The Big Questions

Lawyers and Journalists, Oh My

Richard Florida, of Creative Class fame, ranks Albany as a top mid-size metro for talent clusters in the legal and media fields.

Their criteria were:

• Size of labor force:  How many individuals are working in each talent cluster?  Metros with larger employment numbers received a higher score.

• LQ: How specialized or concentrated is a metro in a talent cluster?  Metros with a higher LQ or specialization received a higher score.

• Salary: Which metros have the highest cluster salary?  Metros with higher salaries were awarded a higher score.

One has to wonder what journalists get paid in other mid-size metros.

Seriously, though, we probably owe this to Albany Law School and the presence of three daily papers in close proximity. Will we see nanotech on there some day? To be seen...

Recapitalizing Tease

One of the many concurrent planning processes happening in Albany has been Mayor Jennings' Recapitalize Albany initiative.

Now it appears that their final report is complete. It is not, however, up on the city's brand spankin' new Web site, so you'll have to wait for my full accounting until I can make my way downtown tomorrow and pick up a copy.

Many of the recommendations referred to in the TU article sound good. I'd be highly skeptical of Albany's own Metroplex though. Yes, the various economic development efforts in the city need to be coordinated. A well-thought-out, coordinated plan that gets people who haven't been working together, and provides streamlined, predictable information to potential and existing businesses and homeowners is a step we need to take.

But does it need to come in the form of an authority? Adding an authority adds another body to coordinate with, and removes the decisions one more step from the voting public. Authorities are notoriously difficult to hold accountable, and economic development authorities have a documented tendency to give away money without much attention to the long-term consequences, from the companies absconding with the money or companies that would have come anyway getting property tax breaks they didn't need (which further hammers the school budget without the school system having had a say).

If we think we need a Metroplex, we'll need to pay very careful attention to how we structure it. More soon.

Seeing Ourselves in Context

Context is good. While every place has its own unique attributes, it's ridiculous to ignore the larger economic and demographic trends that are affecting us along with dozens of other rust belt cities.

And so, the Brookings Institution's Restoring Prosperity report, released this week, should be considered essential reading for anyone who cares about the future of Capital Region cities. I know conversation has begun on it already, but I wanted to wait to post until I'd had a chance to read the whole thing (call me old-fashioned. Man, I hate reading reports in pdf, even if it does save trees. But I did it).

The report is focused especially on the state role in leveling the playing field for "older industrial cities," though it has some pointed words for local administrations as well. (It's hard to come up with a moniker for an artificial grouping you've chosen to study that's not goofy, but I'm at least glad they gave up on their working term of "weak-market." It's accurate, but so, well, weak. And wonkish.)

Anyhow, the report spends a good amount of time detailing all the trends that make this a good time to be focusing on city revitalization. That part is refreshing to read, especially for those of us in a region that seems to have a startling optimism deficit compared to our actual assets. For just one example, the people who have begun moving back into cities since the '90s are much more educated than the population as a whole. And "density is a primary purpose of cities, and [in the new knowledge economy] clusterings of talented people are a prime driver of economic growth."

(Note: I know that education and talent are not  a one-to-one correlation. Neither is wealth: there are apparently, a lot of billionaires with no degree at all. However, for the rest of us peons, the "good" employers tend to be looking for a workforce with some schoolin'.)

Anyhow, Brookings proposes an agenda and makes some concrete suggestions. I recommend reading it yourself, but there are a couple of money quotes in there that the Capital Region might want to think long and hard about:

"Local leaders must make the competent, clean, transparent, and effective administration of government operations and services their highest priority. In short, this means enhancing the way in which city officials and departments interface with residents and businesses, improving how the day to
day 'behind the scenes' work of government gets carried out, measuring city performance over time, and
ensuring accountability when expectations aren’t met." (Note: even the advent of Sematech will not exempt us from needing an accountable, efficient government. If anything, it will be more important.)

"State-imposed tax systems are often not universally appropriate for all localities, however, many of which might benefit from more flexibility in their revenue raising options, and/or from a greater ability to share revenues with wealthier communities who may use city services and facilities without paying the costs." (Italics mine. Nice to see your own analysis supported, even in passing.)

"Too often, cities’ economic development policies are more about chasing after the latest fads than strategically developing and implementing plans that capitalize on their unique assets, link to their larger metropolitan economy, and have the potential to widely benefit local residents. The proliferation of stadium and convention center building over the past 15 years illustrates this trend. Even with hard evidence that such projects rarely pay the expected dividends, city leaders continue to pursue them."

"Older industrial cities cannot get ahead without working to alleviate poverty and increase the opportunities and wealth of their existing residents—without, in other words, growing the middle class from within."

The report does get down to at least some brass tacks—I think their tentative fiscal policy ideas for Newark, NJ, are fascinating, especially letting them opt out of the (failing yet constantly renewed) urban enterprise zone program, but keep the different in increase sales taxes.

In terms of working on comprehensive planning for Albany, the third and fifth points of their five-point agenda (I've copied the short version below)—"transform the physical landscape" and "create neighborhoods of choice"—are obviously quite relevant.

Once Albany has its vision for itself, it will need to call on the state as a partner to clear away barriers to implementation, and Restoring Prosperity will be a good piece of that conversation.

First impressions

In the middle of their preliminary SDAT visit, I asked Alan Mallach and Erin Simmons for some first impressions of Albany. Obviously it was something of an unfair question, given that they hadn't even gotten to see all of the city yet, but I thought their responses were interesting to ponder:

• It's easy for those of us who know what we've lost to bemoan the state of historic preservation in the city. But apparently we're still doing better than many places. Mallach noted that many parts of the city "the quality of the buildings and the fabric is unbelievably good" and he was surprised how much was left. Simmons, whose background is in preservation, agreed, saying "this is like heaven."
• In a related point that feels like it should be obvious but I might have forgotten to list it if I were coming up with a list of the city's assets, Mallach praised all the panoramic vistas that result from our topography.
• A model of diplomacy, Mallach did also note that he had been trying think of any other city he knew of that was "blessed with two monuments to misguided '60s and '70s modernism" (the Empire State Plaza and the uptown SUNY campus).
• He also observed how strikingly the city is cut off from its waterfront, calling the pedestrian bridge "a gesture" that no one would end up at unless it had been their specific intended destination. Though he was not in the business of making recommendations—that will be up to the charette attendants and in conjunction with the team they assemble—Mallach did note that there is a nationwide movement to take down elevated waterfront highways and make boulevards out of them. (Though it's counter-intuitive, this does not actually automatically create traffic congestion. Often the opposite. In fact, in a San Francisco neighborhood that took down a highway they joke about all the previous traffic disappearing into a hole in the ground.)
• The Harriman campus is also an unusual opportunity for large-scale in-city development that many cities don't have.
• In terms of Albany's similarities to other cities, the obvious major issue is our concentration of vacant and abandoned properties. Luckily, Mallach wrote the book on dealing with them, so he should be able to offer some good advice.

Clearly, this is not exhaustive or even necessarily representative of what they will decide the SDAT's can focus on. But it's always interesting to hear people's first thoughts. If you're not a lifelong resident, what were your first impressions of Albany? What would you show a visitor if you had only a couple hours and wanted them to appreciate the city?

Sustainable Design Assessment Team: Overview

Last November, Albany's planning department applied (pdf file) to the American Institute of Architects' Sustainable Design Assessment Team program.

The AIA describes the mission of the program like this: "The collaborative SDAT program brings together architects and other professionals assembled from across the country to provide a roadmap for communities seeking to improve their sustainability - as defined by a communities (sic) ability to meet the environmental, economic, and social equity needs of today without reducing the ability of future generations to meet their needs."

The program consists of three major steps. First, there's an initial visit with an AIA staffer and a nationally recognized expert. They tour the city and meet with a bunch of folks to get an idea of what kind of expertise the city could use. (For example, do they need a hydrologist or a transit planner or . . .)
A couple months later the assembled team makes their own visit, which mostly centers around a charette for the public to attend and generate solutions with the help of the experts. The team then delivers a final report and some follow up consultation based on the charette. Nothing binding comes out of it, but the idea is that it allows the city to draw upon some ideas from elsewhere and have some help figuring out to apply them here. Albany, like many small cities, can be astoundingly parochial when it comes to learning from the successes (or failures) of others, so this is a Good Thing.

Of course if it were just that, it wouldn't be very likely to create much change. But when it's used in conjunction with/as a kick-off for a comprehensive planning process, as Albany intends, the potential to carry that momentum forward into implementation gets much higher. Two of our western Massachusetts neighbors did this recently.

Not surprisingly, skepticism of outside experts coming in an giving their opinion has already been expressed. "I'm interested, yet skeptical, will need to push for more grassroots and community involvement, not just corporate and political leadership. But sounds hopeful either way," wrote Jessica Oppenheimer of Youth Organics! in an e-mail message responding to the announcement of the grant.

Alan Mallach, research director of the National Housing Institute, made the SDAT preliminary assessment for Albany on April 11.  (Disclosure: NHI is a client and former employer of mine.) He emphasizes that they use the charette format, which is basically an intense working meeting in which participants generate ideas and engage in back and forth discussion, rather than just listening and commenting, to ensure that the results come from the community and the experts together, rather than being imposed from outside. If they follow through with that promise, it could perhaps be a model for the comprehensive planning process.

They expect the charette to be some time this summer. I will post the details as soon as I know them.

Enabled

Last night the Common Council passed the amended enabling legislation setting up a comprehensive plan board, 13 to 1 with one absent.

The final text was:

April 24th, Planning Committee: Quick Meeting Summary

First council members responded to some of the comments, noting that actually all 20 of the people who will be appointed to the board will be approved by the council, but 10 will be recommended by the mayor. Language was changed to clarify that, and to stipulate that a majority of board members would be city residents.

The major point of conflict in the committee was how much to specify about how the board would operate. Committee member Cathy Fahey, with support from Common Council president Shawn Morris, wanted to do things like give the board a time frame, specify how decisions were to be made (voting vs consensus, etc.), and specify certain topics the board should cover. Other committee members vocally disagreed, saying the board should be able to decide for itself how it would operate, with public input. Morris noted that other commissions the council has created had time frames, that bodies with no deadline often stagnate and don't complete their tasks, and that it's hard to ask someone to serve on a board if they don't know how long the commitment will be.

Fahey also agreed with those concerned about the presence of city employees on the board, and expressed a desire to have more information about how other cities have handled these questions before approving the legislation.

In the end it was agreed to add an "expected" time frame of 18 to 24 months to the legislation, but not to specify anything else about how the board might operate. A stipulation that a majority of board members be city residents was also added.

The revised legislation was passed out of committee to the full Common Council with a positive recommendation by a 4 to 1 vote, with Cathy Fahey voting against. (I will post the text of the revised legislation when I get it.)

April 24th, Planning Committee: Public Comment

Here's a round up of the public comment period at the April 24th Planning Committee meeting. In large part, comments echoed letters comments that others have been making for a couple months.

There seemed to be widespread agreement that the revision to the legislation was positive, but some remaining concern about having city employees be voting members of the board rather than just advisors. The 10 or so speakers reiterated the need for the board's 20 appointed members to be "members of the public" and a majority city residents, and emphasized the need for representation by people of diverse races and incomes, and people who don't own cars (25 percent of city residents!).

In their words:

"We need not only the appearance, but the reality of openness."
—Gene Solan, Council of Albany Neighborhood Associations

The process should be based in public participation, what the the public brings to the table, not just "invite comments" that will "beat around the edges."
—Leif Engstrom, Pine Hills Neighborhood Association

"The success [of this process] will depend on winning hearts and minds."
—Brad Allen

"I will know this is a success if I see my neighbors at these meetings."
—Lynne Jackson, Save the Pine Bush, South End resident

Feed people at meetings to increase participation. "We want this to be a happy process, where we participate because we love our city."
—Lynne Jackson (To which Councilwoman McLaughlin replied, laughing: "You would've driven that point home if you'd brought cookies.")

Poor people in the city get their news through church and school. If word has to get out, you need to use those venues. "They don't all read the TU and they don't all have e-mail."
—Archie Goodbee

What's Happened So Far?

Albany is very early in the planning process, but not at the very beginning. Here's the Cliff Notes of our trajectory to date:

• December 3, 2005: The Neighborhood Resource Center's annual Neighborhood Works conference focuses on the benefits of comprehensive planning.
• January 2006: Albany city administration says it supports a comprehensive planning process.
• February 23, 2006: A Common Council resolution is proposed that would make Albany's planning board the lead agency in developing a comprehensive plan.
• March 1, 2006: Council of Albany Neighborhood Associations Comprehensive Plan Task Force releases "Guiding Principles for Conducting a Successful Comprehensive Planning Process for the City of Albany Vision 2020." Also passes a resolution opposing having the planning board be the lead agency.
• Early 2007: The Common Council's Planning, Economic Development, and Land Use Committee drafts enabling legislation that would create a special 25-member board to be the lead agency. Takes public comment.
• March 2007: Albany is chosen as one of five communities to participate in the American Institute of Architect's Sustainable Design Assessment Team program.
• April 11–12, 2007: SDAT initial visit. (Report on this visit, and the program, to come.)
• April 24, 2007:  Planning Committee recommends a new draft of enabling legislation that would create a 30-member special board to full Common Council by a 4 to 1 vote. (Detailed report of this meeting to come.)

Next up: On Monday, May 7, the Common Council is expected to vote on the enabling legislation. There will be a public comment period.