Game #3 – Give Me Land (Growth)

September 4, 2014

This from Jerry Kurtyka:

EL PASO – WHAT’S THE NAME OF THE GAME?

Game #3 – Give Me Land (Growth)

Oh, give me land,

Lots of land under starry skies above,

Don’t fence me in…

        • Music by Cole Porter, lyrics by Robert Fletcher

El Paso is a growing city. OK, maybe it isn’t the hip, green growth you’d like to see, but then it isn’t Cleveland, OH either that suffered a population decline of 17% between 2000 and 2012 versus El Paso’s 15% growth in the same period. I chose Cleveland as a comparison because it is typical of the urban industrial north – the Rust Belt – and in the same general size category as El Paso. El Paso has younger demographics, too. Believe me, Cleveland would like our kind of “problems” as they are having a hard time just keeping the people they have there and burying the old ones who stick around.

Housing has grown here, too, with single family units increasing every year as well as multi-family units. Also, business establishments and overall employment are growing led by government, military and healthcare. Household and per capita income lag national averages, but are steadily improving.

Educational attainment is also improving with about 25% of adults now holding a 4-year degree or better here in 2010 (cf Austin at 62%), compared to 18% in 2000. I suspect that UTEP’s throwing out SAT scores and lowering admission criteria to a diploma and a pulse helped this to happen, but it is still an improvement.

Even Juarez is growing, though population growth has flattened in recent years. But the other economic stats look pretty good for a 3rd world city.

So what’s the problem and why are we so angry with each other? Is growth what we really want? Or is it that we want a say in how we grow, who pays for growth and who benefits from it?

In 1999, the city authorized a Quality of Life (QoL) bond issue that built new libraries and a museum, among other improvements. By 2003, when I became the first Executive Director of the Housing Finance Corporation (HFC), a conversation was beginning in city hall about growth and how it is paid for. I had an interest in this because the HFC’s bond money financed 300-400 homes each year, many of which were new homes. Mayor Joe Wardy was concerned about building standards in the unincorporated areas that might eventually be annexed by the city, leaving the city on the hook to upgrade their infrastructure and amenities. The complexion of city council (CC) was changing, too, as so-called progressives like Steve Ortega and Beto O’Rourke were seated, the first city manager was hired, the Paso del Norte Group (PDNG) was formed and people started talking about the city’s future, especially BRAC and Fort Bliss.

Water became a big issue then as it was the key for any future growth. The PDNG did a water study, as did the builders (fair disclosure: I was a member of PDNG that year and was on this committee). No one was really an expert and in the end it came out that there is a lot of water under El Paso, but most of it is brackish and needs treatment. So the water issue was taken off the table for a while as a growth inhibitor and a desalinization plant on the east side was planned to add capacity and guarantee Fort Bliss that its soldiers wouldn’t go thirsty.

It was in this period, around 2005 I think, when Joyce Wilson brought in the urban scholar, Richard Florida (The Rise of the Creative Class), to tell the local power elite how downtown El Paso could be gentrified. PDNG managed to get the city to put up $250K and the Feds put up another $250K to hire a tony west coast planning firm to create a downtown plan that, of course, was done in secret by the PDNG. Nor was it the first such downtown plan, but it is the one we are currently operating from if you have wondered where the ideas for an arena, museum district and artist studio apartments came from. Really, it is a good plan if you compare it to no plan. But it doesn’t address who pays and who benefits other than vague “public/private” rubrics and TIF and TIRZ.

Out of this milieu, a special city council meeting was called to address growth and its financial impact. A study was prepared by the city that reportedly showed the cost of new homes to the city and how subsequent property tax would offset (or not) the requisite infrastructure. Some people, myself included, were thinking, why do we need a QoL bond issue when new homes should be paying the capital cost for infrastructure and amenities like libraries, parks, police and fire stations, etc.? Well, the builders were thinking that they did not want to pay the connection fees that many other cities charge new homes to fund these necessities up front, but to load them onto the general tax base.

Eventually, some connection fees were mandated and the matter to increase fees recently came up again in CC, but was tabled to a future date. This is the hot potato of development here and, IMHO, the reason why development has not paid for itself in El Paso and why we need a QoL bond issue to play “catch-up” every ten years. It goes double for downtown that pays little or no property tax. We play this Ponzi scheme with growth, privatizing its benefits and shoving its cost onto the next bigger fool who, ultimately, is the homeowner.

That study is nowhere to be found today and I still hear people quoting its findings, except they are unable to point to any actual document. The one thing that could be said of the study is that an amateur did it, someone with no experience in the complex economics of urban development. (Does this remind you of the stadium business case?) You would think that, in a matter as important as the cost of new urban physical growth in which billions of dollars are at stake over a span of years, the city would hire an independent advisor with some real expertise, e.g., the Urban Land Institute. Maybe they wanted someone whose findings they could control? Instead, we paid Richard Florida to tell us we need more hipsters downtown (a cheap shot on my part, I admit; Florida has more to say that I will address in a later post).

Even Gary Sapp of Hunt Development said as much about the study in a special meeting hosted by Beto O’Rourke back then to present Hunt’s philosophy on large, master planned development as an alternative to the kind of piecemeal, unplanned development in practice here and supported by the local builders. I attended this meeting in the 8th floor conference room of city hall, right outside my HFC office. Say what you want about Hunt, Mr. Sapp knew his stuff and spoke a lot more common sense than I was hearing from the builders and the city.

Growth lessons learned? Growth is better than decline; no one disagrees with that. But in El Paso, the game around growth is who controls its direction and who pays for it. We have seen the city fudge numbers to make the cost of growth (and a stadium) appear less than it is in order to shift the cost away from the private sector and onto the general tax base. More strategically, it is important for citizens here to not underestimate the value to investors of El Paso’s growth, especially in a post-TARP era of retrenchment all over the world. Just compare El Paso to Cleveland and Detroit! Real economic growth – not paper bank assets – is rare and precious and there are people here who understand this and they want to control El Paso’s growth, benefit from it and to make you pay for its cost on their behalf. When you point this out to them and to their confederates, you are called a “Crazy.


Pavement condition index

September 3, 2014

As it turns out, the city thinks it  is right on top of the condition of our local streets.  They have a web page that lets us see how the city has rated each street.  They assign a “pavement condition index (PCI)” to give us an idea of what the relative condition of each street.  This is a screenshot of the page:

streets1

 

Low priority

As you can see from reading the text, the city places a low priority on monitoring our street conditions.  According to the web page  “Data for the PCI {pavement condition index} is collected periodically and is updated in phases, the first phase occurring in 2003 and the most recent in 2008.”

Evidently they have stopped monitoring our street conditions.  I guess they have been busy with downtown.

We can’t afford this

The web site might explain why the city has not been maintaining our streets.  It looks like they think it will be too expensive.  Using Stanton street to explore what they have, I got this screen shot:

streets3

 

They rated Stanton at 71.41 (it appears that they used a scale of 1-100 with 100 being the best).  The cost to repave the street is estimated to be $402,200.00.  The also note that “The funding allotment required today to resurface this street is estimated to be $307,120,000.00”.

Wow!  Talk about overhead!

Feel free to lookup your street here.

We deserve better

Brutus


What was the hurry?

September 2, 2014

We got news the other day that a rating agency has lowered their credit rating of our county hospital.

That means that we will have to pay higher interest rates on future bonds and the current bond holders have less value than they bargained for.

The hospital chief executive was reported to have said that there would be no problem since they are not planning to sell any more bonds soon.

Already sold

He has already sold the $130 million of bonds that the county commissioners authorized to build three new clinics and remodel part of the hospital.

However he has stated that the hospital may have to “repurpose” the money for the clinics since his plans have changed.

In fact ground has not been broken on any of the three clinics.  They are still being thought through.  We have not been given a date when they will start construction.

Why did he sell the bonds and start our obligation to pay interest when he was not ready for the money?

Could it be that he knew of financial problems at the hospital that the bond companies did not know of and that he sold the bonds early before the rating companies would learn of the difficulties and thus reduce our credit rating?

Why else would he have sold the bonds when he was not ready to use the money?

This may be worth looking into.

We deserve better

Brutus


Taking their shirt off my back

September 1, 2014

The Monday, August 25, 2014 county commissioners meeting agenda had an item on it seeking to allow the purchase of uniforms for their information technology employees.

The backup material offered the following:

The appearance of employees reflects the professional image of our department. Uniforms have significant impact on the way our staff are viewed by other departments and the general public.  ITD aims to provide its employees with comfortable and professional uniforms that project a good professional image and comply with Occupational Health and Safety guidelines.

With uniforms, ITD staff can be quickly identified, while performing service in County departments. The uniforms also create a consistent and professional appearance. The uniforms meet health and safety guidelines.

ITD is requesting the Court to consider transferring funds within the ITD operating budget and allow ITD to program those funds for the purchase of uniforms.

Thirteen (13) staff members will be issued uniforms. Each uniform set will cost 269.00. ITD has created internal policies that detail the maintenance and use of County issued uniforms.

The county has not posted the minutes of the meeting so I don’t know how the vote went on this.  I suspect that it passed since it was on the consent portion of the agenda.  The total to be spent was $3,497.00.

According to the county web site these people are paid between $31 thousand and $107 thousand per year.

The documentation did not mention buying shoes for the employees.  Maybe that will be next.

Too much

The county must have too much money if they can spend it on things like this.

We deserve better

Brutus


Articulated buses

August 31, 2014

We are now seeing a few of those new articulated buses traveling our city streets.  I assume that the drivers are practicing.  Evidently they need to practice, I heard a person the other day talking about watching the tail section of one of the busses careening through a turn.

Part of the project has been to build special stations along our state maintained highway 20 otherwise known as Mesa Street.

The stations have had their adjacent roadway torn out and replaced with thick concrete — supposedly to provide support for the heavy buses as they stop and start.

Which is it?

However now the buses are stopping at the old bus stops, the ones without the special reinforcement.

Are we destroying the roadway where they are stopping now, or does it turn out that the streets do not need to be reinforced?

We deserve better

Brutus