|
|
|
It is easy to see the wider scale of the problem from this diagram on statewide growth of institutional property over ten years. Portland is not the only city faced with similar issues, but the effects of tax-exempt institutional growth are pronounced here. The local neighborhoods are effected most directly, but different aspects of the problem exist at the larger scales of the city and state.
(Source: Lenardson, 1996) The Portland
Press Herald ran a story on creep in September, 2001. Neighborhood residents find that institutional growth is almost
imperceptible because it usually happens one building at a time, hence the term
“creep.” Of course, this makes
it difficult for people to notice that the neighborhood is changing until it has
already changed. Regulations
are in place in the form of zoning restrictions, but those rules have not
prevented the creep of Maine Med, who bulldozed 13 apartments, and USM, whose
long-term plan calls for monopolizing Bedford St.
Mercy Hospital, after facing much opposition to its expansions and
proposals, is eventually headed out of town. City officials
recognize the many benefits of having non-profits in the city. Because of the actual services they provide, a vibrant
service sector provides jobs and is a
draw for businesses and other “people from away.”
In fact, some suggest that too many of these non-native Mainers are taking
advantage of Maine's strong service sector, further exacerbating the housing
shortage and draining city services. The city has suggested that a possible solution to the problem is for
institutions to replace, at their expense, any housing that they take off the
market. Of course, the non-profits
are opposed to this, declaring that the collective good they provide is more
valuable than a few lost houses. Some
note that institutional creep has hardly had the impact on housing that roads
have, Franklin Arterial being a prime example.
Solutions have been proposed, both in the op-ed pages of the Press
Herald, and by a state commission. The
imposition of service fees on the agencies themselves could make up for some of
the lost tax revenue, but this is simply another name for “tax,” and tends
to defeat the purpose of tax-exemption. Gould
Academy in Bethel has vehemently opposed this proposed legislation, claiming
that it would make them the largest tax payer in the municipality (Lenardson,
1996). The other possibility, put
forth by the Press Herald on Sept. 6, 2001, is for the state to reimburse cities
that are non-profit heavy. The
editorial suggests that “if these service providers can’t grow in urban
areas, they may end up moving out, contributing to the states sprawl problem,”
as was the case with Mercy Hospital. Currently
well over 20% of the property in Portland is tax-exempt.
The city tops the state’s lists of churches, hospitals, charitable and
fraternal organizations, public property and other tax-exempt categories (see
below). It is important to keep in mind, however, that nearly 66% of all the
tax-exempt property in Maine is either local, state, or federal government
owned. These institutions are
seldom the subject of much controversy in terms of institutional creep, perhaps
because they are usually well-planned-for and are often a defining
characteristic of their respective neighborhoods.
Furthermore, federal policy encourages state and city governments to make use of
existing non-residential historic buildings for expansion.
(Source: Lenardson, 1996) In early November of 2001, city officials, institutional administration and neighborhood representatives were invited to participate in a community round table discussion of the problem of institutional creep. The issues discussed included the benefits and problems of institutions, and the role of institutions as “good neighbors.” While city ordinances have not yet changed to reflect the meeting, it is clear that the city places responsibility with the institutions in terms of reaching out and communicating to the neighborhood. The roundtable meeting did result in a draft of "Guiding Principles," designed to inform the planning process specifically as it pertains to institutional growth (see below). The most significant policy implementation as of late has been the inclusion of the public during the workshop phase of the planning process. As the city grows, institutional expansion will continue to be a prominent item on the agenda of Portland's public policy. More and more residents are painfully aware of both prior and potential impacts, and the city is finally making it possible for them to get involved in planning for their own futures. In theory, this is a triumph for democracy, but in practice, one city planning official notes, it is "messy." Reconciling the plurality of political viewpoints is difficult, time consuming and makes the planning process more expensive. Potential problems of unequal representation due to a given neighborhoods' economic status can further complicate the process. For individuals to successfully involve themselves in the planning process, they must take the time and energy to learn the issues and participate in the forums and hearings. Some neighborhoods have official representatives to speak for the community at city meetings, and that appears to be the most efficient way to streamline the process. Many people simply do not have the time, wherewithal or inclination to get involved in city politics. In order for government to function, it depends on a large number of people to not be involved. Therefore it seems that the ideal of democracy and the practice of democracy are different from one another. The city of Portland is making room, however, for the multitude of voices to be heard and considered. The problems of institutional creep have made citizen participation a mandatory if inefficient requirement for balanced city planning. Summary
of Round Table Forum, Nov. 2001
(Source: City Hall Planning Department)
|
