All great analysis except that so-called "economic development" has never been practiced nor has it been defined. All those who abuse this concept have never practiced the CED profession, where such "wicked challenges" are critically examined. BREAKING NEWS: Concepts do matter.
Everyone assumes that ED is equivalent to business development, which is not the case. The commercial real estate industry has taken an important concept from the CED paradigm and used it to refer to commercial real estate development, heavily subsidized by public resources.
Why haven't we seen expertise with respect to SA's intervene structural poverty, impoverishment and economic segregation, given that we had "the best city Manager in the country" for 14 yrs? Given that "community representation" at the policy table the past 50 yrs have consisted of "progressive", "grassroots", "people of color"? Where is this critical analysis by our community leadership, our academics from Trinity U., UTSA, and St. Mary's, and from our "watchdog" press?
Merely subsidizing business investors and developers is not "economic development"; subsidizing "job creation" and "expanding the tax base" is not "economic development". Subsidizing the Spurs reveals much more than has ever been understood from a governance and foresight perspective, a metric SA has recently earned a "below average" score, ranking #151 overall in the U.S. out of 25O cities. SA is a city which does not value transparency or accountability, yet has unrealistic aspirations beyond its reach.
First, I discount entirely the study you cite. This will probably become a reframe. To start, New York ranks #1 overall based a lot on a top social-cohesion score, even though it has some of the most extensive and documented inequality and civic distrust in the country. That's only possible because they've defined cohesion largely as density, walkability, and transit access. It also puts us only a hair behind of Houston, one of the rising cities of recent memory. Furthermore, there is hardly any differentiation with regards to the governance and foresight category for the entire Texas triangle--it even puts us over Houston and tied with Dallas, implying these are based on structural conditions that don't predict performance. It measures a municipality's subscription to the authors intended model of governance, not any true holistic measure of success, and is aimed at getting consulting contracts and supporting an upcoming book. As a tool for measuring anything valuable about San Antonio or any other metro, I think it's worthless. It's intended purpose is to generate headlines
Second, I don't think retaining the Spurs is really an issue of economic development, but is a holistic issue aimed at maintaining San Antonio's relevance in all areas. You'll note I don't discuss the Spurs economic impact, though I could have, because I don't think it's truly an economic argument. We have to keep the Spurs because they're one of the few remaining national institutions that signal we are a top metro area, and if they leave then it's both a signal of active decline and a detraction from our national image. It will be harder, not easier, to attract investment and maintain the population if the Spurs leave. It's also something of a civic good.
Third, I agree with your point about lethargy with improving structural issues entirely. That's essentially the thesis of The Civic: civic leadership across the board seems disinterested in solving these structural issues, preferring to signal to their respective political coalitions.
Finally, I think subsidizing investment in the abstract is a bad concept overall. Despite this, it will and has happened, and to mixed results. If we are going to subsidize things, it should be the things that work rather than stagnate or fail outright.
Growth engines as a theme implies civic success, but it's similar to citing GDP metrics, which has typically been used a long time. But this metric reflects the general metro economy, not the communities left behind from disinvestment. Therefore, growth engine narratives can be very distorted, much like one arm of a K economy.
All great analysis except that so-called "economic development" has never been practiced nor has it been defined. All those who abuse this concept have never practiced the CED profession, where such "wicked challenges" are critically examined. BREAKING NEWS: Concepts do matter.
Everyone assumes that ED is equivalent to business development, which is not the case. The commercial real estate industry has taken an important concept from the CED paradigm and used it to refer to commercial real estate development, heavily subsidized by public resources.
Why haven't we seen expertise with respect to SA's intervene structural poverty, impoverishment and economic segregation, given that we had "the best city Manager in the country" for 14 yrs? Given that "community representation" at the policy table the past 50 yrs have consisted of "progressive", "grassroots", "people of color"? Where is this critical analysis by our community leadership, our academics from Trinity U., UTSA, and St. Mary's, and from our "watchdog" press?
Merely subsidizing business investors and developers is not "economic development"; subsidizing "job creation" and "expanding the tax base" is not "economic development". Subsidizing the Spurs reveals much more than has ever been understood from a governance and foresight perspective, a metric SA has recently earned a "below average" score, ranking #151 overall in the U.S. out of 25O cities. SA is a city which does not value transparency or accountability, yet has unrealistic aspirations beyond its reach.
Hi Fernando,
First, I discount entirely the study you cite. This will probably become a reframe. To start, New York ranks #1 overall based a lot on a top social-cohesion score, even though it has some of the most extensive and documented inequality and civic distrust in the country. That's only possible because they've defined cohesion largely as density, walkability, and transit access. It also puts us only a hair behind of Houston, one of the rising cities of recent memory. Furthermore, there is hardly any differentiation with regards to the governance and foresight category for the entire Texas triangle--it even puts us over Houston and tied with Dallas, implying these are based on structural conditions that don't predict performance. It measures a municipality's subscription to the authors intended model of governance, not any true holistic measure of success, and is aimed at getting consulting contracts and supporting an upcoming book. As a tool for measuring anything valuable about San Antonio or any other metro, I think it's worthless. It's intended purpose is to generate headlines
Second, I don't think retaining the Spurs is really an issue of economic development, but is a holistic issue aimed at maintaining San Antonio's relevance in all areas. You'll note I don't discuss the Spurs economic impact, though I could have, because I don't think it's truly an economic argument. We have to keep the Spurs because they're one of the few remaining national institutions that signal we are a top metro area, and if they leave then it's both a signal of active decline and a detraction from our national image. It will be harder, not easier, to attract investment and maintain the population if the Spurs leave. It's also something of a civic good.
Third, I agree with your point about lethargy with improving structural issues entirely. That's essentially the thesis of The Civic: civic leadership across the board seems disinterested in solving these structural issues, preferring to signal to their respective political coalitions.
Finally, I think subsidizing investment in the abstract is a bad concept overall. Despite this, it will and has happened, and to mixed results. If we are going to subsidize things, it should be the things that work rather than stagnate or fail outright.
Growth engines as a theme implies civic success, but it's similar to citing GDP metrics, which has typically been used a long time. But this metric reflects the general metro economy, not the communities left behind from disinvestment. Therefore, growth engine narratives can be very distorted, much like one arm of a K economy.