 |
||
 Feb. 23, 2006 | Vol 5 No. 04 |
||
|
|
||
|
In this issue of Spotlight on The Region: – In New Jersey, Long Term Solutions Are in Short Supply
To see how, it is helpful to review the actions that led New Jersey to this state of affairs. The current transportation funding crisis came about because the Transportation Trust Fund Authority got the power to issue more debt without having to increase revenues dedicated to paying for it. Instead of devoting more revenue to a growing capital program, the state raised bonding caps, lengthened bond maturities from 10 to 21 years, and refinanced outstanding bonds to their limit. In so doing, the state gave the people of New Jersey a robust transportation capital program without raising any taxes, tolls or fees. The responsibility to pay for the program was placed squarely on future taxpayers. Well, the future is now. As of July 1, 2006, the residents of New Jersey will take up that responsibility. Almost every cent they pay in gas taxes for the next 15 years will be used to pay debt on bonds that were issued years and years ago. With nothing left to pay for this year’s – and this generation’s – transportation capital programs, the administration’s “bridge” proposal seems to be more of the same. Instead of raising new revenue for needed capital improvements, the state is proposing to once again lengthen bond maturities, and to restructure current debt to create lower payments now and higher payments in the future. This will dedicate even more future tax revenue to present and past projects. The proposal would also fail to address the key challenge of how to reform transportation funding habits. There has been no mention of stopping the practice of using capital funds for operating costs of NJ DOT and NJ TRANSIT, or of dedicating enough real funding to operations to make this possible. There has also been no mention of the two main recommended reforms called for in RPA’s past reports (Transportation Trust Fund and Reform, Revenue, Results) and in the Blue Ribbon Transportation Commission report of 2003. These are (1) to issue regular reports showing the public how much revenue is raised from transportation-related taxes, tolls and fees, and (2) to appoint a policy review committee that is politically independent and oversees the health of the transportation system’s finances as a whole– both operating and capital. Although the Trust Fund needs to contribute up to $2 billion to the capital program this year alone, there has been no mention of significant new revenue sources, such as increasing the motor fuels tax or redirecting general funds. Past administrations have avoided these hard choices year after year. Now the time has come to finally bite the bullet and raise new revenue. It is understandable that the administration may not want to resolve this in a year with a $6 billion budget gap, but the fact is that any deferral of the dedication of resources to transportation will only make state budget problems more difficult down the road.
Although Bridgeport Does Not Yet Say Success, That May Change. I admit it. Although I grew up in Fairfield, part of Connecticut’s fabled “Gold Coast,” I was actually born in Bridgeport, one of the poorest cities in the country, just like my mother and her parents before her. Although I don’t usually advertise my more humble origins, there’s no reason that in the future Bridgeport should not be a place anyone would proud to be from, given the city’s assets and potential. But living up to that potential means building on a past that includes both glory and decay. I came into this world in Park City Hospital, a Bridgeport hospital that like so many things there, no longer exists. There was a time when my grandfather and five of my great aunts and uncles worked at one of General Electric’s many factories in the city, and my grandmother worked at Gimbels. During World War II the city was referred to as the “Arsenal of Democracy.” The city was one of the economic powerhouses of the Northeast, offering the most urban amenities in one place on the East Coast between New York and New Haven. But the Bridgeport I was aware of growing up in nearby Fairfield in the eighties and nineties was a place that most people I knew stayed away from. A place I was told kids from Fairfield should go to only if they wanted to get into trouble. Thankfully, my parents did not hold this view and I was exposed to Bridgeport’s remarkable assets, and have witnessed the beginning of the city’s comeback. Bridgeport has all the basic ingredients for success – mobility, greenspace, and housing. This city of 140,000 people has five exits on I-95, providing access to freight and auto travel up and down the east coast, and is the start of routes 8 and 25 leading to the Merritt Parkway, Waterbury, and points further north. There is a Metro North and Amtrak station located just adjacent to downtown that is being reconstructed over the next few years to provide even better intermodal transfers to the adjacent bus station and ferry terminal to Port Jefferson Long Island. You can reach Midtown Manhattan in 1 hour and 15 minutes. Still known to some as “the Park City,” Bridgeport’s two largest parks were both designed by Frederick Law Olmsted in the years just following Central Park’s completion. Beardsley Park is an inland gem, containing the only zoo in the entire state and including some of the better sports facilities in the region. There is even an indoor ice rink, a rare amenity in neighborhoods usually characterized as under served. The coastline was augmented by Olmsted by Seaside Park. Entering the park’s carriage way from the tree-lined boulevard of Park Avenue, one passes below a grand archway that serves as a fitting entrance for the 325 acres of 19th Century landscapes beyond. Olmsted was brought to Bridgeport by its most famous mayor, circus magnate P.T. Barnum. A museum dedicated to Barnum and the history of Bridgeport has been continuously operated downtown since 1893 in a fantastic building reminiscent of Richardson Romanesque. The museum is located in the city’s core which has seen a great deal of redevelopment over the past decade. A new Atlantic League baseball stadium houses the Bridgeport Bluefish and an adjacent arena provides space for the Islanders farm team, the Soundtigers, as well as a series of big-name concerts in a much smaller alternative to the large venues of Boston and New York. There have been six major conversion projects creating condos and artist’s live-work space in former retail and office buildings downtown. Coupled with the future redevelopment of Steel Point, these projects provide both market rate and affordable housing that complement the strong existing stock. Within walking distance to theatres, restaurants, magnificent parks, and a train link to New York, there exists an affordable and diverse mix of housing. Over the last few decades, many places in our region that were once written off have come back from the edge. They include Times Square, downtown Stamford, White Plains, and a myriad of smaller town and village centers in New Jersey based around a rebounded rail infrastructure. The question is whether Bridgeport can join that list. Regional Plan Association has recently teamed up with planning consultants Phillips, Preiss, Shapiro and Associates to complete the master plan for Bridgeport’s Downtown Special Services District. We will use our experience in designing walkable, transit-oriented centers to stitch together the presently segmented assets of Bridgeport’s downtown into a more coherent whole. Unified design, streetscape improvements, and changing zoning regulations will reinforce the city center’s fabric. While the train and highway infrastructure provide huge mobility advantages to the city, they can present significant barriers between the downtown and adjacent communities, parkland, and waterfront. Making this infrastructure permeable and reconnecting the downtown with the surrounding city will be a primary goal. As part of that team, I look forward to sharing the Bridgeport that I know with the people I meet to show them a hopeful future for the Park City.
Governors Island: The Need To Set A Sail Before The Wind Last week’s call for private development proposals for Governors Island was notable for several reasons. First and foremost, the release of a Request for Proposals (RFP) by the Governors Island Preservation and Education Corporation (GIPEC) marked a new stage in the now nine year long process of redeveloping the former military and coast guard base. The presence of Mayor Bloomberg (the Governor absent - due to his emergency appendectomy) signaled a welcome prioritization of the Island’s redevelopment – a commitment underscored by City and State proposals for $ 45 million in capital funding this coming fiscal year. The involvement of a celebrity architect, Santiago Calatrava, and possible signature project – an aerial gondola connecting the Island with lower Manhattan and Brooklyn – lent some glamour to the event. But for all the fanfare, the actual process GIPEC is embarking on raises questions about whether the city and state are making the financial and planning commitments necessary to insure the project’s long-term success, and thus the public interest. While it’s to be applauded that the city and state are willing to tackle large scale redevelopment projects like Governor’s Island, in attempts to avoid spending taxpayers’ money up front and committing to a planning framework, they are leaving too many crucial decisions in the hands of future developers. While this may save taxpayers’ money in the short term, such habits threaten the coherency and integrity of a project’s design, and drag out the redevelopment process, as each side waits for the other to put money on the table. The city and state need to decide on and make key infrastructure investments now. The slow progress made since the Coast Guard quit Governors Island in 1997, and since the City and State took control in 2003, has been caused in part by the many challenges posed by the Island’s redevelopment. Repairing infrastructure and creating mandated park spaces will require hundreds of millions of capital dollars. There are more than one million square feet of historic buildings in need of willing and able tenants. Who will plan and pay for these tasks? The overall program for the Island, developed and refined through a half dozen public and private planning studies, is well established. The Island is to become a great civic space, with a suite of hospitality, education/research, recreation, and cultural uses. This concept and the political consensus it represents is memorialized in the federal/city/state memorandum of understanding and the deed restrictions that accompanied the Island’s transfer from the federal government. Commitments include creation at least 40 acres of public parks and a waterfront esplanade. The City’s current policy to realize this program relies heavily on the promise of finding that one, right tenant, who would pay for much or most of the needed improvements. As with the far West Side, Atlantic Yards, or the Bronx Terminal Market, the City’s vision is driven by the concept that large projects are defined primarily by a principal developer and tenant, who carry much of the financial load, and the risk. Of course there are substantial differences between the process unfolding for the Island and these other projects. The city and state are to be praised for issuing a formal RFP for Governor’s Island, rather than making the preliminaries of a deal in advance with one developer. The RFP process goes a long way in insuring public competition for public property. It’s true that the RFP process will most likely yield a score of worthy partners for GIPEC. The idea that the Island needs two or three economic legs to stand on is of course correct. But absent needed infrastructure investments first, the RFP process alone does not insure that the vision of a revitalized and vital Governors island will emerge. It is worthwhile remembering that in Battery Park City here in New York City, and in waterfront projects throughout the world, government has used public investments in open space and infrastructure to create value in land and set the stage for private development, and thus maximized the public’s return on future private leaseholds. The city and state should follow such a course in Governors Island. GIPEC has already identified about $400 million in needed infrastructure investment on the Island, ranging from critical repairs to the historic buildings, to improvements in ferry connections, to upgrades in water and sewer services. The City and State proposals for $45 million in spending in the coming year are on top of $35 million that has already been authorized. This funding is largely designated for needed repairs to historic buildings and improving the existing ferry systems. This is a start, but it may not be enough. More than just about any other development project in this city, and with its historic structures subject to coastal conditions and decay, Governors Island demands that government make some needed investments quickly to rapidly instill some confidence in the private sector. The City and State should set and deliver on specific political, financial, and planning milestones. These milestones should include substantial plans and budgetary commitments toward the two major drivers of real estate activity: access and amenity. Let’s look at access. The first question of any prospective tenant is how to get his clients and employees to the Island. The city and state should plan and invest in an infrastructure that creates a seamless connection to lower Manhattan and the new Brooklyn waterfront. Whether or not the Calatrava vision of an aerial gondola fills that need remains to be seen, given its uncertain financial impact on essential ferry services, but the emphasis on building access throughout the emerging inner harbor district is right on. Amenity is also critical. Especially in a new place set apart from typical investment opportunities. What was instrumental to the success of Battery Park City was the front end investment by the State in parks, public ways, and the waterfront esplanade. The designation of such public parks and ways became valuable assets for private developers because they provide marketable addresses and determine the quality of property frontages. Creating spectacular open spaces and opening up waterfront views will enhance the value of the Island. But perhaps even more importantly, this approach will allow for incremental development and change over time to meet unpredictable market requirements and unforeseeable future events. Such provisions can be included in plans without sacrificing the creativity or flexibility of any potential respondent. In fact, including such guidelines in an RFP will help ensure better responses by providing clarity and certainty to any potential partner. Will the development of Governors Island continue to drift? Despite the island’s potential, that’s undeniably been true so far. But the fate of this remarkable Island will not be be calmed for long if the City and State set a strong course and run enough sail up the pole, to enable it to catch the wind.
Questions Or Comments On What’s In This Issue? Send Them To The Editor Of Spotlight On The Region, Alex Marshall At alex@rpa.org
|
|
|
Tuesday, February 28, 6:00pm - 8:00pm March 15 March 22, 3 p.m. March 23 April 7, 8 AM – 12 PM April 19-23 May 5 |
|
|
||
|
Spotlight on The Region A publication of Regional Plan Association, Robert Yaro, President, Alex Marshall, Senior Editor 212-253-2727, x360 alex@rpa.org www.rpa.org |
|
