I'm still not sure how we'll pay for this. I see some inconsistences in the position of people who rail against the city for building senior centers or maintaining the Kelley School while simulataneosly insisting we just insert a big green patch of grass along the waterfront.
As I told him, I was but I wasn't. I was trying to state some general inconsistencies in the positions of waterfront park proponents. Jim was among the folks on my mind, but he wasn't the only one. Still, Jim has come out recently both against the senior center adn the Kelley School plans in the recent Liberator, I can see why he felt singled out.
Anyway, I welcome his perspective and he agreed to let me publish his email here.
Hi Tom: I assume (perhaps presumptuously) that you had me in mind when you talked about people "railing" re. the Kelley, Senior Center etc. My my, I'm offended.
I don't know how long you've lived around here (and it doesn't matter really, except in terms of institutional memory, so I'm not being a snob here in this respect), but for over twenty-five years I served (and was the chair for several years), on the Mayor's Traffic & Parking Committee. The closest we've come to getting a municipal downtown parking garage was during Lavendar's term, and we came within one cc vote to getting it (thank-you Erford Fowler et al). The whole point of the garage was the revenue it would have generated (it would have been almost completely pd for by the state, thus a revenue flow pretty quickly; now, of course, the construction cost of such a facility has more than doubled, and Moak has, in all probability, allowed our grant to expire).
A significant % of that revenue was to be earmarked for the NRA and to be used solely for park development. If you think the figure too meagre, ck out what Portsmouth NH nets from parking. My position is therefore not inconsistent in the least, as you claimed. We provided a funding mechanism that supported the waterfront, whereas in the current situation we're being delusional to say the least. I have never been an advocate of building things we can't or shouldn't maintain. Perhaps you'd like to "correct the record" in your next blog.
The two brick buildings in both Cecil renditions are there, pretty obviously, to generate income. That couldn't be clearer. For the record, I'm not opposed to them in the least.
The entire parking and traffic flow situation in Newburyport is black comedy. I could go on forever.
I will be "railing" in the next Liberator re. the NRA scheme, which is grossly flawed, uneconomical, and unrealistic. I appreciate their effort and work, but not the result. Something far more modest might, in fact, work.
Jim Roy
I'm not sure if this corrects the record, but it's delivers some institutional knowledge as well as another valid viewpoint.
I offered this in my reply to him:
I do know and appreciate the time you've spent on the parking issue. I wasn't here during the past few admnistrations so I missed the battles that have been fought and lost. I'll take your word on the revenues from the Portsmouth garage. That plan might have worked.
Unfortunately, as you note, it seems as if the opportunity is lost. It seems as if we're dealing with a new reality regarding the waterfront. Even if we were to implement a comprehensive paid parking program downtown--and I hope we do--I can't see the revenue being committed soley to park development at the NRA. Frankly, I'm not convinced that would be the best investment of those dollars.
I think the new reality demands that the NRA lots support themselves, at least partially. I'm glad to hear you're not opposed to the buildings along Merrimac Street. I took your KISS comments to suggest you only wanted to see greenspace on those parcels.
So there you go.
10 comments:
Tom,
Mr Roy has been quite consistent - he supports that from which he benefits and opposes that from which he doesn't.
The bottom line is we have ugly, dusty parking lots abutting a beautiful, scenic waterfront. It doesn't take much money to maintain what dirt and gravel. Any improvements should have a revenue stream built in. Period.
I found the article in the Daily about Atkinson Common particularly germaine.
Thanks Bean, I did mean to link to that.
http://www.newburyportnews.com/archivesearch/local_story_262230304.html
Bubba,
I'm not sure that's true, but if it were you've described 99% of Americans.
Seriously, I'm not sure how Jim would derive any more benefit from an open water than the rest of us.
Furthermore, with all due respect to him, he probably won't be carded at the door if/when the new senior center is built, and he's been consistently against that.
I'd rather not turn this into a debate about personalities. That's dragged down this process all along.
People can't seem to recognize value in any opinion other than their own.
Even worse, those who hold different opinions are seen as mindless park lovers or stooges for developers.
There is common ground. We all care a great deal about what happens down there. Let's start with that.
Tom,
If that's how 99% of Americans think, we're in real trouble.
Certainly Mr Roy's proximity to the waterfront provides him greater benefit than those of us who will have to pay to park there.
As a supporter of "The Shanley Vision", I'm happy to see that Mr Roy doesn't oppose the brick buildings in the Cecil plans.
For the record, I also support paid parking and the senior center (which I will never use), so I suppose I'm in the 1%.
Changing the "black comedy" traffic pattern, including a reduction of volume on the street on which he resides, might be judged to disproportionally benefit him.
I tend the recognize the value of other's opinions when they have nothing to gain by them.
Bubba,
Have you been reading the papers? Yes, we are in some real trouble, and the selfish of people--from borrowers to lenders to greedy investors--have led us down this path.
Clearly 99% is an exaggeration, but most people base their decision on a level of self interest.
For the record, I also support the Shanley Plan (my term, not his, btw. He no doubt hates it), paid parking and the senior center.
But I'm not being selfless.
I'm two-decades plus away from needing a senior center. I support the senior center because my elderly parents have drawn comfort from their local center. I guess I see it as paying it forward.
I work downtown, so I'm sure I'll be paying for parking from time to time if we ever adopt a parking plan. I live one mile away so I mostly walk or ride my bike, but I drive from time-to-time.
So I'll take a hit on taxes and parking fees, but I think I'll benefit from living in a stronger community.
Similarly, I also favor some construction on the waterfront parcels because I think this makes the most economic sense. It's a potentially great use of the space.
Furthermore, I want my city to be in a strong financial position to support our schools, intrastructure and social programs.
I'm sure at least some of those who support an open waterfront park have similar expectations. An open park, they say, will draw more people to Newburyport, which would increase business and strengthen our local economy.
We share motivations, but our approaches are different. That's all.
I just wish we could come together and hash this out as a community rather cast black hats on those holding different opinions.
I sat through last week's meeting marveling at how dug-in and dogmatic people have become over the waterfront parcels.
I saw no room for compromise,and it was a bit depressing.
Anyway, here's hoping things get interesting.
Does anybody know anybody who actually reads Jim Roy's publication?
Yo! Present!
I read it. Just read it last night as a matter of fact.
Tom,
It appears that we are in violent agreement. It seems to me that we have 17000 people and 16000 mutually exclusive visions for the city - a collection of inflexible Zax - some a tad more outspoken than others.
Amen Bubba.
Post a Comment