If Tacoma loses Russell (Part IV)
February 25th, 2008 by Republican By DefaultTacoma City Council Prepares to Spend Big
The city council will be voting on a resolution tomorrow (Summary of Items for the Agenda for February 26, 2008 - PDF) that would designate an area in downtown Tacoma as an ‘International Financial Services Area’. I have no idea what that is, but the Business Examiner Daily describes its effect this way:
The designation would allow the city access to a deeper pool of resources and incentives to keep the company in town since it is not only one of the largest employers in the city, but provides a base of higher-wage jobs and serves as a base of the city’s downtown revitalization efforts.
Translation: the city is preparing to spend big money to keep Russell in Tacoma.
Creating a financial district (officially or otherwise) in Tacoma is, in my opinion, putting the cart before the horse. The horse, in this case, is a thriving economy that needs numerous financial industry businesses to meet its needs. The cart, of course, is the support industry that helps handle all of the money. So I’m guessing that the cart will just sit there until the horse figures out how to push it.
Something else that annoys me is the way that the city council tries to obscure what they’re really doing. They’ve been trying for decades to build a financial district, based upon Russell being there, and it has failed. The area they’ve mapped out is just big enough to hold both Russell’s current location and the site they hope that Russell will build (or someone will build for them). Isn’t that a little transparent? It’s not about building their financial district, it’s about keeping Russell. I’d prefer that they own up to it.
And I wonder if they think that ‘designating’ this area as a financial district will change anything. Is this “Field of Dreams: Tacoma”? A throwback to “Visualize Tacoma”?
Here’s one more question. Will this designation condemn this area to stagnation until it’s used for financial services companies? Isn’t that what happened to the area where UWT is planning (or is that ‘hoping’) to someday expand? Who’s going to build or renovate there knowing that they’ll just lose it to the master plan in a few years?
Personally, I believe the Russell issue is just a part of a much bigger issue. The bigger issue is the direction that Tacoma’s leaders are trying to take the city and the reaction to it in the business community. I believe that the people of Tacoma have the ability to restore Tacoma’s downtown to a thriving business district, along with the rest of the city and much of the county and region, but that the planners are getting in the way.
Update: The Business Examiner Daily reports that the item was removed from tonight’s meeting agenda. The updated agenda is here (PDF).
In this series:
If Tacoma loses Russell (Part I)
If Tacoma loses Russell (Part II)
If Tacoma loses Russell (Part III)
If Tacoma loses Russell (Part IV)
If Tacoma loses Russell (Part V)
If Tacoma loses Russell (Part VI)
If Tacoma loses Russell (Part VII)
February 26th, 2008 at 2:15 pm
“I believe that the people of Tacoma have the ability to restore Tacoma’s downtown to a thriving business district, along with the rest of the city and much of the county and region, but that the planners are getting in the way.”
How about a post that outlines just how this can be done? Your post are very critical of Tacoma city government and the Tacoma business climate in general, and I sometimes agree with you. However, you fail to follow up with CONCRETE policy ideas that would work better than what is being done now. Your posts vaguely remind me of Barack Obama speeches. Where’s the beef?
February 26th, 2008 at 2:40 pm
Touche, and lol.
Said post is forthcoming.
But for openers, on the topic at hand, I would suggest finding an objective economist who would compare the additional money that the city is about to dump into keeping Russell to objective measures of the potential effect of spreading that money around to bolster other businesses as well as quality of life issues. It’s possible that with the right business climate the actual money that Tacoma would lose on Russell could be made up for with a number of smaller businesses. If done quickly and effectively it might even have an effect before 2013 when Russell might pull out.
I’m sure they would focus on downtown, so some thoughts would be tax breaks for any business interested in locating downtown (or a complete repeal of Tacoma’s business tax). Or possibly grants to cover costs of regulations from agencies such as the EPA or the additional costs of remodeling in historical areas. Additional policie presence would be helpful in some areas, along with additional prosecutors (as needed). Government backed small business loans can be helpful. I could go on, but that would spoil future posts.
February 26th, 2008 at 3:02 pm
“It’s possible that with the right business climate the actual money that Tacoma would lose on Russell could be made up for with a number of smaller businesses.”
Certainly possible, but smaller businesses dont pay the same wages as Russell does.