In this issue of Spotlight on The Region:

– Vote Yes on NY Prop 2

– A Slippery Slope at Ground Zero

– New Jersey Property Tax Debate Misses Vital Point

– Remembering a Giant of American City Planning

– Calendar

Vote Yes on NY Prop 2
The debate over the Transportation Bond Act that will appear on the statewide ballot in New York has gotten mired in a number of related but tangential issues – the state’s overall debt load, the public’s mistrust of the MTA, the MTA’s unexpected surplus and parochialism, to name a few. But on November 8, Proposal 2 will really ask one simple question: Are New Yorkers willing to make a small sacrifice to fund the maintenance and growth of a transportation network that supports the region’s economy? I hope the answer is yes.

The Rebuild and Renew New York Transportation Bond Act of 2005 is critical to funding the state’s five-year transportation needs, helping to provide congestion relief, safe roads and expanded public transportation service for all New Yorkers. The $2.9 billion Act is split evenly between MTA transit improvement and highway maintenance projects that touch every corner of the state, improving mobility while fueling economic growth, creating jobs and protecting the environment.

The MTA portion of the Bond Act provides $450 million for maintenance of the current system and $1 billion for expansion. The core funding will pay for new subway cars and buses, track repairs, tunnel lighting, a bus locator system and Staten Island Railway bridges. The past year has brought numerous examples of the system’s fragility, from track fires to derailments, and the safety of all straphangers is at stake.

The portion of the Act devoted to expansion includes $900 million toward the first significant expansion of the transit system in more than 60 years. These funds will be split between East Side Access (which brings LIRR trains into Grand Central) and the first phase of the Second Avenue Subway, two projects that will greatly expand the capacity of the transit system and provide critical redundancy in case of natural or manmade disaster. For example, if there were an incident on the East Side today, the entire Lexington Ave. line would be shut down, crippling movement and the economy. East Side Access provides the same redundancy for Penn Station. Both of these projects have languished for decades, but that should not be an excuse to reject them. They are both critical to the growth of the region’s economy and our safety, and their completion will be nearly guaranteed if the Bond Act passes. An additional $100 million is included to begin study of the proposed rail link from Lower Manhattan to JFK Airport.

All of these projects have helped the Bond Act boast an unprecedented list of bipartisan supporters that includes Gov. Pataki and Attorney General Eliot Spitzer, Mayor Bloomberg and challenger Fernando Ferrer, Senate Majority Leader Joseph Bruno and Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver, more than 20 members of Congress and City Comptroller William Thompson. Other supporters include the labor, business, civic and environmental communities, from the state AFL-CIO to the Partnership for New York City, from the New York Building Congress to the League of Conservation Voters.

With such strong support for transportation investment among the political establishment, you have to wonder why the Bond Act is necessary at all. If the powers that be in Albany believed that New Yorkers were ready to make sacrifices for better transportation, the Governor and Legislature would have found revenue sources to fully fund not only the current $21 billion MTA capital plan, but the entire $27 billion plan originally submitted by Chairman Peter Kalikow last year. As it stands, the stripped-down plan requires the Bond Act’s passage just to make ends meet. More important than just filling this plan, though, is the signal that passage will send to Albany at a time when the transportation network requires an influx of cash and a new Governor waits on the horizon. If the Act is voted down, any of the issues mentioned at the top could be to blame; but if it passes, it will be a clear and resounding message to Albany that despite everything, New Yorkers care about transportation.

Unfortunately, those other issues force us to consider the possibility that the Act won’t pass. What then? The $450 million for maintenance of the subway system is critical funding that would have to be found elsewhere. That could set up a choice between two unpleasant options. On the one hand, the MTA could fill the gap by issuing more of its own debt, putting further pressure on its operating budget and leading to even more fare hikes. On the other hand, the MTA could fill some of the gap by choosing not to fund other items already in its capital plan, such as the station rehabilitations that are so important to the city’s many neighborhoods. In either case, an already decaying system will become more vulnerable and slide further toward the disrepair that plagued it in the 1970s. No one wants to go back there.

The $1 billion that the Bond Act sets aside for expansion is unlikely to be replaced if the Bond Act fails, causing the State to lose $4 billion in federal funds that were headed our way. $4 billion! More importantly, though, we’d lose the opportunity to expand a transit system that is no longer able to accommodate its current ridership and is certainly not prepared for the economic and population growth that the City envisions – on the Far West Side, in Lower Manhattan, East Harlem, 125th Street, Downtown Brooklyn, Greenpoint/Williamsburg, Flushing and so many other places.

Critics have argued that the State’s system of borrowing money is in need of reform. They are absolutely correct. Issues of “back-door” borrowing must be addressed, but that is not what’s being proposed here. Long-term borrowing for transportation infrastructure will always be appropriate, and the needs of our transportation system are too urgent and important to hold hostage to a reform effort that will be not be completed this season. The same is true for the objections about the MTA and the usual “what’s in it for me” crowd.

We have much to gain from a healthy and growing transportation system and too much to lose if we fail to keep that system running at a world-class level. On November 8, New Yorkers have a chance to show how important transportation is in our daily lives. Vote yes for transportation. Vote yes on Prop 2.

- Jeremy Soffin, Director of Public Affairs


A Slippery Slope at Ground Zero
The recent demise of the International Freedom Center, brought down by controversy and confusion over its mission and role at the World Trade Center site, has sent shockwaves through the entire rebuilding effort. The hasty way in which the Governor stepped in and killed the project, undermining the public agency in charge of rebuilding – the Lower Manhattan Development Corp. (LMDC) – and preempting two planned public meetings, reflects a disregard for the public planning process of the past four years. But more importantly, the death of this institution casts a pall over the concept of a “living memorial” that would integrate the World Trade Center site back into the fabric of Lower Manhattan. Unless strong leadership is shown and quick progress made, the rebuilt site is doomed to forever dwell in the past rather than point the way towards a better future.

Going back to early civic discussions of the rebuilding process at forums like the 2002 “Listening to the City,” the goal of creating a respectful and powerful memorial while reintegrating the WTC site into the life and vitality of Lower Manhattan was oft-repeated. Many ideas were proposed for civic and cultural uses, from an international university, to space for non-profit organizations, to more traditional “arts and cultural” activities, like museums. The design concept submitted by Daniel Libeskind in 2002, which led to his selection as master planner, included a prominent cultural building, cantilevered over the vast, excavated pit he staked out for the memorial. The other finalist design, submitted by the Viñoly-Schwartz collaboration, THINK, was defined by an enormous “World Cultural Center,” consisting of two latticework towers in which various cultural activities would hover at different levels.

These finalist designers placed an emphasis on civic and cultural uses (in addition to the memorial) for good reason. They recognized the need to help restore vitality to Lower Manhattan in the near term – and the need to do it with activities in addition to office space and the memorial that could attract residents and repeat visitors to patronize cultural attractions. Libeskind, in his placement of a cultural use at the southwest corner of Greenwich and Fulton streets provided a building that could serve as a gateway or transition between the commercial space east of Fulton Street and the sacred memorial. And both recognized the need to provide balance against the sheer mass of planned commercial space, with outlets for culture, civic engagement and human expression.

The IFC, and its potential for political commentary, was targeted before it ever got a good chance to figure out its mission and explain it to the public. This confusion and suspicion over its precise nature led to its demise. But the elimination of the IFC raises questions about the viability of a handful of other activities that are meant to enliven the WTC site, and the Governor’s commitment to them. The greatest fear is that opponents of the IFC, emboldened by their victory, will aim to eradicate other important revitalizing uses of the master plan, from the performing arts complex, to street-level retail, to the PATH station. Furthermore, security questions about car and truck bombs cast doubt on previous plans to allow Greenwich and Fulton Street to remain open through the site to regular street traffic. The legacy of such a fear-driven and controversy-averse planning framework for Ground Zero would be dismal indeed: a vast memorial surrounded by fortified office buildings on a sixteen-acre super block. This is not what the hopeful citizen-led planning process envisioned for the rebuilt site back in 2001- 2002.

If the controversy over the IFC demonstrated anything, it is that the events of 9/11 are still an open wound that has yet to heal over, and that attempts at putting 9/11 in a political or historical context may be premature. The way in which the IFC controversy was handled was a failure in every respect, but there are ways to rescue the process.

The Governor should recognize that the Snøhetta building plays an important function at the Southwest corner of Greenwich and Fulton Streets, providing a threshold to the sacred memorial site, a place to house a visitors center and orienting exhibits, and on a more practical level, a cloak for ventilation stacks for the PATH station beneath. He needs to step forward immediately to assert that he is committed to the WTC master plan, and to articulate a process for reaching a decision regarding the use of this building. Leaving the fate of this building open to speculation and counter proposals, as David Dunlap explored in a recent “Blocks” column in The New York Times, leaves the public to doubt the official commitment to the master plan, and leaves it vulnerable to further attacks.

A logical solution for its programming is to include some of the exhibitions planned for the WTC Memorial Museum (an underground space at the Western portion of the site), but also to leave some of the building flexible for future programming uses. Maybe in a decade, maybe in two, America will be ready for an exhibition that provides some context to the events of 9/11 beyond a strict recounting of the events of the day and their aftermath, as is planned for the Memorial Museum. Until that time comes, the physical elements of the World Trade Center master plan that seek to integrate the site with the larger physical fabric of Lower Manhattan – public transit, city streets, street-level retail, and arts and cultural activities – should be strongly supported because of their potential to restore Lower Manhattan’s vitality as we look towards the future.

– Petra Todorovich, Senior Planner


New Jersey Property Tax Debate Misses Vital Point
From California’s Proposition 13 in the 1970s to Michigan’s state takeover of education finance in the 1990s, property tax revolts have led to some dramatic changes in state and local government. For the last several years, we have been seeing signs that something similar could be brewing in New Jersey, which by any measure has some of the highest local property taxes in the nation. Rumblings from citizens, mayors and legislators led to then-Governor James McGreevey’s call in 2004 for a state constitutional convention to address property tax reform. In 2005, property taxes have been one of the leading issues in the race for Governor, second only to the lavish attention that has been devoted to competing claims for who is most linked to scandal and “pay to play” politics.

The question is what will emerge from all the political ferment. Will it be some minor tinkering, steep reductions with unforeseen consequences, or thoughtful, comprehensive reform of the local tax system? The stakes are unquestionably high. California sharply reduced local property taxes, but also decimated what was once one of the finest public school systems in the country. Michigan has virtually eliminated disparities in education funding across school districts while reducing property taxes, but did so by shifting the burden to the state sales tax and other sources that would meet strong resistance in New Jersey.

In particular, property tax reform has the potential to help change New Jersey’s sprawling development patterns. By relying so heavily on local property taxes to fund education and other services, New Jersey has created a structure of incentives that work against the goals of the State Development and Redevelopment Plan, including open space protection, the production of new housing at a reasonable cost and sustainable economic growth and development. As local governments seek to reduce costs and maximize revenues, the pressure increases to attract development that promises short-term revenue and lower costs, and shun development that will impose new costs. The result is overzoning for commercial development such as malls and office parks and underzoning for housing, creating situations where virtually the only developments being approved in large swaths of the state are “big box” or strip mall retail stores, offices and age-restricted housing developments.

So far, the debate does not bode well for fundamental reform that addresses all of the implications. The gubernatorial candidates have focused primarily on tax relief and have provided little detail on how their proposals would be paid for, how they would impact education and other services, and how they would alter the way property taxes affect land use, development and affordable housing. Beyond the candidates, there have been many intriguing ideas floated by policy experts, public officials and civic organizations, but few have gained much traction. Nor is there any agreed-upon framework for evaluating the complex issues and wide range of possibilities.

In an effort to fill this void, Regional Plan Association and the Lincoln Institute of Land Policy organized a series of roundtables to address the land use dimension of property tax reform. The results of these roundtables, and subsequent analysis by RPA, are described in a recent report, Fundamental Property Tax Reform: Land Use Implications of New Jersey’s Property Tax Debate, available at www.rpa.org. The report assesses several ideas for property tax reform that were discussed in the roundtables. These proposals generally fall into one of three categories—state assumption of local cost burdens, regional solutions, or differential property tax classifications.

Specific ideas included cost-based state aid, which would link state aid to the actual costs that municipalities incur from new development, state assumption of education costs, one of the most far-reaching reforms that could be enacted, smart growth zoning incentives that would provide additional funding for municipalities that increase density in eligible locations designated by the State Plan, tax-base sharing, in which municipalities share a portion of property tax revenues, school district consolidation to create economies of scale that reduce overall costs, split rate taxation that would tax land at a higher rate than new development, and varying taxes by State Plan designation, such as the one originally proposed by the State and Local Expenditure and Revenue Policy (SLERP) Commission in 1988. These could be implemented in a “revenue-neutral” fashion, or in combination with other measures that reduce the overall property tax burden.

A critical step in evaluating these and other ideas is to establish some criteria by which they should be judged. The range of the criteria suggested in the report —economic efficiency, flexibility, consistency with the State Plan, affordable housing, education equity, fiscal discipline, fiscal sustainability and local autonomy—demonstrate the complexity of the issue. Clearly, some of these criteria tend to be relatively compatible with each other, while others have a natural tension. For example, local autonomy could be at odds with education equity and other goals, requiring some trade-offs and good program design to minimize the conflicts. Measuring and weighting the criteria also require a combination of research and value judgments. However, each idea has different potential strengths and weaknesses, which are discussed in the report.

Another consideration is how politically acceptable these ideas may be, regardless of their other merits. Some would face more intense opposition than others, have more complex issues to resolve and explain, or would take longer to implement. These are legitimate considerations, but should not be used to reject any potential idea out of hand. With the right framework and information, a full public discussion could change the terms of the debate and come up with innovative solutions that address existing concerns.

Before enacting these or any other proposals, New Jersey needs a thorough debate on a full range of reforms that could redress some of the long-standing issues that lead to economic inefficiencies, sprawling development patterns, inequitable education outcomes and fiscal burdens and, in the long run, higher taxes to buy the same level of service. Public officials, candidates, civic associations and citizens should make the effort to both “cast a wide net” in looking at potential reforms and examine all of their potential implications.

– Chris Jones, Vice President for Research


Remembering a Giant of American City Planning
Ed Bacon, the last in a generation of great 20th century city planners that included Robert Moses, Ed Logue and Jim Rouse, died last week at age 98. Like the rest of this group, Ed, who I got to know in his final years, was both a visionary and a man of action. Ed became Philadelphia's planning director in the late 1940s and was one of the first planners to fully realize the potential of urban renewal to fundamentally change the prospects and character of major US cities. He will be missed, although he will live on in his books, works and ideas.

– Robert Yaro, President

October 20 and November 7
RPA, the US Forest Service, the University of Connecticut and The Housatonic Valley Association of Connecticut will host public listening sessions to aid in the U.S. Forest Service study of the CT Highlands Region. Meetings will be held in New Milford, CT Torrington, CT and Falls Village, CT respectively. For more information, email rpirani@rpa.org.

Friday, October 21st, 5:00 p.m. – 7:00 p.m.
NJ Mayors' Institute on Community Design Keynote Address, President & CEO Shelley Poticha of Reconnecting America will speak on Transit-Oriented Development. This program is FREE and open to the public. Robertson Hall, Princeton University, Princeton, NJ.

October 25, 5:30 – 7:00 p.m.
The Permanent Citizens Advisory Committee to the MTA will host a public forum on the Rebuild and Renew New York Transportation Bond Act. Panelists for the forum will be former MTA Chair Richard Ravitch, Partnership for New York City Senior Vice President for Policy and Research Ernest Tollerson, and Regional Plan Association President Robert Yaro. NYU Kimmel Center, 60 Washington Sq. South (at Laguardia), 9th Floor.

October 27, 9:30 a.m. – 12:30 p.m.
Lessons from 9/11: Environmental and Land Use Issues Raised in Response to Catastrophe. This program will consider the environmental, land use and historic preservation issues raised in response to the destruction caused in Lower Manhattan on 9/11 as a case study that can inform future response and policy. Association of the Bar of the City of NY, 42 W. 44th St. To reserve, email mcmurrin@eli.org.

November 16, 8:00 – 9:30 a.m.
Jan Gehl, a world renowned architect and urban designer, will speak at a breakfast meeting at the Rudin Center. Mr. Gehl will speak about his work on creating a better balance between traffic and pedestrians, improving conditions for walking and cycling in urban environments, as well as share his extensive knowledge and experience in successful street planning with business managers, the Mayor of London, and many other city agencies. Seating is limited and is on a first-come first-served basis. To register, email mnn2@nyu.edu or call (212) 998-7545. 295 Lafayette Street, 2nd Floor.