Pioneer Press Editorial Nails It

I am sharing today's Pioneer Press editorial because it fairly and accurately summarizes the work we've been doing over the past several years. Things are looking up for Saint Paul's skyways!

From the Saint Paul Pioneer Press editorial page, 11/1/17:

New rules are in place just in time for the season when we appreciate the warm amenity our downtown skyways — St. Paul’s “second-floor sidewalk” — provide.

City ordinance amendments approved in September and effective last week address public safety concerns and allow building owners to close their skyways at midnight, rather than 2 a.m.

The changes respond to skyway problems that made headlines as pressure built about personal safety worries and “quality-of-life” concerns, including an increase in transients and the presence of groups of unruly teens.

Behind the measures is a process that brought people together to do the job. At a time when people are polarized, the will to work side by side on a complex problem and make some headway is noteworthy.

City Council Member Rebecca Noecker, who co-chaired the Skyway Vitality Work Group with Deputy Mayor Kristin Beckmann, describes a situation with “lots of different owners, none of whom had the ultimate responsibility or the ultimate authority.”

Most of the skyway system runs through privately owned buildings, while the city maintains easements allowing public access.

Interests can compete. Building owners’ concerns include the costs of maintenance and security. Business owners want to assure that customers and workers can get to their doors. Also to be considered is the growing corps of downtown residents who want to be assured they can use the skyways to get home after an evening at a sporting or cultural event, as well as people with disabilities who depend on the thoroughfares to navigate around downtown.

Getting “the right people in the room,” Noecker told us, also meant including representatives of those who work closely with young people and with St. Paul’s homeless population, as well as the various city departments with a stake in code enforcement in the skyways, including the police and safety and inspections departments.

Despite the differing points of view, everyone “wanted to see change and understood that the current situation was not desirable,” she explains.

Noecker, whose council ward includes downtown, said there was “genuine conversation” that asked people “for their best ideas on how to improve the situation.” She found people welcomed a conversation they had wanted to have for some time.

The new rules require building owners to maintain active video surveillance or install foot patrols, with formal plans reviewed by St. Paul police and approved by the safety and inspections department, the Pioneer Press reported.

The rules also outline signage improvements that are to include postings detailing a skyway code of conduct. A provision that police officers no longer will be required to issue warnings for first offenses and may instead issue citations at their discretion also is included.

Not everyone got what they wanted. But Noecker told us it was important to “strike a balance between safety and accessibility.”

Doing so acknowledges the building owners’ leverage, their investment in their properties and the importance of their ongoing cooperation.

Joe Spartz, president of the Greater St. Paul Building Owners and Managers Association, said the downtown building community “is very supportive of the direction the city is going in scaling back, reducing the hours in the skyway system.”

He credits officials’ hard work and willingness to listen. “You can’t please everyone,” he told us, noting the effort to take into account differing viewpoints and ultimately “go somewhere in the middle.”

Andy Flamm of the Skyway Governance Advisory Committee — part of the downtown CapitolRiver Council — told us in an email that the group “did not support the earlier closing time but realized it was a concession to building owners who in return will be investing in better security measures in the skyways and downtown in general.”

Flamm — whose business, Cedar Printing, operates on the skyway level of the Securian 401 Building  — also said he doesn’t expect the change in skyway hours to affect his operation. “In fact, safer and more vibrant skyways help us all, which is why we need to continue to work together on solutions,” he said.

He’s right, and this effort is a good start.

Mayoral Candidates' Skyway Knowledge? Not Much

A mayoral candidate forum was held Monday evening at the History Theatre, produced by Downtown Live and MC'd by popular Almanac host Eric Eskola. Candidates answered a variety of questions regarding issues facing Saint Paul, but when it came to skyway issues it was clear they have not been paying much attention.

Candidates either admitted having little knowledge of the skyway system or demonstrated shallow understandings of the concerns we have been facing over the past few years. Some simply parroted common misconceptions such as "the Minneapolis skyways are much better than Saint Paul's" or "the whole problem is that Saint Paul's skyways are publicly owned."

No one claimed to have actually studied the issues, which are easily researched online given the several news articles in recent months. No one expressed an understanding that our skyways are a public/private partnership or that building owners willingly agreed to this partnership decades ago as they knew the skyways would increase their property values. No one brought up concerns about how police resources are allocated or that portions of the system are controlled by Metro Transit rather than the city.

Furthermore, no candidate explained that our system generally works very well but has been marred in recent years by some serious but isolated behavioral issues such as rowdy youths and homeless sleepers. The growth of downtown's residential community, the building of the Green Line and the redevelopment of Higher Ground/Dorothy Day were absent from the discussion.

I realize mayoral candidates have a lot of issues to research and understand, but the health of our downtown community is certainly an important one and I would hope that our next mayor knows the issues and has a strong interest in supporting efforts to improve the skyway system which is integral to the area. I would suggest that he or she start by talking with some of the folks who have been working on the issues and finding out where executive support is needed.

The future of Saint Paul will partially be determined by the future of its downtown core, and that future depends significantly on how well the skyway system provides safe, pleasant pedestrian connections in all weather conditions. Let's hope our new mayor understands this and makes it a priority.

Latest Skyway News...And A Few Thoughts

The Saint Paul City Council has approved the updates to the skyway ordinance proposed by Councilmember Noecker after months of discussion and debate by various parties, including the Skyway Governance Advisory Committee (SGAC) and the Skyway Vitality Work Group (SVWG).

When the updates take effect in late October, skyways will be open from 6am to midnight, building owners will be required to meet minimum standards for security, a new code of conduct will be clearly posted throughout the system, and police will be freer to take action against those behaving badly. While no one expects these changes to solve every problem, they should be a good first step.

The SVWG has turned its attention to several new initiatives, including wayfinding improvements, availability of public restrooms, and introducing positive decor and activities in the skyways to promote vitality and discourage negative behavior. There is much concern over where to send the homeless if we are no longer going to tolerate sleeping in the skyway system, and solutions are being sought. Efforts continue to steer youth toward positive activities when downtown for school, transportation, etc.

Building owners, led by the Building Owners and Managers Association (BOMA), have hired a consultant to study the best ways to make downtown safe and comfortable for residents, businesses, workers and visitors alike. While much remains to be determined regarding funding, having a vision for securing downtown, including the skyway system, will be a big step forward.

There is a significant difference of opinion as to who should provide security in the skyways. Some building owners feel that police should have a primary role instead of past practice whereby private building security personnel were expected to handle all but the most serious issues. City representatives claim police presence has been greatly increased in recent years and that building owners need to step up to their responsibilities as specified in the skyway ordinance and their easement agreements (which gave the owners skyway connections in exchange for right-of-way through their properties and agreement to provide security and maintenance). For now, it appears the city intends to hold building owners to their agreements while shortening skyway hours to lighten the burden on owners.

It's unlikely that much will change until BOMA completes its security study and we see how the ordinance changes affect behavior over the coming winter. This gives us some breathing room to consider other important issues such as wayfinding, vitality and emergency shelter for the homeless. I expect the SVWG and others to revisit the ordinance changes in the spring to review their effect and consider further modifications. Until then, our efforts continue to make our skyway system something of which we can be justly proud.

Suggestions For Improving Council Changes To Skyway Ordinance

Here is the email I sent to City Council members on 9/7 stating my support for proposed ordinance changes, plus a few suggestions for improvement. These are my views, not necessarily the official position of the Skyway Governance Advisory Committee.

Honorable City Council Members,

I attended and spoke at the public hearing last night regarding the proposed skyway ordinance changes. Here is a quick summary of my views after listening to what others said at the hearing.

Skyway Hours: The current 2AM closing time works well as many bars and restaurants are open until that time. Especially in the winter, patrons of downtown businesses really appreciate having skyway access, as do those with disabilities. Certainly closing earlier saves money for building owners, but it also reduces the value of the skyway system to users, and business owners would be hurt when fewer patrons come downtown and stay late.

I think a better solution is to keep the 2AM closing time for the system as a whole while considering shorter hours for segments that truly do not benefit many users late at night. Give the other ordinance changes and the various efforts to improve skyway vitality a chance to work before reducing skyway hours, and keep in mind that skyways which do not get much late-night usage now could be getting a lot more as downtown vitality improves.

Sitting: Building owners have a legitimate concern about dropping the No Sitting rule. If sitting is permitted in easements, people will also sit in other areas despite buildings having rules against it. Furthermore, do we really want to encourage sitting in skyways and easements? A better idea would be to ban sitting except in designated areas and put a time limit of 15 minutes where permitted. Skyways are for getting around, not hanging around.

I will also point out that some of the worst places for people hanging out are in the Metro Transit controlled skyway and elevator at Central Station. Metro Transit can and should post their own conduct code, including a no sitting rule, and it should enforce those rules, just as any other private building owner should.

Enforcement: I agree with Pat Wolf that there should be a dedicated Skyway Beat to patrol the system and focus on trouble spots. If jointly funded by SPPD and Metro Transit Police, this could be less costly and more effective than what is being done now. I also agree with building owners that, as times have changed, expectations of what private security guards should do exceeds the reality of what they can do. While building owners should not get off the hook for their share of security funding, we need a more effective police presence in the skyways.

In conclusion, I recommend adoption of the proposed ordinance changes, but without the hours change and with a prohibition on sitting except in designated areas for limited periods of time. I also suggest reorganizing how policing is done in the skyway system, although that need not be a part of this proposal.

Thank you for your consideration. Please feel free to contact me should you wish to discuss any of these ideas.

Sincerely,

----

Andy Flamm, Chair, Skyway Governance Advisory Committee​

Owner and General Manager / Cedar Printing

651-293-3904 / www.​CedarPrinting.com

Securian Center, Skyway Level / 401 Robert Street N, Suite 211 / Saint Paul, MN 55101

Diverse Opinions Expressed at City Council Hearing

The Saint Paul City Council held a public hearing last night on the proposed changes to skyway rules and regulations (as mentioned in my previous post). Several areas of disagreement became evident as stakeholders, including myself, spoke before the Council.

The most contentious issue was the proposed change in skyway closing hours from the current 2AM to midnight. Numerous individuals, including some in wheelchairs, advocated for keeping the 2AM closing time so patrons of bars, restaurants and entertainment venues could use the skyways after midnight. I stated that most attendees at Skyway Governance Advisory Committee meetings prefer the 2AM closing time, although many feel midnight would also be ok. None, however, want the skyways to close earlier than midnight.

Others, mainly building owners or their representatives, argued for a closing time as early as 8PM, saying that times have changed and building security guards can no longer be expected to maintain safety late at night with limited police presence. Longtime building manager Pat Wolf mentioned that there once was a dedicated Skyway Beat police patrol, something I have wished for as I've considered security issues over the past few years. It was also suggested that some segments of the skyway should have more limited hours than others.

My preference is for the Council to hold off on the hours change until improvements in security are given a chance to work. However, the midnight closing appears to be an important bargaining chip for building owners, so we may need to accept the earlier closing time to get security upgrades owners are expected to fund such as better video surveillance and cooperative patrols. Whatever the Council decides, it can always be changed in the future.

Another matter of contention was the proposed removal of the prohibition against "sitting" in the skyway system. The intent of this change was to clarify that some sitting is permitted (in seats provided by buildings, for example), but building owners feel the change would encourage loiterers to sit anywhere they wish with impunity. While buildings can make their own no-sitting rules, they would not apply to the easements through their buildings, which could confuse those inclined to sit wherever they feel like sitting. 

I agree that the proposal should be modified to allow sitting only in designated areas and for a limited length of time. Skyways are for getting from one place to another, not for sitting on the floor or for long periods.

My takeaway from the hearing is that there are differing perspectives and ideas when it comes to skyway issues, and all of the people who spoke made good points. This will require compromise in order to succeed, and I think the proposed changes, with an amendment regarding the sitting issue, is a good compromise.

Proposed Skyway Ordinance Changes: What, When, Why?

After months of study and debate within the Skyway Vitality Work Group, which in turn considered input from police, community organizations, building owners, the Skyway Committee and others, a proposal for changes to the ordinance governing Saint Paul's skyway system has been brought before the City Council by Councilperson Noecker, and now is the time to get familiarized with these changes and make your own voice heard.

A good place to start is the CapitolRiver Council's website, where you'll see that the proposal would:

• change skyway system hours (to close at midnight instead of 2 a.m.),
• set standards for buildings to employ private security staff and to have surveillance cameras,
• increase the types of activities that are prohibited in the Code of Conduct, and
• eliminate the requirement that police issue warnings before enforcing the Code of Conduct.

You can read the full details here (click on "Legislation Text" to download the complete document). Note that newly-proposed items are underlined; items to be removed from the ordinance are struck through.

Will these changes instantly solve security issues which have grown along with downtown? Of course not, but it is hoped that the ordinance update will provide a firmer basis for finding solutions and, over time, assist in managing the challenges faced by the skyways.

I'd like to point out that these provisions were carefully vetted to ensure they target inappropriate behaviors, not racial or ethnic groups. While some might argue that certain rules single people out by who they are rather than by what they do, that was certainly not the intent.

What can you do if you wish to register your approval or disapproval of these changes? You can contact your city council representative; there's contact information on this page. You can even send an email to all eight council members at once.

You can also attend the public hearing at 5:30 PM on September 6, where there will be an opportunity for community members to speak directly to the City Council. More information will be available on the city's website.

Finally, feel free to comment on this post. As chair of the Skyway Committee, I forward comments to our members whenever I think they may be of value.

Should Skyways Close Earlier Than 2AM?

For the past decade, most Saint Paul skyways have opened by 6AM and closed no earlier than 2AM, making the system useful to everyone from early-morning walkers to thousands of workers to evening diners and entertainment seekers (and providers).

Now some folks are proposing that we close the system at midnight or even earlier. Their argument is that few people use the skyways late at night, and increasing security and maintenance costs are unfairly harming building owners and their tenants. 

In fact, virtually everyone else seems to like the hours as they are, and some would like the skyways open 24/7. 

We're all in agreement, however, that skyways need to be better maintained and protected from unruly kids, sleepers and others who sometimes make the system unpleasant or even unsafe. If we can't do that, perhaps shorter hours are the only answer that makes sense.

But we're still in the beginning stages of intense efforts to improve skyway security and attractiveness; shouldn't we wait and see the results of these efforts before reducing hours, and hence the usefulness, of the skyway system?

A revised skyway ordinance, including an updated code of conduct, is expected to be approved by the City Council in August, clarifying what is and is not acceptable in the system and making enforcement easier. Building owners are in the process of determining what they should do to provide better security downtown, and hopefully they will have new systems in place by next year. Also, community organizations are working tirelessly to find housing and mental health services for the homeless and positive activities for youth.

So let's give these efforts time to succeed before we retrench by reducing skyway hours. If all goes as planned, there will no longer be any advantage to shorter hours, and we will have retained maximum utility from our skyway system.