Editors note: This column has been updated since original print version.
Considering Mayor Kip Holden is asking us to address what he says is 40 years of public safety and infrastructure neglect while at the same time funding his bold vision for a thriving downtown of the future, you’d think there’d be a few more questions on the specifics of his $901 million bond proposal.
[Of course it could be pointed out that we've been addressing road problems through taxes related to the Green Light Plan and that we're dealing with our crumbling sewer system through ever-escalating sewer fees—did you notice last month's water and sewer bill—but why quibble with the details?]
Considering that should the proposal pass, owners of residential and commercial property will pony up an additional 9.9 mils of property tax and all of us who purchase goods subject to sales taxes in the parish will fork over an extra 50 cents for every $100 we spend, you’d think people would ask some hard financial questions before making the decision to vote yea or nay.
[To figure out what the property tax increase means to you: take the assessed value of your property and multipy it by 10%, subtract the $7,500 homestead exemption, if applicable, multiply that figure by 9.9 and then divide by 1,000 to figure out the annual tax hike—divide by 12 to see your monthly cost.]
And considering almost all of the opposition—and the only reason the mayor’s proposal failed last year—is linked to the downtown “economic development” projects the mayor refuses to separate, you’d think most of the questions would be aimed at the Alive and River Center expansion projects.
Unfortunately, no one, including the group whose primary role is to be the voice of business, wants to ask the hard questions of the administration so that all of us can figure out 1] can we afford to deal with both the past and the future during an economically uncertain present and 2] does the reward justify the risk?
Since the friendly crowds at the chamber and wherever else the mayor has been pitching his plan of late won’t ask anything of substance, I will.
• Does the administration believe the downtown projects could ever win stand-alone passage from the voters? Is this why there’s been steadfast refusal to split the plan into two items?
• Will the property tax be subject to a millage roll forward or will there be clear language in the proposal prohibiting such a move? If not, why not?
• Since we’re on pace to not only become America’s next great city but, as the mayor says, one of the world’s great cities, it seems fair to expect significant tax base growth in the parish regardless of Alive. How many years is non-bond-related growth expected to shave off the 30-year repayment? How many actual years are the Alive and River Center projects expected to cut from the term? If the answer is 13 years, down to 17, as touted during presentations, will the bond be paid off in even less time if we grow at a rate worthy of being one of the world’s great cities?
• Is there a plan or study documenting the return on investment of expanding the River Center at a time when cities across the country have been adding to their own exhibition space [30% since 2000] amid declining convention demand? What’s the impact of cities like New Orleans and Las Vegas now chasing conventions that historically went to smaller cities like Baton Rouge?
• Is there a signed document guaranteeing that if the parking garages are built Armada Hoffler will come with its two hotels? Will those projects apply for TIF, and if so will the administration back such financing?
• The state says it will donate the raw land for Alive, but who is responsible for the mitigation and site preparation costs? If the state, is payment contingent on the Capital Region Legislative Delegation signing off on the expense, said to be at least $50 million? Will this money come at the expense of other regional funding requests? Has the delegation signed off on allocating the money to the Alive project? If not the state, who pays and what’s the funding mechanism?
• Once open, should Alive experience a fiscal year operating deficit, who is responsible for covering the loss? What’s the funding source?
• Can you name one businessperson or entity—other than our chamber—that would agree to pay $225 million for a facility without first seeing business and operating plans? Why can’t/won’t these documents be required and made available prior to the vote?
• What steps are in place regarding Alive to prevent the dramatic cost overruns that have been seen with similar public projects in other cities? Who has authority to approve costs beyond $225 million?
• Assuming the economic forecast by Jim Richardson is correct, can someone explain why we’re spending $225 million to attract 600,000 visitors in year one—or $417 per visitor—when the Georgia Aquarium [the world’s largest] was built for $320 million, including a $250 million gift from the co-founder of Home Depot, and attracted 3.6 million visitors in 2005, a cost of $89 per visitor. Granted, construction costs are higher, but four times higher over four years?
Until I know the answers to these, and perhaps other, questions, it’s impossible for me to support the mayor’s admittedly bold proposal.
Comments
Posted by betterbr4me on September 22, 2009 at 11:31 a.m. (Suggest removal)
JR,
A few points:
I find it amusing that you actually were lazy enough to just ask the questions in your editorial rather than have someone in your reputable news organization ask the questions. We're only 50 days away from voting and your contribution to getting facts to the public is to ask more questions and provide little factual information. I appreciate the rhetorical and editorial nature of your piece but would have preferred something that shared information. If you didn't feel like you've had the opportunity to ask these very questions, then perhaps you've missed one of the many public meetings held to date (District 6, 7, and 10) in the last few weeks alone.
I'm not an expert, but here is my comments on your questions...
Could Alive! have stood Alone? I respect that the mayor has developed a business plan which recognizes the need for Baton Rouge to continue to grow as we face some of our greatest and more expensive challenges. The mayor has coupled years of deferred (often talked about and studying but never executed) improvements that total $600M+ with jobs creation and economic development. I equate Alive to taking a side job or opening up the garage apartment to pay for the mortgage we're taking out to make our house livable for the next 30 years. My question to you: Would bond lenders lend us $600M with no economic stimulation in this economy? And, further, if they did, would it impact the interest rate of the loan positively or negatively?
Will the mill be rolled forward? While no one in Public Meetings has commented on millage roll forwards, I wonder what a lender would think if we had no recourse to roll the millage forward in the event the tax base shrinks at some point during the pay back period. A good question, but I don't think the answer is nearly as simple as the question. The roll forward mechanism exists for a reason. If everyone's so frustrated with Roll Forwards, the people of the parish should clearly voice that concern. Also, keep in mind that the sales tax will generate more income than the property tax and cannot be rolled forward. Of course, I'm sure it makes great conversation during one of Baton Rouge's great, progressive "tea parties".
Posted by betterbr4me on September 22, 2009 at 11:32 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Can we project everything under the sun and study Alive and the Riverfront until it either makes sense or is so complicated only an editor at the Business Report can understand it? Sure, if you'd be willing to front the money for additional studies. I find it interesting that everyone keeps attacking the projections of Alive and the studies which have been conducted. However, the same people using these arguments (or pseudo arguments under the guise of helpful questions), are the same people who would raise hell if we spent millions of dollars studying something. On the River Center, the simple fact is that we're BEHIND SHREVEPORT who doesn't have the same collection of community assets that we are fortunate to have. The River Center expansion is only "ready to go" because it was panned under a Five Phase approach YEARS ago. It also represent a small fraction of the over spend on Capital Improvements but has a much greater potential pay off. The ALIVE Projection is a projection... it may go up and it may go down (that's why it's not an "actual" like the 3.6M visitors in Georgia). If it goes up, great news for Baton Rouge... if it goes down, we get less reward for our risk. At the end of the day, I'm comfortable with the risk having talked to a number of people extremely excited about alive. I'd also say... it's a shame we have so little confidence in ourselves to think we can't duplicate the success of Tiger Stadium (over six days) in an entire year.
There is no signed deal for Armada Hoffler nor is there any money in the bond proposal to support the hotel directly. The potential/prospective investment by Armada Hoffler is, however, a bright note on the positive impact that can come from investing in ourselves for a change.
Funds are included in the Bond Proposal for maintenance and startup deficits for ALIVE should it be necessary. I also understand from a number of public meetings that a 12.5% buffer has also been included for increasing construction/design costs should it be necessary. As the bond program is specific, funds can only be used for those projects listed which will be awarded according to laws established. As in all cases, the Metro Council will continue to manage various programs just as they do with Green Light and with the operation of the River Center (which is managed and operated under contract by a third party).
I hope you find the answers you're looking for, JR. But, from my perspective, it seems limited that I've learned more about the bond by attending public meetings than you've shared with your readers in this editorial. I'll still keep reading!
Posted by phil on September 22, 2009 at 2:21 p.m. (Suggest removal)
East Baton Rouge Parish will have another tax vote this November. The total estimated amount of taxes to be collected during the thirty years, as indicated on the Proposition, is still over two billion dollars. One obvious question is, if the bonds can be paid off in seventeen years, then why the need for a thirty-year tax?
The Alive and other downtown Baton Rouge projects are being piggybacked on the Proposition along with infrastructure projects again. The saying "it's always easier to gamble with other peoples' money" seems to apply here.
I have asked what the total cost of the projects is, including the bonds, and have not seen an answer yet. Therefore, I did some quick basic calculations for Alive. If you do a basic calculation and take the $225 million initial cost of Alive and divide it by 17 years it comes out to about $13.2 million per year. If you then divide the $13.2 million by the $17 estimated entrance fee,it comes out to 778,547. That is the average number of visitors per year it would take just to pay off the initial $225 million, not including the costs associated with the bonds. Using the same method with simple interest calculations, it looks like it will take an average of over a million visitors per year for 17 years to pay back the $225 million plus interest(at 4.5 percent/year) for the Alive bonds. If someone has more accurate information please make it public. For comparison, according to a recent newspaper article, about 214,000 people visit LASM each year. How can the bonds be paid off early?
Some additional questions:
1.Is the $40 million to raise the land to levee level for Alive included in the $225 million? If not, where will this money come from?
2.If there actually is a positive economic impact if Alive is built, will all additional sales tax (and other tax) revenues generated from the economic impact be legally dedicated to paying off the bonds early? In other words, will the added tax revenues generated from existing State, Parish and City sales taxes (which is now approximately 9 percent in Baton Rouge) be legally dedicated to paying off the bonds, or can those tax funds be used for other (possibly pet) projects?
3.What is the current estimated interest rate the city-parish will pay for the bonds and what is the estimated cost of implementing the bonds?
Several fees, fines and taxes have been increased or added in recent years. Some examples include increases in garbage, sewer, impact and credit card fees, an increase in the casino tax, and the addition of traffic camera fines and litter court fines. Property taxes have also increased. Where is all of this additional revenue going?
Unfortunately, voters are being been forced to vote for all or none again.
Gambling with hard earned taxpayers' money is not progress.
This November I am going to vote smart -and vote no!
Posted by jrball (JR Ball) on September 22, 2009 at 2:23 p.m. (Suggest removal)
BetterBR4Me: I do have a reporter trying to get the answers to these--and other--questions. Moreover, I, and others in this community, have been trying to get answers to these questions on our own. To date, we've been told the information is either unavailable or we simply can't get an answer. And our reporter hasn't gotten a return phone call from the administration or its PR reps in more than a week. (Late update, they finally took a one of our reporter's call early this afternoon.)
That said, our publication has written plenty of news articles on the bond proposal and the issues involved with it. I am simply adding another layer to the discussion by asking questions I suspect any business person would want to know. My multiple sources indicated BRAC officials didn't ask these questions before "unanimously" endorsing the proposal and one BRAC member who did try to raise these questions was basically told to keep his/her mouth shut. I do know that a BRAC board member had no problem harassing one of my reporters at a Metro Council meeting demanding that she give "favorable" coverage to the bond issue.
Interesting that you say money is in the bond for startup deficits for Alive when Mike Futrell clearly told us that there was ZERO money in the bond set aside for any operational costs for Alive. Who's right?
Finally, as for duplicating the attendance success of Tiger Stadium over an entire year... it should be noted that on several occasions Audubon-run attractions in New Orleans have not managed to achieve this feat, including last year.
As for the rolling forward of millages, there is a major difference between adjusting the mil rate for a declining tax base and rolling the millage forward. As we saw in a Livingston Parish taxing district last year, if tax valuations decline over a four-year period (between reassessments), the law requires that the millage be increased to generate the same revenue collected the previous year. That's different from what happens when assessed value increases...the assessor decreases the millage to collect the same amount of tax as the previous year and then it's up to the taxing authority to accept that or to roll the millage forward so that additional revenue (above the previous year) is collected. But if we're truly one of the world's great cities, as Mayor Holden has proclaimed, do you envision a scenario where property values across the parish will decline over a four-year period? Again, even if that happens, the remedy is different from the millage roll-forward.
Are you not at all concerned that there is ZERO commitment from anyone to cover the projected $50 million in mitigation and site prep costs that will be necessary before the DeSoto site is ready for construction? The administration says the state will cover that, but the state isn't saying that.
Posted by jrball (JR Ball) on September 22, 2009 at 2:23 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Most importantly, these discussions are great for everyone as each of us has a responsibility to make informed, not emotional, decisions about the future of our parish.
Posted by betterbr4me on September 22, 2009 at 8:12 p.m. (Suggest removal)
JR:
Appreciate the response.
I still contend that if I know answers to many of these questions without a press badge and being on the payroll of a legitimate and respected news organization, then its not the access issue you're making it out to be. Though, the Business Report has been steadfast in its coverage in recent weeks.
I'll be sure to ask the "operations" expense question on ALIVE at the next public meeting. There may be some differentiation between "startup" costs and ongoing "operating" costs. Worth noting in the question when you get your answers from the mayors office.
In terms of my "facts", I'm fortunate that I get to merely respond as an observer to your pontifications/pondering. Still, I feel like I got a 85% on your quiz and I still have 50 more days to study for the final exam.
You're fair to call me out on my "tiger stadium" comment... the reality is nothing will ever compete with their attendance. The next question is... should we never try? And, is there a place for a "second stop" that's open year round and actually has some concern for its reciprocal relationship with our entire community.
I haven't heard the millage roll forward asked as a question at any of the presentations I've been to but I think it deserves an answer. I don't know if the answer would sway my vote, but I know it impacts many.
I never said I wasn't concerned about covering the actual costs of mitigation for the site. Though I've never heard the $50M figure, I know its a real cost and there will be a lot harder work to get ALIVE built and built and operated correctly. But, given the worst case scenario, that the state denies participation and ALIVE doesn't get built, I don't see us ending up any different then where anti-ALIVE folks are screaming we should be. Paying off the bond for 30 years versus any acceleration catalyzed by its stimulation.
I think it's extremely important that folks be informed. I understand that Forum 35 hosts the mayor for Forum Friday on Noon at Jubans (see their site) and Trae Welch has an upcoming public meeting for his district (October 6th at 6 PM -- double check details). Knowledge is power.
Posted by betterbr4me on September 23, 2009 at 7:10 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Forum 35 Open Meeting:
"Come out and join us on Friday, September 25th as Mayor Kip Holden delivers his annual address to the Forum 35 general membership. Mayor Holden will serve as the guest speaker for our monthly Forum Friday speaker series, where he will discuss the importance of volunteerism, his vision for making Baton Rouge America's next great city, and outline his proposed 2009 Capital Improvements Plan. The purpose of Forum Fridays is to expose the Forum 35 membership to key issues facing the Baton Rouge area. Forum 35 does not take a stance on political issues. Forum Friday will be held on Friday, September 25th at noon at Juban's Restaurant. The cost is $15 for members and $20 for guests. "
Posted by betterbr4me on September 23, 2009 at 7:15 a.m. (Suggest removal)
District 1 Community Meeting / Bond Presentation
Date: Tuesday, October 6, 2009
Time: 6:00pm - 8:00pm
Location: Zachary Branch Library
Street: 1900 Church Street
City/Town: Zachary, LA
About Metro 1 Meetings:
Metro 1 Meetings were organized in 1988 by Councilman Jewel “Duke” Welch, who is the father of Councilman Trae Welch. Keeping with tradition, Councilman Trae Welch would like to invite any citizen residing in District 1 to attend the monthly Metro 1 Meetings, which are held throughout the district. Council District 1 covers the northern part of the parish, including Pride/Chaneyville areas and the cities of Baker and Zachary and a small portion of Central. “My goal is to have public involvement, giving each and every person in Council District 1 an opportunity to voice their opinion, share ideas or suggestions and have Metro 1 serve as a clearinghouse for information.” Councilmember Welch will be moving around the district on a monthly basis in an effort to reach every citizen. Metro 1 meeting’s will be held on the first Tuesday of each month at 6pm. Look for the signs for a Metro 1 meeting coming to your area soon. Listed below are the upcoming Metro 1 meeting dates and locations scheduled throughout the year.
Posted by betterbr4me on September 23, 2009 at 7:16 a.m. (Suggest removal)
District 8 Public Meeting:
Date: Tuesday, October 27, 2009
Time: 7:00pm - 9:00pm
Location: East Side Fire Station
Street: 15094 Old Hammond
Posted by jrball (JR Ball) on September 23, 2009 at 8:35 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Might also be worth asking who actually owns the land where Alive is scheduled to be built. Guessing that's something that should be straightened out in advance.
Posted by fisherking on September 24, 2009 at 11:19 a.m. (Suggest removal)
I remember in the late 90s under Governor Foster, when the Commissioner of Adm. Mark Drennon and his then deputy Angele Davis were bringing all the state buildings downtown. They also wanted to make that stretch of land into a park, they were in negotiations with the railroad to reroute their cargo around downtown (of course the railroad wouldn’t budge). At that time, it was never an issue who of owned the land on the river. Drennon just wanted an unobstructed access to the land over the tracks....if ownership of the land itself was ambiguous, shouldn't this have been brought to the light back then? It seems odd that this is just now thrown out there as a possibility a little more than a month from the vote. Political sabotage maybe?
What say you JR?
Posted by MusicIsBetter on September 24, 2009 at 3:39 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Whew! Y'all are way too long winded. The bottom line for me is that, at this point in time, I do not want my tax dollars going to build an amusement park. If this is such a grand idea there should be plently of private investers waiting to jump in. Yeah??
Posted by jtoussaint2 on September 25, 2009 at 4:03 p.m. (Suggest removal)
1. Alive is not an amusement park. People who wish to take the time to understand it can visit progressis.org for a video presentation.
2. We live in Baton Rouge, where there are no companies like Coca-Cola to help build such an attraction. The commitment to build a destination that can lift the economy must come from the people.
3. Much of the negative feelings toward the bond issue and Alive come from self-loathing. Baton Rouge doesn't have pride in itself and feels incapable of taking chances. Worse, we don't believe we can succeed.
4. JR, the mayor and his people have answered many of your questions, even the ones about the batture land. Just check back in your old files. Sadly, The Advocate covered this last year and the reporters this year didn't even bother to check their own databases.
5. Yes, the mayor has doen a pathetic job of public relations, not anwering questions and reduing his chances of passing the bond issue. But don't let his mistakes be the reason to vote against the bond issue. It should be debated and voted on its own merit.
Finally, come the day after the election, if this doesn't pass, where will we be? Just in the same place, moving ahead at a turtle's pace while the great cities of America get even more ahead of us.
Posted by question on September 25, 2009 at 4:12 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I am opposed to ANY commercial project receiving public financing. Why should my tax dollars go to support my competition? If the project is not competing for my business, they are competing for my employees. I welcome competition on a level playing field. I do not welcome competition of any sort from businesses receiving special benefits from the government. There is no reason hotels should be considered a part of this project. There is no reason an amusement part should be considered a part of this project. Those are for private businesses to invest in, not the public. Not in a down economy, or in a great economy.
Posted by Fred on September 25, 2009 at 4:50 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I have a hard time understanding why we need to get $40 million to fill in a wetland in order to build a wetland educational attraction . . .
Posted by Politivore on September 25, 2009 at 5:18 p.m. (Suggest removal)
If I were to follow question's argument to its logical conclusion, it would yield the following results:
- No LSU (Competes with private universities)
- No Smithsonian Institute (Competes with private museums)
Honestly, I don't even consider Alive! a truly commercial project. The Audubon Nature Institute is a 501(c)3 with enterprises dedicated to conserving Louisiana's flora and fauna, largely through income generated from its museums. The money is reinvested into one of our greatest natural resources. Sportsman's Paradise, remember?
Contrary to the statements contained in question's argument, hotels are not part of the bond proposal. Feel free to scour the presentation for references to taxpayer money funding a hotel under the bond proposal. JR does bring up a good point about a possible TIF, but that is not part of the bond proposal.
Finally, the Alive project is no more an amusement park than the Louisiana State Museum. Since the concept has apparently not yet reached the Baton Rouge general populace, modern museums feature interactive components which are more likely to engage participants than static displays. Maybe there is a reason we consistently rank so poorly in education...
-Politivore
Posted by Being_Stupid on September 25, 2009 at 8:13 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Holden's Alive Project is Dead.
Posted by Denee246 on September 26, 2009 at 1:25 p.m. (Suggest removal)
EBRP's last capital improvement plan was passed around 1994, and was funded by a 1¢ sales tax that raised sales taxes from 8¢ to 9¢. At that time, the 9¢ was the 2nd highest in the state and among the highest in the country. Sales taxes that do not exempt food, clothing, and drugs are not good for a community. Plus, my property taxes increased 34% last year...at that rate of increase, I could be homeless before the bond expires!
Why does our Mayor think we need another tourist attraction? Almost every city of size has such an attraction and I consider them rather "hohum". How many "entertainment/educational facilities" do we need before the public becomes saturated?
Considering the rapidly increasing national debt, this is NOT the time to take on more debt for a non-essential park. Baton Rouge is a SPORTSMAN's PARADISE, and other than lack of decent roads is a good place to live. Why does our Mayor keep putting us down? And to those young professionals that say they need "Alive" to remain in Baton Rouge, I say hogwash.
Posted by lajoe on September 26, 2009 at 1:36 p.m. (Suggest removal)
There have been so many blunders made in this bond campaign, it could become a textbook case in how to not get a bond proposal passed. First, there was the Mayor's refusal to allow the 2 initiatives-infrastructure improvement and the Alive theme park-to be considered separately by voters. Then Baker, Central, and Zachary were pulled from the taxing district only to be thrown back in weeks later. Now we learn that the administration has not been upfront with voters on issues involving land ownership and the funding required for property development of the Alive site.
Mayor Holden had an opportunity to set the record straight on the recent revelations about the Alive project at this week's Metro Council meeting, but instead pleaded "no comment". Now we have to wait until next week to supposedly learn the truth. It appears that the administration has been less than truthful and transparent with the public in their efforts to get this passed.
Lesson to be learned by Mayor Holden and his administration: In the future don't put all your eggs in one basket.
Posted by betterbr4me on September 26, 2009 at 1:45 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Denee246,
The sales tax under the Capital Improvements Plan excludes food and prescription drugs.
http://www.brgov.com/2009Bond/pdf/Capita...
Posted by betterbr4me on September 26, 2009 at 2:13 p.m. (Suggest removal)
In response to Phil:
A few short comments:
1. No interest rate has been shared. The credit rating of the city is AAA as released by Moody's earlier this month. To see how we compare, visit http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bond_credit....
2. Your calculations on the "payback" of ALIVE do not take into consideration "operating costs" which will come from ticket sales and do not provide consideration revenue variables like: rent from LSU for lab space, catering charges, space rental, and variable costs for tickets. Focus groups have indicated that consumers would be willing to pay more... and in my experiences prices don't stay the same for anything for 10+ years.
3. All taxes have dedicated purposes. My assumption is that the increased collections property tax and sales tax would provide additional revenue to all taxing bodies. Keep in mind, sales tax collections have declined for the past four months. The only "dedicated" funds received would be the millage and sales tax specifically passed for this proposal.
4. The site costs for ALIVE have not been discussed but Walter Monseur did share in a public meeting that funds were included to raise the actual site of the ALIVE build approx 35 feet to levee level. I'm not sure where any figure is coming from regarding the actual cost of this work.
5. Note that your sewer fees increase yearly and are used to rehabilitate our decaying system (some parts over 100 years old). The program is about $1.2 billion in total construction costs, fully funded by sewer user fees, and on track to be completed by the deadline for getting East Baton Rouge from under a federal consent decree (2015). The cost of this project, when proposed, would have been much less. Instead, we waited until we were forced to complete the work under a federal consent decree. The Holden admin and previous council have been credited with reducing the total cost after bringing in CH2M HILL.
6. You noted a number of fines, taxes. I'd love details on the increased taxes -- as I'm not sure what new millages we've approved recently. I assume you're noting the increase in assessed value of your home with recently approved roll forwards by the council... meaning the rate has state the same but what you pay has increased. Litter court fines go to fund the litter court administrative judges and system and should be commended not cited as some reason not to support the passage of a capital improvements plan which address 600M+ in expenses which will not go away until we fund them.
Posted by phil on September 26, 2009 at 6:12 p.m. (Suggest removal)
My response to better..:
1. Why not?
2.I agree, but I also did not include all expenses such as maintenance costs, utilities, insurance etc. Also, what happens after 30 years when the building is old and needs replacement. Some of the new jobs in the economic impact study will be jobs that taxpayers are paying for, so they are actually an expense. Let's see a real business plan. I personally would not attend more than once at $17-$20 a visit. For a family of 4, a $68+ entrance fee is a lot.
3.If all taxes have dedicated purposes, how does tax money end up in the general fund? Is the information in the economic impact study concerning paying back the bonds early based just on the dedicated new taxes or on all added tax revenues generated by Alive?
4. I have heard anywhere from $40 to $55 million.
5. I understand your statement on sewer fees. However, if you read the Operating Budget, it mentions that some of the funds for sewer improvements still come from sales taxes and the general fund. Also, we are still going to see fee increases in years to come. "Fully funded" is a confusing term. I admit that the sewer problem has been going on for years and is not the Holden administration's fault. Problem is it is still another drain on peoples' paychecks.
6. You are correct about the "roll forwards" of taxes by different entities, for example BREC. However, I do not believe the council (or the mayor) controls those "roll forwards". Regardless, ALL tax increases, fee increases and new fines are still drains on taxpayers' paychecks.
To clarify, I am not against all projects on the Proposition. However, Alive is a gamble, and why spend $40 million just to make the land acceptable. Regardless of who pays the $40 mil (State or Local), the funds will still be taxpayers' money.
As someone else already stated - to summarize my position - If you want to make my quality of life better, then let me keep MY money!
Posted by wifewontletmeleaveBR on September 28, 2009 at 10:46 a.m. (Suggest removal)
In any real estate oriented transaction, Site Control is a fundamental and necessary first step before any subsequent steps can be taken. I feel duped that this thing got on the ballot before with this issue still lingering. Even then, the City gave up any and all leverage they may have had in negotiating with the railroad. I do not want to give these people who make such poor decisions any more of my money.
Posted by rinaldi1980 on September 28, 2009 at 8:07 p.m. (Suggest removal)
While I have voted for the Mayor twice and this bond issue once. I have my doubts but I am open. Here are some of my concerns. The majority of voting boxes that supported this measure were African American. In the more conservative majority boxes like Central, Zachary, a split in Baker the issue failed. Since politics is a numbers game, the Mayor might have been right to exclude them. They are right to say how does this measure help us?
Now to the African American boxes which supported this measure what does the this do for our community? What do we have to look forward to from this measure? Not one business in the "new down town is owned by an African American (except the M-Bar) I am open to correction on this point. What percentage of the construction dollars are going to minority contractors? Before you cry racism it has worked in other great cities like Atlanta and Denver which is not majority minority.
My family and friends try to get to at lease 3 functions a month downtown.We love Alive after 5 and the Shaw center. In my business meetings I try to support locals like Poboy LLoyds. So how does this bond measure benefit Scotlandville, Plank Road, Harding Blvd. Zion City, Eden Park All of which supported this measure. Please explain it to me and maybe I can vote for this again.
Posted by Politivore on September 29, 2009 at 10:04 a.m. (Suggest removal)
rinaldi1980: The infrastructure improvements will have the most direct impact on the areas of Baton Rouge you listed. When I look at the Capital Improvements presentation (http://www.progressis.org/resources.php), several projects jump out to me as having a positive impact on the area.
1) Relocation of Parish Prison and Juvenile Center: This may actually have one of the greatest positive impacts on the Harding Boulevard/Plank Road/Scotlandville area. With the relocation of these facilities, land can be freed up for economic development leading to job creation and opportunities. (Slide 14)
2) Public Safety Complex: The consolidation of operations into a single Public Safety Complex on Harding Boulevard will increase the efficiencies of our public safety services. Additionally, the influx of personnel working out of that location should have a positive impact on surrounding businesses/restaurants. (Slide 17)
3) Fire Protection Services: Improvements to fire services will benefit all areas and help to hold down fire insurance costs. Additionally, many of the older stations are located in North Baton Rouge. Presumably, a good portion of the money for facilities improvements would be directed toward them in order to maintain our Class 1 rating. (Slide 21)
4) Traffic Light Synchronization: The project synchronizes traffic lights in all areas of Baton Rouge, including several of the areas you have mentioned. Plus, the battery back-up will be a boon for anyone who has been caught at the ersatz four-way stops caused by heavy rainstorms. (Slide 23)
As to your question about construction dollars and minortiy contractors, I don't believe the bond proposal can specify who would receive the various contracts related to the proposal. That process is left to the parish bid process.
-Politivore
Posted by rinaldi1980 on September 29, 2009 at 8:22 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Thanks Politivore: I have since gone to the website and also passed the information on to several construction companies. Your information was helpful and clear. 70% on board at this point.On the bid process you can call for diversity among the contractors. I am going to buy a copy of Lee Iacocca's new book "Where Are All the Leaders" and send it out to a few folks! Our Mayor could make that call. Leaders do those kind of things. Just like he is calling and pushing for Alive. Why not push to have minority businesses stay ALIVE as part of this 900M project?
Posted by butch on September 30, 2009 at 1:13 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Other unanswered questions:
If the place floods, burns, gets hit by a barge, or is the target of a lawsuit, who holds the liability bag, Audubon Institute, or the EBR taxpayers who may well have little or no control over the maintenance and operation of the facility?
This is a public-private partnership proposal. As a member of the public, I'd really like to read the fine print of the partnership contract (assuming there is one) before signing on the dotted line for a third of a billion of my dollars. Where might I find that document?
These are still hard economic times, even for us here in Baton Rouge. Though we are generally upbeat about our region's future, most of us little people (a.k.a., "voters") still aren't making major purchases and investments because we're not entirely confident we'll have our jobs a year from now. Or six months from now, for that matter. So, it's more than a little disconcerting to learn of the shockingly high salary and benefits package of the CEO of our prospective partner, the "nonprofit" Audubon Nature Institute. This is not a secret, and though it hasn't made the news in BR, it's been the talk of New Orleans for years. Check out the group's IRS annual 990, about the only official ANI record available to the public. All "ooh's and ah's" aren't over size of sharks in the aquarium. So, if this group is to be our partner, am I the only one with major reservations about the huge difference in their top officials' salaries, as opposed to, say, the salary of our own mayor, who represents us, the public? Does that seem a little unequal to anyone except me?
And the last question I have, is, if this is to be a science and nature center focused on our wonderful Mississippi River and our coastal wetland resources, why are we partnering with a group which was a member of the industry-backed, Orwellianly named, "National Wetlands Coalition"? This group was created to defeat the federal Clean Water Act. An "environmental education" group with a history of working to defeat major environmental regulations which keep our water clean and safe?
Thank God ANI and their industry partners failed. After all, I do like to eat the fish I catch.
The idea of a public riverfront park is a great one. Heck, I'd even go for one which highlighted industry---shipping, petrochemical, refineries, offshore drilling, seafood, agriculture---as long as it was done accurately, objectively, publicly inclusively, and transparently.
So far, this deal is not shaping up to be any such a deal.
Though I supported this Mayor both elections, usually vote Democrat, support and participate in many downtown renewal projects, and have been known to vote "yes" on several tax proposals in the past---including BREC's FULLY PUBLICLY VETTED "Imagine Your Parks" initiative---and though it pains me to do so---I will vote "no" on this bond/tax package.
Posted by phil on September 30, 2009 at 1:42 p.m. (Suggest removal)
If anyone is interested, a Financial Summary for Audubon in New Orleans is on their website under "About Us".
Posted by lowrancep on September 30, 2009 at 2:01 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Why not just make the sales tax 20% or how about 30%? Where does it end? We're @ friggin 9% already!
Posted by SwampSparrow on September 30, 2009 at 2:30 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I agree with Fred's comment of September 25, 2009. It does not make sense to spend $40 million (or whatever amount) to fill in a wetland in order to build a facility that supposedly teaches the values of wetlands.
In addition, I am wondering how many people remember the two major efforts made by the National Wetlands Coalition, in which the Audubon Institute (ANI's old name) was a strong player, to amend section 404 of the Federal Clean Water Act in order to make it easier to drain, fill, etc. our wetlands - which we now know protect the Louisiana coast from hurricane and other storm surges in addition to providing habitat for wildlife and fisheries? I remember this horrible time period very well. Former Congressmen John Breaux and Billy Tauzin were major authors of the bills seeking to gut section 404.
Posted by butch on September 30, 2009 at 6:25 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I apologize if a version of this posts twice. Hit wrong key.
Phil, an important detail which has also not made the news is that Audubon Nature Institute (our prospective partners) and the National Audubon Society are, and never have been in any way connected.
Simply say, "Audubon", and National Audubon Society (NAS) is the group 99.9% of Americans think of. NAS started in New York in the 1920's to stop the slaughter of egrets and herons for the ladies' hat trade, and its efforts resulted in our federal migratory bird protections. It's the world's largest and one of the most respected conservation organizations, and sponsor of the world's longest-running biological survey, the annual Christmas Bird Count. The magazine "Audubon" is published by this group, which has hundreds of chapters across the nation. Baton Rouge has a chapter.
I've already mentioned that ANI has a past which includes trying to gut the Clean Water Act, something abhorrent to most Audubon ---- excuse me, National Audubon Society---members.
No one has exclusive rights to use the name "Audubon" however. Gas stations, real estate companies, even bridges all bear the name, though they, too, have little in common with the interests or contributions of ornithologist and scientific illustrator John James Audubon.
Posted by phil on October 1, 2009 at 9:49 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Concerning the message by butch - good information to know concerning Audubon.
It has been stated that if something prevented the Alive project from moving forward, the $225 million designated for it would be used to pay off the bond issue more quickly. This brings up the point that the bonds evidently could be paid off early without actually building Alive (which will require an additional $225 million of BORROWED bond money). The statement that we need Alive to pay the bonds off early does not make much sense to me
Posted by butch on October 1, 2009 at 3:59 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Found this on the internet, just googling around:
http://www.saveaudubonpark.org/p4092.htm...
"Putting the Profit in Non-Profit" looks like a web piece by a group which opposed ANI's takeover of the formerly public Audubon Park Golf Course a few years ago. It's an interesting look at the astounding pay package of Audubon Nature Institute's CEO, compared to the salaries of other charity heads, university presidents, college football coaches, mayors...etc. If this material is true, or even mostly true, I cannot imagine anyone in their right mind voting to simply open up our public coffers to such an organization.
Post a comment
(Requires free registration.)