<div>Bill et al:</div>
<div> </div>
<div>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.
</div>
<div> </div>
<div>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."
</div>
<div> </div>
<div>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...)
</div>
<div> </div>
<div>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.
</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Now for the part that I found interesting because of its absence: </div>
<div>How is quality of life defined? </div>
<div>How does our local business climate fit into the quality of life picture?</div>
<div> </div>
<div><em>The above, it seems to me, is the crux of our current civic debate.</em></div>
<div> </div>
<div>So, how is quality of life defined? </div>
<div>Ask a hundred people and get a hundred different answers.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>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.
</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Hopefully you understand the above was sarcasm.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>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.
</div>
<div> </div>
<div>How does our local business climate fit into the quality of life picture?</div>
<div>In a lot of ways, our existing businesses are what make our quality of life possible: </div>
<div>Businesses provide the jobs that allow people to live here.</div>
<div>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.)</div>
<div>Businesses make it possible for us to get our "necessities" locally.</div>
<div>I'm sure others can come up with more to add to the list.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>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.
</div>
<div> </div>
<div>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.
</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Moscow would be unattractive to high wage paying employers if we did not already have a strong mix of local businesses and retail stores. </div>
<div> </div>
<div>To put it simply, prospective businesses are looking to grow their new "factories" on the shoulders of what is already here. </div>
<div> </div>
<div>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. </div>
<div> </div>
<div>Later,</div>
<div>Darrell</div>
<div> </div>
<div><br><font color="#550055">> R-<br>> You missed the point.<br>> These high-tech jobs can go anywhere. All towns want them.<br>> The entrepreneurs can be choosy, and they are choosy. They want towns with
<br>> a high quality of life.<br>> If Moscow sacrifices its high quality of life for (what you describe as)<br>> "almost anything that will provide jobs, increase the tax base and improve<br>> the overall economy", then we lose what now attracts these high-tech jobs.
<br>> You just can not have it both ways.<br>> I want to live in a town that maintains its high quality of life and<br>> therefore is attractive to high-tech jobs -- not a town that has no<br>> standards but goes for any growth.
<br>> BL</font></div>