Posted on by

Newman’s Own Land Use

I’ve noticed my grocery shopping habits have tended toward a brand with a reputation for ethical business practices and high quality products. I’m spending the grocery money anyway – what’s not to like.

While explaining the shift of preferences to a friend in Colorado, I quipped that I wished that Newman was running land use in Oregon. Or had a competing program. What would the customers do? Would they shift to a provider known for careful operational and product quality?

I pay a bit more for Newman’s Own Lite Raspberry and Walnut salad dressing compared to other bottles on the shelf. While I’m willing to bet that cities would gladly pay more for reliable quality and timely completion I’m also willing to bet that they won’t have to pay more. Quite the opposite.

If Newman’s Own Land Use reduced by even a modest percentage the costs of lost productivity, legal wrangling and delay, it would be a winner on the shelf. Even out-of-pocket costs could decline if less could be spent on consultants who know how to navigate a whimsical state product offering.

Sound tasty to you?

Posted on by

Housing and schools

When I speak to local governments about what they can do to improve their local economy at some point I always mention housing and schools.

If they are wishing for a shiny new factory full of high paying jobs, and who isn’t, they will balk at the notion of housing and schools. Housing and schools are not glamorous and too often economic development initiatives are about political glamour. There is not a lot of money sloshing around from other layers of government – no ka-ching.

Housing and schools are hard work. Working on them can be controversial. There are no quick fixes.

Yet local governments have a lot of influence or could. And they should. I often ask my larger audiences if they live in a community where the city council meets regularly with the school board. Very few hands go up – I can remember only two. So I never get to ask the part 2 question – do they meet and talk about housing?

Local economies need young workers. Schools need young families – that’s how their funding works here in Oregon, and in Colorado, and many other states. It should come as no surprise – young families seek good housing choices and good schools.

Many cities have a completely hands off approach to housing. Whatever the developer wants to build and the neighborhood will tolerate, that’s the housing policy. Developers look at current market conditions and try to determine what they can build and sell quickly and profitably. Long range community strategy is not their problem.

Established neighborhoods often resist a new mix of housing types. Bad for property values they say. And while they say they are not against ‘those people’ obviously new housing types make ‘more sense’ elsewhere. Yet these neighborhoods will howl when the elementary school has to close because there are not enough children in older leafy static neighborhoods. Subsidize a tiny magnet school they demand – subsidize me – and if they have enough political power it might happen.

I am no expert on making the schools themselves better. I will say the community has a stake – not just the school board, parents or teacher’s union. So the whole community has to be involved. A good start is for the city council and school board to meet regularly. Talk about schools. Talk about housing. Talk about economic development.

Posted on by

The Secret Sauce: Ownership

Thomas Friedman, writing in the NYTimes about education, politics and global competition observes “We’re going through a huge technological transformation in the middle of a recession. It requires a systemic response.”

He reports that the Program for International Student Assessment, or PISA, found that the most successful students are those who feel real “ownership” of their education. “The highest performing PISA schools all have “ownership” cultures — a high degree of professional autonomy for teachers in the classrooms, where teachers get to participate in shaping standards and curriculum and have ample time for continuous professional development.”

It made me reflect on the culture of dependency and lack of autonomy Oregon’s land use program fosters in our stressed out cities and rural counties. There are a few local governments who know they are empowered but most spend their limited resources hoping to comply with the whimsical review and appeal process.

In such a circumstance they can’t be held accountable for the outcomes or lack thereof. And it is only getting worse. Will the state guarantee these communities will thrive? Of course not. Will it let locals experiment? Not much.

Will the secret sauce – owning the outcome – remain a form of unobtanium?