Building green cities using public/private partnerships

Public funding for environmentally friendly urban centers benefits private investors, too

Melanie Stetson Freeman/The Christian Science Monitor/File
The Detroit skyline is seen through a sculpture on the riverfront in this file photo. Public investment in "nice parks and piers" both benefits the public and directly benefits the nearby commercial businesses and property owners, Kahn argues.

Public investment in urban infrastructure raises the value of nearby private investments.  Examples include new subways and parks in Beijing, seawalls in New Orleans and this example of nice riverside parks in New York City.  The article provides the details about the tug of war of who will pay the bill for the upkeep and maintenance to keep the nearby piers on the West side of Manhattan looking good.

Here is a quote from the NY Times article:

"Capital funds from the city and state have fallen to just $7 million from a high of $42 million in 2008, because of the recession. Meanwhile, two of the park's planned revenue-producing commercial piers have yet to be developed, leaving the Hudson River Park Trust, which runs the park, short of the money it needs for routine maintenance.

Adding to its woes: A lawsuit filed in November by the owners of Chelsea Piers, the sports and entertainment complex, which leases three piers from 17th to 23rd Street from the trust. The suit seeks to force the trust, and by extension taxpayers, to spend "at least $37.5 million" repairing damage its piers have sustained over the past two decades from small marine borers known as gribbles and teredos.

This month, the trust fired back in court with a motion to dismiss, arguing that the lawsuit amounted to nothing more than a "for-profit commercial venture trying to secure a huge public bailout for longstanding problems of its own making and for which it bears the sole legal responsibility.""

The interesting piece of economics here focuses on the fact that the public investment in "nice parks and piers" both benefits the public and directly benefits the nearby commercial businesses and property owners who now attract more people to want to spend time there.  In a "fair world", the commercial real estate owners and residential property owners nearby would be asked to pay for a larger share of these improvements since they will gain a windfall in benefits from higher rents as the amenity improvements will be capitalized into higher rental prices nearby as more people will be demanding services there and want to spend more time there.  

The profit seeking businesses seek to share the costs of the public improvements broadly and then gain the extra revenue.  That's good business!

So, there are really two issues here. 1. What is the optimal level of investment in "greening" the river parks and piers?  2. Who should finance this investment?   If you believe that the beneficiaries should pay, then the nearby land owners should pay more for the local improvements in parks.    Again, as the parks and and river area become nicer --- commercial landlords will be able to charge tenants more for locating there.

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to CSMonitor.com.