Home / Blogs / Bill Smith's blog / Shall we progress, or regress?
Shall we progress, or regress?
Evanstonians today face a debate between two radically different views of our world.
The outcome will dramatically change our city's future.
On one side we have a progressive view, on the other a regressive one.
Progressive: It's a free country.
You should be able to do what you want with your land unless it would severely harm the value of mine.
Regressive: Your land is my land.
You shouldn't be able to do anything with your property unless I like it.
Progressive: Change is inevitable.
A city resembles a living organism that must evolve to respond to the changing environment around it. Not all adaptations will be successful, but the city must adapt or die.
Regressive: Change is bad.
I like things the way they are, and I liked the way they were yesterday even better.
Progressive: Beauty depends not on size.
This world has beautiful tall buildings and ugly short ones, and vice versa.
Regressive: Only short buildings can be beautiful.
And don't try to convince me otherwise. I'm not listening. Go away. You bother me.
Progressive: Most buildings have a lifespan, just like people.
It's nice to preserve the best buildings from the past as examples of where we've been, but only if they can be adapted to today's needs.
Regressive: I love old buildings from the 1920s.
But I wouldn't have wanted to live here then because the city changed a lot in that decade.
Progressive: Greater density is the wave of the future.
With soaring gas prices and other environmental concerns, Evanston is well positioned to benefit as people look for better mass transit options and a place where they might walk to work. We should welcome our new neighbors.
Regressive: Density threatens our way of life.
My high-rise condo didn't appreciate 10 percent last year, so bar all new construction until it does.
Progressive: Evanston should welcome residents of all income levels.
And we really like ones who can afford to pay the taxes and don't have kids at home whose education the public needs to pay for.
Regressive: We're deeply concerned about affordable housing.
But none in my neighborhood, please. And don't raise my taxes -- let the new condo dwellers pay for it. And when my house appreciated 10 percent a year, that wasn't to blame for making Evanston unaffordable.
So, which will it be, fellow Evanstonians? Shall we make progress, or regress?
To Bill and the no-names,
These are the facts.
*We have a BIG pension and funding problem
*The TIF runs until 2019
*The pension funds have to be funded by 2033
That means tax revenue from the proposed development goes into the TIF until 2019. None goes to schools except for incremental children in the TIF. Former Ald. Newman stated that only 13 children were in the new condos as of a year ago. After the TIF ends in 2019 then money goes into general revenues.
As far as the financial analysis and the focus on the near term, no one has disproved the ECRD analysis that the Tower will be a loss in the near term. The pathetic justifications by the Chamber head and U.S. Equities (for which our tax money paid!) are baloney. They used non-discounted cash flow and they would flunk any basic finance course. A dollar now is worth much more than a dollar ten years from now and even more than 25 years from now. FYI I have an MBA from the Executive Program at the U of C and can speak with some knowledge.
If the Tower is approved, the tenants, already vacating, will leave, faced with an empty or near empty building, the developer's promise not to demolish until units are sold is facetious -- they will demolish the building to get a lower property tax. That drop in tax revenue will continue until the units are built, sold, assessed and taxes collected. Let us hope there is no repeat of the delay that happened with Sherman Plaza. There is your property tax loss in addition to other indirect revenue losses (it is all there on the ECRD web site, Perman has so far refused to share his analysis, the US Equities analysis is worthless as regards the pension issiue).
The $140 million is the underfunding now, and it will grow with time unless more money is applied. Losing money in the near term is no help. So if being progessive means wanting higher taxes and/or service cuts, then be progressive.
As far as the use of terms such as Progressive, Regressive, NIMBY, etc. -- they are all bafflegab and ignore the main issues: revenue and public benefits for the extreme variances requested. There are no "mental tricks" here, just basic financial principles.
Given the level of financial acumen shown so far, no wonder we are in such deep financial straits.
vito
I vote for progress.
Anonymous Al
Bill - you are label all those opposed to the tower as Regressive and neatly want to label them anti-development. Lets put the tower aside. Take a look around town at some of the council's give aways and the lousy development that followed. Alot of the retail that was development west and south is very poorly done and layed out with no really thought - basically what you have everywhere else.
Much of the street scape is screwed up and poorly done around alot of the new development with little thought. Why no tax relief? because every thing is a TIF or some type of revenue sharing agreement. The buildings will depreciate by the end and most likely we we get nothing back 30 years in the future.
You some how think zoning is not OK - yet I know you would no like someone to knock down a couple of homes next to you on the south side of your property and construct a four story condo building up to the side walk putting your yard in shade and covering the entire lot?
Bill I am not interested in saving all the old buildings in town. Some clearly can go - other need to stay or at least encourage them to stay - by the way developers like the historic tax credits they use them - the old Marshall fields building is one example its assessed value is frozen.
This issue is a little more complex than label ever one a Regressive or Progressive = if they are pro- tower or not.
Hi Junad,
If you reread my original comments you'll notice that I never once mentioned the Fountain Square tower.
While I tend to think the tower would be a plus for our city, my concern here is not with any single project, but with the overall theme of opposition to any sizable development downtown that has seized certain vocal members of our community.
That, I believe, is regressive and does constitute a threat to the community's success.
I never said I was opposed to zoning. It has valid purposes in barring uses that would severely devalue adjacent properties.
Providing I have an equal opportunity to redevelop my land with a four story condo, I'm not necessarily opposed to having my neighbor do the same.
But since the block is zoned R-1 and a historic district starts just to the south of my property line, I don't think you'll have much luck getting the rezoning you'd need to make your hypothetical a reality.
-- Bill
Bill & No-Name,
I don't care what others think, I have done my financial analysis using my U of C MBA skill sets, and the Tower is a loss for the first five to six years, which is when we need the money. No one seems to want to touch that subject, I suppose out of deference to the Council's financial performance.
Lost in all of this are the supposed benefits for the requested exceptions -- there are none that merit the exceptions asked for.
NIMBY's exist in the mindset of the "progressives" as well. You can talk all you want about LEED buildings, but using the present Civic Center as an example, it is much greener to reuse the current building than to replace it with a new building.
As for the four Commission members expressing their views (BTW they are very qualified) what about the Chair speaking out in favor at P&D? And besides they didn't do their scheming in closed executive sessions.
As for Mr. Chavez -- move there if you admire his work. Even Venezuelans are wising up, he lost his most recent attempt to expand his powers. He is squandering his country's wealth by attempting to be the next Castro. The country is in dire financial straits. Their oil output is down over 30% because he has not invested in infrastructure and because of his confiscatory predations, no foreign companies are willing to invest there.
Actuarial statistics being what they are, I probably won't be here. I feel sorry for those that will.
vito
Vito,
Given the ideologically charged lingo that the pro-skyscraper side continues to employ -- linking us with Chavez, Central Planning, telling us to move to Havana, etc. -- it is increasingly clear that we are dealing with some right-wing loonies who belong in an ideological freezer. This issue is about whether our community wants to continue building a lot more high-rises in our downtown, a pretty basic issue; but they seem to view it as some sort of war of ideas. I think they wish they could be back in the Cold War.
Peter
Dear Peter,
First off, I am far from a "right winger", did not vote Bush into office, and can't wait for him to leave.
Secondly, I am not loony as you claim, but rather a forward thinking, environmentally concerned citizen.
Thirdly, I support the tower for obvious longer term urban infill reasons that should be close to the heart of liberal Evanston. Things like:
The absolutely required weaning of our nation off of personal transportation and towards development that stresses the use of public transportation. Just think about Evanston taking the lead in reducing the addiction to cars, building more efficient sustainable infill projects, showing the Midwest and the nation how it should be done.
You and all the other opponents need to look at yourselves in the mirror and seriously consider what is better from an environmental standpoint. More sprawl, more Hummer buying suburban cornfield developments, etc.. More stumpy soviet style block long infill developments that may conserve someone's sunlight 3 or 4 blocks away but cause far more shaded wind tunnel cavernous streets in the downtown core.
Many more blogs have articulated the many benefits of this project better than I can, but I seriously believe this type of development in this type of urban public transportation-oriented city is the proper and responsible thing to promote.
As an aside, I also believe your group has already managed to take what could and would have been an elegant tower and dumbed it down with your insistence on height limits.
Hopefully, after some serious thought, we can still have a great development here and be leaders in the future of our changing environment.
Peter -
You wrote :
"This issue is about whether our community wants to continue building a lot more high-rises in our downtown, a pretty basic issue; but they seem to view it as some sort of war of ideas."
Well, that is the point. It is a 'war of ideas', as Bill pointed out. Do we want to live in a tolerant, progressive city - or a traditional (translation: intolerant) and charming (translation: decaying) city?
1. Please trace the thread all the way back. It was Vito who first brought Mr. Chavez into this discussion.
2. You get all offended when people attack you, but you have no problem describing Ald. Moran and Rainey as 'rabid', and you make accusations of corruption and dishonesty against alderman and consultants whose opinions differ from yours. And you expect civility in return?
3. The anti-development side is willing to tell people to 'move to Chicago' if they want skyscrapers. Why is it not fair for us to suggest that you move somewhere more fitting if you are opposed to development? [ If Evanston must choose between being a mini-Dubai and a mini-Pyongyang, I prefer the former ]
4. You know that this is not just about this particular skyscraper, or even just about downtown. You are a member of the notorious Central Street Neighbors Association, which gets involved in non-"skyscraper" issues such as downzoning Central St., the development of the Citgo station, and the hours of the 7-11 store. { Note to homebuyers: Don't buy a house next to 7-11 if you are afraid of customers coming by at late hours ]
5. Many of us think that making downtown a more urban environment is a good thing. Instead of rational discussion, you have absurdly suggested that tall buildings lead to crime [ Where would you rather walk at 2 a.m.? Under a skyscraper in Manhattan or at the corner of Dodge and Church? ] , implied that Evanston was better before all of us condo residents moved here, and accused anyone who disagrees with you of 'working for the developers'.
You repeatedly make statements that 'nobody favors this skyscraper'. Well, Peter, some of us do like it, and we aren't being paid by the developers. Why do you deny that we exist? Or do we just not count, because we don't live on Central Street?
The economic 'projections' and warning of 'fire hazard' put out by the ECRD - which have easily been demolished on this site - are so blatantly misleading that they insult our intelligence. The blatant intellectual inconsistencies ( The offices at 708 Church are good because they attract people and parking revenue to Evanston..but downtown development will be bad because it will attract people and cars into Evanston... Only rich people can afford the condos, but condos will cause crime? ). Most residents of Evanston are fairly well educated, and can see through these contradictory arguments - and we realize that the tenants at 708 Church only care about their own selfish interests.
Your silly posters - showing the 900 foot tower next to the tiny houses - was deceptive and intellectually dishonest. [Even Blair Kamin ridiculed that ]. Even the self-righteous slogan "Save Evanston - Stop the Tower" implies that people who disagree with you on development issues are evil people out to destroy the city. We don't want to be saved. ( You must be a neocon if you think it is your duty to go around saving people )
For too long, the NIMBY's have been able to take shots at the developers, or the hospitals, or the university, or the condo-residents. It is about time that people started pointing out how reactionary you guys are.
But mainly, it is about ideas - and the anti-tower side seems to have none, other than 'we liked things the way they used to be'.
You recently wrote that you wouldn't mind a 15 story building on the site - but the ECRD says that we need to protect the shoe store and the offices upstairs. They will come out to complain about a 15 story building too, won't they? Will you sit that one out?
Most people realize that this project isn't going to fly. But this isn't about getting this project through - it is about the NEXT NIMBY crusade.
I think that most readers can recognize that I certainly do not admire the work of Mr. Chavez. I was comparing his boneheaded, short-sighted populism in Venezuela to that of the NIMBY's in Evanston. I guess Vito missed that.
No-Name
Thanks Bill, for a great summary of the whole tower debate - and all debates in Evanston. . I think that this project is not going to happen - at least not in its current form - but you have summed up the issues pretty well.
Not only that, but like all great authors you have made your arguments general enough that they will pass the test of time. After this 708 Church project, there will be another project somewhere - maybe at Davis&Chicago, or the former Borders, or maybe we will be blessed by lightning bolt that destroys the Fountain Square Building ( when nobody is inside, of course) and some developer will want to replace it with an elegant glass tower.
When that project comes, the NIMBY's will come out, too - but the arguments will be the same. Charm and elegance, traffic, memories of old Evanston, uniquness. No problem - this essay is recyclable - LEED Gold certified. [ Maybe in 2088 someone will try to tear down Sherman Plaza or Optima Horizons, and the NIMBY's will fight to preserve them. I'd love to be around to see that! And everything you wrote will still be true. ]
The only problem is that the essay is just too long to put on a lawnsign. Can you condense it to one catchy phrase?
[ Vito - Concerning Hugo Chavez. Mr. Chavez believes in - and has put in practice - government control of the Venezuelan economy. He justifies this by saying that he - unlike the greedy outside corporations - is acting on behalf of the people and protecting Venezuela's sovereignty (uniqueness?) . He was won at least one referendum down there, and standing up to the US often helps boost his popularity ..I guess that some Venezuelans do not want their country to become a 'mini Estados-Unidos' . It may feel good in the short term, but the long-term effects on the economy will be disastrous. But some people aren't interested in the long term. Does this sound familiar? ]
Bill,
Your bias for the Tower is more than apparent, and along with the developers and their silent (many?) you attempt to paint ALL the Tower opponents as elitist and against height and progress.
Wrong!
There are major reasons we are against the development.
One of the reasons for our misguided Council's push for development is the sorry state of the City finances. Unfortunately that lack of financial acumen that got us there is further demonstrated when we pay a consultant to "evaluate" the Tower proposal and he comes up with a sorry presentation that ignores the time value of money. We need money now, not ten or fifteen years hence. The Chamber of Commerce head further compounds this lack of acumen by trying to paint a picture, again of non-discounted cash flow, through 2037. That the Council did not catch this, or worse yet, ignored it, is demonstration enough of why we are where we are.
Another detail is that the downtown plan is based on "form based zoning", and yet it would allow a jarring disconnect in height across Church Street.
I will ignore the reality of the real estate market.
As for those no-name comments blurbing on about representative government and delegation to elected representatives -- why don't they bring Hugo Chavez here. There would be no wishy-washy blathering and argument.
So stop being bitter and clinging to false concepts of progressive and regressive. Just the economic facts.
Hi Vito,
We have a budget crisis running from now at least until 2033, when the pension payment catchup is supposed to be complete.
In view of that, your focus solely on the next 5 to 10 years is misplaced -- unless you're hoping to be in a better place by then.
As for me, I'm hoping to stick around long enough to see 2033 and then some.
I'm still looking for examples of a recent large-scale development project that any of the prominent tower opponents did publicly favor. It seems some people claim to not be opposed to height and density in the abstract, but manage to always oppose whatever is actually proposed. It's a neat mental trick.
-- Bill
Post new comment