This is the first in a series of blog posts by EDD Board Members and our extended leadership team on Joan Fitzgerald's Emerald Cities. The Economic Development Division has teamed with the Environment, Natural Resources and Energy Division to host a dinner on economic development and the green economy with Joan Fitzgerald as the keynote speaker on Sunday, April 10th at 7:00pm at Legal Seafoods in Boston during the National Planning Conference.
This first blog post is by Adam Ploetz, AICP EDD Conference Chair and the Deputy Director of Sustainable Development Programs at the 495/MetroWest Partnership in Westborough, MA.
Aaron Renn, author of the blog Urbanophile, recently posted an article lamenting the failure of urbanists to communicate their goals appropriately to the general public. Renn argues that nowhere has this been more evident than around the issue of sustainability – particularly during the most significant economic downturn since the Great Depression. Renn states,
“Urbanists prattle on about sustainability all the time as if the last few years didn’t even happen. No wonder it’s not working. And because pretty much all urbanist policies have been sold as about sustainability, there’s a linkage in the public’s mind, so that if they don’t believe in climate change or don’t rate it highly in favor of more immediate concerns, that takes urbanism down with it. The good news is, it doesn’t have to be that way. With better packaging, I believe there is a case for pro-urbanist policies (including those that promote sustainability), one that can work with the times and the trends instead of against them. … I’m convinced there’s a lot more people who would be open to various environmental and urbanist ideas if we talked about their practical benefits rather than how they are good for the planet (even if they are).”
Renn is correct; sustainability is a hard sell in good times and a nearly impossible one during bad. Considering that they are at the intersection of economic development and sustainability, planners who focus on economic development and planners who focus on natural resources/environmental issues must deal constantly with the failure to communicate the positive connections between sustainability and economic growth outlined by Renn.
In an effort to advance the dialogue on the challenges and opportunities of connecting economic growth to environmental sustainability the Economic Development Division has teamed with the Environment, Natural Resources and Energy Division to host a dinner on Sunday, April 10 7:00pm at Legal Seafoods in Boston during the National Planning Conference.
Our guest speaker will be Joan Fitzgerald, Director of the Law, Policy and Society Program at Northeastern University and author of the book Emerald Cities: Urban Sustainability and Economic Development (Oxford University Press, 2010). In Emerald Cities, Fitzgerald shows how in the absence of a comprehensive national policy, cities have taken the lead in addressing the interrelated environmental problems of global warming, pollution, energy dependence, and social justice. Cities are major sources of pollution but because of their population density, reliance on public transportation, and other factors, Fitzgerald argues that they are uniquely suited to promote and benefit from green economic development. For cities facing worsening budget constraints, investing in high-paying green jobs in renewable energy technology, construction, manufacturing, recycling, and other fields will solve two problems at once, sparking economic growth while at the same time dramatically improving quality of life.
Join your APA colleagues and hear from an expert on connecting economic growth to environmental sustainability and offer your perspective to the conversation. This event is $50.00 and includes a three course dinner (drinks not included). You can sign up for this event at the APA conference registration page. CM credit (1) has been requested for this event. Though sponsored by the Economic Development and the Environment, Natural Resources, and Energy Divisions, this event is open to all APA members. For more information about the dinner please contact Adam Ploetz at adam@495partnership.org.
The official blog for the Economic Development Division of the American Planning Association.
Thursday, February 3, 2011
Monday, January 17, 2011
Governor Brown’s Budget Proposal – Issues for Economic Development
Today's po
st was authored by Bill Anderson, City of San Diego Director of City Planning and Community Investment, and Immediate Past Chair of the APA Economic Development Division.
California Governor Jerry Brown unveiled his budget proposal. It is a combination of budget cuts, restructuring, and a proposal to the voters to extend for another five years existing taxes that are due to expire. His proposal would close a projected $25.4 billion budget gap ($8.2 billion this fiscal year and $17.2 billion next fiscal year), with budget cuts covering almost half ($12.5 billion), and tax extensions ($12 billion) and other measures ($1.9 billion) covering the other half. He also would shift several responsibilities from the State to local jurisdictions, purportedly including some revenue to go with the new responsibilities. Many of these proposals, especially continuation of existing temporary taxes, would have to be approved by the voters in a special election, perhaps this June.
The Governor’s budget includes three actions important for planners and economic developers:
Eliminate Redevelopment
Redevelopment and its tax increment is one of the primary economic development tools in California for funding affordable housing, infrastructure, and planning in designated areas to ameliorate blight. In California, tax increment is collected from a redevelopment project area, formed in accordance with Redevelopment Law. At least 20 percent of the tax increment must be spent on affordable housing. Since 1993, almost 100,000 low and moderate income housing units have been built. A portion of the tax increment is distributed with other taxing jurisdictions, such as counties and school districts, while most is spent by the Redevelopment Agency on allowed redevelopment activities, such as land assembly and infrastructure, but also economic development, rehabilitation programs, façade improvement programs, and planning within the redevelopment project area.
The Governor proposes the elimination of Redevelopment agencies by July 1st, 2011. He proposes to replace them with a shell structure so that existing debt and contractual obligations would be honored, but new obligations would be prohibited. Surplus Affordable Housing Set-Aside funds would be transferred to local housing agencies. Unencumbered tax increment funds would be distributed to other taxing agencies.
The Governor argues that tax increment is money that would otherwise go to cities, counties, school districts, and other agencies. These agencies generally have accepted redevelopment activities, and have agreed to forfeit a share of property tax increment with the expectation that revenues will be greater in the long run once redevelopment project areas have completed their purpose and expire.
However, now is a time when most agencies have significant budget deficits and are cutting basic services. Since the adoption of Proposition 13 in 1978 (when Jerry Brown was last Governor), the State has backfilled school district budgets, which creates a strain on the State budget. The Administration estimates that elimination of Redevelopment agencies would save the State budget approximately $1.9 billion.
The premise is that most jurisdictions cannot afford to relinquish revenue to redevelopment agencies, no matter how important the redevelopment activity, and that much of the tax increment generated is from economic activity that would have occurred in the region anyway, if not within the redevelopment project area. Redevelopment advocates, on the other hand, argue that most of the tax increment revenue, and other derived local taxes such as sales and transient-occupancy taxes from redevelopment project areas, would not have occurred if it were not for redevelopment and its investments. The California Redevelopment Association estimates that in a typical year, statewide redevelopment project areas contribute $40 billion in economic activity, and $2 billion in state and local taxes, and over 300,000 private and public sector jobs, annually. Of this annual amount, $19 billion in output and 171,000 jobs are associated with new construction of buildings and infrastructure.
The Governor counters that because tax increment is generated from an area rather than an individual project, much of the tax increment is from general property inflation or appreciation, rather than from direct redevelopment activities. Advocates for redevelopment say that redevelopment investments lift value of surrounding properties as well and, therefore, it is appropriate to capture some of the tax increment derived, even if it is from appreciation.
There are almost 400 redevelopment project areas in California, with major success stories, including our own Downtown San Diego where $1.5 billion in public investment has leveraged $12.8 billion in private investment, an 8.4:1 ratio. This proposal will be complex to implement, even if it is supported, and if adopted, it will face legal challenges. There are questions as to whether the Legislature can disband Redevelopment Agencies (which are technically state agencies), or if it requires a constitutional amendment and voter approval. California voters approved Proposition 22 just last November which prohibited the State from taking local funds, including funds from redevelopment agencies. However, if the State eliminates the agencies all together, is this prohibition even relevant?
Enterprise Zones
Enterprise Zones give certain tax benefits to businesses located within a zone. It’s an economic development tool to encourage businesses to locate and expand within certain geographic areas covered by the zone. The new administration argues that while this is a benefit to these areas, there is limited evidence that they generate new economic activity statewide – that they are simply a transfer of economic activity which the state subsidizes, and often is economic activity that would have occurred within the state anyway. I remember hearing this argument from some of my professors in graduate school almost 30 years ago. The Administration estimates that elimination of Enterprise Zones would make over $900 million available to local governments.
Voter-Approved Economic Activity
This part of the proposal has not received as much attention yet, but it could be significant in the future. Currently, special activity bonds and taxes require a two-thirds vote of the public within the local jurisdiction. The Governor’s proposal would allow voters in a local jurisdiction to direct some of their fiscal revenue to economic activities they choose, such as community development and redevelopment in another form. It’s not definitive if this could be a dedication of current fiscal revenue, tax increment, sales taxes, new property tax overages, special taxes, or other voter approved mechanisms. The reduction of voter approval thresholds from two-thirds to 55 percent is significant. Many initiatives to fund special activities have received more than 55 percent voter approval, but failed because of the difficult challenge of convincing two-thirds of the voting public to approve funding. There is almost always one-third of the public opposed to any public expenditure. Tailored economic development strategies pitched to the voters for funding may become more common.
Summary
The Governor has made a bold proposal. He admits hard choices and painful cuts of programs that he supports, but the budget proposal is specific and allows the public to debate and come to grips with their priorities. Clearly, the Governor’s priority is K-12 Education, which was largely spared. In isolation, these proposals might not survive. Any reluctance to extend taxes that are due to expire will put pressure to cut even more than what the Governor proposes. Since elimination of these important economic development programs are part of the Governor’s comprehensive budget package, there is the risk that they will be supported, especially given the State Budget’s dire circumstances. Many Californians are generally supportive of the Governor’s desire to direct more decision-making and revenue to the local level, closest to the people, but the elimination of Redevelopment agencies, which are formed locally and governed locally, subject to State laws, seems to be a contradiction. The argument by the Governor tends to place a lower priority on geographically-targeted economic development programs that, as he asserts, transfers economic activity within the State and a region, rather than create new economic activity for California.
This, of course, depends on the type of activity. Investments in infrastructure that support tourism and industry do indeed create export-oriented economic activity for the State of California. But even if it didn’t, even if it was just a transfer, isn’t the revitalization of blighted areas of California, and investment that supports innovative developments (such as transit-oriented development) and affordable housing good public policy and a long term benefit? If so, are Redevelopment and Enterprise Zones necessary tools? Some states, such as Arizona and Washington, prohibit tax increment financing and still do economic development, but Redevelopment is so ingrained in the way California funds its place-based economic development activities, if the Governor’s proposal becomes law, the economic development tool box will need new tools.
st was authored by Bill Anderson, City of San Diego Director of City Planning and Community Investment, and Immediate Past Chair of the APA Economic Development Division. California Governor Jerry Brown unveiled his budget proposal. It is a combination of budget cuts, restructuring, and a proposal to the voters to extend for another five years existing taxes that are due to expire. His proposal would close a projected $25.4 billion budget gap ($8.2 billion this fiscal year and $17.2 billion next fiscal year), with budget cuts covering almost half ($12.5 billion), and tax extensions ($12 billion) and other measures ($1.9 billion) covering the other half. He also would shift several responsibilities from the State to local jurisdictions, purportedly including some revenue to go with the new responsibilities. Many of these proposals, especially continuation of existing temporary taxes, would have to be approved by the voters in a special election, perhaps this June.
The Governor’s budget includes three actions important for planners and economic developers:
- Eliminate Redevelopment Agencies
- Eliminate State Enterprise Zones
- Add a provision that would allow voters in local jurisdictions to approve funding for economic development activities with a 55 percent majority vote.
Eliminate Redevelopment
Redevelopment and its tax increment is one of the primary economic development tools in California for funding affordable housing, infrastructure, and planning in designated areas to ameliorate blight. In California, tax increment is collected from a redevelopment project area, formed in accordance with Redevelopment Law. At least 20 percent of the tax increment must be spent on affordable housing. Since 1993, almost 100,000 low and moderate income housing units have been built. A portion of the tax increment is distributed with other taxing jurisdictions, such as counties and school districts, while most is spent by the Redevelopment Agency on allowed redevelopment activities, such as land assembly and infrastructure, but also economic development, rehabilitation programs, façade improvement programs, and planning within the redevelopment project area.
The Governor proposes the elimination of Redevelopment agencies by July 1st, 2011. He proposes to replace them with a shell structure so that existing debt and contractual obligations would be honored, but new obligations would be prohibited. Surplus Affordable Housing Set-Aside funds would be transferred to local housing agencies. Unencumbered tax increment funds would be distributed to other taxing agencies.
The Governor argues that tax increment is money that would otherwise go to cities, counties, school districts, and other agencies. These agencies generally have accepted redevelopment activities, and have agreed to forfeit a share of property tax increment with the expectation that revenues will be greater in the long run once redevelopment project areas have completed their purpose and expire.
However, now is a time when most agencies have significant budget deficits and are cutting basic services. Since the adoption of Proposition 13 in 1978 (when Jerry Brown was last Governor), the State has backfilled school district budgets, which creates a strain on the State budget. The Administration estimates that elimination of Redevelopment agencies would save the State budget approximately $1.9 billion.
The premise is that most jurisdictions cannot afford to relinquish revenue to redevelopment agencies, no matter how important the redevelopment activity, and that much of the tax increment generated is from economic activity that would have occurred in the region anyway, if not within the redevelopment project area. Redevelopment advocates, on the other hand, argue that most of the tax increment revenue, and other derived local taxes such as sales and transient-occupancy taxes from redevelopment project areas, would not have occurred if it were not for redevelopment and its investments. The California Redevelopment Association estimates that in a typical year, statewide redevelopment project areas contribute $40 billion in economic activity, and $2 billion in state and local taxes, and over 300,000 private and public sector jobs, annually. Of this annual amount, $19 billion in output and 171,000 jobs are associated with new construction of buildings and infrastructure.
The Governor counters that because tax increment is generated from an area rather than an individual project, much of the tax increment is from general property inflation or appreciation, rather than from direct redevelopment activities. Advocates for redevelopment say that redevelopment investments lift value of surrounding properties as well and, therefore, it is appropriate to capture some of the tax increment derived, even if it is from appreciation.
There are almost 400 redevelopment project areas in California, with major success stories, including our own Downtown San Diego where $1.5 billion in public investment has leveraged $12.8 billion in private investment, an 8.4:1 ratio. This proposal will be complex to implement, even if it is supported, and if adopted, it will face legal challenges. There are questions as to whether the Legislature can disband Redevelopment Agencies (which are technically state agencies), or if it requires a constitutional amendment and voter approval. California voters approved Proposition 22 just last November which prohibited the State from taking local funds, including funds from redevelopment agencies. However, if the State eliminates the agencies all together, is this prohibition even relevant?
Enterprise Zones
Enterprise Zones give certain tax benefits to businesses located within a zone. It’s an economic development tool to encourage businesses to locate and expand within certain geographic areas covered by the zone. The new administration argues that while this is a benefit to these areas, there is limited evidence that they generate new economic activity statewide – that they are simply a transfer of economic activity which the state subsidizes, and often is economic activity that would have occurred within the state anyway. I remember hearing this argument from some of my professors in graduate school almost 30 years ago. The Administration estimates that elimination of Enterprise Zones would make over $900 million available to local governments.
Voter-Approved Economic Activity
This part of the proposal has not received as much attention yet, but it could be significant in the future. Currently, special activity bonds and taxes require a two-thirds vote of the public within the local jurisdiction. The Governor’s proposal would allow voters in a local jurisdiction to direct some of their fiscal revenue to economic activities they choose, such as community development and redevelopment in another form. It’s not definitive if this could be a dedication of current fiscal revenue, tax increment, sales taxes, new property tax overages, special taxes, or other voter approved mechanisms. The reduction of voter approval thresholds from two-thirds to 55 percent is significant. Many initiatives to fund special activities have received more than 55 percent voter approval, but failed because of the difficult challenge of convincing two-thirds of the voting public to approve funding. There is almost always one-third of the public opposed to any public expenditure. Tailored economic development strategies pitched to the voters for funding may become more common.
Summary
The Governor has made a bold proposal. He admits hard choices and painful cuts of programs that he supports, but the budget proposal is specific and allows the public to debate and come to grips with their priorities. Clearly, the Governor’s priority is K-12 Education, which was largely spared. In isolation, these proposals might not survive. Any reluctance to extend taxes that are due to expire will put pressure to cut even more than what the Governor proposes. Since elimination of these important economic development programs are part of the Governor’s comprehensive budget package, there is the risk that they will be supported, especially given the State Budget’s dire circumstances. Many Californians are generally supportive of the Governor’s desire to direct more decision-making and revenue to the local level, closest to the people, but the elimination of Redevelopment agencies, which are formed locally and governed locally, subject to State laws, seems to be a contradiction. The argument by the Governor tends to place a lower priority on geographically-targeted economic development programs that, as he asserts, transfers economic activity within the State and a region, rather than create new economic activity for California.
This, of course, depends on the type of activity. Investments in infrastructure that support tourism and industry do indeed create export-oriented economic activity for the State of California. But even if it didn’t, even if it was just a transfer, isn’t the revitalization of blighted areas of California, and investment that supports innovative developments (such as transit-oriented development) and affordable housing good public policy and a long term benefit? If so, are Redevelopment and Enterprise Zones necessary tools? Some states, such as Arizona and Washington, prohibit tax increment financing and still do economic development, but Redevelopment is so ingrained in the way California funds its place-based economic development activities, if the Governor’s proposal becomes law, the economic development tool box will need new tools.
Wednesday, December 22, 2010
GET RECOGNIZED! EDD's Annual Awards/Scholarship
DONALD E. HUNTER EXCELLENCE IN ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT PLANNING AWARD
Deadline: Friday, February 11, 2011
The annual Donald E. Hunter Excellence in Economic Development Planning Award from the APA Economic Development Division is awarded to a community that shows innovation and success with an economic development plan or project. Award winners receive a plaque and a monetary award of $1,000 as well as recognition at the annual Division business meeting at the APA National Planning Conference and a featured article in the Division's newsletter, News & Views.
Eligibility
Any economic development plan implemented in the United States or Canada within the last 10 years is eligible. Any member of the American Planning Association may make a nomination (except for the members of the Economic Development Division Executive Committee and Awards Committee, APA Board Members, and AICP Commissioners).
Submission Information
Please submit to the Chair of the Award Committee:
Julie Herlands
TischlerBise
4701 Sangamore Road, Suite S240
Bethesda, MD 20816
Email: julie@tischlerbise.com
Phone: (301) 320-6900, ext. 15
Applications can be submitted by email or hard copy:
- Email to: julie@tischlerbise.com. Please indicate in the subject line: "[Your Jurisdiction] EDD Award Application."
- Mail hard copies to the above address: Please send three copies of everything for distribution to the committee.
http://www.planning.org/divisions/economic/awards/
-------------------------------
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT DIVISION GRADUATE SCHOLARSHIP
Deadline: Friday, February 11, 2011
Master's level students from PAB-accredited planning departments across the U.S. may apply. The $1,000 scholarship is awarded on the basis of a letter of recommendation from a full-time faculty member and an original paper or work having to do with a substantive and relevant topic related to economic development and planning. We prefer an article length or shorter paper submitted (not a thesis, although a shorter paper developed from the thesis is acceptable) of 2,000 to 2,500 words. The scholarship will be presented at the APA Conference in Boston, MA in April 2011 and the paper will be published in EDD's News & Views publication.
Submission Information
Please submit the application to:
John Provo, Ph.D., Associate Director
Office of Economic Development (0373)
Outreach and International Affairs
Virginia Tech
702 University City Blvd.
Blacksburg, VA 24061
jprovo@vt.edu
For more information:
http://www.planning.org/divisions/economic/scholarships
Saturday, September 11, 2010
Connecting Livability and Economic Development in Dubuque, Iowa
Welcome back to the APA Economic Development Division (EDD) Blog! EDD took a bit of a break from our blog in August, since many of our contributors were on vacation or just extra-busy with work. Please be assured that EDD is now back with many great posts planned for this Fall. We've recently had two new bloggers join our team, Della Rucker of Jacobs and Joy McGee. You'll be hearing from both of them over the next several weeks, and I'll let them both introduce themselves in their next posts. As always, please feel free to contact us if you're interested in contributing to the blog!
Our first Fall blog post also features the first video that we've posted to the EDD blog. Earlier this year the ongoing PBS series on American infrastructure, Blueprint America, featured Dubuque, Iowa. The former factory town has bet its economic future on sustainable development and smart growth. The city's sustainable development plan is a national model. Dubuque is pursuing all of the hallmarks of smart growth, including complete streets and sustainable transportation, energy efficiency and a riverfront revitalization strategy. The redevelopment of a historic warehouse district is intended to attract young professionals and create affordable, workforce housing to reinvigorate the downtown. Dubuque was named a National Resources Defense Council's 2010 Smarter City for Energy. Late last year IBM announced that Dubuque would serve as the model for its Smarter Cities initiative and that the firm would relocate 1,300 employees to a technology support center in the city by the end of 2010. However, Dubuque's reputation as a green city wasn't the only thing that attracted IBM, but $50 million in state and local incentives also played a role.
However, as you'll see in the video some in Dubuque question whether the IBM move and the investments in creating a livable community alone can generate long term economic growth. Are sustainability and livablity linked with economic growth in the 21st century, or are they just planning fads? Can downtown redevelopment aid in the retention of educated young people even in a mid-sized Midwestern city like Dubuque? Will the IBM move to Dubuque generate long-term growth? Was the $50 million incentive package given to IBM worth the $100 million IBM investment and 1,300 jobs? The blog team looks forward to reading your thoughts in the comments!
Our first Fall blog post also features the first video that we've posted to the EDD blog. Earlier this year the ongoing PBS series on American infrastructure, Blueprint America, featured Dubuque, Iowa. The former factory town has bet its economic future on sustainable development and smart growth. The city's sustainable development plan is a national model. Dubuque is pursuing all of the hallmarks of smart growth, including complete streets and sustainable transportation, energy efficiency and a riverfront revitalization strategy. The redevelopment of a historic warehouse district is intended to attract young professionals and create affordable, workforce housing to reinvigorate the downtown. Dubuque was named a National Resources Defense Council's 2010 Smarter City for Energy. Late last year IBM announced that Dubuque would serve as the model for its Smarter Cities initiative and that the firm would relocate 1,300 employees to a technology support center in the city by the end of 2010. However, Dubuque's reputation as a green city wasn't the only thing that attracted IBM, but $50 million in state and local incentives also played a role.
However, as you'll see in the video some in Dubuque question whether the IBM move and the investments in creating a livable community alone can generate long term economic growth. Are sustainability and livablity linked with economic growth in the 21st century, or are they just planning fads? Can downtown redevelopment aid in the retention of educated young people even in a mid-sized Midwestern city like Dubuque? Will the IBM move to Dubuque generate long-term growth? Was the $50 million incentive package given to IBM worth the $100 million IBM investment and 1,300 jobs? The blog team looks forward to reading your thoughts in the comments!
Monday, July 26, 2010
The Role of Economic Developers in Creating Quality Jobs (New IEDC Report)
This week's guest post was authored by Louise Anderson, Senior Associate at the International Economic Development Council.
Job creation remains a key measure of success for economic development efforts. But the era in which nearly any job was a “good job,” to a certain extent, is over. Growth in the economy is becoming increasingly bifurcated, with high-tech, high-wage jobs on one hand and low-wage, largely service-sector jobs on the other. Economic developers find it increasingly challenging to create jobs that deliver the kinds of wages and benefits that were standard in the industrial era.
A recent report from the International Economic Development Council, Creating Quality Jobs – Transforming the Economic Development Landscape, shows how economic development is transforming in response to a changing economy. Creating quality jobs and rebuild the middle class in a global, knowledge-driven economy requires new strategies, new partners, new goals and new metrics of success.
Creating Quality Jobs – Transforming the Economic Development Landscape, is based on in-depth case studies of seven communities: Ponca City, Okla.; San Jose; Newton, Iowa; Albuquerque, N.M.; Tupelo, Miss.; Pittsburgh and Akron. The cases reveal an emerging framework for economic development, one aimed at creating broad-based prosperity through the transformation of both the regional economy and the institutions that support it. The framework has seven components:
Job creation remains a key measure of success for economic development efforts. But the era in which nearly any job was a “good job,” to a certain extent, is over. Growth in the economy is becoming increasingly bifurcated, with high-tech, high-wage jobs on one hand and low-wage, largely service-sector jobs on the other. Economic developers find it increasingly challenging to create jobs that deliver the kinds of wages and benefits that were standard in the industrial era.
A recent report from the International Economic Development Council, Creating Quality Jobs – Transforming the Economic Development Landscape, shows how economic development is transforming in response to a changing economy. Creating quality jobs and rebuild the middle class in a global, knowledge-driven economy requires new strategies, new partners, new goals and new metrics of success.
Creating Quality Jobs – Transforming the Economic Development Landscape, is based on in-depth case studies of seven communities: Ponca City, Okla.; San Jose; Newton, Iowa; Albuquerque, N.M.; Tupelo, Miss.; Pittsburgh and Akron. The cases reveal an emerging framework for economic development, one aimed at creating broad-based prosperity through the transformation of both the regional economy and the institutions that support it. The framework has seven components:
- Alignment in a Regional Context
- Engaged Local Leadership
- Incorporating Inclusion
- Building Capacity
- Building on Existing Assets
- Basing Plans on Solid Research
- Innovation and Entrepreneurship
Monday, July 19, 2010
Economic Inclusion in City Awarded Contracts
This post was authored by D. Joy McGee, EDD's newest division volunteer blogger!
Small business enterprises (SBE) are critical to our economy, they create employment opportunities, and help the United States compete in today’s global market. Government at all levels is heavily invested in making sure SBEs succeed. Yet, even in the current recession there are prime government contracting opportunities for which minority- and women-owned businesses often are not utilized. Acknowledging the disparity of city contracts awarded to minority- and women-owned businesses, some cities have created task forces, city departments and programs to foster minority economic inclusion. To create this economy of inclusion, a procurement plan must include goals to expand the number of small- minority- and women-business enterprises (SBE/ MBE/WBE) to do business with the city by removing obstacles.
Why is minority inclusion a challenge? Some of the challenges that SBEs, MBEs and WBEs face include, but are not limited to, marketplace discrimination, obtaining certifications, bonding and insurance, technical expertise and capacity, and believing that opportunities are tangible. What can be done to close the gap and to make sure that significant disparities don’t continue to persist? Best practices include but are not limited to:
The City of Cincinnati has a race neutral SBE program. The task force, Open Cincinnati Action Team, was commissioned by Mayor Mark Mallory to make recommendations aimed at accelerating minority firms doing business with the City. If economic inclusion has not improved within 18 months of implementing the 27 task force recommendations, the Action Team recommends that the City commission a disparity study to examine if a race based program with goals and/or set asides will work in its jurisdiction.
The City of San Antonio commissioned a study in 2006 to determine what, if any, evidence of disparities exist in procurement practices related to the ethnicity, race, or gender of the business owner. As a result of MGT of America, Inc. findings and recommendations, City Council determined that a combination of race- and gender-neutral and race- and gender-conscious remedies and programs will aid in the effort to remedy past marketplace discrimination. City government’s economic power can be employed to create an economic inclusion program that is committed to breaking down barriers. A disparity study can be conducted to analyze procurement practices and to determine which economic inclusion program should be utilized.
City government’s economic power can be employed to create an economic inclusion program that is committed to breaking down barriers. A disparity study can be conducted to analyze procurement practices and to determine which economic inclusion program should be utilized.
Small business enterprises (SBE) are critical to our economy, they create employment opportunities, and help the United States compete in today’s global market. Government at all levels is heavily invested in making sure SBEs succeed. Yet, even in the current recession there are prime government contracting opportunities for which minority- and women-owned businesses often are not utilized. Acknowledging the disparity of city contracts awarded to minority- and women-owned businesses, some cities have created task forces, city departments and programs to foster minority economic inclusion. To create this economy of inclusion, a procurement plan must include goals to expand the number of small- minority- and women-business enterprises (SBE/ MBE/WBE) to do business with the city by removing obstacles.
Why is minority inclusion a challenge? Some of the challenges that SBEs, MBEs and WBEs face include, but are not limited to, marketplace discrimination, obtaining certifications, bonding and insurance, technical expertise and capacity, and believing that opportunities are tangible. What can be done to close the gap and to make sure that significant disparities don’t continue to persist? Best practices include but are not limited to:
- executive buy-in;
- streamlining the process of certifications;
- technology used to promote outreach and diversity;
- training and promoting staff;
- building partnerships among the public and private sector and outreach;
- strategic use of under threshold contracts, and;
- preparing minority and women-owned businesses to bid for large contracts.
The City of Cincinnati has a race neutral SBE program. The task force, Open Cincinnati Action Team, was commissioned by Mayor Mark Mallory to make recommendations aimed at accelerating minority firms doing business with the City. If economic inclusion has not improved within 18 months of implementing the 27 task force recommendations, the Action Team recommends that the City commission a disparity study to examine if a race based program with goals and/or set asides will work in its jurisdiction.
The City of San Antonio commissioned a study in 2006 to determine what, if any, evidence of disparities exist in procurement practices related to the ethnicity, race, or gender of the business owner. As a result of MGT of America, Inc. findings and recommendations, City Council determined that a combination of race- and gender-neutral and race- and gender-conscious remedies and programs will aid in the effort to remedy past marketplace discrimination. City government’s economic power can be employed to create an economic inclusion program that is committed to breaking down barriers. A disparity study can be conducted to analyze procurement practices and to determine which economic inclusion program should be utilized.
City government’s economic power can be employed to create an economic inclusion program that is committed to breaking down barriers. A disparity study can be conducted to analyze procurement practices and to determine which economic inclusion program should be utilized.
Tuesday, July 6, 2010
Economic Development in a Transforming Energy Economy - New IEDC Report Available to the Public
Today's guest blog is authored by Elizabeth Thorstensen, Senior Associate at the International Economic Development Council (IEDC), and a primary author of the IEDC publication Getting Prepared: Economic Development in a Transforming Energy Economy.
While the specifics of the transition to a low-carbon economy are still being debated, it appears likely that some type of cap and trade or carbon pricing will emerge. Any effort to price carbon will hold significant implications for U.S. industries, regions and the nation. The International Economic Development Counicl (IEDC) recently published a report, Getting Prepared: Economic Development in a Transforming Energy Economy, designed to aid economic developers and others in related fields in positioning their economies to benefit fr
om the transition. While IEDC does not specifically promote a cap and trade policy, we recognize that this is an important emerging issue that those in the economic development and allied professions need to be aware of and to understand.
To understand how states are preparing for this changing policy paradigm, IEDC convened a group of state economic development leaders in the fall of 2009. The meeting was intended to explore the opportunities and challenges presented by a regional or economy-wide move toward carbon pricing. The states represented diverse geographies and economic circumstances.
Following this meeting, IEDC selected nine states to profile in the Getting Prepared report to better understand how states are already transitioning to the low-carbon economy and working to reduce their greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. Across the majority of states examined for this report, we found a significant amount of GHG mitigation activity, much of which is linked to economic development or is in the process of developing such linkages. Policies such as renewable energy standards, state and local energy efficiency strategies, new building codes, as well as clean tech development and deployment have tremendous implications for economic development.
If national and local economies are to maintain and increase their competitiveness, reduction of GHGs must be understood as beneficial to the future health of the economy, not just the environment. Almost all states are now taking steps toward changing their energy profiles and incorporating sustainability into their economies. The challenge of transitioning to a clean energy economy will be to employ and connect all of these pieces in a synergistic way. Given that cap and trade, or carbon pricing may relatively soon become a reality of the American economy, changes and preparation are needed if it’s going to be a smooth transition. How economic developers build systems that will aid the transition and tap into its potential is of critical importance.
Despite the diversity of their assets all of the states featured in Getting Prepared indicated some movement toward greater preparedness in light of a shifting energy economy. That preparedness emerged in four areas detailed in the report:
Unlike the biotech sector, in which only a few regions were favored by sustained federal R&D funding, all communities can stand to benefit from the transition to a lower-carbon economy. Therefore, the real story is that preparedness is an economic driver in and of itself. The more you invest, the more prepared you are, but you’re also starting to drive your economy into more dynamic areas of growth. The key will lie in balancing acceptable climate change policies with economic assets in a way that advances GHG mitigation while driving growth.
To find out more and to read the full report, please go to: http://www.iedconline.org/?p=Getting_Prepared
While the specifics of the transition to a low-carbon economy are still being debated, it appears likely that some type of cap and trade or carbon pricing will emerge. Any effort to price carbon will hold significant implications for U.S. industries, regions and the nation. The International Economic Development Counicl (IEDC) recently published a report, Getting Prepared: Economic Development in a Transforming Energy Economy, designed to aid economic developers and others in related fields in positioning their economies to benefit fr
om the transition. While IEDC does not specifically promote a cap and trade policy, we recognize that this is an important emerging issue that those in the economic development and allied professions need to be aware of and to understand. To understand how states are preparing for this changing policy paradigm, IEDC convened a group of state economic development leaders in the fall of 2009. The meeting was intended to explore the opportunities and challenges presented by a regional or economy-wide move toward carbon pricing. The states represented diverse geographies and economic circumstances.
Following this meeting, IEDC selected nine states to profile in the Getting Prepared report to better understand how states are already transitioning to the low-carbon economy and working to reduce their greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. Across the majority of states examined for this report, we found a significant amount of GHG mitigation activity, much of which is linked to economic development or is in the process of developing such linkages. Policies such as renewable energy standards, state and local energy efficiency strategies, new building codes, as well as clean tech development and deployment have tremendous implications for economic development.
If national and local economies are to maintain and increase their competitiveness, reduction of GHGs must be understood as beneficial to the future health of the economy, not just the environment. Almost all states are now taking steps toward changing their energy profiles and incorporating sustainability into their economies. The challenge of transitioning to a clean energy economy will be to employ and connect all of these pieces in a synergistic way. Given that cap and trade, or carbon pricing may relatively soon become a reality of the American economy, changes and preparation are needed if it’s going to be a smooth transition. How economic developers build systems that will aid the transition and tap into its potential is of critical importance.
Despite the diversity of their assets all of the states featured in Getting Prepared indicated some movement toward greater preparedness in light of a shifting energy economy. That preparedness emerged in four areas detailed in the report:
- Policy drivers;
- Investments in innovation;
- Transition assistance, and;
- New partnership development.
Unlike the biotech sector, in which only a few regions were favored by sustained federal R&D funding, all communities can stand to benefit from the transition to a lower-carbon economy. Therefore, the real story is that preparedness is an economic driver in and of itself. The more you invest, the more prepared you are, but you’re also starting to drive your economy into more dynamic areas of growth. The key will lie in balancing acceptable climate change policies with economic assets in a way that advances GHG mitigation while driving growth.
To find out more and to read the full report, please go to: http://www.iedconline.org/?p=Getting_Prepared
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)