When I talk to my friends and neighbors in Page County, I often hear stories about how the Economic Development Authority (EDA) has good intentions - lofty goals of improving the overall economic condition of the county and bringing all important jobs here.
I'm also hearing repercussion about the decision to turn down the Fibrowatt proposal. Senior members of EDA sponsored that organization's proposal, which was brought in direct conflict with the EDA's own strategic goals - sacrificing existing businesses for a new one, does not contribute to sustainable agriculture, and potentially inflicts devastating damage to the area's tourist industry. It is ironic that they would blame the majority of the county's citizens who came out against the proposal for that plant, for their own failure to attract a suitable prospect.
There is a new website up, there are three new county supervisors, so there is positive energy to create an opportunity to get the organization back on track. This series of posts, maybe one or two a week, will take a look at some past events - things I have only heard about and frankly don't know the facts of...yet - and compare them to my understanding of EDA's strategic plan.
Examples of what we'll take a look at are: the landfill development - why it is considered a drain on the local economy; the purchase of a property for county offices that was found to be undevelopable because it lies in a flood plain; and the Hudson farm purchase.
I'll start with the letter I wrote last year to the PN&C editor, to refresh my own memory on some of the issues.
====
Dear Editor:
Although I’m currently a weekender, I’ve been enthusiastically following the county’s 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 related 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,
“Cabin Jim”
Stanley and Alexandria
No comments:
Post a Comment