Laserfiche WebLink
How Economic Developers Evaluate Project Impacts - Site Selection Magazine - March 2001Page 3 of 6 <br /> VIMorganizational setting can provide insight as to the public sector's a 4411.1 <br /> • views towards projects. Generally,we could assume that planning and Om$5444114041, as <br /> zoning officials are highly structured and quantitative in their do to opal te4 want Op do <br /> approach to projects and that economic development projects under their consideration should be highly <br /> consistent with comprehensive land use plans. The approach to economic development by planners can be <br /> described as the "rational model." Public officials working under the rational model can be obsessed with <br /> data collection and process related issues that could seriously delay a project. <br /> If an economic development department is independent of other municipal departments,then the <br /> underlying motivation toward projects and the reward structure would <br /> 11 <br /> be based less on the defined rational goals of a planning model and ' "n'�.t�l`ii ` '�o`i it i � '�'��''�''`' <br /> G Y �fi+ll.`ctlil 1,•I S1.'.C1ii:1 <br /> more on a definition of success determined by the number of sites <br /> r <br /> marketed and employers retained in the community.Accordingly, inkpwallent 144413344* <br /> *7 <br /> independent economic development departments can be perceived as Partonierr Di nttike-Proft 04330430333 Comas 4112 <br /> $1 <br /> more sales oriented in nature. <br /> DDNr <br /> Table 3 shows the composition of organizational settings for Famof cdas i <br /> economic development departments surveyed. DMleNCarried Oft Of Swint Onsrvemus U <br /> Over 73 percent of the economic development officials <br /> responding to the survey described their community as having '� 1 n° <br /> proactive economic development policies; only 26.5 percent of the respondents felt that their community's <br /> economic development policies were reactive in nature. <br /> Survey respondents were asked to rank general industry groups by the degree of importance to their <br /> IIIrespective community's economic base.Retail was the leading <br /> industry group with almost 84 percent of economic development chi. -r C:r1�}r_, I I <br /> llit �'•;ly imply rill' tLi, <br /> calling it critically important or very important to their economic base. <br /> Mud.. <br /> i <br /> Surprisingly,manufacturing(the industry group with the highest <br /> income multipliers for a community)was ranked third with only 73 kw ni <br /> percent referring to it as critical to or very important to their SerAcat 134133e144 813 <br /> community's economic base. Table 4 shows how other industries' <br /> Martsmosid KO <br /> fared in this area. Kiss 542 <br /> It is helpful to see how economic development officials rate the 744$144"4/444444/ 4" <br /> azi <br /> advantages of their communities in attracting new businesses.As a Ans e eigitaisardt <br /> point of reference on key location factors for corporate real estate *Won $3 <br /> executives, Table 5 shows the results of a 1993 survey by Conway 1 <br /> Data(Site Selection, 1994)that ranked overall key location factors. <br /> Table 6 shows how municipal economic development officials rated community advantages in terms of <br /> being very important in attracting new businesses and retaining <br /> existing businesses. <br /> ( t I: ;i E:1,iti� <br /> These surveys of corporate real estate executives and economic t t i i il. r 1 <br /> development administrators are not intended to be comparable. They �. <br /> were conducted at different times,on different groups and with L Amin*33444013Wow <br /> entirely different objectives in mind. However, some general um llrrataarreats <br /> statements can be made about the ratings of the two groups regarding A ommossaiskitt � oulise <br /> � <br /> location advantages. Public-sector economic development officials t AwarNiw i Th <br /> http://www.siteselection.com/issues/2001/mar/p146/ 4/5/01 <br />