Finding strength through discomfort

The City Wire editorial

Chuck Marohn’s recent three-hour presentation delivered to more than 160 Arkansas elected and development officials – including between 15 and 20 such persons from the Fort Smith-Greenwood-Van Buren area – was a blunt indictment of everything we thought we knew about the relationship between municipal finances, policies and economic development.

For some it must have been as if they were being told for the first time that the Earth was not flat. With each sentence and example, it was as if Marohn was criticizing the development policies and municipal decisions in and around Fort Smith. He even panned the practice of school districts building new facilities on the outskirts of town merely to chase cheap land and have enough of it for a football field.

It would have been easy to be offended or excited at his precisely targeted critiques, except that Marohn’s notes were specific to the Fort Smith area only because the Fort Smith area is just one of thousands – if not more – U.S. municipalities doing things the wrong way. Or at least the wrong way according to Marohn’s “Strong Towns” lecture that suggests many cities are on a financially unsustainable path.

“Strong Towns” is a concept founded and promoted by Marohn. His work is focused on helping city’s improve their budgets, budgeting process, bolster local tax bases, reduce taxpayer burdens, promote economic diversity and help community leaders “plan for long-term viability.” The official title of the workshop is, “Strong Towns: The Intersection of Land Use, Transportation, and Financial Resilience.”

The City Wire encouraged Fort Smith and Sebastian County officials to attend. There were at least eight officials from Fort Smith. We are unsure if anyone attended representing Sebastian County.

Back in the Fort Smith area, the post-Marohn discussions on The City Wire, Facebook and via e-mails took a wrong turn. The comments began to pit one side against another; those for a new school, and those against; those who believe Chaffee Crossing is the answer to our economic development woes, and those who believe we’d invested too many tax dollars at Chaffee Crossing; those who say Marohn’s views don’t work in Fort Smith because the city is landlocked, and those who believe otherwise; those who fault urban sprawl and those who say urban sprawl is a function of a free market.

Any division over a new approach would be unfortunate. Marohn delivered some incredible insights that should make any thinking person uncomfortable with the status quo – especially the part where he mocked cities that spend time and money on “visioning” studies. But it would be folly to assume we should fully adopt a new Marohn orthodoxy.

Any broad discussion of urban sprawl deflects from the point Marohn was trying to make, which is that taxpayer support of private development and/or public infrastructure, whether across the street or outside a territorial jurisdiction, receive a rational review to determine the relationship between upfront benefits and future ancillary impacts on a municipal budget.

Indeed, Chaffee Crossing is part of the city, but that does not automatically justify public infrastructure in the area. Nor does the distance from the downtown or a “core” city area – and we’ve yet to define a “core” area – necessarily disqualify public investment.

As to the landlocked note, the Fort Smith map clearly shows a city bounded to the west, north and parts of the east with a river and state border. But the city is not landlocked in the sense that every section of land is spoken for – so to speak – prior to reaching what is perceived the breakout area to the south and southeast. There are hundreds of acres, especially on the north side of the city, that are either undeveloped or underdeveloped.

It was to this point on which Marohn suggested cities must become more innovative and aggressive with respect to incentivizing development. His point is that such areas already have the cost of infrastructure and public services built in; which is to say that water and sewer improvements, police and fire service, etc., would be much cheaper to provide and maintain than new developments in Chaffee Crossing or beyond the south Fort Smith border.

As to a new Fort Smith high school, there are, in our opinion, questions requiring much more analysis and answers before we even get to the point of where a new school should be located.

Advertisement:

To be sure, it’s not a matter of one part of the region or the city of Fort Smith being a friend or an enemy. It’s math. It’s short-term and long-term budgetary math. It’s math that allows us to avoid emotion resulting in a decision that may be popular and easy on the front end, but costly and potentially cumbersome for future residents and leaders.

Underneath the existing fabric we see in the Fort Smith area, The City Wire is convinced lies several strong towns. We remain hopeful – some have said naively so – that strong leadership will emerge to uncover the strength by fostering collaboration and ensuring that Logic can withstand Loud.

Five Star Votes: 
Average: 4.9 (12 votes)

Comments

Bias

The comment about utilizing undeveloped and under developed land on the north side needs to be tempered with longstanding bias against anything north of Grand Avenue. There are those in town that consider anything on the north side to be as alien as the dark side of the moon. Poor people, black people and Asians live there. It is not safe to go there. Adolescent black, brown and Asians gangs are just waiting to attack. And the river, that dirty, snakey, wino infested river and riverbank is not where any decent person would go. I remember parents threatening their children if they would dare go to the river. Which we did on a regular basis for sand bar parties, back when there were sandbars. But my point is the bias against a part of our town that will not be easily overcome. The pattern here and elsewhere is for the affluent to move to newer homes and when their parents get too old to maintain their homes they are sold and become rent houses. Apartment houses age and become subsidized housing. When it was proposed to build a sports complex on Clayton Expressway it was voted down. One reason given was that it was on the wrong side of town. Nobody lived there. Yes they do, but not the right kind of people. The right kind of people just don't want to be around that kind of people. One of the proposals for the location of the public schools events center is on the river. It will never happen. It is not where the important people live. How can we change this to get more investment on the north side? By insisting that public investment be placed so as to get people familiar with a very vital part of our city. Leadership? Let's do it.
The comment about utilizing undeveloped and under developed land on the north side needs to be tempered with longstanding bias against anything north of Grand Avenue. There are those in town that consider anything on the north side to be as alien as the dark side of the moon. Poor people, black people and Asians live there. It is not safe to go there. Adolescent black, brown and Asians gangs are just waiting to attack. And the river, that dirty, snakey, wino infested river and riverbank is not where any decent person would go. I remember parents threatening their children if they would dare go to the river. Which we did on a regular basis for sand bar parties, back ...>> Read the entire comment.

Don't sugarcoat with Bias.Tell it like it is.....Prejudiced.

The old Northside, old as in Historic. So what happened to historic preservation and revitalization. With encouragement from the city leadership via maintenance codes and help from fellow Christians, we could spruce up the Northside of historic downtown with something as simple as paint. That's a small price to pay to instill civic pride.........Much less than $300,000 consultant fees.

More Bs Fron Observer

"by insisting that public Investment" is an insane statement and who in their right mind would invest their own money where city officials told them to invest their money? Can you name one investment of public money by city leaders that has seen an Return On Investment for the public? The real problem is lack of leadership and too many boondoggle projects put together by people with only an interest to pad their own pockets from spending someone else's money.

So, what is your suggestion?

Anon and Gen4 seem to think that it is just fine that the north side of town and river front remain as they are. No public investment (school project) should be made there. If we do that it merely stirs the termites and they move into the next neighborhoods. May be. At least we know where they stand; just let the north side of Fort Smith go to hell. Let's build everything east and south where the proper people live.

There's no maybe to it..

unlike some who moved near me back in the 70's, I continue to rate all people higher than insects. I also do not make kids drive any further than necessary to get to school so that my home value might go up either. I'm for putting a school where it needs to go for the kids who will be involved. Places where people barely have enough money to make it have always looked like places where people barely have enough money to make it so what good does it do for the city as a whole to move them into the next neighborhood like it has done since Coke Hill 1956 or so? Some of the best people anyone could ever know have lived in the worst places around here. They might even ride bicycles with flags but to find this out you do have to talk to them. Wait, I'm afraid I've managed to get a bit ahead of yourself here. Why not tell us what you propose to do with these people? Bring in an exterminator? (Psst..will one more neighborhood further get them out of the range of the food at the mission?)
unlike some who moved near me back in the 70's, I continue to rate all people higher than insects. I also do not make kids drive any further than necessary to get to school so that my home value might go up either. I'm for putting a school where it needs to go for the kids who will be involved. Places where people barely have enough money to make it have always looked like places where people barely have enough money to make it so what good does it do for the city as a whole to move them into the next neighborhood like it has done since Coke Hill 1956 or so? Some of the best people anyone could ever know have lived in the worst places around here. They might even ...>> Read the entire comment.

Usually things like this ARE a part of someone's scheme..

but anyway it is also not without costs of some sort when a few people run around dislocating a bunch of poor people because they think they will detract from the new atmosphere that will evolve when the first major Northside project in a hundred years finally happens. Where will they go? As always the next neighborhood over.