Kerry Thomson: On the Record

By Peter Dorfman

Way back in February, as the citywide Democratic primary election was heating up, Bloomington Dissident Democrats sent out a questionnaire to all the candidates running for mayor or City Council. It was a long shot; the candidates were swamped with similar surveys from all manner of interest groups. I had enough contact with the campaigns to know how one more such questionnaire was likely to be received by overtaxed candidates and their staffers.

But I’d seen many of the other surveys, and was concerned that organizations were asking all the wrong questions — the same wrong questions, over and over again. It wasn’t that polling candidates about their stances on climate change, racial justice or homelessness was irrelevant; it just wasn’t terribly useful in differentiating one Bloomington Democrat from another.

My sense was that there are far more useful differentiators among the candidates if the questions focused on Bloomington-specific challenges, mostly centered around the city’s strategy for growth. That’s where policymakers truly differ and where the decisions we make as a city going forward will be truly consequential for Bloomington’s permanent residents. My questionnaire targeted issues such as:

• How big is Bloomington, really? Is it growing? If it is, how fast, and what’s driving its growth?
• How big should Bloomington be? What is our growth objective and why?
• What sacrifices are appropriate to ask of residents in support of that growth?
• What is city government’s responsibility with respect to growth, and what is the role of “the market”?

Response to my survey was, to put it bluntly, lousy. Among the candidates — there were 23 then — I got eight responses. There were incumbents who had to know that Bloomington Dissident Democrats was advocating strongly against their re-election; I didn’t really expect responses from them. But what I did get wasn’t enough to justify robust reporting. So I stuffed the responses away in a drawer, metaphorically speaking.

Here’s the thing, though: I did get a lengthy and quite thoughtful response from the candidate who — unless something very, very unusual happens in the next few months — is going to be the next Mayor of Bloomington: Kerry Thomson.

I haven’t shared this material before, but Thomson’s victory in the primary makes it germane. These are her positions on policy issues as of early March. Those positions may have evolved since then, but they were provided on the record and evidence a fair amount of research and introspection. Even if there is no actual general election for mayor — if no Republican or independent challenger emerges — these are important perspectives to have on the individual who, we presume, will lead the next Bloomington administration.

The first six survey questions were intended to put the candidate on the record as to how big Bloomington actually is and what is happening to its population. It’s a deceptive issue, literally and figuratively. Our current administration has had a tendency to rattle off scantly attributed population figures inflated to rationalize its obsessive pursuit of urban growth — numbers that often have not rung as credible. So we asked:

1. How big is Bloomington’s population?
2. How rapidly is Bloomington growing? (%/year)
3. What is your source for the preceding responses? How do we know Bloomington’s size and growth rate?
4. Bloomington’s Growth Objective: How big should Bloomington be? Why?
5. Where should Bloomington’s population growth be concentrated? Why?
6. Why do you think people are moving to Bloomington? Or why aren’t they?

Question 7 was a lengthy checklist of issues (23) that, we proposed, might be obstacles to the city’s achieving the stated growth objective. We asked the respondents to pick the seven they felt were the most immediate concerns.

Most of the candidates who did respond to the questionnaire cited the 2020 US Census as the only authoritative source of objective population and growth figures. Kerry Thomson’s answer was a bit more nuanced. She skipped these seven initial questions and encapsulated her thoughts in her response to the more open-ended question 8.

The remainder of this post is Thomson’s survey response, verbatim, without further annotation. Reader comments are welcome.

8. If elected, what solutions will you advocate for the issues you selected in Question 7?

Responding to Q1 through Q8, the only “official” measure of population, of course, is the US Census, which pegs us at 79,968. I will say, however, that I’ve long been suspect of the accuracy of such figures, especially in a college town and in the recent census, which was conducted during a global pandemic when the university was shut down.

And there is likely an undercount of the unhoused population. Other demographics may well be undercounted as people feared engaging with anything related to the federal government asking for personal information – especially during the Trump administration. The city’s assumption of a steady 1% growth rate is just that – an assumption. A truly accurate measure may not be known.

Far more important is where the population is and will be. For instance, IU’s increased enrollment has been surpassed by the “enrollment” of IU students living off-campus. This population shift alone has dramatically changed our community dynamic. (Please see Q12 for more thoughts on that aspect of the issue.) Very concerning is the city’s apparent approval of massive student housing projects being built at the town’s outskirts as a method to deter student rentals in our core neighborhoods. Look around. It’s not working. So now we have a student housing donut with year-round city residents surrounded by two layers of student apartments with more on the way.

More generally speaking, any and all housing projects should be considered carefully in terms of need and location. One need only look to other parts of the nation to learn what happens if you build too much, too fast.

The grandiosity of the Hamilton Administration’s vision for Bloomington has distracted us from the true, local priorities of our city. Trying to make our community be like someplace else is driven by a desire for legacy, not by the desires or needs of our citizenry. Under a Thomson Administration, there will not be “growth for growth’s sake.” Ours will be an administration that uses better, not necessarily bigger, as a touchstone. We need to ensure a livable city, and new development ought to and can contribute to the beauty and experience of living here, rather than detract from it. Where development is appropriate, what that growth looks like, and who is impacted and how will be our priorities.

The obstacles to that vision may well be (in the order they were listed in the question), a lack of workforce or attainable housing, lack of city/IU collaboration to increase resources, a lack of public transportation options, employment/wage opportunities, public safety concerns, wealth inequality, climate change impacts, inequality of opportunity for racial minorities and other marginalized citizens, and inadequate healthcare resources. The question limited the response to seven obstacles, but others should be considered.

None of what we should do should be viewed solely through a 2023 lens. We have no way to know [how] the housing market, IU enrollment, or economy will look 10, 25 or 50 years from now. A truly sustainable community imagines and plans for all eventualities. We will pay the cost, literally and figuratively, for failing to do so.

9. How can we increase employment opportunity here? Why should employers locate in the city when rent and taxes are lower elsewhere?

Employers looking to Bloomington are seeking high quality of life, a strong school system, a safe community and other such priorities first and foremost. They know that lower taxes often result in lower services and amenities. Please see Question #11 for more thoughts.

10. High living costs, especially housing costs, have been constant topics in Bloomington policy circles. But the other side of Affordability is income levels. How do we raise incomes in Bloomington?

Please see Question #11.

11. How can we grow without sacrificing the quality of life that makes Bloomington an attractive place to live? Or does that matter?

“Growth” means better, not just bigger. Local government’s role in the economic vitality of the community should be one of facilitator for creating proper quality of life amenities and a prosperous business climate. We should concentrate on improving the keys to entrepreneurialism: talent, technology, capital and culture. This can help attract higher paying industry clusters. And our city does not always have to look outward to achieve success. We can both create and retain good-paying jobs in various sectors, improve our quality of life, increase the tax base, and raise the standard of living for all residents. Increased productivity is every bit as much “growth” as bringing in new business and people. I want to work with existing businesses to help them increase that productivity, expand their employment base, work through problem resolution, and ensure government is responsive to their inquiries. A very high percentage of new job creation comes from existing businesses.

Bloomington’s family poverty rate grew by 5.73 points between 1998 and 2020—that places us in the 100th percentile nationally in poverty growth. Our wages simply don’t match what it costs to live here. Solving this problem requires attracting a different employment portfolio. Working with advocacy groups and citizens alike, city government should identify and target the industry clusters Bloomington is well-positioned to and desires to attract. The city is, for instance, poised to leverage the research and human capital resources of IU not only to attract enterprise but also to expand businesses currently located here. And we can build upon efforts to respond to the challenges presented by the shift from manufacturing to a knowledge-based economy so that current residents and students graduating from high school or college have unlimited employment opportunities.

Low unemployment figures mask the underlying truth that we suffer from a high rate of underemployment. College degree holders applying for service sector jobs is not at all uncommon, and many people are working two or more jobs to make ends meet. Job creation initiative should aim to provide diverse opportunities to diverse populations. Creating and maintaining opportunities for advancement and keeping the job cycle moving prevents a stagnant employment scene. A real danger is a class of citizens with no chance to break the bonds of poverty. The loss of an entire group of people’s energies and talents is a moral failure as well as a drain on limited resources and a waste of a much-needed skilled workforce. Any economic incentives should be tightly restricted to employers paying high wages or to helping existing medium-sized and small businesses grow. City government can be a catalyst for businesses to partner with Ivy Tech and IU as well as MCCSC in developing a well-rounded workforce to serve as a talent pool for all employer types and sizes.

Empowering people through education and training is a must. People seeking to enter or move up within the workforce should have easier access to continuing education in vocational and technical programs in order to further develop their transferable skills. Human development is vital to economic vitality. A threat to our economy’s health is the growing income gap. While many people are doing well here, others are in economic distress. The alarmingly high percentage of kids who qualify for subsidized lunches in some schools is evidence enough that this is not an idyllic community. That’s the Bloomington too many of us don’t know. Violence reduction, mental health services, literacy and language skills education, affordable and quality childcare and a myriad of other issues are all just as important to the economic growth of the city as what are considered traditional “economic development” tools. People with different abilities should be valued and engaged. And, if Bloomington is to remain a great place to retire, older citizens must be able to enjoy a full range of opportunities.

A mayor should help lead the effort to make Bloomington a better place for everyone.

12. How much of Bloomington’s growth is really IU’s growth? Is that good for the city?

There’s no doubt of the university’s impact on the community in most every aspect. For instance, Bloomington is officially considered the 6th largest city in the state. Without the student population, it would be the 23rd largest. More specifically to the question, much Downtown in-fill, core neighborhood development, and outer ring (surrounding the city) construction is driven by student housing. We’re seeing more and more “dorms without adult supervision” popping up all over. The university, so far as I can tell, has not been approached by the mayor or city council about the issue nor has the university visibly participated in community planning to any extent. The city (and county) can talk about its “vision” all it wants in a vacuum, but decisions made by IU are and will continue to shape our future for good and bad. A partnership with the university is needed to ensure both the city and the university can prosper. That requires much more, and more transparent dialogue between the city and university.

13. Given the tiny minority that elects our mayors and council members (turnouts in elections typically 8-10%), how much top-down authority should city government have to impose changes that alter established neighborhoods? Do elected city officials really have a mandate to impose significant change on established neighborhoods?

The question answers itself. There is no “mandate” and there’s no right to “impose” upon anyone or anyplace. I would believe that even if the voter turnout was higher. Elected officials’ job is to listen, learn, and lead. Currently, city government is doing the exact opposite.

14. What are you hoping to see happen in the new Hopewell development? How can that development, on land the city owns, contribute to housing affordability?

Hopewell is the largest developable parcel within walking distance to the square and two of our largest employers among other amenities. While a master plan is in place for the development, we are still years away from housing our first family in the neighborhood. Simply contributing to housing stock does not ensure affordability, especially in areas, like Hopewell, where home prices and rents can escalate quickly. This neighborhood is an opportunity not just to provide increased housing affordability, but to create a neighborhood which is an asset both to our community and to the people fortunate enough to live there. Providing a mix of housing options and targeted income levels is widely known to be best practice when creating new neighborhoods—this is what each of our older neighborhoods has naturally provided over the past century: stone masons living next to university presidents, factory line workers in the same neighborhoods as those in middle management. Diversity of housing type brings income diversity, thus creating a community within the neighborhood which contributes to our greater city connectedness.

In order to drive affordability, the city can provide a mix of subsidies and restrictions to ensure we are providing a great housing product for people who live and work in Bloomington. There are a myriad of ways to do this: shared equity agreements for ownership models, affordability restrictions based on income for rentals, etc. The city still has yet to determine exactly what it wants Hopewell to be, and there is opportunity to ensure we maximize its contribution both to our city as a whole and to the affordability of housing more generally.

15. Do you support expansion of the Monroe County Convention Center? Why or why not?

As with so many other issues, the city administration poisoned the well when it came to discussing, much less planning for, the project. The “my way or the highway” tactics have overshadowed common sense and professionalism in approaching next steps. This is yet another opportunity which has been minimized by the infighting and factions in our city government. I think it’s time to take a step back and assess the big picture. I’m afraid things have gotten so bad that saying we should all come back to the table is insufficient, because I’m not even sure there is a table at this point. I sincerely believe a new city administration is what’s needed before true progress can occur. While people on both sides of this issue make good arguments, one certainty is that visitors to this community gravitate to locally owned businesses that are unique to Bloomington. Think of times you visited other cities – you don’t want to shop, eat, or play at chains. You want the local experience. As we rebuild the table, a vision for the convention center ought to include activation of the area surrounding it: how do we foster a place that is great to live, work and visit? The lack of collaboration on this project has not only led to completely roadblocked progress, but has also robbed our community of participating in creating a vision for what this area of our city could be contributing to our quality of place.

16. The Hamilton Administration has begun forcibly annexing two large areas of its suburbs. (Indiana is one of three states where cities can annex surrounding areas involuntarily.) This process is likely to be in litigation for several years. Do you support the city’s forced Annexation of its suburbs? If not, would you advocate or takes steps toward stopping it?

There are so many objectionable things about this annexation plan that it’s hard to keep count.

From the outset, the process was seriously flawed. County government and citizens alike had a plan that already [had] been finalized sprung on them in a classic “my way or the highway” manner. Infuriatingly for many taxpayers, city government raised property tax rates countywide while simultaneously spending tax dollars to hire yet more outside attorneys to force annexation on the very same county residents impacted by that annexation. Additionally, the annexation plan has accurately been described as an exercise in cherry-picking. It was clearly designed to benefit city tax revenue with no regard to how it will impact county government’s fiscal wellbeing.

And as the question notes, the state’s Republican legislature has, counter to that party’s claimed philosophy, empowered centralized government at the cost of citizens’ say in their own private property rights.

I am far from being a legal scholar in annexation matters, but city government should take a step back and assess the entirety of the situation to determine the best course of action. On one hand, responsible annexation can be important to land planning around the periphery of a municipality. It’s also true that with this massive annexation, city government risks diluting the services it offers to current city residents and not being able to meet its commitments to newly annexed areas. We’ve already got a significant vacancy rate in our police department. Does it make sense to add far more need for officers when we’re not living up to current obligations?

Annexation is another example of our city pushing a solution without first discussing it with the people most impacted. At minimum, a reset of attitude toward the process is necessary and a true community, not just city, conversation should occur.

17. Upzoning: In 2021, Bloomington amended its Unified Development Ordinance to eliminate single-family zoning, opening formerly single-family zoned neighborhoods to duplex development. Did you support the upzoning of Bloomington neighborhoods? Or would you have supported it if you had been in office then? Why or why not?

I spoke forcefully at the city council in opposition to upzoning. In fact, my name and quote was used in the anti-upzoning brochure circulated throughout the community. Density in and of itself is not bad— it’s often good land use practice — but the way it was implemented in the UDO increased the cost of housing in neighborhoods walkable to campus, just as I argued it would. I proposed two resolutions: first, that we slow plexes until neighborhood studies were performed to determine where and if they might best fit, and next, that there be an affordability clause limiting any second unit to those citizens 150% or below of the area median income. My commitment is that this idea is only tenable if it accomplishes affordability and deters developers from buying homes and plexing them for those who can afford to pay by the bedroom. The bottom line is that this issue was handled by the Hamilton Administration in a manner that so many other issues have been handled: undemocratically, top-down, in bad faith, and with “listening” that only occurred after the fact.

In sum, and in light of your answers to the foregoing questions, why should Bloomington voters elect you to the office you seek?

I respect that other candidates have worked in city government, but it’s clear there’s a need for a change. Experience matters. So do results. I have many years of the kind of executive leadership necessary to run a complex organization such as the City of Bloomington. As importantly, I have a record of success or turning such organizations around. I worked with Habitat for Humanity for more than 30 years – 20 of them as CEO of Monroe County Habitat. That organization was $40,000 in debt when I was hired. By the time I left for another opportunity, it had a $6 million mortgage portfolio and hundreds of thousands of dollars in philanthropic pledges receivable. I currently direct the Indiana University Center for Rural Engagement. The Center had a difficult start-up; but with my leadership, is now regarded as a national model for how universities can support the needs and futures of rural residents and communities. I seek to bring that same kind of leadership to turn city government around.

Our city is great. Our city government should be, too. Together we can make it happen.