A Letter to the PN&C Editor

After blogging here and talking with neighbors and acquaintences in Page County about various aspects of the economic development plan, and after avidly following the discussion about the land deal for industrial development and the ensuing controversies, I decided to write a letter to the editor about components of the plan that don't seem to be getting any attention.

There is well-founded concern regarding the purchase of the farmland for Project Clover, and while the county supervisors have begun to address the concern publicly through interviews and articles in the paper, to me their responses don't seem to be hitting the mark for many citizens - who seem to be asking "why now" and "why so much for the land?"

They've responded that being "ready to go" is important, but I recall reading that only six businesses have approached the county about locating there in the last three years, and none of them decided this was the right place for them. Bottom line, there just doesn't appear to be much of a business case for the purchase.

Since a review of the plan suggests that two economic areas, sustainable agriculture and tourism, merit at least as much attention as the industrial sector; and within the industrial sector, the county's plan says that retaining business is far more important than recruiting new ones, my opinion is that these sectors would be better investment targets, and the cost would be far less than the land deal.

That's the essence of my letter to the editor, reprinted below. Hopefully it will appear in this week's or next week's edition.

====

Dear Editor:

Although I’m currently a weekender, I’ve been enthusiastically following the economic development discussion and recently reviewed the 2004 and 2008 Strategic Economic Development Plan. Project Clover’s creation of “ready-to-go” sites isn’t the only business concept in the plan. The tourism and sustainable agriculture sectors are given equal importance to the industrial sector; and, in fact, the plan makes retaining existing business a higher priority than attracting new ones: “…business retention is even more critical than business recruitment to the economic viability and growth of the County.”

There are four business retention goals, including: developing educational programs, building partnerships, surveying the needs of these businesses, and identifying companion businesses for future recruitment. The placement of these goals in the plan is significant, appearing as they do before the discussion of any goals rel ated to recruiting new businesses or ready-to-go sites.

The first three goals are given high priority in the 2008 plan, while the last is rated less important. All were to be done with current staff resources – Chamber of Commerce, EDA, or Board of Supervisors resources – and some with current funding. The middle two above – the “relationships building” goal and the existing business survey – require new program funds for implementation; they are unfinished and in roughly the same status they were in the 2004 version of the plan.

These goals have been on the table for five years. With all the valid points being raised on both sides of the land deal, why can’t such a small investment that would contribute to future growth of existing business be justified, especially when the strategic plan makes it a higher priority? Seems to me, it’s a case of low-hanging fruit, where a small funding commitment, along with a better understanding of the tourism and agriculture sectors as possible development investment targets, could be leveraged in a powerful way. I’d love to see a revisit of these items as part of the way forward for the County.

Best regards,
Jim (“Cabin Jim”) T
Stanley and Alexandria