responses
Thank you for sharing. I am all for revitalization, jobs, new energy focused on the riverfront. One aspect I would hate to lose is the view of the riverbend. If this can be preserved then I am for it. If the view of the river is lost, a part of this city’s history is lost. I can picture Bill Smothers tieing up his flatboat from this river view. I am for jobs but against putting up a wall.
- Cindy Evans
As usual, Rodney has hit the nail perfectly on the head! Good job and thanks for caring so much about OUR downtown!!!!
One additional thought to what I previously wrote: I don’t know whether my advancing age makes me more pessimistic or “realistic”, but in either case I feel compelled to say: that anything as large as our riverfront, left to the devices of individuals has a better than 50/50 chance of NOT being what is best for the entire community. A master plan, properly vetted and properly implemented will have a MUCH better chance of community support and total success than the alternative. As one who has grown to love our downtown more and more as time goes on, let me voice my support for a “plan” that the stakeholders can support, as opposed to the willy-nilly approach that, left to their own devices, might occur otherwise ...
- John Hall
Dear Rodney,
You are on the right tract ... (The riverfront plan) is an awsome responsibility that I don’t think people really realize since no one ever believed it would ever come to pass. I continue to pray for help and guidance as we move forward. Keep up the good work.
- Mayor Tom Watson
...Very good piece here.
Might you be interested in helping to organize a small group of folks committed to organizing community get togethers for dialogue and deliberation? I know of a few that are interested in maintaining a focus on dialogue in this community, and I think this subject matter would be a good fit.
Thanks again.
- Chad Gesser
“After reading Mr. Berry’s Special Bulletin, “The public should shape private investment along the riverfront,” Owensboro-Daviess Countians should question his logic and conclusions. He begins his argument saying “the public should shape the private investment” in Owensboro. That’s like suggesting the Post Office should tell Federal Express how to deliver packages effectively. Imagine a postal worker explaining why making people wait in lines to buy stamps is a “best practice” that FedEx should follow. The Post Office can preach all it wants, but no one at FedEx will listen. Neither should Owensboro-Daviess Countians heed Mr. Berry’s advice.
While Mr. Berry is a persuasive writer, a careful reader should question his logic of how taxpayers’ monies should be spent on Owensboro’s riverfront. He suggests the money should be used “to attract the maximum and most appropriate complement of private investment.” This assumes that the availability of fresh investment capital in public hands is the key stimulus for attracting entrepreneurs.
If by “attraction” he means that the money should be spent to build infrastructure that all customers and businesses could use to serve the needs of potential customers, his proposition deserves consideration. However, if by “attraction” he means that public dollars should be used to subsidize private investors as a condition for opening their doors, the “remarkable transformation” he expects will instead become another pork-barrel project that will decay in the sunshine. Any resulting “deal” offered to business owners that encourages them to locate on the riverfront and gives them a special advantage against other business owners who do not locate there is not a fair use of public funding and should be discouraged.
Mr. Berry continues by suggesting, “…it’s about community ownership of the project itself.” Mr. Berry is confused here as there is no such thing as “community ownership.” What a person owns, he takes care of. But when all of us (or none of us) “own” something, it tends to fall into disrepair. Obviously Mr. Berry is confusing the concept of ownership with stewardship. While an entire city population can be proud of a public or private accomplishment that benefits everyone, ownership is the embodiment of private citizens trading their savings for things they plan to take care of. If the $50 million of taxpayers’ monies creates a “white elephant” that does not attract businesses, today’s advocates will scatter like flies because none of them owns it.
He then offers up two classic economic alternatives, questioning whether Owensboro should “…let the forces of the marketplace drive” or “…control the development process.” What is the history of really smart public servants guessing how the future will unfold in Daviess County? Have their public decisions produced the benefits they promised? If instead we were judging baseball batting averages, we might ask whether private or public investors “got more hits” in predicting where people are living and working in Owensboro? This “fatal conceit,” that smart public servants can predict the future better than average citizens looking out for the best interests of their families, should cause concerned Owensboro-Daviess Countians to seriously question Mr. Berry’s confusing proposition.
Has Mr. Berry ever run a successful business? When he says, “Property owners should be allowed to make an appropriate profit,” inquiring minds want to know what “appropriate” means. Entrepreneurs pursue business opportunities by judging whether a sufficient number of customers exist for a product or service they plan to offer. If they are lucky and guess right, they earn a profit. If they are wrong, they suffer a loss. The response of a property owner to a purchase offer made determines the size of the profit that emerges. Mr. Berry’s insinuation that someone other than a property owner should judge whether a private transaction should yield a large or small profit sounds sinister, almost socialistic. Could Mr. Berry be confusing the rights expressed by the US Constitution with something that exists in France or Cuba?
In deference to a recent decision of Kentucky’s General Assembly, Mr. Berry suggests, “To serve the public interest, officials may need to use their legal authority and acquire property through the threat of condemnation.” By using the phrase, “through the threat of condemnation,” he must realize that Kentucky’s General Assembly recently reaffirmed the inalienable rights of Kentucky property owners. Legislators passed HB 508 last spring that decreed, “No provision in the law of the Commonwealth shall be construed to authorize the condemnation of private property for transfer to a private owner for the purpose of economic development.” In the past, when threatened, some property owners withered and sold properties in Kentucky at a price government officials persuaded them was fair enough. Today Mr. Berry’s “threat” is as empty as a carcass picked clean by buzzards. Without resorting to designating the Owensboro riverfront as a “blighted area,” using “the threat of condemnation” is the only weapon government officials have to separate property owners from their property rights.
Nevertheless, to presume that force – the threat of condemning private property to facilitate private profit - must be applied to a project in order to succeed is a clear indication that Mr. Berry’s ideas won’t work. In addressing how to truly invest $50 million of taxpayers’ monies so all Owensboro-Daviess Countians can benefit, community leaders should first ask why private developers have not yet taken advantage of Owensboro’s potentially attractive riverfront opportunity. The answers to this question should lead such leaders to make an investment decision that both respects existing property owners and benefits all Owensboro-Daviess Countians.
After all, doesn’t our experience waiting in line at the Post Office suggest that it would be better to ask FedEx to counsel the Post Office than the reverse?”
Thank you for your consideration.
- Chris Derry
Bluegrass Institute