Omaha: A city of many, governed for the few
A modest proposal?
Those who fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it, as the idiom goes. Perhaps those who destroy their history are doomed to forget it, making learning and progress impossible. Constituents of Omaha city councilman Chris Jerram may have had this concern in mind when they expressed opposition to the destruction of historic buildings in their area. Back in May, Jerram proposed an ordinance that would require review by the City Planning Department before destruction of any structure at least 75 years old.
The bill was designed to prevent pieces of Omaha’s architectural history from being irrevocably destroyed, to develop with more caution and more thought to the city’s heritage. In the initial hearing, the Omaha World-Herald reports that “neighborhood” groups expressed support for the measure, the number of 75 years was supported both by council members and developers, and that the measure would not delay demolition of structurally unsafe buildings. All signs pointed to consensus, and a healthy measure for the city’s preservation and development.
Mayor Jean Stothert expressed ambiguous support for the measure in June, saying “I think there should be a waiting period” before demolition of such buildings, although she had a few concerns about the scope of the proposed ordinance. By mid-July, however, the Mayor had waffled completely, withdrawing her support, and the ordinance was dead, even after Jerram amended the ordinance from its original scope to apply only to buildings already marked as historically significant in the city’s Landmark Commission surveys.
Parking lot blues.
The ongoing saga around the question of redeveloping historical architecture in the city reveals much about the way the city is governed. One only has to look back within the past few years for more examples. Most recently, the historic Christian Specht building was threatened in a scheme to provide parking and development space for HDR Inc. and the Omaha Performing Arts Society. Last year, the mayor’s office did everything they could to push through a deal with HDR and OPAS to relocate HDR to a downtown office. HDR was flexible, but OPAS demanded that the city replace parking spots they would lose to an HDR development by buying up and gifting the three parcels of land occupied by the Specht building and other historical buildings.
Stothert was only too willing to comply, and approved a $10 million acquisition of the historic buildings in question. It was obvious to anyone following the story that OPAS was more than likely to destroy the buildings, indeed, they had intended to do so since 2001. But Stothert was not only willing to spend taxpayer dollars on acquiring three parcels of land for a gift to OPAS, she and her office were willing to condemn the historical buildings to destruction, although they denied that this outcome was possible.
The Specht building redevelopment plan was eventually scrapped when OPAS donor pressure became an issue for them. Still, city government attempted to bend over backwards for both OPAS and HDR in their increasingly petty development squabble. Negotiations between the two came down to 100 parking spots in HDR’s new proposed parking garage. OPAS demanded a 100-year lease on 100 valet parking spots for its arts patrons, HDR was only willing to spring for a 70-year lease. Stothert frantically attempted to throw money at the problem, offering $20 to $25 million dollars of taxpayer money to HDR for building another parking garage, but the two organizations were unmoved. HDR eventually withdrew from negotiations completely, scrapping all plans for a $150-million downtown headquarters, all over valet parking for OPAS donors.
These case studies demonstrate the principle on which our city government operates. Private development is to be favored above all else, and no favor is too big, no sum of taxpayer money too large, and no historical building or block or neighborhood valuable enough to stand in the way. In City Council President Ben Gray’s own words after the HDR debacle, city government did “everything that we knew to do and everything we could legally do” to push through a development deal for these bickering private organizations.
The Jerram ordinance’s failure in the summer is a further example of this principle. It only took a whiff of developer disapproval to permanently shutter even the highly conservative, watered-down version of a perfectly innocuous city ordinance, and for the mayor to turn her back completely on a measure she supported not months before. When the right of real estate developers and private companies to freely demolish and redevelop land in Omaha comes up against the rights of neighborhoods and individual citizens, city government and the mayor’s office will always be there to tip the scales in favor of the former.
This isn’t a new phenomenon, it’s the same old Omaha story. The most egregious example is the destruction of Jobber’s Canyon, an entire historical district filled with unique architecture, for the benefit of ConAgra Foods, who would go on to abandon the city this year, leaving their ugly corporate mark on the riverfront district.
Who owns this city?
For Stothert and the city government, and the city governments that served before them for decades, the answer is private corporations and real estate developers with money. They are the ones who make the rules, bend ordinances to their whims, and are rewarded with tens of millions of dollars in taxpayer money and block upon block of city land.
In a city of nearly half a million citizens, government exists to serve only a fraction of them. If you are not a real estate developer, a massive corporation, or a stubborn, donor-rich arts society, the city government has no interest in you.
It should go without saying that a city would be nothing without the people that live and work there. Who pays the property taxes that provide emergency services that protect and maintain what these companies build? Who patronizes their businesses, who attends their concerts and sporting events? Who lives in their apartment buildings, who lives in neighborhoods that increase property value for their developments? It is the citizens that do all of these things, of course, but their interests are paved over by the very developers, corporations, and government bodies that they sustain.
Citizens should have control over their own city. They should have the ability to preserve their own history. They should not be forced to foot the bill for developments that would destroy their landmarks. The people of Omaha need a city government that doesn’t ignore their interests in favor of a few wealthy corporations and developers. Omaha belongs to the people of Omaha, and it must be protected against those who would turn it to their own ends.
