In September, I was approached by a blogger from Tulsa, Oklahoma. It seems they’re dealing with many of the same issues we’re facing here in Fort Wayne. The interview follows below…
“I sent an ordinary Fort Wayne citizen (who happens to have a blog), Mr. David MacDonald, an interview. I did not explain about our river proposal, only that we had one on the table. He was gracious enough to respond to my questions. I would like to thank him for the time he spent. It is apparent that he is as involved a citizen in his own community as one can be, and that is admirable. My commentary is that it is surprising to me that so many of the issues we have are mirrored in this interview. You might find this interview “spooky” for lack of a better word. Down to the move of the baseball stadium into a mixed use area. How freaky is that?
Without further comment, here is the interview:
1. Were you on the task force?
No, I did not serve on the task force itself. I’m simply an “impassioned citizen.” I participated in two of the three North River community workshops as well as the Charrette (final design).
I embraced the opportunity to provide feedback to my government, particularly in light of the lack of transparency many found with Harrison Square (another $160-180 million development project currently progressing that includes moving our existing minor league baseball stadium downtown as well as mixed-use development, condos, and a hotel. The majority of Fort Wayne residents are against the move.
It was initially presented one way – more private ~45% vs. public funding 55%- and yet as more information becomes available we learn these figures are reversed. It’s as if they designed the plan without public input, then tried to sell us on the idea. The number of people against the project appears to have grown by 12% since an initial poll was taken).
When the mayor announced they were actively seeking community input for this next venture, many like me jumped at the chance to share our thoughts with like-minded individuals.
2. Has the City embraced your 7 point plan for success?
I understand the seven-point plan was forwarded to members of the task force including the design consultant from New York. The project respects many of these points, yet the funding issue remains unresolved.
3. How has the city come together on the plan?
I understand the task force is presenting the final plan to the mayor’s office this month. This is perhaps the third such proposal. Two others were completed previously yet not acted upon. This report builds upon the previous plans.
4. What has been the reaction of government to your desire to keep this development privately funded?
While the desire has been expressed to have this privately funded, the substantial common areas in the plan (riverfront esplanade and river access), apparent need for regulating the water level, and potential for flooding in the area imply the city will need to contribute significantly to pull it off.
5. Briefly what is the status of the plan?
The task force has agreed unanimously to recommend the purchase of the land by the city (I believe the purchase price is just north of $4 million).
6. Are there any naysayers, and objectively, what is it about the plan that bothers them?
While I found the process enlightening and enjoyable, I must confess I am disappointed in the final result overall. I have not commented publicly this disappointment until now. Several other people have approached me with similar feelings. Hundreds of impassioned citizens participated in the process. I mean them no disrespect and certainly don’t want to discourage them or the good people of Tulsa from sharing their own ideas when asked to do so in the future. That being said, several people find the final plan troublesome for the following reasons:
1. The majority of participants indicated they favor a major, regional tourist attraction, citing in particular a waterpark and/or aquarium [“1,700 City Utilities customers returning a mail-in survey favored a water park, followed by an aquarium“] – Neither holds a prominent place in the final design. The proposed waterpark lies on the north end of the project and seems to be landlocked. No room for expansion appears available.
2. Mixed-use development serves as the core of the project. It appears as if the consultants were engaged to design a mixed-use concept first and then instructed to incorporate what the public says they want around it. Mixed-use was listed as a priority for many, just not to the degree of a waterpark or aquarium.
3. The Riverfront Esplanade is particularly troublesome. On the surface, it is aesthetically pleasing. And yet it doesn’t respect the seasonal flooding issue that plagues our area on a regular basis.
(a) The “pretty” grand stairway to the riverfront cuts through the existing flood levee — floodwater will simply spill into the area of newly constructed buildings. Of course we would never get that far as engineers could not construct them if they reside within the floodplain.
(b) The piers for launching boats/kayaks are static, and yet the water level of the St. Mary’s routinely rises and falls. Some of the time, this facility will be completely underwater. What will be the costs associated with engineering a consistent water level to accommodate this riverfront access? Must dams be constructed and if so, at what cost?
(c) Water detention – looks like quite a bit of concrete in the hardscape as well as the esplanade, where exactly will this runoff go?
(d) The boat launch lies adjacent to the existing CSO (Combined Sewer Outlet) – several times each year, this outlet dumps raw sewage directly into the St. Mary’s River, right next to the access point. Will the public be eager to go to the river if raw sewage continues to be dumped adjacent to this access? What will be the costs associated with storm/sewer water separation to make the area appealing to visitors?4. Many remain concerned that this land parcel is significantly polluted. The 29 acres were used previously as a recycling facility (scrap metal, junked cars, etc.). What lingering pollution issues remain (fuel, antifreeze, metals) and who will pay for its cleanup? Does the purchase price reflect such costs?
5. Recent property reassessments in our area caused tax rates to increase for some residents upwards of 40-50%. The public will not tolerate using tax dollars for yet another plan, particularly when they feel costly potential pit-falls remain unresolved.
Some may simply discount my views as “sour grapes.” Only a few of the ideas suggested in my blog were included, which is understandable considering over one hundred people participated in the process.
I am grateful that some of my ideas were included. I guess I’m more disappointed that the outside consultant was paid in excess of $400K for several plans including this one, and yet failed to address some glaring problems. If a layperson like me can see these issues, why do we need to pay an outside consultant? Why pay a consultant at all to tell us what we think, particularly if they significantly disregard what the majority of the people say they want?
Here’s the prevailing question: What is the proper role of government? Should the city be the driving force for projects like this or is the community better served with market-driven solutions? The answer probably lies somewhere in between.”
What is particularly interesting is that Tulsa is also dealing with the issue of moving a baseball stadium into a mixed-use area.
Leave a comment