Does anyone anywhere give a damn anymore if Alive truly is the economic, quality-of-life and education panacea that it’s proposed to be?
Alive, we’re told, will be a downtown, riverfront mecca where hundreds of thousands of people will visit annually to laugh, learn and conduct research. Mayor Kip Holden and his “advisers” suggest it’s the spark that will create hundreds of jobs, more than $500 million in downtown private investment and boost our quality of life to the point where young, smart people quit fleeing the parish in alarming numbers.
But let’s be honest, the merits of the proposed project—and some legitimate concerns—no longer matter. For some, they never did.
For some, Alive always has and always will be Holden’s Waterworld, an expensive, self-indulgent fantasy project designed to bring futuristic life to a downtown that already gets way too much taxpayer love.
The truth, for what it’s worth, is much closer to the mayor’s telling of the tale.
Yet, at this point, Alive is nothing more than a $225 million lightning rod for controversy that threatens to tsunami the mayor’s $901 million bond package, including the litany of sins-of-the-past public safety and infrastructure projects.
The question two weeks ago was whether the mayor and his financial friends could toss around enough incentive to get out the black vote and would it, partnered with an idealistic group of young progressives, be enough to offset anti-tax suburban voters?
Now there’s a question of whether the proposal will even be on the Nov. 14 ballot.
If the Metro Council members urging the Oct. 12 special meeting are successful in delaying a vote on the bond proposal until the spring, I’m guessing they’ll also orchestrate the removal of the Alive project [replacing it with their own pet projects] long before the voters get their say.
Regardless, Alive is on life support for one simple reason: an absolutely horribly managed political campaign by the mayor and his advisers. It’s the same reason an almost identical bond package was narrowly defeated by voters a year ago.
The disastrous decisions started with the idea of creating a special taxing district. Holden may have sold it under the guise of simply listening to the will of the anti-bond folks in Baker, Central and Zachary, but it was generally viewed as a way to gerrymander his way to passage.
Equally troubling was his position that, while OK to listen to the people on the matter of who votes, public cries to split the bond were declared attempts to subvert democracy.
Those moves weren’t killers, but it did do the one thing you never want when trying to sell a tax—put the administration on the defensive.
And it’s only gotten worse.
The strategy to attack those not blindly supporting the mayor’s bold vision for the future of Baton Rouge has proven to be, at best, wrong and, at worst, stupid. To treat the serious and legitimate questions about the bond—and specifically the tough-to-define Alive project—with the same disdain as the outrageous and ridiculous only intensified the criticism.
A tax vote facing no formal opposition became one with protest groups piling out of their single-entrance suburban neighborhoods.
The biggest mistake of all, however, was to sit on the fact there were problems regarding the state’s commitment to pay $40 million for mitigation and site prep work and the discovery that ownership issues on the Alive property remained unresolved. Adviser Walter Monsour is right that such problems often exist on projects of this scope, but by not disclosing them from the outset gave the impression the administration was hiding something.
Will all these missteps be enough to kill the bond? Wealthy supporters financed a poll last week but the results aren’t public. My guess is the numbers aren’t great because several groups that have previously endorsed the mayor’s proposal are now working on damage control behind the scenes.
If the bond fails, it will be interesting to see if Alive becomes Holden’s Alamo—a valiant fight against an insurmountable status quo where the mayor is heralded for fighting to the bitter end for his big ideals—or his Waterloo, a disastrous campaign where ego and bad advice blinded him to the reality staring him in the face?
If the bond fails and comes back for a third round, might I suggest the mayor give the riverfront project a new name. Right now, Alive means death.
Comments
Posted by longtooth on October 5, 2009 at 11:58 a.m. (Suggest removal)
According to a study by the Rails to trails conservancy, For the price of one mile of four-lane urban highway, around $50 million, hundreds of miles of bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure can be built, an investment that could complete an entire network of active transportation facilities for a mid-sized city.
Doing this would have as much or more of an economic impact than this Alive Bull@#$&...at a fraction of the cost. Getting 10-15% of daily commuters out of their cars for the 1-3 mile commute to work would significantly reduce traffic, limiting the burden to our existing infrastructure. This would reduce the costs of roadway building and maintenance. Our one-of-a-kind active transportation system could attract companies and the high paying jobs that will keep our most talented people here at home.
Also, rail service from Slidell to Baton Rouge (stopping in Covington, Hammond, Denham Springs) would be a very wise investment for those people who don't have the short commutes. Make more sense than one to New Orleans.
I am tired of the attitude that adding one more lane will solve all of our traffic problems...Have you been to Houston or Dallas lately. They have 8 or 9 lanes and have worse traffic than we do!!! Loops don't work as traffic relievers either. What works is a good mix of light rail, bus, bike friendly streets and lanes, and surface streets that inter-connect...Wise Up People!!!
Posted by longtooth on October 5, 2009 at 12:11 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Our Mayors' judgement is as Clouded as it is limited. That also goes for this facade of a grassroots organization (what is it Progress Is...?) This was obviously created with the sole backing of the few that will profit from Alive being built, and the supporters that sampled the collective cool aid. My only regret is that voting against Alive is a vote against infrastructure, raises for police & firemen, drainage etc.
Where is the innovation? Where are the NEW ideas? We are just accepting business as usual...we need to demand that our money be put towards Real Progress.
Posted by phil on October 6, 2009 at 2:35 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Some questions for Alive that I think should be answered:
1.How much is the total cost for Alive and the total cost for the entire tax Proposition including the interest on the bonds and costs to set up the bonds?
2.Are some of the jobs to be created by Alive directly linked to Alive construction, operations and maintenance, etc., that taxpayers will actually be paying for with the new taxes? Are those jobs actually an expense instead of a revenue for taxpayers?
3.The economic impact study indicates the bonds can be paid back early because of Alive. Does the money for the early payback include ALL local tax revenues that will increase due to Alive, or only the 1/2 cent sales tax to be added? If it is all local taxes, then is the city-parish legally obligated to use those additional funds to pay back the bonds early, or could the funds be used for other purposes (like the general fund)?
4. How much will the land cost and who will pay the $40 million? Why weren't these issues settled last year before or after the first tax vote?
5. It has been stated that if Alive cannot be built, then the taxes for Alive can be used to pay back the bonds early. Am I understandiing that the bonds could actually be paid back early without actually building Alive and having to borrow the additional $225 million in bonds? What is the difference in time between the two?
6. How much has already been spent on Alive studies, etc.
and where did the money come from?
7. Although the Audubon Nature Institute in New Orleans probably "makes money" every day, does it actually make a profit?
8. The estimated amount of sales and property taxes to be collected is around $2 billion for the 30 years. Why hasn't this been discussed in detail?
9. If the administration is sure the bonds can be paid back in 17 years with the help of Alive, then why do we need a 30 year tax?
10. Even if we trust the existing administration, who will be in office 17-30 years from now to guarantee everything promised will actually continue to happen?
11. What happens in 30+ years when the Alive building is old and needs to be replaced?
Perhaps these questions and others can be answered at future meetings.
Posted by SwampSparrow on October 7, 2009 at 11:44 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Why is nobody talking about the anti-wetlands position that the Audubon Insitute (old name for Audubon Nature Institute) took for many years as a part of the National Wetlands Coalition?
The National Wetlands Coalition was an industry funded organization that lobbied Congress to change the definition of "wetlands" in the federal Clean Water Act in order to make it easier to dredge, fill, or otherwise destroy wetlands. NWC got funding from some of the industries and corporations that presently "donate" lots of money to ANI.
Just "Google" astroturf organization or greenwash organization and you will probably get lots of references to the National Wetlands Coalition.
The Mayor should be wondering if it is a good policy to be associated with this Astroturf or Greenwash group. I am surprised some of his staff did not warn him about ANI's past anti-environmental activities.
Posted by Being_Stupid on October 7, 2009 at 4:58 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Traffic and Infrastructure improvements don’t matter. By 2015, we will all be hovering around in flying cars. Didn’t any of you people see Back to the Future Part 2? In five years, we will have flying skateboards and hovering cars. No need for a Loop.
Also, if we force everybody to start driving motorcycles to work instead. We can divide the 3 lane Interstate into 6 lanes.
As for train or light rail… the only train we need is the one that will run over the Audubon Alive Project.
I also think if we got rid of the law that people can’t ride in the back of trucks… this would also help alleviate traffic. Think of all the people that could ride to work by just hopping in the back of somebody else’s truck.
Come-on PEOPLE use your brains!!!
The year is 2010! We are living in the Future!!!
Posted by jtoussaint2 on October 9, 2009 at 10:42 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Longtooth - Alive and bike paths are two different things. You must be a ULL grad to compare them.
Plus, your have low expectations - with ambition, we can have both.
Posted by nonyabizz on October 9, 2009 at 10:58 a.m. (Suggest removal)
I am ambivalent about Alive. We desperately need the infrastructure, tho. So I would prefer them separate. But I think the infrastructure is more important than blocking Alive.
A rail system would be nice, but no one is addressing the fact that pulic transportation from the imaginary rail system to points of destination is dismal. There are too many gripes about CATS et.al. costing too much as it is. People still do not consider it the price of doing business.
Posted by rudy on October 9, 2009 at 12:19 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Ah, how refreshing it is to see public debate even though our Mayor prefers to just shove things down our throat.
Good questions by Phil, more should be forthcoming. the problem is that this administration doesn't like being questioned.
God help you JR because you have exposed a nerve which leads to the diagnosis that Mayor Holden and his advisors believe they are so powerful that no one can question them without some form of retailation. Duck as you may be their next target. Please don't make us ask "who shot JR" again ~ I just can't take the drama!
Thank you for continuing the discussion on an important topic that will affect us for 30+ years.
Posted by longtooth on October 9, 2009 at 12:37 p.m. (Suggest removal)
"Longtooth - Alive and bike paths are two different things. You must be a ULL grad to compare them.
Plus, your have low expectations - with ambition, we can have both."
Well jtoussaint the second, you must be a High school drop out because I never said "bike paths", I believe I mentioned light rail, surface streets that interconnect, bike infrastructure, etc. There is a BIG difference! I'm sorry, but who exactly pays for both? Do you mean "both" the infrastructure AND Alive being on the same ticket? Because to my knowledge the infrastructure includes exactly zip for any true alternatives to our transportation needs.
However, I do think there are many good things happening with the Green Light plan, maybe accelerating these projects and beefing them up with REAL bike lanes, underpasses, overpasses, safer intersections, etc. with the $200 million for alive (or a fraction as I stated) is money better spent? Our governor wants to turn down another giant chunk of Federal dollars that could help build light rail. This is not imaginary, it's very real...and in my view we are blowing this opportunity.
Having real bike, bus, train infrastructure in my opinion is way more ambitious and innovative than to just do what other cities have already done back in the 80's & 90's.
In addition, I want to see the riverfront developed as much as anybody, but I don't think Alive is the key to doing that. Alive is at best a grand expense, with many unanswered questions about it's planning and implementation, not to mention it's poorly conceived concept and crappy location. Tack on the very real potential for the whole endeavor to fail and we are left with what???
Posted by mdavis03 on October 9, 2009 at 12:55 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I find it interesting that those who oppose Rouzan or the development of Spanish Town are criticized for keeping Baton Rouge from moving forward and being able to attract young professionals. Yet the opposition to Alive is considered "smart". Don't get me wrong, I don't support the Alive project either, but at least I'm staying consistent. It doesn't surprise me that if individuals are going to make money, then the Business Report and the majority of its readership are in favor. But if it's to the benefit of the city or the public at large, the same demographic is appalled.
Posted by beb on October 9, 2009 at 1:02 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Your editorial would be much more powerful had you omitted the words: horribly, disastrous, stupid, outrageous and ridiculous. Please write more constructively, with less hyperbole. While it is easier to write negatively than to write positively, it is possible to write possitively in opposition. One can disagree without being disagreeable. The message then is much more convincing.
Posted by phil on October 9, 2009 at 2:27 p.m. (Suggest removal)
All of the discussion about who owns the land for Alive is important. Of course, nobody involved has mentioned how much the land will cost if the land has to be purchased from the railroad company.
However, it seems that regardless of who owns the land, there is still the fact that it will cost $40+ million just to raise the land to levee level. How can local leaders with a clear conscience even ask the State for $40 million for Alive while the State is cutting back support for education, programs for the elderly, etc.? If either the local or State government pays the $40 million, it will still be taxpayers' money, and the start up cost for Alive is still $225 million + $40 million + the possible price for the land.
I wish everyone could read the 2009 Annual Operating Budget for the city-parish, the Economic Impact Study for Alive, and the 2008 Financial Summary for the Audubon Nature Institute in New Orleans closely before deciding how to vote on the tax Proposition.
I am voting NO (if the Proposition makes it to the Nov. 14 ballot).
Posted by Frederick on October 9, 2009 at 3:38 p.m. (Suggest removal)
First: The Mayor's office has recently touted ALIVE as the "last piece of the puzzle" that will make Baton Rouge a great city. Unfortunately, there are probably several remaining pieces, but the most important one may be to create a functional citywide transit system that will let a good many of those who have cars leave them at home, and will let those who do not have cars get where they need to go in less than three or four hours.
Second: The Richardson economic assessment is riddled with holes, filled with unreasonable assumptions, and covered with leaps of faith that would win Olympic gold. On top of that, the methodology is questionable.
Third: I really like Holden, and it is disappointing to see him becoming a "tough guy" like the Walter Monsour we all know.
Fourth: And it really makes me sad to vote against the other infrastructure improvements we so desparately need.
Posted by Denee246 on October 9, 2009 at 9:28 p.m. (Suggest removal)
It has only been 15 years since the last sales tax increase. That's when Mayor McHugh passed his capital improvements plan, funded by a 1¢ sales tax that raised sales tax from 8¢ to 9¢. At that time, the 9¢ was the 2nd highest in the state and among the highest in the country. I’m guessing that another sales tax increase would make Baton Rouge the next great city with bloated government and outrageous taxes! Not to mention, the federal government keeps making noises about a national sales tax…how else are they going to fund their spend-a-rama?!
Mayors have tried to revitalize downtown Baton Rouge for years. Remember CATFISH TOWN? Do you hear the echo?
As for Rouzan and Perkins-Rowe, they are private enterprise as "Alive" should be. Who authorized the Mayor to spend thousands of dollars in pre-engineering and design for a unapproved project?
Plus,don't believe the prepayment of the bond. When has any govt reduced your taxes? And, should they raise property taxes, you'll pay even more. Ours increased 34% last year, which is outrageous. Florida put a 3% cap on property tax increases. Why can't we?
Posted by Being_Stupid on October 10, 2009 at 1:09 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Hey, mdavis03, there is a BIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIGGGGGG Freaking Difference between ALIVE and ROUZAN.
ALIVE is being built by robbing tax dollars from other property owners to build it, by the GOVERNMENT on land owned by the Railroad.
ROUZAN is being by a Private Developer, who owns the land himself, and is being built on his own dime, NOT my TAX DOLLARS. + all the property tax revenue that Rouzan will create will far exceed the infrastructure costs it will take to support such a development. On top of that he is donating some of land to the Government for a Library.
SPANISH TOWN - SAME THING, Private Developer is building the development on his money, not my money. Yet Government & Historic Society is trying to STOP his development from happening.
TODAY we have a local Government that denies the right to Private Development, but at the same time wants to tax you for Government Development, and confiscate your law office for a parking garage???
Posted by Cindi on October 12, 2009 at 8:57 a.m. (Suggest removal)
I do not understand why the Mayor cannot utilize some part of CATFISH TOWN building for his plans. It is THERE, deserted except for a restaurant. It is BEAUTIFUL and underutilized....oh was it not supposed to bring alot of people downtown TOO???!! Anyway, I will add one other thing and that is about the railway. That is a NIGHTMARE to cross. Just go film a few times a day to River Road when train is there...you will see how long they spend on the tract. Their loading yard is down the road and so takes an hour sometimes to clear the tracks, look at Casino traffic for confirmation. I hate to have regular repair work and much-needed raises for our service people stubbornly tied to a huge, expensive, project when our state cannot afford it. They are talking of cutting personnel in state government, right here in Mayor's parish, yet he wants to put millions on an excessive playground.
Posted by mdavis03 on October 12, 2009 at noon (Suggest removal)
Hey, Stupid, you're just reiterating my point. As long as it's in the best interst of one person (a developer), then we should support it. But if the benefit is for the public at-large, then it's ridiculous. Again, I don't support the Alive development, but when you talk about rescuing your tax dollars, I would say that the government is allowing develpers to "rob" property values in Southdowns and Spanish Town. Is the developer going to share the revenues from Rouzan with the surrounding residents? To that end, the situations do not have a "BIIIIIIIIIIIGGGGGGGGGGGG Freaking Difference".
And lastly, the developer of Rouzan isn't donating a thing. There are requirements for the development to be designated a TND which include things like schools, churches or libraries.
Posted by mdavis03 on October 13, 2009 at 1:46 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Man...that's some pretty pathetic spelling I had going on there. Mea Culpa...
Posted by KoolAid_Man on October 16, 2009 at 12:14 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Drink Kip's KoolAid - OH YEAAAAHHHHHHHHHH!!!
Post a comment
(Requires free registration.)