TBO.com - Tampa Bay Online
Recent Missteps Don't Diminish Tampa Bay Partnership's Potential
ADVERTISEMENT
Published: May 4, 2008
A couple of generations ago, when it came to making things happen, Tampa turned to a handful of businessmen who had the power and money to get things done.
When these men passed, Tampa lost a level of leadership many remember longingly. Tampa's titans had the clout to grow this community and enhance its panache. In today's fractured political climate, their muscle has gone missing.
Stepping into the void some years back was a group called The Tampa Bay Partnership, formed by the region's business and academic leaders to grow the region's economy, while preserving its quality of life.
The partnership brought the voice of business back to the public square and is building the region's political pull.
It helped unite the region for a bid to host the Olympics and continues to connect business people across a seven-county region to secure our place in the global marketplace.
Most importantly, it helped build the legal authority for a commuter-rail system the region will need to stay competitive.
But as anyone who has pushed change knows, it's easy to lose trust and support if you get too far out front and fail to communicate, communicate, communicate.
On those measures, the partnership recently has stumbled, injuring its standing as a trusted force for addressing regional problems, which West Central Florida badly needs.
Too Quick To Seek Funding
Last week in Tallahassee, the partnership lobbied to get a steady funding stream for TBARTA, the Tampa Bay Area Regional Transit Authority, which is raising hopes for a seven-county commuter-rail system in West Central Florida.
Rep. Bill Galvano, a Bradenton Republican, suggested the rail authority get $2 from the tax on cars rented in the region, or about $18 million a year. The money now goes to the state Department of Transportation for regional road projects like the planned connector between the Port of Tampa and Interstate 4, a vital project that keeps getting pushed back.
It's easy to understand why Galvano and the partnership would pursue the surcharge. They worked hard on the legislation to create TBARTA and want it to succeed. And they know a local funding source is needed before the federal government will consider pitching in.
Problem is, the partnership didn't have a business plan for $18 million a year. And who gives $18 million to a group without a sound plan? Besides, Tampa needs that I-4 connector.
The surcharge idea first surfaced in the CSX deal for Orlando, which, surprisingly, the partnership supported because of its potential for economic development. To get the support of South Florida lawmakers, someone suggested raising rental-car taxes to support that region's Tri-Rail commuter system.
But in Tampa's case, TBARTA didn't ask for the surcharge. Some board members, including Tampa Mayor Pam Iorio, believe that before requesting public funds, the authority needs a plan that makes sense and allows citizens to see what's in it for themselves and the region.
By asking for money without the endorsement of elected politicians on TBARTA's board, the partnership got too far out front. While many people believe Tampa Bay needs a multimodal transportation system that efficiently moves people and commerce, experience suggests caution in how funding is secured. To do otherwise risks taxpayer confidence on the larger challenges coming down the track.
Clouded Eye On Perceptions
The partnership also stumbled in hiring Amy Maguire to run a regional visioning process, called One Bay, which it launched with the help of the Tampa Bay Estuary Program, the Urban Land Institute and the Southwest Florida Water Management District.
As it turns out, Maguire also represented a group of south Hillsborough's largest landowners who hope to create a major development there.
When told of Maguire's conflict of interest, the partnership demurred. It asked her to sever her relationship with the landholders, but saw no problem with her continuing to lead the public visioning process. Almost a week later, however, after meeting with other sponsors of the effort, partnership president Stuart Rogel said Maguire had submitted her resignation. He called it a "perceived" conflict of interest.
The conflict was real and by failing to recognize it - and move quickly to address it - the partnership hurt its standing with the region it seeks to represent.
And that's a shame because this region needs the partnership to build a strong, trusted voice.
Missteps Don't Negate Group's Potential
The Tampa Bay Partnership is capable of good things, but to make them happen, it must listen to people beyond those with a development agenda.
The context in which the partnership exists has changed since the days of the titans. Tampa is a more mature - more diverse - city.
Today's citizens expect to be heard. Neighborhood groups are especially powerful. Some fear the partnership, like the titans of old, will broker backroom deals that shut them out - a perception the partnership must manage.
On the other hand, if the partnership believes economic development trumps all else, fair enough. Tampa Bay needs someone with a laser-like focus on attracting and growing businesses that offer good jobs.
Yet the region would be best served if the partnership, by its actions, defined itself beyond building rail, roads and developments. Its impact - and credibility with the public at-large - would be far greater if it also developed a reputation for rigorously defending the region's quality of life.
Were that to happen, average citizens would agree that the Tampa Bay Partnership represents the interests of the entire region.
And then, its agenda would be impossible to ignore.
Post a comment
(Requires free registration.)
* Keep it clean
* Respect others
* Don't hate
* Don't use language you wouldn't use with your mom
* Use "Report Inappropriate Comments" link when necessary
* See Member Agreement for details
TBO.com - Tampa Bay Online Member Agreement | Privacy Statement | Work With Us
Reader Comments
Posted by ( George_UCAN ) on May 4, 2008 at 11:29 a.m. ( Suggest removal )
Tampa Bay Partnership represents the monied interests of our region. They’ve got the power and the resources and the ears of Hillsborough County commissioners. Depending on how our growth is handled affects their bottom line, so they have an interest in creating it. So it is certainly not for altruistic reasons that they are spending their corporate dollars to make this effort happen. Our local governments like the public/private partnership concept because they can save money in creating a plan if corporate funded entities will provide the resources. Citizens, however, are smart enough to realize that having the building industry helping to write your growth plan is like inviting the wolf into the henhouse to cook breakfast for you. If I were to remodel my home, I wouldn't have the plumber, the electrician and the remodeling contractor writing the plan for me and then all I would do is write the check. As ridiculous as that may sound, that's what's about to happen.
Monied interests deserve a place at the table to give input and to offer comment, but (average) citizens should have weighted representation and control over the outcome of any plan. That has been woefully missing in Hillsborough. Citizen input and involvement in the growth management process has been minimal. And the process is designed to allow passive participation, at best. And in some instances we don't have any representation, either. As an example, look at the TBARTA Citizen Advisory Committee (CAC). Scott Jones was nominated and approved by the TBARTA board as Hillsborough's “citizen representative”. Mr. Jones happens to be the VP of Operations at Newland Communities, a large builder that built Fish Hawk in east Hillsborough. So, in effect, Hillsborough citizens have no one representing their interests in TBARTA. And in case you forgot, TBARTA is the brainchild of the Tampa Bay Partnership. We are tired of being outnumbered, outgunned, and marginalized by monied interests that are seeking to maximize profit with little regard for the cost that communities pay in terms of shrinking our quality of life and negatively changing the way we live.
What citizens want is for our elected leaders to give us, and our communities, oversight in planning our future. We want a new paradigm by which we have some control in the outcome. Our commissioners have demonstrated by their voting record that they favor monied interests overwhelmingly when it comes to growth management and planning.
You’re right, there’s a trust issue. We don't trust the Tampa Bay Partnership's intentions and we don't trust (most of) our elected officials to put our interests first and foremost in the decision process because they have always favored the monied interests.
And that's not perception, that's reality!!
Report Inappropriate Comments
Posted by ( peak ) on May 4, 2008 at 12:12 p.m. ( Suggest removal )
As a local practicing Architect I have a real problem with these developer-led initiatives, such as One Bay, which TBP supports. The Tampa Bay Partnership, as far as thinking out of the box and being able to truly leave their vested interests behind (and do what is truly "best for our region") is very highly suspect.
With the Tampa Bay Partnership, and One Bay, the problem is that there are not enough different and educated viewpoints in either group to create a valid direction that represents anything THE COMMUNITY as a whole can buy into to.
And when re-making A COMMUNITY, everyone in A COMMUNITY should have a seat at the table. It's called "buy-in". It's called DEMOCRACY.
Both groups seem to be myopic, un-informed,and tunnel-visioned, limiting who they talk to (or INVITE to their so-called "charrettes") so as to make the decison-making process that much easier, but are their proposed solutions REAL?
I don't trust either group. Like the BOCC, or TBARTA, I don't think they know what "good growth" is, and they don't have the right leaders.
I still await the broad coalition.
Report Inappropriate Comments
Posted by ( Mariella ) on May 4, 2008 at 1:31 p.m. ( Suggest removal )
Peak said: "when re-making A COMMUNITY, everyone in A COMMUNITY should have a seat at the table. It's called "buy-in". It's called DEMOCRACY."
Right you are -- besides, we're the ones paying for it.
Growth does not pay for itself. We taxpayers pay for the infrastructure required. Yes, new growth pays some impact fees, and the new residents pay new taxes, but that doesn't begin to cover all the costs, which we taxpayers must shell out.
We also pay when poorly planned growth lowers our quality of life and sucks our free time into the black hole of time wasted in traffic jams.
It's time for citizens to demand - not just A seat at the table - enough seats to represent our numbers and our taxes. If there are 1000 butchers, bakers & candlestick makers for every developer in this region, then we should have 1000 seats at the table for every developer seat. After all, it's our table.
Report Inappropriate Comments
Posted by ( Swathslayer ) on May 5, 2008 at 9 a.m. ( Suggest removal )
TBARTA and One Bay's (The Partnership) credibility has surely suffered over the ill advised appointment of Amy Maguire. If they did not know of her relationship to the huge land owners in south Hillsborough, they didn't vet her enough. If they did know and and appointed her anyway, they are not honest enough to even try to gain the trust of the public. Whatever they attempt to present will be tainted and distrusted by the citizens. The taxpayers of Hillsborough County have been sitting back for the last 25 years while the developers have paved over our precious wetlands (50% lost never to be recovered), rewritten the comp plan and raked in the dough. No longer is it business as usual, Boys! Get up from the table and make room for the citizens. If someone has a great plan, we want to see it. We want to approve it, and we want your geedy hands out of the public pot.
Report Inappropriate Comments