Commentary

The Cost of NIMBYism to the NIMBY Advocates

by
Data Center

Marshall County is five months into a two year moratorium on construction of Solar Farms, Battery Storage Facilities, Carbon Capture and Data Centers. This has been due to a small, but vocal group of NIMBYs. This has trickled down to restrictions in Culver and consideration of these issues in other Marshall County communities. As per a previous post here, I maintain that communities are either growing or dying. Setting that aside, there may be additional costs to our leadership’s decision to limit or stop development.

The recent actions of the state legislature and new governor has reimagined our tax structure. This means that local governing bodies have to figure out how to do more with less tax income. Turning away new development, with the associated additional tax income, is not a proactive way to address this.

All of the development associated with the construction under the moratorium has minimal long-term impact on county resources. As with any construction, there will be short-term impacts on roads, but those can be mitigated or negotiated as part of the development package. These are not projects that will employ hundreds of people (though the few they do require will be highly-skilled and well-paid), so they will not require acres of parking lots, they will not increase traffic counts on our roads post-construction, they will not cause any increase to our current housing shortage… What these developments will do is pay a lot in taxes, donate to local charities and provide resources for other development where we can look to additional high wage jobs.

Of the four moratorium targets, Data Centers in Indiana have specifically been touted by President Trump and our State government. Turning our backs on any of these initiatives makes us look provincial. That’s not the way I want our county to be perceived.

I am not saying that these should be given free rein and there should be no restrictions on their construction. I don’t know that a short (very short) moratorium isn’t appropriate while research is done, but a two year moratorium likely means that nothing happens for 18 months or more. We don’t have to reinvent the wheel here. Other communities have these and would happily share what they have learned. To my knowledge, there has been little time spent working on new regulations by Marshall County, let alone trying to reduce the length of the moratorium… of which 5 months have passed already… The recent changes to tax laws should make this a priority, not to mention the possibility that we are missing opportunities while other communities take advantage. Those opportunities could be gone if the needs are filled elsewhere.

The tax cost is just one effect on the NIMBYs (and the rest of us). A Department of Energy (DOE) report from December of last year found, “…data centers consumed about 4.4% of total U.S. electricity in 2023 and are expected to consume approximately 6.7 to 12% of total U.S. electricity by 2028. The report indicates that total data center electricity usage climbed from 58 TWh in 2014 to 176 TWh in 2023 and estimates an increase between 325 to 580 TWh by 2028.” As Data Centers consume more power, there will be costs to all of us as power production is ramped up (more costs), and competition for power drives the price up. Our moratorium stops two of the ancillary developments, solar and battery storage, that could help mitigate this too.

Allowing these facilities won’t reduce our electric bills. They could keep us from getting a double hit from higher taxes and higher electric bills and if done right, maybe lower taxes to help mitigate those higher electric bills.

One more time, for those in the back of the room… Communities are either growing or dying! This doesn’t mean we shouldn’t assure that it is smart growth, but extending an open hand in friendship is probably better than showing a closed fist. Our vocal NIMBYs may well cost us all in the end…

More Targeting…

by

Following up on last week, “Targeting” in the pre-Dunes era of the Town of Culver (TOC) should be considered for local businesses as well as new residents. While there have been a few suggestions floated regarding new businesses, the needs of an increased population should be reviewed by all existing businesses too.

TOC has seen many businesses come and go. On the recreation and entertainment side, TOC has lost bike shops, pool halls, bowling alleys, arcades, theaters, lake tour boats and if you want to go way, way back, dance halls and roller-skating rinks. Most recently in this category, we lost the pottery making shop and the axe throwing venue.

On the services side, TOC no longer has bait shops, clothing stores, shoe stores, dry cleaners, furniture stores, appliance stores, flooring stores, lumber yards, a taxi service or a place to rent a tuxedo. At one time there were several car dealerships and while TOC has retained one car mechanic, there used to be five or more as part of full-service gas stations.

I can quickly name the locations of eight full-service gas stations that served Culver all in the same era. That’s not something that is applicable anymore anywhere. That’s not just a TOC thing. Some of the others listed above fall into that same category. Some of these things have also been absorbed into other businesses. The question is, what are the needs of TOC’s expanding community and how should they be addressed?

I know there is some surveying planned to help address this, but who gets surveyed and how is important. I am not suggesting that the surveying be too targeted, but I am suggesting that some of the surveying be weighted. I would guess there would be a difference in what full-time residents say and what part-time residents say. Part of the key is including question on why part-time residents remain part-time residents.

Group 1 – Full-time Residents: This group has stuck with TOC, either from inertia, job ties, family ties or general fealty to Culver. What would make their lives better?

Group 2 – Full-time Residents – Community High School kids: When they think of Culver, why are they considering leaving or staying and are the reasons things that TOC can affect?

Group 3 – Culver Academy Students: How do they see the town? What’s missing? What’s great? What would make them consider returning here after graduation or after college?

Group 4 – Full-time Residents – Formerly Summer Only: Some of these people lived in Indianapolis or Chicago and bought their Culver home as a summer get-away, but now live here full-time. Why? What brought them to make Culver their home and what do they miss now that they’re here that differs from when it was just a get-away?

Group 5 – Pandemic Escapists: TOC missed a huge opportunity during the pandemic of 2020. There were a significant number of lake cottages that were part-time residences before the pandemic that became full-time residences during the pandemic. Culver was their place to escape to… What could TOC have done to keep those people here? If they were called back to work, that’s not something solvable, but if they were remote working and could continue to remote work, what sent them home in lieu of making TOC home?

Group 6 – Realtors: TOC has a plethora of realtors, either based in Culver or working Culver from surrounding communities. No doubt they hear a lot about why someone is considering moving here and what they see as the pros and cons.

There was a business subcommittee created as part of Culver Crossroads. (Remember Culver Crossroads? Another positive initiative that lost momentum when key people exited.) That subcommittee brought in Alan Steele from the Small Business Development Center (SBDC) in South Bend. An analysis at that time really only named one missing element in our area, which was a sporting good store. That was 3+ years ago and without considering 300 additional residents. What would be different now? SBDC could possibly help with analyzing survey data to identify targeted opportunities.

Some of the potential needs could be added to existing businesses, whether as added offerings or actual stores within a store. (An example of this was the ice cream shop, which was popular, but not viable. Ice cream was added to Culver Coffee Company’s offerings, which seems to be doing well.)  Along with helping existing businesses identify the upcoming needs, TOC could assist with marketing. Most of the TOC marketing being done in the past few years has been geared towards bringing in tourist business, but marketing existing businesses, Welcome Wagon style, to new residents could be helpful. This was done to some extent when The Paddocks opened, but there would be the opportunity to do this with The Dunes as well.

Where needs are identified, TOC could help with micro loans. This would be a way of helping businesses prepare to meet the needs foreseen in the surveys. TOC could also consider waiving some of the fees associated with expanding an existing business. Waive permit fees for expansions, new signage and other sundry costs.

As I’ve observed in the past, Culver can be quick to pass judgement on new businesses they don’t like. How about instead of complaining, be proactive and recruit (target) what is desirable?

Targeting

by

The Town of Culver (TOC) and the developer at The Dunes have mostly stated that the project is like the movie Field of Dreams. To paraphrase the movie, “If you build it, they will come.” (The original movie line is, “If you build it, he will come.”) I have no grounds to dispute that, nor to dispute TOC’s hope that adding additional housing options will lower costs in Culver. But do we have to just hope “they” are who we want?

At the last Culver Redevelopment Commission (CRC) meeting, the developer had an request before the commission, asking for the release of the next tranche of bond money to begin the next phase. Citing strong interest, they felt the need to get started on an additional 70 units. Several inciteful questions were asked by audience members that were not well addressed by the commission. One stood out to me that I wanted to address here: “Are you targeting who you want to live there?”

In a round-a-bout way, TOC has a goal that these new residents be full-time residents. There is a move to get the “Papa’s to Pinder’s” business district in shape to serve these new residents, but it’s not moving too quickly. That is definitely an important piece. As was brought up at the meeting, can Park ‘n Shop serve the additional residents? Should TOC be talking to CVS about the potential extra need and whether an onsite pharmacist would be justified again? The commission members didn’t have good answers. Hopefully, there is more going on behind the scenes that wasn’t ready for public discourse or alternatively, the discussion sparked some additional goals to strive for.

But the main thing I think is missing is targeting who TOC wants to populate those new homes. Left to their own devices, the developer has only one goal (as he should to satisfy his investors): fill the units as quickly as possible with the residents that will pay the most to be there. The project is somewhat insular by design, turning the back side of homes and apartments toward South Main Street, rather than embracing the existing neighborhoods. TOC will have to make the effort to reach out and make those residents part of the community. Wouldn’t that be easier to do if that welcoming hand were extended before they moved in?

There is a new battery plant under construction in St. Joseph County. There is a new distribution center under construction in Elkhart County. There is a new truck factory going into Kosciusko County. Driving to those sites from Culver seems like a long distance, but compared to living in a larger city, the commute time would be similar, but the drive would be more pleasant! Worst case, if commute distance is too long, those people will still be looking for housing and likely push some existing residents in those counties to look elsewhere. Culver has some nice amenities to offer, if they are promoted. Per the recent UWMC Housing Matters study, Marshall County has a housing deficit of 1,300 dwelling units.

This seems like an area where TOC should be proactive; soon, rather than taking a wait-and-see approach. If nothing is done, I believe the developer will get those homes rented. There is no strong impetus for them to care whether they are rented to full-time residents or not. If TOC does not want more part-time summer residences, part-time Culver Academies‘ parent residences and part-time overflow from lake house residents, then they will need to make an effort to attract who they want.

Vancouver Complete Streets

by

I accompanied Becky on a business trip to Vancouver, Washington, a few weeks back. Since I was on my own while she was in her conference, I spent a little time walking around. Several of the streets I walked on were fairly major thoroughfares. I don’t know if they were defined as “Complete Streets” there, but they met my definition, having bike lanes and spacious sidewalks. Honestly, I thought there was an excessive amount of paving, considering they had continuous paved center turn lanes between intersections, despite prohibiting driveways, and including wide sidewalks along with bike lanes which seemed redundant. It was overall a nice look though.

Vancouver, Washington, street side detention pond

One of the interesting features were areas carved out into the adjacent developments for stormwater detention. These were obviously for the streets and not the adjacent developments. While I’ve seen this done on a small scale creating curbside rain gardens (Like the one by the LaPorte Library completed in partnership with Purdue.), these were full blown detention ponds, 2′-3′ deep and capable of holding upwards of 4,000 cubic feet of water. They were landscaped as mini parks and maintained with turf and trees rather than going the route of a wetlands or marsh type look. I thought this was an interesting idea.

Vancouver, Washington, street side detention pond

These were large city blocks. It struck me that there was a missed opportunity to turn those small oases into actual mini parks. I know there is always the public safety concern about someone being caught in a storm, if someone was in them when they fulfill their design of holding water. (I was pleased that this concern wasn’t taken to the extreme where they were fenced.) Without doing anything in the basins themselves, their could have been seating around the perimeter taking advantage of the shade trees planted there. Another idea would be to create a pier type structure out into the basin with seating or even a gazebo.

The same thought could be applied locally. When detention ponds are installed in our area, they are either designed to be mowed or designed to be naturalized. In most cases, they are not considered a feature, but are designed to be functional and to fulfill a permit requirement. But could we do better?

The gazebo on a pier idea could work nearly everywhere and change a functional stormwater control requirement into a respite. Along these same lines, ponds are generally designed to maximize volume while taking up minimum space. What if they included a peninsula into the pond that could be walked on or landscaped to break-up the functional and be more naturalized? One pond that comes to mind for this is the new municipal detention pond in Plymouth across from the Neighborhood Center. What a great opportunity for the City to set an example?

If there are any civil engineers reading this, I’m sure they are cringing. They like to keep things simple and anything that affects the flow of water, creates additional calculations for them to do. That said, anything that slows the flow is a net positive. Some of these things could be incorporated around the control structure and actually make maintenance easier.

This isn’t something that could always be done. We have had projects where we have struggled to meet the detention requirements due to capacity needs vs site size. We have also had deep and steep ponds due to various factors that are not conducive to bringing the public to them. But there’s no reason that other options shouldn’t be considered when possible. Detention ponds don’t have to be purely function and aesthetic eyesores…

Housing Density Answers from the Past

by

This is an interesting video with examples of multifamily housing on small lots (3 Flats) as seen in Chicago, Boston and San Francisco. It discusses some of the benefits as well as some of the drawbacks to this type of construction. It also briefly discusses some of the zoning barriers that were put in place to prevent this kind of construction.

It’s interesting that both Culver and Plymouth are looking into how to increase housing density right now, but are facing some pushback on the zoning changes that would be necessary to make this viable. Both communities seem to have active CAVE societies. I’m pretty sure every community has it’s own chapter. Years ago Erik Freeman and I proclaimed Culver’s unofficial motto to be, “Change is Bad; Even if it is Change for the Better”. Cast that as counterpoint to the underlying drumbeat for affordable housing.

Along with the basic zoning barriers, there are are other social and regulatory barriers that would increase challenges. Three story apartment construction would likely force the installation of fire sprinklers. Accessibility might need to be addressed due to the “walk-up” configuration with half a flight or more of stairs. Fire resistant construction between buildings would conflict with escape window requirements for bedrooms. All of these things would make the units safer and universally accessible, but would also drive up the cost. Meanwhile the three examples discussed are still in use in their respective cities; sometimes revered due to their place in the city’s history.

Greater density, even with the cost-increasing challenges listed above, does reduce costs of infrastructure, another big factor in housing affordability. Fewer linear feet of infrastructure is needed per dwelling unit. When this is done for infill properties, it makes better use of infrastructure, including roads, water lines and sewer lines. The one caveat to that is it may well increase impervious surface, further taxing storm water systems, though that is not a given. (They don’t have to be built cheek to jowl as was done historically, particularly in an infill situation.)

Reinventing the wheel can result in some improvements, but also can create some difficulties that were solved in the past. Looking back on what worked, may be part of our solution to the housing shortage problem as we move forward.