Note:  in a sense, everything here is an “editorial,” I suppose.  This one’s admittedly much more acerbic than our usual fare, though – hence the additional qualifier.  Ye be warned.

The saga of the Fort Worth Modern Streetcar project’s recent Federal Transit Administration grant win continues.  Now, the Star-Telegram has published an editorial from their Editorial Board urging the city to leave the grant money on the table, and questioning the need for a streetcar.

Now, there are plenty of questions about the streetcar project that need to be answered – nobody’s denying that.  We’ve got some of the best transit planners in the world – HDR, Inc. – working on them right now.  What’s not helpful is the city’s major newspaper’s editorial board publishing such an error-and-misinformation-filled screed against the project while it’s still in its formative stages.

Let’s go through this editorial’s points and see what we can find that’s wrong with it:

On Jan. 26, the City Council authorized an application for the grant. Council members Danny Scarth, Carter Burdette and Jungus Jordan objected, saying the city should research the idea before committing to it.
They were right.

We have been researching it.  We’ve been researching it, in one form or another, since the 1970s (as a commenter on last Friday’s post pointed out).  We are researching it even further as we speak.  There’s an effort by certain council members (a few of which are named above) and certain city leaders (such as people at the S-T’s Ed. Board) to paint this as some sort of “rush” into a streetcar project, when it’s anything but.

And since we’re actively researching it right now, with extremely talented planners, it’s misleading to suggest otherwise and irresponsible of the S-T’s editorial board (can’t be any more specific, since there’s no byline) for them to suggest that there hasn’t been a ton of research and planning already.

(By the way, there was something in Friday’s S-T article about the grant, a quote from Councilman Jungus Jordan that our planning efforts to this point have been by “laymen,” which is just flat-out wrong.  The previous streetcar study before the current HDR one, for example, was put together by a group that included professional city planners and developers.)

The city’s share of this project would be $26.8 million.

Wrong – we don’t yet know what the city’s share of the eventual first streetcar line would be, because we aren’t finished selecting and planning what that first line would be.  So, the S-T’s editorial board doesn’t know any more than we do.  It could be this much, but we don’t know yet, and the editorial board is wrong to say otherwise.

The FTA grant does require a local match, and it seems like there’s been an effort by some to suggest (or at least, not correct the impression) that the local match is $26.8 million, but that is completely factually incorrect.  The $25 million Federal grant would require a local match of $6 million – far less than is being suggested.  Beyond that, we don’t know yet – and neither does the Star-Telegram’s editorial board, so they have no business trumpeting that figure like it’s a fact to kill progress before we’re even finished.

Part of this is due to the original FTA grant application being for a “downtown circulator” along a specific route, but I know for a fact that conversations with the FTA since the application was made are indicating that Fort Worth should be able to change the specifics of the route and still get the $25 million.  The Star-Telegram’s editorial board is assuming we’re locked into that old downtown circulator line, which doesn’t look to be the case.

With the council struggling to make up a $77 million budget shortfall, even to the point of possibly eliminating property tax homestead exemptions and raising the tax rate, the thought of spending millions on a streetcar project is sheer folly.

This is complete and utter misinformation, and it speaks volumes that the S-T’s editorial board is trying to tie streetcar funding to the city’s budget problems.  There’s something very intentional behind this.  That, or they’re either not paying attention, or don’t care.

As has been said time after time, both here, by the streetcar planners themselves, and by city leaders who actually have a clue, the streetcar is extremely unlikely to require money from the city’s general fund.  The exact funding sources are being determined by HDR, but it’s likely that the funds will come from a combination of Tax Increment Finance (TIF) districts, potential Public Improvement Districts, and other such sources outside of the general fund.  A TIF, for example, is set up specifically and only for public infrastructure improvements, everything from new sidewalks to streetcar tracks.  That doesn’t take money away from swimming pools, police officers, or street maintenance across the city.

The streetcar will likely wind up with various layers of funding, just like every major project in Fort Worth, and it’s very unlikely it’ll take money from the general fund.

And this is also ignoring the economic benefits of the streetcar project – of course, the S-T dismisses those with its next paragraph:

The flowery language about “job opportunities” and “stimulating the redevelopment of walkable urban neighborhoods with a variety of housing choices” is political spin on an idea whose time is not now.

You heard it from the Star-Telegram Editorial Board:  talking about job opportunities brought about by the development and investment a streetcar line encourages is mere “flowery language.”  I’m wondering at this point if this editorial isn’t some kind of performance piece commenting on the increasing irrelevance of local newspapers.  Does the S-T’s editorial board really want to go on record during times of economic stress as saying that encouraging new investment and job growth by investing in a modern transit system is just “flowery language?”

There are businesses and investments right now who have opened in central city Fort Worth in locations they’ve picked specifically because they’re on potential streetcar lines.  The economic growth brought about by modern central city rail transit isn’t a fairy tale – it’s been seen across the United States.

What “idea” is job growth a “political spin” on, Star-Telegram Editorial Board?  Does that even make sense? It reads more to me like the Star-Telegram Editorial Board is going on the record as being against job growth through investment in better mobility.

The S-T Ed. Board similarly dismisses stimulating growth of walkable urban neighborhoods and providing a range of housing choices for Fort Worth residents.  I was unaware that the Star-Telegram’s editorial board was operating through a wormhole from the year 2000, when gas was cheap and free of supply issues and the suburban home-building industry was roaring.  It’s amazing that our sole major newspaper’s editorial board is so out-of-touch with reality.

It’s happening in Fort Worth, and it’s happening all across the country:  the central city is being reborn.  People aren’t only settling on the fringe of town in single-family homes anymore.  It’s disappointing that the S-T’s editorial board still can’t process thinking of the central city as anything more than an office park and a theme park for people from the ‘burbs to enjoy on weekends, but it doesn’t change the fact that encouraging central city redevlopment, walkable mixed-use growth centers in central city neighborhoods, and a range of housing choices is an idea whose time isn’t just now, but has been for some time now.  If Fort Worth is to compete in the modern age, we can no longer just assume that everybody’s going to be living at the edge of town and driving everywhere we go – it’s unsustainable from postions of the economy, environment, and infrastructure.  And it’s not how our peer cities are doing things anymore – but the S-T editorial board is apparently OK with us failing to be competitive.

(The Editorial Board railing about the cost of the streetcar and then dismissing redevelopment of our center city showcases how much they miss the point – it costs huge amounts of money to pay for infrastructure for new sprawl, S-T Editorial Board.)

First, there’s the $26.8 million in local money needed for the downtown circulator alone. The grant application says the city will seek commitments next month from the downtown and Lancaster tax increment financing districts to cover that cost.
Even if that works, it means $26.8 million in incremental tax revenue that the city will not get — while it’s clear that more tax revenue is sorely needed.

This is so misleading that it’s insulting.  It’s also factually incorrect.  In basic terms, a Tax Increment Finance District creates a an area where the value of property in that district is set at a base level (the level it’s at when the district is created).  The tax revenue from that base level continues to go into the general fund of the various taxing jurisdictions.  Then, revenues from any increase in value (due to new investment in the area) stay in that area.  What I mean by that is, that extra revenue is put back into the TIF’s area in the form of public infastructure improvements.  It can pay for everything from new sidewalks to new street trees to street reconstruction to new bike racks to sewer improvements to streetcar lines.

In other words, the extra revenue in a TIF district is used to pay for public improvements in that district – meaning those improvements aren’t coming out of the general fund.  Those improvements, in turn, help to spur more development and investment in the TIF district, which means more revenue for the TIF, which means more investment, etc. etc. all of which leads to new jobs, new businesses, and more economic vitality – all without taking money from the general fund, where the city’s budget shortfall is.

To put it another way, if you took $26.8 million from a TIF to build a streetcar line, you aren’t taking one damned cent away from the city’s general fund, because the TIF is already there, and that money wouldn’t have gone to the general fund anyway because of the TIF.  That TIF money can only be used for infrastructure improvements (and it’s money that the general fund doesn’t have to spend on those improvements).

So it’s blatantly misleading and untruthful for the Star-Telegram Editorial Board to be accusing the streetcar project of robbing the city of $26.8 million in tax revenue when that money could only be used for infrastructure improvements in that specific area because there’s a TIF district already in place, and has been for years.  If the streetcar project doesn’t use that money, then some other project in that area will – it’s not going to go to the general fund even if the streetcar project dies tomorrow. That’s what TIF districts do.

That the Star-Telegram’s editorial board is trying to insinuate that the streetcar TIF funding would take money otherwise headed for city income is, in my view, either jaw-dropping negligence of the facts or a purposeful attempt to mislead the citizens of Fort Worth.

Further, the need for a downtown circulator has not been shown. The council-appointed committee and some other residents have demonstrated their desire for streetcars, but not yet the need. Public buses and the “Molly the Trolley” people carrier already serve downtown well.

As stated earlier, the route can be changed, so the S-T insisting that it’s a “downtown circulator” isn’t strictly accurate.  More to the point, saying that buses and Molly “serve downtown well” really depends on your definition of “well.”

Buses – even fancy ones like Molly – simply don’t have the draw of streetcars in terms of ridership.  People who would never step on a bus, even one as nice as Molly, will ride a streetcar.  It’s due to a wide range of factors – the fixed guideway making the route easier to figure out, the exact arrival times via electronic signage making the system easier to use, the steel-on-steel rolling system making the ride smoother and more comfortable, the electric power making the ride quieter, and more.  If we’re serious about impacting our congestion and air quality problems, better rail transit in the central city is critical.  Our buses aren’t enough to cut it anymore – streetcars will encourage more people to get out of their cars and onto our streetcars and sidewalks, growing the health and vitality of the central city in a myriad of ways.

The Star-Telegram Editorial Board, however, seems content with business as usual.  They’re OK with doing the same thing over and over and expecting it to keep succeeding – but the world is changing.  The young up-and-coming generations of professionals, families, and creatives are changing.  Business as usual isn’t enough for them.  If Fort Worth’s going to compete on the modern stage, we have to be thinking differently.  We’re a major city now, whether the S-T Editorial Board likes it or not, and business as usual will cripple this city in the long term.

Which, as you’ll remember, is a refrain from another major Fort Worth leader – Mayor Mike Moncrief, who said exactly that in his State of the City address:

Commuter Rail, street cars, and other alternative modes of transportation also remain a priority for me and this City Council. Unfortunately, Fort Worth and other major metropolitan areas are finding out the hard way what a mistake it was to design and build cities around automobiles years ago. Friends, we cannot continue to focus solely on building more roads for more vehicles. That’s counter productive at best.
Business as usual is dead!
North Texas requires a transportation overhaul. No more band-aides, no more patches—a complete overhaul!

And yet, the Star-Telegram Editorial Board is a big endorser of business as usual.  They’ve come out against innovation, modern transportation choice, and investing in our city’s infrastructure to grow an economy of the 21st century – and they’re doing it via an editorial full of misdirection, misinformation, and factual errors.  Makes one wonder what exactly happened behind the scenes as that editorial was being written.

I hope all of you out there write in to the Star-Telegram and voice your support for the Fort Worth Modern Streetcar project:

Letter policy

Submit via e-mail: letters@star-telegram.com

Mail: Box 1870, Fort Worth, TX 76101

Fax: 817-390-7688

Verification: Letters must include printed full name, address and day and home phone numbers for author verification purposes only.

Frequency: Writers are limited to one letter every 30 days.

Content: Must be the author’s original words. Suggested length is 200 words or less. Letters may be edited for space, clarity, civility and accuracy.

Questions: Call 817-390-7599 or contact Jill “J.R.” Labbe, Editorial Page Director

Cheers & Jeers policy

Submit via e-mail: letters@star-telegram.com

Mail: Box 1870, Fort Worth, TX 76101

Fax: 817-390-7688

Please limit your Cheer or Jeer to about 50 words. Full name, address and daytime telephone number are required. There are some restrictions on subjects. Items may be edited.

Questions: Call 817-390-7599 or contact Jill “J.R.” Labbe, Editorial Page Director

And don’t forget – tell Mayor Moncrief and the entire city council the same thing:

Mayor – Mike Moncrief – 817-392-6118 –mike.moncrief@fortworthgov.org
Mayor Pro Tem – District 4 – Danny Scarth – 817-392-6187 –District4@fortworthgov.org
District 2 – Sal Espino –  817-392-8802 –District2@fortworthgov.org
District 3 – Zim Zimmerman – 817-392-8803 -District3@fortworthgov.org
District 5 – Frank Moss – 817-392-8805 –District5@fortworthgov.org
District 6 – Jungus Jordan – 817-392-8806 –District6@fortworthgov.org
District 7 – Carter Burdette – 817-392-8807 –District7@fortworthgov.org
District 8 – Kathleen Hicks – 817-392-8808 –District8@fortworthgov.org
District 9 – Joel Burns – 817-392-8809 – District9@fortworthgov.org

EDIT:  Here’s a great comment from reader Michael that further elaborates on TIF funding and its purpose:

“TIF districts are managed by a board of representatives from each of the participating jurisdictions who (as in all other parts of the city) collect property taxes from that particular district. These include, for instance, the City of Fort Worth, Tarrant County, Tarrant County College, etc. FWISD does not participate as they are severely penalized by the State for doing so.

Kevin gives a very good primer on how TIF districts work and, as he points out, it is extraordinarily misleading for the Star-Telegram to mischaracterize this as coming out of the general fund. The very purpose of Tax Increment Financing is to make long-term investments in public improvements (infrastructure) that will stimulate growth. The increase in property value (which is taxable as it would be under any other circumstances) supports the financing of these public improvements.

Therefore, the intent is to invest in public improvements that will support future growth – think of the improvements along Magnolia over the past decade which have attracted very significant and positive development; the result is the transformation of a once blighted neighborhood into a thriving part of Fort Worth which contributes far more to the local economy and tax rolls (including sales tax to the general fund) than it ever would have without those improvements.

TIF districts typically last about 20 years after which all collected property taxes – including those above the base amount – are distributed as they would be in any other part of the city. This is exactly how Fort Worth is going to address its budget shortfalls – through Growth, by supporting a strong business environment that will attract new development, increase property values (and the tax revenues generated by them), increase sales (thus generating sales tax), new jobs (meaning increased consumption in the area), and by pulling residents Into the city rather than out of it to neighboring cities.

One thing is certain… this is Not Amon Carter’s Star-Telegram any longer.”