Posts Tagged ‘Regional Economic Development’

Preparing Next Gen Economic Development Leadership

August 10, 2016

Purdue Northwest Graduates Northern Indiana’s first class of ED Civic Leaders

Picture1In 2006, I was asked to help establish an economic development educational program to be offered as an elective in the Purdue Northwest Masters of Business Administration degree program and teach its capstone class.

While consuming several years to gain academic approvals, the three classes, The Competitive Advantage of a Region, Economic and Social Analysis, and The Process of Economic Development were formulated into a free-standing certificate allowing both full-time MBA and non-credit student enrollment.

This certificate program fulfills an identified need in Northern Indiana – an educational opportunity for a wide-range of community leaders to gain knowledge about the role of economic development in their community.

The Process of Economic Development capstone class activity gives the student a “real life” experience analyzing a preselected community for the location of a new business including a formal presentation of community assets before a panel of representative decision makers of the business made up of the Mayor and several economic development practitioners.

Northern Indiana is truly blessed to have a cadre of upwardly mobile leaders who will undoubtedly serve as volunteer board members for economic development organizations whether they be government, chamber of commerce or nonprofit sponsored and guide their economic development efforts towards success.

This education program prepares students with knowledge of economic development agency operations but also duties and responsibilities of the agency directorship appointment.

This is a “first of its kind” program to train future volunteer economic development leaders in Northern Indiana, a model that surely will be followed by others.

 

 

INNOVATIVE COMMUNITY…are you one?

August 8, 2016

Smart PlacesTHE SMARTEST PLACES ON EARTH   Why Rustbelts are the Emerging Hot Spots of Global Innovation 

Antoine van Agtmael and Fred Bakker

2016 Public Affairs Perseus Books Club, New York

It’s every Mayor’s goal…an innovative community that surpasses social and economic threats producing social and economic prosperity.

There are 100’s of books telling how to do this…describing public, and yes, private programs to achieve this.

One of the newer contemporary suggestions – innovation – put forth by Antoine van Agtmael and Fred Baker in their book “The Smartest Places on Earth” add to the wealth of ideas and techniques for socio-economic sustainability.

They proffer that “brainsharring” for the new economy, the “reinventing of local economies by developing new products, technologies that will eventually transform daily life, is the solution to economic repurposing of our rust belt impacted communities and surrounding regions”.

Through visitation and personal interview among a select group of economically reinvented former “rust belt” global communities, they identified “keys” to successful economic reinvention.

Here are a few “takeaways” from reading:

PAST HISTORY IS UNDERSTOOD AND FUTURE REOCCURRENCE IS PREVENTABLE
Successful “brainsharing reinvention” begins when communities acknowledge the historic economic malaise and generate a strong sense of action to prevent reoccurrence – the “communitywide recognition that economic improvement action is necessary”.

AN ECONOMIC PATHWAY IS PRESENT AND UNDERSTANDABLE
Coupled with the attitude ‘it won’t happen again” is the notion of a new direction – “a pathway to economic revitalization that repurposes the local economy producing a sustainable future”; one that is also easily understandable to a wide spectrum of constituents”.

MULTIPLISTIC SUPPORT MAGINFIES SUCCESS
Brainsharing across public and private entities is a must and typically arranged, facilitated and mentored by a “connector”, one, or more, individuals who bring together, normally separate interest groups to collaborate and then serve as their “shepherd” leading them to a specific goal.

NARROWISM SUCCEEDS
While there are many pathways, concerted effort on 1 or 2 reinvention strategies leads to greater chance of success compared to expending a “little bit of effort on a wide variety of strategies”.

For those interested in economic reinvention of local economies, this book will stimulate some interesting thoughts about the “new economy philosophy” of economic development and job creation.

Economic reinvention comes with destruction and replacement of current socially accepted community thinking.

Maybe more important for action is the “continued fear that a significant economic down turn event can happen again and we can’t let that happen”.

It also shows that reinvention must happen regardless of its hard work and realistically, is bigger than our community alone…calling on us to cooperate on a larger regional scale.

An innovative community is one which welcomes technological destruction, shows a willingness to sponsor “brainsharing” for the purposes of producing new businesses creating new economy jobs and investment.

MICHIGAN MODERN-DAY REGIONALISM

April 5, 2014

GOVERNORS’ REGIONAL PROSPERITY INITIATIVE TO REPURPOSE 40-YEAR OLD MICHIGAN REGIONALISM

Big changes in store for Southwest Michigan

Will Benton Harbor – St. Josephs’ future be a suburb of Kalamazoo or can Benton Harbor-St. Joseph rise to true metropolitan status?

Governing logo“Cities are going to be the engines of the future” announced Bill Rustem, Governor Snyder’s Director of Strategy, at the Governing magazine sponsored Michigan Leadership Form held in Lansing on April 2, 2014.

He announced’ “If Michigan is going to compete (globally) it needs cities that are competitive”

Under the Governors’ Regional Prosperity Initiative, “the state isn’t going to tell people what the state wants but defer to local decision makers and let them, as a region, tell the state what role in the State of Michigan they want to play in the future”, added Rustem

Region 10 mapThis challenges civic and governmental leaders in southwest Michigan to determine what the 10-county region wants to be and who it wants to identify with – Kalamazoo, South Bend or maybe Chicago & Northern Indiana.

Regionalism reinvention is upon us.

Underway are changes that will reorient nearly 40-years of regional planning history of Berrien, Cass and Van Buren counties which in the early 1970’s, abet under duress of the loss of federal and state funding, and came together as Planning & Development Region 4, one of 14 regional planning agencies geographically defined by gubernatorial executive order.

Failure to reach consensus on a state and global identity for the newly designated 10-county region, means that communities without a regional and city identity could become a “suburban location of nowhere”, according to Rustem.

To me, this is history repeating itself.

Back in the 1970’s, the Benton Harbor-St. Joseph greater Twin-Cities area was considered rural, even though it was home base for seven national firms; Whirlpool and & Clark Equipment, being best known.

Local leaders at that time realized being rural meant being overlooked by industrial development scouts, regional shopping mall developers and many other businesses including the emerging fast-food franchise industry.

The effort to make Benton Harbor-St. Joseph a Metropolitan city was successful in 1980 after locally sponsored lobbying for federal census rule changes redefining population requirements for metropolitan central cites – ironically labeled “the Benton Harbor rule” by the Chairman of the federal rule making committee.

However 40-years of history have failed to produce a statewide and global metropolitan identity.

Absent from metropolitan growth research and pundit commentary about of central city place making is any mention of the Benton Harbor-St. Joseph Twin Cities metropolitan area – it’s just not on these folks radar screens.

So here we have history repeating itself.

Back 40-years ago, the Benton Harbor-St. Joseph Twin Cities Area was “just another undiscovered rural area”.

Today, the Benton Harbor-St. Joseph Twin Cities Area again is an “unrecognized slow/no-growth small metropolitan area”.

The Benton Harbor-St. Joseph Twin Cites Metropolitan Area has failed to grow into a dominate “regionally recognized city center” that businesses and people, especially young talented people identify.

Truth is – change needs to happen for a successful growing population future.

It’s no longer acceptable to look at self-contained inward growth policies but to reach out and connect with others.

This is a “tough job” recognizing the Benton Harbor-St. Joseph Twin Cities area is relatively self-contained economic market surrounding by smaller cities better connected to more vibrant larger central city markets, some in Michigan and some in Indiana.

This message is a wakeup call.

It’s time to begin a process of regional planning, to lock in some of the past success in collaboration and cooperation to forge a global regional identity, whether that be a stand-alone Benton Harbor-St. Joseph Twin City identity, a Kalamazoo suburban-based small metro identity, a South Bend suburban-based small metro identity or something different connecting with the Chicago multi-state metropolitan identity.

Bill Rustem is not only a good policy wonk but a strategist who can look through a clear-lens and see both long and short-term strategies that can be implemented to achieve public policy objectives.

His message at the Leadership Forum is quite clear, “the Governor is giving Michigan’s local leaders and the public an opportunity, to work with the public and business community to create Michigan’s Future”. 

The message is pretty clear, its central cities and regions that matter.

Failure to recognize and accept these changes, or resist them, means one, or both, will lose.

TRANSFORMATIONAL MUNICIPAL LEADERSHIP

April 1, 2014

Why some small & medium sized communities are successful with economic reinvention and others become ghost towns!

Richard G. Longworth in his book “Caught in the Middle – America’s Heartland in the Age of Globalization”,  lays the historic groundwork explaining why some communities become ghost towns – the failure to adjust to change…being transportation, communications or market force changes that reshape the local economy. Today similar changes such as a lack of direct interstate roadway or high-speed internet connectivity are reshaping future sustainability of many smaller communities, especially those not having connection to a metropolitan area. There is ample evidence that metropolitan regions are the collectors of population growth, increased household wealth, creative workforce talent and ultimately future prosperity. As the concentration of growth trends continue to accumulate in metropolitan areas, smaller communities, especially those lacking connectivity to metropolitan areas, will face economic sustainability challenges. While a large number of smaller communities will inevitability be unable, or unwilling, to make necessary political and civic changes leading to prosperity, others will “take-on” challenges to reinvent themselves for the future. Study of successful smaller communities, over the past 40-years has led me to identify ten key ingredients, which will separate ghost towns from successful small towns of the future:

 1. Transformational LeadershipDilbert leadership

Every successful community has one – they are “action figures” persons with the personality and leadership “karma” drawing together differing, and at times conflicting, pathways into a single direction – “they’re the lead dog in the sled team and pilot the direction for others to follow along.”

Successfully communities in the future will all have a leader, a single person who collects and draws together ideas, combines individualized personal commitments, plots-out a uniform action strategy and sets-in-place the deployment process to implement change.

 2. Long-term Consensus Strategy

In today real world agreement doesn’t exist anymore comments Aaron Anthony, Bridgman MI, City Manager, “it’s a generally held conclusion that 100% agreement is a figment of imagination and that we can get everyone on the same page when forming community strategy”. But successful community development is founded on the premise that we can set aside our differences and reach agreement upon certain principles that result in a strategy that all parties accept and will implement.

Successfully communities in the future will be guided by a generally recognized, and community accepted, long-term consensus strategy that in general terms, tells where the community wants to be in the future – a compass point showing direction rather than specific GPS instructions for the journey.

 3. Dedicated “Single-Focus” Management

Unlike 40-years back where community leaders had a limited number of issues to handle, today’s municipal community development function is far more complex, governed by a greater number of laws and regulations, influenced by a larger number special interest groups and susceptible to increased legal intervention. Constantine MI, City Manager, Mark Honeysett sums it up quickly, it’s easy to get to many things on the plate at the same time and get nothing accomplished.  The result is more time, more money and more complexity in carrying-out both the civic and governmental community development function”.

Successfully communities in the future will those communities who recognize and realize that a community cannot address every issue at the same time and direct both human and financial resources to a prioritized list of needed accomplishments.

 4. Long-term Funding Mechanisms

Transformation according to Bridgman MI, Manager, Aaron Anthony, “is not an “annual pay-as-you-go proposition, but a multi-year commitment of interconnected projects that required several years of funding to achieve best results.   Communities that recognize implementation does not comply with election cycles or annual budget cycles have a better chance for success”.  Modern municipal project management requires identification of all potential funding sources with their probability of funding success as part of the project planning process to help communities better define the overall project scope and anticipate costs in an effort to achieve greater implementation success.

Successfully communities in the future will recognize the value of multi-year project budgeting opposed to annually deciding what can spent and how to use the annual community budget.

 5. Leverage Funding Opportunities

Change is costly with most major “transformational” projects exceeding the annual tax revenue of most communities.  This results in reliance upon other funding sources. Federal and state grants are always viewed as the first supplemental source, but tax increases, tax increment financing, borrowings and even private donations all have place in leveraged funding opportunities.

Successful communities in the future will rely on realistic expectations of  grant and other funding sources and consider the ability to complete projects using only local funds.

 6. Experienced Technical Guidance

Local elected officials “don’t have to be smart – only popular enough to get elected” was told to me many years ago Cass County, MI Commissioner Johnnie Rodebush, “the best thing we can do is hire smart guys, like you, to help guide us in making things work.” It is uncommon occurrence that once elected, the elected official has comprehensive knowledge of the vast number of governmental programs available leading to  reliance upon technical help and services to assist in successful project implementation.

Today and even more in the future, successful communities will realize navigating the complex, ever-changing, municipal world, requires good advice and technical assistance from qualified and experienced help for success.

 7. Appetite for Civic & Political Risk

Supporting civic and governmental change implies taking risks – risk of criticism, risk of losing an election and possibly loss of community status and position in social and civic organizations.

Successful communities in the future will identify risk taking as an accepted part of a successful transformation process and celebrate rather than shy away from possible adverse effects of implementing change.

  8. Acceptably for System Changes Needed for Success

Government structure, especially in some Midwest states, was born in the late 1800’s and remains in place today.  However, the reliance on single government solution, guided by independent separatist elected bodies at times hinders the ability to solve problems which span multiple government jurisdictions such as potable water supply and sewerage collection/treatment, storm water management and transportation.

Successfully communities in the future will have relinquished some of today’s commonly held duties in favor of multi-jurisdictional delivery systems that may offer cost savings, provide superior services and more efficient management oversight.

 9. Unrelentless Pursuit of Success

Author Tom Peters, in his 1980’s book “In Search for Excellence” chronicled the theory of successful companies based on a total commitment and passion for excellence.  So too with community development, strategy a long-term passion for success always trumps stop-and-start attempts.

Successful communities in the future will not only subscribe to a passion for success but leverage this passion in pursuit of continual success.

  10. Civic Acceptance of Need for Success

Bob Gets, Village of Baroda MI, President, credits Baroda’s nationally recognized economic reinvention success to the community acceptance that “if we didn’t make a change we would become another Michigan ghost town” upon realization, in 2004,  that the loss of  over 10 tool & die shops with over 220 employees would never return. Most communities need a life-or-death realization to create the wanna-factor and wake-up a passive community mind-set that changes must happen.

Successfully communities in the future will have a civic “wanna-factor” for a successful future and economic sustainability – a spirit that is communicated and is easily recognizable outside of the community.

FINAL THOUGHTS

 Successful smaller communities need transformational leadership for success.

As Longworth states “like it or not, it’s the cities that are the economic engines of the 21st Century.  The small towns may be the spiritual anchors of the Midwest, but they no longer serve as the economic engine of the future.  Only those smaller communities that have the courage and political ability to reinvent themselves and integrate themselves in the new economy will prevent the ghost town from becoming reality”.

MICHIGAN COUNTY PLANNING – ANALYSIS AND CRITIQUE OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT PLANNING AND ZONING REVIEW PROCESS

January 27, 2014

INTRODUCTION

Michigan law is unique. It subjects all local units of government master plans to a county planning review process intended to determine its consistency with surrounding local government plans among all other applicable plans.

For townships, this review process goes further subjecting the zoning ordinance and all amendments to a similar review.

In planning practices this concept is termed “concurrency”, the term given by planners to the concept of each master plan prepared by the respective local government to be “fitted together” and upon agreement to create a county plan.

Likewise, assembly of county plans creates regional plans and assembly of regional plans creates state plans and finally a national master plan.

This “bottom-up” master planning approach is designed to identify multi-jurisdictional infrastructure needs forming, the basis for a capital improvements multi-year budget.

FDR’s  Brain-Truster’s Stuart Chase and  Rexford Tugwell originated the concept in the 1930’s.  It was the basis of much of government’s role in economic planning whereby congress would use these plans to identify, on a national basis, where to invest federal funds for roads, water/sewer and other infrastructures.

While the Brian-Truster’s economic planning concept was ultimately vetoed by congressional action, the concept of multi-year capital improvement programs remains embedded in planning theory and today is a requirement in Michigan’s planning enabling legislation.

While Michigan once fully embraced economic and resource (land use) planning, interest evaporated in the 1950’s & 60’s in favor of economic development strategy and programs.  This ultimately resulted in a 1970’s renewed interest in environmental protection and need for government policies stimulating job creation as a recession remedy, including effort to establish a state land use planning law in 1975 and 1977 (HB 4234 – 1975, 4107 – 1977 and 4189 – 1977 plus SB 692 – 1977).

During this time the State of Florida was probably the leader in reinventing land use planning, promoting the concept of “concurrency” in its 1970’s Growth Management Act.  The state law required each level of local government to prepare a plan and link them together to create a statewide plan that identified location and timing, plus the funding source for each major infrastructure investment.

An elaborate collective conflict resolution process assured that all plans would fit together in a “jig-saw puzzle” fashion to make the final statewide plan.

Michigan’s law today is a “watered-down” byproduct of state land use planning theory employing the concept of a county planning commission review of local government prepared land use plans – in reality a county “concurrency” determination.

Today however, many question the “right “and the “role” of county planning commission judgment authority exercised by county planning commissions, in this review and concurrency role.

BACKGROUND OF THE SURVEY

To assess the value of this duty, the St. Joseph County Planning Commission and Board of Commissioners recently sponsored a survey to obtain information to make an informed judgment.

In August 2012, a request was made to each local government clerk to notify every elected official, planning commissioner, zoning board of appeals member, building inspector, code enforcement official, municipal attorney, manager and advisors to participate in an on-line survey.

There are between 200 and 300 elected and appointed officials, staff and advisors involved in local government planning and zoning decisions in St. Joseph County.

A range is given for the number of participants due to persons serving in duplicate capacities and variables in the number of appointees to planning commissions.

A total of 37 surveys were completed and submitted resulting in a response rate, between 12 and 19 %, comprising township, village and city responders.

PARTICIPANTS

Responders to the survey represented equally townships and cities/villages. Over half were elected officials, one-third appointed planning commissioners with the remainder being staff, consultants or legal advisors.

Twelve of the 16 township and 6 of the 7 cities/village participated.

MASTER PLAN REVIEW

FUTURE ACTIONS

While 18% of the responders did not know whether their Master Plan would require County Planning Commission review in the next several years, 30% indicated a 2013 review, 10% a 2014 and another 19%, a 2015 review will be required.

PAST REVIEW ACTIONS

Only 30% of the responders indicated knowledge of whether their current plan received County Planning Commission review, with 70% indicating no knowledge of whether the review found their current Master Plan to be consistent with the County Master Plan and those of surrounding local governments.

Only 20% of the responders indicated the County Planning Commission review being “somewhat helpful” to the local Planning Commission adoption of the current Master Plan.

FUTURE REVIEW ACTIONS

Eighty percent of the responders indicate that they don’t know whether the County Planning Commission review of their future Master Plan updates will be of value.

TOWNSHIP ZONING ORDINANCE REVIEW

PAST REVIEW ACTION

Sixty five percent of responders stated their township submitted all zoning actions for County Planning Commission review, with 36% indicating the need for one or two reviews in the past year.   Thirty percent indicated no need for any County Planning Commission review in the past year.

VALUE OF PAST REVIEWS

Over half of the responders indicate the County Planning Commission past reviews were very helpful, 6% little help and 41% indicating they did know if the review held any value.

VALUE OF FUTURE REVIEWS

While 41% of responders indicate they don’t know the value of future County Planning Commission reviews and another 12% indicating little or no help, 47% indicate the review to be very helpful.

MAJOR FINDINGS AND SURVEY CONCLUSIONS

1.  The role and legal duty of the County Planning Commission review function is unknown and possibly ignored by a majority of participants involved in township, city and village land use decision making.

2.  The value of the County Planning Commission review process, is questionable with a majority of those involved in local government land use decision making indicating little, or undetermined, value of  past and future  County Planning Commission review to decision-making by their local government.

3.  While required by law, the 5-year Master Plan update requirement is not recognized by a majority of responders with a vast majority unable to verify whether the County Planning Commission found their current Master Plan to be consistent with the county and other applicable plans.

COMMENTARY

There are many questions related to the value and necessity of the local government review function required of the County Planning Commission.  The most common question asked is whether it is important and needed.

Along with the unfunded state law mandate that the County Planning Commission review all Master Plans, but review only township, but not city or village, new zoning ordinances and amendments, many question county involvement in  local government control of land use decision-making.

For elected and appointed officials, many resent the notion of the County “telling them what to do” due to the strong bias towards this “local control”.

For some applicants processing unsuccessful approvals and for disgruntled affected property owners unhappy about a decision, the County Planning Commission is often viewed as a “super planning commission authority” with power to reverse or, at minimum, change” the local government decision.

This too – is viewed as an intrusion into local government local land use control.

In the present time of government austerity, providing services that have no, or limited, value invites inspection and possible action, to eliminate unneeded county services or to strengthen and economically justify the value of the County Planning Commission review function.

The Michigan County Planning Commission local government review function is obviously dysfunctional, as currently employed.

This analysis cites the need for corrective measures or elimination of an unneeded county government expense, a cost savings which can currently partially be accomplished by a resolution of the county board to eliminate review of township zoning matters.

It also identifies the need for possible planning legislation changes providing similar authority for elimination of the Master Plan review function.

FULL DISCLOSURE STATEMENT

In the spirit of full disclosure, I have served a 4-year term as a county planning director and 7-years as a regional planning director and nearly 30-years as a planning consultant to Michigan townships, cities and villages.

In this role he has first-hand experience in both conducting the County Planning Commission review function and processing township, city and village reviews before County Planning Commissions.

No recommendation is made on a course of action to be taken leaving this to the discretion of Michigan legislature.

THE BEST – LAID PLANS

December 10, 2012

How Government Planning Harms Your Quality of Life, Your Pocket Book and Your Future

Best Laid Plans

Government panning has become an accepted part of life in the United States.  Almost every city and county in the nation has a plan and employs planners to make studies and establish plans to better the future.  Most states require cities and counties to prepare plans, some being required to access much needed grant assistance to fund local projects.

Planning America CoverIn a recent study (spring 2012) Planning in America: Perceptions and Priorities     http://www.planning.org/policy/economicrecovery/ commissioned by the American Planning Association, the trade group for professional planners, 79%  of American’s like the idea of local community planning even if they are unclear about the goals that planning should serve”.

However, according planning critic Randall O’Tool author of the The Best Laid Plans, “a plan written with the best intention, will likely go horribly wrong”.

He claims that planners who “advertise their methods as the solution to almost any problem or controversy” allow elected officials to turn over thorny problems to the planning bureaucracy rather than force elected officials to make decisions.

He notes this planning decision process is run by “well-intentioned but often clueless people called planners, who, having graduated from architecture [and planning] schools and other universities are eager to bring their visions of utopia to the American people”.

O’Tool cites that it’s  a ”bitter irony, freely admitted by numerous planners, that many of the problems that planners propose to solve were caused not by the free marketplace, but by past generations of planners and other government bureaucrats”.

He basis his conclusion on two fundamental facts –

  1. That rational planning cannot occur in a highly politicalized environment, and
  2. The notion that competing groups can sit down together and negotiate the goals for all interest groups is unachievable.

While published in 2007, the validity of his statement surely is confirmed as demonstrated by Republican and Democratic Party actions during Presidential election and currently shown by congressional efforts to address the pending national fiscal problems.

O’Tool notes “planners tend to be attracted to fads over hard economic based analysis”.  Try TND, TOD, Smart Growth and today’s placed based community strategy, as examples.

He claims, planners unlike employees in the private sector, face no risk, allowing for planning to be done without the risk of failure.

This “no risk – no consequence” situation O’Tool suggests, allows planners to  “hide behind risk-free prepackaged concepts such as smart growth principles for their plans rather than doing detailed economic analysis that might or may not lead to success”.

The fundamental premise held by these planners is that “government can be blindly objective and even altruistic and create great plans, whereas private individuals and corporations working in their own self-interests cannot.  Only government can protect the common good”.

O’Tool’s opinions are obviously disputed by planners based on the results of their recent survey.

The recent (APA) survey disclosed that the American public recognizes the importance of government planning in economic prosperity with 92% of the respondents stating they believe “things work better with a plan and that community planning is important to the economic recovery” with local job creation ranked seventh in importance by over 70% of the responders.

Ironically, macro-economic theory is not typically emphasized as a critical component in planner education.  The educational framework of most planners is based on the notion that architectural design; the creation of a hospitable and livable physical environment, will dominate and shape people’s behavior.

O’Tool sees this dichotomy – the emphasis on physical environment shaping human behavior and providing the basis for job creation opposed to a free markets making the job creation decisions as the fallacy of government planning and reason that planning never will succeed.

So what are the planners to do?

Based on the notion jobs and economic development are to be higher priority for current community development strategy, planners need to gain a higher level of understanding of macro-economic influences that shape, or result from, community development plans.

Planners need to –

  1. Gain macro-economic education allowing assessment of potential impacts of optional community development strategies.
  1. Widen inputs into the comprehensive planning process to include greater consideration of government macro-economic policy upon future growth trends and the amount and timing of new development land needed to accommodate growth.
  1. Elevate the importance of municipal economic viability and sustainability into the overall framework of plan implementation, as professional standards of practice.
  1. Make mandatory the role of “concurrency” the notion that every capital expenditure must be confirmed by a funding source prior to inclusion into a comprehensive plan, thus eliminating speculative “build it and they will come” projects.
  1. Seek closure of the gap between the practice of economic development and comprehensive planning, recognizing that economic sustainability is only achieved when both disciplines act together to implement the comprehensive plan.
  1. Make real estate development economics a mandatory requirements of planner education giving planners a better understanding of private sector risk and reward principles for the creation of real estate taxable valuation which is the basis of local property taxes that derive revenue for local government operations.
  1. Create new unique public-private partnerships infrastructure models in recognition that traditional forms of developer “exactions” specifically the donation of public infrastructure will become a remembrance and local governments will be called upon to provide infrastructure when un-fundable by the developer’s lender.
  1. Create understandable and communicable matrices to quantify and measure success of plan implementation stressing short-term tangible results specifically new job and real estate investment creation.
  1. Establish accountability performance requirements for plan implementation which hold planners , as well as elected and appointed office responsible for plan implementation.
  1. Planners must also abandon the fundamental principle that community development and economic development programs must resolve multiple problems in order to be politically acceptable and fundable by local government officials. Planners must be able to “turn their back on certain problems which maybe a political impossibility under many current community and economic development strategies.

While O’Tool claims, “planners tend to be attracted to fads over hard economic based analysis”, there is evidence that a new fad – the recognition of macro-economic inputs into the shape, direction and viability of comprehensive planning may set direction for a stronger physical, social and environmental important strategy.

NEED, GREED AND SPEED – NEW RULES OF INNOVATION TO PROPEL GREATNESS

November 13, 2012

In the coming decades, “the quest for environmental sustainability and the need to meet the health demands of a fatter, sicker and older population may prove to be the greatest engines of innovation and, therefore the greatest economic opportunity of our lifetimes” according to  Vijay V. Vaitheeswaran author of Need, Speed, And Greed, How the New Rules of Innovation Can transform Businesses, Propel Nations To Greatness, And Tame The World’s Most Wicked Problems and  the Global Correspondent for the Economist magazine.

The author sets about to challenge some of the widely held views about innovation, the role of government versus business, the supposed global crisis and the failure of the world economy.

His book seeks to build a case for rethinking of how the world approaches innovation.

He believes the world stands on a cusp of a post industrial revolution and new rules of innovation will reveal these new principles and practices which will reshape the world’s economy.

This innovation will bring to the market place fresh thinking that creates value for a company for its customers and for a society at large.

This innovation will result in entrepreneurial activity new investment and new jobs.

What motivates idea generators in the new age of innovation is not mere profit – it’s also inspired by the passionate pursuit of purpose, in part meeting societal goals.

The three great forces that drive these passions are – need, speed and greed – the need for the innovative goods or services, the ability for the innovator to receive monetary return for the innovation and the speed in which the goods or service can be made available to the consumer.

These three forces drive the fresh thinking that creates something of value.

Today these changes are undergoing as an unpresented demographic, economic and environmental transformation, as mankind becomes a primarily urban species for the first time in history.

This mass urbanization will both demand faster and deeper innovation and offer the means for getting it; including –

The need for more urban  infrastructure,

  • Responsive political systems, and
  • Higher degree of interpersonal civility.

According to Vaitheeswaran, “the road from [economic] stagnation to rejuvenation results from innovation.

He supports the notion that innovation will be aided by:

  • More STEM education,
  • More immigration,
  • Less restrictive government regulation,
  • Less government interaction, and
  • More accommodative government R & D spending tax policy.

According the Vaitheeswaran, greed is not only good but also does good – if, that is, there are clear incentives to tackle the wicked problems of society.

He believes that many of today’s efforts to support innovation are simply a sham, mostly being a throwback to the failed industrial policy tried in the 1930’s and 1980’s as remedy for a flailing economy.

He supports a more free market capitalist approach that uses need, speed and greed to maximum innovation opportunities.

Reimaging Detroit – Opportunities for Redefining an American City

November 11, 2012

Back in the early 1970’s, my first planner job was to count the number of roof-tops shown on aerial photos for traffic zones for a small metro area’s first computerized transportation model.

The model was designed to provide a “base line” for origin and destination auto trip and inter-metro entry/exit commuting data.

This data, with our projection of where, when and the type of future development, would indicate the roadway improvements to correct existing deficiencies.

The transportation analysis would also show where future improvements were needed based on our projected pattern of future growth.

Good stuff!

We built the 25-year metro future land use plan and scheduled the timing and location of major transportation improvements.

Today, other than for a few road capacity and safety improvements none of the grand plans have been completed and the few where started, are not fully completed.

Population growth didn’t happen like local government interests projected.

John Gallagher, in his book Reimaging Detroit – Opportunities for Redefining an American City, chronicles this phenomenon.

This book should be required reading in every planning and economic development educational curriculum.

John sets the stage, not only for stagnate and declining metro growth strategy, but really calls out the pro-growth biased planning education taught to the planning profession.

This pro-growth bias is based on the notion that global and national growth will be distributed, somewhat equally, based on historical trends and propel current population counts upward over time.

This bias means planners must always expand the urban and suburban pattern of development to include land for new commercial, industrial and residential development.

But in many cases, the continuous upward population growth mentality isn’t correct for some metro areas, as John profiles Detroit where the pattern of development will shrink both in size and population count.

This is a must read for anyone interested in American city planning and metropolitan growth.

John Gallagher, a Detroit Free Press real estate journalist does a complete job of chronicling opportunities for remaking of depopulated cities; Detroit being his proving ground.

John asks the tough questions including –

1.  How do cities deal with infrastructure sized for 2 million folks being funded by user fees from ½ the users

2.  How does government provide services to a scattered less dense pattern of physical development.

3.  What do cities do with abandoned no longer needed – formally used but now vacant – land scattered among the depopulated urban pattern of development.

4.  What is the role of regional government cooperation in capacity building that results in new models of government service delivery based more on economic inefficiencies rather than political identity and governmental self aggrandizement?

5.  Is there a need for a new planning mantra, one that encourages economic sustainability by reduction in size and possibly abandonment of infrastructures no longer needed and affordable?

6.  Will there be community planning mindset change recognizing land reuse – a replacement philosophy that encourages rethinking of local government and urban boundaries with the new realities of demographic and population densities.

7.  Will the citizenry recognize the inevitable – that certain cities must adjust their land uses, abandoning no longer demanded or needed uses by current and future population but at the same time offering opportunity for increased open space and reclamation of lost natural amenities – wetlands, forest, agriculture, etc.

8.  How do cities change the populist fallacy that community cheerleading and platitudes cannot change the economic realities of economic dislocation due to lack of jobs and population growth.

9.  The importance of job growth, both the number and local proximity being vital to sustainability of a city……”jobs, like people die-off” and must be replaced by a new generation.  Failure to create jobs, at least at rates necessary to meet replacement quotas will ultimately result in stagnation and in some isolated cases death of the city.

10.  How to create community based economic entrepreneurship and new business formation programs coupling them with existing business inubators and accelerator efforts to ignite the entrepreneurial spirits within the metro area to make significant impact on the availability of jobs and increase personal wealth.

As John “points out” there is no simple one-way story of when the decline in America’s industrial Midwest began. The curse is here today for many Midwest urban areas, especially those somewhat smaller ones disconnected and isolated from the major metro centers.

He also states that today “it isn’t wise or practical to look at growth as our only definition of urban success….smaller can mean better”.

He emphasizes that both government and business leadership must capitalize on assets “in place” rethinking that growth solves all problems.  He advocates applying a new urban planning theory of “right-sizing” as part of the solution to reengineer prosperity.

To make such changes will not be easy. John quotes the Mayor of Turin Italy, who notes “the deeper the crisis the bigger the chance to do change and innovate.

The curse of many metro’s growth and prosperity surely indicates change and innovation will happen.

THE YEAR 2050 WHAT PLANNERS NEED TO KNOW TODAY!

August 20, 2012

US POPULATION PREDICATED TO INCREASE BY 25%

Joel Kotkin in his book, “The Next 100 Million Americans in 2050”, states that “America will inevitability become a more complex, crowed and competitive place, highly dependent, as it has throughout history on its peoples innovative and entrepreneurial spirit and emerge by mid-century as the most affluent, culturally rich and successful nation in human history”.

He opines that 80%, or more, of the total US population growth has taken place in suburbia, a trend that will likely accelerate in the future.

If true, planners will be faced with a new suburban land use planning framework, one that focuses on:

providing multiple housing choices at higher densities,

  1. walk-to-work/shopping opportunities,
  2. use of energy efficient vehicle transportation, and
  3. accelerated use of communication technology.

He concludes that in the coming decade communities will need to reinvent their economic and social viability.

Here are some thoughts on the trends, now forming, that will shape this new suburbia:

Suburbia population will grow, however not equally everywhere.

  1. Race and ethnic diversity will increase.
  2. Multigenerational households will become common sharing dwelling units.
  3. Today’s minority will become tomorrow’s majority.
  4. Globally, desire for US immigration will increase.
  5. Civic and social suburban “town center lifestyles” will be critical to communitywide social connectivity.
  6. Suburbs will continue to in increase geographic size and population density.
  7. Jobs will follow people but more people will follow jobs.
  8. Communication advances will expedite “declustering” of jobs into suburbia and rural locations.
  9. Organizational patterns of governance will change as citizen demands change.

Under this scenario, in 2050 social and economic acculturation will have occurred deemphasizing ethnic enclaves in favor of a homogenized multi-ethnic mankind.

Under this scenario, there will be more bilingual suburbia residents but English will remain the dominate language for social and business communication.

Concentrations of racial and economic minorities will diversify from concentration in urban settings creation and exposing suburban geography to racial and economic diversity.

Immigrant entrepreneurism will continue to exceed native interests and serve as economic development opportunities for community job growth.

 End Note.

For planners and economic developers employing these trends today will foster wholesale changes to some redevelopment strategy.

Clearly, social and economic changes for the basis of successful land use and economic development planning resulting in true government supported community sustainability.

 Action today means successful communities here people will want to live today and in the future.

THE CIVIC ENGAGEMENT GAP – WHY SMART, OLD, WEALTHY PEOPLE ULTIMATELY MAKE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT STRATEGY!

May 25, 2012

Community and economic developers take note, community demographics answer the plaguing question of why older, better educated and more wealthy folks always seem to be more involved in making local community decisions.

Like me, I suspect, you have the same reaction when first introduced to a local government council, planning commission or economic development agency board of directors – where are the younger folks?  It seems today that only folks aged 50-years or more get involved or actually serve as the “public” participants in community meetings.

Maybe there is an answer to this question.

Reading “Fault Lines in Our Democracy – Civic Knowledge, Voting Behavior, and Civic Engagement in the United States” a recently released study sponsored by the Educational Testing Services Center for Research on Human Capital and Education Research and Development provides some interesting research possibly answering this question. 

http://www.ets.org/s/fault_lines/18719_fault_lines_report_web.pdf

The author’s study of 2010 voting participation and their recent survey data finds the lack of civic knowledge has a direct impact on the likelihood of someone becoming engaged in civic activities.  Their research further found that individual civic engagement participation differs due to age, income and education attainment.

Simply stated, the likelihood of a person becoming engaged in a civic activity increases with their age, income and educational attainment.  The “oldest most highly educated  and highest-income group is nearly seven time more likely to become involved compared to low-income persons having high-school (or less) education.”  The “well-educated (bachelor’s degree or more) middle-aged folks are five times more likely to become involved when compared to high school (or less) educated persons”.

Thus – the “Civic Engagement Gap”.

There’s over an 80% chance that someone have a graduate degree aged 55-64 years with a household income of $100,000 can be enticed to become involved in civic activities.

It answers the question why smart, old wealthy folks determine the community economic development strategy.

So there we have it….the lack of civic knowledge and demographics today determines who most likely guides the formation of community economic development policy.

The authors provide some interesting thoughts on why participation is low for some populations groups:

1. Lack of civic education of our youth – the family, elementary, high and college driven education.

2. Lack of “role model” and mentorship by family members.

3. Difficulties in participation – meeting time commitment and committee functionality.

4. Lack of civic knowledge and understanding the degree of personal importance.

5. Lack of confidence in political leadership.

6. Personal frustration due to lack of successfully accomplishments.

7. Intergenerational biases.

8. Status quo bias of “in power leadership”.

9.  Lack of employer corporate civic engagement sponsorship.

10.  Disenchantment – dissatisfaction and alienation with government.

So what do we do about the lack of participation?   

For community economic developers their work programs will ultimately require more attention to selected constituent group participation, especially less educated and lower income group involvement.

How we elevate civic interest to increase participation rates will be challenging, time consuming and an extra cost burden to already limited resources, but necessary to assure  consensus agreement on the community economic development strategy.

We all know that preparation of the community and economic development strategy is a fundamental local government sponsored process that binds the community‘s civic and social fabric together and serves as a fundamental cornerstone of a strong community democracy that builds trust in government.

We also realize constituency involvement leads to implementation success.

I hold the opinion, that community economic development strategy must promote junior & senior school civic education improvements.

My personal involvement with community economic development strategic planning exercises with junior and senior high school students finds student leadership having great concern for the future of their community.

When given a chance to participate interesting results occur; one being reinforcement that the next generation of community leaders are “in the making” – serious and concerned – fully aware of their disenfranchised and alienated classmates who represent the future “civic engagement gap”

Today’s community economic development strategies need strong involvement of the youth of the community; participation urged on by parents and educators alike.