Wasting Money on "Beautiful Parking Lots" Won't Fix Our Downtown

EDITORIAL - by Jim Albert - Saturday, June 25, 2011 - Back in 2009, the City of Ironwood and the Downtown Ironwood Development Authority (DIDA) hired a consulting firm, HyettPalma, to examine the City's downtown and to create a plan to revitalise it's struggling business district. The cost to the taxpayers for these services was over $30,000. Half of the expense was picked up by the Michigan Economic Development Corporation (MEDC) as part of the Blueprints for Michigan's Downtowns initiative. The remainder was paid through local taxes.

In May of that year, the firms co-founder, Mr. Doyle Hyett, presented the completed Blueprint Plan to an interested group of businesspeople, city staff, and citizens at the Gogebic Community College. The plan was very straight-forward and it included a "common sense" approach to the problems of Ironwood's once-bustling downtown business district. To many, the concepts Mr. Hyett discussed sounded very familiar -- as they should -- because the very same ideas were included in the plans the City previously purchased in 1981 and again in 1991.

In his presentation, Mr. Hyett admitted he didn't reinvent the wheel. There was nothing new or inventive about the plan for which the City had just invested $15,000.  The difference, he said, was to be in the approach -- in the way the City and those involved would implement the program. He told the crowd that the new Blueprint Plan included step-by-step instructions that the DIDA would need to follow in exact order to achieve the desired results. He noted that the plan designated an area on Aurora Street, from Lawrence Street to Norfolk Street and on Suffolk Street from Frederick Street to McLeod Avenue, including Depot Park and the Post Office, as the Focus Area and Aurora Street from Lowell Street to Suffolk Street as the Target Block. He said the Plan suggests that Downtown enhancement efforts should be started on the Target Block.

According to the plan, the DIDA was supposed to take action on the following physical improvements to public properties in the following order:

1. Streetscape - Improvements to include flowers, benches, trash receptacles, banners, and improved lighting.
2. Litter Control - Provide adequate number of trash receptacles; part-time maintenance person to pick up litter; business owners to tidy up; and containerize trash properly.
3. Wayfinder Signs - The signs need to be visually consistent; they should direct motorists to "Downtown" NOT "Town Center" or "Business District;" the should be reflective or well-lit; and landscaping should be done around welcome signs.
4. Entrance to Downtown - Both Aurora Street from Hurley and Douglas Boulevard need to be made physically appealing.
5. Park Expansion - Vacate Frederick Street to connect Kuitanen Park to the Depot property -- purchasing the Canadian National railroad property & depot --creating one large park in the center of the City.
6. On-Street Parking - Encourage workers and owners not to park on the street; possibly enforce current 2-hour parking; eliminate striping on streets; signs for handicap parking.
7. Off-Street Parking - Erect signs to direct motorists to existing parking lots; stripe existing lots to prevent "chaos;" and, if possible, add additional parking lot next to the Memorial Building.
8. Public Art - Sculptures in Pocket Park and Depot Park.

From the very beginning, our City Manager and several DIDA members insisted that the City build stand-alone Downtown public restrooms. Hyett-Palma strongly discouraged the construction of public restrooms stating that construction costs for such facilities were extremely high; ongoing maintenance costs would cripple the City; and that unattended public restrooms were in invitation for crime -- vandalism; drug dealing; child molestation; and rape.

Nonetheless, the City applied for and received a $600,000 Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) through the MEDC (including the costs of constructing public restrooms) to implement the Blueprint Plan. The MEDC rejected plans to include public art at Depot Park and the Pocket Park; the purchase of the Canadian National property; and the purchase of street-side banners; but they did approve funding for the construction of stand-alone public restrooms Hyett-Palma urged the City to reject.

From the very beginning I believed it was foolish for the City to "invest" in the Blueprint Plan, especially considering the fact that they had paid over $90,000 on two previous plans that were never acted upon. What's worse than spending  thousands of dollars on "common sense" plans that give you advice you should already know? Ignoring them!

Last June, a year after the Blueprint Plan was supposed to be "put into action" -- I was appointed to the DIDA. At that time, the only physical improvement mentioned in the plan that was done was the removal of the parking stripes on the Downtown streets. No action was taken on streetscape; litter control; wayfinder signs; downtown entrance enhancements; the Depot Park; or off-street parking.

Since the Blueprint Plan was already bought and paid for, it is my belief that we are obligated to follow the expert advice put forth in the plan as best we can.  In so doing, I immediately suggested that the City purchase the benches and increase the flowers as recommended as the number one priority in the plan. My suggestion was immediately met with resistance. I pointed out that benches and flowers were very cheap improvements that would make a noticeable difference in the appearance and convenience of our downtown district. I also pointed out that the benches could be purchased, delivered, and installed so that they could be utilized by visitors to the downtown as early as last summer. I explained that the Blueprint Plan very clearly stated that the DIDA was supposed to make tangible improvements on the Target Block to show the MEDC and "other investors" that Ironwood was serious about implementing the plan. I made a motion to purchase benches for the Target Block, but my motion failed to receive support. The DIDA refused to spend DIDA tax dollars to implement the plan. NOTE: The DIDA is currently funded by a special DIDA tax that is assessed to all downtown business property owners. Each year, just under $12,000 is generated from that tax. Until recently the bulk of those funds was used to purchase a single "Visit Historic Downtown Ironwood" billboard on Highway 51 in Hurley; to sponsor dances at Festival Ironwood and other events; and to purchase "Progress Report" ads in the Daily Globe.

Last month, City Manager Scott Erickson presented plans to rebuild two parking lots in the City's downtown -- one on the corner of Suffolk Street and McLeod Avenue (the former D&B lot); and the other in the middle of the block on Ayer Street between Norfolk Street and Suffolk Street. Keep in mind that the only physical improvements listed in the Blueprint Plan made by the City to date are the removal of parking stripes on our downtown streets. Erickson told the DIDA that both lots were in horrendous shape, and that both were vital to the development of the downtown. Plans for both lots included extensive curbing, lighting, lit signage, trees, bike racks and benches. Both lots were to be repaved and striped with the Ayer Street lot to be completely rebuilt.

I immediately questioned the wisdom of making such elaborate parking lot improvements when there are so many serious problems that need attention elsewhere. I initially pointed out that off-street parking improvements were the last priority listed in the Blueprint Plan. In reality, the plan doesn't even suggest paving either lot, it merely recommends striping them and the addition of wayfinder signs to lead motorists to the them.

Erickson asked the DIDA to recommend that the City seek bids for the plans he submitted. The DIDA made that recommendation. A Request for Proposals (RFP) was released and bids were received for the improvements Erickson recommended. The lowest bid for the improvements was in excess of a quarter of a million dollars -- over two-thirds of the entire CDBG granted to revitalize the entire downtown district. Erickson approached the DIDA and suggested that he develop a "scaled-down" version of his original proposal.

I again asked why the City was pushing for parking lots when they were, at best, the lowest priority in the Blueprint Plan. I also asked why so much money and so many amenities were being added to parking lots. I suggested that the City simply make the parking lots functional -- nothing pretty; nothing fancy; simply functional. It makes no sense to spend two-thirds of our entire budget on elaborate parking lots while completely ignoring our streets and the rest of the downtown. I have never left a community thinking to myself, "Those were the best parking lots I've ever seen! I'm definitely going back there to shop!"

Erickson told the DIDA that he would bring back two plans in addition to the plan he previously submitted. He said that would give the DIDA three options: (1) to accept his original "decked-out" plan, by borrowing funds from other planned projects; (2) scaling-back his original plans to more reasonable, already budgeted amount; or (3) actually saving money for other projects by simply making the parking lots functional. 

When he presented the two new plans, I again reminded the DIDA that off-street parking was the seventh of seven priorities listed in the Blueprint Plan, and that the plan didn't even recommend paving either lot. I also pointed out that residents surveyed by Hyett-Palma didn't feel there was a parking problem in Downtown Ironwood -- only a small majority of business owners felt parking was an issue. I made a motion to approve the "bare-bones" proposal and my motion failed to get support. According to Erickson, the "bare-bones" proposal would cost just over $100,000. The compromise "scaled-back" proposal would cost just over $150,000. The DIDA approved the middle proposal.

I will admit that the Ayer Street lot is in very bad shape. It does need to be completely rebuilt. The ground under the pavement has been settling, and there are significant bumps and potholes throughout the lot. It would be easy to bottom out your vehicle as you enter from Ayer Street. I am not questioning the need to improvements in that lot. However, it's a parking lot! It's not a park and it isn't a destination. It's a place of function, and it is nothing more -- and it never will be.

On the other hand, the McLeod Avenue lot is in great shape. Any merchant in town would be delighted to have a lot like the McLeod Avenue lot near their business. It's level. It's smooth. It's crack-free. The only thing I would do to improve it is pull the weeds that have accumulated around the sign and the power pole. It wouldn't hurt to seal the asphalt and stripe it, but that's the most that lot requires to be functional. 

At last week's meeting, Eva Smith-Furgason said the "scaled-down" parking lot plans included the bells but not the whistles and that the improvements would instill a sense of "civic pride" in the community. Scott Erickson said two weeks ago that the "decked-out" parking lots would encourage area business people to improve their properties, and that people visiting the downtown would be impressed with the improvements made to the parking lots.

I maintain that the existing McLeod Avenue lot is nothing to be ashamed of. It isn't ugly and it serves it's intended purpose. If that lot is something so shameful, then what is the municipal lot near the back of the Memorial Building? It is no less attractive than the lot at the bus depot. Is the City ashamed of that lot too?

As far as civic pride goes, it's hard to imagine anyone believing that a "beautiful" parking lot on a secondary street of our downtown would make anyone proud. Especially in a community that covers up downed light poles (with their exposed electrical services) with plastic buckets; that chains off entrances to their municipal building instead of making necessary repairs to the steps; that refuses to address serious litter and refuse issues throughout the City; that has streets that are more pothole than pavement; that has sidewalks that are more grass than concrete; that harrasses residents for tall grass while unsafe buildings are simply overlooked.

Civic pride? What makes anyone believe this community will do a better job maintaining the new parking lots any better than they've maintained the old ones? When we never have the money to take care of what we've got, what would make anyone believe that we will take care of what we are about to get? It's time we start using a little common sense. It's time to start taking pride in our community. And it's time for us to quit wasting money we don't have on things we cannot afford.

by Jim Albert