Fort Wayne’s Manifest Destiny
Posted by Jeff Pruitt - 6/19/08 @ 11:31 pm - Filed Under Featured, Local Politics
The city administration continues to publicly support and promote Harrison Square and downtown development every chance they get. Unfortunately their policy of urban manifest destiny and suburban sprawl completely undermines their message. You simply cannot promote development in all corners of the city simultaneously.
Look at their current policies - provide tax abatements for suburban businesses, support Maplecrest Extension, expand sewer services to the northern edge of the county in support of the Canyon Cliffs development. Each and every one of these goes against their other stated policy of revitalizing the urban core.
The Canyon Cliffs sewage expansion is baffling on many levels. Now the city’s water expert, Ted Nitza, has joined the PR campaign. In Kevin Leininger’s column he states:
“I’m an environmentalist, too, but there are two kinds of environmentalists: preservationists who don’t want development no matter what, and people who realize that development will happen and want to use it to take care of yesterday’s and today’s problems
What a false choice. What Nitza has described is not an environmentalist perspective but an engineering one. Rational environmentalists understand development will always occur. But they look to re-use areas that have been neglected or areas that have little environmental value. No environmentalist in their right mind would look to develop the most cherished land in all of Allen County. His next statement is even more off-the-mark:
But the overriding objection is surely as Nitza noted: Some people simply believe the only way to protect nature is to keep people away from it.
So let me get this straight? The real way to protect nature is to bulldoze it and create a subdivision. I don’t even know what to say about that statement.
It’s noble that Nitza wants to fix the sewer problems at Holmstead Acres but must we always buy off the rich to help the masses? Surely the administration realizes that expanding city utilities into the county will increase development in the county which, in turn, decreases development in the city.
I understand Nitza’s perspective. He’s an engineer and he sees an opportunity to solve a problem for people while expanding his own services - that’s what engineers do. It’s not his job to weigh the policy implications of the decision - that’s the mayor’s job. And shame on him for continuing to push policies that are contrary to his own stated goals…
Comments
9 Responses to “Fort Wayne’s Manifest Destiny”
Leave a Reply
Jeff,
Aside from a void of leadership, isn’t the point you make really a result of not having an integrated plan that combines the City and County? How does Plan-It Allen and the City’s so-called Master Plan fit togther in mutual support of each other? In my view, this appears a fundmental flaw, where the City and County have differing interests, plans, policies, and objectives that in fact tend to work against each other and compete for the same scarce resources.
The lack of leadership from the Mayor is stunning, but not surprizing. He should be very decisively be setting and managing the course, but instead we are adrift with the many different commission deck hands fighting for the tiller to steer things in their direction.
Fred,
I think that’s close to what I’m thinking but more specifically I would say that the city has no interests, policies or objectives. Much of what they do is contradictory and leaves me wondering who’s making the decisions…
Jeff,
At first glance, I’d say that each elected body and all the appointed commissions and committees with authority (and largely no responsibility) are making decisions and working independently of each other and doing what is in the best interest of their organization, and sometimes, more specifically, their members. Although not true for everyone on every committee and commission or elected body, the interests appear very narrow and decisions often predetermined, where they seem to barely tolerate public discourse, but are often not influenced by it.
It is the job of the Mayor and the County Commissioners provide the leadership and direction, set objectives, make and coordinate plans, then execute to the mutual benefit of all involved, but most importantly, taxpayers and voters.
Frankly, I don’t have a problem with Chuck Bodenhafer selling property he owns under the terms of the existing ordinances. That is his right. What I don’t like is the optics of how this whole thing is being handled, even though he has recused himself.
There should be some sort of organizational conflict of interest policy that prevents people from serving on such a commission if they have interests or may benefit financially if an issue comes before the commission, even if it has the “appearance” of impropriety or conflict of interest. Likewise, anyone who may collaterally benefit financially, say a partner or other developer/contractor, from a similar issue brought before a commission or committee should also be barred from serving on the same commission or committee.
I would have to include the City in this as well, as there is a financial benefit to them to extend sewer service to residents outside the City. Frankly, I have less a problem with this concept if the NRE to provide the service and the recurring costs for the subsequent service is bore by those requesting the infrastructure. That would make it no-cost/risk to City taxpayers, provide service to those willing to pay for it, and create an additional revenue stream for the City. Fee for service, I’m OK with that, IF that is part of an understood and comprehensive plan that City and County agree upon, and City/County residents approve.
That is what we seem to be missing. Both City and County have plans, but a comprehensive review is in order to align and integrate them. That will take vision, leadership, cooperation and input from the community.
I think everyone should look over what they are trying to do out there. They are seeking only to sub-divide the property. Which I believe if you research the Fort Wayne papers this very issue was discussed. It was stated, if I remember, this very type of sub-divide WOULD NOT BE ALLOWED.
Remember only the sub-divide is the real issue before the commission. The sewer deal may NEVER HAPPEN. They are not required to do it and they DO NOT have to. It could end up just being one more case of smoke and mirrors.
So before everyone stands up and cheers about the sewer work that may happen it may never happen.
Why would the President of the Allen County Sewer District try to oppose this. Mr. Zehr has his own development company that sure could have a hard time getting anything before or past the zoning board if he tried to defeat this issue.
I think this entire issue would not STINK so much had the President of the Zoning Board was the one who led the battle to have the restrictions lifted for the area.
I think it would STINK less if the President of the Zoning Board was not the who is trying to rip apart the sub-dividing rules that he endorsed just a few years ago.
I think it would STINK less if the President of the Zoning Board had not contributed to the several elected officials runs for office.
I think it would STINK less if the President of the Zoning Board had not be allowed to be sole bidder/provider for some insurance coverage to the county a few years ago.
To me, there is just a great deal of STINK here!!
In all of this I am still scratching my head over the fact that IDEM/EPA hasnt automatically postponed any development or additions to an already faulty sewer system. By connecting a mildly corrupted system to a currently overburdened and outdated system that is causing us to violate 45 times over the limits established with in the course of less then a calendar year makes no sense. If we cant contain the sludge we already produce what makes us think we will be able to make the environment any better by adding two more subdivisions to the overall capacity.
One of the things I have an additional concern over is the gravity pipe that currently feeds most of the septic systems in the area and that is that the CSOs would then have another outlet to backwash into- Cedar Canyons/Cliffs. Again I have no way to prove this it is just a mental thought process that came to mind while reading all of this information.
J.Q.
Isn’t their still an issue of the restrictive covenants? Did they decide on that and I missed it?
Sorry - it should read “there” instead of “their.” Grrr! I got in a hurry.
Fred:
I like the idea of having members of commissions and boards without conflicts of interest. The only problem is that generally, just like agencies, commissions and boards are set up to handle specific areas which require expertise.
And where do we find those people? Usually populating the very areas they are to oversee. It is the classic fox guarding the chicken house issue.
The ones appointed usually have business interests which provide their background which then qualifies them to participate on the boards and commissions.
Charlotte,
Agree. It seems to me we could have folks with expertise who don’t have active business interests, that would enjoy public service. There has to plenty of people that have the expertise but are no longer actively engaged in business.
I really don’t have an issue with an active expert serving as long as they would accept being barred from doing business with the City or County in order to avoid a conflict of interest or the perception of one.
It is the optics here that tends to erode public confidence and makes people wonder if the fix is in, and whether or not they are going to get a fair hearing if they have a differing position.