{"id":3574,"date":"2005-01-28T17:04:41","date_gmt":"2005-01-28T21:04:41","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/blogs.law.harvard.edu\/formerlyknownas\/fedlabs-101-local-schmocal\/"},"modified":"2011-08-22T09:12:55","modified_gmt":"2011-08-22T13:12:55","slug":"fedlabs-101-local-schmocal","status":"publish","type":"page","link":"https:\/\/archive.blogs.harvard.edu\/ethicalesq\/fedlabs-101-local-schmocal\/","title":{"rendered":"fedLabs 101: local schmocal"},"content":{"rendered":"

<\/a><\/p>\n

1st posted at Crime & Federalism<\/a><\/em> <\/span>(Jan. 29, 2005)<\/span><\/p>\n

One very good<\/em> thing about our “let fifty labs operate” federalist system is that states get to see what works in other places and take advantage of the experience. One very strange<\/em> part of the system, however, is that states never seem to learn from the mistakes<\/em> that happen elsewhere. And, one very weak<\/em> part of the system is that so many of the labs are operated by local<\/em> governments. <\/span><\/p>\n

Some political theorists and ideologues wax rhapsodic about decisions being made and problems being solved at the level closest to the people. But, when I think “local government” I tend to think — based mostly on the seven or eight cities of various sizes I’ve lived in over the past half century — “un-professional,” “sinecures,” “patronage,” “pay-back,” and “party hacks.” I do not<\/em> think “knowledgeable people likely to solve complicated problems.” [of course, see my <\/span>Implied Disclaimers<\/a><\/span>]<\/span><\/p>\n

.<\/p>\n

That was an admittedly lengthy introduction to the topic of this post: Economic Development Authorities and the failure of local pols to learn from their own mistakes and those of others. [subplot: consultants who’ll gladly give you a rosy scenario.] Earlier this month The Brookings Institution released “<\/span>Space Available<\/a><\/span>: The Realities of Convention Centers as Economic Development Strategy” (Jan. 2005), by Heywood Sanders. In its Executive Summary<\/strong>, the author notes:<\/span><\/p>\n

The overall convention marketplace is declining in a manner that suggests that a recovery or turnaround is unlikely to yield much increased business for any given community, contrary to repeated industry projections. <\/em><\/span><\/p>\n

.<\/em><\/span><\/p>\n

Nonetheless, localities, sometimes with state assistance, have continued a type of arms race with competing cities to host these events, investing massive amounts of capital in new convention center construction and expansion of existing facilities.<\/em><\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n

After pages of explanation of causes and effects, the Report has this Conclusion<\/em> (emphases added):<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

“The boom in convention center development over the last decade has been a triumph <\/em>of public sector entrepreneurship and fiscal innovation<\/em>, marrying the creation of new public authorities, an increased fiscal role for state government, and a host of new tax and revenue sources to the development of enormous new facilities. That success in spending has in turn spurred even more public investment, by cities large and small, in companion facilities including new publicly-owned and financed hotels.<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

“But if taxing, spending, and building have been successful, the performance and results of that investment have been decidedly less so. Existing convention centers have seen their business evaporate, while new centers and expansions are delivering remarkably little in terms of attendance and activity.<\/span><\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n

“What is even more striking, in city after city, is that the new private investment and <\/em>development that these centers were supposed to spur<\/em>\u2014and the associated thousands of new visitors\u2014has simply not occurred<\/em>. Rather, city and convention bureau officials now argue that cities need more space, and more convenience, to lure those promised conventions.<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

“And so underperforming convention centers now must be redeemed by public <\/em>investment and ownership of big new hotels<\/em>. When those hotels fail to deliver the prom<\/span><\/span>ises, then the excuse is that more attractions, or more retail shops, or even more convention center space will be needed to achieve the goal of thousands of new visitors. . . . <\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n


\n<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

“Nationwide, however, it is abundantly clear that a new or ever-bigger convention center cannot in and of itself revitalize or redeem a downtown core. It is also distressingly apparent that convention centers and massive public commitments to visitors and tourism can <\/em>do little to address the large problems of poverty, decay, population loss<\/em>, and housing abandonment that plague our older core cities. <\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n


\n<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

“By understanding these limitations, local leaders will be better positioned to make more informed policy choices<\/em> and develop more holistic economic development strategies.”<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

 <\/p><\/blockquote>\n

With popular and obvious tourist destinations like San Francisco, Boston and Washington seeing a slump in convention center activity, it’s no surprise that centers in secondary cities are faring poorly. Nonetheless, business and government leaders in places like Pittsburgh are still cheerleaders for more government funding for added convention and hotel space (see Pittsburgh <\/span>Post-Gazette<\/em> article<\/span><\/span><\/a>, Jan. 24, 2005). And, dozens of third-level cities are also hearing the siren call of similar economic development panaceas from their community leaders.<\/span>
\n.<\/p>\n

Let me tell you about economic development follies in three Upstate New York cities that I know well: Schenectady, NY, where I now live; Albany, the state capital, which is only a dozen miles from Schenectady; and Rochester, NY, two hundred miles to the west, where I lived my entire childhood and where many relatives still reside.<\/span>
\n.<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

First, Albany<\/em>: The Brookings Report decries the fact that consultants are still producing optimistic studies about increased convention and hotel space. It notes:<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

In similar fashion, a May 2004 updated analysis for a proposed new convention center in Albany, New York was able to present a graph showing regular annual growth in convention and tradeshow attendance of two percent a year from 2003 through 2008 (following a modest downturn), coupled with the conclusion that \u201cFor the meetings industry, things have generally returned to pre-9-11 condition\u2026 Travel to meetings and large tradeshows has resumed and will continue.\u201d46 <\/span>The penultimate conclusion for Albany was that \u201cthe research still indicates strong support for the [convention center] project as recommended\u2026 a significant demand generator in the local economy.\u201d<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n

What was the response of local politicians to the Brookings study? The Albany <\/span>Times Union<\/em> reports<\/span><\/span><\/a> (Jan. 17, 2005):<\/span><\/p>\n