 'Corporate Welfare'?" July 22, 2006

"More: Justifying Corporate Welfare," July 13, 2006

"Neutral Principles, Anyone? Justifying Corporate Welfare," July 12, 2006

__________
Addendum
April 18, 2012

Remember the old line, "Gravity. It's not just a good idea, it's the law"? On April 17 Chris Gordon reminded us that "Limiting TIFs to precise public purposes is not just a good idea, that also is the law." Chris Gordon, "No Reason for City to Pitch In On New Downtown Tower," Iowa City Press-Citizen," April 17, 2012, p. A7.

He notes that, among many other Iowa Code provisions that appear to be violated by this TIF (some violating the letter of the law, all violating its spirit), "First, Iowa Code 403.5.4 (1) provides that local urban renewal plans that propose residential redevelopment must show that there is a shortage of housing, that existing housing is so deficient as to be a threat to the public welfare, or that land is needed for low-income housing. The City-University Urban Renewal Plan does none of this. Indeed, the detailed objectives for the sub-areas of the plan make no mention of the need for residential development."

I offer no independent "legal opinion" regarding the validity of Gordon's assertions, for a variety of reasons, not the least of which because I haven't done the legal research into the statutory language, the legislative history, and the court interpretations. But it does seem to me there is enough smoke billowing from his campfire that it warrants some lawyer doing so.

Today [the next day, April 18] we learn that Moen would like to change his plans for the building -- two weeks after the Council approved his first proposal -- and that a majority of the City Council sees no problem with permitting him to do so. Mitchell Schmidt, "Council OKs New Moen Tower; Alteration Will Allow a Cantilever Design and Add About 5,600 Square Feet to the 14-Story Building," Iowa City Press-Citizen, April 18, 2012, p. A1:
The Iowa City Council has approved a revision to developer Marc Moen’s 14-story building that would include inserted balconies and an overhanging cantilever design [-- a revision] that “substantially deviates” from the concept presented in the original agreement . . . a cantilever design that would include a 4-foot overhang . . . for the top 13 floors. Inverted balconies would begin on the fifth floor. The roughly 5,600 square feet that would be added [the equivalent of two or three additional houses] . . . would increase the assessed taxable value of the structure by an estimated $1.5 million . . .. Moen noted that . . . the new design would include additional costs . . ..
Why is this not proof that he never needed the TIF in the first place -- even if it was legal, which Gordon suggests it wasn't -- and even if the Council had explained why it fails to trigger any of the dozen categories of reasons why TIFs are a bad idea -- which the Council refused to do (because, of course, it couldn't)? (I am assuming the Council has not provided Moen even more taxpayers' money to cover the "additional costs" of these revisions.) It looks to me like he had enough money available to build the building he first proposed, but wanted what would be (to his aesthetic tastes) a more attractive building that would require, that's right, a $2.5 million TIF. (Given that the City may tax him on approximately half the value of the building, it is not unreasonable to project that the "$1.5 million" in additional assessed value represents about $2.5 million in additional actual value.)

Mayor Matt Hayek and Council Member Jim Throgmorton voted against the revision. Why? It turns out that this little "revision" also involves, in effect, a gift of public property (use of a "public right of way") to Moen that was not originally contemplated, and will stand as a precedent for future developers -- kind of like giving downtown restaurant owners the opportunity to put tables and chairs on the public sidewalk to personally profit from more customers. "Hayek and Councilor Rick Dobyns questioned whether approving the use of the overhang, which would encroach over the Dubuque Street and Black Hawk Mini-Park sides of the tower, would create a precedent for future developers to request the same. 'If we do this, the council’s got to be comfortable with what could be requests to cantilevers in the public right of way on other buildings,' Hayek said . . .."

So far as the newspaper story reveals, the Council made no effort to put a dollar value on this additional gift of public property -- a little bonus on top of the taxpayers' future re-payment of $3.8 million already committed.

# # #

Monday, April 25, 2011

Brother, Can You Spare a TIF?

April 25, 2011, 6:30 a.m.

[This morning's [April 25] blog entry is a reproduction of my op ed column in this morning's Press-Citizen, plus the paper's editorial endorsing the TIF, some other related material, commentary and links. On May 6, Bob Elliott's Press-Citizen op ed column and my response were added at the bottom of this blog entry, along with the paper's May 3 story about the Council's approval of the TIF, and my online comment.

After this op ed column was written, submitted, and published I happened to read the comments entered by Press-Citizen readers to the online version of the paper's story announcing this TIF. What is noteworthy is not only the number of comments, and near-unanimous opposition they reveal, but the consistency between what they presented and what I came up with in trying to think through these issues. It's always reassuring to see one's initial, uninformed, instinctive analysis confirmed by the arguments of others, whether experts in a field or ordinary citizens like oneself. If you'd like to examine the almost-unanimous opposition to this TIF by dozens of Iowa City Press-Citizen readers, see "Readers TIF Comments".

If you're too young to catch the reference in the blog headline ("Brother, Can You Spare a TIF?") -- that is to say, if you're under the age of 70 or so -- see the lyrics for "Brother, Can You Spare a Dime?," a song from the depths of the Depression, written in 1931.]


TIF Helps the Rich Get Richer
Nicholas Johnson
Iowa City Press-Citizen
April 25, 2011, p. A7

Public officials love to transfer taxpayers' money to the wealthy.

It costs the politicians nothing. It's a way to thank campaign contributors. The gifts are hidden in earmarks or tax breaks. If they come to light, they can be characterized as "jobs programs" rather than welfare for the wealthy.

The practice is not limited to Washington. In Washington, the billions of dollars soon total trillions. In Iowa, the thousands of dollars only total millions.

In Iowa City, we call them TIFs. Another one is about to cost local taxpayers $250,000. Mark Moen wants to transform Vito's restaurant into offices. "Leaders Defend Ped Mall Project," April 19, 2011 [reproduced at the bottom of this blog entry].

Backers offer fancy math to convince taxpayers this is a good deal. But if they've persuaded you, you're just lucky you never got an offer from Bernie Madoff.

Mark Moen is an Iowa City asset, an exceptional businessman with a social conscience and creative vision. Matt Hayek is the brightest, ablest mayor of any city in Iowa; City Manager Tom Markus a lucky find. Nor am I alleging campaign contributions produced this TIF.

I just don't share their economic ideology.

Capitalism excels at what it does best. It doesn't do well with taxpayers' dollars. What governments do well are among our best bargains, such as police, parks, public schools, libraries and roads. But government has a lousy record when picking businesses.

Corporatism (technically fascism) intertwines the worst features of both government and business with predictable results -- whether in Iowa City or Washington. TIFs, like corporate subsidies, are an example. "Tax break" is just another form of subsidy. When GE earns $14 billion, pays no tax, and gets $3.2 billion from the IRS, our taxes go up -- as they will for this TIF.

Capitalism offers the possibility of great financial rewards -- along with risks of losses, even bankruptcy. Pure capitalism's accomplishments have been impressive. Letting it fatten into fascism at the public trough only weakens its inherent strength.

Capitalists are eager for investments backed by business plans documenting cash flow and high returns. There's no shortage of money for those projects. They don't need taxpayers' money. The money comes from the entrepreneur, her family and friends, other investors or stockholders, bank loan officers, and venture capitalists.

In fact, if those sources aren't adequate, if this TIF project will fail without a mere $250,000 from taxpayers, that's a good sign it's not a wise investment. And if it doesn't make sense for capitalists it darn sure doesn't make sense for taxpayers.

Moreover, "build it and they will come" only works in the movies, as the UI's Laser Center demonstrated. Vito's may require some work. Might it make more sense to lock in the occupant before, rather than after, major remodeling the occupant may want to change?

The point is, questions like that are for investors to answer. It's their expertise, and money, that needs to be invested. Not mine, and not that of city administrators.
__________
Nicholas Johnson, a former FCC commissioner, teaches at the University of Iowa College of Law and maintains the website www.nicholasjohnson.org.

# # #

You hadn't caught that bit of news about GE's "tax burden"? Here's Jon Stewart's explanation on March 28, from a series called "I Give Up":

The Daily Show With Jon StewartMon - Thurs 11p / 10c
I Give Up - Pay Anything...
www.thedailyshow.com
Daily Show Full EpisodesPolitical Humor & Satire BlogThe Daily Show on Facebook


# # #

The Press-Citizen ran the following editorial this morning on the same page as the op ed column. In fairness, its argument favoring the TIF is set forth in full, followed by some comments.

Vito's Renovation Good Investment of City Money
Editorial
Iowa City Press-Citizen
April 25, 2011, p. A7

There is much to like in Marc Moen's proposal to renovate the building at 118 E. College St. and transform the former site of Vito's, which closed earlier this year, from a big-box bar into retail and "class A" office spaces.

We can understand why the city's Economic Development Committee voted unanimously last week to have the city chip in $250,000 through tax increment financing toward the $1 million renovation. (The proposal will come before the full Iowa City Council on May 3.)

As an Editorial Board, we've never viewed TIFs as the automatic four-letter word of economic development. We've always asserted that TIFs can be a good tool when used effectively -- as with the improvements to the Sycamore Mall, the former Plamor Lanes and Moen's own Plaza Towers.

And like those projects, Moen's current proposal is tied to a larger vision for revitalizing a neighborhood and providing a "substantial renovation" to otherwise undesirable or underused property.

"We would like to see some of the large bar spaces converted to retail and offices. We think it is better for downtown," said Jeff Davidson, Iowa City director of planning and community development. "The bottom line is, the only tool the state allows us to foster economic development is tax increment financing, and we feel in Iowa City we use it responsibly."

The question is whether the proposal passes what should be the first question for determining whether a project deserved a TIF: "Can the project succeed without public financing?"

Although the project is far more likely with the use of public money, some city residents have a hard time imagining that the city's contribution is absolutely essential for a project by someone, such as Moen, who already owns a large portion of downtown and near-downtown property. (Moen, for example, owns the building at 123 N. Linn St. where the Press-Citizen rents its office space.)

Yet Moen says the proposed building use is riskier than if he were just to rent to another bar or renovate for apartments. And because the project has "higher risk, higher cost and lower reward," banks are less willing to provide funding.

We've opined repeatedly that the decision on whether to grant a TIF needs to be based on much more than a bottom-line explanation on how it offers a win-win arrangement for both the city and the business. Otherwise the city risks granting businesses massive tax breaks for doing simply what their corporate officers and the current market would have them do anyway.

But in this case, we think the city is right to invest in a downtown project of this nature.

Even if a TIF is approved, Moen will continue to pay property taxes on the building's current assessment. City documents say the planned renovations are estimated to bring in $31,250 more in property tax revenue per year than the building currently does. Under the proposal, the financing would take eight years to repay -- adding up to the $250,000.

We don't want the city to fork over public cash every time someone shows there's a little profit to be made. But we do want the city to invest public money in projects, such as this one, that enhance the public good.
__________

My commentary:

Although my column and the editorial reach opposite conclusions, I don't find much in the editorial that challenges my analysis.

Although I say these decisions should be left to investors and the marketplace, my instinct is to think that the Editorial Board, Mark Moen, and Jeff Davidson are correct to say that, as Davidson is quoted as saying, "We think it [bar spaces converted to retail and offices] is better for downtown."

But even if they, and my instinct, are correct, that's irrelevant to the issue. The issue is whether taxpayers should be getting into bed with the investor and helping to fund this single project. They say, yes; I say, no. I offer a neutral principle for making such decisions; they do not.

And that I also find troubling.

The Editorial Board's decision making standard for what is a worthy, or unworthy, TIF appears to be in its concluding two lines: "We don't want the city to fork over public cash every time someone shows there's a little profit to be made. But we do want the city to invest public money in projects, such as this one, that enhance the public good."

Has there ever been a politician who would acknowledge that she is encouraging the expenditure of taxpayers' money for projects that clearly do not "enhance the public good"? I doubt it.

Presumably, a project that resonates with the public -- as measured by its profit -- "enhances the public good," at least as measured by the marketplace. But (a) that only supports my point that these judgment calls can be better made by investors (using their own money) than by public officials (with no skin in the game, just passing out taxpayers' money), given government's abysmal record in making these decisions. (b) Those conclusions can only be arrived at after the project's success, not before it is undertaken. (c) With both lack of data in advance, and such a spongy standard for decision, TIF decisions are open to the public suspicion of favoritism, irrationality, and inconsistency. (d) In addition, such an approach is unfair to those with equally worthy projects that might "enhance the public good" that are not chosen -- or worse, now have to compete, with their own money, against a competitor who has been favored by the good old boys who make up the powers that be.

# # #

For the almost-unanimous opposition to this TIF by dozens of Iowa City Press-Citizen readers, see "Readers TIF Comments" entered in the online version of this article.


B.A. Morelli, "Leaders defend ped mall project,"
Iowa City Press-Citizen, April 19, 2011:

Iowa City leaders say using public money to help repurpose a former bar into retail and office spaces is a worthy investment.

The city plans to chip in $250,000 through tax increment financing toward an estimated $1 million conversion of the former Vito's building into a site for a national retail franchise on the first floor and one or more "class A" office units on the second floor.

"We would like to see some of the large bar spaces converted to retail and offices. We think it is better for downtown," said Jeff Davidson, Iowa City director of planning and community development. "The bottom line is, the only tool the state allows us to foster economic development is tax increment financing, and we feel in Iowa City we use it responsibly."

An economic development committee endorsed the project with a 3-0 vote on Tuesday, and the project will come before City Council on May 3.

On Friday, downtown developer Marc Moen closed a $1 million deal to buy the building at 118 E. College St. It housed Vito's until it closed earlier this year in the wake of the controversial 21-only law.

Moen and city leaders say this type of project -- retail and office -- meets city priorities for diversifying downtown. At the same time, they are much riskier than a bar or apartments, and banks are less willing to provide funding, they say.

Moen said the project is "higher risk, higher cost and lower reward."

If approved, the financing would take eight years to repay, and the new building will generate $31,250 more in property tax revenue per year than it currently does, according to city documents.

Moen has his sights set on luring a name-brand retailer to occupy the main floor, but it will take time, he said. His hope is for the store to open in 2012.

The "substantial renovation," which includes gutting the building to its core and restoring the original façade, will begin immediately, Moen said.

City manager Tom Markus said the added retail and office space and upgrading a dated building will be good for the city.

"From that standpoint, I think we're starting the process of rebuilding the downtown. Marc is a known quantity in terms of doing quality work," Markus said.
__________

For the almost-unanimous opposition to this TIF by dozens of Iowa City Press-Citizen readers, see "Readers TIF Comments" entered in the online version of this article.
__________

Bob Elliott, “State Should Limit Use of TIF,” Iowa City Press-Citizen, May 6, 2011, p. 7A, temporarily available online at

http://www.press-citizen.com/article/20110506/OPINION01/105060318/State-should-limit-use-of-TIF

Let's focus on uses and misuses of tax increment financing as an economic development tool.

TIF enables local governments to invest temporary tax breaks as incentives for long-term greater good. Cities and counties can sign tax break agreements with private firms (contingent on construction or operational terms) over a limited period of time, to gain community improvements and/or increased future tax income.

But there are dangers involved if too much tax income is deferred from funding needs by the county, other cities and towns, and school districts.

Judicious use of TIF is the key to whether it's used or abused. Just as modern science provides us with wonder drugs that can work miracles, misuse or abuse of those drugs can have terrible consequences.

So the debate continues about how much TIF-deferred taxes we can afford to invest in future economic growth. Of course, there are those who oppose the whole concept of TIF. But that's another question.

Misusing TIF: I think Coralville, Oxford and Tiffin are among those misusing TIFs, to the detriment of other governing bodies and taxpayers. Because it's the largest of those cities and involves the most tax dollars, Coralville will be my focus.

I have longtime admiration for Coralville and City Manager Kelly Hayworth. With Hayworth's strong leadership, Coralville has achieved a remarkable record of productive growth and just plain getting things done. I like that. It rocks.

But that doesn't mean Coralville is incapable of mistakes. I think the amount of property Coralville has involved in one or more TIF districts means the otherwise productive economic development tool is being misused.

However, there's been a misunderstanding about TIF's impact on the local area Iowa City and Clear Creek Amana school districts. So I asked for a clarification from Paul Bobek, executive director of administrative services for the Iowa City School District.

He said because of state-imposed "spending authority," even if there were additional tax income, it couldn't be used for such General Fund items as teacher compensation. Increased tax funds would enable lowering district property tax rates, but the state's funding formula controls each district's spending (a form of statewide equity), independent of the district's taxable valuation.

There are more complexities involved, but I'm staying with the most obvious aspects of misusing TIF. For that, I use relevant data provided by Kevin O'Malley, Iowa City finance director.

Though noting he's not a fan of TIF, O'Malley pointed out it's been used productively by Iowa City, Coralville and other communities in the past. From him, I obtained a copy of "Valuation Tiffed in Johnson County: Taxable Values (for FY11 Budgets)" report that reveals the following data.

The report showed Iowa City with less than 1 percent of its property valuation in TIFs and West Branch had 0 percent. Among those making extensive use of TIF were Coralville at 41.7 percent, Oxford at 52 percent, and Tiffin with a whopping 65.3 percent. Because of the extent of Coralville's property, it has 72.1 percent of all the TIF property valuation in Johnson County.

That represents millions of tax dollars deferred to promote economic development projects in those communities. For instance, Coral Ridge Mall generated about $10 million in gross (before TIF) taxes this year, but the mall's TIF district recently was extended to include Coralville's River Landing Project, deferring significant portions of future taxes for even more years. That extension is along Interstate 80, meeting the letter, if not the spirit of the law.

We need a state law capping at 5 percent, or at the most 10 percent, the amount of property any city or county could involve in TIF districts.

Bob Elliott is a former Press-Citizen sportswriter, a 30-year employee of ACT and a former Iowa City councilor.
__________

I responded with a comment on the Press-Citizen’s online version of the column:

6:33 AM on May 6, 2011

TIFs (or taxpayers’ “Toxic Incredible Fleecing”) are supported by those who receive them, and those who, unapologetically and irrationally, delight in giving taxpayers’ money to the grateful recipients.

What a relief it is to find a TIF supporter who is thoughtful and honest enough to acknowledge that too much of a bad thing can, at some point, become a real problem. (As the late Senator Everett Dirksen is often credited with saying, “A billion here, a billion there, pretty soon, you're talking real money.”)

In short, says Bob Elliott, the level of TIFs that a body politic can survive are like the quantity of other toxics our bodies can survive: radiation from a failed nuclear power plant, cancer-causing elements in our drinking water and the air we breathe, lead in the paint on a child’s toy.

My question: Once we acknowledge the harm that TIFs can do, why keep shooting ourselves in the leg with them just because we can still limp along on our good leg?

Capitalism has its place and accomplishments. So do legitimate governmental functions. Like chemicals that only become explosive or toxic when combined, it’s the intertwining of capitalism and socialism that’s the problem.

See, “Brother, Can You Spare a TIF?”

http://fromdc2iowa.blogspot.com/2011/04/brother-can-you-spare-tif.html

__________

Josh O'Leary, "Council OKs TIF for former Vito's; Moen to renovate for retail, possible office space," Iowa City Press-Citizen, May 4, 2011,
temporarily available online at

http://www.press-citizen.com/article/20110504/NEWS01/105040322/Council-OKs-TIF-former-Vito-s?odyssey=mod|mostcom

An enthusiastic Iowa City Council on Tuesday signed off on a project by developer Marc Moen that would transform a former bar into retail and possibly office space with the help of city funding.

The council voted 7-0 to authorize an agreement with Moen, who plans to redevelop 118 E. College St., a pedestrian mall building that had been the longtime home to Vito's bar and restaurant before it closed this past winter. The city will pitch in $250,000, or 12.5 percent of the project's price tag, through tax increment financing.

Moen plans to attract a national retailer to the space, which he purchased for $1 million last month. He intends to invest another $1 million in renovations before a targeted opening for the store in 2012.

Planning and Community Development director Jeff Davidson told the council that although the city's initial agreement required retail space on the street level and offices above, it has since been tweaked to allow for retail on the second floor, as well, to accommodate prospects interested in filling two floors.

"I think we're all very excited about this project," council member Regenia Bailey said. "This is exactly what we want to see downtown."

Said council member Susan Mims: "I'm excited by the fact that somebody big enough wants to come in that might want to use both floors."

Vito's had been located in the 112-year-old building -- which features 5,200 square feet on the first floor and 3,800 on the second floor -- since the 1970s, according to the city.

In the agreement with the city, Moen will not be allowed to open a restaurant or bar in the building over the course of the eight-year TIF period.

By city law, the building cannot be turned back into a bar even after the TIF expires because of a provision adopted by the council requiring 500-foot spacing between bars. Existing bars were excluded from the law.

The renovated building will generate $31,250 more in property tax revenue per year than it currently does, according to the city assessor -- an amount that will be used by the city to repay its $250,000 investment over eight years. . . .

__________

To which I added the comment:

7:22 AM on May 4, 2011

Can't say I'm stunned, though I would have welcomed at least one dissenting opinion on behalf of the taxpayers and the virtues of uncontaminated capitalism.

My views, too lengthy for a brief comment here, were laid out in a Press-Citizen op ed column ("TIF Helps the Rich Get Richer"), embedded along with other articles, the PC's editorial, and responsive comments in this blog entry:

"Brother, Can You Spare a TIF?" April 25, 2011,
http://fromdc2iowa.blogspot.com/2011/04/brother-can-you-spare-tif.html

Now that the TIF's been formally approved, a blog reader (John Neff's) comment, tacked onto that blog entry, becomes even more urgent:
"TIF districts have been used long enough in Johnson County so that it should be possible to evaluate how well they work."

I think the City councilors and/or manager/staff (along with those from Coralville and other TIF advocates) owe us no less -- not just on the future economic results from this TIF as they become available over the years, but on those that have been used in the past (and that will inevitably, following this one, be increasing taxpayers' burden in the future). Following the raw data (which may be skewed by the providers, given the extent to which subjective judgments enter the equation), we will then need the analysis and commentary of a professional, unbiased group like the Iowa Policy Project.

In other words, to quote the old line: "In God we trust; all others bring data."

How about it, City?

# # #

Friday, September 18, 2009

Hancher - Part V

September 18, 2009, 8:10 a.m. -- now with update on October 12 Forum

Some Suggestions for Thinking About the Location of
the University of Iowa's New Performance Venue
Part V

(brought to you by FromDC2Iowa.blogspot.com*)

[Blog Entries in Hancher Series (and see, "Hancher Relocation Process and Site," July 18, 2009):

Nicholas Johnson, "Hancher - Part I," September 14, 2009 (Downtown).

Nicholas Johnson, "Hancher - Part II,"
September 15, 2009 (Natural Settings).

Nicholas Johnson, "Hancher - Part III," September 16, 2009 (The Costs).

Nicholas Johnson, "Hancher - Part IV," September 17, 2009 (UI's Mission and Mobility).

Nicholas Johnson, "Hancher - Part V," September 18, 2009 (Greenways, NIMBY, and Conclusion).]
Update: October 12 Forum; "Third Option"

The October 12 Forum unveiled a "third option" (the prior two involving rebuilding Hancher-Voxman-Clapp as a unit either near where they are now, or downtown): leaving Hancher in the general area of the present site, while splitting off Voxman-Clapp (the music buildings) and putting them downtown. B.A. Morelli, "UI adds another Hancher option; New plan would split auditorium, Voxman-Clapp," Iowa City Press-Citizen, October 13, 2009.

For streaming video of the evening, and the Power Point slides used in the opening presentation, see the UI Facilities Management Web site, http://facilities.uiowa.edu/hvc-site.htm.

Based on the percentage of speakers from the audience (after the presentation) from the music faculty, and the applause they received, that seemed to be the focus of the evening.

I came away from the event thinking that, although they did succeed in making arguments for putting what are essentially undergraduates' "classrooms" nearer the Pentacrest, that most of the analysis in this five-part series remains valid -- the disadvantages of shoe-horning Hancher into an 1839 platted downtown Iowa City, while losing the advantages of its current natural setting (if Hancher would also go downtown), and the discounted-to-present-value future loss of property tax revenue from the downtown businesses that would be demolished (two banks, businesses, two apartment complexes -- at least one of which built only this year), and so forth.

(1) The University of Iowa has never had all of its buildings on a single, continuous area of land, separate and apart from the city -- at least since the 1920s, if not before. The University's buildings are integrated into the downtown, residential and other areas of the city.

(2) We have a number of law students taking joint degrees who take classes on both sides of the River. I am sure the Medical, Pharmaceutical, Nursing, Dental, and Athletic colleges and departments have the same. It would be more convenient for all of them I suppose if we could put all of those buildings downtown. Perhaps Marc Moen could build us a skyscraper for the purpose. And just think of what Kinnick Stadium could do for the local restaurant and bar business if it could also be located downtown!

(3) Walking and biking are good preventive medicine for heart, cancer, diabetes and other diseases -- not to mention our national obesity epidemic. There was talk last evening of music students having to walk a half-mile. A half-mile! When I was in junior high and high school I carried a tuba from home to school and back again, over a mile each way -- a kind of one-man marching band. I never considered it a problem then, and probably would have found it even easier once I had the stamina of a college student. Carrying piccolos and clarinets should be even less of a burden for today's college students. For those who can't, or don't want to, walk, bike or skateboard around campus there are actually too many bus systems for a town this size, plus taxis, and far more student-owned automobiles than are necessary.

Frankly, if I were still studying music I'd love a setting on an "arts campus" with a beautiful view of the River, rather than a parking garage. But I'm not, so my personal preference is irrelevant.

But I do think the music faculty and students ought to reflect upon the old adage "be careful what you wish for, because you may get it." However, the bottom line for me is that if they want to be downtown, and the Regents and FEMA are willing to pay for what they may later discover turns out to be folly, why not let them make the move?

From the standpoint of Hancher, splitting the two (Hancher from Voxman-Clapp) just makes the Hancher reconstruction cheaper, easier and more spacious and scenic.

As for the comparative costs of the three options, they are not sufficiently different to be grounds for selecting one over another at this point. Moreover, they are all pretty fuzzy right now -- everything from construction costs, to parking facilities, to property acquisition (downtown), to demolition and disposal costs, to property tax loss, to the firmness of FEMA's commitment, to sources for $100 million plus of State money (at a time of 10% cuts across the board, and Regents' moratorium on construction).

I do think that the other new proposal the last couple days (and also presented last evening), that Hancher remain exactly where it is and be physically raised to a level above the 500-year flood plain, deserves more analysis than "it's not feasible." "Hancher Idea Could Save $250 Million," Iowa City Press-Citizen, October 12, 2009. Of course those putting comments on this story have had great fun with the idea, and I'm certainly not advocating it. But when major moves, and enormous (for us) expenditures are involved, I think any suggestion deserves to be seriously considered and analyzed before being rejected (along with the reasons for that rejection). That even includes the suggestion, at the July Forum, that we consider rebuilding Hancher over the River, with a view up and down stream.
_______________

The Original "Hancher - Part V," September 18, 2009, Blog Entry: This is the fifth, and final, blog entry in this five-part series addressing some of the issues I see in the decisions confronting the University of Iowa with regard to what to do, and where to do it, with regard to the replacement of the Hancher-Voxman-Clapp buildings essentially destroyed by the 2008 Iowa River flood.

Monday's essay explored the possible location in downtown Iowa City. Tuesday's addressed the role of natural settings for entertainment venues. Wednesday's looked at a number of categories of direct and indirect costs. And yesterday's questioned the propriety of an academic institution's involvement in the public entertainment business, and complaints about the "distances" in what I characterized as our charming "toy town" (compared with America's largest urban centers). Today's wraps it up with some comments about greenways in flood control, the positions taken by residents close to the old site and businesses that would benefit from a downtown site, and some conclusions. All are linked, above.

(Yesterday's blog entry received two very solid, civil, substantive suggestions. I revised the entry to make reference to the first, which provided some needed data about the academic uses of Hancher Auditorium.

The second took issue with my "overly simplistic . . . dismissal of the handicapped" from an "Anonymous" who has difficulty walking, even with a cane. That was certainly not my intention.Indeed, I commented in that blog entry on my own difficulty in walking. My father was working with Washington agencies regarding those with various disabilities over 50 years ago, and made sensitivity to such issues a part of my very being. As the saying has it, making accommodations for the disabled "is not just a good idea, it's the law" -- thanks in part to some of his early efforts. Obviously, I think the University should make every effort to comply with the law and otherwise address the needs of the disabled with sensitivity. My primary point was that our young, able bodied undergraduates really ought to be able to walk a half-mile or mile, that Iowa City is sufficiently small that it is relatively easy to get from one place on campus to another (certainly when compared with large urban areas), and that therefore it shouldn't be a major factor in choosing a campus location for Hancher. As for the disabled, I was simply intending to make the point that they, too, will have roughly similar difficulties -- or accommodations -- regardless of which of the two locations is chosen.]
Greenways and Flood Control

My understanding is that the original (ultimately flooded in 2008) location of Hancher-Voxman-Clapp was the triumph of "an arts campus" over warnings from some that, however unlikely, to locate the buildings in the Iowa River's flood plain risked those new buildings someday being flooded. Hindsight suggests the location was a mistake. At the time, however, the area had never been flooded in anyone's memory, and the relatively new creation upstream of the Corps of Engineers' Coralville Dam and Reservoir -- created, in part, precisely for the purpose of reducing the severity of downstream flooding -- made that prospect even less likely.

Both before and after the 2008 flood I did some study of and writing about flood control. I created a Web site devoted to the subject (however, one I have not kept updated over time), "GO Iowa! The Great Outdoors of Iowa,", and a PowerPoint presentation (viewable online in Internet Explorer only) I was asked to give to the Johnson County Council of Governments and subsequently other local organizations. I was active with the group that succeeded in passing a $20 million bond issue for the County's acquisition of additional land. Here are some examples of a a number of op ed columns for local papers and blog entries: Nicholas Johnson, "Preserving for Our Grandchildren," Iowa City Press-Citizen, February 20, 2008; Nicholas Johnson, "Greenbelts, Greenways and Flood Prevention," June 16, 2008 (with links to additional writing); Nicholas Johnson, "Gazette's Flood Plan, Flood Plains & Greenbelts," June 21, 2008; Nicholas Johnson, "A $2.20 Gift to Our Great-Grandchildren," Iowa City Press-Citizen, October 30, 2008.

You will be relieved to know that I will not be repeating all of that here this morning, though I will provide my three-point plan for reducing-to-eliminating the economic damage from floods:

1. Don't put homes and businesses in flood plains.

2. Don't put homes and businesses in flood plains.

3. Don't put homes and businesses in flood plains.

The simplicity of these suggestions is exceeded only by the extent to which they are so widely ignored.

By reversing the land use -- taking the parks and forests and grasslands from the hills and putting them down by the rivers, and taking the homes and businesses that line the river bank and putting them up in the hills (or simply having done it right the first time) -- you achieve two major benefits. (a) You eliminate the flood damage to buildings. This is not insignificant, as the University of Iowa's near $1 billion flood damage/rebuilding bill bears witness. (b) You reduce the severity of the flooding -- both at that location and on downstream. "Greenways" along rivers -- forests, parks, grasses, pastures, and other appropriate planting (along with wetlands) -- can absorb, and prevent (or at least slow) the runoff into rivers, of enormous amounts of water. (I've heard estimates of as much as a five-inch rain.)

Conventional buildings, roads and parking lots not only suffer flood damage, they also increase and speed the runoff of water directly into rivers, thereby increasing the severity of the flooding, not only where they are located but also downstream.

Superficially, from a purist perspective, this would suggest that Hancher ("H-V-C") should not only be located downtown, it should be located well east of the location currently contemplated. The land where the buildings now stand should be converted to some form of greenway.

The reason I say "superficially," and refer to "conventional buildings, roads and parking lots," is because there are now construction techniques that can make such structures much more water-absorbent and, shall we say, "flood friendly" than usual.

Indeed, the new P. Sue Beckwith, M.D., Boathouse, built right on the Iowa River bank, was designed with flooding in mind. Rachel Gallegos, "Tour of boathouse shows off building's 'floodable' features," Iowa City Press-Citizen, September 17, 2009 ("Associate Director of UI Athletics Jane Meyer said . . . 'We built this building to flood.' . . . [C]oncrete block walls . . . can easily be power washed and sanitized if the building floods . . .. The shell bays have flood vents to easily release water.").

More precisely, roads and parking lots can be made permeable to water, so that at least much of it seeps through to the soil rather than rapidly running off into a river or stream. Strips of soil as a part of a parking lot, planted with grasses or other growth can not only slow and absorb runoff but can be an aesthetic plus as well.

Hopefully, techniques such as these will be used if Hancher is relocated up the slope from where it's now located.

"NIMBY" -- "Not In My Back Yard" and "Oh, Please DO Put it In My Back Yard"

There are two groups of Iowa City residents more directly affected than the rest of us by the decision on where to locate Hancher. One is the Manville Heights residents who live nearby. The other is the downtown business people.

As the resident of a neighborhood that bears a disproportionate share of the impact of the 70,000 visitors who drop in on football Saturdays, I'm sympathetic to the comments of Iowa City residents affected by the University's unilateral decisions.

As near as I can tell, however, the Manville Heights residents' comments seem to cut both ways. Some like the personal convenience of having it close by, an easier walk than if it were downtown. Others are concerned that, by moving it up the hill, out of the flood plain, it will be closer to their homes and create more traffic, noise and possible safety considerations.

Downtown merchants, I gather, are also split to some degree. Those in the restaurant business see the prospect of additional customers before and after Hancher performances if the building is located two or three blocks from their establishments. But many whose businesses are such that they will not benefit financially from the Hancher crowds are concerned about taking so much property off the property tax rolls, thereby increasing their own property taxes. See Nicholas Johnson, "Hancher - Part III," September 16, 2009 (The Costs).

Let me say at the outset that I tend to agree with what I gather is the vision of downtown business persons such as Mark Moen and restaurant genius Jim Mondanaro. That is, Iowa City as laid out in 1839 cannot be turned into a 21st Century Coral Ridge Mall and it's self-defeating to try. See
Nicholas Johnson, "Hancher - Part I," September 14, 2009 (Downtown). What it should aspire to be is a small, very livable, quasi-residential, quaint, walkable, center of entertainment and restaurants (along with the minimal number of banks, grocery stores, and other businesses to sustain that resident population). We may differ about the value of the number of scofflaw bar owners encouraging undergraduates' illegal binge drinking, I don't know. Frankly, I think that phenomenon detracts from, rather than supports, their vision. But we basically agree about the rest of it. And putting Hancher downtown is consistent with that vision -- it's just 170 years too late.

Aesthetically I prefer natural settings for entertainment venues. See Nicholas Johnson, "Hancher - Part II," September 15, 2009 (Natural Settings). But it would be a much closer case for me if it were 170 years ago, and we were just now laying out Iowa City.

I can imagine something more like the area of 10 city blocks than two being devoted to an entertainment complex of movie theaters, a Hancher-sized auditorium, plus a range of theaters and auditoriums such as those we now have in the Englert, Riverside Theater, Mabie, McBride, and others -- plus a large, open, free parking area.

But that's on no one's radar today, and not likely to be, and the current downtown proposal carries with it too many problems.

Bottom line, I do think that those most directly impacted by University or City proposals, whether for good or for ill, deserve to be heard and responded to. That someone has a "special interest" may make their insight and analysis more relevant and useful -- as well as the possibility it makes it simply less well considered and more biased and self-oriented, to the exclusion of the "greater good."

I just don't think public decisions -- whether it's the location of Hancher or the boundary lines around our K-12 schools -- should be dictated by those with special interests in the outcome.

Virgil Hancher

Although I don't think it has any impact on my analysis of where the Hancher replacement is located, I should probably declare my interest in the replacement of the building and its continuing to bear the Hancher name.

Just as Franklin Roosevelt was the only U.S. president there was for most of my youth, similarly Virgil Hancher was the only president of the University of Iowa so far as I was concerned. My impression was that my father liked him and found him supportive of my father's work. I spent some time with Hancher myself as a boy, and found him friendly, as I did his wife, Susan. I attended school for 13 years with his daughter, and knew her older brother. My wife actually lived with the Hanchers in the president's home for some time while a student at Iowa.

As I have written before, I find it troubling that the university colleges and buildings (here and elsewhere) that used to be named for former academics, researchers, and university presidents are now increasingly, during this age of the corporatization of the academy, being named for individual and corporate donors. I think it would be a real travesty, given Hancher's role in the history of the University of Iowa if we were to lose the "Hancher Auditorium" only to replace it with the ExxonMobil Entertainorama, the Coca Cola Center (see, Editorial, "UI's Hypocrisy Clear in Recent Acceptance of ExxonMobil Donation," The Daily Iowan, September 18, 2009), or the "ADM Auditorium." (Want to know more about ADM? "The Informant!" is now showing in Iowa City.)

But this, and undoubtedly other opinions and ideas expressed throughout this five-blog-entry series are undoubtedly influenced with my personal feelings about Virgil Hancher, his family, and his memory, and sufficiently so that I thought I should include this explanation.

Conclusion

This five-part series has been an effort to raise and address issues I see with the decision to rebuild, and relocate, either the Hancher Auditorium or the Hancher-Voxman-Clapp complex.

So in a sense there is no single "answer," or "conclusion," that I think you're obliged to recognize as superior to all others. You may see issues I failed to even see, let alone address. You may differ radically with my analysis of the ones I did identify and address.

But where I come out, to the extent anyone cares, is that relocating the Hancher-Voxman-Clapp complex up the hill from its present location is probably the best option.

Logistically, it just doesn't fit in the available space downtown.

There's a "value added" to having it in a more natural setting.

It's cheaper to have it there.

Aside from those with disabilities, the difficulties imposed on most students in getting to that location are trivial and should not be given decisional significance.

Although it is not the ideal solution from the perspective of greenways and flood control, properly handled it could be and it is, in any event, an improvement over what it was.

The wishes of Manville Heights residents, and downtown merchants, while a relevant part of the mix of community opinion, should not be treated as decisive.

So I guess that's where I come out at the end of this week of blogging on the subject.

What do you think?

The Press-Citizen's Series

[See also the University of Iowa Facilities Management Web page regarding its July 9, 2009, presentation to the community about these issues. It includes links to a streaming video of the evening, the Power Point slides used on that occasion, and the Flood Mitigation Task Force Recommendations. "Facilities Managment/Projects." My own evaluation of that evening is found in Nicholas Johnson, "Hancher Relocation Process and Site; University Offers Useful Model for Major Decisions," July 10, 2009.]

Jim Lewers, "Hancher Series Begins Today," Iowa City Press-Citizen, September 12, 2009.

Editorial, "Choose Between Two Good Options for Hancher," Iowa City Press-Citizen, September 12, 2009.

Chuck Swanson, "Either Site Will Work for Hancher," Iowa City Press-Citizen, September 12, 2009.

Wallace Chappell, "Time to Divorce Hancher and the River," Iowa City Press-Citizen, September 12, 2009.

Bob Hibbs, "Performance Spaces on the UI Campus," Iowa City Press-Citizen, September 12, 2009.

Brian Morelli and Josh O'Leary, "What To Do About Hancher Auditorium," Iowa City Press-Citizen, September 12, 2009.

Brian Morelli and Josh O'Leary, "Is Moving Hancher Downtown a Game Changer?" Iowa City Press-Citizen, September 12, 2009.

Brian Morelli, "Regents to Have Final Say in Hancher's Location," Iowa City Press-Citizen, September 12, 2009.

"UI Flood Recovery Mostly Covered By FEMA Money," Iowa City Press-Citizen, September 12, 2009.

Brian Morelli, "UI, Hancher May Get More FEMA Money," Iowa City Press-Citizen, September 12, 2009.

Brian Morelli, "Officials Didn't See Flooding to Be Potential Problem," Iowa City Press-Citizen, September 12, 2009.

Deanna Howard, "A man for the arts; Virgil Hancher envisioned an arts campus on the river," Iowa City Press-Citizen, September 12, 2009.

Rob Daniel, "New Stores Help Fill Coralridge Mall," Iowa City Press-Citizen, September 12, 2009.

September 13

Josh O'Leary and Brian Morelli, "UI Weighs Options for Hancher Flooded Site," Iowa City Press-Citizen, September 13, 2009.

Josh O'Leary, "Yarrow Ready for Hancher Rebuilding," Iowa City Press-Citizen, September 13, 2009.

Josh O'Leary, "Proximity Key to Hancher's Neighbors," Iowa City Press-Citizen, September 13, 2009.

"Learn More About Coralville Arts Center," Iowa City Press-Citizen, September 13, 2009 ("This 500-seat community venue . . . will be available for use beginning in the spring of 2011 . . . by community groups for recitals, concerts, lectures, theater and other performances").

September 14

Bruce Wheaton, "The 'H,' 'V' and 'C' in 'HVC,'" Iowa City Press-Citizen, September 14, 2009.

Marc Moen, "Benefits of Urban Auditoriums," Iowa City Press-Citizen, September 14, 2009 (with link to Iowa Department of Cultural Affairs, "The Benefits and Qualities of Cultural Districts") .

Brian Morelli and Deanna Howard, "As Venue's Revenue Losses Mount, Public Split; One Site's Weaknesses Are the Other's Strengths, Official Says," Iowa City Press-Citizen, September 14, 2009.

Brian Morelli, "Who Will Make Site Selection?" Iowa City Press-Citizen, September 14, 2009.

"Culver Hopeful UI Will Get more Federal Funds; FEMA Head to Tour Campus' Flood Sites in Next Two Months," Iowa City Press-Citizen, September 14, 2009.

September 18, 2009

Daryl Granner, "University Shouldn't Bail Out Iowa City Downtown," Iowa City Press-Citizen, September 18, 2009.

Sharon McDonald, "UI Should Relocate Hancher Downtown," Iowa City Press-Citizen, September 18, 2009.
____________

* Why do I put this blog ID at the top of the entry, when you know full well what blog you're reading? Because there are a number of Internet sites that, for whatever reason, simply take the blog entries of others and reproduce them as their own without crediting the source. I don't mind the flattering attention, but would appreciate acknowledgment as the source, even if I have to embed it myself. -- Nicholas Johnson

# # #