State should be picky with handouts

MomSeattle · DadSeattle · SPI · MySeattlePix · My account

Local

US/World

Sports

Business

A&E

Life

Comics

Photos

Opinion

Blogs

Buy Ads

Jobs

Autos

Homes

Rentals

NWsource

Bill Virgin

Tuesday, September 21, 2004

State should be picky with handouts

By BILL VIRGIN
SEATTLE POST-INTELLIGENCER COLUMNIST

First of two parts

When the legislature and the new governor blow into Olympia next January, they'll find waiting for them a stack of economic development issues and proposals, some broad, some specifically targeted -- such as the idea for a new NASCAR racetrack, possibly in Snohomish County.

Many of these proposals will be complex and require weeks if not months of analysis and debate. The NASCAR track proposal, by comparison, should be relatively easy to deal with.

Local officials and track developers are likely to ask for financing help as well as money for road construction and improvements. As a report prepared by county officials dryly notes, "We appreciate that there will need to be a significant public financial element in the successful development of this facility."

To which the new governor and the Legislature should answer: "Nope, sorry, not on our list. But thanks for asking and good luck with your project."

Already you can hear the gearheads grumbling: "Hey, no fair. You gave all that stuff to Boeing and you'll probably be doing the same thing for biotech so you've got to do the same for us, and we've got this report showing all the money that will be generated and besides we're not asking for all that much, and did we mention that it's not fair?"

To which the new governor and the Legislature should answer: "No, we don't have to do the same for you. Life is sometimes unfair. If you want a track, pay for it yourself."

Should, anyway.

Too often economic development issues are seen as all-or-nothing propositions. Either the city, the county, the state or the feds are expected to open the vaults to anyone wants to back up the truck to the door of the public vaults and start shoveling, or they are expected to say no to every and all requests to help a company or an industry.

Neither approach is reasonable, the first because there simply isn't enough to go round for everyone, the latter because, well, everyone else is doing it (admittedly not a very good reason) and because there are definite economic payoffs for creating the climate in which specific companies and industries will be created or relocate and thrive.

All of which means government will have to be selective, pick and choose, say yes to some and no to others -- tasks for which it shown, at best, spotty aptitude and inclination.

It is an exercise the state went through last year, albeit belatedly and in something of a fire-drill fashion, when it decided to put together a package to persuade Boeing to locate development of the 7E7 in Everett. The state made a case -- a compelling one, to my mind -- for doing so, although it caught and continues to catch considerable grief from true believers on both ends of the political spectrum. But the state showed a commendable willingness to set a priority, see it through and endure the sniping.

It is an exercise that the Seattle City Council is now going through as it mulls over the future of South Lake Union as a research and development center for biotech. Seattle's experience is a good illustration of the point that not only can government pick and choose which industries it will target for encouragement, it can pick and choose which options are effective and affordable, and which are just reaching.

For example: The biotech industry wants zoning changes to accommodate lab space? Sure, the council says, we'll look at that. The biotech community wants an improved utility substation to handle the increased demands for electricity research labs will impose? Sure, the council says, we'll consider that.

The biotech developers want a streetcar between South Lake Union and downtown? Surely, the council says, you jest.

It is an exercise in which the Port of Seattle commission is now embroiled as it deals with an oddball proposal for the port to "invest" in expansion of the Meydenbauer Center convention facility in Bellevue, under the guise of making it some sort of "world trade center" for the Eastside.

It is entirely prudent for government to evaluate which measures are essential and which are frivolous (i.e., a streetcar), which are just giveaways and which simply clear obstacles to success.

But how does government pick and choose which companies, industries and sectors it will actively encourage, and which will be left to their own devices?

On what grounds does it say yes to a 7E7, yes to biotech -- but no to a proposed race-car track, a streetcar or a convention center expansion?

Not surprisingly, we've got some ideas about those, which are ... the subject of Thursday's column.

P-I reporter Bill Virgin can be reached at 206-448-8319 or billvirgin@seattlepi.com. His column appears Tuesdays and Thursdays.

Add P-I Business headlines to