Renew Your Skepticism
By John K. Wilson
As "Downtown Yes" and "Hotel No" signs fill up the lawns and the storefronts in Normal, voters will have an opportunity to make their views known about the renewal plans for downtown Normal in the April 1 election on Tuesday.
The initial skepticism about downtown renewal centered on plans for a "Roundabout" in the middle of the downtown, and a boulevard surrounding Constitution Trail. Citizens voiced concern at planning meetings about how cars roaring past would ruin the serenity of the trail, and feared that a roundabout would cause accidents and congestion downtown.
Although these concerns have been largely forgotten, they do pose some problems. Normal officials argue that plenty of other American cities have used roundabouts with good results when it's properly designed. However, it's doubtful that any of them decided to put a bus depot right next to the roundabout. Normal drivers may eventually figure out how the roundabout works, but it won't occur without problems.
The roundabout debate was quickly followed by the news that the main new structures downtown would be publicly-owned and financed by the town of Normal. The first, the Children's Museum (in the current location of Rocky's, Shanigans, and the Gallery), garnered little opposition, since it is a valuable addition to downtown and difficult to create without public support.
The second, the Multi-Modal Transportation Center, has also faced almost no criticism, although it may be the most ill-conceived part of the downtown plan. Putting a bus depot in a crowded downtown is an invitation for disaster. Traffic congestion is already a problem around downtown Normal at times, and it should get worse with the renewal and expansion of stores and parking. Putting the city buses, Greyhound, and Peoria Charter all in this same area in the middle of downtown could lead to major traffic jams, not to mention the pollution. While the Multi-Modal Center would have some valuable elements (such as a new studio for WGLT), these could easily be incorporated into the children's museum or a different building. Wasting valuable downtown space on a massive bus depot may be a decision regretted in the long run, especially since it could be located across the railroad tracks. Surely no one would support the plan if the town had to pay $25 million for the structures, but plans are to get state and federal funding to pay for nearly the entire building. A dubious taxpayer-financed project doesn't get any better just because several layers of government are subsidizing it.
However, it was the final part of the downtown plan, the hotel and conference center, that has drawn the most attacks, including from several former town council members. Unable to get private investors without offering massive subsidies, Normal officials decided that the town should own the hotel and
Local hotelier Jack Snyder, after having his bid for the hotel rejected, launched a crusade against a publicly-owned hotel, and hired workers to get enough signatures to put it on the ballot. His opposition may be hypocritical, but that doesn't mean he's wrong.
It's easy to understand the opposition by local hotels: they will lose business to a publicly-owned hotel being financed by the same hotel-motel tax that hurts their profits. And the hotel business in Bloomington-Normal is facing a glut. Occupancy rates fell dramatically from 77.4% in 1999 to 69.7% in 2000, 66.4% in 2001, and 63.9% through August 2002.
Yet, if there is to be a new hotel, public ownership is preferable to a massive public subsidy. However, the fact that no private company wants to build this hotel should be a red flag for the likelihood that it may not be profitable.
The projections for the new hotel are almost ludicrously optimistic. In the first year, it is projected to have a 69% occupancy rate, while charging far above the local average at nearly $100 a night. It would be extraordinary for a new hotel to make over a 20% profit margin in its first year of operation, particularly one that depends upon luring conferences in an area with numerous hotels.
While ISU officials contend that they could have lots of conferences and visitors, the evidence is far from conclusive. Hotels rely on businesspeople, and it's not clear why they would choose downtown Normal over more convenient or cheaper locations. While a few conferences and events at ISU would easily pack the hotel, much of the time it could be mostly empty.
ISU should be more deeply involved in the project. Spending millions to subsidize a parking garage for the hotel during a time of dire budget cuts is hard to justify unless ISU got something more out it (especially since the new conference center will take business away from the Bone Student Center). The Children's Museum could provide an ideal home for a badly-needed ISU Child Care Center. WGLT could also be located there, as an ongoing real museum exhibit, and be guaranteed very low rent by the town.
The greatest danger of downtown renewal is gentrification-taking an interesting collection of small businesses and replacing them with high-priced trinket-dealers and mall shops. The idea of a cooperative-owned natural foods store faded in favor of upscale restaurants and delis, or conglomerate fast-food places and sweatshop retailers to attract students. While a few symbolic "green design" features will be required for buildings, the larger issue of attracting businesses that have sound environmental and moral business practices seems regarded as unimportant.
On April 1, Normal residents will be able to vote about the public ownership of the hotel, and also chose three council members from the pro-renewal and anti-renewal forces. Unfortunately, Normal is not a democracy. The referendum is non-binding, and the more critical election of three anti-hotel council members still might not be enough to change the momentum toward rapid renewal of downtown Normal.
Downtown renewal is a good idea, and the money spent is cheaper than the cost of infrastructure for endless strip malls and new subdivisions. The question is, will downtown renewal move in the right direction and with sensible use of resources and planning?
