The Politics of Growth

Oct. 23, 2015

"The downtown TC market is hotter than we have seen it since 2005... Any home priced correctly is under contract immediately." Bob Rieck of Coldwell Banker Schmidt from The Traverse City Ticker, June 24, 2015.

"News of our death has been greatly exaggerated." Adapted from a quote by Mark Twain

As a preface to this column I should note that I am a lifelong resident of Traverse City who grew up inside the city limits of the town I love. I have also lived in the areas affected by development projects including 101 Park Street, Radio Center, the Hardy Parking Deck, the Old Towne parking deck, the Cowell Cancer Center (traffic), the Federated Project, the Central Neighborhood power pole from TCLP, the BATA transfer station, Hotel Indigo, the former City Zoo, the TC Film Festival, and, finally today, the Pine Street project that were all guaranteed to be the death of "small town" Traverse City.

Local voters believe strongly in the public input process that helps craft the core development principles we are committed to live by. They understand that all of what we are going through in TC in this growth debate will be or has been replicated in surrounding areas. The dire, "small town character" warning surfaces each and every time these types of projects are proposed or constructed. Yet here we are with property values and demand in the downtown area at record highs and occupancy rates in commercial buildings at nearly 90 percent. All of this is happening in spite of attempts by locals to "save us from ourselves" with petition drives to stop downtown density and to do so, in the case of Pine Street project, retroactively.

Once again we have relapsed into the totally nebulous "too big and not small town enough" criteria for approval of newly proposed projects while, at the same time, trying to convince developers and investors to risk their time, money, and taxes in our community.

Attempting to stop growth and roll Traverse City back to a "small town" is not only impossible, it is disingenuous political posturing. It can’t be defined by political candidates and creates serious confusion with investors looking to address the wishes of our planning commission and city master plan. It also creates candidates willing to redefine the business of development in our urban core by applying their own "economics" to it. Combining infrastructure improvements in a single, larger, development makes both economic sense and allows for the blending of multiple income groups in a single area. Spreading smaller projects around the downtown is simplistic and won’t work. And complaining about the assumed profit margins of thirdparty developers while asking them to invest in our future is counterproductive.

Ultimately we are sending a clear statement to our "best and brightest" college graduates and investors looking to implement our written vision: What we articulate as growth goals are not really what we have the courage to implement.

Most importantly, we need to stop talking about issues like workforce housing downtown unless we have the willpower to do what it takes to build it. The city is not in the development or the contracting business. We need private enterprise to play that role and shouldn’t be surprised when they expect a reasonable return on their risk and investment.

This is also an opportunity to talk about personal property rights and the legal exposure of telling buyers their property’s zoning, and then using terms like "small town character" to avoid following our own regulations. The fifth amendment of the U.S. Constitution specifically deals with government "taking" and requires compensation for the property holder to pay for their newly devalued property.

I understand that nobody likes taller buildings here. The rules of engagement for development in this area cannot, however, be based on "likes," unless those preferences can be clearly codified in our zoning regulations. It also cannot be selectively implemented based on the fury of public comment at commission meetings. The men and women we elect to public office must understand and agree that cities Up North must play by the rules we have in place. They can’t apply the rules based on civic discord or referendum. They can be changed through that process, but we need to have the intestinal fortitude to live with the current regulations until they are.

The taxes our citizens pay and the careers our young people choose will be determined in large part by the choices we make in northern Michigan. Saying no to a ninestory building because we don’t like the way it looks or its lack of "small town feel" is the wrong message at the wrong time.

Scott Hardy is a current TCAPS board member as well as a member of the Grand Traverse County Planning Commission. He is a lifelong Traverse City resident and a past member of the Traverse City Commission, Downtown Development Authority, and City Planning Commission.