Monday, February 12, 2007

Sam Talarico responds to my earlier post!

At least I think it was Sam Talarico!

Sam brings up a good point and I thought I would post his comment here...

I still think the project is a bad project because:
1. Fort Wayne is spending hundreds of millions of dollars to re-vitalize downtown. If this is
going to continue, and it is, we have to limit development at the edges of Fort Wayne.
2. I do not feel that Fort Wayne needs more strip malls. There are a lot of strip malls that
currently have vacancies, I do not feel that we need more.

I will have to agree with "Sam" that I read a couple of letters to the editor and "ran with it." It is tax season and I have a lot of work to do.

"Sam's" comment is below in italics:

Mike, I am surprised that you take the words in one letter to the editor and run with it like it is gospel.

The letter to the editor says we "overturned" the plan commission.

Thats not how it works. The Plan Commission offers a recommendation, which in this case was "do not pass". However, the Planning Department (after significant leg work) offerred a "Do Pass" recommendation. These sort of split recommendations are always tough to deal with. The Planning department felt that this was appropriate development and we have been told that the safety issues are mitigated by the fact that the school at issue does not allow its students to walk to school unless they live in Jonathon Oaks which has a pathway does not require kids to cross the street. Its my understanding that the FWCS have taken a neutral position on this development.

It is a difficult decision to make. Mike, If you are elected in 2011 you will quickly find out that you will always have people mad at you. You cant make everybody happy. I will not miss that part of the job.

Every time there is a zoning issue, I try to listen to all sides and make the right call. Keep in mind that the intersection at issue is already a very busy intersection.

Sam Talarico, Jr.

Mike Sylvester

18 comments:

scott said...

I don't doubt that it is Sam Talarico Jr. He comments every now and then on DFWB

B.G. (Semper Paratus) said...

I'm going with Scott on this one...I read in today's Journal Gazette that Sammy-boy IS for the downtown "plan" as it stands...


Talk about speaking out of BOTH sides of the old piehole, eh?

B.G.

Debbie said...

My goodness sometimes when politics gets local, people sure lose sight of libertarian philosophy. And I admit it does become a lot harder but Robert Enders is exactly right when he says this is a property rights issue.

Due to previous interference in property rights, there may indeed be a limit to what can be done, but I think it's important to at least keep the libertarian ideas out there. Otherwise no one is thinking about how to possibly change things so this stuff does not continue.

Mike, in your point number 1, you say "we" which implies that it is proper for people who do not own the property to have a say over whether or not a business is built there. And you are even promoting the idea of stopping business from opening! You are saying you want to stop small businesses from opening a little shop in the strip mall. I never thought I'd hear that from someone who said they were a libertarian.

It doesn't matter if YOU think there are too many strip malls. If there are too many strip malls and they had expanded through the free market, then things would work themselves out. But if government was subsidizing these expansions, then they helped create the problems.

So it still goes back to government trying to control the market and control other people's property.

Libertarian must continue to think about situations and possible solutions based on the basic principle of property rights.

Debbie

Anonymous said...

Sam and his cohorts never go into anything with an open mind. They always make their decision before any opposing views are allowed to be expressed.

They've been the modern aristocracy who ignore the common man.

LP Mike Sylvester said...

Debbie:

You bring up some interesting points; however, you may not know what is going on in Fort Wayne...

The City of Fort Wayne is spending hundred of millions of dollars building large projects in downtown Fort Wayne... The taxpayers are funding these huge projects even though many of us are against them...

Fort Wayne is trying to force development downtown...

Fort Wayne will NOT stop doing this unless we can replace a majority of the elected oficials...

Since Fort Wayne is funnelling all of this money Downtown we have to look at development on the edges. This is common sense to me...

In an ideal world it would make sense to allow proerpty owners to do what they want with their property; however, we do not live in a perfect world.

We live in a City full of regulations and in a City where our elected officials are trying to force business owners to move downtown...

Mike Sylvester

Robert Enders said...

1. Fort Wayne SHOULD NOT be spending millions of dollars to revitalize downtown. Downtown has thriving businesses and failing businesses just like every other part of Fort Wayne. To tax and divert resources to one part of town at the expense of the other parts of town is wrong. The one drawback that downtown has is that many businesses do not like to be located in an area where city councilmembers are likely to see them on a daily basis and be tempted to meddle with them.

2. Whether or not this town needs more strip malls is determined by market forces of supply and demand. If there is too much supply of malls and too little demand, then the developers are wasting their money. But it is their money to risk.

Jeff Pruitt said...

The "property rights" argument always seems weak to me. What you do on your property affects other properties around it. Because you can harm other property values you shouldn't have carte blanche to do whatever you please w/ your property. I guess it just seems like an archaic argument to me - many of the Libertarian arguments strike me that way...

Anonymous said...

As for Mr. Anonymous, I really enjoy it when people just assume that they know exactly what sort of input I am receiving as a councilmember. I have received several emails and phone calls against the St. Joe project AND, believe it or not, I have also received several emails from neighbors of the development saying they are for the project. So, Mr. Anonymous, doesnt your argument apply whether I vote for OR against the development. I have personally sought out additional information from the FWCS etc. before making my vote on Tuesday. And, I have fielded every call and email and in many cases had lenghty give and take discussions. So Anonymous, dont be afraid to use your name and call me directly to discuss any issue you might have.

Mike, I am having trouble connecting your strip mall and downtown dots. What is the connection you are trying to make?

Harrison Square is a very unique opportunity for us to leverage $12 Million general use tax dollars into a $125,000,000 development. No property tax dollars. People accuse us Harrison Square proponents of being "close minded" on this issue, but certainly many opponents may also be guilty of not taking the time to work through all of the financial elements of this proposed development before they speak so strongly against it. Reasonable people can certainly disagree vigoruously on this issue, but it is frustrating when I so frequently see erroneous facts about the project in blogs and letters to the editor.

S. Talarico, Jr.

Anonymous said...

Sam,

Please take a look at my invitation over on the Fort Wayne Baseball Blog. Hope you will consider it.

As for strip mall relationship to downtown development, its about zoning, I think. Even most reasonable libertarians allow for govt to "zone" land, so that the man with the biggest purse doesn't get to build a slaughterhouse/brothel/gaming parlor strip mall next to your child's school, just to piss you off.

Many of us think that if the City/County agree that downtown development is a priority, then we may want to be less liberal in granting zoning variances that encourage development to sprawl further and further away from downtown. A policy that promotes in-fill may, in the long term, be more appropriate. Portland Oregon is a model of this approach, but it takes a lot of coordination.

Mark Garvin

Anonymous said...

Mark,

got your offer to have a blog debate on Harrison Square. I would be more than happy to meet personally with you and thoroughly discuss the Harrison Square proposal. I am not going to debate you on a blog because I will not be able to be nearly as passionate in my position as I want to be. As an elected official, I have to keep my post pretty mild because I know that the post could end up in the newspaper.

Sam T.

Anonymous said...

I appreciate your blog limitations. I'll give you a call and try to head over to your office sometime in the near future. As I recall, the coffee over there is pretty good, plentiful and free.

Mark

LP Mike Sylvester said...

Sam:

I feel that if we are going to continue to spend a lot of taxpayer money downtown then we HAVE to limit development at the edges of Fort Wayne.

We have to limit the sprawl if we are going to try to get people to go Downtown.

As far as Harrison Square goes I am NOT strongly against the project; however, I am against it. I do not think we need ANOTHER hotel Downtown when the hotel occupancy rate in Allen County is BELOW 50%. I also think the current baseball stadium is fine where it is...

The current parking garage next to the City-County building loses about $250,000 per year. I would estimate the new Parking Garage will lose about $500,000 per year. Where will that $500,000 come from?

Mike Sylvester

Anonymous said...

Mike,

The money comes from the X% increase in the food and beverage tax Nelson Peters wants shift to the stadium project.

Anonymous said...

Instead of a stadium project maybe the money should go towards building a rehab center for politicians addicted to taxes.

Heaven knows we have enough here locally to make it profitable.

I'm also pretty sure it can get more than 17% funding from the private sector.

Debbie said...

Jeff Pruitt said...
The "property rights" argument always seems weak to me. What you do on your property affects other properties around it. Because you can harm other property values you shouldn't have carte blanche to do whatever you please w/ your property. I guess it just seems like an archaic argument to me - many of the Libertarian arguments strike me that way...

***It's always interesting to me when people assume things are better when government is in control. You are still susceptible to the possibility that your neighbor might do something with her property you don't particularly agree with. All you do is add politics to the mix. All one has to do is read this discussion to see that. So Mr. Pruitt, I just might have to admit you're right. In this day and age, freedom does indeed seem like an archaic idea.

Robert Enders said...

Jeff,
My property rights end where others begin. No one has the right to build a fat rendering plant in my neighborhood because the noise and the smell would make the area too uncomfortable for any person to reside.

The proposed strip mall would not interfere with the educational process taking place in the school, nor would it interfere with anyone's ability to use the baseball diamonds.

Jeff Pruitt said...

Robert,

But who decides when your property IS interfering with others?

Anonymous said...

Sam,
I've known you for a long time. You tend to start most of your projects with a predetermined outcome in mind and often refuse to change your stance on an issue that you are passionate about even in the face of facts that it is contrary to the best interests/ desires of the public.

This project is just the latest example.