South Garland Avenue received some revitalization in the early 1990's along the railroad and high-power lines and some sidewalks in front of the businesses. Compare this corridor to Forest Lane. The right of way widths are not the same so the comparison is limited but if we want better entrances to the city, is it only up to the businesses? Success requires a vision and a strategy.

 
The city, not the Council, has instituted a zero-tolerance code enforcement policy toward the businesses on S Garland Ave, or at least certain types of businesses.
 
There was lengthy discussion at last night's Council Work Session (Item 3a) about the seemingly staff-initiated policy but many of the specifics remain unclear. The throw-the-book-at-'em approach was defended as: "What other choice is there?" Who instituted the policy was not answered. Which businesses are being targeted is unclear. So, read between the lines.
 
My primary questions have been: What message are we sending our businesses? What messages are we sending to those looking to locate and invest in Garland? Are rules being enforced equally and fairly across the city? Who's next?
 
The first puff of smoke that might have alerted anyone of this enforcement initiative and its goals was a proposal sent to the Council's Development Services Committee a few months ago proposing to extend the Downtown Overlay District to S Garland Ave, particularly the restrictions on automotive-related businesses that essentially prohibit any new uses.
 
About the same time, businesses in the area were suddenly being visited by Building Inspectors numerous times per week. Mayor Ron Jones and I attended a meeting of the businesses, where we were told of the intense enforcement and a barrage of violation notices. Some infractions were so minor that several businesses that have flags along their property line (car dealers) reported they received notices that their flags sometimes flew over the sidewalk (but only when the wind was from the west).
 
Last week a west Garland resident reported to the Mayor and I that he was in one of the businesses when an inspector, with shirttail out and ball cap, entered the business and told the owner that he would have to "clean up the property and that [the inspector] would be back next time with the police."
 
In late January, the Building Inspection Dept circulated a memo to staff members changing the procedure for processing Certificates of Occupancy, which are required of all businesses, but the memo was only for automotive-related uses (automobile and motorcycle sales, leasing, and service and repair). Applications would require sealed professional drawings of the entire boundary, including driveway locations, public sidewalks and pubic alleys; designated parking places for employees; designated parking places for customers; designated parking places for cars awaiting repair. Sealed professional drawings would also be required showing the office area, repair areas, bathrooms, and all other spaces. Each establishment is to be inspected at least twice per year. No other type of business in Garland is similarly regulated yet there is only one Code of Ordinances.
 
When I asked City Manager Bill Dollar what was going on, I received this reply:

 
It is part of an overall Code Sweeps effort that is being conducted by Building Inspection Zoning Inspectors. It is Building Inspection's intent to expand this effort to all Commercial corridors in our City. [Emphasis mine.]
 

 
Holy smokes! Is this really what the City plans to do to every business along every commercial corridor?
 
Obviously a policy has been created that is directed at one type of business. Changes in the rules have been made for that type of business, changes that are not reflected in our Code of Ordinances. Intense enforcement has been directed toward that type of business and in one area, so far.
 
Note: It is the Council's job to set policy and staff's to implement it and yet, in this case, a policy has been created and unevenly applied without any notice to the Council.
 
In last night's discussion, several Council members accepted this development without any objection. Some defended the zero-tolerance posture, yet if such tolerance levels were applied to their homes or to their businesses or to their driving, I doubt such precise and exacting policy would long be defended.
 
Our neighborhood sweeps by the Code Compliance Dept doesn't scrape at your paint, use picks to test your wood and mortar, but observes a list of priorities that cover the basics (initial introduction mentioned here). An educational program preceded that effort; the Council was briefed and asked for input. Educational programs are a normal part of the health inspection process and most other city efforts, of which I'm very proud. This process is different and I do not defend it.
 
It is obvious from comments that some Council members were aware of this new "policy" and had a hand in it yet none have been forthright enough to say so. That there is intent to serve their voting constituents, I don't doubt. That there is frustration initiating positive change in government and the community, I don't doubt.
 
Nor do I doubt that the City Charter is being usurped and that the city has been recently divided as to how the rules will be enforced. Nor do I doubt that there is great harm sidestepping the Council and not publicly sharing whatever goals exist here. The expectation by citizens and our Charter of one city, not eight, is being challenged, as I spoke of here.
 
We do have aesthetic and other problems on S Garland Ave and most corridors to the city center. Beating on the businesses, driving them out of business, rendering the corridors to vacant lots and dust, will not help. That long and illegal process, at the end of the day, doesn't bring about change. What new business owner would not think: "There but for the grace of God, go I. How soon before they think me old and tired and treat me the same?" If you were investing your dollars, is this where you would invest?
 
As I expressed last night, these corridors are the first impressions of Garland. They are among our best marketing tools. What message do we send when we dress the railroad tracks with grass and trees on berms, and with fashionable light standards, yet on the other side we don't do anything similar. Do we as a city show our concern when we leave the medians as bare, concrete islands instead of landscaping them as we did on Forest Ln?
 
So, how well has the city met its responsibilities to the corridors? Should we be throwing stones? Those that live in glass houses….
 
There are ways to improve our corridors. In 2002, the City paid big bucks for a corridor study from Angelou Economics. It was an in-depth analysis of our freeway corridors and S First St. Unfortunately, that Council paid the bill and then prioritized it to the bottom of the stack. I learned of it during our rezoning efforts on S First St.
 
If we had followed the recommendations, this would already be a different city. We would almost assuredly not be facing property declines as steep as we are now experiencing.
 
The recommendations for S First St are probably identical to what we would expect to have seen for S Garland Ave:
 

 
A redevelopment effort to address the physical and economic conditions of the commercial district should be a priority to the City of Garland. This process will require three important elements: (1) community-wide support from city officials, property and business owners, area residents and other local institutions; (2) an organizational structure to oversee redevelopment efforts and raise funds; and (3) a well-defined plan.
 
For a revitalized [South Garland Avenue] to be successful, it must reflect community's desired vision of the district and be supported by area residents and business owners. Therefore, the recommended first step is to engage area stakeholders in a visioning process. Because this effort will require a long-term comprehensive approach, AE [Angelou Economics] recommends establishing a community development corporation (CDC) to implement the redevelopment plan and coordinate funding and marketing strategies. Another recommended organizational and financing tool is to designate [South Garland Avenue] as a Public Improvement District (PID). A PID would allow the city to levy a special assessment on properties within the district to pay for various types of improvements, programs, or acquisitions. Because of the organizational requirements for establishing a PID, it is unlikely to occur without the efforts of a CDC. In fact, without an organization such as a CDC in place, the overall revitalization plan for [South Garland Avenue] will be difficult to implement.
 

 
No lasting change and no long-term benefit to Garland will be realized by singling out and whipping our businesses. None. There is no model that suggests it and all experience argues against it. We rezoned S First St and we hit them with Code enforcement. Judge for yourself.
 
We have to grow the value of our city to address our current and future challenges. Doing more to dress up our corridors will go a long way to help meet those challenges but we have to do it in a way that encourages investment and success.
 
My primary questions remain: What message are we sending our businesses? What messages are we sending to those looking to locate and invest in Garland? Are rules being enforced equally and fairly across the city? Who's next?