“People get confused between purpose, mission statements, and vision. ‘Mission’ is basically how you execute your purpose, and “vision” is a statement of how you see the world after you've done your purpose and mission. But “purpose” is the deepest river: You start with "What difference are you trying to make?" Your tactics will change, your ads will change, your mission might too, but your purpose never will.” --- Roy Spence
A new term popped up in one of the e-newsletters this past Monday morning. If not for the fact it was Tom Peters referencing this new word, I might have discounted it altogether, but since reading In Search of Excellence twenty years ago, when Tom speaks; I pay attention. He referenced “the reset economy”. The term was on a link from the article, so after finishing – I followed it to another article; this time in the Wall Street Journal talking about GE’s CEO trying to position itself for the upcoming economic recovery.
You may be asking yourself what GE’s recovery strategy has to do with AEDA – it’s a good question. However, I have to preface the juxtaposition discussion with a history lesson.
President Lyndon Johnson is widely known for the failures of Vietnam, but he is also known for his “War on Poverty”, which concentrated federal government clout on urban plight and threw money at the problem in a big way. When Johnson was replaced by Richard Nixon, Vietnam continued as a failed effort, but Nixon turned the War on Poverty into a money tap for economic and community development projects. To get the broad scale impact he wanted, Nixon took the federal government out of the equation, gave power to distribute federal monies to the States and various grant-opportunity agencies, and set out to upgrade the country’s utilities and businesses. To be fair, some of this was in response to the Clean Water Act, the Clean Air Act and other environmental mandates federal government had imposed on local communities.
Many communities created economic development components into their governmental structure to take advantage of federal funding during those years. A great book showing just how New York City adapted to the changing environment is Robert Caro’s book on Robert Moses – The Power Broker. Unfortunately, with the advent of Reaganomics money to local communities started to close, even though the agencies remained - as did the federal mandates on local communities. Now, most grant funding is gone and these agencies now supply loan funding.
States have had to transition their own resources to fill the void. In many ways, State legislators simply robbed Peter to pay Paul; in other words, they took more in local taxes and then doled it back to local communities on a “needs” basis. This all led local communities to chase after sales tax revenue as a way to generate revenue locally. How best to create a sales tax revenue stream? Two ways; annex in commercial businesses and/or start an economic development program. The Town successfully annexed in a sales tax revenue stream, and paid lip service to an economic development program. This brings us full circle, and we can begin again.
The Town and County have gone out of their ways to dismantle government planning efforts locally, and now exist as nominal bureaucratic functionaries. AEDA is funded through local government, but it is a stand-alone entity capable of resetting the local economy. In fact, it is probably in the best position to do so since it can coordinate with regional and State economic development programs, while having outside credibility with local government – they want this organization to succeed. Unfortunately, local businesses do not have sufficient faith in local government leadership to partner with local government. It would be a fool’s errand to send AEDA out to do battle for this community without the full support and confidence of local business, but local government seems bent on doing the same thing over and over, but expecting a different result this time. Wrong!
One key is to massage the AEDA mission and vision giving credence to the advise and input of local business. It is important to build trust with the business community going forward. It is also important to balance the resources of local government needed to move AEDA forward with concerns by the community that AEDA will be politicized, and thereby biased, toward views expressed by local leadership often-times out-of-touch with the realities of sustainability. AEDA needs to carve out a significant niche that leaves no gaps or over-laps between and among existing organizations like the Chamber.
I just finished an article in Rural Entrepreneurship about a new visioning program they are developing that is now in the beta testing stage. This program will allow local communities to project the impacts from various scenarios. It holds great promise. I have also noted a ever-growing number of communities discarding the term “economic development’ in favor of “sustainability” to project a more holistic approach to creating quality of life options rather than quantity-related approaches. AEDA needs to be providing expertise and a professional level of input so local decision makers can make informed decisions on issues confronting them. This would come in handy in evaluating the merits of the Village at Wolf Creek proposal on this community. Economic Modeling Specialists, Inc. did a study on “green jobs” and found that most go to construction and manufacturing, which has been hit hardest locally, but it also found that local authorities were ill-prepared to evaluate the best course of action to create “green jobs”. Foro Energy, Inc. of Littleton, CO just received money from a $150 Million pot to developing drilling technology to penetrate ultra-hard rock formations. If successful, Foro will revolutionize the geothermal energy and increase huge reserves of domestic carbon-free power.
Another key is channeling local efforts toward resources. The Obama administration is gearing up, and the era of stimulus money is here. The ripple effect from the recovery efforts will reach Pagosa Springs, but will this community be ready for it. A quick look around shows incentives in the form of money are going to “green energy” development, and mass transportation projects. It’s not just Denver and Portland building mass transit – it’s Boise (ID), Chandler (AZ), Missoula (MT), and many other mid-sized communities. This is snowballing because it is needed, and because there is pent up demand for retrofits and new technologies that will increase efficiency and competitiveness in a world economy. This country is resetting its economy, and this community needs to adapt appropriately to these changes. While the Town has been struggling to secure loan funding for a new sewer plant, nine Nevada rural water districts announced receipt of $16 Million in grants from USDA for new water facilities.
If AEDA had been formed during the Nixon administration, it could have taken advantage of all that money trickling down as so many economic development districts did on the coasts and upper mid-west. It came to the table too late to have a real impact on the needs of this community. However, it exists now, and it would be a real shame if it was discarded as Ms. Cynda Green recommended. It just needs to be re-tooled for the 21st century, de-politicized so it can do its job right, and provided with the funding to operate at a professional level to take advantage of this new resetting economy.
A third key to a successful program requires accountability. The first thing I noticed about AEDA was the lack of any measure of effectiveness. ICMA did an analysis of good economic development strategies in 2004. It found the majority of good programs reported a costs/benefits analysis of business incentives BEFORE offering them, and more than 80% of all programs measured the effectiveness of the incentives they employed. There are a number of new programs coming, including the Senate’s Livable Communities Bill (S. 1619), which authorizes planning grants; the Climate bill, which offers an efficiency fund for each state to provide resources for planning and clean transportation; the “TARP” Main Street program that has $1 Billion for a housing trust fund (S. 1731); the new SAFTEA-LU bill; the HUD appropriations bill that has over $150 Million set aside for planning grants; a new Historic Rehab Tax Credit Bill (S. 1743).. To be eligible for federal funding like this requires a local community to show accountability on both the front and back ends of the project.
I can hardly do justice to this issue without writing a book. However, what I hope I have provided is sufficient information to show that windows of opportunity for local communities open and close with each federal administration. This administration has already created new dynamics local communities can either adapt to or get further left behind since there is no real likelihood any future administration will reinstate programs being discarded now. Bill recently drew on an ERS study showing that few rural communities are thriving, and those most likely grow are close to metro areas or have amenities people are drawn to for one reason or another. Make no mistake; Pagosa Springs is one of those communities that could go either way because it does have natural amenities, but it has failed to position itself to compete against other mountain resort communities, and does not have the leadership capable of making the hard decisions needed to re-position it for the future.
“Responsible planning is a creative art using data from the past and knowledge of interrelationships to create new and better communities for the future.”
--- Larry Gerken
My suggestions are
- for the Town and County to offer local businesses and interested organizations the opportunity to create a public/private partnership in re-vamping the AEDA. In that partnership, the Town and County would agree to fund the organization on a match for a three year period to get it started and another three years to wean it off government funding. The new AEDA would have to meet goals and objectives over that time, and secure long term funding to continue its operations.
- one of the goals for the AEDA would be to start a Main Street Program for downtown revitalization. The Town would agree to match business funding for operations over a three-year period, and then start decreasing its participation. At the end of six years, the goal would be to crate a BID for downtown.
- one of the goals for AEDA would be to evaluate the Village at Wolf Creek impacts on this community and to build public/private partnerships to create more efficient, viable working relationships with Wolf Creek Ski Area and other communities with financial ties to the project and ski area. As an aside, I thought the Bellis proposal for a cross-jurisdictional taxing district was absurd. Take a look at the taxing mechanisms put in place for Park Meadows mall in the South Denver metro. It is a self-taxing district with mandated requirements in using that money; one of which could fund a transportation system serving hotels, restaurants and resort amenities.
- one of the goals of the AEDA would be to work with the Town to become a member of CAST, and work with other ski area towns dealing with the same issues as Pagosa Springs.
- one of the goals of the AEDA would be to channel and coordinate long range planning for the Town and County specifically, and PAWSD peripherally. It could be the mediator between and among competing interests in the community to assure resolution without litigation to best advantage for business and taxpayers alike. Obviously, the Town and County have been unable to recognize the benefits to be derived from a State mandated 3 Mile Plan so assigning that to AEDA to create on their behalf would provide focus and build trust, while justifying the funding the Town and County provide AEDA. One essential component of any new long term plan has to be public transportation facilities and mandates for corridor planning to accommodate street cars or light rail within the next twenty years.
I leave you with the 20 Clues to Rural Community Survival developed by the Heartland Center for Leadership Development (2002), and ask you to assess this community in light of these factors.
1) Evidence of Community Pride. Successful communities are often showplaces of care, attention, history and heritage.
2) Emphasis on Quality in Business and Community Life. People believe that something worth doing is worth doing well.
3) Willingness to invest in the Future. In addition to the brick-and-mortar investments, all discussions are made with an outlook on the future.
4) Participatory Approach to Community Decision Making. Even the most powerful of opinion leaders seem to work toward consensus.
5) Cooperative Community Spirit. The stress is on working together toward a common goal, and the focus is on positive results.
6) Realistic Appraisal of Future Opportunities. Successful communities learn how to build on strengths and minimize weaknesses.
7) Awareness of Competitive Positioning. Local loyalty is emphasized, but thriving communities know who their competitors are and position themselves accordingly.
8) Knowledge of the Physical Environment. Relative location and available natural resources underscore decision making.
9) Active Economic Development Program. There is an organized, public/private approach to economic development.
10) Deliberate Transition of Power to a Younger Generation of Leaders. People under 40 regularly hold key positions in civic and business affairs.
11) Acceptance of Women in Leadership Roles. Women are elected officials, plant managers, and entrepreneurial developers.
12) Strong belief in and Support for Education. Good schools are the norm and centers of community activity.
13) Problem-Solving Approach to Providing Healthcare. Healthcare is considered essential and smart strategies are in place for diverse methods of delivery.
14) Strong Multi-Generational Family Orientation. The definition of family is broad, and activities include younger as well as older generations.
15) Strong Presence of Traditional Institutions that are Integral to Community Life. Churches, schools, and service clubs are strong influences on community development and social activities.
16) Sound and Well-Maintained Infrastructure. Leaders work hard to maintain and improve streets, sidewalks, water systems, and sewage facilities.
17) Careful Use of Fiscal Resources. Frugality is a way of life and expenditures are considered investments for the future.
18) Sophisticated use of Information Resources. Leaders access information that is beyond the knowledge base available in the community.
19) Willingness to Seek Help from the Outside. People seek outside help for community needs, and many compete for government grants, and contracts for economic and social programs.
20) Conviction that, in the Long Run, You have to do it Yourself. Thriving rural communities believe their destiny is in their own hands. Making their communities good places is a pro-active assignment, and they willingly accept it.
“Politics is not the art of the possible. It consists in choosing between the disastrous and the unpalatable.” --- John Kenneth Galbraith
Comments
Post a Comment