Got Jobs?
Dear Newsletter Readers,
LCDC’s latest newsletter is out, touting their incredible success in creating jobs. The impact, they say, is “everlasting”. Then the newsletter goes on to defend against comparisons of LCDC to the Twin Falls Idaho urban renewal agency. Twin Falls brought in several large manufacturing plants, most noteably Chobani Yogurt and Clif Bars. (Did you see the funny Chobani Yogurt commercial during the Super Bowl?…the one with the bear?) These two companies, along with the smaller Glanbia Cheese and the Frulact Group, will add more than1000 new jobs in less than a two year time frame. Good jobs. which are solid, year- round positions.
Comparatively, LCDC claims credit , since their start in 1997, for the 235 people working at the Kroc Center, 740 people working in Riverstone, and the 500 positions at the US Bank Call Center out on Seltice Way.
Let’s break those down just a bit, shall we? The Kroc Center was brought to Coeur d’Alene by the long hard work of a committee of local citizens, not the LCDC. I can’t believe the LCDC takes such major credit for the project.
Do you remember the “But for” test for urban renewal? It requires you to ask, “But for urban renewal, would the project have happened?” So, but for LCDC, would the Kroc Center have been built? Yes. The Kroc center would have been built without LCDC. The two small roles LCDC had were, first, buying the $35k option to hold the property. Others could have done the same. And, secondly, at the end of construction, LCDC gave $500,000 toward the parking lot. So, LCDC gave a total of $535,000 on a $66 million dollar project. Hardly the defining resource.
Consequently, there’s no way LCDC should take any credit for the number of jobs at the Kroc, many of which are part time and do not include benefits. Remember, please, that even though the Kroc Center is beautiful and a great addition to our town, it is a private, church-owned company. I am always amazed at how many people think it is a city-owned public community center. It is not.
Riverstone is an interesting story. I have always supported Riverstone’s first phase. “But for” LCDC, would Riverstone, phase I, have been built? Possibly, but probably not, so it was a good decision. The second phase of Riverstone is another issue because urban renewal is supposed to “prime the pump”, not keep pumping and pumping more taxpayer dollars into projects. And the jobs? I think the LCDC’s numbers are highly inflated.
Many of the businesses in Riverstone were already in CdA, they just moved to Riverstone. Some examples of this are Oxyfresh, Orvitz, the bank, the title company, the dental offices, eye doctor, some legal offices, etc. Even the theaters to a certain extent. They were in town already. Maybe these companies added a few employees when they moved, maybe not. Yes, there are some new places like Zi Spa, Red Robin, Azteca, and such, but the restaurants, food shops and small retailers offer mainly entry-level jobs.
The US Bank Call Center is different. It is a legitimate credit to LCDC in the realm of jobs. Yet look at the whole scheme of things. Doesn’t the Call Center stick out as odd for LCDC? Everything else they have focused on has been tourist or residential. There are no other projects like the Call Center.
That’s because the Mill River housing development was already planned, back then, and LCDC was poised to approve extending water, sewer and street upgrades out to the location. Jobs Plus already had the US Bank Call Center on the line, so to speak, so a deal was finagled which gave some land to US Bank, a small park by the river to the City, and then LCDC approved the services out to Mill River. It was much more about Jobs Plus than LCDC, but I’ll give them credit anyway.
I just wish they had continued to bring in companies with good jobs for the people who live in our community, not simply servicing the residential and personal desires of high-end visitors.
LCDC’s latest newsletter also announces two new housing projects they are approving, one out on Seltice Way and one in Riverstone West. (Please keep in mind that many urban renewal agencies in Idaho will not get involved with residential projects because they compete with the fair market and might lead to abuse.) Here are my questions: The unemployment statistics show we need jobs. There is no shortage of housing. What long-term jobs do these residential developments bring to our town? Almost none.
The latest labor statistics show that Coeur d’Alene ended last year with almost 5,000 people unemployed. That is 6.9%, which is far higher than Idaho’s state unemployment level of 5.7% and even a bit above the national average of 6.7%.
We are not doing too well.
LCDC’s newsletter had it right, though, when it says of Twin Falls vs LCDC: “There is a clear difference between the two urban renewal models.” Yes, it seems pretty obvious the first priority of Twin Falls is good jobs for its people. That gives me hope. Maybe our new Mayor and Council can help LCDC refocus on what is best for our community too: Quality jobs.
Please stay warm out there!
Mary
**********Mary Souza is a 26 year resident of CdA, local small business owner and former candidate for mayor. Her opinions are her own. To sign up for the free weekly newsletter, or access a free archive of past columns, visit www.marysouzacda.com Comments can be sent to marysouzacda@gmail.com. Please visit the local issues web site www.OpenCdA.com for more discussion on local issues.
The push to grab the land before Post Falls gets it is further proof that one of the main purposes of the LCDC is to extend the boundaries of CdA to increase the tax base.
Comment by concernedcitizen — February 9, 2014 @ 7:46 am
Mary that pretty much nails it. Af for real jobs there is no real intrinsic examples other than US Bank call center. That said I always fear “call centers” as they are easy to close or relocate but, this one is pretty good.
I can understand, right or wrong, the bent towards service or tourist jobs in that we might start where we are strongest and I think we can agree that as an area we have that.
So, LCDC is, for lack of a better term, our decorator. Early on I suppose I’m ok with that as it is our strength but, I beleive we are past that now and have the trappings in place and it’s time to seriously start looking at job creation. With what we have in place we can try and be, particular in who we would court. Yes, I know that’s potimistic but hey, don’t know until you try.
Question now is what are we willing to do to incentivise potentials to seriously look our way?
Comment by Eric — February 10, 2014 @ 9:38 am
Maybe it’s just me, but the Sunday skewspaper’s article headlined Job Hunting seemed to suggest that the principal responsibility for attracting jobs to the area rests with governmental and quasi-goveernmental agencies. They have a role, but it seems to me the principal responsibilities needs to be borne by private entities such as the Chamber of Commerce. Here it looks as if the C of C is a very small and useless tail on the governmental dog.
Comment by Bill — February 10, 2014 @ 10:06 am
Bill, as far as the CDA chamber, I think you are right on. It seems as if they are nothing but a affirmative Rah Rah group.
They don’t seem to flex enough independently
Comment by Eric — February 10, 2014 @ 10:56 am
Eric,
Yes, and I don’t understand that at all. There are some very talented people on the Chamber, and frankly I suspect many of them could be far more persuasive and informative than some of the government people when it comes to encouraging new prospective employers to look at this area. One thing they would have to do, though, is promote the region, not just CdA. We’ve talked about that before.
Comment by Bill — February 10, 2014 @ 1:30 pm
Mary,
Thanks for the opening regarding jobs “created” by the LCDC.
First, and from a macro view, very few jobs are “new” nor, from the local perspective, were very few “created” through efforts of LCDC. To make my point, take the Walmart fallacy which consistently sells their (always needed) rezones on the periphery of cities as a “new-job creation” benefit–that is, if the rezone is approved despite substantial public opposition, along with with a couple of turn lanes, traffic lights, and an enhanced police presence funded by the taxpayer.
Especially in the retail, service, and housing sectors, at minimum, there needs to be an equal or greater increase in population to justify the term “new” jobs. In the Walmart example, all they typically do is re-locate retail demands (including jobs) from the usually better compensated Costco, Safeway, and Tidymans to their store. Likewise, the U.S. Bank Call Center didn’t create any “new” jobs, the bank simply transferred them to CDA because they were given a relocation package (tax incentives,pre-approved plans that don’t “quite” comply with already adopted development regulations, free off-site infrastructure improvements, etc.) that include incentives not awarded to already existing companies or residential developers competing to build the same free market mouse-trap.
As compared to whatever Brand-X city they came from, the USB jobs came here ONLY because there was vacant dirt, a phone line, a large, cheap (i.e. desperate), no-brainer labor pool, and the primary fact that through a swirling, funneled and PR diffused tax-transfer mechanism–that locating on the outskirts of CDA made fiscal sense at the time. With those facts in mind, they will just as easily and silently move to the next Brand-X city who offers a better “package.”
Another gap in your inventory where questions remain: How many jobs (and capital) have been moved FROM within the LCDC boundary since LCDC was formed? How many supposed targeted professional/technical jobs moved completely OUTSIDE of CDA (especially the core) since the focus shifted hard to seasonal tourism a decade or so ago. Or the more encompassing question–how many high-paying, capital-rich companies have moved completely OUT of the County and since inception of LCDC? If a complete and objective analysis was conducted by non-cheerleaders (or you darn distractors as HBO would paint you) regarding true, new job “growth” or especially “creation” of jobs credited to LCDC, I think the numbers would be alarming.
In the case of the early years (1974-1989) of the Spokane Area Economic Development Agency it was concluded by their own Board that the only real, net, increase in their “target jobs” were the jobs in the office of the SAEDC and those spin-off jobs created specifically supporting the SAEDC. Unfortunately, the 30-mile distance and decades of experience from over the border will most probably than not be repeated in CDA. As with the SAEDA, LCDC will admit their errs, form a “new” bigger, better, more “transparent” and effective agency, give the Director a staff and a raise and all will be forgiven.
Watch out Lakeshore Drive, City sponsored events are coming your way by way of a bigger, kinder, gentler, “conservative”, prettier bunch–boat launch has been designed and “approved”.
Comment by Old Dog — February 10, 2014 @ 6:13 pm
Old Dog,
Thank you for the return to reality.
Jobs are “created” in an area like ours by entrepreneurs or companies, not by urban renewal agencies. The decision to “create” them rests solely with their creator, those willing to assume the risks to invest money, sweat, and sleepless nights in them, and it’s nearly always going to be based on what jobs “created” where will give the best return on the creator’s investment. Urban renewal laws like Idaho’s may allow an area like CdA to offer some of the right attractions, incentives, but in the end, the urban renewal agency creates no jobs at all except for the jobs of its own paid employees. They can encourage or discourage a particular entrepreneur or company from actually locating here, but cheerleading and encouraging is not the same as “creating”.
Comment by Bill — February 10, 2014 @ 7:20 pm
Bill,
Sad for me to admit on this public blog, but in my professional capacity I have moved more than a hundred “jobs” out of Kootenai County just in the last three years because, 1)they didn’t want to pay for more urban “pretty parks” (especially since CDA is adjacent to hundreds of square miles of state and national forest), 2) they were concerned with the long-term cost of supporting a transient, seasonal influx of population (when their businesses were not in any way reliant upon “tourism”), 3) their “neighbors” were given incentives to develop anew that was not offered them to stay, and most convincingly, 4) the business of re-locating capital-rich, low impact businesses is very competitive whereas, CDA specific, Kootenai County in general, don’t have the resources or foresight to compete.
Detractors will say as they always do, “If you don’t like it here why don’t you move.” Already have. Unfortunately, just like a brood of locust, eat it up to the root, fly-on mentality I left a few eggs that have not hatched yet. Cynical? Damm right, but I no longer can get the ear of a jewelry salesman with inside authority and the last elected County car salesman lost his power to misalign agendas(but then he had little authority to begin with).
The times are ripe for CDA tax-spenders to re-focus on industries that have historically created the most bang for buck; small to medium AND location reliant. If they are not location reliant or large (which is not defined as over 20), people like me WILL swoop them up and take them away to a better place–a better “package” is just a County, State or two away. The type of public investment I am referring to, and would fit the CDA mentality doesn’t make the headlines because real, “new” jobs come in 1, 3, 5’s and 10’s in a market the size of CDA/Kootenai.
The CDA/Kootenai impasse to creating real jobs, then boils down to an elected body with an enlarged ego and head strong but quiet arrogance–to which you are stuck with for the next 2-4 years. That is–until LCDC re-packages itself, turns into a butterfly and eats up hillsides along the lakes (Fernan and Lake Coeur d’Alene). For continued growth, this is the only option left to CDA–for proof, all you need to do is watch the enthusiasm of the City Treasurer and Clerk when they talk about how many permits are “in the mill”. What they never talk about, nor have they ever analyzed is the actual cost to serve those new residents. The lot; One-armed bandits, err, one-armed accountants; all revenue, no clue to cost.
Comment by Old Dog — February 10, 2014 @ 9:45 pm
Old Dog,
There’s no need to apologize for helping your clients implement the decisions they made to preserve or enhance their businesses. It seems to me that local Chamber of Commerce should be gathering and analyzing the data that your clients used to make their decisions, and then the Chamber should be making their recommendations accordingly. Unfortunately, when I look at the Board of Directors and the Executive Committee of the Coeur d’Alene Chamber of Commerce, I see too many people who have become promoters for the very interests that caused so many of your clients to decide to relocate.
I am old enough to recall “the airplane that almost ate Seattle,” a relevant example of what can happen when any community becomes overly dependent on one industry and one company. Sadly, we now have a mayor and council almost totally controlled by that industry here. Their vision for the community might best be portrayed with the picture of economic life inside a tunnel.
Comment by Bill — February 11, 2014 @ 7:54 am
Well, Old Dog … don’t know exactly what you do but if you can drive some of those jobs out of this area and into a ‘rural’ north Idaho water bottled company, that would be a bit of a start towards additional industry. Drives me crazy watching people purchase/drink bottled water when they live in North Idaho.If someone had placed a bet with me that bottled water would be a success in this area, I would have lost. Crazy… water is our best resource, we should be capitalizing on it and drinking our own bottled water (if folks are set on paying for it), then hire me, for a finder’s fee (a big one). 🙂
Comment by Stebbijo — February 11, 2014 @ 5:44 pm
Old Dog I am not picking a fight. I hope that you will personally contact the mayor, schedule a time to meet, and discuss with him the information you have, the problems you see, and suggestions for improvement you may have to help solve the problem you address. I certainly do not know if he will listen, or if he will agree with all or part, but I encourage you to give it a try.
Comment by up river — February 11, 2014 @ 6:49 pm
Yes, Old Dog .. do that, meet with the Mayor and tell him I want a bottled water company down there on Seltice Way and I want the URD to help finance it.
Comment by Stebbijo — February 11, 2014 @ 7:52 pm
Steb,
You touched upon one of my favorite topics; water. Short story–while working in Portland on a really hot day in through the door came a guy wheeling a cooler full of ice-cold water. He said they were test marketing a “new” water, quickly passed around 16 oz. bottles then disappeared.
Only after he left did myself and co-workers discover that in the finer print on the bottle was the advertisement for people to stop buying “bottled” water because what we just drank was from the City of Portland’s public water system. The bottle went on to say (you know how bottles talk)that the container was made from a private/public partnership, the bottle was recycled, low-toxicity, reusable (until it started to fade from clear to scratchy-looking)and that they would even exchange your bottle if it was “worn”. Ultimately, the bottle of water was a public education tool that emphasized how “lucky” we are to live in a region that takes for granted our plentiful, clean, tap-ready, delicious treat.
That being said, I am a tap water person, but then I have been fortunate enough that for most of my life have been drinking from the Spokane-Rathdrum Prairie Aquifer. Is there a market for selling our sole-source drinking water outside the area? Yes, but I would suggest that as a primary or even secondary objective the product would be crushed by already existing bottling and distribution corporations.
Somewhere here on OpenCDA, I touted what I believe to be a broader approach to capitalizing on the diverse water resources in the County that all seem to diverge in downtown CDA. An “Education Corridor” at the mouth of the Spokane River, a river, tributaries and Lake CDA that have has been polluted by a century of mining, intensely developed shorelines that are treated as if they are lawns, and–the most prolific consolidated aquifer in North America.
We seem to take it for granted that the word “Kootenai” loosely translated means “The Water People”. We take it for granted that no where else in the Pacific Northwest is there such a diversity of water-resource related issues; from interstate water rights litigation to treatment of our “used” water that we dump in the river, to Superfund remediation all the way to having a tribe of (real) natives that want nothing more than to enhance a small piece of their ancestral homeland.
Kootenai County is the ultimate water resource laboratory in the making. Where science meets practical application. Take the BNRR refueling depot near Rathdrum. How would you mitigate a 500,000 gallon fuel leak into a fast-moving aquifer that serves a downstream population of 300K? Hell, the railroad would probably help “teach” that class since they don’t even know the answer. Likewise, I’m sure Spokane would like to learn how to get certain “flavors” out of their downtown taps.
What I find critical here is that no one, no relocation incentive “package” can move the diverse water resources inherent to CDA or Kootenai County overnight–or even over a millennium. Why then do we have a University of Idaho satellite campus in the Education Corridor, but the University’s Water Resource Institute is is Moscow? Theory is just that, whereas, we have hands-on classrooms from Bayview to Cataldo to Hauser that just need a centralized location, i.e., Coeur d’Alene. The poop-art is already there, which in of itself is a water resource related example of how to blend a wastewater treatment facility right next to an arterial with little notice to your average visitor–one of my rare kudos to City art.
I am rambling now–been on the road too long today. Steb, If you want to talk more about “bottled” water, I’m sure Bill will share my e-mail. As always,there is more to the short-story from Portland that is transferable to the five northern counties. If your heart is in it, I will always help.
Comment by Old Dog — February 11, 2014 @ 8:45 pm
Up River,
Point taken, but (always a but) the “problems” with growth and development in CDA are systemic and ingrained into a process of checks and supposed balances that would take more than a single mayor to resolve. The direction of land use decisions are made by committees staffed by lay appointees that for the most part are in the business of real estate sales.
Really, CDA has a local Realestate Broker as it’s Chairman of the Planning Commission who is also on the Board of LCDC and recently appointed to the Parking Commission. Yet, the Chairman of the Planning Commission who has been on the Commission for over 20-years doesn’t even know the most basic procedural rules or criteria for review of even simple projects that require specific findings that lead to approval or denial. Want proof, watch the P&Z hearing from 1.14.14 in which half way through 3-hours of public testimony the Commission was still attempting to understand WHAT the actual proposal was. You would think that a thorough grasp of the proposal at hand would precede general public testimony.
Heck no–even after public testimony was closed, the Commission was still debating what the proposal really meant. The newest Planning Commissioner even argued that the application was not ripe for the Commission’s review because he thought the proposal didn’t have the requisite number of signatures.
All valid points, but (as always a but) these seemingly elementary issues should have been resolved during Staff presentation, not half-way, not after close of testimony, not at some later date to be determined by the City Council upon a legal challenge. To reiterate, the “problems” are well-ingrained, systemic, almost hereditary from one Mayor to the next to the next.
I recall a swimming-cow problem on Upper Twin Lakes in the mid-70’s. Believe it or not, Cows love to “swim”, especially when the bay is plugged with Lilly-Pads. Their roots are as crisp and juicy as a fresh cucumber. Problem was, no matter how hard the rancher tried, they made their way to the water through all reasonable obstacles and actually went under water to get the good roots. Unfortunately, and unlike bears, cows don’t poop in the woods; they ate nutrients while excreting the same.
The eventual solution to the problem was actually quite simple. As soon as calves “dropped” they were quick weened and kept from the lake. Mom cow on the other hand still couldn’t be kept from the bay so they let her go. Since the calf was never introduced to the water succulent lily-root, that generation didn’t break down the fence and after just one breeding season the Swimming Cows of Twin Lakes became just meat. But never before their Prime (always a but).
The herd needs culled. The Planning Commission needs more than fresh meat; they need education, direction, and a moral aptitude that I’m not sure the City can get out of a “volunteer” (my ass) body of lay citizen-realtors. The Twin Lake cows learned in a single generation, sorry Up River, I’m not so optimistic with the new City herd.
Comment by Old Dog — February 11, 2014 @ 10:42 pm
Old Dog,
It was especially good to see this in your comment #13:
I think you’re probably right — BNSF would probably be eager to be deeply involved in exactly that and other kinds of research done by a university if and when they saw the long-term benefit to BNSF’s operations.
Growing up in Palouse and paying my way through Moo-U by working for a company that among other things made pelleted livestock feeds, I saw firsthand the benefit of cooperation between WSU’s agricultural college and the small company. Instead of having to fund and maintain its own pelleted feeds manufacturing process and equipment, WSU contracted with us to make small batches of feeds for testing under very high and rigid standards of quality. The company made a little bit of money from making otherwise unprofitably small batches, but the University was able to develop animal nutrition that made feeding livestock more profitable and healthier. The University’s research benefited the region and its producers by enabling the producers to raise higher quality animals more cost-effectively, and in turn those producers sought the feeds in quantities that provided the company with a more attractive profit.
The City of Coeur d’Alene likes to pay out other people’s money to high-priced consultants (usually from western Washington and Oregon) when, if it would make a real effort to partner with the five universities in the immediate area, it would not only get a much better and more meaningful product, it would also be giving the universities’ students and faculty an opportunity to do research under real-world conditions.
Your comment about the U of I’s Water Resources Institute is right on the mark, but in my opinion it doesn’t go far enough. The spinoff research and development benefits would overflow (groan) into materials research and other engineering disciplines as well. That’s why I think the people at BNSF would be interested in your idea, too. BNSF’s interest is in delivering cost-effective and competitive freight transportation, so reducing the chances of costly pollution problems and litigation while using facility and materials designs that more cost-effectively enable BNSF to do that makes a lot of financial sense.
Comment by Bill — February 12, 2014 @ 6:54 am
Old Dog, I did not say that I was optimistic about you information would be able to effectuate change. I have never even met the mayor. I was merely stating that you seem to have good ideas that should be communicated to the mayor. I will say that I am optimistic that the mayor would meet with you. My belief is that everyone should be given the opportunity to do the ‘right’ thing. Whether the mayor would do all or part of the ‘right’ thing is up to him. You shouldn’t deprive him of the opportunity.
Comment by up river — February 12, 2014 @ 8:08 am
I agree Old Dog, there are a lot of hurdles to jump over to get a water bottled company here in CDA but it’s still a good idea that might make more sense ‘rurally.’ However, it’s not an impossible feat, San Francisco reprocesses their water and yes, we drink it. Companies here actually buy it. There is one company up located in the Moscow area. They get their water from an aquifer in the Clearwater mountains. They do basically nothing to the water but bottle it (water) sold by a native company. We have a base out of Hayden, Idaho but it’s not a brand I recognize or see in stores, not sure if it is connected to Idaho Ice or not. I don’t buy bottled water but I will be looking for this one. Ideally, water should be bottled at the source and I doubt if Seltice Way Water would cut the mustard, but you never know, government likes to invest in their own kickback, especially here. Collaboration with BNSF and Moscow U of I might be just the ticket. Thanks for the pep talk, I will keep researching. I am by no means a ‘water’ scientist, but I know what tastes good and I also have a little credit to my name in that I was on the first anti-degradation water quality committee in Idaho.
Comment by Stebbijo — February 12, 2014 @ 9:40 am
Thank you all. I deeply appreciate your thoughtful, intelligent discussion on this topic. I agree with Up River, who encouraged Old Dog to contact the new mayor with his realistic insights. I’m willing to give Steve a chance to do the right thing for the whole of CdA, not just the cheap labor markets. During the campaign he talked a good line about jobs, now let’s see what he does.
I’m sending him a link to this discussion, so he can invest a few minutes to read some challenging thoughts and ideas.
By the way, on this same topic, want to hear a story I was recently told?…that when Buck Knives was considering their move here, some rather powerful people who benefit from a plentiful cheap labor market made it clear that Buck Knives’ proposed wage structures were too high, so they adjusted them down. If true, it gives a clear picture of what the new mayor might be up against. Does he have the will? Or the spine? We’ll see.
Comment by mary — February 16, 2014 @ 11:37 am
Mary,
Assuming the story you were told about the Buck move is accurate, it would be one thing if the people who told Buck to reduce his wages here were simply telling him he didn’t need to pay as much, that he could pay less here and increase his profitability. But it would be quite another thing if those same people were threatening him with official obstruction to and interference with his proposed move unless he lowered his wage scale.
Comment by Bill — February 16, 2014 @ 12:18 pm
Yes, Bill, good distinction, and I have no info one way or the other.
Comment by mary — February 16, 2014 @ 12:43 pm
I sent the following email to the mayor this morning:
Hi Steve, I know you’re busy but thought you might appreciate the interesting comments from OpenCdA.com on my last newsletter about jobs. There are some very intelligent and experienced people in this community, and their thoughts on job creation could be helpful.
Here’s the link: http://opencda.com/?p=15688&cpage=1#comment-18391
Hope you have a great Sunday.
Mary
*********
Here is the response I received:
Mary , I am always interested in listening to people who bring solutions to the table . Thanks Mary. SW.
*********
Comment by mary — February 16, 2014 @ 12:47 pm