Fix it now

In a slight to both neighborhood leaders and city council, the administration of Mayor Pam Iorio decided that it had better things to do then to televise the ongoing city budget discussions. The administration, which has restricted citizen access to council and administrative staff by not allowing staff to attend meetings in the Mascotte conference room (a procedure allowed for years) on the pretense of having everything televised and open to the public, balked as soon as the light of day was about to be brought to the city budget discussions.

Despite a motion from City Council to televise the meeting, calls from Council Chairman Thomas Scott and from Councilwoman Mulhern, the city administration denied the request to televise the meetings saying that “we have never televised them in the past.” It is time for the Mayor to lead, apologize to the taxpaying citizens and fix it now.

Creative Loafing is about to come out with 100 green technologies you can use now to go green. However, while green technology may be all the rage, local governments don’t really want you using green technologies. The reason is simple: governments like to spend money, and one of the local government’s largest sources of income is taxes on utilities. Unknown to most residents is that every time you buy a gallon of gas, turn on a light, or flush a toilet, the government charges you a utility tax, and the more you use, the more revenue goverment collects in utility taxes.

For example, Tampa took in nearly $11 million in gas tax, $26 million electric taxes, and $3.4 million in water taxes, for a total of more than $40 million for fiscal year 2007. What makes matters even worse is that these taxes are based upon price, so the more you pay at the pump or the more you pay to TECO, the more revenue the City collects. This places the City in the awkward position of wanting utilities to charge residents as much as possible so City revenues grow in step.

The unfortunate consequences of this scenario are that it creates a perverse reward system for government to want its taxpayers to pay more and more for utilities, while at the same time it discourages residents from adopting green technology. The government is the largest consumer of energy in the United States. If there was a large demand from federal, state and local governments for green technologies more and more companies would produce these products, ultimately driving down price and making them more available and affordable to the ordinary consumer.

Ultimately what we end up with is a bunch of politicians who talk up green technology but ultimately don’t implement any of the technologies, or they use these technologies in such a limited way that the demand for the products is negligible because of cost. For example, if Tampa replaced all of its street lights with LED street lights, the city would save close to $6 million a year. That is $6 million it would not have to collect in taxes, not to mention the environmental benefits the upgrades would produce. Did you know that Tampa is building a new parks and recreation building that won’t be LEED-certified? If any building was going to be environmentally friendly, don’t you would think it would be the parks building? Did you know that Tampa has not replaced any of it existing office lighting systems with LED bulbs?

So if you believe in green technology you should call or write to your local government and demand that they adopt green technology. You should call your state legislature and tell them that they should exclude green improvements from property taxes and tell them to FIX IT NOW.

All of the green technologies I mention above don’t cost jobs; they could be funded from the capital improvement budget (which is not property tax revenue) and would ultimately save the city millions of dollars a year that could be given back to the taxpayers.

For the record energy-wise, because I am often asked, I drive a Mini Cooper (I get about 25 miles to the gallon) and my office uses high-efficiency lighting. On most days you don’t have to put on a single light in our offices because our window design allows sufficient light into the office during the day. The coatings on our windows allow light to enter but does not heat the office. In addition, we use programmable thermostats and an on-demand electric hot water system for our restroom. Each of these systems was installed to make our office energy efficient and results in thousands of dollars of savings a year. So whether you believe in saving the planet or just saving money, green technology can work for you.

Bonus Tracks: download the city’s utility tax revenue and local option gas tax fund documents. (in Adobe Acrobat .pdf files)

The city of Tampa, which has a mixed record (at best) on going green, has named a “Green Officer” for the municipal government, according to a City Hall news release today:

Mayor Pam Iorio has designated Thom Snelling, the current Deputy Director for Growth Management and Development Services, as the City’s Green Officer.  Snelling will perform these new duties in addition to his duties as Deputy Director.

His primary responsibility in this role will be to ensure the City of Tampa reaches its goal to become a Certified Florida Green Local Government by October of 2010 and to coordinate programs that will help the City fulfill its commitment to the U.S. Mayor’s Climate Protection Agreement.  As part of his duties, Snelling will work continually to advance the use of green building techniques and sustainable development practices.

“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)

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)