The Park in Downtown Mooresville

Until now, I have chosen to stay out of the debate regarding the “beautification” of Mooresville, and kept my opinions to myself regarding the proposed downtown park at Indiana and Main Streets.

Until now.

I should preface this by disclosing that it would be easy for me to keep quiet and ignore the issue because, as many now know, we are planning to relocate out of state in the near future. It would be easy to simply turn my head and say, “In a few months, it’s not my problem.”

As my wife and I prepare to move to warmer climes and sandier earth, we do so with a twinge of melancholy. Mooresville is our home. We are born and raised here. We grew up here, graduated school here, fell in love here, married here, worked and raised our family here. Mooresville is all I’ve ever known. It is my hometown, and forever will be, no matter where our house is located. I love this town, and always will. And I love it’s people even more.

Which is why it saddens me to see and hear the infighting going on right now. Usually, I jump right in. But this is one that goes deeper than having some flighty opinion about it on Facebook. I would hope that at some point, we can all see that really all any of us want is a better Mooresville, a town that is inviting and open to new families, and we can all find some common ground on seeing that happen.

First, the facts, put as simply as possible.

Many years ago, Mooresville was given the opportunity to annex the entire development of Heartland Crossing. For a variety of reasons — some that were just dumb, and others that had a hint of logic — the decision to do so was rejected.

Flash forward a few years. A ballot measure was introduced in an attempt to raise taxes to build a new high school. It too was rejected.

Those two decisions did more to harm and stunt the growth of the Town of Mooresville over the past decade and a half than any other single decision.

The reasons are simple. First, Heartland Crossing was a huge boom in terms of population and tax revenue over the past 15 years. Unfortunately, because Mooresville chose not to annex the development, most of that boom went to neighboring towns and counties. Most of the children in Heartland Crossing went to other schools, and the tax money went to other towns. Indeed, it was hard to envision what Heartland would become all the way back in 1999 and 2000, but the short-sightedness is evident today.

As Plainfield and Avon in Hendricks County, and Center Grove and Franklin in Johnson County spent huge sums of money to either build new, or make huge additions to their high schools, Mooresville refused to do so. (To be fair, we have recently made a significant improvement to our high school without raising taxes, but it did little to increase its size and capacity, and was much more of a makeover than an addition.)

What did this mean? Census numbers show that from 2000-2010, population numbers boomed in Hendricks and Johnson counties, particularly in families wth school-aged children, while Morgan County numbers remained flat. Moreover, were it not for the additions Morgan County DID receive from Heartland Crossing during that time, our census numbers would have plummeted.

Which means, simply, “if you build it, they will come.” Many in Mooresville ridiculed Plainfield at the time as they were spending millions of dollars to build a new school complex. We mocked the idea of spending $8 million — or whatever it was — on a new football stadium. But it drew — and continues to draw — families to that community. It’s a sad reality we live in, I’ll admit, but if most school administrators were honest, they would tell you, spending more money on teachers doesn’t draw people. Building a new football stadium does. In the end, they have more than made up for what they spent with the addition of so many taxpayers to their town, and the resulting businesses that followed to gladly sell their wares to the town folk.

When I asked the county official who shared those census numbers with me if he thought the numbers reflected the new schools in Hendricks and Johnson counties, and our refusal to build our own, his reply was, “Absolutely.”

So, what does all this have to do with a downtown park in the middle of Mooresville today?

Quite a bit, actually.

First, as any business owner will tell you in Mooresville, Heartland Crossing has pretty much become the place for Mooresvillians to shop and eat. The center of commerce has shifted away from Downtown, away from the Kroger parking lot, away from the Bridge St. complex on 67, all the way out to Heartland. Which wouldn’t be so bad in and of itself if Mooresville was actually reaping the revenue benefits of that shift, which, by and large, it does not.

While there are, to be sure, many viable and profitable businesses within the town limits, even those that are legitimate destination spots, the reality is that the shopping and dining focus for many in Mooresville lies in Heartland Crossing, (and neighboring towns) and the town reaps very little of the benefit of those dollars.

As for the school, that ballot measure was defeated for one simple reason: Mooresville is, by and large, an old town. A great deal of its inhabitants have lived here for decades. And many of them no longer have kids in the school system. And many of them, unfortunately, are short-sighted enough to essentially say, “I no longer have a dog in that fight, so why should I vote to have my tax dollars raised?” It’s a vicious cycle. The fewer families you have with school-aged children, the less voters you have willing to raise taxes to pay for a school. And the sad truth is that more people WITHOUT children voted no because they didn’t want their taxes raised, than did people WITH children who supported a new school. As families who have children saw that reluctance in the town, more of them relocated to other towns that were spending the money. And the decline continues.

So what’s left? For years, town officials have lived by the mantra that if we keep our property taxes low, people will come to live here. While that seems logical — and Mooresville indeed has some of the lowest property taxes around — it isn’t working, as we’ve seen by the aforementioned census numbers. And hasn’t worked for some time, as it turns out.

Attracting more business to within the town limits has shown some promise. And the town and the Economic Development Commission have made strides in that regard. But that remains a daunting task, especially when those same short-sighted townsfolk give so much pushback on the tax breaks and incentives that are virtually required to attract such business.

So, in the absence of a new school, and with the difficulty in attracting new business, beautification projects become more and more important. Simply put, you’ve got to find a way to make the town visually inviting enough to make people who wouldn’t otherwise come into town WANT to, to visit the businesses that ARE there.

I’ve felt for years that Mooresville should aspire to do what Nashville, IN has done. And that is, to make it more of a tourist destination. And there’s no reason that couldn’t happen. Nashville doesn’t really offer anything Mooresville doesn’t have.

And that starts with beautification. But therein lies the rub, and the crux of the debate we have going on right now.

Just to be clear, I have seen and heard and read many viable arguments and concerns on both sides of the issue. The truth is that both sides make reasonable points that should be considered. And while I think it would be wise to touch on some of those issues, I want to try to stay focused on the bigger picture.

First, the dollars. While it is true that the town has secured what can essentially be called loans to fund some of these projects, what is also true is that a good deal of the funding has come from tax dollars that have not only already been collected, but that are also exclusively earmarked for projects such as these. They CANNOT be used otherwise, and are essentially forfeited if they are not spent. So in essence, we CAN’T spend those dollars on, say, more teachers. They HAVE to be spent on beautification projects.

What is also true is that some of the funding has come from both state and federal grants. So, while there is a genuine concern about the town acquiring debt to fund these projects, and there is also a genuine concern over what funds will be used to maintain these projects in the long term, the reality is that a good deal of these funds were already available exclusively for projects like these, and must be used as such, or lost to the town. Essentially, the town would be leaving money on the table if it DIDN’T spend it to spruce things up.

Second, the park. And the parking it would replace. I’m sorry, but I have to admit that this one issue on which I fall to the side of the town.

I know virtually every argument has been made in this regard, but I’ll go ahead and make mine. If you visit other towns similar in size and scope to ours (and Nashville is another good example here) you will be hard pressed to find a parking lot smack dab in the middle of town. It is not at all uncommon to find parking lots a block, and sometimes several blocks away. While street parking remains — as it would here — in a town like Nashville, most parking lots are blocks away from the main hub of town. It does not deter people from visiting downtown.

What are we talking about? 18-20 spaces or so? First, RARELY is that parking lot full, at anytime of the day, at anytime of the week. And I’ve been watching for this very reason. Second, virtually every business downtown that has patrons who use that lot is a business who’s patrons are not REQUIRED to be there. What I mean is this: It’s not like a BMV, or a Dr.’s office where you HAVE to go occasionally even if you don’t want to.

No, instead they are businesses essentially where people only visit if they want to. Go up and down the street. Insurance agents, salons and boutiques, knick-knack shops, restaurants, mortgage offices, a flower shop, private service businesses, etc. They’re all businesses people only go to WHEN THEY WANT TO. What does that mean? It means that if you want to go to eat at Zydeco’s, or buy flowers from Bud and Bloom, or get your hair cut at Beauty Call, or buy jewelry at Iconic Brilliance, you’re probably going to, even if you can’t park right next door.

Think about it this way: When you want to go to the Greenwood Mall, you go, even if you have to park at the very end of the parking lot. You don’t just leave if you can’t get into one of the first two or three spots. And think about this: Parking at the end of the lot of Greenwood Mall is actually a farther distance from the mall than, say, parking a block or even two away from Zydeco’s.

All I’m saying is, looking at it as a consumer myself, and despite the cries of doom otherwise, I find it very hard to believe that the loss of that downtown lot’s 18 or 20 spaces will signal the end of the line for any business down there. Given the availability of parking that will remain on the street, next to both Citizens bank locations, and next to the Town Center, I would be hard-pressed to think that the loss of those spaces will cause that much trouble. I’m no engineer, of course, I’m just trying to look at it logically.

As for the Park itself, what is so bad? I mean, would there be this much hoopla about it if it WASN’T replacing a parking lot? What is so terrible about having a nice little park where people can sit and relax, or go to watch a summer concert, right in the middle of downtown? It is a destination spot. Perhaps someone might like to sit and enjoy a summer evening outside after having just eaten at Ralph and Ava’s. Or better yet, what if someone went to the park to enjoy a show, and then said, “Hey, while we’re here, let’s have a bite at Ralph and Ava’s.”

I’m sorry, I just don’t see the problem, and I don’t understand the sheer hatred I’ve seen about it. It’s a Park! So what if you think it’s silly. So what if you won’t visit. It’s a Park! What is so terrible?

The signs, and the torch, at both ends of the entrances to the town are nice. Have you seen them? They look good. And so does the landscaping. (Although they’re going to have to figure out a better drainage system.) Have you ever driven through downtown Plainfield, or Carmel, or Westfield, and thought, “Wow, this looks good.”

Why can’t Mooresville look good? (As an aside.... think what you want, but isn't the torch cool looking?)

And in the end, whether we like it or not, it’s one of the only ways we’re going to be able to attract people into downtown, whether to visit or shop, or even move their family here. Beautification, for better or worse, is one of the few tools we have left to attract people to Mooresville.

There are legitimate concerns as to the long-term maintenance of these projects, and the funding for that maintenance. And there are good, upstanding Mooresville people who care deeply about this town who have rightly been asking for proper answers to those concerns. But that concern alone isn’t worth killing the whole thing off and leaving things unchanged. If properly thought out and planned, this could indeed be a first step into transforming Mooresville into a true destination location, and possibly a cool little tourist stop.