A plan to hire a new economic development planner seems like a step toward putting more of the area's business future into the city's hands.
Unfortunately, Lawrence does not have the best reputation around the country as a city that is helpful and cooperative to industrial and retail businesses interested in opening a facility in Lawrence.
In fact, it is known as an extremely difficult, even unfriendly, place in which to build or expand.
Lynn Parman, the able and highly effective vice president of economic development for the Lawrence Chamber of Commerce, announced her resignation last week to take a similar position in Kansas City.
It didn't take long for City Commissioner David Schauner to suggest now is the time for the city to take over the job of economic development planning for the community.
This has been a goal of some commissioners for some time. This effort centers on the "growth" vs. "no-growth" question. If the city can control the strings, the selection of the city's economic development officer and the funding of this effort, it places the city in control of the area's growth and quality of growth.
If City Hall already is being blamed by many for the negative image of Lawrence and the difficulty of attracting new business and industry, consider what the new image is likely to be with the city in even greater control of this terribly important facet of the city and its future.
Also, where would Douglas County fit into a city-run economic development program? Now, the area's economic development efforts are jointly run by the Chamber of Commerce, the city and the county, with each contributing a third of the funding.
What voice would the county have in the economic development of the area?
According to Schauner, who is urging quick action on his plan, he isn't calling for the new position because he is unhappy with the chamber's effort but rather because he thinks there is "a difference between a recruiter and a planner."
What he wants is a "planner." It should be clear to most everyone that even if you have an excellent "recruiter," a "planner," following the wishes of some or all of the city commissioners, can control what businesses and industry come to Lawrence and probably the entire county.
The growth/no-growth or "smart growth" debate continues, and there's no question but that some commissioners, and perhaps some senior city officials, have an agenda for the city. It is a long-range plan. It doesn't have to be executed in a year or two or three years, but it remains a goal.
When an opportunity, such as the resignation of the chamber's top economic development official, arises, those who want to control growth and shape the city's future to their liking, are quick to seize the reins.
Some may want quick action, but this is a sufficiently important matter to merit serious, thorough discussions that involve city and county officials as well as the Chamber of Commerce.
Comments
LJWorld.com doesn’t necessarily condone the comments here, nor does it review every post. Read our full policy. Also, read about banned accounts and harassing comments.
just_another_bozo_on_this_bus (anonymous) says…
Power Play? Give me a break!! The proposal is to bring this mostly publicly financed position under the direct control of the democratically controlled city commission, who are directly answerable to the taxpayers who finance it.
Do commissioners have agendas and personal political philosophies, and do these affect the policies they try to implement? Of course they do. That was especially the case prior to the election of PLC candidates when the Chamber-affiliated commissioners carried out the very narrow interests of that organization. And I'm sure that the PLC-affiliated commissioners are concerned that the city isn't well-served when important city policy is developed and implemented by private organizations with an obvious conflict of interest.
But even if this position comes under the city's control, there is nothing preventing the Chamber of Commerce from continuing to fund their own efforts in this area, but on their own nickel. They can also continue to fund candidates and see if they can convince the city electorate their policies will serve the city better.
And enough of the sloganeering. I have seen more evidence of Lawrence being attractive to business, especially in this newspaper, than it's being "business unfriendly." Exactly what does that mean, anyway? State the policies that make it so, and explain it in detail. If you really want this decision to be well-considered, stop these sneering and unsubstantial editorials.
Liberal (anonymous) says…
Your name says it all, "bozo". Show me an election report that shows anywhere that the chamber has funded a candidate for election...That quote alone is enough to find you not credible.
The ecodevo department is a partnership between the business community (who ought to know a little more then a governmental agency, what a company might be looking for), Douglas County and the City of Lawrence.
The city already has decided democratically that this is the way they want to fund ecodevo efforts here and the leader of ecodevo is answerable to the taxpayers who finance it already.
The only thing that bringing in this department into the city would do is make sure at least with this admin, that nothing happens. No abatements, no jobs, no new residents, no, no, no, then they will apoint task forces and commission studies that prove common sense will win everytime and then they will just do the opposite.
It seems as if you must work at the Universtity or some other Govt group since you do not seem to understand why businesses think this is a business unfriendly environment. That idea is considered true by an overwhelming group of business owners. You know why, try risking a nickel and find out.
just_another_bozo_on_this_bus (anonymous) says…
One thing about a screen name like mine, it smokes out those with nothing to say really quickly.
And nothing is exactly what you have said. You failed to explain how the proposed change will negatively affect the business community, or how Lawrence is "business unfriendly" other than indicating that "friendly" means corporate welfare in the form of abatements. Everything else you say is nothing more than the same sneering argument by assertion that was in the editorial and ad hominem attack against University and government workers (of which I am neither.) Business owners do have something to contribute in this area, but they aren't omniscient gods whose opinions ought to trump everyone else's.
So if you really don't like the proposal, put up or shut up with substantial arguments which you can bring to the next Chamber campaign for commission seats (and feigning ignorance of these campaigns doesn't really fool anybody.)
Liberal (anonymous) says…
Campaign contributions are public record, I again ask you to prove your allegation of chamber funding of candidates...
You attack me bozo, for doing exactly what you are doing. You have not provided a basis for your argument. I clearly have stated that our governmental officals have been elected by due process and have decided to fund eco devo by sharing the responsibility with two other groups, the County and the Chamber. There is more oversight then if it was run by the City alone.
Again, I do not have to prove my point or come up with another idea, because I am arguing for the status quo.
Look at the cities business climate report and you will see that most businesses in this town do believe it is an unfriendly environment, again no proof needed for a belief that is widely held, perception is reality and if companies believe that this is a difficult place to do business, then it is...If prospective professors for KU think Kansas is a backwards state whether it is or not matters little.
just_another_bozo_on_this_bus (anonymous) says…
Contributions are a public record, and that public record has consistently shown individuals associated with, and indeed quite influential within the Chamber, contributing large sums of money to candidates who support positions favored by both these individual contributors and the Chamber. There is nothing wrong with that, but it's quite curious that they (and you) find it necessary to deny that there is a "Chamber Agenda," and that the City Commission has for decades been dominated by commissioners who pushed the pro-development, pro-growth agenda. Instead they bitch about others' agendas, and pretend to be some pristine, disinterested bystanders. I don't know what's worse, their greed or their dishonesty.
For the record, I have not attacked you. I have criticized the content of your post. There is a difference.
And FYI, the reason for this editorial is that a democratically elected city commissioner has proposed putting the city's economic development under the city's control. If he and two other commissioners decide to democratically implement such a policy, it will be just as democratic (and quite arguably more democratic) than the status quo. If you really like the status quo, there is very likely a 3-vote majority that might vote in a reorganization of eco-devo. If you don't want it to change, you'd better come up with some good arguments why it shouldn't, and as yet, neither you nor the editorial writer have done so.
I have no doubt that within the echo Chamber many find the current state of affairs business unfriendly. After all, they no longer have a city commission and planning commission who will rubberstamp anything that comes before them-they actually consider other constituencies within the city, who vote and pay taxes, and who have to live with and pay for the decisions these commissions make.
I have heard that there is some movement within the Chamber to learn how to play well with others. I hope that is the case. Regardless of whether you are pro- or anti-growth (I'm neither, for what it's worth, as is the majority, IMO) this city will continue to grow. If we are to avoid more disasters like 23rd street, we need all stakeholders involved in planning that growth, not just those who stand to directly profit from it.
Liberal (anonymous) says…
Their is no question that people in business are going to support one type of candidate over another generally, they are going to be looking for candidates who support their belief system. They are also going to band together in groups that can represent them to the city and state, like the chamber.
But, just because people in the business community support a candidate and they also are members of the chamber does not mean that they chamber is behind the activity, I know for a fact that they are not.
Here is another example, most of the businesses in town are members of Friends of the Lied Center, Rotary Club Members or some other civic org as well...your argument that members of the chamber contribute so the chamber must be behind it, means that the Lied Center and other groups are equally running candidates through.
What is important about the current system is it is the norm for ecodevo in communities, you could look at what benchmarks are there for these departments, you will find that by and large they are communty partnerships. Why I favor the current system is that you have input from the entire community of Douglas County. You are represented as a citizen of Lawrence by your city commission, if you happen to be a busiess person the chamber represents your interest and if you are in another city or in the county the County Commissioners represent you.
As I said three bodies of oversight. If you allow the City to take over the position then you have the chance that it will become politicized as many in the community think has happened in the planning commission...of course those who are on the other side of the growth issue (lke you) think that the past was politiced.
In my view three bodies protect our mutual better then one.
just_another_bozo_on_this_bus (anonymous) says…
I suppose that groups such as Friends of Lied Center, Rotary, etc. occasionally get involved in issues of city government, but that involvement is very limited. The same can't be said for the Chamber, an organization that very clearly has been used as the major local political organization for growth and development interests I think we would all be better served if they could be as honest about their agenda, and their efforts in promotiing it, as the PLC is with the candidates it supports.
You obviously don't want to remove this government cash cow from the Chamber's control. But there are plenty of other groups who would like to add their own oversight. How about letting the PLC become the fourth partner? And why stop there-- why not the Friends of the Lied Center, the Rotarians, and the Anarchists? The list could go on forever-- after all, we can't trust the elected government officials to properly oversee government functions.