[Vision2020] real economic development in Moscow

[lfalen]

Thanks Darrell, You are doing good.

Roger
-----Original message-----
From: "Darrell Keim" keim153 at gmail.com
Date: Thu, 25 Oct 2007 14:22:10 -0700
To: "Tom Hansen" thansen at moscow.com
Subject: Re: [Vision2020] real economic development in Moscow

> Bill et al:
> 
> I was at the MCA's recent economic forum.  I found it to be very interesting
> in both what was addressed, and what wasn't.  I felt the panelists did
> a fair job of describing what aspects of Moscow drew them to locate here.
> Nice parks, short/no commute, culture, universities, etc.  If pushed, I
> think the panelists would summarize what brought them as quality of life.
> Also mentioned as reasons for coming to Moscow were Alturas and the Small
> Business Incubator.
> 
> I liked what BJ Swanson had to say about the importance of bringing in
> higher paying jobs (The example in her case being tech. jobs.  Other types
> of high paying jobs create the same phenomenon).  Essentially, she advocated
> for working to bring in higher paying jobs, and that retail businesses would
> follow.  I think I can accurately quote her as saying "You can't build an
> economy on retail jobs alone."
> 
> Or, as Stu Scott said at another recent economic forum (paraphrasing again),
> some businesses re-circulate and slightly magnify the dollar. To truly grow
> the economy you've got to manufacture something. (The same forum mentioned
> something like $1.15 going into the economy for every $1 spent at a local
> chain store.  And, $1.25 going into the local economy for every dollar spent
> at a locally owned merchant.  I digress...)
> 
> I can agree with almost all of the above discussed at the forum.  I would
> add that Moscow has traditionally "manufactured" education and agriculture.
> The UI and agriculture have been our biggest "factories."  And, just as BJ's
> model predicts, those high paying education and ag. "factories" brought in
> what we currently have for a business climate.
> 
> Now for the part that I found interesting because of its absence:
> How is quality of life defined?
> How does our local business climate fit into the quality of life picture?
> 
> *The above, it seems to me, is the crux of our current civic debate.*
> 
> So, how is quality of life defined?
> Ask a hundred people and get a hundred different answers.
> 
> The panelists listed as quality of life indicators such things as: parks,
> walkability, little traffic.  Quality of life must have something else to
> it, too.  If quality of life is ONLY the items listed by the forum, then I
> humbly suggest that Garfield and Oakesdale also fit the bill quite nicely to
> become hotbeds of technological development.
> 
> Hopefully you understand the above was sarcasm.
> 
> I believe there is another, as yet unmentioned, aspect of quality of life.
> I submit that what makes Moscow's quality of life so good is the great
> combination we have of parks, traffic, etc; with our engaged citizenry, and
> good local economy.
> 
> How does our local business climate fit into the quality of life picture?
> In a lot of ways, our existing businesses are what make our quality of life
> possible:
> Businesses provide the jobs that allow people to live here.
> Businesses pay taxes helping to make our parks and infrastructure possible.
> (Incidentally, the businesses also make it possible for the people that live
> here to pay taxes.)
> Businesses make it possible for us to get our "necessities" locally.
> I'm sure others can come up with more to add to the list.
> 
> Smart businesses looking to locate here realize they won't be operating in a
> vacuum.  They look at ALL of our local business and social environment
> before deciding to grow here.  They look from a business perspective at our
> city government, infrastructure, parks, ecology, businesses already present,
> etc.
> 
> Smart businesses also look at a bigger picture beyond "bottom line" items.
> They look from a social perspective to see if their employees will be happy
> living in the community, again looking at our city government,
> infrastructure, parks, ecology, businesses already present, etc.  Both
> perspectives must be promising for it to be a strong match.
> 
> Moscow would be unattractive to high wage paying employers if we did not
> already have a strong mix of local businesses and retail stores.
> 
> To put it simply, prospective businesses are looking to grow their new
> "factories" on the shoulders of what is already here.
> 
> I strongly believe in working to bring in high paying jobs.  To do so we
> must be aware of what about our existing structure is going to be an
> attractor, and we must work to keep it healthy.
> 
> Later,
> Darrell
> 
> 
> > R-
> > You missed the point.
> > These high-tech jobs can go anywhere.  All towns want them.
> > The entrepreneurs can be choosy, and they are choosy.  They want towns
> with
> > a high quality of life.
> > If Moscow sacrifices its high quality of life for (what you describe as)
> > "almost anything that will provide jobs, increase the tax base and improve
> > the overall economy", then we lose what now attracts these high-tech jobs.
> > You just can not have it both ways.
> > I want to live in a town that maintains its high quality of life and
> > therefore is attractive to high-tech jobs  -- not a town that has no
> > standards but goes for any growth.
> > BL
> 
>