Lamont Blackstone addresses a roundtable discussion between developers and members of the First Tier Suburbs Council Steering Committee. (L-r) Laura McConwell, Mayor, Mission, Kansas; Keith McDonald, Mayor, Bartlett, Tennessee; Lawrence Kilduff, The Kilduff Company, Mequon, Wisconsin; Fred Johnson, F A Johnson Consulting Group, Columbia, South Carolina; Scott Cannon (face not visible), Mayor Pro Tem, Duncanville, Texas; Lamont Blackstone, Principal, DLC UrbanCore, Tarrytown, New York; and Cheryl Wollin, Alderman, Evanston, Illinois

 
America's First Tier Suburbs, those cities and towns immediately outside the large major cities, share many of the same challenges: declining housing stock, out-of-date strip centers, changing demographics, and attracting new business investment, to mention just a few commonalities. A week ago, I attended the summer meeting of the National League of Cities' First Tier Suburbs Council Steering Committee, held in Las Vegas.
 
My reason for serving on the Steering Committee is to learn what others cities very similar to ours are doing to confront these challenges, but I also look forward to sharing some of the successes we are starting to achieve in Garland.
 
Our first speaker on Saturday was Colin Smith, Executive Director, Michigan Suburbs Alliance. Mr Smith focused on redevelopment and how suburbs can attract and facilitate developers better. He introduced a certification program that the Alliance created and administers: Redevelopment Ready Communities®. From a brochure on the program:

Redevelopment in older cities can be a challenging task. Mature, built-out suburbs typically have properties with older housing stock and outdated or underutilized commercial buildings, which are accompanied by aging infrastructure like roads, sewer systems, and public transit lines. Converting these out-of-date properties to efficient, productive status can be a complicated process, and developers who take on these projects often encounter confusing development processes, misinformation, and other complexities, which result from years of outdated policies and staff turnover. All of these factors can deter potential developers and deny older communities new investment that is essential to their continued viability and economic competiveness.   Despite the inarguable challenges, a community that employs a strong, well-planned redevelpment strategy can successfully compete for limited development dollars.

I couldn't agree more. Looking through the steps to certification, I felt Garland was well on its way to achieving these same goals. It wasn't that way just a few short years ago. We have completely changed our system of processing applications, how we measure the process, and how we are working to improve it further. It is important to not lessen our development standards (and that is reinforced in statements below), but it is equally important to have a process in place that is easy for all applicants to follow and to be confident of the results, whether a major developer, a small business owner, or a homeowner.
 
[I thought I had posted information on the revised process when the staff presented an update earlier in the year but I can't find where it is posted (which means it probably wasn't). I'll post soon on the process that developers now follow.]
 
Imagine the competitive advantage if developers knew a city had honed its development process to get them through it faster (less time saves money), that there will be no surprises (information up front means no costly surprises and delays), and they can have some accurate expectations of the results (consisent leadership and/or a form-based development code). Garland is well on its way to being such a city.
 
To emphasize that point, the next item on our agenda was meeting with developers from around the country. One from the Metroplex, Jeff Brand, Greenway Investment Company, Dallas, made exactly the same points, saying that many cities are hard to work with. Developers are more inclined to do the easy, greenfield developments away from first tier suburbs. He did say there were some pleasant exceptions. When I spoke to him later, the city he was thinking of was Garland.
 
Our meeting was hosted by the International Council of Shopping Centers that was gathering for their largest convention of the year, RECon, where 43,000 people had registered. Cynthia Stewart, Director, Community Relations, Office of Global Public Policy, ICSC, and liaison to FTS, helped kick off our discussion with a report of a new study just completed for ICSC. The item that best caught my ear was that shopping centers and retailers are now studying surrounding neighborhoods for future growth. Garland's Neighborhood Vitality program and other efforts to protect the investments in our homes and neighborhoods will pay double dividends if it serves to bring more retail services.
 
Here is a sampling of some of the comments we heard (most are paraphrased from my notes and are not verbatim — any inaccuracy is my fault and I apologize in advance):

Larry Kilduff, The Kilduff Company, Mequon, Wisconsin:

• Referencing a partner in a public/private partnership: someone that does not run away when the going gets a little tough; that's not leadership
• Business wants and needs good enforcement of the rules and they need to be equally applied, which creates a more stable environment
• Referencing telling a developer what they are expected to build: if you want what the market can give you, you'll get it sooner; if not, you'll have to wait a long time, maybe forever
• Referencing public incentives: you're playing in a game where development will follow the better incentives, including China

Dennis Harder, Joseph Freed and Associates, Palatine, Illinois:
 
Referencing cities issuing Requests for Proposals (RFPs): for developers that are in competition with other developers, where they have to spend a lot of money creating the proposal, and where the land offered often has a negative value (demolition costs more than the land is worth), most developers will not bother. He suggests that a Request for Qualifications (RFQ) would be preferred if a process is necessary.
 

Lamont Blackstone, DLC Urban Core, Tarrytown, New York:
 
It is important for developers to determine if the political environment exists to support a public/private partnership. Successful cities must provide the appropriate environment.
 

One point that was virtually common to these and the other speakers was the need to be able to make a profit. There is no point in building if there isn't a profit. Every city requirement has the potential to raise the risk to a point that the developer cannot be confident of success. The public/private partnership can successfully attract developments that wouldn't otherwise be attempted if the partnership helps reduce the risks.
 
I didn't hear anything that makes me think we're on the wrong course or that we cannot succeed. I heard plenty that makes me uneasy that we could start making bad decisions that could quash our momentum and damage our investments.
 
We must maintain our progress attracting development and redevelopment. We must look for ways to build partnerships that advance our goals, including public/private partnerships. If we are going to be a partner, we must be a good partner.
 
If I sometimes seem more the businessman than the politician, its because I don't want to fail. Growing the City takes leadership, not a finger to the wind.
 
It is ironic that the meeting and the ICSC conference were in Las Vegas. I don't enjoy gambling — I don't gamble because I don't like to lose.
 
Garland is building its foundation for a great future. Let's refuse to lose.