5views.com

I just got back from the presentation by a consulting firms hired by the city of Tacoma to (supposedly) help them figure out what to do about the floundering downtown area. I was encouraged by a few things, discouraged by some others and I can still smell Freighthouse Square on my clothes.

There were two basic parts to the discussion: Survey results and economic impacts. Both were on slide shows and the economic impact portion had a flier at the door. Oh, and there were some average grits for snackin’.

Here’s my bullet points.

On the upside:

• I was somewhat impressed by Angelou, and I’m not easily impressed by consultants (full disclosure, I are one).
• The Angelou folks were quick to explain that they were putting the information that they gathered into a larger context than just downtown (more on that in a minute) .
• The results had already been compared to other similar communities (by Angelou).
• The next ‘phase’ of the consulting project is going to focus on business sectors that the consultants feel are worth pursuing and the steps to take to make those things happen. Based on answers to questions I think they’ll do a relatively good job of that even in light of the skewed focus on downtown which was directed by the city.

And the downside (none of this came directly from the consultants, but is my just observations) :

• I believe that the study was severely hindered by the fact that the city hired them to focus on downtown, rather than the whole city. They made the best of it, but there were several clear indicators (to me) that the larger picture wouldn’t be clear enough to come to any solid conclusions. Ironically, their projector had the top part out of focus even though the lower portion was in focus (interesting unintentional metaphor.)
• Last week the city pitched their offer to Russell which committed the city to following a particular course of action. However, the purpose of this study and the way the material will be used was supposedly intended to determine what course of action to take. Yet another example of the cart-before-the-horse lack of intelligent planning on the city’s part.
• The demographic information from the survey showed a serious flaw in the demographic sample. It showed that 80% of the respondents were white in a community that is far more ethnically diverse than that. It showed that income levels for respondents were higher than the local average (significantly, in my opinion).
• The skewed demographic information seemed to skew the results toward the popular topics of local urbanists (arts, entertainment and transit). With the lack of ethnic, cultural and economic diversity in the sample, I don’t believe it accurately represented the entire community.
• There was a focus on the economic impact of financial service companies which was used to justify it’s prominent inclusion in areas where it came up short. Little or no mention of the Russell issue was made during the presentation.
• I honestly don’t think that the consultants understand the depth of the bias against Tacoma that exists in the region. They seemed to brush the issue aside as simply a marketing failure. That’s my impression, but I could be wrong. They seemed like they knew what they were doing with most of the rest of the issues that came up.
• The overall feeling that I came away with (again, not based on the consultants comments but based on my own observations) was that the city was attempting to find information to justify their continued pursuit of a financial district and the arts/entertainment/tourism industries. (I don’t think those things are a bad idea, I just think they’re bad as a high priority or significant investment of tax dollars.)

The information presented in the slide show will be available soon. I’m sure I’ll have more comments about it when I have specific numbers.

I look forward to seeing their recommendations. I’m actually hopeful that it will be money well spent. (Imagine that, government hiring consultants and getting something worthwhile out of it. Go figure.)

Update: I’m trying to resolve a potential discrepancy between the area defined as downtown in 1995 (used in comparisons in the Angelou presentation) and the area defined in 2008. Here’s what I have so far:

Map of area designated as ‘downtown’ for the purposes of the Angelou study

Here’s a link to the City of Tacoma Web site from January 5, 2007 which says that the area changed:

City Council defines downtown footprint
The Tacoma City Council recently defined the footprint of downtown Tacoma and designated the following principles for planning future growth: Protect neighborhoods, critical areas, the Port of Tacoma, industrial, and manufacturing uses, and increase densities in the downtown and neighborhood business districts.

The new working definition of downtown Tacoma is now bounded to the north by the Stadium District, to the south by Interstate 5, to the east by the Thea Foss Waterway, and to the west by the Hilltop area.

That description matches the map, however, you can see that the city manager calls it a ‘new working definition’. So what was the old one?

The problem is that if the area changed between 1995 and 2008 (so it appears) then any comparisons made between the two time periods need to be adjusted to account for the different area (and therefore different businesses and revenue and employment figures). If an adjustment is not made, the comparison is invalid.

Update: I checked with Angelou about the boundaries. They did compile their numbers for the increased area of the map for 1995 and 2008. I’m waiting to hear back on inflation adjustments.

Update: I just heard back from Angelou. The figures were not adjusted for inflation. It’s difficult to do because inflation (price increases) is different for different industries. I don’t have access to more accurate numbers so I’ll have to use the consumer price index. I’m no expert, but I don’t think it will not be too far off. However, 9/11 was in that period of time and it had a dramatic impact on some industries (airline, travel, etc.) but may not have had the same effect on others (such as healthcare).

It seems a little strange that they didn’t adjust, but it does hint that they are consultants and they not only have to clear what they do through the people that hire them, but they’re also expected to make those people look good whenever possible.

I guess we have to add ‘not adjusted for inflation’ to the list ‘downsides’ above. And maybe we should add that they are paid consultants rather than a unbiased third party.

This entry was posted on Tuesday, April 8th, 2008 at 8:57 pm and is filed under BlogNetNews.com, Business, FeedTacoma.com, Tacoma Contradictions, Tacoma Economy. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. Responses are currently closed, but you can trackback from your own site.