Everyone in Sacramento is still concerned about the economy. Sacramento still has one of the highest unemployment rates in the state at 8.4%. With a population of about 500,000, this means that 42,000 people in Sacramento are looking for work and unable to find a job. This doesn't include those of you that are working part time, but would prefer full-time employment. Residents of Sacramento are far worse off than the average Californian (7.3%), and should be in shock of our close neighbor San Francisco (4.5%).
With such low prospects for the talent and workforce that exists in Sacramento, one would hope that City leaders would be aggressively developing and promoting policies that bring more business and jobs to our doorstep. Other than the Entertainment Sports Complex, what business, jobs, economic proposals have been touted by the City Council? Perhaps there is an underlying reason that we aren't seeing appropriate activity from Sacramento's leadership.
Cue the General Plan.
I'll be looking only at the part entitled Economic Development today. On the very first page (2-85), city staff write:
"Businesses are an important source
of the city's economic well-being..."
of the city's economic well-being..."
Wait, what!?!? Businesses are the (1) central, (2) most important, (3) imperative, (4) required source of economic well-being. One might say that I'm arguing semantics here in suggesting that a different word should have been used, but this is absolutely a distinction that reveals the nonsensical thinking of Sacramento's economic development plan.
I will acquiesce that a significant portion of Sacramento's economic activity is tied to state government (27.6% in 2011), but the likelihood that Sacramento will add jobs through state government is low, and Sacramento's leadership can't affect change that will improve those odds. Let's focus on what we CAN change, and not what we CAN'T.
A simple economic principle is that wealth can only be created by building or doing something - it must come from business. It matters little whether the production is by small business or multi-national corporations. This is why the choice of words used in the planning document are so ... well, wrong.
What kind of "supportive business climate" are City leaders planning on using to bring business to Sacramento? Let's look:
- The first element of the plan is to develop an Economic Development Strategy to "identify priorities, support prosperity, and improve long-term fiscal competitiveness" (ED 1.1.1). What does this mean to you? To me, it means "we don't have a clue what to do, so we're going to hope something lands in our lap."
- An equal portion is to develop the City Image to "promote Sacramento among its citizens and the wider business community as a livable community and an excellent place to do business" (ED 1.1.2). I think we've all heard the idiom actions speak louder than words. It's true - and especially true in the business community. Simply telling them that Sacramento is a "livable community" does absolutely nothing to build a better business climate.
- Alright, how about Economic Development Partnerships to "partner with economic development organizations and business to improve and advance Sacramento's economic development climate" (ED 1.1.3). This sounds like we might be getting somewhere. But if you read it closely it says that the City Council will abdicate their responsibility for economic development to outside organizations, so they can shift blame and point fingers when five years down the road we're still stuck in the same rut.
- The best element of this plan is the Small and Startup Business Assistance to "assist small and startup businesses with resource referrals and financial and technical assistance" (ED 1.1.4). I am hopeful that this proposals receives all of the attention, time, and consideration from the City Council that it certainly deserves. I would also be hopeful that the City Council would consider extending similar assistance and relief to ANY business which might open doors and employ our neighbors in Sacramento.
- Fifth on the list of priorities is Tourism and Related Business "to work with the Sacramento Convention and Visitors Bureau... to expand local amenities and to market Sacramento as a tourist destination and convention venue" (ED 1.1.5). Sacramento is a wonderful place to live, and a great place to visit. Consider, however, how many people from San Francisco or San Diego come to Sacramento for a vacation. Now, compare that with the number of Sacramentans that choose to go to San Francisco or San Diego for vacation (or sometimes just a weekend journey to the Bay). Tourism revenues are highly volatile, and without a national or global profile this seems like a policy that was produced when the "spaghetti was thrown against the wall".
- Moving down the list we find Environmentally Sustainable, Green Technology, and Clean Technology Businesses to "attract and retain environmentally conscious businesses that contribute to long-term economic and environmental sustainability" (ED 1.1.6). There is a clear and obvious lack of focus in this objective. Taken in concert with other initiatives of late, such as "farm to fork capitol", it demonstrates an unfortunate lack of vision from the City's leaders. This policy appears to have been composed by an intern that has been reading newspapers about new business initiatives across the nation and wants one of them to come to Sacramento. One of these industries might be a good fit, or we might find a better fit with biotech, financial, goods movement, or other industry sectors.
- Finally, the City proposes a Small Business Program to "support ongoing efforts of the Business Environmental Resource Center efforts to advance sustainable business programs" (ED 1.1.7). Well, let's start by saying (again) that BERC is not a City program. It is built and run by the County. Once again, City leadership is abdicating their responsibilities to another outside group - and in this case, one that does not necessarily have the City of Sacramento as its core concern. BERC is a portal for businesses to learn about and comply with regulations and licensing ... hardly an "attractive" resource for developing a vibrant economy.
It took only two pages of the six in the Economic Development section of the 2035 General Plan raise serious questions about the competence of City staff and the ability for City leadership to bring economic prosperity to Sacramento and help bring our deplorable unemployment under control. What's worse, none of this economic plan recognizes, supports, or promotes Sacramento as the hub for coastal goods movement, and a gateway between California's ports and the rest of the Western United States. Sacramento has key infrastructure for air, rail, waterway, and roadway intersections.
I will leave you with the comments of three local leaders ... all of whom seem to be echoing (in part) my comments above.
Posts
