|
Those Crazy Economic Development Guys! Dear Management Doctor: Your recent Hot Info of the Month addresses the relationships of current planning and building permitting with long range planning, but what are your thoughts about the relationship/organizational structure of economic development and planning? Done correctly, economic development should be a primary tool for implementing the comprehensive plan equal to or even more important than zoning. On the other hand, I know some people believe economic development can be “too friendly” with developers and businesses, perhaps at the expense of the regulations that the current planners and building inspectors are trying to enforce. Further, economic development projects often involve very high level negotiations over high stakes, requiring the individual to have direct contact with the city manager/mayor and city council not unlike a department head. However, with these responsibilities it can be difficult to also try to manage a highly diverse department and do both of them well. What are your thoughts about these relationships/structures and what have you seen that works well? Dear Stepchild, I wrote two previous articles on this topic (see below). You make a very important point when you said: “Done correctly, economic development should be a primary tool for implementing the comprehensive plan equal to or even more important than zoning.” In Washington D.C. planning reports to the Mayor through the Deputy in charge of economic development. When I did my study of D.C. many or the pro planning people suggested the planner needed to report directly to the Mayor or under a separate Deputy. However, the Planning Director told me she was exactly where she wanted to be and that was directly involved with the economic development discussions through her involvement with the appropriate Deputy. When did planners start thinking that economic development was someone else’s issue? If there was ever a time we needed more economic planning, it is now. Come on planners, “man up” or “woman up” or whatever phrase you like. The Management Doctor Reader Response Dear Management Doctor, I would add that planning and economic development must work very close together, especially in towns that are “shrinking.” Whatever organization is chosen, it should integrate planning and economic development. And not isolate one from the other. Planners have much to contribute to the revitalization of communities by integrating our traditional tools of skills that address land use and public facilities and circulation and preparing realistic market, population and income projections. Charlie Bien AICP Previous ArticlesEconomic DevelopmentDear Management Doctor: Thanks, Dear J. Justin, For small cities, I recommend that planning and economic development simply be combined. As either function gets larger, then it may be appropriate to have two separate departments. However, these two departments must work closely together. The key questions may relate less to how the functions are organized but how well they work together. For example:
This is a controversial topic amongst many planners and I assume some of our readers will chime in with their opinions. Merger OpportunityDear Management Doctor: Thanks. Dear Merger Opportunity: As such, I recommend that economic development be in a separate division from staff handling the entitlements. On the other hand, there should be good communication and coordination between the two functions, each helping the other. Another issue we also see relating economic development and redevelopment. In this case, I see no problem in merging the functions and often encourage the merger. If you'd like to call me on 1-800-870-6306, I'd be happy to give you a few cities to call that have merged functions. Also, I hope our other readers of the Management Doctor will respond. Good merging! The Management Doctor |