Wednesday, February 27, 2008
Thursday, February 21, 2008
Downtown Economic Development
Are we ready for downtown economic development yet? A quick drive down Main Street and Lewis Street today reveals at least thirteen vacant commercial spaces -- including the closing of Switchback Mountain Gear. This must be what they mean by “Keep Pagosa, Pagosa”.
An important exception is newly opened “The Click” snowboard and skateboard shop. That one small shop has almost single-handedly revived the north side of the 100 block of Pagosa Street. The new storefront is important because it caters both to our tourist snow industry and also to our local youth. Sometimes free enterprise can pave the way to the future on its own even lacking a broader Town action plan.
This past week also brought a new scare when the City of Durango came to DeClarke Granite and offered them financial incentives to move over there. Durango has been aggressively growing its downtown commercial and its jobs base for a few years.
Like many business owners downtown, Dale DeClarke is disillusioned with the lack of vision, the resistance to a modern economy and the failure of either the Town or County to attend to the business of attracting business. Fortunately for us, our Town has provided DeClarke a huge incentive also. If they leave, DeClarke will likely be unable to either rent or sell their Putt Hill shop. So, hopefully, the granite shop will stay here and wait while we develop our own economic development plan.
Indiana Reed tells how “For Durango’s Historic Downtown, it all began with the need for new sidewalks. City council had approved the two-year program, and staff engineers and planners were moving ahead to launch the construction in late summer 2004. The plan was introduced on a chilly February morning to a meeting of merchants and stakeholders.”
“To at least one in the gathering – Tim Wheeler, owner of Durango Coffee Company – initiating a massive sidewalk construction program independent of an overall plan for downtown redevelopment, lacked foresight and seemed, to put it bluntly, irresponsible. A consensus agreed.”
“The community had spoken, and these sometimes disparate voices banded together, with representation from the City, to form the Downtown Durango Partnership. This public-private coalition voluntarily took on the responsibility for, in essence, shepherding the process of research and development, and ultimate approval by City Council, of what was christened the Downtown Durango Vision and Strategic Plan. It would be a series of recommendations for projects that would build on the downtown’s diverse, mixed-use character and reinforce the downtown as the “heart” of the community, embodying its identity, values and energy.”
“As each “piece” of the vision comes to the forefront, new studies, public meetings, and other communication tools, will be organized to keep the public “in the loop” and involved in the process of sustaining Durango’s Historic Downtown – the heartbeat of our community.” (Indiana Reed at www.downtowndurango.org)
As noted in our own Pagosa Springs Downtown Master Plan (adopted January 2, 2008), “Recent development west of Town has diluted the intensity of downtown commercial uses…which has caused a shift in viable businesses.” “A need exists to have a cohesive group to manage improvements and marketing of the downtown.”
Like Durango, we need to develop a Pagosa Springs Downtown Partnership which coordinates long-range business planning and action.
Our Downtown Master Plan suggests alternative actions that the Town itself might take to see that growth and realization of the Master Plan can be accomplished. “In this approach, the Town joins forces with another organization or a private entity. For example, the Town may joint venture with a private developer to construct a project that would include a public parking facility with privately owned commercial and residential space.”
Another implementation approach could be that “the Town may offer flexibility in development regulations to encourage a developer to take action in creating an exceptional project.”
Given the virtual economic death spiral being experienced downtown right now, the Town Council could consider that any major new development downtown would be “an exceptional project”. For example, as the Town hires an economic development coordinator, why not aggressively pursue David Brown and Bootjack Management with the question “what can we do for you Mr. Brown to encourage you to build your East Village Project today?”
Maybe the Town could waive much of the parking requirements knowing that a Town parking garage will someday pick up the missing spaces. Maybe the Town could defer impact fees for a few years. What would any of this cost the Town today, really? And what would be the economic and psychological gain for the Town?
David Brown received a conditional permit for his East Village project in November from the Town Council. The project was constrained by the Town height limit and parking requirements to the extent that David Brown will likely never build the project as approved. The Town restrictions make it financially infeasible for the project to be built.
Some may say, “Too bad for David Brown.” But I say, “Too bad for this Town.”
Nostalgia for yesterday’s small buildings does nothing to inform us about the reality of $300. per square foot to build today. Lack of new commercial buildings downtown is harming the financial solvency of the people who live here today.
Even if David Brown wanted to build it at a loss, money is hard to come by right now. William Fleckstein, author of “Greenspan’s Bubbles” says, “I don’t think it’s possible for the Fed to solve the unwinding of credit. It’s going to get worse.” (BusinessWeek 2/25/08)
"Last year, there probably wasn't anything a lender wouldn't lend on," said John Luka, managing director with Column Financial Inc. "Now, there isn't anything a lender will lend on."
(retailtrafficmag.com: Feb 6, 2008)
Is it just me, or is our downtown commercial core in some serious need of help?
The first duty of the Town Council is to keep the Town financially solvent. That means the money coming in must exceed the money going out. By definition, that requires financial growth. And growth requires a Town-driven plan for growth.
The downtown core has been “frozen in time” from about 1980. The financial insolvency of no growth can be seen in the number of downtown commercial vacancies that plague us at the very beginning of this current economic downturn.
The Town Council is discussing hiring an economic development coordinator. But a new Town “coordinator” is going to need to have an economic development plan. And that plan is going to need for the Town to push for the construction of some new buildings downtown.
Our architecture shapes our psychology. Our psychology shapes our future.
The Town Comprehensive Plan “aims to ensure that all future private development will contribute to furthering the development of Pagosa Springs as a sustainable and livable community.” What is more critical to being a “sustainable and livable community” than providing a solid economic base of a thriving and, yes, growing tourism industry downtown?
Comprehensive Plan “Goal E-4” says that “Pagosa Springs will support and attract businesses and industries that will diversify and sustain the local economy and level out seasonal fluctuations.
Amen.
South Durango is the area of Home Depot and Walmart. The Durango Herald notes that “Sales tax collections grew at a faster rate in the Central Business District than in south Durango (last year), a fact Business Improvement District chairman John Wells pointed to as a sign of downtown's continued health. “
“Durango's business leaders are taking steps to ensure downtown's continued economic vitality. The Business Improvement District will soon select a firm to conduct a market assessment, which will essentially form a business plan for downtown.” (Chuck Slothower Feb. 17, 2008 Durango Herald)
We have a few Town “leaders” who want only to save the old buildings of Pagosa Springs. Is it possible for the Town to aggressively encourage a few new commercial buildings? What would be the harm?
Right now we don’t need more development “restrictions”. We need the Town to loosen up and get some new projects going.
John Motter in last week’s Pagosa Sun noted that resistance to new buildings and growth in the downtown goes back at least to 1876 when the native Utes would burn down newly built cabins to keep out the “newcomers”. Change was brought to the Indian Nation at the end of a rifle barrel. We can probably find a more peaceful approach today.
Today we still have a few who go so far as to try to “preserve” a tear-down dilapidated PineWood Inn for its “historical” value. That dying inn was once created by chopping a beautifully curved roof off of the old Dr. Mary Fisher house.
“Historical preservation” is a truly subjective concern. If we really want to celebrate the past, why not build a huge Ute Nation cultural center in the heart of downtown to celebrate the true history of “our Town”. Now, that would be a story worth preserving.
Yes, we need to celebrate our past. But not by clinging with fear and stopping all attempts at development into the future.
Our current downtown architecture and vacant storefronts tell the story of the recession of 1979. Is this the history that we are trying to preserve for the next generation? The real psychological intent of “Keep Pagosa, Pagosa” is to unconsciously “Keep Pagosa Stuck”.
Drive down Main Street in Durango. The story of its past is told quite elegantly with the vibrancy of its economy today. The story told is one of hope, growth and a positive outlook for the future.
Welcome to the new The Click sports shop on Pagosa Street. Welcome to the new Town economic development coordinator, whoever that will be. And welcome to our opportunity to purposefully grow our downtown economy for the next generation.
And remember -- register before March 1st and vote April 8th in the Town Council elections.
An important exception is newly opened “The Click” snowboard and skateboard shop. That one small shop has almost single-handedly revived the north side of the 100 block of Pagosa Street. The new storefront is important because it caters both to our tourist snow industry and also to our local youth. Sometimes free enterprise can pave the way to the future on its own even lacking a broader Town action plan.
This past week also brought a new scare when the City of Durango came to DeClarke Granite and offered them financial incentives to move over there. Durango has been aggressively growing its downtown commercial and its jobs base for a few years.
Like many business owners downtown, Dale DeClarke is disillusioned with the lack of vision, the resistance to a modern economy and the failure of either the Town or County to attend to the business of attracting business. Fortunately for us, our Town has provided DeClarke a huge incentive also. If they leave, DeClarke will likely be unable to either rent or sell their Putt Hill shop. So, hopefully, the granite shop will stay here and wait while we develop our own economic development plan.
Indiana Reed tells how “For Durango’s Historic Downtown, it all began with the need for new sidewalks. City council had approved the two-year program, and staff engineers and planners were moving ahead to launch the construction in late summer 2004. The plan was introduced on a chilly February morning to a meeting of merchants and stakeholders.”
“To at least one in the gathering – Tim Wheeler, owner of Durango Coffee Company – initiating a massive sidewalk construction program independent of an overall plan for downtown redevelopment, lacked foresight and seemed, to put it bluntly, irresponsible. A consensus agreed.”
“The community had spoken, and these sometimes disparate voices banded together, with representation from the City, to form the Downtown Durango Partnership. This public-private coalition voluntarily took on the responsibility for, in essence, shepherding the process of research and development, and ultimate approval by City Council, of what was christened the Downtown Durango Vision and Strategic Plan. It would be a series of recommendations for projects that would build on the downtown’s diverse, mixed-use character and reinforce the downtown as the “heart” of the community, embodying its identity, values and energy.”
“As each “piece” of the vision comes to the forefront, new studies, public meetings, and other communication tools, will be organized to keep the public “in the loop” and involved in the process of sustaining Durango’s Historic Downtown – the heartbeat of our community.” (Indiana Reed at www.downtowndurango.org)
As noted in our own Pagosa Springs Downtown Master Plan (adopted January 2, 2008), “Recent development west of Town has diluted the intensity of downtown commercial uses…which has caused a shift in viable businesses.” “A need exists to have a cohesive group to manage improvements and marketing of the downtown.”
Like Durango, we need to develop a Pagosa Springs Downtown Partnership which coordinates long-range business planning and action.
Our Downtown Master Plan suggests alternative actions that the Town itself might take to see that growth and realization of the Master Plan can be accomplished. “In this approach, the Town joins forces with another organization or a private entity. For example, the Town may joint venture with a private developer to construct a project that would include a public parking facility with privately owned commercial and residential space.”
Another implementation approach could be that “the Town may offer flexibility in development regulations to encourage a developer to take action in creating an exceptional project.”
Given the virtual economic death spiral being experienced downtown right now, the Town Council could consider that any major new development downtown would be “an exceptional project”. For example, as the Town hires an economic development coordinator, why not aggressively pursue David Brown and Bootjack Management with the question “what can we do for you Mr. Brown to encourage you to build your East Village Project today?”
Maybe the Town could waive much of the parking requirements knowing that a Town parking garage will someday pick up the missing spaces. Maybe the Town could defer impact fees for a few years. What would any of this cost the Town today, really? And what would be the economic and psychological gain for the Town?
David Brown received a conditional permit for his East Village project in November from the Town Council. The project was constrained by the Town height limit and parking requirements to the extent that David Brown will likely never build the project as approved. The Town restrictions make it financially infeasible for the project to be built.
Some may say, “Too bad for David Brown.” But I say, “Too bad for this Town.”
Nostalgia for yesterday’s small buildings does nothing to inform us about the reality of $300. per square foot to build today. Lack of new commercial buildings downtown is harming the financial solvency of the people who live here today.
Even if David Brown wanted to build it at a loss, money is hard to come by right now. William Fleckstein, author of “Greenspan’s Bubbles” says, “I don’t think it’s possible for the Fed to solve the unwinding of credit. It’s going to get worse.” (BusinessWeek 2/25/08)
"Last year, there probably wasn't anything a lender wouldn't lend on," said John Luka, managing director with Column Financial Inc. "Now, there isn't anything a lender will lend on."
(retailtrafficmag.com: Feb 6, 2008)
Is it just me, or is our downtown commercial core in some serious need of help?
The first duty of the Town Council is to keep the Town financially solvent. That means the money coming in must exceed the money going out. By definition, that requires financial growth. And growth requires a Town-driven plan for growth.
The downtown core has been “frozen in time” from about 1980. The financial insolvency of no growth can be seen in the number of downtown commercial vacancies that plague us at the very beginning of this current economic downturn.
The Town Council is discussing hiring an economic development coordinator. But a new Town “coordinator” is going to need to have an economic development plan. And that plan is going to need for the Town to push for the construction of some new buildings downtown.
Our architecture shapes our psychology. Our psychology shapes our future.
The Town Comprehensive Plan “aims to ensure that all future private development will contribute to furthering the development of Pagosa Springs as a sustainable and livable community.” What is more critical to being a “sustainable and livable community” than providing a solid economic base of a thriving and, yes, growing tourism industry downtown?
Comprehensive Plan “Goal E-4” says that “Pagosa Springs will support and attract businesses and industries that will diversify and sustain the local economy and level out seasonal fluctuations.
Amen.
South Durango is the area of Home Depot and Walmart. The Durango Herald notes that “Sales tax collections grew at a faster rate in the Central Business District than in south Durango (last year), a fact Business Improvement District chairman John Wells pointed to as a sign of downtown's continued health. “
“Durango's business leaders are taking steps to ensure downtown's continued economic vitality. The Business Improvement District will soon select a firm to conduct a market assessment, which will essentially form a business plan for downtown.” (Chuck Slothower Feb. 17, 2008 Durango Herald)
We have a few Town “leaders” who want only to save the old buildings of Pagosa Springs. Is it possible for the Town to aggressively encourage a few new commercial buildings? What would be the harm?
Right now we don’t need more development “restrictions”. We need the Town to loosen up and get some new projects going.
John Motter in last week’s Pagosa Sun noted that resistance to new buildings and growth in the downtown goes back at least to 1876 when the native Utes would burn down newly built cabins to keep out the “newcomers”. Change was brought to the Indian Nation at the end of a rifle barrel. We can probably find a more peaceful approach today.
Today we still have a few who go so far as to try to “preserve” a tear-down dilapidated PineWood Inn for its “historical” value. That dying inn was once created by chopping a beautifully curved roof off of the old Dr. Mary Fisher house.
“Historical preservation” is a truly subjective concern. If we really want to celebrate the past, why not build a huge Ute Nation cultural center in the heart of downtown to celebrate the true history of “our Town”. Now, that would be a story worth preserving.
Yes, we need to celebrate our past. But not by clinging with fear and stopping all attempts at development into the future.
Our current downtown architecture and vacant storefronts tell the story of the recession of 1979. Is this the history that we are trying to preserve for the next generation? The real psychological intent of “Keep Pagosa, Pagosa” is to unconsciously “Keep Pagosa Stuck”.
Drive down Main Street in Durango. The story of its past is told quite elegantly with the vibrancy of its economy today. The story told is one of hope, growth and a positive outlook for the future.
Welcome to the new The Click sports shop on Pagosa Street. Welcome to the new Town economic development coordinator, whoever that will be. And welcome to our opportunity to purposefully grow our downtown economy for the next generation.
And remember -- register before March 1st and vote April 8th in the Town Council elections.
Saturday, February 16, 2008
How to make a County Home Rule charter
Why would it be a good idea to ratify a Home Rule Charter for the County and why should we care?
To change our County to a Home Rule Charter would mean that the rules by which we govern and run our county would be made by us, here at home. It is like writing our own county constitution instead of blindly following rules set forth in the state constitution. No one needs to be convinced that our current county structure is not working very well.
By voting for a Home Rule Charter for the County, we get to make the rules here that work for us. Some of you might not read this entire piece so just remember this. Home Rule puts control of our county government back into the hands of the citizens of our county.
When Home Rule gets put on the county ballot, you will actually end up voting for it two different times.
The first time you will get to vote on two questions: [1] should a Home Rule Charter Commission be formed, and [2] who do you want to elect to be the 11 members of the Charter Commission? Then, the Charter Commission goes off and works on writing the new Charter for 240 days. During that time, they have to present their work to the general public at least two times. Then, 240 days later, you get to vote again on this question “I accept the Home Rule Charter as written: yes or no?”
The Home Rule question will get put on the ballot one of two ways: [a] either the County Commissioners will put it there, or [b] approximately 600 of us county voters will sign a petition to put it there. A petition will begin circulating in June 2008. The idea will be to place the Home Rule question on the November ballot.
The different new Home Rule Charter issues or “flavors” explored here are: [a] number of County Commissioners and their salaries, [b] hiring of Department Heads versus electing them, [c] Initiative and Referendum process, [d] districting or “at large” election of Commissioners, and [e] partisan versus non-partisan elections.
The Commission of Eleven will be studying these topics extensively and make final decisions by the end of their 240 day Charter-writing project.
The number of County Commissioners is presently three, as mandated by the State constitution. To avoid the dynamic of a two-to-one vote split, five commissioners or seven commissioners might be better. More commissioners would divide up the various committee tasks and other duties more easily. Five commissioners only need five offices and five telephones, etc. So, maybe, five is the right number.
Right now, the State requires that we pay our Commissioners $50,000. per year. Under Home Rule, we can pay whatever we want.
The choice here is however many Commissioners that we want and to pay them whatever salary that we want.
The hiring of department heads instead of electing them is possibly the most important Home Rule Charter issue. Some believe that it is critical to streamline the County chain of command and to make it operate like a business instead of like divided fiefdoms. Currently, we elect the Treasurer, the Assessor, the County Clerk, the Sherriff, the Coroner and the County Surveyor. The Treasurer has in the past had troubles communicating with the Finance Director. The Assessor has had trouble talking to the Planning Department.
Currently, the Commissioners, the Treasurer, the Assessor, the County Clerk, and the Sherriff all act like separate CEO’s. We could create only one Chief Executive and that is the five (or seven) member Commissioner body. The County Manager would be responsible for knowing everything and providing all necessary information to the Commissioners. The people would go straight to the Commissioners for answers. The Commissioners would go straight to the County Manager for answers. The County Manager gets answers straight from the Department Heads. Alternately, elected department heads would operate somewhat independently from the Commissioners.
The Sherriff is the most likely Department Head to be kept as an elected position.
So, the choice here is to keep some or all or none of the department heads elected or else hired. Those not elected could be appointed or hired.
The initiative and referendum components are required by State law to be included in our new Home Rule charter. This is the right of the citizens to propose and vote on legislation without going through their elected representatives. This right does not exist currently in Archuleta County.
No choice here.
The topic of Commissioner’s Districts could become a complicated one. Right now the Commissioner districts are divided into three districts with approximately equal numbers of voters. We could keep this simple and leave the districts alone. If we decide that five commissioners is the right number then keep it at three commissioners elected from districts and two commissioners elected “at large” (the entire county).
The choice here is, probably, five districts, three districts, or no districts.
We can choose to make our County Commissioner elections partisan or non-partisan. Right now, County elections are partisan. When you vote you see the name of the candidate and the name of their “party”. The party machine candidates (plus the independents) narrow list of who you get to choose from before you even get to vote.
If we wish, we can retain a more pure form of democracy. If we eliminate the “partisan” nature of our county elections then we can eliminate a lot of the power that the party machine has on our local government.
The choice here is to continue “partisan” elections or to eliminate the party affiliation to create “non-partisan” elections.
Presentations to inform the public about County Home Rule will begin to be made in March. If you have a group for which you would like a brief presentation made, you may contact Teddy Herzog at 731-2587 or teddyherzog@yahoo.com
To change our County to a Home Rule Charter would mean that the rules by which we govern and run our county would be made by us, here at home. It is like writing our own county constitution instead of blindly following rules set forth in the state constitution. No one needs to be convinced that our current county structure is not working very well.
By voting for a Home Rule Charter for the County, we get to make the rules here that work for us. Some of you might not read this entire piece so just remember this. Home Rule puts control of our county government back into the hands of the citizens of our county.
When Home Rule gets put on the county ballot, you will actually end up voting for it two different times.
The first time you will get to vote on two questions: [1] should a Home Rule Charter Commission be formed, and [2] who do you want to elect to be the 11 members of the Charter Commission? Then, the Charter Commission goes off and works on writing the new Charter for 240 days. During that time, they have to present their work to the general public at least two times. Then, 240 days later, you get to vote again on this question “I accept the Home Rule Charter as written: yes or no?”
The Home Rule question will get put on the ballot one of two ways: [a] either the County Commissioners will put it there, or [b] approximately 600 of us county voters will sign a petition to put it there. A petition will begin circulating in June 2008. The idea will be to place the Home Rule question on the November ballot.
The different new Home Rule Charter issues or “flavors” explored here are: [a] number of County Commissioners and their salaries, [b] hiring of Department Heads versus electing them, [c] Initiative and Referendum process, [d] districting or “at large” election of Commissioners, and [e] partisan versus non-partisan elections.
The Commission of Eleven will be studying these topics extensively and make final decisions by the end of their 240 day Charter-writing project.
The number of County Commissioners is presently three, as mandated by the State constitution. To avoid the dynamic of a two-to-one vote split, five commissioners or seven commissioners might be better. More commissioners would divide up the various committee tasks and other duties more easily. Five commissioners only need five offices and five telephones, etc. So, maybe, five is the right number.
Right now, the State requires that we pay our Commissioners $50,000. per year. Under Home Rule, we can pay whatever we want.
The choice here is however many Commissioners that we want and to pay them whatever salary that we want.
The hiring of department heads instead of electing them is possibly the most important Home Rule Charter issue. Some believe that it is critical to streamline the County chain of command and to make it operate like a business instead of like divided fiefdoms. Currently, we elect the Treasurer, the Assessor, the County Clerk, the Sherriff, the Coroner and the County Surveyor. The Treasurer has in the past had troubles communicating with the Finance Director. The Assessor has had trouble talking to the Planning Department.
Currently, the Commissioners, the Treasurer, the Assessor, the County Clerk, and the Sherriff all act like separate CEO’s. We could create only one Chief Executive and that is the five (or seven) member Commissioner body. The County Manager would be responsible for knowing everything and providing all necessary information to the Commissioners. The people would go straight to the Commissioners for answers. The Commissioners would go straight to the County Manager for answers. The County Manager gets answers straight from the Department Heads. Alternately, elected department heads would operate somewhat independently from the Commissioners.
The Sherriff is the most likely Department Head to be kept as an elected position.
So, the choice here is to keep some or all or none of the department heads elected or else hired. Those not elected could be appointed or hired.
The initiative and referendum components are required by State law to be included in our new Home Rule charter. This is the right of the citizens to propose and vote on legislation without going through their elected representatives. This right does not exist currently in Archuleta County.
No choice here.
The topic of Commissioner’s Districts could become a complicated one. Right now the Commissioner districts are divided into three districts with approximately equal numbers of voters. We could keep this simple and leave the districts alone. If we decide that five commissioners is the right number then keep it at three commissioners elected from districts and two commissioners elected “at large” (the entire county).
The choice here is, probably, five districts, three districts, or no districts.
We can choose to make our County Commissioner elections partisan or non-partisan. Right now, County elections are partisan. When you vote you see the name of the candidate and the name of their “party”. The party machine candidates (plus the independents) narrow list of who you get to choose from before you even get to vote.
If we wish, we can retain a more pure form of democracy. If we eliminate the “partisan” nature of our county elections then we can eliminate a lot of the power that the party machine has on our local government.
The choice here is to continue “partisan” elections or to eliminate the party affiliation to create “non-partisan” elections.
Presentations to inform the public about County Home Rule will begin to be made in March. If you have a group for which you would like a brief presentation made, you may contact Teddy Herzog at 731-2587 or teddyherzog@yahoo.com
Thursday, February 7, 2008
Choice and Consequence
“Would you rather earn $50,000. a year while other people make $25,000., or would you rather earn $100,000. a year while other people get $250,000.”
According to experiments in behavioral economics, “the majority of people select the first option.”
“Amazingly, most people said that they would prefer to” make less money than to make more money while being behind somebody else. Studies show that most people would rather forgo $50,000. in order to alleviate the feeling of “regret” that comes with not earning $250,000. “Essentially they were willing to pay $50,000. for regret therapy.”
“Regret falls under a psychological effect known as loss aversion. Research shows that before we risk an investment, we need to feel assured that the potential gain is twice what the possible loss might be because a loss feels twice as bad as a gain feels. That‘s weird and irrational, but it‘s the way it is.” (Michael Shermer; LA Times 1/13/08)
Now what could that study have to do with the town of Pagosa Springs and the “welcome mat” we never put out for someone like David J. Brown and Bootjack Management? Hmmmm.
David Brown came to town and tried to turn Pagosa Springs into an income-producing, desirable destination. Aren’t you glad that we avoided the “regret” of having to participate in his success?
“This community is at a moment where it is really going to decide what it is going to be going forward.” So spoke Henry Beers to the Town in May of last year. “Places that endure, think in long time frames.”
“Not changing, unfortunately, isn’t an option.”
“Transformation is taking what has been, in order to imagine what can be, and then acting.” “That’s very different than just plain old change.”
“For any living organism or any vital community -- vitality requires transformation. And, it takes courage.”
“And when you put a lid on that, or when you say that you’re not interested in that -- you are basically setting a timer on your own demise.”
Mr. Beers pointed out that “A lot of time and energy is spent trying to build consensus. But, you can’t get crowds to lead. You just need a few people with their hair on fire.” Bold leadership is required.
“You need to be idea led and public opinion informed. But if you let public opinion wag the dog, the town will never be better than the worst opinion. It will be the lowest common denominator.”
Henry Beers’ Communication Arts is a design firm that helps towns fix problems with their land use planning, marketing and vision for the future. Services include environmental graphic design, branding and identity, and placemaking within retail, resort, recreation, entertainment, sports, hospitality, urban and food environments.
But what they do is only successful if it is propelled by a real desire for change.
The fundamental cancer rotting inside our town is the illusion that the course we are on will lead to a viable future. Somehow we can grow a little but really sort of just stay the same.
The problem in this town is the “leadership” has spent much of our time leading people away from what we don’t want. “We don’t want David Brown spending millions of dollars to upgrade the downtown.” “We don’t want any buildings over two stories.” “We don’t want to create a new downtown with lots of new jobs and new sales tax revenue.”
“We don’t want change. Just keep Pagosa, Pagosa.”
Was it so terrible that David Brown began to tear down old buildings to prepare for new buildings? Even with the loss of those demolished spaces, we continue to see more commercial space go vacant.
The policy intent of the Town and public opinion can be visibly understood simply by walking from the bottom of Putt Hill to the bridge past Kip’s. Just take a walk and see how the largest real estate boom, this lifetime, was not taken advantage of by our Town. Our downtown is in chaos because the “leadership” continues to run the agenda of “I don’t want”.
We have just begun to feel the contractions of a shrinking economy. Businesses from uptown to downtown are feeling the pinch of a poor, underdeveloped economy. In the past two years, significant numbers of commercial spaces downtown have gone vacant. The great question is, which businesses along Highway 160 will close during the next 12 months? How about the next 24 months?
Uptown businesses like La Tazza, Pagosa Brewing Company and Higher Grounds Coffee represent some of the best of the recent business growth for the future. What do these businesses all have in common? They illustrate the ongoing flight of investment away from the downtown core.
In the early 1970’s, the downtown core of Boulder, Colorado was on the verge of total collapse. Shopping malls outside of the core began attracting more and more of the consumer dollar.
Henry Beers and Communication Arts was hired in Boulder to come up with a plan. That plan became the huge social and financial downtown success of Pearl Street Mall. Boulder enjoys a thriving downtown today because someone decided to make a huge change.
The surrounding Boulder business owners needed to vote for an assessment district to approve the project. Pearl Street Mall in Boulder was barely approved by only two votes twenty-five years ago. Mr. Beers claims that it would not be approved today because we are too stuck on consensus-driven politics.
Henry Beers talks about the Big Hairy Audacious Goal.
Most people don’t really know what they want and what would really be good for them.
A great leader is able to mobilize the people who don’t agree. Right now, in Town, we have representatives of the downtown voters. But we do not have leaders.
The real problem is that the average citizen, you and me, expects or assumes that the elected officials should naturally also be the leaders. But that is not how it works.
Sometimes elected politicians are great leaders but usually not. Sometimes great leaders are politicians but often times not.
Our elected officials are not going to lead us into a future of growth and prosperity. They are busy representing “the people”, building compromise and managing the day to day business of government.
The leadership is going to come from somewhere else.
Let’s applaud the Town Council for creating an Economic Development Coordinator position. But a “coordinator” won’t be able to do what the Town Council won’t do.
First, we need to concentrate on the Central Business District. We need to grow (in a big way) the 400, 300 and 200 blocks of Main Street and Hot Springs Blvd. all the way down to Town Hall. All we need to worry about right now is those six blocks. We’ll deal with Lewis Street, South 8th Street and the rest, later.
The existing buildings in Town do not point us towards a viable future. The existing Town is not enough of a vivid coherent anything to inform a brilliant future. The absurdity of “historic preservation” will keep us from building the Big Hairy Audacious Goal. Sure, there’s maybe ten buildings in this town that need to be preserved. But not all of Main Street.
As part of the package of what Henry Beers would recommend for our Town is that we go for as much height and density downtown as we have the guts for. Why? So that we can create a true sense of place downtown, a real destination place for tourists, a desirable place inviting in new members for our community, and new sources of income for all of us.
If we don’t have something audacious, if it is all small scale, then don’t expect anyone to get excited about it. We need three stories on both sides of Main Street; maybe even four stories, occasionally, stepped back from the street.
Density creates a sense of place. Density keeps the cost down per square foot. Density is what makes downtown different than Pagosa Lakes.
We need an architecture that speaks to a sense of centrality, focus, density and life. If everything we build new downtown is done in response to what is already here, then we are not going to end up with much.
The downtown business owners are hanging on by their fingernails economically and they won’t grow towards a future of excellence until they have a future vision worth building.
Near the end of the Henry Beers presentation, town manager Mark Garcia asked the following. “I want to get specific on what you want to do for us, Henry. We are trying to figure out if politically we can make this happen. I would like to see how you feel that you could provide something for us that Council could use.”
To which Beers replied, “As I sit here right now, I’m not sure that I’m convinced that the things that need to be in place are in place that would enable us to be successful.”
“Rather than saying what am I going to do next for you -- I would suggest that you (the Town) take today and you get together amongst yourselves and see what you can come up with. And then lets get together again. I’m going to put it right at your feet.”
“I’d rather that one of you take the leadership on this because sooner or later it is going to have to be.”
And, so, Henry Beers left town and has not yet been invited back.
The time for true growth and renewal in our downtown has not yet come. The downward economic spiral and implosion of the commercial heart of downtown has only just begun.
The pain of the darkest hour is not yet upon us.
The Town Council is mostly informed by the philosophy of “I don’t want”. Some members of the Town Council, staff and public opinion must truly believe that their restricted vision for downtown will actually get built even though dozens of local developers keep telling them otherwise. As long as the Town Council old guard continues to be elected then they must be right. Right?
When the time comes and people are ready to grow up and move into prosperity, we’ll get this party started. But not yet.
Maybe, three years from now, the agony of doing nothing will overtake the fear of transformation in our community and the true leadership will find a welcome mat instead of a litany of “I don’t wants”.
David Brown has been such a leader. (Maybe he will still be.) But until the pain of economic implosion becomes greater than the naysaying “regret” of watching someone like David Brown turn downtown into a huge financial success, downtown will continue to crumble.
Choice and consequence -- it’s the only game in town. You and I have made specific choices about the future of our town resulting in visible consequences. Is it logical for us to continue making the same choices while desperately hoping for different consequences?
According to experiments in behavioral economics, “the majority of people select the first option.”
“Amazingly, most people said that they would prefer to” make less money than to make more money while being behind somebody else. Studies show that most people would rather forgo $50,000. in order to alleviate the feeling of “regret” that comes with not earning $250,000. “Essentially they were willing to pay $50,000. for regret therapy.”
“Regret falls under a psychological effect known as loss aversion. Research shows that before we risk an investment, we need to feel assured that the potential gain is twice what the possible loss might be because a loss feels twice as bad as a gain feels. That‘s weird and irrational, but it‘s the way it is.” (Michael Shermer; LA Times 1/13/08)
Now what could that study have to do with the town of Pagosa Springs and the “welcome mat” we never put out for someone like David J. Brown and Bootjack Management? Hmmmm.
David Brown came to town and tried to turn Pagosa Springs into an income-producing, desirable destination. Aren’t you glad that we avoided the “regret” of having to participate in his success?
“This community is at a moment where it is really going to decide what it is going to be going forward.” So spoke Henry Beers to the Town in May of last year. “Places that endure, think in long time frames.”
“Not changing, unfortunately, isn’t an option.”
“Transformation is taking what has been, in order to imagine what can be, and then acting.” “That’s very different than just plain old change.”
“For any living organism or any vital community -- vitality requires transformation. And, it takes courage.”
“And when you put a lid on that, or when you say that you’re not interested in that -- you are basically setting a timer on your own demise.”
Mr. Beers pointed out that “A lot of time and energy is spent trying to build consensus. But, you can’t get crowds to lead. You just need a few people with their hair on fire.” Bold leadership is required.
“You need to be idea led and public opinion informed. But if you let public opinion wag the dog, the town will never be better than the worst opinion. It will be the lowest common denominator.”
Henry Beers’ Communication Arts is a design firm that helps towns fix problems with their land use planning, marketing and vision for the future. Services include environmental graphic design, branding and identity, and placemaking within retail, resort, recreation, entertainment, sports, hospitality, urban and food environments.
But what they do is only successful if it is propelled by a real desire for change.
The fundamental cancer rotting inside our town is the illusion that the course we are on will lead to a viable future. Somehow we can grow a little but really sort of just stay the same.
The problem in this town is the “leadership” has spent much of our time leading people away from what we don’t want. “We don’t want David Brown spending millions of dollars to upgrade the downtown.” “We don’t want any buildings over two stories.” “We don’t want to create a new downtown with lots of new jobs and new sales tax revenue.”
“We don’t want change. Just keep Pagosa, Pagosa.”
Was it so terrible that David Brown began to tear down old buildings to prepare for new buildings? Even with the loss of those demolished spaces, we continue to see more commercial space go vacant.
The policy intent of the Town and public opinion can be visibly understood simply by walking from the bottom of Putt Hill to the bridge past Kip’s. Just take a walk and see how the largest real estate boom, this lifetime, was not taken advantage of by our Town. Our downtown is in chaos because the “leadership” continues to run the agenda of “I don’t want”.
We have just begun to feel the contractions of a shrinking economy. Businesses from uptown to downtown are feeling the pinch of a poor, underdeveloped economy. In the past two years, significant numbers of commercial spaces downtown have gone vacant. The great question is, which businesses along Highway 160 will close during the next 12 months? How about the next 24 months?
Uptown businesses like La Tazza, Pagosa Brewing Company and Higher Grounds Coffee represent some of the best of the recent business growth for the future. What do these businesses all have in common? They illustrate the ongoing flight of investment away from the downtown core.
In the early 1970’s, the downtown core of Boulder, Colorado was on the verge of total collapse. Shopping malls outside of the core began attracting more and more of the consumer dollar.
Henry Beers and Communication Arts was hired in Boulder to come up with a plan. That plan became the huge social and financial downtown success of Pearl Street Mall. Boulder enjoys a thriving downtown today because someone decided to make a huge change.
The surrounding Boulder business owners needed to vote for an assessment district to approve the project. Pearl Street Mall in Boulder was barely approved by only two votes twenty-five years ago. Mr. Beers claims that it would not be approved today because we are too stuck on consensus-driven politics.
Henry Beers talks about the Big Hairy Audacious Goal.
Most people don’t really know what they want and what would really be good for them.
A great leader is able to mobilize the people who don’t agree. Right now, in Town, we have representatives of the downtown voters. But we do not have leaders.
The real problem is that the average citizen, you and me, expects or assumes that the elected officials should naturally also be the leaders. But that is not how it works.
Sometimes elected politicians are great leaders but usually not. Sometimes great leaders are politicians but often times not.
Our elected officials are not going to lead us into a future of growth and prosperity. They are busy representing “the people”, building compromise and managing the day to day business of government.
The leadership is going to come from somewhere else.
Let’s applaud the Town Council for creating an Economic Development Coordinator position. But a “coordinator” won’t be able to do what the Town Council won’t do.
First, we need to concentrate on the Central Business District. We need to grow (in a big way) the 400, 300 and 200 blocks of Main Street and Hot Springs Blvd. all the way down to Town Hall. All we need to worry about right now is those six blocks. We’ll deal with Lewis Street, South 8th Street and the rest, later.
The existing buildings in Town do not point us towards a viable future. The existing Town is not enough of a vivid coherent anything to inform a brilliant future. The absurdity of “historic preservation” will keep us from building the Big Hairy Audacious Goal. Sure, there’s maybe ten buildings in this town that need to be preserved. But not all of Main Street.
As part of the package of what Henry Beers would recommend for our Town is that we go for as much height and density downtown as we have the guts for. Why? So that we can create a true sense of place downtown, a real destination place for tourists, a desirable place inviting in new members for our community, and new sources of income for all of us.
If we don’t have something audacious, if it is all small scale, then don’t expect anyone to get excited about it. We need three stories on both sides of Main Street; maybe even four stories, occasionally, stepped back from the street.
Density creates a sense of place. Density keeps the cost down per square foot. Density is what makes downtown different than Pagosa Lakes.
We need an architecture that speaks to a sense of centrality, focus, density and life. If everything we build new downtown is done in response to what is already here, then we are not going to end up with much.
The downtown business owners are hanging on by their fingernails economically and they won’t grow towards a future of excellence until they have a future vision worth building.
Near the end of the Henry Beers presentation, town manager Mark Garcia asked the following. “I want to get specific on what you want to do for us, Henry. We are trying to figure out if politically we can make this happen. I would like to see how you feel that you could provide something for us that Council could use.”
To which Beers replied, “As I sit here right now, I’m not sure that I’m convinced that the things that need to be in place are in place that would enable us to be successful.”
“Rather than saying what am I going to do next for you -- I would suggest that you (the Town) take today and you get together amongst yourselves and see what you can come up with. And then lets get together again. I’m going to put it right at your feet.”
“I’d rather that one of you take the leadership on this because sooner or later it is going to have to be.”
And, so, Henry Beers left town and has not yet been invited back.
The time for true growth and renewal in our downtown has not yet come. The downward economic spiral and implosion of the commercial heart of downtown has only just begun.
The pain of the darkest hour is not yet upon us.
The Town Council is mostly informed by the philosophy of “I don’t want”. Some members of the Town Council, staff and public opinion must truly believe that their restricted vision for downtown will actually get built even though dozens of local developers keep telling them otherwise. As long as the Town Council old guard continues to be elected then they must be right. Right?
When the time comes and people are ready to grow up and move into prosperity, we’ll get this party started. But not yet.
Maybe, three years from now, the agony of doing nothing will overtake the fear of transformation in our community and the true leadership will find a welcome mat instead of a litany of “I don’t wants”.
David Brown has been such a leader. (Maybe he will still be.) But until the pain of economic implosion becomes greater than the naysaying “regret” of watching someone like David Brown turn downtown into a huge financial success, downtown will continue to crumble.
Choice and consequence -- it’s the only game in town. You and I have made specific choices about the future of our town resulting in visible consequences. Is it logical for us to continue making the same choices while desperately hoping for different consequences?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
