Fix it now

As City Council gets ready for another vacation, leaving work on the budget and Tampa’s down turning economy on the table, angry citizens in Drew Park met to discuss eliminating the city’s hastily and completely backward proposed land-use changes. With citizens sick and tired of a city working against them at every turn, the voices had one common thread: the city needs to get out of our way, handle the basics of government (which they can’t get right) and leave the rest up to us.

For those of you unfamiliar with the drew park economic development plan here is a quick rundown, drew park the area west of Raymond James stadium, north of Columbus Ave, south of Hillsborough Ave. and east of the airport, is a CRA (community redevelopment area) and it has a TIF (tax increment financing district), which means that the area gets to keep all of it’s tax revenue over a base year to spend solely in the area, but the money can’t be used for traditional city services. Every time the city creates one of these areas they then go out and hire a consultant costing hundreds of thousands of dollars to tell them how to spend the money. (You could figure this out by walking the neighborhood and asking a few people, but who needs the exercise?)

The city then adopts the plans that often include land-use changes. In the case of drew park, a mostly industrial area, the city consultants decided that jamming residents into the neighborhood and forcing business out was a great way to start. Then in traditional city fashion, instead of carefully studying the plan, the city quickly adopted it because they wanted the plan adopted before councilwoman Alvarez retired from council. So basically they shoved through with no thought a plan affecting thousands of businesses, and turning a neighborhood on its head for over a year because they wanted a nice going away present. What everyone quickly discovered is that businesses could not borrow money because lenders were afraid of losing money if the property lost its zoning, business could not expand and the area quickly ground to a halt. Then the city suspended the land use change part of the plan and discussed it for over a year.

Now, finally having enough, the people have spoken and voted to tell council to stick the plan where it deserves to go, in the trash!Just a few weeks later when the business of Drew Park thought their voices had been heard; city council showed just how out of touch they really are.  To add insult to injury the city council so eager to get finished with its meeting because the hour was late — 11:00 in the morning. They decided they just did not have the time to deal with the suffering of hundreds of businesses. Now remember this is the elected body that pushed through this land use change as a present to one of their fellow council members as a retirement present [needs link to newspaper story] in just one week, and that has spent more than a year trying to undo the damage, the whole time with not a peep from Mayor Pam Iorio. Oh that’s right she is out of town riding the rails in other cities, after all what is of real concern to these businesses that can’t expand or grow is mass transit. But don’t worry, Drew Park, they will take the matter up at their next meeting in 30 days, WOOPS my mistake, it will have to wait 60 days, council is going on vacation. Apparently the world stops this month: people don’t have to worry about their mortgage payments, or putting food on the table, or paying their exorbitant city property taxes. And don’t count on 60 days, either; from what I hear, council’s schedule is so packed already with unfinished and new business that it is not going to have time to discuss it then either, so tack on another 30 days to that at least. So only another quarter of a year until council discusses how it stuck it real good to this neighborhood. I won’t hold my breath waiting for the outcome.

Here is an idea; council should cancel its vacation, and start meeting every day until all city business is finished. That way we can get our local economy moving again. Now for full disclosure, I was one of only a handful of people to originally object to the plan when it was being considered. I informed city council that the land changes would make lending impossible and my companies could not lend money under the conditions they were imposing. I have repeatedly been at council asking that the changes be eliminated. While I appreciate that some members want to carefully deliberate any changes one has to ask where the thought was when this plan was passed.

In what can only be called one of those gotcha moments, Tampa City Council was confronted with the realization that its actions are not only costly but so slow-moving that spending $30,000 is cheaper way to avoid its own processes.

Here’s how we know this: City Council had a small item tucked into its consent agenda, an increase of more $30,000 to build three affordable houses in East Tampa.

What made this request for additional funds interesting was the background data that stated that the request was to redesign plans to bring them into compliance with the East Tampa overlay district.  For those of you unfamiliar with the City of Tampa overlay districts, these are not health or safety regulations but rather special design requirements for homes in various areas throughout the city.  The problem is that City Council and Mayor Pam Iorio’s administration never do any economic analysis of these regulations. They are all designed to pander to the existing homeowners in communities who don’t want “outsiders” moving in.

So in this case, it is going to cost the city’s affordable housing fund $30,000, resulting in higher mortgage payments and property taxes for the new homebuyers.  But more important than showing the cost of compliance with these excessive overlay regulations, it shows the extreme expense in requesting a PD (planed development) rezoning in the City of Tampa — more than $30,000 for developers and, ultimately, homeowners.  So when city officials talk about how fast and easy its processes are, or how you are their customers and they care, remember this: For the city to get through its own process of waiving the restrictions that caused the plan redesign would have had to cost it more than the $30,000 just to redesign the plans. Otherwise why would the City not have just applied for the waivers?

Council had a simple option: It could have had city staff fix the regulations so the city could use its current affordable housing plans, without having to re-draw them to comply with the overlay district.  Apparently they thought that the $30,000 was the easier and cheaper option.  This is an example of the city being called to account for its own regulatory schemes, and unfortunately it is the taxpayers who end of paying the price.  In a time of tight budgets, skyrocketing fuel prices and benefit costs rising exponentially, one has to ask if a $30,000 expenditure — which could be avoided — is the way to go, or if council should FIX IT NOW.

Tampa officials have discovered something that landlords (at least in this city) have known for years: For a high-end restaurant space to succeed, it has to serve beer and wine. For years, the Iorio administration has increased the costs of these R(restaurant) wet zonings — restricting locations, adding fees, documentation requirements and cost to landlords.

But when the city is landlord to a restaurant, things look a little different.

The location is Ballast Point Park tucked below Gandy Boulevard at the end of the Bayshore. The restaurant is the Taste of Boston. The city owns the park and pier where the restaurant is located, so it is the landlord in this case. And because the city likes to have its commercial spaces rented out, as most landlords do, it filed for a rezoning and a wet zoning that would allow Taste of Boston to serve a taste or two of beer and wine.

What makes this so funny is not the fact that the city was asking for a rezoning, nor the fact that while the city claims it is so short on tax revenue that it has to cut services but that the city paid the rezoning application fees out of its own pockets — actually, that is, out of our pockets.

So the Parks and Recreation Department went before City Council recently and explained how selling beer and wine in the middle of a park right next to a brand-new $200,000 playground renovation for kids was a good idea, and that the administration supported the sales of alcohol because their sale had no negative impact on children. Council members were so outraged they asked if the upper levels of the administration (i.e. the mayor) knew the parks and recreation position. The answer? A resounding yes. Council members voted the application down.

So Tampa, known for hosting the most strip clubs per capita in the nation, where we promote cigar smoking because it is our history, now has a new credit: shill for the liquor industry. And what is worse, it was done with taxpayer money.

The city, which is often so quick to tell landlords how to run their businesses, once again does not like it when the rules are applied to itself. Even worse, while complaining about revenue shortfalls and offering no more tax relief then what is state mandated, city officials have the money to pay lawyers for rezoning applications. I hope the city now realizes the detriment it has caused to property owners and small restaurants and will re-examine its policies.

Our guest blogger Spencer Kass is a regular attendee at Tampa City Council and other city government meetings and is a real estate broker in West Tampa. He files his latest report:

For the past few months I have watched as neighborhood groups complained to the Tampa City Council about repeat offenders of the city’s codes and ordinances. The story told to Council often repeats itself: a violation is found, the offender is given a chance to fix it, they do fix it and then they violate the same ordinance a few weeks later. The response from neighborhoods is that the business is just using a legal trick, a technical maneuver that is allowing someone to do something which is clearly not the intent of the law, that there is no honor in the business owners’ actions.

And they are correct.

Then an unusual situation occurred. Tampa officials on April 8 went before their own Variance Review Board, which has the power to bend development rules if it is in the public interest. The city sought a permit to remove 153 trees, and I objected. The board quickly ruled in favor of the city and I was not able to appeal because of a technical requirement that you must own land within 250 feet of the location in question in order to have standing to complain.

The situation is even more egregious when you discover that the trees are being killed to make way for a place that is supposed to highlight beauty and truth and aesthetics in our community: the new Tampa Museum of Arts on the riverfront in downtown.

When I explained this situation to a friend of mine, he said, “Well, the city did not technically break any laws, did they?” While he was technically correct, his question leads to a more basic one: Just because you can do something wrong does it mean you should?

In this instance, the City and variance board members did not use their standard criteria for review. Board members did not give the city the hassle they usually give to a private landowner. They did not ask their usual questions about the well being of the citizenry. They instead focused on the fact that they wanted a new museum and were not going to let anything stand in its way.

By using criteria that was different for the city than everyone else was wrong, and although the city can get its permit because no one can object, the question remains: Is this the right thing to do? The best way to think of this is: Would the variance board have given the variance if this was an adult book store that wanted to go in and remove trees? Would you want them to grant such a variance.

So the city got away with skirting the law, placed the tree ordinance in permanent jeopardy, and brought into question the entire variance process. And for what? To get something built quickly? As fair-minded individuals, if we believe that there is a formulation to allow for the removal of trees then why not change the code to reflect that position? Why debase ourselves to twisting the law to merely allow us to get away with something?

It is only by holding ourselves to the highest standards that we can expect others to do the same. We certainly cannot expect individuals to act in a more honorable fashion then our own elected city officials. The do-as-I say-not-as-I-do mentality of days gone by is past. I hope a reasonable dialog with all residents emerges as a result of this situation, one in which we can openly discuss the priorities in our community and creating answers so we can finally fix it now.

“For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction,” said the wise Sir Isaac Newton.

In Tampa, we have always believed the laws of nature don’t necessarily apply. Unfortunately, by the time we realize the unintended consequences of policy decisions, we are already in a troubled situation. Once an unintended consequence arises, the last thing we want to endure is a massive government bureaucracy. There are two recent regulations that demonstrate this point, and both show how good intentions can go bad.

First is Tampa’s third rail of politics: trees. In this city, if you don’t take the position that you would throw yourself in front of a tree to protect it, you must be an evil builder, or worse, a Republican. So Tampa did what was politically popular and City Council passed a tree ordinance. This ordinance has led to lawsuits, mental breakdowns by homeowners, and surprise, surprise, fewer trees. That’s correct; a tree canopy study will be released in the next few weeks confirming this reality.

Now let us look at why. The reason is simple; City Council passed an ordinance that stated that if you plant certain species of trees, when they reach a certain height you need government approval to remove them, or even worse, you may need City Council’s approval. The desire was to protect the existing trees. The law, however, has discouraged anyone from planting more of these species of trees, typically shade oak trees. After all, by planting these new trees you are not just planting a tree, you are ceding control of your property to the government. We all know that there is nothing like having to deal with a government bureaucrat to accomplish a simple task. So people started planting non-protected trees; away went the oaks and in came more fruit trees and more invasive species that are not deemed “protected” under the guidelines. Why plants oaks when I can plant other species that have the same nice appearance as oaks and grow just as fast and provide shade? In addition, I know that somewhere down the line, when I go to expand my home or even tear it down to rebuild a new home, I won’t have to seek the approval or deal with the bureaucracy of the government.

I am certain some will argue that we lost trees because our laws are too lax and if we take a tougher approach through additional regulation, we can save the remaining trees. It is my opinion that if City Council were to remove all the current laws, such an action would actively encourage the planting of these shade oak trees or other non-invasive species and we will see an explosion of new canopy growth.

Second, let’s look at the sign ordinance. Tampa has some of the ugliest streetscapes. It is important for everyone to realize the importance of signage to a commercial business. Signage is the key to attracting business and serving as a landmark for where a particular business is located. It is extremely important for drivers to be able to locate a business prior to approaching the structure as to allow for ample time to yield and turn into the parking lot.

Unfortunately, City Council proceeded to do with the signs what they did with trees. They said that if you have an ugly large sign, you can keep it until it falls down. They cannot require you to remove a current sign (unless it is a safety concern), otherwise it would be deemed a government taking and they would have to pay you, the property owner. If you want to put up a nice, pretty sign to replace the old ugly one, however, it must be smaller than your old sign. So if you currently have a 10×15 foot sign (150 square feet), you can replace it with a ground-based marker that is a 5×5 foot sign, or a 25 square foot sign. (It is not quite this simple, because signage is now measured by lettering and not the full sign size, but regardless, it is less space.)

The result is that everyone keeps the crappy old signs no matter how bad they look because the large signage is now a commodity. City Council has made the old signs more valuable because you can’t put them up anymore. A more effective policy would have been to say that these old signs look bad, we want pretty signs, and we want to encourage you to put them up as soon as possible. The logic should have continued, so if you spend the money to replace your old sign with a new sign, you can have at least the same amount of square footage of signage. This type of policy would entice landowners and business owners to replace their old signs in a timely manner.

The reason for both of these stories is because in Tampa, we have become a society of mob rule. Policy is determined by which way the wind is blowing at any particular time. Our leaders need to start managing from a macro level instead of a micro level. It appears that the administration has stopped doing critical analysis, and if we want to be a leader into the next century, we need to think through all of our choices, prior to making policy decisions that may end up with unintended consequences. It is with simple thought and analysis that Tampa can regain its competitive edge and fix it now, if not for us then for our children.

(photo by Ben Ostrowsky)

Alex Pickett interviewed Taryn Sabia, the co-founder of Tampa’s Urban Charrette, for this week’s print edition.  Sabia, 29, and fellow architect Adam Fritz have held a series of workshops on how to improve Tampa’s urban design, transit systems and overall sustainability. These workshops, or “charrettes,” have brought together a broad range of stakeholders, including Tampa city councilmembers Linda Saul-Sena and John Dingfelder, the Hillsborough County Planning Commission, University of South Florida professors, Tampa Bay Builders Association members and developers like Daren Booth (of The Heights project) and Greg Minder (of SkyPoint). Read the entire interview here.

CL: How do you get the masses excited about sustainability and urban design?

Sabia: We try to show examples where great projects have been done in other places. Giving people a visual definition of what density is, because density is a very difficult concept to understand. … You want people to see that if you put density in particular places — and you do it purposely and if it’s designed well — then great things can happen. You can start to have vibrant centers for your neighborhood. Your neighborhood is actually protected, because you’re putting density where it belongs. You’re grouping density in areas to support retail, shops and restaurants. You need a certain amount of density in order to support a certain amount of retail. If it’s done well, it can be a really wonderful thing for neighborhoods. It’s something that attracts people from other places but also gives the neighborhood itself an area where people can meet, gather, do things and not have to drive a half hour outside of their neighborhood to get the things they need.

Does this mean you want to stack us all in little apartments downtown?

The idea is that we don’t make everyone do that, but that we provide choices. We’re not suggesting that everyone has to live in small apartments and not have their suburban homes. It’s not about one or the other; it’s about accommodating all of them and connecting all of them, so people aren’t so separated.

It’s also about managing our growth for the future. Because, inevitably, density is coming. People are coming, and large numbers of them. We need to think about how we’re going to deal with that.

What should we focus on first?

Transit is absolutely at the forefront. TBARTA [Tampa Bay Area Regional Transportation Authority] has just started doing public workshops. … It is so vital that people get out and speak, let their voice be heard and write letters to the TBARTA board and city council members. … People look and say, “Well, that is the 2050 plan.” But it’s not. We could have these things in 10 years if we push and fight for them. Let our elected officials know that we not only support it, that we support it now.

Read the entire interview here.

What is the easiest way to assuage a community’s concerns over a lack of economic development? Hand out free money, apparently. But money is not free, and the cost to our local communities is far worse than the perceived benefits.

In all the meetings I’ve seen for economic development, businesses sum up their needs from government simply: GET OUT OF THE WAY. They don’t need a handout; they just need government to stop holding their heads under the water. Unfortunately for businesses, this desire to let the free market operate does not create increased government power and influence; it does not require people to appear before the city council or administration on bended knee; it does not require an increased bureaucracy, or more taxes. This no-cost option merely allows for basic American competitiveness.

Despite these pleas Tampa economic development always takes the same tenor: regulate the heck out of everyone, driving up costs in both time and money, and then dribble back about 10 percent in the form of loans or, worse, grants. It is this economic waste that has crippled many of our neediest communities, but the pattern continues.

In these communities, an oft-repeated pattern emerges. Citizens reach a point where they have had enough. They feel as if the city has abandoned them, and they get together form a community group and slam into the bureaucracy. Eventually the powers that be extend a piece branch and offers to do economic analysis, followed by a plan. It is somewhere in this line of thought were thing go awry, plans drag out and we start to see government take a disruptive role. It does so in the most subtle of ways, starting with “let’s work together” as they actively encourage the community group to apply for grants and to run civic programs. While many say this is the city empowering local residents, what results is a corrupting of the organization, with the community group’s bread buttered by the bureaucratic mess.

It is important to understand that these community groups had nothing but the best of intentions, like many idealists when they first go to work for government. But the lure of power and money make simple fixes unattractive.

Here is the simplest example: A city creates, let’s say, a facade program aimed at encouraging businesses to fix up the outside of their structures. The incentive comes in the form of grants or loans to accomplish this. Local civic groups are quickly drafted to develop the criteria for how the facades should look or who qualifies for the loans/grants. And, of course, administering the program and getting a cut of the money they are disbursing for “overhead and administrative costs.”

The city takes a cut using the same rationale. All of a sudden, $100,000 in taxes aimed at improving a community’s aesthetics is now $80,000. (Of course, this is exactly what happened in 2004-2005 in West Tampa using federal grant money, which comes from our taxes. You can download an excruciatingly dull description of the program from 2004 planning documents in this .pdf file; just search for the term “facade” and you will find the description.)

Now let’s say a business proposes cutting regulations instead. Well, there is no money in that for the city. It would lose money on permit fees. It would need less staff to review permits and perform inspections or to administer programs. At the same time, the community group can’t collect money for programs that requires no administration, so this no-cost idea is quickly killed.

Under this scenario, the community suffers as well. In line for the government program dollars, the groups that administer these programs feel that if they stand up to the city to change the rules or make things work better the programs will be eliminated. Once-vocal community groups quickly are silenced.

Editor’s note: Spencer Kass is one of our regular guest bloggers who writes about urban and Tampa city government issues. He is a principal in Landmarc Realty in West Tampa.

Editor’s Note: Spencer Kass is a new Fix It Now blogger, a neighborhood association president (Virginia Park in Tampa), and a fixture at Tampa City Hall meetings. We wrote about Spencer and his brother, Jarrett, in 2006 when they proposed a creative re-use of the aging Fort Homer Hesterly Armory: “Spencer and Jarrett Kass of Landmarc Realty are transplants from Long Island via Boca Raton, but they have quickly ingrained themselves in West Tampa as developers and real estate and mortgage brokers. Their energy is high; their understanding of the plight of West Tampa thorough.” Spencer is going to contribute occasional posts on the special challenges that Tampa faces:

First I want to thank Wayne and Creative Loafing for giving the residents of Tampa a place to discuss some of the fundamental issues facing the city and its future.

Tampa is a city of contradictions: we want to lead the way into the future, as long as we go second; we want to prevent urban sprawl, but not at the expense of our residential districts; we want affordable housing, as long as it conforms to our regulations. It is these and many other contradictions that make people scratch their heads when looking at Tampa. A city of unsurpassed potential, Tampa has remained stuck in somewhere between neutral and reverse, leaving many asking: Why? And even more saying: No longer.

Urban density is one of the fundamental issues facing Tampa, and while some are ready to embrace the city’s place in the future, others have remained stuck in the past, worried that development will change place they have always known. In the upcoming months, city officials and interested residents will begin discussions of its comprehensive plan, the road map for the city’s future. It is this discussion that will guide Tampa’s growth and development for years to come. In the past the city has handled these conflicting interests by playing an unfortunate game of splitting the baby, and treating these seemingly contradictory views — the past and the future — as a zero sum game, with only winners and losers. It is this approach which has led to years of animosity between neighbors, builders, businesses and government and left none better off for it.

In the upcoming weeks and months ahead I look forward to discussing changing the fundamental nature of the questions about density, growth and economic development and showing how it is not about picking winners and losers but about bringing growth and prosperity to all the citizens of Tampa.

(file photo: Nick Ledford/some rights reserved) 

InTown Homes‘ first big dream was to revive West Tampa to its glory days as a major urban destination. Now the developer is adding to that lofty goal the ability to cut its residents’ carbon footprints.

InTown, the brainchild of former Hillsborough County Commissioner Ed Turanchik and his business partner Teresa Caddick, is unveiling a new design for its affordable homes this week, a Mediterranean-style home that cuts energy use by 25-50 percent.

“We think this is an important milestone in housing in the Bay area as it shows that environmentally sound, energy efficient workforce housing can be built at an attainable price,” Turanchik said last week. The price tag for the new MoMed model: $194,000, $199,000 or $204,000, depending on how many energy-saving features you want. He projects that a monthly electric bill for the middle-priced model will be about $65. And then there’s the environmental savings: an annual reduction of carbon emissions of 5.4 tons, 52 pounds of sulphur dioxide and nearly 30 pounds of nitrogen oxide. Some of the housing materials (including the carpeting) are made from recycled products, but the real savings come from the MoMed’s small and flat roof, which is painted white to reflect sunlight and offers a smaller surface to heat than conventional housing.

“When gas gets up to $4 a gallon, this urban neighborhood is going to look even more attractive,” Turanchik said. The first MoMed, in fact, has already been sold to an empty-nester couple from Davis Islands who wanted lower taxes, insurance bills and energy costs.

InTown has survived the housing slump, putting 35 new homes into West Tampa, which at its height in the early 20th century was the fifth largest city in Florida. Turanchik insisted on using urban designs rather than city-mandated suburban guidelines that pushed homes farther back from sidewalks.

A first step: Changing city codes is no easy task — just ask St. Pete city planners who overhauled a large portion of St. Pete’s zoning codes last year — but it is possible. In fact, Tampa city officials have already heard residents’ calls for change. Last year, city planners selected Seminole Heights for a pilot project on “form-based codes” that will rely on community input for the future look of the area. A series of public meetings will be held nearly every month for the next year (check out the schedule here); interested citizens from other neighborhoods should attend.

Resources
The Urban Charrette, a group of young design and architecture professionals seeking a better design-driven urban area, urbancharrette.org or e-mail info@urbancharrette.org