Joel Kotkin on infrastructure and glitz

[MichaelBates]

A few excerpts from another article for discussion -- urban analyst Joel Kotkin in today's Wall Street Journal:

quote:
Two years ago, as floodwaters overcame the tired defenses of New Orleans, American cities got a wake-up call about the dangers of inadequate infrastructure. But most urban leaders went back to sleep. Since then the occasional disaster, such as the recent bridge collapse in Minneapolis, has been followed by tut-tutting. But if history is a guide, the rhetoric will be followed by another tap of the snooze button.

Rather than deal with the expensive and difficult task of retrofitting the sinews of commerce and communication -- bridges, tunnels, roads, rail lines, ports, sewers, and drainage systems -- America's urban powers focus on the ephemeral and the glitzy. They emphasize not brick and mortar, but sports stadia, convention centers, arts palaces, dubiously effective new light-rail lines, hotels and condo projects....

The ultimate question here is that of priorities. Yes, artists and cultural institutions have always been hallmarks of great cities. But underpinning that efflorescence since the earliest times has been critical commitments to such mundane things as water systems, canals, dikes and protective walls -- the economic infrastructure that supports the rest.

Hollywood might portray ancient Rome as decadent parties, gladiatorial combat and magnificent art, but Romans knew what made their city tick was the spectacular, and very practical, engineering works, from roads and bridges to water systems. In the first century A.D., Roman writer Frontinus pointed to Greek boasts of what he called their "useless" art, and to Egypt's legacy of "idle Pyramids," and then asked: What are these compared to the 14 aqueducts that bring water to Rome?...

Governments prefer subsidizing high-profile but marginally effective boondoggles -- light-rail lines, sports stadia, arts or entertainment facilities, luxury hotels and convention centers.

Over the past decade, according to a recent Brookings Institution study, public capital spending on convention centers has doubled to $2.4 billion annually; nationwide, 44 new or expanded centers are in planning or under construction. But the evidence is that few such centers make money, and many more lose considerable funds. The big convention business is not growing while the surplus space is increasing. New sports centers add little to the overall economy.

Critically, misguided investments shift funds that could finance essential basic infrastructure. Pittsburgh has spent over $1 billion this decade on sports stadia, a new convention center and other dubious structures. Heralded as major job creators and sources of downtown revitalization, they have done little to prevent the region's long-term population loss and continued economic stagnation. Much the same can be said of Milwaukee's new Santiago Calatrava-designed Art Museum, or Cleveland's Rock and Roll Hall of Fame.

[Friendly Bear]

quote:Originally posted by MichaelBates

A few excerpts from another article for discussion -- urban analyst Joel Kotkin in today's Wall Street Journal:

quote:
Two years ago, as floodwaters overcame the tired defenses of New Orleans, American cities got a wake-up call about the dangers of inadequate infrastructure. But most urban leaders went back to sleep. Since then the occasional disaster, such as the recent bridge collapse in Minneapolis, has been followed by tut-tutting. But if history is a guide, the rhetoric will be followed by another tap of the snooze button.

Rather than deal with the expensive and difficult task of retrofitting the sinews of commerce and communication -- bridges, tunnels, roads, rail lines, ports, sewers, and drainage systems -- America's urban powers focus on the ephemeral and the glitzy. They emphasize not brick and mortar, but sports stadia, convention centers, arts palaces, dubiously effective new light-rail lines, hotels and condo projects....

The ultimate question here is that of priorities. Yes, artists and cultural institutions have always been hallmarks of great cities. But underpinning that efflorescence since the earliest times has been critical commitments to such mundane things as water systems, canals, dikes and protective walls -- the economic infrastructure that supports the rest.

Hollywood might portray ancient Rome as decadent parties, gladiatorial combat and magnificent art, but Romans knew what made their city tick was the spectacular, and very practical, engineering works, from roads and bridges to water systems. In the first century A.D., Roman writer Frontinus pointed to Greek boasts of what he called their "useless" art, and to Egypt's legacy of "idle Pyramids," and then asked: What are these compared to the 14 aqueducts that bring water to Rome?...

Governments prefer subsidizing high-profile but marginally effective boondoggles -- light-rail lines, sports stadia, arts or entertainment facilities, luxury hotels and convention centers.

Over the past decade, according to a recent Brookings Institution study, public capital spending on convention centers has doubled to $2.4 billion annually; nationwide, 44 new or expanded centers are in planning or under construction. But the evidence is that few such centers make money, and many more lose considerable funds. The big convention business is not growing while the surplus space is increasing. New sports centers add little to the overall economy.

Critically, misguided investments shift funds that could finance essential basic infrastructure. Pittsburgh has spent over $1 billion this decade on sports stadia, a new convention center and other dubious structures. Heralded as major job creators and sources of downtown revitalization, they have done little to prevent the region's long-term population loss and continued economic stagnation. Much the same can be said of Milwaukee's new Santiago Calatrava-designed Art Museum, or Cleveland's Rock and Roll Hall of Fame.

If a city can AFFORD it, there is certainly a place for an Arena or Stadium.

However, basic infrastructure of streets, sewers, water mains, and bridges must be prioritized with Public Safety needs as the HIGHEST priorities.

Basic infrastructure is the Blocking-and-Tackling of local government.  

It is not flashy.  Re-paving a street, or digging up an ancient and leaking water line is not glamorous.  

Rather, its management is very tedious.

I would think that in another year, when a visitor comes to Tulsa, and sees the very impressive BOK Arena, we might be justifiable proud of the large sacrifice made by our poor and middle classes to fund its construction.  

More interesting would be when next we see a quizzical look of puzzlement and astonishment creep upon the Visitor faces, as they travel on our terrible city streets, observe our increasing crime problems, note with wonder why our City Pools are mostly closed for the 7th straight year, and ponder the cathartic Transformal Leadership exhibited by our city government in re-locating to a Glass Palace that the taxpayers cannot afford.

That's just CRAZY.

[USRufnex]

60% of Tulsans are not and were not crazy when they passed the tax to build the new arena among many other projects...

OKC was not crazy when they passed multiple MAPS projects...

Typical Monday morning quarterbacking and spin from the Bates camp after the fact...

[MichaelBates]

quote:Originally posted by USRufnex

Typical Monday morning quarterbacking and spin from the Bates camp after the fact...

Um, I don't control or influence Joel Kotkin or the Wall Street Journal. Care to respond to what Kotkin wrote? If you think his argument is invalid or doesn't apply to Tulsa or Oklahoma City, state your case.

[sgrizzle]

How many people were for the idea of raising taxes to fund roads a bridges awhile back? like 12%?

We charge semis less than hondas for gas tax and then let even those monies get diverted to other areas. The idea of putting that money in a lockbox and charging as much in taxes for diesel as gas was laughed at. Now everyone wants to complain when the work isn't done?

[Friendly Bear]

quote:Originally posted by USRufnex

60% of Tulsans are not and were not crazy when they passed the tax to build the new arena among many other projects...

OKC was not crazy when they passed multiple MAPS projects...

Typical Monday morning quarterbacking and spin from the Bates camp after the fact...

It certainly to me seems like a crazy, mixed up set of priorities of the City Leadership, at that time:  2003.

Remember, we had the Billy-Bob Show!

It's All About Jobs.

Remember?  

Well, it did create a few hundred jobs for illegal aliens.

[]

[cannon_fodder]

That's one huge thing you mention there SQ...

Fund roads with the taxes collected for that purpose.  Titling fees, licensing/tag fees, tickets, and fuel taxes total more than enough money to fund our roads.  But over the last X year that money has been diverted to other projects.

Sad state of affairs is that maintaining roads never got a politician reelected.  Steal that money and build a new school, then come back five year later and take money from the schools to fix the road and you win twice.  Of course, a few years later that school will need to be renovated due to neglect.  So long as their is a crisis to be solved, politicians can win the game.

Use tax money from proper sources to fund respective infrastructure.  Property taxes for school, fuel etc. for roads, and sales taxes for everything else as earmarked.

[USRufnex]

quote:Originally posted by MichaelBates

quote:Originally posted by USRufnex

Typical Monday morning quarterbacking and spin from the Bates camp after the fact...

Um, I don't control or influence Joel Kotkin or the Wall Street Journal. Care to respond to what Kotkin wrote? If you think his argument is invalid or doesn't apply to Tulsa or Oklahoma City, state your case.

This is a new spin on an old argument.  Reminds me of all the Andrew Zimbalist stuff that always shows up in everyone's anti-stadium literature...

I think the WSJ article is valid to the extent that cities across the country that have built/are building these facilities have reached a "point of diminishing returns" due to a glut of arenas.  

Tulsans voted for it.  It's being built.  Yep, I personally wished it had been a multi-use  soccer stadium with a concert stage on one end  built at half the price... but I assume we built the indoor arena due to all the soccer stadium critics who came out of the woodwork and insisted we needed an indoor arena instead... just like or better than the Ford Center to compete with Oklahoma City... they won, I lost... so I guess Tulsa may or may not host the Big XII basketball championships once a decade or host a handful of NCAA First Round basketball tourney games on a Wednesday or Thursday at 12:30pm, 3pm, 7:10pm and 9:30......

But I want the project to succeed... and it may succeed, due to getting a name-architect and an iconic design that hopefully will serve the city of Tulsa for decades...

Looks nice already.  Can't wait to visit.

[TheArtist]

quote:Originally posted by cannon_fodder

That's one huge thing you mention there SQ...

Fund roads with the taxes collected for that purpose.  Titling fees, licensing/tag fees, tickets, and fuel taxes total more than enough money to fund our roads.  But over the last X year that money has been diverted to other projects.

Sad state of affairs is that maintaining roads never got a politician reelected.  Steal that money and build a new school, then come back five year later and take money from the schools to fix the road and you win twice.  Of course, a few years later that school will need to be renovated due to neglect.  So long as their is a crisis to be solved, politicians can win the game.

Use tax money from proper sources to fund respective infrastructure.  Property taxes for school, fuel etc. for roads, and sales taxes for everything else as earmarked.

Perhaps we could better argue against this robbing Peter to pay Paul situation if they were both better funded. We can argue that roads are stealing from schools or certain educational funds came from funds that should have been used for roads.  But from what I can tell the level of funding for both seems to be below the national average.

[Transport_Oklahoma]

quote:Originally posted by cannon_fodder


Fund roads with the taxes collected for that purpose.  Titling fees, licensing/tag fees, tickets, and fuel taxes total more than enough money to fund our roads.  But over the last X year that money has been diverted to other projects.

Vehicle registration fees were NEVER primarily used for roads.  They were a form of personal property tax.  In fact the tax rate one pays has little to do with his/her road usage.  For example, big trucks pay less that $20/year.  And the tax varies by how old your vehicle is.

It is not therefore a "diversion".

The use of that term was a clever invention of the highway construction lobby.

Almost all of motor fuel taxes go for transportation, and most of that is for roads.

The Legistlature increased road funding by appropriating general revenue for that purpose.

That might be called a "subsidy" or an "investment".  It all depends on your point of view.

[Oil Capital]

quote:Originally posted by Transport_Oklahoma

quote:Originally posted by cannon_fodder


Fund roads with the taxes collected for that purpose.  Titling fees, licensing/tag fees, tickets, and fuel taxes total more than enough money to fund our roads.  But over the last X year that money has been diverted to other projects.

Vehicle registration fees were NEVER primarily used for roads.  They were a form of personal property tax.  In fact the tax rate one pays has little to do with his/her road usage.  For example, big trucks pay less that $20/year.  And the tax varies by how old your vehicle is.

It is not therefore a "diversion".

The use of that term was a clever invention of the highway construction lobby.

Almost all of motor fuel taxes go for transportation, and most of that is for roads.

The Legistlature increased road funding by appropriating general revenue for that purpose.

That might be called a "subsidy" or an "investment".  It all depends on your point of view.

How much was collected in fuel tax last year?  How much did the state spend on building and maintaining roads last year?