Tale of two cities 

“It was the best of times, it was the worst of times,” begins the famous novel by Charles Dickens.

So it is for Little Rock as another mayoral race gets underway. The city’s population and economy are growing, tourism is increasing and the cultural life is improving. But that growth is putting pressure on infrastructure, jail space can’t keep up with the crime rate and neighborhood leaders disagree about where to direct limited funds.

Perhaps the strongest division is between downtown and West Little Rock, where policy perspectives are shaped by lifestyle choices. To downtown loyalists who live east of University Avenue, West Little Rock is an abomination of sprawl. On the other hand, residents of West Little Rock think downtown is inconvenient, dirty and unsafe.

Both are right, to a degree. But both take advantage of the other’s amenities, whether it is the plentiful shopping in West Little Rock or the dining and entertainment options in downtown.

In that way, it is a productive and dynamic competition, and the success of each area doesn’t have to be mutually exclusive. Still, with all things being equal, West Little Rock’s growth is more expensive and burdensome.

That’s because a majority of the development is new, so the city has to pave streets, expand the public safety network and extend sewer lines and other utilities. And that stretches the available resources even thinner.

Many other municipalities deal with this problem by imposing impact fees, which are simply charges assessed to developers to compensate for the public infrastructure servicing their new properties. Even Bentonville — home to Wal-Mart and bastion of free-market thinking — already requires impact fees for commercial development, and other conservative cities like Rogers and Cabot are seriously considering adopting them. In fact, a heated debate ensued at a public hearing in Cabot this week as the city council prepared to take up the subject at its Aug. 21 meeting.

As those discussions are occurring elsewhere, Little Rock seems to be alone in avoiding a serious discussion of impact fees, even though it is feeling the effects of rapid growth. Tony Bozynski, the city’s director of planning and development, said he doesn’t know why impact fees have not at least been formally contemplated.

“Several years ago there was a study done along the Kanis Road corridor, and at that time there was some discussion about other ways of funding street improvements,” he said. “I don’t think impact fees were mentioned. … I can’t point to any specific reason why it’s not got to the point where someone does a study of street development fees.”

An obvious reason is that city officials are hesitant to challenge developers. But if they lack the political will to recover the costs of unrestrained growth, they should support programs that encourage in-fill development as an alternative to sprawl.

After all, redeveloping vacant downtown buildings and lots would provide numerous benefits to the city. We have already witnessed the disproportional advantages of recovering merely a few blocks of real estate in the River Market. Since that is the part of town most visitors see, the public relations and economic gains are exponential.

Better yet, the city doesn’t have to spend money to accommodate the new developments, because all of the services are already in place.

The only problem is that it typically costs more to renovate existing properties than to build on undeveloped land.

“Redevelopment projects can be an expensive undertaking,” said Ryan Lasiter, a broker with Doyle Rogers Company, which has several historic buildings on Main Street that have been sitting vacant for years. Lasiter previously lived in Memphis, which adopted a series of incentives for developing downtown properties that include tax freezes, tax-exempt bonds and access to working capital.

“Incentive programs, such as the ones offered in Memphis, have continuously induced and encouraged projects that otherwise may not be economically feasible,” Lasiter noted.

With that in mind, the Memphis model would be a good one to follow if Little Rock’s leadership could be convinced that widespread downtown development is in the city’s interest.

Sharon Priest, executive director of the Downtown Partnership, said she has convened two task forces to move forward on that front. “There is nothing we currently have on our wish list, but there will be.”

She added that the Downtown Partnership does not have an official position on impact fees, which is unfortunate, because it would have the most to gain from them. Plus advocating for the fees would work well as a political bargaining chip that could be relinquished in exchange for a package of city incentives for downtown development.

For in the end, if we’re not going to make developers pay for their impact, we might as well encourage a preferable kind.


From the ArkTimes store


Showing 1-1 of 1

Add a comment

Subscribe to this thread:
Showing 1-1 of 1

Add a comment

More by Max Brantley

  • Sunday open line

    Open line and “news” on the Hog football coach.
    • Nov 19, 2017
  • The Clintons side by side in Little Rock 25 years after

    Bill and Hillary Clinton side by side taking questions from Donald Carville. The only thing more I could have asked for was a seat for Donald Trmp to handle the same topics.
    • Nov 19, 2017
  • Arkansas a leader in laws against better working conditions

    The Economic Policy Institute has compiled a national look at state laws that prevent local governments from mandating better working conditions in cities and counties than state law provides.As you might expect, Arkansas is among the leaders
    • Nov 19, 2017
  • More »

More by Warwick Sabin

  • Helena's disappearing buildings

    Preservationists hope to slow demolitions.
    • Mar 22, 2007
  • Trailers headed to Dumas

    Gov. Mike Beebe issued the following statement earlier today: Although this decision by FEMA to deny emergency funds to Desha County defies common sense, Arkansas will take care of its own people.
    • Mar 9, 2007
  • Youth Ranch robbed, vandalized

    According to a press release we just received: The Donald W. Reynolds Campus of the Arkansas Sheriff’s Youth Ranches (The Ranch) located near Fort Smith was vandalized overnight Thursday.  Items stolen during the break-in included all of the children’s saddles, food, tools and supplies from The Ranch’s carpentry shop and all equipment from its auto shop.  An investigation is underway with the Crawford County Sheriff’s Office.
    • Mar 9, 2007
  • More »

Most Shared

Latest in Warwick Sabin

  • Trickle-up theory

    Through thick and thin, there has always been one group of dedicated Americans whose support for President George W. Bush has been unwavering: The wealthy.
    • Mar 8, 2007
  • Time to go

    Tough questions face us in Iraq and it's time to confront them directly.
    • Mar 1, 2007
  • Plugged in

    One reason why the South remained solidly Democratic during the mid-20th century was the enduring gratitude to President Franklin D. Roosevelt, who brought electricity to the poor, rural parts of the region. According to one historical account, “Althou
    • Feb 22, 2007
  • More »

Event Calendar

« »


  1 2 3 4
5 6 7 8 9 10 11
12 13 14 15 16 17 18
19 20 21 22 23 24 25
26 27 28 29 30  

Most Recent Comments

  • Re: The smell of the swamp

    • I did as you suggested and read several articles about "consultant" Solution Tree and their…

    • on November 19, 2017
  • Re: The line

    • Thanks Autumn for your article and viewpoint that I totally agree with because I have…

    • on November 19, 2017
  • Re: The smell of the swamp

    • Interesting how Republicans always bleat about their support for "free market" competition, but really are…

    • on November 18, 2017

© 2017 Arkansas Times | 201 East Markham, Suite 200, Little Rock, AR 72201
Powered by Foundation