TOWLER: A possible way out with Ren Square

July 16, 2009 at 6:27pm

Yesterday's meeting between City Council and Renaissance Square leaders was discouraging, to say the least. Among the most unsettling aspects: the absolute lack of trust between the two groups.

If they're not able to get something worked out, far more is at stake than the future of Ren Square.

While I was stewing over that prospect this morning, a friend e-mailed his idea for a possible resolution. Here, posted with his permission, is his e-mail:

The question is, where do we go from here? Hopefully, some behind-the-scenes efforts are well under way, and compromises are being negotiated. But if not, for what it's worth, from someone who has no particular solution or axe to grind in this debate, here are some thoughts:

This community can't afford one more example of seemingly dysfunctional government and inability to make decisions on big issues. We can't afford to be seen as only being able to come together to lob charges and countercharges at each other, rather than finding ways to compromise and work together in partnership.

Thus, despite the antagonistic tone in the room yesterday, there has to be a way to get the partners to find common ground in the interest of the larger community. As one way of beginning, I'd suggest the following process or something similar to it:

Build on the mayor's offer to go to Washington to meet with the Federal Transit Administration. But offer a specific proposal to the Main and Clinton board that all the participants join in a request right away through Senator Schumer's office to set up a meeting with FTA representatives as early as possible next week to seek an extension of the deadline.

If just the city requests such a meeting, my gut says it'll be rejected. But if all the partners make a joint request, in the spirit of working out a resolution to the competing proposals, it may receive more favorable consideration.

In such a request and meeting, the partners should be absolutely candid in explaining that a number of issues have surfaced late in the game that need more time to resolve. They should say that a new proposal to scale down the plan has surfaced at the last minute, and time is needed to sort out the implications.

They should say there is no desire on anyone's part to scuttle the project, and that all parties are seeking a way to keep the project on track and not lose the $24 million. They should say that it makes no sense to make a decision with so much at stake under the gun of a deadline that doesn't afford the time to find a resolution.

They should seek a limited extension with a promise that the city will listen carefully to any legitimate reasons that may argue against the city's proposals, but that the other partners will also seek ways to accommodate to the extent possible any legitimate issues raised by the city.

All parties have too much at stake to fail at this point. Neither the city nor the county can afford a humiliating failure on such a high-stakes project with so many jobs and dollars at stake, and with MCC's downtown presence also at stake. Everyone has lots of reasons to create a resolution and to show that governmental partners can work together to resolve contentious issues in a spirit of cooperation, not through simply lobbing charges and countercharges at each other. We deserve better.

Simply put, the city should make this request for more time, and the county and RGRTA should support it, with each offering something and potentially gaining something. The county, RGRTA, and MCC should offer the city support in requesting a delay in the deadline, in the spirit of compromise, understanding that they may have to give up a quick decision and may need to put some issues back on the table. But they gain the possibility of getting Council's support, which they don't now appear to have. And they may get a decision from FTA that says there is no flexibility in the date, in which case a quick decision will have to be made by the city.

In turn, Council must promise to agree to schedule a special meeting later next week to take an up or down vote on the proposals, if the FTA refuses to grant a delay in the deadline.

This is a time for leadership and not recriminations. We heard enough of the latter yesterday.

Comments for "TOWLER: A possible way out with Ren Square" (2)

City Newspaper is not responsible for the content of these reviews. City Newspaper reserves the right to remove reviews at their discretion.

MAT said on Jul. 16, 2009 at 9:49pm

I'm confused; isn't this exactly what City Newspaper wanted? Op-ed after op-ed railed against the project, now all of a sudden, we need compromise and understanding? What happened Wednesday afternoon in Council Chambers was an embarrassment to everyone in the region, especially city residents who are represented by the cowardly, out-of-touch "leaders" on Council. I ask, where was Council's leadership years ago? They acted (and it was an act) as though this project was just announced. It seems as though every non-comatose resident of this community knows more about this project than they did. Here's a thought: next time the single largest redevelopment project in modern City history comes around, demand to have a seat at the table from the get-go. Shame on former Council President Giess and current Council President Santiago for allowing this to happen. Shame on Mayor Duffy for not reaching out to Council in spite of their ineptitude. Shame on Maggie Brooks and Mark Aesch for piloting what has become quite possibly the most poorly-managed public project in world history. The losers in all of this: all of us (the taxpayers who will be out millions of their hard-earned money with zero result, the bus riders who will still be stuck waiting in the cold, the MCC students who still attend classes in a substandard facility, the theater patrons who too are stuck in a substandard facility, the downtown property owners who have been unable to land tenants due to this nonsense, the tradespeople who remain unemployed despite tens of millions of dollars ready to be spent, the planning and engineering professionals who have wasted countless hours of their lives on this project only to have a bunch of minor-league politicians choke out whatever life it had left. This project may not be perfect but it is darn sure better than the status quo or the "alternatives" provided by the vocal opposition. So to recap, we're stuck with long lines of idling buses blocking any potential revitalization of Main Street, vacant contaminated properties with no hope of redevelopment, a third-rate theater incapable of hosting big-time touring shows, and the vastly increased likelihood that we will lose the downtown MCC campus for good. BRAVO to all involved!

andrew stainton said on Jul. 17, 2009 at 11:42am

A few Thoughts on Fixing RenSquare

Now that the RenSquare project is at a crossroads, this is a good opportunity to rethink some of the fundamental design considerations that have held the plan back and generated so much public hostility towards it. By changing the plan, one more time, to jettison the terminal idea at Main and Clinton, a whole new range of options and possibilities emerge that will add measureable value to the city for generations to come. But firstâ�¦

The current transit plan is absurdly inefficient, each day more than 1200 buses would drive in a circle around or near the new MCC campus, slowing commutes and turning that part of downtown into a pedestrian dead zone.
The new revisions proposed by City Hall leaders, only turns a level 5 urban design nightmare into a level 3, as a result of still locating the bus terminal in a nonsensical place.

Instead of making a terrible plan less so, why not move all the way to an optimal design, one that actually that meets the objectives of creating a vibrant center city, improving transit function and convenience, and still adding a new campus facility on Main Street. The suggestions outlined below also; preserves tax base, increases pedestrian friendliness and avoids unnecessary operating costs RenSquare would otherwise cause.

Transit: Central to a working transit system is an intermodal station at the Central Avenue Train Station. Logically located on the highway and train tracks, convenient to park and ride, some RTS routes, Amtrak and intercity buses would make the station ideally suited to connect these transit functions. Shuttles connecting the station to the rest of downtown with a shuttle or two would add measurable transit value and help make car-optional living a key downtown advantage at an â��energy-uncertainâ�� time.

MCC: The downtown campus could maintain its Main Street presence by building on the Midtown lands that are now being cleared and made shovel ready. By incorporating the existing library and gym facilities in the Sibleyâ��s building, it would mean money would not be wasted rebuilding these facilities (and the Sibleyâ��s building wonâ��t be left completely empty). Funds could be focused on facilities that add real value to what already exists.
The current RenSquare plan that buries the campus under a swamp of bus traffic should be considered completely unacceptable and vigorously resisted by anyone who prefers breathing and learning in unpolluted air. (An alternative energy focus to the campus could attract even more federal stimulus funds. Putting electricity generating turbines in the Genesee River nearby would cement an authentic claim to such a clean-energy center.)

Downtown development: The possibilities become endless once the block is freed from the RenSquare wrecking ball threat. A combination of public and private funds could restore historic buildings, develop housing and green space along with a properly scaled climate controlled waiting area for bus patrons.

Its time to bring the public back into a design charrette process to arrive at more of a community consensus about how to proceed. Saving the federal dollars to be used only to cause long lasting financial damages to the community should not be a priority for area leaders. Instead, by shifting completely to a superior intermodal plan with a properly located transit center that has true public support, there may still be time to preserve some of these resources to build projects with real and lasting value for the city.

Time perhaps, but not much.

Respond on Your Blog

If you have a City Account you can not only post comments, but you can also respond to articles in your own City Blog. It's just another way to make your voice heard.