Downtown planners and economic developers must face the fact that customers generate the need for the downtown business and therefore create business investment and jobs.

So to better prepare to serve customers in 2012 let’s ask ourselves a few questions about how our collective downtown business community currently serves and treats our customers.

1. Who are our customers?

Are our customers close-by residents, “out-of-towners” shopping on their journey to (or from) work, or are they visitors to our downtown?  What is the age of our shoppers and what’s their income?

2. How do are our customers become aware of the products and services we provide?

How do we communicate with our customers – newspapers, radio, direct mail, billboards, email, web presence, cell phone App?  Do we know which of these brings a shopper into our downtown?

3. How do our customers really use our goods and products?

Do our shoppers make purchases for on-site consumption or to take home for daily household or occasional use? Are our shoppers making purchases for gifts or other purposes?

4. What does the customer ultimately consider the most important feature of the products or services we provide?

Why do our customers shop in our downtown – convenience, product and services availability, or their shopping experience?

5. How do are our customers order and purchase our products and services – can we make the purchase decision easier, more convenient or less costly?

Can a customer schedule a shopping visit with specific stores?  Can I order “on-line” or “over the phone”?  Can I internet order “on-line and pick up”?

6. How do our customers pay for our products and services – can we make it easier or more convenient?

Do our business offer credit/debit card, lay-away, and cash discounts?  Do we make home deliveries?

7. What frustrations do our customers have when shopping for products and services we offer?

Do our store hours match the needs of the customers? Is there street furniture for shopper to “rest a while”? Is parking convenient and close-by? Can I lock my bike if I ride downtown to shop?

8. Do customers need assistance when purchasing our products and services?

Can the customer find the products and services they seek – finding the store in the downtown and when in the store, the sought-after product?

9. Do customers do things that hurt our downtown shopping experience?

What do customers complain about, parking, trash, snow on sidewalks, congestion – traffic, sidewalks & store aisles, a lack of products or services?

10.  How may first-time customers become repeat customers?

Do we know how many repeat customers frequent the downtown and how often they shop downtown?  Where do the repeat customers live?  Do we take special notice of the repeat customer?

Customers today have many choices and with newer cell phone “App” technology “on-site” comparison shopping availability with other “brick and mortar” and “web based” stores.

While downtowns face increased competition in 2012, honest answers to these questions will lead to a better understanding of customers and the job they expect from downtown businesses.

Successful downtown developers will take into consideration this information and implement changes for greater success in 2012.

Having spent my career in Michigan, I naturally think of Henry Ford as a “car guy”, the man who took a new invention and created an industrial system to bring motorized transit to the masses.

Ford’s legacy is a “car guy” – but he also experimented with town planning necessitated by the need to transport from remote locations coal, wood, and metal natural resources required for the making of automobiles.

Fordlandia chronicles his efforts to tame 75 miles of Amazon jungle necessary to provide rubber for auto production.

The need for a new town came along with this effort, the common infrastructures of potable water, waste water removal, trash disposal, electricity, and transportation plus worker housing, and their medical, social, religious and educational needs.

Ford, closer to home, undertook similar town planning efforts in Michigan with L’Anse, Alberta, Pequaming, and Iron Mountain in the Upper Peninsula all sharing a Ford company town legacy.

It’s interesting to me, having studied Urban & Regional Planning in the 1970’s new town Park Forest South next door to the post WWI new town Park Forest (Illinois) to compare new town planning with today’s contemporary planning theories.  My familiarity with the Park Forests provides a background to identify similarities between 1920’s, 40’s and 70’s new town planning theory with current smart growth, traditional neighborhood design, higher density transit orientated development, walkable community and cool cities planning theory promoted today.

In general, I’d say we didn’t learn much from the 1920’s, 40’s and 70’s new town experiments but rather repackaged some fundamental truths about new towns for the community development theory of today.

Here are some basic facts:

1. TOWNS THRIVE ON JOBS

Whether you walk, bike, drive a car, taxi, take mass transit or work from home, proximity to a job (or other form of income) decides where you live.

Town planning first must consider jobs and how workers journey to and from work, in order to function.  This is why Ford, Pullman and other industrialist chose to invest in town infrastructures and worker housing necessary to gather together the workforce in close proximity to make their business function profitability.

Ford recognized that transportation, not only product transport from remote locations but the worker journey to work trip, would shape worker attitudes towards uprooting families and moving to remote locations for employment.

2. HEALTY WORKERS DEPEND ON INFRASTRUCTURE – WATER AND WASTE DISPOSAL

Land use planning originated as a health and safety need in the late 1800’s and early 1900’s.  US new towns were invented as a means to move people from the squalor of “big city” slums and tenements into planned communities free of disease and crime where dwelling units had safe drinking water and waste was properly disposed promoting a healthy living environment.

Because of the cost and complexity of installation of public infrastructure to support public health and safety in remote locations, companies such as Ford accepted the provision of infrastructure as being their responsibility and a “cost of doing business” costs which were ultimately passed on to the purchaser of a Ford automobile.

Ford realized that success in attracting a workforce to move natural resources from remote locations to his auto plants would require Ford to be the town planner, town developer and serve as the traditional governmental administrator.

3. RECREATION AND SOCIAL NEEDS ARE IMPORTANT

Today, “cool cities and vibrant 24 hour-downtowns” are essential to attract, especially young-aged workers to cities with governments promoting walkable communities “placed based” attraction strategies.

Ford also recognized these same needs.  Ford is quoted saying about Fordlandia, “There will be schools, experiment stations, canteens, stores, amusement parks, cinemas, athletic sports, hospitals, etc. for the confort and happiness of those who work on the plantation.”

4. HEALTH CARE, EDUCATIONAL & RELIGIOUS FACILITES ARE NEEDED

In similar fashion, to “round out” the full needs of a new town, provision must be made for a number of services, on- site or within easy communing distance.

Ford recognized this and using his relationship with the Dearborn Michigan Ford hospital had ability to draw upon medical professionals to fill a portion of the community needs, as an example.

5. PHASING OUT THE “BENEVOLENT BENEFACTOR” IS IMPORTANT

The industrial benefactor new town movement was inspired, for the most part the by the need to capture a workforce in close proximity to jobs with the benevolent benefit being a community lifestyle unmatched in another location. 

Government sponsored experiments were somewhat similar, the opportunity to provide the unmatched community lifestyle to attract workers with industry moving to the community to secure its workforce.

Industrial benefactor release of governance was not clearly communicated nor supported in the industrial new town planning era.  The lack of industrial release of governance was the cause of many of the failures of industrial new town plans.

Governmental benefactor release was a bit more assured as the developers of new towns were required by regulation and planning theory to include more resident involvement and eventual formation of a government structure.  However, insufficient funding and a host of other problems lead to the demise of the government supported new town development era.

Ford, in beginning was silent in the social navigation of a form of governance favoring a more dictatorial doctrinaire expounding on his theory of personal and community behavior.

SO WHAT CAN WE LEARN TO AID TOWN PLANNING TODAY

Smart Growth, the planning mantra of the 1990’s always amuses me. 

I queried one of my professors during a presentation about smart growth in 1994 asking him if the planning theory he taught in 1974 was “dumb growth”.

While it got an audience chuckle, it raises an interesting question.

We studied in our environmental planning educational program, as the Park Forest South planners prepared land use plans, the importance of a centralized commercial location within walking distance to most housing, the importance of mass transit to remote “big-city” high-paying jobs, need for close-by quick journey to work trip employment, adequate infrastructures for a healthful environment, need for environment & open space protection, importance of social and recreation facilities, the role of close-by walking accessible education and a system of resident involvement governance.

Time has proven that Ford in the mid-1920 was wrong in declaring the “crowded metropolis doomed, crumbling under the weight of traffic, pollution, vice, and the cost of policing the great mass of people”. 

However, his belief that the “key to creating loyal, more efficient workers was to help them find “comfort and happiness – fulfillment outside the factory” holds relevance today and still serves as a foundation of contemporary community planning theory.

Today, planning theorists like Florida, Duany, Glaeser, and Leinberger expound on the same principal of worker comfort, happiness and fulfillment but geographically located in central cities as the contemporary foundation of urban social reform and community betterment planning.

I happen to agree but I cannot help reach back into history to find many similarities with the new town planning concepts originated during the private sector industrial new town era, the 1940’s returning WWII veterans new town “housing boom” era and the  1970’s HUD funded “anti-sprawl” new town movement.

They say history repeats itself or “what goes around – comes around”.

Much of the todays new “planner speak“ is nothing more than repackaged sound planning principles tested and proven over time.

The new buzz words – smart growth, place based planning, sustainability and the like are not new ideas but rather a call for action to meet contemporary problems with sound time proven planning principles.

Guys like Ford and Pullman had it right and while private sector industrial new town development may not be favored today, much can be learned as we seek to reinvent cities with “fulfilled workers” anxious to live and work new town environments  being created in our cities.

Last December I posted 25 FUTURE TRENDS THAT WILL IMPACT ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT. This was my attempt to identify key trends that would shape the daily concerns of planners and economic developers in 2011.

With the help of my colleague Craig Hullinger, we circulated the “write-up” to a wide audience of active and retired planners, economic development practitioners, city managers and academics.

We got a lot of feedback that began conversations leading to the conclusion that job creation and household wealth would be the major “drivers” of government inspired planning and economic development in 2011. 

I believe the wisdom of these folks were correct and as we close out 2011 the need for job growth and increasing household income remain a top priority for the successful future economic revitalization of the global, national and local economies.

Below are my thoughts on the leading trends that will impact planning and economic developers in 2012.

 1.  Land Use Plans to focus on abandoned land and buildings not “greenfields”.

With the change in consumer spending patterns – reduced disposable income and increased reliance on internet purchases – plus the backlog of vacant home and commercial properties in (or soon will be) subject to foreclosure, there will be a reduce demand for new construction directing planners and economic development attention on reuse of buildings.  It’s the same for vacant building sites currently serviced by municipal infrastructure.

The notion of incentivizing new development will be discouraged in favor of planning and economic development strategies that focus on reuse and redeployment of vacant land and buildings.

 2.  Financial support for planning to be reduced.

Federal and State budget reductions are inevitable.  With planning and economic development activities being discretionary “non-mandated” government activities, planning and economic development program support will be targeted for budget reduction, probably to a greater extend that mandated government programs.

Planners and economic developers will be asked to “do more with less” and to seek non-governmental funding support from private contributions, foundations and fees for services provided. The planner and economic developer job description will now include a new component titled “fund raising”.

 3.  Economic feasibility will be required of all new initiatives.

Since the early 1970’s with Florida’s comprehensive state/local growth management act, planners were expected to include a degree of economic feasibility into the planning process, especially when implementation of plans included reliance upon federal and state funding sources.  However, rarely has economic feasibility or benefit/cost analysis been applied consistently and in non-technical easily understood meaningful ways.

With heightened demand for sparse governmental funds, plans and economic development strategies requiring funding commitments, especially those by local governments, will be subject to intense scrutiny and most likely only funded upon sound economic benefit/cost analysis.

The era of planning and economic development strategies that “sound good” but rely upon undocumented funding sources is unacceptable today to citizens and elected officials alike.

Planners and economic developers will be expected to fully justify funding requests by easily communicated economic analyses relying on projected benefits for use of government funds.

 4.  Job creation “tops” all other concerns.

Gallup pollster Jim Clifton (see The Coming Jobs War) calculates that global unemployment is over 50% and globally there is a 1.8 billion job shortfall. He opines that jobs……jobs……and jobs will be the most important government mission in the future. 

He further opines the US must have a 7% GDP growth rate to retain its global presence and decrease US unemployment; almost doubling the most generous US GDP growth rate being discussed in the media today.

For planners and economic developers, this is unhappy news drawing attention to heightened future demand for state and local action to create jobs.

For planners and economic developers, the increased global competition for jobs, pulse a likely anemic US GDP growth rate in 2012 will create intense pressure for programs and action that create new jobs.

 5.  Service area geographic sizing to become the major planning criteria.

In the Midwest, our local government geographic sizing was created by the Northwest treaties in the late 1800’s when the principal means of communication was a horseback ride to personally speak with someone.  With internet and wireless communications today, we almost instantaneously communicate “with anyone – anywhere”.  We have the ability to instantaneously bundle-up work assignments and ship them anywhere around the world to be completed and returned.

However, many government services remain modeled on the notion they must be provided on the basis of “a one-day horse ride” from home.

While all states allow governments to share services and even consolidate for greater financial efficiencies, it’s a rare occurrence.

Historic political isolationism based on the loss of political control permeates the inability to explore changes to service area geography that may reduce financial operating costs for services provided.

As governmental revenues become more strained and where taxpayers will not increase government revenue, planners and economic developers will be called upon to engage in municipal service consolidation conversations to exact efficiencies that stabilize or reduce government service costs.

 6.  Utility maintenance “trumps” new expansions.

While at the state and national level we call for more infrastructure funding for “big project” roads and bridges, back home at the local level most communities maintain underutilized water, sewer, storm drain and subdivision streets built with the notion that new development, most often new residential home owners, would pay user fees and local taxes to operate and maintain the local infrastructure. 

In the absence of new construction requiring new utility connections plus the abundance of demolitions of no-longer needed homes and commercial buildings, in some communities the actual number of utility “paying” connections is being reduced or “at best” remaining stable.  Most utilities were originally sized to service more users anticipated by 10-20 years of future growth but in actuality, now and maybe for considerable time into the future, will remain underutilized.  

The cost of operations and long-term maintenance in almost all cases was based on revenues obtained from anticipated future new connections.  With operation and maintenance cost increasing and revenue possibly decreasing, or at best stable, local government budgets in the future will focus on maintenance of the existing infrastructure rather than funding new expansion.                            

Planners and economic developers will be pressured by budget constraints to seek development projects that increase the number of utility connections allowing the amortization of operation and maintenance cost over a larger number of utility bill payers.

 7.  Tax payers demanded greater efficiencies to guide new growth.

I think everyone will agree that tax payers are overwhelmingly against tax increases and expect greater efficiencies from government to “hold the line” on cost increases resulting in the need for additional tax revenue.

With this in mind, it will be more difficult to undertake new programs requiring additional tax revenue from tax payers.  Likewise, tax abatements or deferral of tax revenues as economic development incentives will also be subject to questioning and higher degree scrutiny.

Planners and economic developers will be discouraged from advocating projects that require forgiveness of tax revenues and encouraged to seek projects that have short-termed positive tax revenue income, especially for local governments that rely upon real estate taxes and/or local captured sales taxes to fund local government operations.

 8.  Federal and State paralysis over local funding freezes local government decision making.

The “we can’t do that now, because we don’t know what’s going to happen” governmental decision making paralysis will continue into 2012.  Government funding uncertainty, due to uncertain federal, state budgets, coupled with uncertainty about local real estate and sales tax revenue has already become the mantra of government decision making today.

Many economists forecast several more years of this uncertainty, making the budget making job most difficult for elected officials.  This uncertainty already results in postponement and cancellation of projects that in “better times” would contribute to an economic development stimulus to the local economy.

Recognizing that uncertainty will continue into 2012, planners and economic developers will find slim support for projects that require funding beyond approved budgets and greater pressure from elected and appointed officials to seek external project funding sources.

 9.  Local municipal insolvency and bankruptcy strikes fear deciding long-term funding.

Over the past 3-years there have been 49 municipal bankruptcies, according to the nationally leading municipal bankruptcy law firm of Chapman & Cutler.  The most publicized being Jefferson County Alabama’s $3 billion revenue bond sewer fund driven bankruptcy – the largest in history.   Media reports predict the potential for other bankruptcies is having a major impact on the $2.9 trillion municipal bond investment market, where 2/3 are revenue bonds – those viewed as “safe investments” by investors because they are “backed” by a utility revenue stream that is likely to continue even in the worst of economic times. 

With questions about the future of federal, state and local revenues, today most government officials are a bit leery of committing to long-term projects, especially those that comingle sources of funds from multiple government programs and revenue sources based on new growth.

In 2012, planners and economic developers will be saddled with questions about municipal solvency both in efforts to package financing for necessary municipal infrastructure investments and to assure new businesses desiring to locate that the community is solvent and resistant to “surprise” tax increases that might occur due to unrecognized financial needs.

 10.   Municipal financing will become more expensive cancelling certain projects.

Because of government bankruptcy, unfunded state and local government obligations, reduced federal/state/local revenue, nonexpendable operating budgets, and increased operating expenses, investors are looking at municipal financing risk a bit differently today and will continue to do so in the future.  Where real or perceived investment risk increases so does the price, the amount of interest government must pay.  Even purchasing insurance that guarantees  payment in case of default gives little comfort to the investor, as leading insurers are being called into question about their ability to fund required payments in case of an economic crisis of substantial proportion.

All in all, this new uncertainty means that cost to borrow funds by states and local governments will be more closely evaluated and cost more.

For the planner and economic developer in 2012, the ability of governments, especially local governments to raise capital for projects will be more difficult and lessen the aggressiveness towards undertaking long-term financed projects.

 Last Thoughts

As we closeout 2011, we give thanks – thanks that we made it through.   It was a difficult year where many economic changes reshaped the role planners and economic developers play at the federal, state and local government levels.

The “crystal ball” today is no different….cloudy at best!

Again in 2012, the economy and jobs will be subject of every conversation. 

Being an election year it will be on every newscast.

Our challenges as planners and economic developers focus on shaping the future. 

Our charge today is – What can we do in 2012, with the resources at hand to invest in the future?

Today we have the ability to gain a better understanding of the state policy underpinning economic development efforts of the State of Indiana. 

INDIANA

In Governors Mitch Daniels book Keeping the Republic: Saving America by Trusting Americans we have the opportunity to study the current Indiana economic development policy of lower taxes, downsized government bureaucracy, government fiscal solvency and organized labor cooperation in an attempt to understand economic development competitiveness between these two states.

Yes – this is a read about the Republican Party economic development platform playing out on the national election stage.  But the facts are clear; Indiana’s economic future relies on reinvention of the manufacturing economy – especially the automotive sector. 

Once decimated communities of Andersen, Kokomo, and Fort Wayne are today noted as “come-back” communities now hosting new jobs for Hoosiers – former “out of work” auto workers.

Daniels philosophy is quite clear.  He believes that “a properly conceived and restrained federal government [and for that matter, state government] must be aimed in every way possible at the growth of the private sector economy”.

MICHIGAN

For comparison – we have the recent past Michigan economic development philosophy fostered by Michigan Governor Jennifer Granhom, documented in her book A Governor’s Story: The Fight for Jobs and America’s Economic Future.

Granhom’s Democratic Party philosophy of increased government intervention and economic planning (think green jobs, solar panels, battery manufacturing, and movie film production) is in direct opposition to the Mitch Daniels philosophy.

The belief that the private sector is a jungle of predators again which Michigan government must safeguard its economy through government programs to compete for jobs and investment has up to recently times been the foundation of Michigan’s economic development program.

SO WHAT?

For Michigan’s economic development policy makers, for the first time, we have two national leaders detailing very different agendas for reinventing national and state economies.   

In Michigan change is necessary and underway –a philosophy being clearly communicated by current Governor Rick Snyder, some changes even based on Mitch Daniels successes.

For local governmental officials and economic development practitioners we have the responsibility to offer guidance to state economic development policy – policies that will play out in the media during the next 12-month election period.

The stakes are quite high for the economic development practitioners who are held accountable for the creation of new jobs and investment in their local communities.

Reading both the Granhom and Daniels book will go a long way in helping understand the national and state economic revitalization discussion forthcoming.

The Fight for Jobs and America’s Economic Future

 Recommended reading for everyone with interest in economic development and America’s quest for jobs in a global competitive economy. 

I guess it should be come as no surprise that former Michigan Governor Granholm calls for “active [economic] strategic planning led by government”.

She’s an FDR Progressive at heart that truly blames “big business” for taking advantage of tax breaks offered by local and state government and then “using the savings not to invest in American business infrastructure but to create off-shore investments which create employment in other countries”.

Granholm citing Michigan’s accomplishments in reducing business taxes relative to other states in the search of economic growth dispels the belief “that lower taxes will inevitability increase investment, growth & jobs and generate more tax revenue”.

She credits the lack of government involvement for the Michigan economic malaise – specifically the lack of federal action to “defend American business from unfair trade, lack of partnering with global economies to create good jobs here, and [the absence] of strategic investment in education and training to prepare for the knowledge economy”.

Her position, like FDR, Is that “hands-off laissez-fair free market economics will only ensure that other governments step into the void”…her solution being more and bigger government investment in planning and managing the economy.

With this said, she provides an interesting historical account of her term in office, to seek amidst a somewhat immobile government, unionized employment preference and automaker management bias against change and reinvention, to prevent  past history from being the future economic structure of the State of Michigan. 

Her efforts to retool Michigan’s economy on a green energy platform cobbled together all available funding sources, especially those of the Obama administration, to lessen the personal and financial impact upon individual Michigan residents, should be acknowledged.

CHAPTRER 10 – CRACKING THE CODE: KEYS TO CREATING AMERICAN JOBS IN A GLOBAL ECONOMY is a must read and offers eight strategies tried in Michigan during her term that portends to be solutions to reinvent the American economy.

Her recommendations for economic revival include:

1.  Government Must Get in the Game - allowing government to design and implement competitive global economic policies picking winners and losers to foster job growth.

2. Cut Government Where We Can to Invest Where We Must – to redirect financial resources to education and training for “targeted” chosen new growth businesses that will create jobs.

3.  Develop National Strategies for Economic Growth – to level the global “job creation playing field “by picking “targeted industries” and incentivizing them to attract investment and create jobs.

4.  Educate or Die - make public policy changes that prepare individuals for the knowledge based economy of the 21^st Century recognizing that education is the top priority to stimulate job creation resulting in personal income growth.

5.  Create Fairer, More Flexible Labor – Management Partnerships – changing current practices whereby labor and business have greater flexibility to harness cost saving competitive on a global scale.

6.  Make Smart Government Investments in Industries Crucial to Growth – incentivize and invest government funding to economic sectors that align with important national or regional economic development goals via national economic development planning.

7.  Face Down Threats – Become the Change – by discontinuing avoidance – the inability to take action – favoring change opposed to reliance on past economic practices and policies.

8.  Practice Do-It-Yourself Leadership - accepting the responsibility to take individual action to form new for profit and nonprofit business enterprises that create jobs and investment in local communities.

Only time will tell whether the Granholm strategies will successfully reinvent Michigan’s economy and return Michigan to its “historical powerful position” in the US economy.

Highly recommend reading for anyone interested in economic development and reinvention of older manufacturing based economies.

25 FUTURE TRENDS THAT WILL IMPACT ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT IN 2011 December 2010

URBAN TALENT POACHING – A SMALL TOWN RURAL WAY OF LIFE COMES TO AN END OR THE MAKING OF RURAL GHOST TOWNS April 2010
2 comments

BE CAREFUL WHAT YOUR SAY….IT MAY BE USED AGAINST YOU IN A COURT OF LAW October 2010
2 comments

COMMUNITY PLANNER QUEST – SEARCHING FOR THE 21ST CENTURY COMPANY TOWN October 2010

CREATIVE CLASS COCOONING – THE RETURN OF THE MULTI-GENERATIONAL HOUSEHOLD OR WATCH OUT FOR THE BOOMERANG! March 2010
3 comments

The start of every year brings challenges – existing ones and new ones. As we close out 2010, the challenge of economic growth and sustainability is of concern to everyone.

As we gaze over the landscape of social, economic and political trends shaping 2011 we find them many and varied – too many for one person to comprehend. We look into our crystal ball and offer our assessment of the top 25 tends that will shape planning and economic development actions by business and political leaders in 2011.

Trend is not destiny. The trends we describe below will certainly change over time. But they depict current trends likely to continue for some years.

  POPULATION

1. US immigration will increase and grow proportionally larger within the overall growth of total US population.

2. Older “baby boomers” will tend to “age in place” due to decreased retirement wealth lessening retirement mobility.

3. The proportion of the Hispanic US population will increase – the Hispanic fertility rate will continue to be higher then other ethnic groups.

4. Household migration to lower taxed states in the south and west will subside, as a result of lost retirement wealth and lack of employment opportunities.

5. US immigration policy will remain a global concern as well educated entrepreneurial foreign nationals seek to migrate to the US for employment or to establish new businesses.

6. Future median US household income growth will lessen and in some communities decline as workers accept lower paying jobs absent available job opportunities.

7. The median US household saving rate will increase lessening the average amount of household spending on goods and services.

COMMUNICATIONS

8. Every electronic communication will be recorded – George Orwell’s HAL is here!

9. Twitter will be result in instantaneous “transparency” and provide worldwide communication ahead of traditional news networks.

10. Constant instantaneous commutations will become a normal part of daily life.

 COMMUNITY GROWTH

11. Population will group into geographic urban concentrations due to increased journey to work trip costs and lack of efficient cost effective mass transportation for journey to work trips.

12. Locational requirements for site dependent businesses requiring large numbers of employees will favor more urban locations as population growth concentrates in a more urban clustered pattern of development.

13. Some rural and small town communities will lose population as the number of employment opportunities vanish and journey to work trip costs increase, decreasing available workforce.

14. Poverty, historically concentrated in central cities will export to exurban and suburban locations.

15. “Baby boomer” ex urban and suburban communities will forgo intergenerational family replacement decreasing school-age population within the community resulting in a different demand for community services, weakening housing demand resulting in lower housing values and greater tendency to defer housing maintenance.

WORKLIFE

16. The daily work schedule will shorten available for time leisure and family activities.

17. Alternative work arrangements will be sought by workers to control their personal daily schedule – nontraditional work schedules, working from home and telecommuting.

18. Highly skilled employees will be viewed more as subcontractors by employers who will

assemble employees into work teams that will be disbanded upon completion of assignments and reorganized/reassembled for other assignments.

19. Individual “job hopping” or progressive “job sourcing” will become an individual directed

personal long-term strategy for career advancement.

20. Entrepreneurial tendencies, especially individuals in the 30-40 year age cohort will increase; especially persons highly educated having some job task assignment experience within large firms.

21. Globally small business will create the largest number of new jobs.

GOVERNMENT HEALTH AND PERSONAL SECURITY SAFETY NET

22. Health care and poverty subsistence efforts will increase with goal of reducing poverty and homelessness while providing health care for all.

GOBALIZATION

23. Economic globalization will be generally accepted as a way of life with recognition that no US business can exist without servicing the global marketplace, including economies that do not fully embrace “fee market” policies.

24. Fierce competition among the world’s nations will continue with China, India, Russia, and Brazil increasing their share of the world GDP.

25. National industrial policies, especially those of governmental controlled economies will influence the cost of business input including labor and natural resource commodities and provide, global business sector advantages and disadvantages.

END NOTE

2011 portends to be a year of changes – changes that will shape the future.   Our perspective is that changes will hasten the economic recovery during 2011 forming the basis for economic sustainability in 2012.

Predicting is always difficult – our crystal ball could be wrong . And there are no doubt trends that we have missed.

 But the 2011 path to economic recovery will be challenging.

 Clearly our identified future trends will influence the outcome of both business and political decision-making.

This was prepared with assistance of my colleague Craig Hullinger (AICP) and posted to his web site http://economicdevelopmentnews.blogspot.com/ January 6, 2011

In economic development parlance – the bridge to nowhere evidentially leads to somewhere – the notion that a carefully planned and constructed major roadway will always result in a positive contribution to the local community.   To assure these local benefits we have established extensive and continuous metropolitan (and rural) transportation planning processes involving every level of government and the general public.

However, planners today recognize that even “best efforts” of public involvement in transportation planning do not increase acceptance of the outcome of the process and assure state and federal funding.

The reality today is technical analysis doesn’t quite matter.  Public input is more like a demolition derby where contestants seek to destroy one another as they argue for, or against, a new roadway typically reaching collaborative gridlock forcing legal action.

The resultant collaborative gridlock ends up making the decision to build a new road a political and judicial decision rather than a matter of transportation planning documented need.

It raises the question – “Can a new interstate roadway be built today?”

It’s a simple fact that transportation helped develop the Midwest.

Beginning with water transportation that brought early explorers, water transportation moved people and natural resources.  Just think about the early development of the Midwest, specifically the need to transport trees from forests to mills and then move the finished lumber to build the early cities, all done by water transportation. The next phase of Midwest development history, natural resources including copper, stone, and  iron ore was (and still is) shipped by water transportation to various Midwest industrial complexes, typically locations nearby Midwest big cities.

In later years rail transportation became more important in the development of the Midwest aiding the movement of people to populate the many small towns that “sprang up” along every (inter urban) rail line.  The same rail system also delivered goods to these remote settlements returning with farm products for consumption by city residents.

With the dawn of the automobile age in the 1900’s, the need for roads replaced some, but not all, dependence on water and rail transportation.  However, the fast growth of automobile transportation demonstrated need for more roads many times replicating the same routes serviced by water and rail.

I guess we should not be surprised that even in the early 1900’s automotive proponents and government planners sought to establish a national system of roads –  yes, undoubtedly to promote sales of automobiles but also to enrich economic development opportunities for local communities the same way water and rail transportation infrastructure did for birth and expansion of major and minor Midwest cities.

(For more information on the importance of transportation and how lost transportation connectivity created Midwest ghost towns see Richard C. Longworth’s Caught in the Middle – America’s Heartland in the Age of Globalization  and my commentary at http://chuckeckenstahler.wordpress.com/2009/11/22/why-we-have-gost-towns-in-the-midwest/)

Based on this history we can easily agree that transportation infrastructure improvements provide economic development opportunities to local communities.  The reverse corollary argument is also true; communities not providing the best transportation systems are denied economic development opportunities.

So if new transportation infrastructure provides economic development opportunities, why is it so complex and difficult to build a new road?

That’s the answer sought by Matt Dellinger author of Interstate 69 – The Unfinished History of the Last Great American Highway.

Dellinger chronicles a 35-year effort of economic development proponents in Daviess County, Indiana to build a new segment of the Federal Interstate Highway System.  By filling a void in the Federal Aid-Highway system which did not include any interstate roads serving southern Indiana (and beyond), economic development proponents sought to reverse a regional agricultural and manufacturing economic decline by construction of a new interstate road segment from Indianapolis to Evansville

The effectiveness or non-effectiveness of current transportation planning is well illustrated by the supporters and detractors of proposed Interstate-69 – the so called 1,400 mile NAFTA transportation route from Port Huron (Michigan) to Mexico via Brownsville, Texas.

The real story is about government transportation process and procedures and whether in today’s society can a fully participatory collaborative transportation planning process reach an amicable solution identifying a transportation alignment. 

No better example of a “collaborative process demolition derby” exists.  No better example of “collaborative gridlock” can be found destroying the virtues the well established transportation planning procedures.

Dellinger aptly discloses motives and goals of both those in support and those in opposition as well as the lobbying and legal strategies used in support and opposition.

Reading Interstate-69 sheds light on the complexity and difficulty of modern transportation planning.  It’s important reading for every community planner and economic developer and demonstrates that:

• Transportation is an unquestioned determinate of local civic and economic vitality.
• All transportation systems – water, mass transit, air, rail, pipe line or telecommunication – have an impact on the physical landscape.
• Transportation systems direct to varying degrees, where people live, where jobs will locate serving as basic infrastructure for urban and rural development patterns.
• Prudent local economic development strategy must seek optimum transportation accessibility – regardless of mode (including internet and satellite telecommunication transportation networks of the future).
• There are no “shovel-ready” immediate new transportation projects – transportation projects are life-time career efforts requiring years to process a final decision.
• The transportation planning process and procedures to render a specific project decision are unfamiliar to the vast majority of citizens both those affected and those unaffected.
• Public unfamiliarity leads to fear and an inherent mistrust of those responsible for the transportation planning process.
• The collaborative transportation planning process, rather than building consensus, most times fractionalizes interests into non retractable opposing forces.
• Government action to modify generally accepted behaviors such as greater use of mass transportation or close proximity live-work living environments takes years or generations to secure measurable changes from historic transportation usage patterns.
• Transportation planning is a generational “futures” exercise where by planning decisions today leave a legacy for future generations.

 “So can a new interstate roadway be built today?”

Many small towns across the Midwest were founded on the basis of their transportation availability – water, rail and highways.  Some are now just names on a map (or GPS), acknowledgement of a time in history when local economies and transportation access was different.

Today, others suffering job dislocation and declining population believe the economic development opportunity of a new road will fight “being an unpopulated forgotten name on the map”.

There is a strong argument well versed in Midwest development history that defends the notion that new roads will provide economic opportunity not otherwise available to communities with lesser transportation access.

As long as there is hope for reinventing local economies using transportation superiority, new roads will be built.

However, I don’t see any easing of difficulties in reaching public consensus; in fact, it may be more difficult to reach consensus in the future requiring greater reliance on political and judicial decision making.

What’s a more interesting question to consider is – How the public will pay for these new roads?

Will we see more public funded roads in the future or will we rely upon public or private toll roads or other “pay for use” methods?

My guess – more new roads (probably using current alignments), different designs based on usage and funded by innovative public and private sources.

Somewhat paternalistic, these employers often built for the use and enjoyment of the workers and their family – schools, libraries, recreation facilities and other public and even religious buildings.  They also provided for daily commercial needs often times running the retail stores themselves using the company payroll script as the only acceptable currency.

Not surprisingly these companies had significant control of the daily working and nonworking time of every employee and their family members.  They exercised a degree of control over where and how people lived exerted by the fear of personal job loss.

“Roots of Steel – Boom and Bust in an American Mill Town” is a story of Dundalk, Maryland, a company town developed by Pennsylvania Steel Company about 1890 (subsequently sold to Bethlehem and then ArcelorMittal), to supply workers for the Sparrows Point steel mill.  Deborah Rudacille, chronicles the history of Dundalk and its residents from a successful prosperous “Sparrows Point Mill Town” through its economic demise brought about, in part by the economic globalization of steel making in the 1970’s and global steel making consolidation in the 1990’s and early 2000’s.

This is important reading for community planners and economic developers of today.  While illustrating the role of the company, unions and globalization upon the rise to prosperity and subsequent path of community disinvestment, Rudacille, describes the complex community ethnic, racial, and economic class relationships as well as the health and safety impact of the rigorous and sometimes dangerous business of making steel.  She describes the role of the business, state and federal government agencies and unionization beginning with the 1930’s great depression era though desperate measures of the 1970’s, 80’s and 90’s to mitigate the impact of globalization of steel making and the demise of American steel making dominance.

“Roots of Steel” teaches community planners and economic developers several important facts about community economic development:

1.         Community prosperity is inexorably linked with jobs – their number and wage scales – loss of jobs and lessened wage rates undermine growth and sustainability of local economies.

2          Jobs and the type of jobs can draw together or push apart workers grouped together by ethnicity, race or economic class.

3          Business prosperity transported throughout the community in the form of job advancement and wage improvement breeds sustainable community civic and social vitality and aids human relationship harmony.

4.         The notion of a company provided intergenerational job birthright – my granddad and my dad worked here therefore the company will provide me a lifetime “good” job no longer exists.

5.         In one generation, an industrial economy that enabled people without much formal education to create stable families and communities can be transformed into a technological driven global economy relying on better trained and educated workers – leaving the legacy that a high school education will likely no longer qualify for well paying jobs necessary to fulfill the American dream of raising a family in an economic sustainable, vibrant civic and socially progressive community.

Communities such as Dundalk face enormous challenges to regain their economic sustainability and must rely on reinventing the physical, social and civic structures of the community through education – retooling businesses and workforce retraining hopefully repopulating the community with new job opportunities.

In today’s “planner speak” – smart growth, traditional town planning, communitywide walkability, economic sustainability, place making – we seek many of the same goals of these early company towns, principles first fostered by Ebenezer Howard founder of the Garden Cities Movement to manufacture communities attractive to new job location as well as “places” where people want to live, “key” elements being:

• Shortened journey to work trips.
• Balanced workforce with available jobs.
• Access to recreational and natural green spaces.
• Community civic and social engagement among all residents.
• Educational and religious opportunities.
• Wage and income growth opportunities.
• Long term economic stability and growth.

Simply stated, we community planners and economic developers seek to create a more perfect physical, civic and social community – a company town “so to speak” – one that attracts the “creative class” popularized by Richard Florida.

The only difference in what we do today compared to company town planners of history, is company town planners back then had jobs that would attract people to the community while community planners and economic developers today must focus both on creating the “company jobs” as well as the “company town”.

Kelo and eminent domain ignites legal pushback against public Freeport Texas developer characterization.

Everyone knows today’s land use decisions are contentious pitting those engaged in private development and government officials who support increased tax base against folks impacted by the development and people opposed to new development of “any kind”.

The 1926 Standard Zoning Enabling Act, enacted by almost every state, established the requirement that governments who adopt zoning give the public a voice in the zoning entitlement decision process (typically a public hearing before the municipal planning commission) before a final decision is considered by local elected officials.

The resultant public input during the governmental entitlement process required by law often transcends into public vocalization of fact and fiction, incendiary name calling, rumors and innuendo.

Interestingly, zoning enabling laws typically do not require sworn testimony assuring truthfulness nor is there any means to challenge misinformation or misrepresentation of facts other than to place into the public record a different set of facts challenging misinformation.

Developers have become wise to this discrepancy resulting in an increased number of law suits where facts are ultimately displayed before a judge who becomes, “in many instances” the final land use authority (even though such authority is lacking in law or by common judicial precedents).

In Texas this past week, the court heard and will soon decide the merits of whether the words of an author chronicling the role of a developer and local government using the most contentious land use tool – eminent domain – to condemn and take private property for economic development purposes can be considered defamation of the character of the developer.

This case is based on 90-some claimed instances where the author, Carla T. Main defamed the developer’s reputation in BULLDOZED “KELLO” EMINENT DOMAIN and the AMERICAN LUST for LAND published in 2007.  The claim results from the Freeport Texas Economic Development Corporation (EDC) use of condemnation eminent domain powers to acquire private property (from an unwilling seller) for transfer to developer H. Walker Royall to develop a recreational marina.

As one might expect, the use of eminent domain power was incendiary resulting in legions of supporters and dissenters publically sharing their views during every step of the development approval process; matters recounted in the book.

Factual or not, the defamation of character suit is significant to every community planner and economic developer. 

It raises the question of whether comments offered by the public, an appointed commissioner or professional staffer in the public input process defame the character of the applicant.

This case presents a “slippery slope”, one that community planners and economic developers must take seriously.  Can comments made during a public input deliberative process result in personal defamation of character law suits?

Regardless of the outcome of the Texas case – community planners and economic developers are well advised to exercise caution when making comments about developers and other applicants seeking land use entitlements.   

It’s also time to seek advice and counsel concerning the public input and deliberative process used in decision making….as undoubtedly more litigating will happen.

Community planners and economic developers may also want to review insurance coverage both personal and coverage for citizen volunteer planning commissioners sitting on the many local government boards and commissions.

For more information on H. Walker Royall vs. Carla T. Main go to -

http://www.ij.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=2519&Itemid=207

http://ownerscounsel.blogspot.com/