This morning it was amusing to see Strong Towns got a hold of the McGilchrist project for their own critique.
 |
| "not an improvement" - Strong Towns |
They focus on it as an investment:
This is a terrible project. Almost $8,000 per current trip. That’s absurd. And just looking at the local part of this investment, how much does the Salem tax base need to increase from this project to justify the city spending $15.2 million? A heck of a lot more than the $19.4 million their ridiculous benefit-cost analysis optimistically estimates.
If all of that optimistic increase happens immediately (it won’t), and they tax 2% of that property value each year (they tax less than that), Salem will bring in $388,000 per year in additional taxes from new development due to the project. Forget the fact that their day-to-day maintenance costs increase after they expand the street, and forget that they have a bigger and more expensive street now that they someday have to reconstruct—forget those small details. At $388,000 per year, it will take them 39 years to recoup the money they are putting into this project. That’s ignoring any time value of money or interest, discounting, or opportunity cost.
However, it does not seem Strong Towns considered the problem posed by the need for sidewalks and bike lanes here, as well as the engineering problem of handing water and drainage here in this low part of town.
 |
| Back in 2012 |
 |
| And in 2013 |
This is a kind of "seagull" analysis, swooping in, dropping some criticism based on their stock analytical scheme, and flying back out. They score points to be sure, but haven't taken the time to understand the full problem on McGilchrist. It's a little careless for an organization that really wants to foster local understanding and local power. The audience for a piece like this is not just members of a national audience who will appreciate the scorn for a distant city, but members of our local group who might like a better understanding and direction for an improved project.
For a decade of previous posts on the McGilchrist corridor see here.
2 comments:
It should not cost $28m to add sidewalks, bike lanes and better drainage to McGilchrist. And the Social Security office should never have been allowed to relocate here. That was a terrible decision. When their lease up they need to move to a more central and accessible location. Marohn is right to criticize this project.
Yeah, he scores some hits. There is reasonable criticism to be made of the project. But the ST piece was shallow. They could have taken more time and written a much stronger critique. You talk about relocating the SSA office, but that's not what's in the ST piece. I would like to read what ST thinks adding sidewalks, bike lanes and better drainage should cost! That would be a useful analysis. (Or perhaps ST doesn't even think the street merits sidewalks, bike lanes, and drainage?)
At the same time, of course they are right that this is a "widening" project and "improvement" functions more as a euphemism, though the sidewalks and bike lanes will be unambiguous improvement.
The criticism here is definitely of style and tone, and also of process and research.
Just today they tweeted about subsidiarity, and it's very interesting they didn't also see this critique as a moment for any subsidiarity: They didn't consult with the Strong Salem group, or do more research generally, and learn more about McGilchrist and its history. Instead of talking about the brewery cluster and SSA office, about the speeds and injuries along the street, they take cheap shots with the alliteration of Honky Tonk and Honey Bucket. They talked past Salemites to the national audience who would enjoy poking fun at the rubes.
Post a Comment