|
|
|
|
| ..... The opinions expressed in these articles and features are those of their author and do not necessarily reflect the positions of McANA or the opinion of its Directors or Officers. |
||
|
Downtown Amenities I wonder what would happen if I asked the City of Indianapolis to give me $138,000 for my southeast side business to keep me from moving it from its current location? Or if I asked the City if I could have some space in one of the Indy Parks properties to build a new facility because nothing else suited us? That works out to an average of $23,000 per employee. The building where we lease our space is in excess of 25 years old and has the maintenance and repair costs you’d expect from an older commercial building and we could certainly use space to expand. We have an excellent location, convenient to the clients we serve and to our employees. In 24 years of business, we have never laid off employees or cut wages or hours, even in times of economic downturns. In turn, our employees spend their money in the community. We make numerous contributions to community and charitable causes and I believe we provide a valuable service that is in short supply in our area of the County. I must admit that because we are a service business, our property taxes are not a large amount, but we pay a substantial amount of rent to our landlord, some of which goes to pay a pretty hefty tax assessment on the building. And yet, when we have to make a major capital expenditure (often required because of new government regulations), we pay for it ourselves. I seriously doubt that the City would consider our request and would probably be stunned if I asked. But on the face of it, what is the difference between a deal like this for my company and the deal being offered to the Simon Group by the City? I am not an expert in economic development. But I am a concerned resident and taxpayer of this City. And I do wonder whether the net economic benefit of plans to allow the Simon Group to build a new headquarters on a rare jewel of downtown greenspace using taxpayer funded incentives is really worth it. Or really fair. That doesn’t mean I think
that we should sacrifice public park ground for private use, especially
when our City is facing a long term multi-million dollar deficit in a
budget that will apparently never provide public dollars to replace the
lost park ground. Indianapolis is already under the gun to clean up our
air - how is giving up (or giving away) greenspace going to contribute to
fixing this? (Don’t all those high-tech businesses we want to bring to
Indianapolis look for a "clean" environment for their
employees?) And we are working hard to attract people to live in the
downtown area, promoting it as a place that is more than just old,
out-dated neighborhoods with crumbling infrastructure. So let’s
eliminate some of our most pleasing pieces of infrastructure and then see
if we can get people to believe that their neighborhood parks won’t
eventually go on the auction block. We may have "a lot of green space
Downtown" *, but it is extremely dangerous to our City’s long-term
quality of life and environmental sustainability to start chipping away at
such invaluable and Perhaps we should talk about the people who currently work and live downtown that use the Capital Commons to enjoy of few moments of peacefulness or outdoor exercise. Or the visitors to our convention center who will no longer be able to enjoy the unbroken vista of our state capital and capture a memory that would encourage them to bring their business back to our fair city. (Seems like keeping this greenspace and asking the Simon Group to refurbish and utilize an abandoned or blighted commercial site would be a lot more helpful in making a good impression on visitors.) Even if you are of the opinion that the loss of this small amount ground will not have a significant impact on the quality of life and "curb appeal" in Downtown, maybe we should be asking a different kind of question. Such as, if the City is so strapped for cash, then why would it GIVE AWAY such a valuable piece of property - why not sell it and use the money to remedy some of the infrastructure problems that are viewed as impediments to neighborhood stabilization and economic development? I am also compelled to ask a couple of questions about the $4 million in bonds that will be floated to pay for shoring up the existing underground parking garage so it can withstand the weight of a 12-14 story building. AND the $11.5 million in bonds that will be sold to finance the purchase of half the spaces in the garage to provide free parking to Simon employees. This is a total of $15.5 million of bonds that will be paid off with downtown tax revenues. What are those tax revenues currently paying for? How will those financial needs be fulfilled when the tax revenues are diverted to pay for the new bonds for the Simon Group‘s parking needs? And why does the public have to pay to use those spaces in the evenings and on weekends when Simon gets to use them for free? I do not wish to diminish the contributions that the Simon Group makes to our employment pool, our economic climate, our philanthropic causes, or our professional sports reputation. There is no question that they are "heavy hitters" when it comes to all those arenas. But we already helped finance two pretty serious money makers (Conseco Field House and Circle Centre Mall) for this mutli-million dollar for-profit corporation. How much more can we afford? It is ill-advised to assume that the highest and best use for Capital Commons is another office building. There are other choices to offer and our City government needs to stop selling off our diminishing natural assets and start asking corporations to pay their fair share. *quote from Mayor Peterson in May 28 Indianapolis Star Cathy Burton send comments
to webmaster@mcanaindy.org |
|||
2004
