Skin in the Game

If there is a message in the visit from Cubs owner Tom Ricketts, it is this: we need to get some skin in the game.

Lots of people around Idaho are presuming to tell this guy what to do with his billion dollar fortune, and he’s right to tell us that we better check ourselves - because our public and private sectors have done little to move any kind of development deal forward. In fact, here are the actions regarding the Hawks to date:

• In March of 2009, the Ada County Commissioners punted on the issue after Colliers Idaho spent 15 months developing several scenarios for revamping the Fairgrounds/Expo Center/Hawks Stadium.
• In June of 2009, after three years work, The City of Boise released its 30th Street Master Plan. And there on page 185, the city identified a proposed new location for Hawks Stadium: it would be the anchor project for the redevelopment of the west side of downtown.
• April of 2010: The City of Meridian through its redevelopment agency, the MDC, effectively try to “buy” the Hawks by offering to pay for a feasibility study in exchange for agreeing to relocate to Meridian. The Hawks say no.
• In June of 2010, a Statesman article mentioned the possibility of GBAD financing a new stadium, but that board is in absolute chaos, and clearly has no bandwidth to enter into negotiations.
• CCDC is engaged in a national search for a new executive director, and has not publicly committed to anything, though it is listed as being one of the agencies responsible for “invest(ing) in capital projects” according to pages 182-183 of the 30th Street Master Plan.

So to recap - The City of Boise, ACHD, ITD, and CCDC spent three years developing the 30th Street Master Plan, and Ada County spent 15 months studying multiple different options for redeveloping the entire Fairgrounds area.

Now enter the Better Boise Coalition, a Chamber led organization which intends to give us another plan?

We deserve better. Every day, municipalities all around us are cutting deals to revitalize and energize their cities. They are financing these things themselves in innovative ways. As an example, see Fairbourne Station in West Valley City in Utah. There, the City Manager finally got tired of waiting on the private sector, and decided to take over development of its downtown themselves. The signature project is a city financed Embassy Suites Hotel that will be managed by the Hilton Company. In 20 years, ownership of the hotel will revert to the hotel. An innovative way to get something done. Is there some reason in a city TWICE the size of West Valley City we can’t muster the finances and skill to get something done with the Hawks?

The reason that this region fails to get grants for TIGER projects (remember the streetcar) or grants for sustainability planning from HUD is because we have proven time and again that we cannot cooperate to get things done here. The same holds true for attracting private investment: why on earth would Tom Ricketts or any other developer invest a cent in our city and region when WE won’t even do the same. We don’t have any skin in the game. And until we do private investment is going to go somewhere else.

The time is now for someone in the public sector to commit to getting this done, and getting some skin in the game. Someone needs to lead, to take a risk. What we don’t need is a bunch of grandstading and further feasibility studies from another booster group. We’ve already had five years of that. It’s go time.

Utah vs. Idaho: Transportation

As many are familiar, I am at work on my Ph.D. dissertation, which is exploring how Idaho and Utah, which seem so similar politically, culturally, and socially, have such different economic development outcomes. I’ve just returned from a trip to Salt Lake where I interviewed a number of key leaders, among them the CEO of the Utah Transit Authority.

Just a week after I returned from Utah, AP writer John Miller posts a brilliant piece about previous troubles at ITD. And really nothing better illustrates why Idaho, until political attitudes shift, is going to struggle economically.

A former Idaho Transportation Department director was asked to resign in 2006 after a scathing whistleblower complaint, a detail hidden from the public until it recently emerged in court documents filed as part of a separate lawsuit.

The papers, filed in U.S. District Court on Thursday, show the circumstances of how former director David Ekern exited the state’s top highway agency job in August 2006.

Ekern announced that month that he was leaving after 3 1/2 years to pursue “two potentially significant career opportunities.” He later took a job in Virginia that he quit in 2010.

But the Idaho Transportation Board had previously voted in executive session to remove him after an internal complaint in March 2006 alleged Ekern engaged in favoritism and “misuse of power and authority.” The board then gave Ekern an opportunity to leave of his own accord, the court documents show.

“The Board was dissatisfied with his performance and he should look for other employment,” according to the documents. “Chairman Frank Bruneel told Mr. Ekern that they would give him the opportunity to gracefully leave ITD. There was a general agreement that Mr. Ekern could leave basically in good standing if he voluntarily retired. Shortly after this discussion, Mr. Ekern submitted his retirement letter.”

Former Transportation Director Pamela Lowe filed the documents last week in her ongoing bid to convince a federal court judge she was illegally fired in 2009.

She was fired despite good job reviews after Idaho Transportation Board members raised concerns about her rapport with some Idaho lawmakers; Lowe blames her dismissal on a backlash after she began trimming a highway management contract with a big political donor, URS Corp.

I encourage you to review the whole article, but the short story is that political leadership in Idaho is driven by hyper-individualism, and personal vendettas to such an extent that the big picture is lost. This state has a completely dysfunctional Department of Transportation since at least 2006 - nearly 6 years, and because there has been no real change in policy direction, funding, or management structure at ITD, the only conclusion one can reach is that the electeds are ok with that.

To contrast that with Utah, about the same time that Utah legislators (conservative Republicans) were passing a bill to allow for public transit authorities (with public option taxation authority) we were trying to figure out how to get money away from the Ada County government which was building roads to Star and Kuna while the City of Boise struggled to fill in potholes. Though the problem was the state funding mechanism, legislators instead gave us the Ada County Highway District. Utah created what is now geographically the largest transit provider in the U.S.; Idaho was adopting a form of local transportation authority that has only one other example in existence. That’s what we refer to as worst practices.

I know I’ve mixed a lot of agencies here, but the story is not so much about them as it is about leadership: while we fight petty battles and adopt truly bizarre policy solutions literally seen nowhere else, our neighbors are kicking our butts. And those who suffer are those who have a fixed investment in Idaho, and Idaho’s residents at large.

Transportation infrastructure is a critical component for economic development - it shows the private sector that we are willing to invest in what they need to get their employees to work, and their products to market. But history again and again points to an Idaho that is not willing to subvert its hyper-individualistic nature for something that might be good for all of us - like a functioning transportation department.

The magic word: “Therefore”

The Governor will give his State of the State address this afternoon at 1:00 pm. Ostensibly, he will lay out his policy agenda, which will certainly be focused on balancing the worst budget deficit in state history (I would guess). As the Idaho Statesman noted this weekend, however, the Governor isn’t one to make policy pronouncements, he’s more inclined to talk philosophy.

So when the Governor says something like “we must make government live within its means” the next word to listen for is “therefore.” When the Governor says, “we must draw upon the strengths of the private sector and individuals within our economy” that should also be followed by “therefore.” “Therefore” indicates that the Governor has a plan to govern. “We must make government live within its means, THEREFORE, I proposed policy x to make that happen.” “We must draw upon the strengths of the private sector and individuals within our economy, THEREFORE, I propose solution Y to make that happen.”

For a real preview of the legislative session, listen for the word THEREFORE.

How to close Idaho’s budget gap

Senator Elliot Werk sent out his pre-session newsletter today asking for feedback so I sent him a few ideas for balancing the budget. The reality is that without spending reductions and tax increases, there is no way to get to the $340 million that we’re gonna be short. But here are seven things I’d probably do regardless:

1. Cancel all the state purchasing contracts and work out new contracts with local vendors. At any given day you can go to Best Buy and get computers cheaper than you can on the State contract. With furniture, it’s even more noticeable. Plus, why we would want to send Idaho’s wealth directly to Michael Dell in Austin TX is beyond me. We need to buy local and keep those profits with our businesses and banks in Idaho. That is the way it was before Gwartney took over.

2. Privatize the Department of Commerce as they have in Utah. Send Packwood and Dietrich to the Governor’s office and help the private sector put together an NGO like the Utah Economic Development Corporation to run the show.

3. End the charade at the Tax Commission by redefining business income. The problems at the Tax Commission are not agency problems, it is a policy problem created by legislators. If you redefine business income more simply, you’ll close the loophole in 63-3027 that allows companies to challenge their tax bills. This will also bring in $5-$10 next year from out of state corps dodging their taxes. I sent Killen and Sen. Hill a bill mock up for this.

4. Give local governments and entities more authority to control their own futures. School funding is not my strong suit, but I can’t help thinking that giving the Boise School District more authority to raise revenue (and the City of Boise as well) would allow the state to reduce transfer payments to those entities.

5. Give up on the Tax Expenditure bugaboo. The state will fail to collect taxes on about $2 billion in sales and income this year - so the issue is far worse than you describe. However, Idaho’s tax code really doesn’t look any different than any one else’s as far as exemptions, credits, deductions, and exclusions go. In that $2 bilion there’s really only about $20 million worth of really bad tax code. Almost 80% of those exemptions are for things that generally comport to “good” tax policy - that is those exemptions mitigate double taxation, regressivity, and help us comport with interstate taxation. So there really isn’t a whole lot of bad tax policy there to be honest (Boise State has a new paper coming out on this that I co-authored). However, I would let Alex LaBeau trade a rate reduction or increased cap in Personal Property Taxes or Corp. Income taxes for every dollar he agreed to support in elimination of some of the really dumb exemptions (like model glider kits, vending machine sales).

6. Why not eliminate the Senate? There isn’t any use for that body (sorry) if it isn’t going to be structured like the U.S. Senate. Go the way of Nebraska, Australia, Canada, and Hong Kong. Unicameral.

7. Cut ISP. Masterson says BPD is bored and underworked so they are focusing on traffic enforcement. Fine. Push off ISP’s urban patrols on urban police departments.

I assume that legislators have already done all the sleight of hand stuff - raise revenue predictions; sell assets; borrow from other funds; accelerate revenue collections; defer payments; capitalize current costs; anticipate future savings; raid pension funds or defer contributions; rearrange payment dates - and the like. No one asks but I assume the $340 million figure is what is still left after al the budget tricks have been applied. Gonna be a rough ride this session . . .

Brad Little: Idaho “Very Competitive”

Last week the Governor’s Blue Ribbon Transportation Commission wrapped up its work. The work was trying to figure out how to pay for the massive transportation infrastructure investment needed in Idaho. Betsy Russell at the Spokesman wrote a GREAT series of posts on the work of the Commission. I encourage you to get the details there.

In short, the Commission decided to recommend the Governor do nothing. In order to maintain and improve our existing road and bridge network, Idaho needs to spend more than a half billion dollars per year. And revenue enhancements are not forthcoming.

Lt. Governor Brad Little in response to the Committee’s work said this:

“One of the things that makes Idaho a great state and makes us very competitive is how hard it is to raise taxes.”

First a comment, then I’ll ask the questions that are begged here. To illustrate the flawed thinking in this statement, let me translate it into private sector language (since the Guvs want to run ID like a business):

“One of the things that makes ACME a great company and makes us very competitive is how few capital expenditures we make.”

Any CEO that said they were successful because they didn’t invest in their physical plant would be deemed insane by the Board of Directors and fired. But our leaders say exactly the same thing - we’re not going to invest in Idaho and that’s what makes us competitive - and we send them right back to office with high marks.

So - on to the questions. I want to know who told the Lt. Governor that Idaho is competitive, in what, and compared to whom? As I have argued over, and over, and over if a site selector has Boise and Salt Lake on his list, there is simply no way Boise wins. Not ever. Boise is absolutely not even in that league, and that should concern private and public sector leadership here, but it does not.

There’s a nifty new tool out there that Dr. Brian Greber over at the BSU College of Business and Economics developed that shows detailed cost of living comparisons between metro regions in the U.S. Soon, he’ll be unveiling dashboards that will allow public and private sector leaders real time economic indicators. Maybe that will scare ‘em finally. We’ll see. Anyway, quickly - here’s the comparison of SLC and BOI:

This tool is mostly relevant for employees as opposed to employers. And remember, it’s employers that decide where plants are located. Generally, employers don’t care about quality of life issues. They care about costs, connectivity, infrastructure, and quality of workforce among other things. So employers don’t care if a t-bone costs more in Vegas than it does in Des Moines. But three things that they will definitely care about are utility costs, local transportation costs, and the cost of health care. And, as Dr. Greber’s nifty tool shows us, the cost of living differential between BOI and SLC is minimal except in the areas that business cares about.

So maybe Brad Little is right in one regard. We’re competitive because you can pay low wages in Idaho, because cost of living is relatively low. But the lack of economic development in this region relative to the BOOM in economic development just south of the Idaho border, is prima facie evidence that those low wages aren’t offsetting the costs of doing business here.

Allred’s Transportation Plan: Huh?

I’ve always pledged to be an equal opportunity critic, and I’ve given Butch plenty of hell for ignoring the financial meltdown in the state, so now it’s time to ask Dr. Allred about his transportation stance.

Following the report that showed truckers aren’t paying their fair share of road costs, Allred conceived the following, according to reports in the Statesman:

Democratic gubernatorial candidate Keith Allred aims to cut Idaho’s gas tax by 3 cents and says Gov. C.L. “Butch” Otter’s push to raise more money for roads is misguided.

Allred would cut the tax to 22 cents per gallon, from 25 cents per gallon now, to save drivers $19.2 million annually.

He’d boost fees paid by heavy trucks by an equal amount to make up the difference.

Ok. This is nice populist rhetoric, but here’s the reality. First, there is universal agreement that no drivers are paying their fare share of transportation costs. I.W.H. Parry and K.A. Small argue in a 2005 article in the American Economic Review, i.e., the top journal in the field of economics, that gas taxes in the United States would need to rise to $1.01 per gallon (from around $.40 per gallon today) in order to cover the externalities created by accidents, pollution, and congestion. So reducing fuel taxes, as nice as that sounds, moves us in the opposite direction of optimal policy. Further, it’s totally unsustainable - we cannot finance our infrastructure needs with the current level of taxation - we certainly can’t reduce that rate.

So Allred proposes to raise taxes on truckers. Sounds like a great idea - stick it to the man. Let me just ask all you legislative observers this question: how many people think a bill that raises the gas tax on truckers would ever get out of committee? Exactly.

What we have so far in this governor’s race is no transportation solution from either candidate. Allred’s plan has no chance of becoming reality, and shouldn’t become reality - it moves Idaho away from good policy, not toward it. And after making transportation a centerpiece of his first campaign, the Governor has all but given up, his task force offering a mealy-mouthed plan to increase the gas tax by a penny in order to fund the billions of dollars in maintenance, safety, and infrastructure needs of the transportation system. That isn’t going to work either.

What’s that sound you hear? That would be legislators in Utah, Nevada, and Arizona - three of our regional competitors - getting a good chuckle as they watch themselves pull away in the transportation game.

BLS: 2nd Quarter Estimates Show U.S. Economy Expanding - Kind of

A report this morning by the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) estimates that the U.S. economy grew 2.4% in the second quarter. While that growth shows the nation as a whole is out of the recession, the growth rate was down from the first quarter when real GDP grew 3.7%.

Economists at the BLS gave the following rationale for the slowdown in growth:

The deceleration in real GDP in the second quarter primarily reflected an acceleration in imports and a deceleration in private inventory investment that were partly offset by an upturn in residential fixed investment, an acceleration in nonresidential fixed investment, an upturn in state and local government spending, and an acceleration in federal government spending.

In previous quarters, we had seen that investment by business was driving growth. Now, it appears that the pubic sector is responsible for keeping GDP on the positive side. That is obviously going to be bad news for Idaho, the state that led the nation in reducing state employment, cutting 6.9% of the workforce by the time the fiscal year closed out on June 30.

So if you wonder why your state economy is still floundering as we enter the third quarter, you now have a pretty good idea.

STEM Crisis in Idaho is in Jobs, not Education

In yesterday’s Idaho Statesman we have more hand wringing by the educational establishment about “why more kids don’t choose to follow educational paths in STEM?” For those outside of the system, STEM is Science, Technology, and Medicine. This obsession with STEM education is predictable, and seems quite rational. The thinking goes that if we build a higher quality workforce beginning at the K-12 ranks, then eventually we’ll be able to attract more companies to Idaho that require those types of workers.

Except that Idaho already has a SURPLUS of STEM trained college graduates who can’t find jobs. This was clearly outlined in a report to the State Board of Education in a report titled, EMSI Comparison of Education and Labor Data 2009. The report was privately produced for the Idaho State Board, so it is not available on-line but I am happy to provide a copy if you want one. The report estimates the number of graduates coming out of Idaho Universities with certain degrees, and attempts to connect them to known job openings where that degree would be relevant. Where STEM is concerned, here is the picture for Idaho:

As shown above, Idaho employers had openings for 91 biologists in 2009; Idaho universities graduated 267 students with degrees in biology - so there are 176 shiny new STEM grads in Biology who can’t find jobs in Idaho. It is the same with several of the other physical sciences, as you can see above. Math, Chemistry, and Physics degrees - at least in Idaho - provide no quick path to employment.

So this means a couple of things: 1) there is no STEM crisis in higher education - quite the opposite. Idaho is graduating more STEM workers than we can even employ, and; 2) those workers will leave the state and go take jobs in Colorado, California, Washington, and Oregon where there are jobs for those kinds of graduates.

Now on to myth number two, that there is a crisis in STEM education in Idaho’s K-12 ranks. It just isn’t true. Here is the data from the National Science Foundation’s Science and Engineering Indicators for 2010:

As indicated above, Idaho ranks among the top states in the nation for eighth grade science proficiency! And when you look at our neighboring states against which we compete for jobs - we’re way better off than Utah, Nevada, New Mexico, and Arizona. Our kids here are doing MUCH better.

What about Math? That story is also pretty good:

In eighth grade math proficiency, Idaho ranks in the second quartile of states, and that is better than ALL of the Intermountain West states except Colorado.

So what’s all this mean? Micron gave the University of Idaho a $1.2 million grant to answer the question of: “why some Idaho students don’t do well or pursue careers in science, technology, engineering and math.” And in a short blog post I’ve already answered that. The question isn’t valid - Idaho’s students in K-12 are doing just fine, thank you, in math and science, and Idaho’s universities are graduating A SURPLUS of STEM trained graduates. The real questions here are:

1) Why aren’t we getting out the word that relative to the other Intermountain West states, Idaho’s achievement in K-12 STEM education is very good, and that we have a surplus of trained STEM workers?

2) Will we continue to see this good of performance from our K-12 students with changing state demographics - an influx of Hispanics that may not have English as a first language, and the graying of the workforce and pending retirements of baby-boom era educators? These educators have served us well - can we sustain that?

3) What kind of investment in education would be required to get Idaho into the top quarter of states on math scores?

4) Can we continue to expect these kinds of results as the share of state funding for higher-ed declines, and funding for K-12 relies upon the shitting sands of the sales tax?

And there are lots of other questions that we could come up with that wold enlighten the educational situation in Idaho, but the one that Micron has asked the U of I to study is based upon several false premises and won’t result in any meaningful conclusions as long as this question is the starting point.

A Lesson in History and Economics for my Friends at the Idaho Freedom Foundation

If you’ve been paying attention, there’s all kinds of hysteria out there from the far right (the Idaho Freedom Foundation) and whatever Dave Frazier calls himself, perhaps the lunatic fringe, over municipal power in Idaho.

In an e-mail I got from the Idaho Freedom Foundation, Wayne Hoffman makes a couple of pleas to his base. In short, in his view the City of Boise must be stopped:

The Boise City Council voted 4-1 Tuesday to spend $60,000 to “educate” Idahoans on a constitutional amendment that would take away the right of the people to vote on airport debt projects. I’ll write more on this in a couple of days. But I’m stunned by city officials, who proclaimed it their job to be the official arbiters of the truth when it comes to ballot issues. What’s more troubling are the records we have gathered showing that the city is actively campaigning on the taxpayers’ dime. As I told KTVB-TV, the proper role of the city government is to run the city, not campaign for new laws and constitutional amendments. Period.

The city’s decision on whether to create a new urban renewal district was postponed at Tuesday’s meeting. We believe there is no need to create another urban renewal district. We’re deeply concerned by the expansive use of urban renewal across Idaho, and we’ll continue to work on this issue during the months ahead.

I don’t begrudge anyone their political philosophy; I spent years as a GOP consultant in Washington State, so I am sympathetic to Wayne’s suspicion of government. However, elected officials have the added burden of having to govern. They do not have the pure luxury, as does Wayne, to merely ignore the world around them in deference to their political philosophy (though Idaho electeds are better at most at adhering to rigid philosophical codes). My chief issue with Wayne, and Frazier, in this case, is that their philosophy completely ignores history and economics. Indeed, it is not the CITY as Wayne would have you believe, that is trying to steal power from the electorate. In fact, it is the exact opposite - the STATE of Idaho, like most states, began life as the usurper of power from CITY residents who had already set up their mechanism of self governance. This is the case all over the West - and remember the West in the late 1700s was places like Cincinnati and Lexington.

Early Pioneers platted the City of Boise in July of 1863. By 1864, Boise was established as the territorial capital. And, on January 11, 1866, the City of Boise incorporated as a legal entity with its own charter, system of ordinances, and elected government. The State of Idaho didn’t come to bear until 1890 - more than two decades later.

So you can now predict the direction of this tale. The State, in authoring its Constitution, stripped power away from the 2,311 Boise citizens who had been governing themselves for almost a quarter century. And like many other western cities, this almost immediately resulted in the City having to go to the State and ask for power back that they had previously enjoyed. Under these new state constitutions, cites often struggles with having enough authority (especially financial) to provide basic public health and sanitation services, and also public works and infrastructure.

Unlike Idaho, however, most states realized that hamstringing the cities - which always have been the economic engines - was no way to effectively govern a state. So as it turns out today, while other states in the U.S. devolved power back to the cities, Idaho’s municipalities today have less municipal authority than any state west of the Mississippi.

Fast forward to the present, and we have two important issues before us. One, the City of Boise is considering creating a new urban renewal district around the blighted 30th street corridor, and two, the state legislature (finally) has agreed to post a ballot measure which would give the airport the authority to issue bonds without a vote of the people. That small step brings Idaho finally into the twentieth century. We will have to wait until later to get to the 21st.

But otherwise smart people like Wayne Hoffman and Dave Frazier think these things are a bad idea. Yet - as shown - Boise’s experiment in self governance existed long before the farmers and ranchers from eastern and southern Idaho and their oxymoronic Western conservatism came to dominate state politics.

Lastly, our good friends over at the Idaho Freedom Foundation fail to understand that the free market operates in the public sector too - if it is allowed to do so. Economist Charles Tiebout in 1956 developed what is now known as one of the most cited economic models in history, the Tiebout Model. Very simply, the Tiebout Model predicted that people would vote with their feet where cities were concerned. That is, they would choose a place to live based upon the goods and services a city provided, and the level of taxation that it costs to provide those services. California is a classic example. Many cities incorporated to keep L.A. from swallowing them up, and consequently tax rates are lower and services fewer in those California burbs.

So how about letting the free market work in Idaho? If Boise wants to raise taxes to build a streetcar, use Tax Increment Financing to support a new urban renewal district, and let the airport build parking garages without me going to the polls, why not let them? If you don’t like it, move to Kuna and revel in your freedom from Boise’s taxes and modernity.

At the end of the day, the thing that is missing from these folks on the far end of either spectrum is any sense of history and economics. Now, they stand corrected.

Prediction for Proposed 30th Street Urban Renewal District

Last night the City Council served notice that they intend to hold a series of public hearings as they seek to create an urban renewal district around the 30th and Main corridor. I AM ALL FOR IT! I give big props to City Council person Elaine Clegg who spearheaded the design charrette for this area. Nearly 200 residents from the area participated. In the end input from participants in the charrette informed the creation of a 200 page master plan for this neighborhood that is nothing short of totally run-down. I hope the City and CCDC are successful in creating a new district. It is one of the few tools that government has to actually help spur development. And at least SOMEONE is trying to do that. Our Governor is on trail rides and firing staff members and talking ‘cowboy code.’ Thank Heaven the Mayor and Council are taking their charge seriously.

Anyway - on the prediction. If you saw the usually hysterical Dave Frazer’s blog the other day, he actually wants a constitutional limitation on the activities of redevelopment agencies. That completely defies any sense of the historical development of the United States where most cities predate the existence of the territories and ultimately states in which they reside. As states came to bear, municipal power waned - that is until states realized that cities were their economic engines, and constitutional changes gave municipalities more power to control their own destiny. As it stands today, Idaho’s municipalities have less authority than any state west of the Mississippi. The Governor says - get the government off your back and out of the way - but that presupposes that entities other than the state government have some ability to control their own destinies. In Idaho that isn’t the case.

But as for predictions as I keep promising - Having several years ago worked at City Hall as staff to the Council, I can tell you how many people showed up to the more than one-dozen public meetings on the 2006 budget. Zero. My prediction is that Dave Frazier will piss and moan at the Guardian Blog, and never once show up at a public hearing to give us a rational reason, on the record, why this city should not act to control the blight within its borders. Messr. Frazier wants a pure democracy where citizens get to vote on everything their electeds propose but he wants to do it in cyberspace.

If there is statewide opposition to urban renewal, Mr. Frazier, then bring that tribe down to City Hall. I’d like to see it. 200 neighbors from a neighborhood YOU DON’T LIVE IN asked for a solution to the slum that has become their neighborhood, and the city is granting their wishes. It is time for you to stand down, sir.