In today’s daily paper, former Pensacola Mayor Jerry Maygarden makes that point that economic development is not the city government’s job. While I agree with Maygarden that the primary role of municipal government is public safety, assuring safe water/ reliable sewer/trash collection and maintaining roads and parks, I also think that government should be sure that it doesn’t hinder economic development. By its ordinances and very operation, the city is knee deep in economic development.
The city is the final judge of and approves every development project – including the technology park- within its boundaries. How can it say it’s not involved in economic development? It sets the design criteria in special districts inside the city.
The city spends millions with local vendors. How it awards contracts has a huge impact on local businesses.
The taxes and other fees that the Pensacola City Council sets impact home and business owners…..and economic development.
Finally the City controls two major economic cornerstones – the airport and the port. How it manages those resources has a huge impact on this economy.
Nice try, Jerry, but Pensacola City government is the middle of economic development in Escambia County…whether it wants to admit it or not.
Popularity: 29% [?]
The city has done a lousy job with rfp’s or the lack thereof. The Hawkshaw was a sham with the affordable housing carrot dangled in order to win. Once they won, it was give me your park for stormwater and vacate a city street, let me add a partner. This is one of the same developers that “won” Aragon and it is still not built out according to the last “plan”.
Design criteria? If that is really what it was, but when you look at some of the designs that have been approved for some without stormwater or parking or other basics and then see how other good projects are micromanaged and put under a microscope, you have to wonder what is really going on.
Anonymoose:
I think we are on the same page. I could have done a better job of expressing myself.
Rick, your point above in your rebuttal….”The city is the final judge of and approves every development project – including the technology park…..It sets the design criteria in special districts inside the city”..is a good characterization of what is happening and has occurred. However, what I took from the article was that the city should not be involved with those projects in the sense that it has been, it can’t manage them properly, it’s not the city’s responsibility to us, it’s not the city’s job. It’s the role of the private industry. The city should not be trying to dictate land useage in cases of economic development beyond what is spelled out in the Land Development Code. The parameters that are set out in some of the most recent RFP’s involving large projects go way beyond the LDC with requirements for affordable housing and employment requirements. Correct me if I’m wrong on this, but I don’t recall the City of Gulf Breeze putting out an RFP for the property that Avalex will be purchasing, nor did it have any requirements for affordable housing or employment requirements. Regardless, the reason why Pensacola lost the only development opportunity it had in recent memory that didn’t require the taxpayers shelling out millions of dollars was because we (the City Council) beat the developer to death. The citizens and the business community should be working directly with the Chamber of Commerce to foster economic development and leave the government to focus on what it should be doing best, public safety and the protection of our rights.
The title of the viewpoint is “Economic health not the city’s job.” My point is that the city plays too big a role in the economy to not have “economic health” considered one of its jobs.
That’s not a rebuttal, but a mischaracterization of what Mr. Maygarden stated in his editorial. In fact, he said that “a single municipal government couldn’t bear that burden alone, and insisted that local governments interface with the private sector to get the job done.” At no point did he say that the City of Pensacola should not be “involved in economic development.”
Betty-it seems to me that if someone who claims to have a viable business plan for a development project that someone wouldn’t have any problems whatsoever getting investors on board to help fund that project if the would-be developer can’t fund his own ideas.
Maygarden is right. our city thinks service jobs are all we need- and tech jobs. Idiots!
“Pensacola Mayor Jerry Maygarden makes that point that economic development is not the city government’s job.”
-
What a load of hooey! I should think that in order to ensure a stable environment within the city, economic development should be a prime concern of city government. If this attitude is typical of city hall thinking then no wonder Pensacola is time locked in 1929.
If it isn’t the job of city government to be involved in economic development then why are taxpayers funding the Chamber of Commerce including almost a $200,000. salary for it’s president.
Good luck finding a job here that pays that and doesn’t measure results.
Rick, I think you missed what he was saying. He didn’t say the city wasn’t involved with ED, he said it shouldn’t be involved in ED. I believe he is absolutely correct that government should not be involved in ED to the extent that it controls every little detail of a development project (i.e., technology park on 9th). Private industry is better at deciding what, where and when to develop. Obviously, it is important that the city is involved in making sure development adheres to development codes and that taxes and fees are fair and conducive to attracting developers. It is important that the COP has a liaison that actively contacts businesses that are here about their needs and new businesses about what would it take to attract them here. But, the answer is always the same, less stranglehold over the development project and less taxes. It’s funny how anyone in this area wanting to improve ED talks about doing just the opposite, creating more guidelines for development and more taxes. Then, the first time a big fish comes along guess what kind of a deal they get? More leeway on development and tax breaks. Funny how that works.
It is the responsibility and roll of local government to represent the interests of the general population they are supposed to serve, and to assure compliance with regulations in matters of local development, not to use taxpayer funds and public property as giveaways for private development. Which of the council members campaigned for the roll of developer? Which is qualified?
What provision of the agreement details what will become of the property and the debt should the ball park fail to be self supporting/financially viable?