The other day I was listening to National Public Radio about how the University of Utah (U of U) has, since the early 1980’s, embraced an “entrepreneurial culture” that has helped create new start-ups and private sector business spin-offs from the U of U’s ongoing academic research.  For those of you interested in either hearing the story or reading it, you can access the full article online at National Public Radio.

What struck me from the report was that only the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), which has a research budget five times bigger than the annual research budget at the U of U, currently rivals the entrepreneurial efforts and the number of new business start-ups or spin-offs created at the University of Utah.  Truly an amazing feat – especially given the current economic malaise the United States finds itself in and the tepidness of potential entrepreneurs to start a new business.  But even today, according to the August 24, 2010 NPR article, university officials, faculty, and staff are now flocking to the U of U to learn how that school has built one of the most successful academic-to-private sector transfer programs in the country.

The success of the University of Utah’s entrepreneurial program in transferring research done in various colleges, schools, and departments on campus into private-sector business start-ups and spin-offs is, quite frankly, amazing.  Take just one of the examples from the NPR article of how a multi-million dollar product and business got its start at the U of U.  In 1984, Ted Stanley, a U of U research professor, came up with a (at the time) revolutionary way to deliver medication to patients.  Working with the University of Utah’s business people, other academic people, and patent lawyers, Professor Stanley was able to successfully develop and deliver to the market an “anesthetic lollipop” that eventually become a million-dollar product and business.  Wow.

And even more wow.  Since the 1980’s, the University of Utah has become the nation’s leader in commercializing scientific, medical, and engineering research breakthroughs.  In 2010 thus far, the U of U has helped officials from 80 other universities.  In 2008, 20 different spin-off companies were directly tied to the University of Utah’s efforts.  Who knows how high the number is for  the number of new companies formed and indirectly tied to the University’s efforts.  According to Jack Brittain, U of U’s Vice President of Venture Technology Development (and for those of you wondering, no, UNR does not have a VP of Venture Technology Development), it takes, on average, $100 million in federal research dollars to get just one spin-off company from academic research in the United States.  But at the University of Utah, it takes just $15 million in federal research dollars to create one spin-off company.  Clearly, the University of Utah has figured out how to do small business and entrepreneurial development and tech-transfer and technology-led economic development better than most.

I don’t want to get into the specifics of “how to actually do” small business/entrepreneurial development or tech-transfer/technology-led economic development is this blog.  Why?  Because I’ve written extensively about both in the past on this very site dating as far back as 2008.  For those of you interested in reading more about small business and entrepreneurial development, you can read my blog from October 23, 2008 about this topic here at “What is Entrepreneurship and Small Business-led Development?“  For those of you interested in reading about tech-transfer and technology-led economic development, you can read my blog from November 28, 2008 about this topic here at “Tech-Transfer and Technology-Led Economic Development:  Pushing the Frontier of Local Economic Development.

What I found really interesting about the NPR article from August 24, 2010 is the U of U’s emphasis on creating an “entrepreneurial culture” across the many different colleges, schools, and departments at the University of Utah.  The article uses the experience of Glenn Pestwich, a former student of the University of Utah who is now a medicinal chemist.  In describing the entrepreneurial culture at the U of U, Pestwich argues that, “It’s a cultural difference; it’s a focus on the entrepreneurial process as a scholarly activity.”  Pestwich speaks of the “collaborative spirit” at the U of U and the “deeper focus on the end-users of research” that is regularly conducted at the University of Utah. 

Locally, a “collaborative spirit” means not only finding new ways to support collaboration between the different colleges and departments at the University of Nevada, Reno, but also how to build closer, more collaborative research and entrepreneurial relationships between the University of Nevada, Reno, area community colleges, and the Desert Research Institute.  That said, these institutions (UNR, TMCC, WNCC, DRI, and others) already work very closely on a multitude of research and development projects.  The fact that each of these institutions of higher education all exist within one Nevada System of Higher Education is probably one of our greatest local advantages.  As opposed to a state like California that has a “University of California system”, a “California State University system”, a “California Community Colleges system”, and many competing private research universities like the University of the Pacific, Stanford University, and the University of Southern California, we here in Nevada already have a high degree of cohesion.  So for those individuals out there that say we need more cohesion, I say that we just need to take advantage of the institutional cohesion we already have.

A more cohesive and collaborative spirit among the various institutions of higher education within the Nevada System of Higher Education is already starting to develop and emerge.  The University of Nevada, Reno and the Desert Research Institute (DRI) have already come together to form the UNR-DRI Technology Transfer Office.  Technologies already developed by research faculty at both UNR and DRI are available now for further licensing in the areas of renewable energy, life sciences, physical sciences, and environmental sciences.  The efforts of the UNR-DRI Technology Transfer Office have already proven that it is possible to build a cohesive and collaborative spirit between different institutions of higher education as well between different departments and faculty at both schools.  But the experience of the University of Utah suggests that in order to create tangible economic development results, both schools, UNR and DRI along with the other institutions within the Nevada System of Higher Education, need to take their efforts several steps further in order to create a more tangible “entrepreneurial culture” that emphasizes private sector new business creation, start-up, and spin-off.

There is no doubt that there should always be a place in our nation’s colleges and universities where research for the sole purpose of advancing human understanding of our world and existence is appreciated and supported without the expectation of a financial, economic pay-off.  Research for research-sake is a good thing.  Not all our research, either in the physical/mechanical sciences or social sciences, needs to result in a marketable and profit-making technology, product, service, or process.  But it is critical that any university provide the support, both financially and institutionally, to new business start-ups and potential spin-offs. 

What does this mean locally?  This means that the University of Nevada, Reno needs to commit to institutionalizing its entrepreneurial efforts, today, by building an effective tech-transfer and technology-led development office that helps finance faculty research and facilitates the transfer of new technologies and processes discovered and developed by the University faculty and staff to the private sector.  We can’t wait for someone to wave this flag.  Despite its high-tech nature, this isn’t rocket science.  It’s economic development.  It’s economic diversification.  And it’s possible to do this without significant resources or further study.

Post Script:  As a doctoral student at the University of Southern California, I helped develop, along with several other students, a hypothetical tech-transfer program for the Wilmington neighborhood of the City of Los Angeles that borders the Port of Los Angeles/Port of Long Beach.  This hypothetical tech-transfer program includes a detailed overview of what a tech-transfer and technology-led development program would look like including program goals and costs.  If anyone is interested in seeing this plan, feel free to contact me through the NSBDC office.

But despite the current economic malaise, every city in Nevada can still find those rare bright spots of new and existing small, medium-sized, and even large corporate business success stories.  Now, more than ever, cities need to take stock of these successes, celebrate them, and advertise them to the world!  A current program in the City of Carson, California – a relatively small city sandwiched between the City of Los Angeles and the City of Long in the South Bay of Southern California – is doing just that with its “Annual Business Awards” program.

I thought that cities here in Nevada might find Carson’s “Annual Business Awards” program useful and interesting so I’ve posted some general information about it here.  I start by outlining some general goals and general history of the program followed by the “process” of how the City of Carson nominates, chooses, and awards the businesses that are honored with an “Annual Business Award”.

For the past 21 years, the City of Carson and the Carson Economic Development Commission (as an aside, I think every city in Nevada, without exception, should have its own “Economic Development Commission” – I’ll get into this issue in my next blog) has held an annual event to recognize certain, outstanding businesses in their community by honoring the remarkable contributions these local companies have made to the City’s overall economic vitality.  The Carson “Annual Business Awards” breakfast is part of the City’s wider efforts to promote the success of local businesses while encouraging and facilitating new business entry and future expansion of existing businesses located throughout the City of Carson.

The Carson “Annual Business Awards” is an opportunity for the City and the community to celebrate the success of the City’s own shared community vision to make Carson southern California’s most business friendly community.  Over the past 21 years, those businesses recognized by the City have helped create new jobs and new employment, recreational, entertainment, and retail opportunities for Carson residents and for visitors from across all of southern California and beyond.

The City of Carson and the Carson Economic Development Commission hosted its 21^st Annual Business Awards breakfast this past June on June 17, 2010 at the Congresswoman Juanita Millender-McDonald Community Center.  For 2010, the City and the Carson Economic Development Commission chose “Jobs, Jobs, Jobs” as this years theme.  Awardees for the June 17, 2010 Carson Annual Business Awards breakfast were:  Carl’s Jr., Ducommun Incorporated, Hair Architects, IKEA, NYK Logistics, and Prime Wheel.  Combined, these companies currently employ well over 1,000 people in the City of Carson and have either retained all their staff or added even more to their workforce over the past year.

Although the City of Carson commits some funding and staff resources to this program, the “Annual Business Awards” program is actually funded by the contributions of major donors from various area businesses located throughout the City of Carson.  This financing strategy has helped the City preserve and expand the “Annual Business Awards” program over the last 21 years despite periods of economic tension and budgetary pressures that the City and the entire region have faced in the past.  Being able to maintain this program, even during tight municipal budgetary periods, has helped the City celebrate the accomplishments of local area businesses and has helped Carson maintain a business friendly reputation for nearly the past quarter century!

Each year, the Carson Economic Development Commission, with input from the City and the City’s Economic Development Services Department, chooses a “theme” and then identifies different businesses that have and continue to exemplify that theme – for example, this years theme was “Jobs, Jobs, Jobs” or businesses that have committed themselves to either retaining or growing their existing workforce despite the current economic recession.   The Carson Economic Development Commission chooses different businesses with an eye toward including businesses from different sectors and of sizes – for example, this years recipients included Carl’s Jr. (a fast food restaurant corporate chain) and Hair Architects (a once sole-proprietor full service barber shop and salon that has grown its business to include several locations throughout southern California including a location in Carson).

Once a list of possible recipients has been developed, the Carson Economic Development Commission then selects the eventual winners.  Potential recipients are only notified if they are chosen to receive an actual “Annual Business Award” – that means that there are only winners and no losers as the purpose of the “Annual Business Award” program is to celebrate the success of certain businesses.  This allows the City and the Carson Economic Development Commission to pick businesses that are “right” for the years particular “theme” and who may not otherwise engage in self-promotion.  Both the City and the Carson Economic Development Commission have found that many of these businesses, big and small, can be very shy about applying for an award but whose success in tough times needs to be celebrated, recognized, and marketed by the community.

On face, a program like Carson’s “Annual Business Awards” might not be seen as a high-priority economic development program for cities that are currently feeling the pinch of decreased revenues and increased demand for municipal services.  Some might argue, and rightfully so, that it’s more important to invest the scarce resources we have today on trying to just maintain the current levels of service that a city provides.  But according to City of Carson staff, 2010’s “Annual Business Awards” breakfast cost a grand total of $8,300.  A total of $7,300 was raised through sponsorships putting the “cost to taxpayers” total to only $1,000.  As far as economic development programs go, you can’t beat the price!

Others might also argue that an “Annual Business Awards” program doesn’t really meet the criteria of economic development – i.e. creating mid to high skill level jobs that pay mid to high level wages and offer individuals a meaningful opportunity for general upward mobility.  But I would argue that every city in Nevada should invest in developing its own “Annual Business Award” program today.  By highlighting those businesses that are already creating mid to high skill level jobs that pay mid to high level wages, that offer individuals meaningful opportunities for general upward mobility, and positively contribute to their community’s overall quality of life can help cities communicate to potential new businesses that success is possible in their city despite the current economic trouble.

Now is exactly the time to start an “Annual Business Awards” program.  And if Nevada cities can model their own “Annual Business Award” program after the success Carson has had with its own program, Nevada cities could very well be celebrating the success of local area businesses at their very own Annual Business Awards breakfast!

Okay.  It’s not Nevada but it is a great economic development program developed by one of the most recognized and successful economic development organizations in the United States.  Every year the LAEDC invites cities located throughout Los Angeles County to submit a detailed application outlining their efforts to support the creation and expansion of new and existing businesses, the development of a trained and skilled workforce, and generally improve the business climate within their own city.

For the past 15 years that the award has been given, the LAEDC has developed 11 different “lessons learned” that the LAEDC has learned from the cities that have submitted applications over the years.  Although these “lessons learned” are available online on the LAEDC’s website, I thought that each of these lessons were important enough for cities in Nevada interested in developing their own “business friendly” reputation to reproduce here.  In no particular order, the 11 “lessons learned” by the LAEDC from its “Most Business Friendly Cities” are:

1. LA County’s most business friendly cities have established economic development and quality jobs as a top community priority.  The Mayor, City Council and Staff articulate and demonstrate a high sense of urgency for related programs, services and projects.  The City’s Economic Development office and programs are funded annually providing reasonable funding to perform their services.
2. These communities communicate regularly with their business community through surveys, newsletters and events.  They also communicate to citizens the importance of jobs and viable businesses, which limits NIMBYism.
3. Business friendly cities have an excellent customer service attitude, which is felt throughout the organization.  Systems and processes are established and continually improved upon to facilitate desired development and job creation.
4. Business friendly cities provide high quality services at reasonable costs.  LA County’s most business friendly cities are typically not among the highest cost locations for businesses.  Business friendly cities have impact and extraction fees less than the average in the County.  Fee payment schedules encourage investment and in some cases allow businesses to become operational before payment.
5. Business friendly cities utilize redevelopment, development agreements, special zones and incentives to induce desired economic development results.  They provide one-stop service and parallel processing, in recognition that time is money.  Timely consistent project processing and excellent customer service is the least expensive incentive a community provides.
6. Business friendly cities recognize the best source of testimonials to encourage new business development come from successful and satisfied existing businesses in their communities.  They provide programs and services to retain and expand current employers.
7. Business friendly cities provide an overall business climate conducive to business success and job creation.  Business friendly cities recognize that quality, quantity and price of their services will impact the desirability of their city for investment and business development.
8. Business friendly cities provide a high quality of life for residents and businesses, including employment opportunities for residents, low crime rate (FBI Modified Crime Index), Business Watch, affordable and comprehensive housing options, quality infrastructure, distinguished schools, Community College, 4-year University, trade schools, shopping, cultural and entertainment amenities, parks, etc.
9. Business friendly cities have a current economic development strategy, ideally as part of their General Plan with performance measures, regular reviews, revisions when necessary, flexibility and accountability.  The strategy is understood by elected officials, city leaders and staff and is communicated to the business community and residents.
10. Business friendly cities are enthusiastic about their communities and utilize a variety of vehicles to tell their story and recruit new economic opportunities.
11. Business friendly cities are committed to economic development as shown by having an updated Economic Development Element in their General Plan.

Taken together, these “lessons learned” point to the wider commitment cities must make to economic development in order to become a business friendly city.  These lessons suggest that a business friendly city is one that builds an organization-wide commitment to economic development throughout the entire organization by, first, developing and implementing a strategic economic development plan, and, two, relying on a variety of different economic development strategies.  These strategies should not only focus on streamlining government services and providing these services at a relatively low cost to both businesses and taxpayers, but should also focus on building a community’s overall quality of life through improved affordable housing options, improved infrastructure, top rated and nationally recognized schools, interesting and diverse shopping, cultural, entertainment, and social venues, and great public spaces that positively add to a community’s overall attractiveness. 

 These 11 “lessons learned” can be condensed into a set of economic development recommendations for Nevada cities and counties interested in improving their own “business friendly” reputations and economic development efforts.  For starters, Nevada cities and counties should consider:

• To be successful at building a “business friendly” reputation, Nevada cities and counties should think about committing actual resources to an “economic development office” – within their organization, not separate as an independent entity – that is funded annually from municipal/county sources.
• To be successful at building a “business friendly” reputation, Nevada cities and counties need to think long and hard about the types of economic development policies, programs, and services they develop, implement, and deliver to their communities.  Tailor economic development policies, programs, and services to fit YOUR OWN community needs!
• A “business friendly” organization is built throughout and at all points within the government – city and/or county!  Look at ALL PARTS of the government and identify areas that need improvement and refinement. 
• Don’t forget about your existing businesses!  In fact, your economic development programs, policies, and services should focus PRIMARILY on helping existing and new businesses grow and expand within your jurisdiction.  The “word” will get out to other out-of-area businesses naturally that your community is “business friendly”.  By supporting existing and/or new businesses already located within your community, out-of-area businesses will be naturally attracted to your community! 
• Maybe most important is the need to have an actual “Economic Development Strategy” that is developed, written down, and routinely checked to make sure the city and/or other public agency’s activities are in line with the stated goals of the actual “Economic Development Strategy”.

For those of you interested in the LAEDC’s “Most Business Friendly City” award, I really recommend that you check out the actual application that nominated cities must complete and submit to the LAEDC.  You can download a copy of the LAEDC’s ward application at:  http://www.laedc.org/eddy/cityaward/LAEDC_MostBusinessFriendlyCity_NominationForm2010.pdf.  I think that you’ll find it really interesting.  For example, the LAEDC asks for information like the amount of non-sales tax revenue collected by the city over the past few years, information about various programs, structures, and even activities designed to facilitate existing businesses and business expansion and retention, and even how the city has “cut through the red tape” in order to streamline business-oriented public service delivery.  These “questions” on the application can serve as a general guide as to how Nevada cities might improve their own business friendly reputations through a series of new economic development programs, policies, and services.

I know that there are probably some people out there who are reading this and saying, “But Fred, California sucks!  It’s bankrupt!  It has ridiculously high levels of unemployment and every city and county government, along with the state government, is going bankrupt!”  That said, keep in mind that Nevada isn’t doing all that well these days either.  Nevada has the highest state-wide unemployment rate in the entire country – higher even than the state-wide unemployment rate in California.  California tends to have higher per-capita incomes, higher per-family incomes, higher graduation rates, and certainly, despite our supposed “low tax environment”, continues to expand its regional industry clusters such as the high-tech industry in Silicon Valley and the re-emerging aerospace industry in southern California.  And California still has far greater new business creation rates than Nevada – by a mile.

We here in Nevada can learn a thing or two from California when it comes to economic development and what it takes to make a business friendly city.  Maybe in a few years an organization like the LAEDC will be created in Nevada and present a “Most Business Friendly City” award for cities in Nevada!  Even though there are many areas in which Nevada cities could improve their “business friendly” reputations, Nevada cities, and even counties and other public organizations, should be recognized for the economic development work they are already doing.

Although local policy makers are quick to point out that new convention centers, new hotels, new malls, and even new automobile dealerships create many needed new jobs, they likely won’t admit that these types of projects create relatively low paying and low skill jobs that really don’t offer individuals any real meaningful opportunity for general upward mobility and rarely contribute positively to a community’s overall quality of life.  Local governments and local economic development policy makers often leverage public revenues to support the development of new commercial-retail real estate development projects or projects designed to encourage increased levels of tourism in the hope of generating new tax revenues that can be “transferred” to out-of-state residents.  Sadly, time and time again, local governments are simply leveraging the long-term, stable, economic growth of their community in order to generate a few increased dollars of new sales tax or hotel room tax revenue.

To make matters worse, local governments and local economic development policy makers tend to have a poor understanding of what drives tourism.  Although there are many things that a local community can do to encourage tourism to their jurisdiction, if the individual “tourist” doesn’t have the money to travel to your jurisdiction (due to a loss in employment or reduced savings or a general uncertainty about their economic future because of the recent economic recession), they simply won’t come.  If tourism doesn’t increase, then the local government is left “holding the bag” for the amount of debt it incurred to finance the construction of the new convention center, the new mall, or the new hotel.  This problem is compounded in the long-run as the money that could have been spent on small business and entrepreneurial development efforts, technology-based economic development efforts, workforce training and development efforts, or even neighborhood and community development efforts, is instead spent on financing crushing levels of accumulated debt – debt that policy makers thought would have been paid by tourists but end up being paid by locals.

In the end, using public debt to finance commercial-retail and tourism oriented projects is about the worst economic development strategy a local government can undertake largely because tourism-based development and commercial-retail based development is not economic development.  These types of development are revenue development projects designed to enhance local government revenues.  No doubt about it – local governments need to enhance local revenue sources in order to finance the year-after-year increase in the demand the public has for more and more publicly provided services.  But the larger goal behind wider economic development efforts is to help create mid to high skill level jobs that pay mid to high level wages, offer individuals meaningful opportunities for general upward mobility, and ultimately contribute to a community’s overall quality of life by contributing to the long-term, stable, economic growth of an entire community and/or region.

Although tourism-based development and commercial-retail based development are important strategies that local governments should undertake and support when they can afford to do so, these types of development projects should never be subsidized with public tax revenues.  Think about it this way.  The goal behind any tourism-based or commercial-retail based project is to enhance publicly collected tax revenues.  But in order to finance the construction of the new convention center, or the new mall, or the new hotel, publicly collected tax revenues are needed.  But why would you give away sales tax dollars or hotel room tax dollars today in order to generate the same sales tax dollars or hotel room tax dollars tomorrow?  Also keep in mind that every other jurisdiction in the country is doing the same thing – in the hopes of getting residents from your community to spend their dollars in their jurisdiction!  So even in the very best case, publicly financing the construction of new convention centers, new malls, and new hotels simply swaps one local dollar in new sales tax revenue for one out-of-state dollar.

A recent article in the Reno Gazette Journal, “Bond Costs Drag Reno Budget” published on May 29, 2010, illustrates how risky it is to bet all your economic development hopes on the construction of a new convention center.  The article reports that the City of Reno will have to pay approximately $2.5 million to finance the debt issued to build the downtown Reno Events Center, completed in 2005.  The City had hoped that a new events center/convention center would be a critical element in the City’s wider efforts to revitalize the City’s downtown area and the overall decline in area-wide tourism.  But an unexpected and very severe nationwide economic recession further collapsed area-wide tourism counts as well as the discretionary spending of local residents on commercial-retail projects.  The May 29, 2010 Reno Gazette Journal article further reported that, “The city finance department estimates room taxes will bring in only $4.7 million in the coming fiscal year, short of the $7.2 million needed for the bond payment.”

The continued decline in area-wide tourism accompanying the decline in hotel room tax revenue collected from downtown Reno hotel and casino properties means that the City of Reno might have to look to other sources in order to continue financing the debt used to build the Reno Events Center if there isn’t an immediate and significant improvement in area-wide visitor counts.  But here is the problem.  What if the recovery never comes?  What if people decide, as a result of this recession, that they will save more and travel less?  The bond issuer and the bond holders of the debt to build the Reno Events Center don’t care about those potential scenarios.  They want the City of Reno to keep making payments on debt that was issued for a project that might never provide the return on investment the City thought that it might return when it first considered this project years ago.

If the City of Reno is forced to look at other revenue sources to finance the debt for the Reno Events Center, along with debt issued to finance other ongoing and wider redevelopment efforts throughout the City, the City might not have the resources needed in the future to pursue broader economic development strategies such as small business and entrepreneurial development efforts, technology-based economic development efforts, workforce training and development efforts, and even neighborhood and community oriented development strategies.  Although the resources might not be available to finance these strategies, these strategies are going to be needed over the next several decades as we struggle to develop a broader economic base and new, more dependable economic engines in order to ensure the long-term, stable, economic growth of our city, our county, our region, and even our state.

 Number of Self-Employed Americans by Age

Nationwide

December 2008 to December 2009

Source:  US Bureau of Labor Statistics; “More Americans Start Own Business” by Laura Petrecca USA Today May 29; 2010, Reproduced by the Reno Gazette Journal May 29, 2010.

Between December 2008 and December 2009, when the total number of all Americans who reported to be “self-employed” increased by approximately 220,000 or just 2.5%, the total number of Americans aged 65 years old or older grew dramatically growing by 213,000 individuals or an astonishing 29.3%.  Americans aged 65 years or older accounted for the single largest actual increase and percentage increase in the number of Americans reported as “self-employed in the one-year period between December 2008 and December 2009.

Comparatively, the more “traditional” group of self-employed entrepreneurs (typically individuals aged 20 to 24) accounted for only the third largest actual increase (42,000 new individuals reported to be self-employed) and the second largest percentage increase (16.4% increase) – both measures of growth still well behind the growth in Americans aged 65 years or older and reported to be “self-employed”.

From the perspective of developing effective economic development policies and programs, the changing demographic face of self-employed, small business owning, entrepreneurs in the United States requires some modification to how the federal government, state, and local governments develop and implement their small business and entrepreneurial economic development strategies.  This changing demographic face also requires a rethinking of the types of workforce training and development programs the federal, state, and local governments develop and implement as well.

Two important economic development policy and program development concerns, correctly identified in the May 29, 2010 article reproduced in the Reno Gazette Journal, include:  1) the fact that older entrepreneurs simply have less “time” to make up for the lost money if their self-employed efforts or small business start-up fails when compared to their 40 year old or younger entrepreneurial counterparts, and 2) the older entrepreneur’s “facility with technology” still tends to be less than their 40 year old or younger entrepreneurial counterpart and represents a significant barrier that older entrepreneurs still have to overcome.

Although there are several national programs available through the Small Business Administration (see www.sba.gov/50plusentrepreneur) designed to help older entrepreneurs start-up their own businesses, state and local economic development policies and programs should be better tailored to fit specific area and regional needs.  Generally, state and local economic development policies and programs could be developed in order to mitigate the higher levels of risk that older entrepreneurs face.  For example, special angel investor funds or state/local government funds could be developed and set aside specifically for financing businesses started by entrepreneurs aged 55 years or older.  Loans at discounted interest rates could be made from these funds to older entrepreneurs and more favorable default agreements could also be structured in order to protect entrepreneurs aged 55 years or older from losing their savings needed for later retirement years.

In order to overcome the “facility with technology” difficulties that older entrepreneurs more often struggle with than their younger entrepreneurial counterparts, technology training and education courses could be developed specifically for entrepreneurs aged 55 years or older.  These courses, depending upon local and/or regional needs, could be designed in a way that provides greater emphasis on understanding the basics of spreadsheets, databases, accounting software, word-processing, email, and even online social networking and marketing tools in an environment where the older entrepreneur feels more comfortable surrounded by individuals of similar age and experience.

In fact, because online social networking and marketing tools have become an increasingly important way start-ups and small businesses market their business while also finding important information about how to manage and grow their entrepreneurial efforts, state and local economic development policies and programs should really focus on how to teach these different online social networking and marketing tools to older entrepreneurs.  According to the May 29, 2010 USA Today article reprinted in the Reno Gazette Journal, “A plethora of information exists that small-business owners can glean from their peers — often by logging onto social-networking sites.”

New state and local economic development policies and programs, including small business and entrepreneurial development strategies and workforce training and development strategies, need to be focused as much on older entrepreneurs as they are on more traditional, young entrepreneurs.  Given that the overall demographic trend of the United States is increasingly trending towards an “aging” of the population, more and more of our first-time self-employed, small business owners and entrepreneurs are becoming increasingly older.  The ability of these older entrepreneurs to succeed will rely upon not only their significant business and personal experience and knowledge, but also the ability of state and local governments to develop appropriate state and local economic development policies and programs designed to meet the specific needs of an aging entrepreneurial sector.

 The first book, “The Other America:  Poverty in the United States” (I recommend the version published in 1981 with subsequent papers written by Michael Harrington himself), is a masterful account of poverty in the United States and what it means to be poor in one of the wealthiest and most economically developed nations in human history.  Throughout his book, Harrington goes on at length discussing and describing the physical, emotional, and psychological torment the poor have historically and in contemporary times endured in this country.  Although I am disappointed that Harrington spends very little time on how we, as a society, might solve the problem of poverty, and fails to really develop a well thought out policy agenda that we might implement, his accounts and conclusions provide an eye-opening insight into a part of American society that has and continues to be invisible to most.

Harrington makes several points that anyone in the field of economic development, or anyone interested in economic development, should take to heart – I will mention only a few of them here.  First, Harrington points out, over-and-over again, that there is a big difference between being born into poverty at the “right time” (i.e. when the economy is doing poorly) and being born into poverty at the “wrong time” (i.e. when the economy is doing well).  Harrington argues that anti-poverty legislation, and legislation designed to enhance the economic well-being of individuals, receives political attention only in times of economic depression, recession, or downturn.  Job-bills (i.e. public monies for retraining, workforce development programs, or even small business development) are only considered when people are increasingly losing their job.  Rarely do our policy makers engage in comprehensive economic development debate on a regular basis that would help everyone – even the most poor – regardless of macro-economic characteristics.

Second, a growing number of the poor – when Harrington first published his book in 1962 and even today in more contemporary times – are “forced into poverty” due to economic obsolescence.  Economic obsolescence is the regrettable cost of Joseph Schumpeter’s concept of “creative destruction”.  Schumpeter, an economist and political scientist, argued that radical innovation needed to sustain long-term economic growth was the “creative destruction” of obsolescent technologies, goods, services, and even methods of production.  Lacking in Schumpeter’s work is an answer to this question:  “What happens to the 40-year old or 50-year old or even 60-year old who is too old to be retrained in a new industry after the old one is no longer economically viable but who is not wealthy enough to retire?”

As a society, we too often say that the poor are poor because they refuse to get a job.  Rarely do we, as a society, demand of our policy makers comprehensive job retraining programs that would smooth the transition of individual workers from an outgoing industry and into the emerging industry.  For example, the recent American Recovery and Reinvestment Act – the federal “economic stimulus” plan passed about a year ago – made lost of money available for renewable energy development.  But it made almost no money available for training oil refinery workers to work in geothermal plants.  I guess the oil refinery workers will have to join the ranks of the poor when oil goes the way of the dinosaur.  As part of our economic development plans – nationally, at the state level, and at the local level – we need to develop measures that effectively combat and minimize the affects of economic obsolescence if we are to have any success in actually reducing the number of poor in this country – a point that Harrington makes at length.

Third, and finally, Harrington argues time and time again that the solution to poverty will not come from politics.  I think it’s a fair statement to say that Harrington was not overly thrilled with either of the two dominant political parties in the United States – and I’m pretty sure he’d be just as disappointed with both parties today as he was in 1962 and then in 1969 and 1981 when he wrote two follow-up essays to his original publication.  Although Harrington hints at the possibility that poverty might never be fully solved for, he put the stock of his faith in education.  Harrington believed, and his book makes the point, that the best chance of the poor to not be poor anymore was through an education that offered some real opportunity for some measurable level of general upward mobility.  Harrington’s argument in a nutshell:  Put money in the pockets of the poor by providing an education that gave the poor a fighting chance in becoming employed!

The point that Harrington makes over and over again – and the one that was most important for me – is that the “other America” is invisible to mainstream America.  Harrington argues that the main reason why poverty is allowed to endure in the most prosperous nation in Earth’s history is because the “rest of us” don’t see the poor.  And as a result of this invisibility, we don’t demand that our government – national, state, or local – develop and implement policy that efficiently and effectively solves poverty once and for all.  Think about this – in 1962 Harrington estimated that there was between 40,000,000 and 50,000,000 million living in poverty in the United States (I used the zeros to nail the point home).  According to the United States Census Bureau in the 2000 U.S. Census, there were 33,889,812 people living in poverty in the United States in the year 2000 – almost 40 years after Harrington first wrote “The Other America”.  And the 2000 figure doesn’t include those populations that don’t often get counted like the elderly poor, the poor who live in residentially overcrowded housing, or the homeless.

My point is this.  In contemporary times, we don’t write economic development policy for the poor.  The fact that the number of poor people living in the United States has gone relatively unchanged for almost 40 years (probably longer), is testament to the colossal failure of our national, state, and local economic development policy.  If our economic development policy doesn’t help those that are least fortunate and that are in most need for public economic development-oriented policies that actually create mid to high skill and paying jobs and that offer individuals meaningful opportunities for general upward mobility, than it doesn’t matter if we are opening new shopping centers, building new sports stadiums, or creating new hotels and convention centers.

The second book I’d like to recommend for those interested in economic development is a book recently written by Fareed Zakaria.  Zakaria’s book, “The Post-American World”, is not about the decline of the United States globally – per se.  Instead, it focuses about how the rest of the world – nations like China and India and even the recently revitalized European Continent through the European Union – is beginning to develop and, in some ways, catch-up, to the United States politically, militarily, and especially economically.  Zakaria also spends a great deal of time talking about America’s role, as the last true superpower, in this new more globally integrated and, dare I say, “equal” world.

There are a lot of points that Zakaria makes throughout his book that I simply don’t have the space to go into any amount of detail in given the limited space I have available for this blog.  It’s enough to simply say that Zakaria has written enough to make anyone interested in America’s political, military, and economic future glued to the pages of “The Post-American World”.  Because I’m interested in economic development, it is Zakaria’s comments that pertain to economic development in the United States that I will talk about here.

In Chapter 6, “American Power”, of “The Post-American World”, Zakaria uses an exceptional array of qualitative, anecdotal, and quantitative analysis to dispel the myth that America, in the beginning of the 21^st Century, has already passed by it most glorious days.  In fact, Zakaria points out that America’s long-term economic dominance and leadership in the world will continue as long as we, as Americans, can continue to answer one simple question:  “What is America’s competitive advantage?”  (Chapter 6, pg. 209).

As economic development policy makers, professionals, and practitioners, no other question so occupies the mind.  We are on a constant quest – nationally, at the state level, and especially at the local level – to ascertain what a target areas “competitive advantage is” and how we can economically profit from it in order to create mid to high skill and paying jobs that offer individuals meaningful opportunities for general upward mobility, provide a stable tax base to fund public services, and improve the area’s overall quality of life.  Zakaria puts competitive advantage, quite properly, at the forefront of the discussion about what a post-American world will look like.

Policy makers at all levels of government in the United States (national, state, and local) should pay extra special attention to this point specifically – Zakaria points to two specific competitive advantages that will, if properly nurtured, ensure American economic leadership in the world for the next century:  1) an education system that teaches people to think and innovate, and 2) a “can-do” American sprit that has endured since colonial times.  Let’s look at each of these two competitive advantages and how they relate to economic development a little more closely.

First, Zakaria points to the innovative and free-thinking emphasis of America’s educational system as one of its main competitive advantages.  Sure there are problems – most notably for Zakaria is that there is incredible disparity among public schools especially at the primary and secondary levels.  But, as Zakaria points out, the American educational system as a whole – but especially in the undergraduate and graduate levels of colleges and universities in the United States – is the envy of the world for one reason:  IT TEACHES PEOPLE HOW TO THINK.

Whereas the rest of the world emphasizes memorization and test taking, students in American schools are encouraged to take risks, think outside the box, question authority, and develop creative and innovative solutions to whatever problem the student wants to think about.  Zakaria writes, “While America marvels at Asia’s test-taking skills, Asian countries come to America to figure out how to get their kids to think.”  (pg. 194).  Another quote form Zakaria might be more illuminating, “…simply changing curricula – a top-down effort – may lead only to resistance.  American culture celebrates and reinforces problem solving, questioning authority, and thinking heretically.  It allows people to fail and then gives them a second and third chance.  It rewards self-starts and oddballs.  These are all bottom-up forces that cannot be produced by government fiat.”  (pg. 195).

In short, economic development practitioners, professionals, and policy makers must make education a central aspect of our economic development goals and objectives.  I’m not saying that education should trump other approaches.  In fact, it shouldn’t!  Instead, we have to better consider how we can merge our educational approaches with our workforce development strategies and our technology-led development strategies and our real estate and reuse development strategies and all the rest.  Education and other economic development strategies are NOT in competition with each other.  They aren’t even two sides of the same coin.  They are just the SAME coin.

Secondly, Zakaria muses about the power behind America’s “can-do” attitude.  I really don’t want to give away much, if any, of Zakaria’s writing about this particular competitive advantage.  I smiled and chuckled as I read this section only because it is often so true that it is often overlooked by those of us in the field of economic development.  The reason for America’s economic near 200-years of general economic prosperity?  We have simply willed it to be true!  Even those not born in the United States are part of this legacy.  From the time before the United States as actually the United States, immigrants from Europe and then from across the world have come to the United States with a single, solitary idea in mind:  make one’s life better.  Through perseverance, hard work, and determination, Americans (used here more as a description of a personality type than a nationality) have carved one of the most prosperous existences the world has ever known.

Zakaria brilliantly points out that, in spite of America’s ability to will itself into prosperity, almost every American generation has predicted its own future decline in the face of global pressures.  Since 1945, Zakaria identifies at least four separate “waves” of American pessimism and fear of American decline in the world since 1945.  First, Americans were generally horrified when Sputnik was launched in the late 1950’s.  In the yearly 1970’s, high oil prices and slowed economic growth in the United States convinced many that Western Europe and Saudi Arabia were the “powers of the future”.   Third, in the mid-1980’s, everybody believed the Japanese would be the “technologically and economically dominant superpower of the future.”  (pg. 210)  Again, someone remind me how the turned out?  And of course, the fourth wave today centers on the rise of everyone else – but the rise of China and India specifically.  But Zakaria reminds us that historically, “…none of these scenarios came to pass.  The reason is that the American system was proved to be flexible, resourceful, and resilient, able to correct its mistakes and shift its attention.  A focus on American economic decline ended up preventing it.”  (pg. 210-211).

Although neither author, Harrington or Zakaria, likely intended either of their books, “The Other America:  Poverty in the United States” and “The Post-American World”, to be considered masterful works in the field of economic development, both of them truly are!  Both books offer a tremendous amount of insight into how we can better craft and execute economic development policies and programs.  As an economic development student and professional, I highly recommend both books to anyone who has an interest in economic development policy.

The first specific neighborhood and community based economic development strategy is better known as “Community Building”.  According to the International Economic Development Council (IEDC), “Community building strategies focus on harnessing existing networks of social capital to encourage community empowerment and capacity building; this approach channels community assets such as the skills of local residents, the power of neighborhood associations, and the resources of public and private organizations, to solve problems”.

Since the end of the “federal urban renewal” era in the mid 1970’s, local governments across the United States almost universally turned to property-based approaches to local urban revitalization and economic development.  The lasting legacy of federal urban renewal was a tendency to overlook the non-property based approaches to economic development vital in building vibrant and dynamic communities.  A new hotel does not a community make.  A new condominium tower does not a community make.  A new convention center, a new office tower, or even a new shopping center by themselves does not a community make.

Yet, time and time again, local governments, now primarily responsible for local urban revitalization and economic development efforts, tend to invest all their economic development efforts in attracting new retailers or new hotel operators.  It’s time to reintegrate the non-property based approaches – approaches that attempt to build and channel existing community assets including the skills of local residents and even the power of neighborhood associations – into our ongoing economic development efforts.

“Place-Oriented Strategies” are the second set of neighborhood and community based economic development strategies.  Place-oriented strategies, according to the IEDC, “…focus on the community’s physical resources.  Inner-city communities targeted for economic redevelopment typically suffer from inadequate infrastructure, and dilapidated residential and commercial buildings.  Place-oriented efforts seek to improve buildings, roads, utility and telecommunications service, as well as transform brownfields into usable sites”.

Notice how neighborhood and community based economic development strategies – via community building and place-oriented strategies – attempt to merge both property-based and non-property based strategies into a single strategy.  Whereas community building focuses on the non-property based side of economic development (by empowering neighborhood associations and groups and by enhancing the skill sets of individual neighborhood residents), place-oriented strategies focus on the property-based side of economic development by improving the “basic infrastructure” that economically viable communities need to be economically competitive.  In simple terms, community building focus on eliminating or at least mitigating SOCIAL blight and place-oriented strategies focus on eliminating and mitigating PHYSICAL blight.

Place-oriented strategies, according to the IEDC, should focus on resolving the following “common and prominent” problems that tend to retard the economic viability of neighborhoods and communities:

• Limited availability of appropriate development sites.
• Failing infrastructure.
• Inadequate public services.
• Environmental contamination of structures and land.
• Inadequate housing stock.
• Dilapidated commercial areas.
• No or limited sense of neighborhood identity and/or character.

“Business-Oriented Strategies”, focused on providing financial and technical support to neighborhood businesses, are the third set of neighborhood and community based economic development strategies.  Business-oriented strategies, according to the IEDC, by providing financial and technical support to neighborhood businesses, “…helps businesses in distressed communities face the challenges caused by lack of financial and technical support.  Examples of business-oriented efforts are micro-business support, groups, business skills training courses, and revolving loan funds offering loans considered too small or high risk for conventional banks”.

“Healthy” neighborhood commercial areas typically create jobs, increase the local area tax base, keep money in the neighborhood by encouraging area residents to stroll, socialize, and shop in the neighborhood, improve the image and quality of life of the neighborhood, and even attract shoppers from outside the community.  Local governments have a strong incentive to offer financial and technical support to emerging local area businesses.  In order to do so, local governments must employ a broader set of business-oriented strategies that encourage new business formation and the growth and expansion of existing local businesses.  In short, business-oriented strategies are designed to target, eliminate, or at least mitigate ECONOMIC blight.

Notice that business-oriented strategies focus primarily on how to create new businesses while also growing existing businesses – i.e. the use of micro-business support programs and groups, business skills training course, and even the use of revolving loan funds geared toward the needs of small to mid-size local area businesses.  Place-oriented strategies focus primarily on how to improve the physical appearance and quality of local area communities and individual neighborhoods – i.e. infrastructure improvement programs, improvement in existing telecommunication and utility services, and even the removal or rehabilitation of physically dilapidated structures.  Community building strategies focus primarily on empowering area residents and neighborhood groups in order to build the workforce that new and existing businesses need to survive and grow.

This is the comprehensive nature of a proper neighborhood and community based economic development strategy.  Simultaneously, a comprehensive neighborhood and community economic development strategy incorporates property-based and non-property based strategies designed to build businesses, build individual workforce skills, and improve the general physical appearance of local neighborhoods and communities.  Economically vibrant communities depend on a local government’s ability to effectively combine each of these three specific sets of strategies into single neighborhood and community based economic development strategy.  Without proper consideration of each individual specific set, much of the effort to stimulate local levels of economic activity will likely fail.

First, it’s important to you and to the entire State of Nevada that you fill out the 10-question census form that you should have already received in the mail by now.  If you haven’t filled it out, or if you have lost it, you can go to the following website, http://nvsos.gov, to make sure that you get counted.  According to Mr. Miller, Nevada’s response rate during the 2000 Census was approximately 66% – one of the worst response rates in the country.  This cost the State of Nevada millions in federal dollars that could have been used to help stimulate local, regional, and state-wide levels of economic activity!  Don’t let Nevada down – fill out your census form and send it in right away!

Second, Mr. Miller also pointed out the various economic development and business oriented services that the Nevada Secretary of State’s Office provides – many of them online and at no cost.  Many of these services can be accessed directly from the Secretary of State’s website:  http://nvsos.gov.  One such program is the New Business Portal which can be accessed online at the following website:  http://whynevada.com/newbusinessportal/.

Third, Mr. Miller spoke at length about why Nevada is an excellent place to do business.  Many of Mr. Miller’s points can be viewed at:  http://whynevada.com.  This site, maintained by the Nevada Secretary of State’s Office, is an excellent resource for those businesses interested in relocating, expanding, or starting a new business right here in Nevada.  Information and technical advice is divided into several categories including Commercial Recordings, Capital Markets, Business Courts, and Nevada’s Low Tax Climate.  A link to the New Business Portal and the Secretary of State’s main website are also available through the “Why Nevada” website.

All in all, Mr. Miller provided some very useful and very interesting information about the State’s ongoing economic development efforts.  Thank you Mr. Miller.  And to everyone reading – remember to fill out your Census 2010 form and return it in the mail as soon as possible!  It’s only 10 questions and it only takes 10 minutes (I attest to that as I have filled out my Census 2010 form and I have already sent it in).  But it could mean millions of dollars for Nevada.  So fill it out and return it now!

By the way – I promise to talk about Neighborhood and Community Development strategies in my next post.  I thought that the highlights from Mr. Miller’s presentation merited another delay.

Over the past few days, since the passage of the Federal Government’s 2010 healthcare and insurance overall legislation, a small few have taken it upon themselves to express their opposition to the recent federal legislation with acts of violence, intimidation, and bigotry.  As someone who has, over the years, become increasingly interested in public policy, I wanted to take this brief opportunity to express my disappointment in those that would use such atrocious tactics to argue a point.

Over the past year or so, I have tried to use this blog to express different policy options in the field of economic development.  At times, I have argued in the positive for certain ideas.  At other times, I have argued in the negative by pointing out certain practical flaws in the reasoning behind certain public policy proposals made by both community and political leaders.  I have agreed and disagreed with people on the left, people on the right, and people in the middle.

Disagreement is healthy.  Debate is healthy.  But acts of violence, intimidation, and bigotry are decidedly not healthy.  These acts do not, in any way, add to the civil discourse that needed and genuine policy debate requires.  I understand and sympathize with those who feel frustrated and that their voices don’t count.  At times, especially about my own ideas regarding economic development policy, I have felt equally frustrated.  But I have tried to use means such as this blog to discuss and air-out my ideas.  I, however, do not understand nor do I sympathize with those who allow their frustration to become irrational expressions of anger and hatred.  Given all the challenges that we as individuals and as a civil society face today, we, as a society, cannot allow the small few who would steal away the attention from these important issues with acts of violence, intimidation, bigotry, and ultimately, cowardness.

As a community, as a state, and as a nation, we are struggling to find new and innovative ways to stimulate long-term, stable, levels of economic activity in order to ensure that the generations that follow us can enjoy a standard of living greater than the present one.  A 21^st Century economy requires 21^st Century approaches.  The violent and pointless approaches that a small and insignificant few have chosen to employ have no place in contemporary civil society.  They should be left upon the trash heap of history – in the 20^th, 19^th, 18^th and every other past century where all bad ideas deserve to rest in peace.

But calling neighborhood and community development “urban renewal” or “redevelopment” grossly understates the vast complexities of neighborhood and community development.  Neighborhood and community development is much more than building a convention center or a hotel or a new condominium tower.  It’s also much more than just building grand public plazas or intimate pocket parks.  As the IEDC points out, “The focus (of neighborhood and community development) is also on the economic development activities – job creation, business attraction, and retention – that can be targeted to low- and moderate-income neighborhoods.  The important issue is to increase employment by creating jobs and retaining jobs.”

The focus on “creating jobs and retaining jobs” is often one of the greatest oversights of what we call “redevelopment” today.  Gone is the concept of neighborhood and community development – i.e. the focus on creating jobs and retaining jobs – and in its place has taken the all important need for local redevelopment agencies and local governments to generate as much property tax revenue and sales tax revenue as possible.  Now a lot of people will say that redevelopment is a valuable economic development tool for local governments.  And I’m one of them!  I am an unapologetic supporter of local redevelopment.  But I would like to see local redevelopment agencies and local municipal/county governments think harder about the types of jobs their economic development efforts are creating.  Distressed neighborhoods – those neighborhoods that are most likely to be in a redevelopment project area – often need new retail opportunities and new retail opportunities and development will certainly create new jobs for the residents of these distressed neighborhoods.

But the residents of these distressed neighborhoods, and the residents of the entire community beyond the distressed neighborhoods, need more than just low paying and low skill retail sector jobs.  For the most part, retail sector jobs are often low skill, low paying and generally do not offer individuals a direct means of general upward mobility nor do they directly improve a community’s overall quality of life (those of you that have read many of my previous blogs will recognize that last sentence as the general “goals” of any comprehensive economic development strategy).  In order to create mid to high skill and mid to high paying jobs at the neighborhood and then community level that offer individuals meaningful opportunities for general upward mobility and improve a community’s overall quality of life, local municipal and county governments need to evolve their current local redevelopment efforts by embracing a more broad neighborhood and community development strategy.

To do so, according to the IEDC, “Economic development activities at the neighborhood level deal with both place and people.  The fundamental underpinning of neighborhood economic development is building assets both individually and collectively for the community.”  Because many neighborhoods in any given urban environment are primarily residential in nature, local municipal and county governments must devote their economic development attention to increasing wealth at the individual household or family level.  This means that the place-specific focus of municipal/county government economic development efforts in the past (i.e. via the small geographic concept of a local redevelopment project area that might be 200 acres within a municipality of several thousand acres for example) have to be widened to comprehensively understand how one neighborhood relates and interacts with another within entire communities and how job creation community-wide and workforce development community-wide can translate into real and tangible gains in personal wealth at the individual household or family level.

To do so, local municipal/county governments must also embrace wider non-property based approaches to economic development.  As I mentioned above, local governments (especially today given shrinking municipal/county revenues and budgets) are so focused on generating as much publicly collected tax revenue as is practically possible that they have all but abandoned wider non-property based approaches.  Instead, local governments tend to offer every kind of incentive they can think of in order to attract a new retail shopping center or auto-dealership or hotel or convention center to their community in the hope of generating the maximum amount of property tax revenue and, most importantly, new sales tax revenue.  These property-based approaches certainly create new jobs and a TON of new sales tax revenue – a fact that local municipal/county governments won’t let us forget about as they always brag about the 125 new jobs at the new big-box retail store opening or the new 200 jobs at the new local sports stadium being built.  But what they don’t tell us is that the average wage paid for each of those 125 or 200 or whatever number of new jobs created is about $9 per hour – hardly enough to send your kids to school or buy a house or buy a car or do just about anything with.

The exact means or specific strategies within a comprehensive neighborhood and community development plan I’ll address in my next blog – for now, it’s important to just understand what neighborhood and community development is and why it’s important.  And neighborhood and community development is important for the following reasons.

First, as the IEDC points out, “Neighborhoods are the building blocks for healthy, thriving, vibrant towns, cities, and regions.”  If one neighborhood begins to decline, the adjacent neighborhoods begin to decline and the entire community might not be all that far behind them.  No doubt about it – shopping centers, auto-dealerships, hotels, convention centers, and even new sports stadiums are very important parts of developing a healthy and vibrant town, city, and/or region.  But these property-based approaches represent only a PART of a more comprehensive and successful neighborhood and community development plan.  We have to figure out ways of increasing net and individual levels of wealth for those individuals and families living within our community at the neighborhood level.

Second, as the IEDC points out, “With governments dividing and partitioning the greater city into neighborhoods for the sake of more focused and targeted community development, every development project or economic expansion campaign is likely to have a significant impact on at least one neighborhood.  It is important to understand the dynamics of how neighborhoods work, how they can be protected and preserved, and what can be done to promote growth and renewal.”  I really can’t say it better than that.  In order to understand the specific impacts of specific economic development (property-based and non-property based) policies, programs, and/or projects, we also have to understand what’s going on at the neighborhood level.  In the past, I’ve preached the importance of a regional approach to economic development.  That said, we can’t forget about the neighborhood-level.  Because if we do, our regional economic development efforts will be for nothing.