Another view on porn theaters

I would be remiss not to address this piece from a very thoughtful commentator on the urban scene. In it, he imagines another path for the block containing the Garden Theater, one in which incremental development could have led to a less fraught outcome for the theater, and a much better outcome for the block (and neighborhood).

The scenario he imagines is certainly plausible, but I'm not convinced that it's likely. As he indicates, the block was pretty much for shit 7 years ago; I have no idea what's supposed to inspire this incremental development. "If they had just redone one building a year, I thought, the project would have not only been realizable, it would have been done by now." Well, yes. If only "they" had done it. So who is "they"? Clearly Miller doesn't want the URA. Maybe they could pump some money in, but that requires responsible owners with capacity, and they're farther and fewer between than urban idealists might imagine - running a successful barber shop says nothing about one's ability to fix up and maintain a building, or to find decent tenants. Inheriting a property doesn't speak much to one's abilities, either.

Furthermore, "they" would have to be unafraid to invest next door to a ratty porn house, unconcerned by an open air drug market, unintimidated by violence and rumors of violence. Thing is, this block is halfway between 2 healthier areas: Mexican War Streets, an incredibly successful historic district of lovely homes and insufferable snobs, and East Ohio Street, a neighborhood shopping district rent by a highway (funny that the ED projects everyone agrees are constitutional do the most damage) and just holding on. Mere proximity to these two areas did nothing for the Garden Theater block. Something more seems to be called for.

As I said in my earlier post, this is a pretty good example of a public use of ED that would result in a private property transfer. It's not the first option, or even the tenth, but it belongs in the arsenal.