Fix it now

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.

Bookmark It

Hide Sites

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) 

Bookmark It

Hide Sites