Archive for the ‘Oregon’ Category
Misperceptions of economic relocalization
For economic relocalization to become something more than a fringe movement, it has to make clear that it isn’t simply about the selling and purchasing of goods and services within a narrowly drawn geographic region. I say this because yesterday I heard Karla Chambers, an Oregon farmer sympathetic to efforts to localize our food supplies, tell a large group of sustainability-minded individuals that Oregon farmers cannot survive on local markets alone. We simply have too small of a population. Ninety-two percent of the agricultural products grown here leave the state, she said. Oregon is a natural-resource state, and we can’t consume all that we produce.
I take from her comments that she would view relocalization (a term she didn’t use) as far too extreme to be seriously considered. To her, the goal of relocalization is the end of global trade; that economies should consist exclusively of local companies trading with each other and people consuming only what they can purchase locally. I certainly don’t see it that narrowly, and I don’t believe the majority of relocalization advocates do either. Exporting will never disappear completely. Even if a global energy crisis hits, producers will resort to horse-drawn wagons and wind-propelled ships if that’s what it will take to move their products to markets that want them. After all, countries depended on international trade centuries before fossil fuels and combustion engines came along (of course, much of it was forced trade from colonization).
The point is global trade is here to stay, and clearly it is better economically for a state or community to be a net-exporter than a net-importer. The economic case for relocalization isn’t in becoming a substitute for global trade; it’s in raising awareness that too much of the income produced locally is leaking out of our communities because it is increasingly spent on goods or services from providers that are not locally owned. Think big-box and other chain retailers that source almost nothing of what they sell from local businesses and ship their profits off to headquarters in other states or countries. Keeping money circulating in a local economy multiplies its value by up to three times as it changes hands from one local producer, retailer or service provider to another.
Those of us sympathetic to economic relocalization want to see much more of our communities’ personal and business income stay home and multiply in value. That means citizens spending more of their disposal income with locally owned businesses and local businesses looking more to each other for products and services. And yes, we must also continue to help our local businesses dependent upon national or international markets to compete and win. Bringing money into our local economies from elsewhere is vital.
The issue isn’t either/or, local or global. It’s that political and economic leaders focus almost exclusively on the so-called global traded sector. They all but ignore the leakage of dollars to out-of-state businesses that set up shop in our communities. In fact, they exacerbate the problem by using tax subsidies to encourage many of those very same outsiders to locate here – not exactly a recipe for economic sustainability. The most productive economic debate is asking how to keep more of our money trading locally and help local business owners, like Karla Chambers, win globally.
Tags: economic multiplier, economic relocalization, local business, traded sector
Posted in Business & Economics, Oregon, Sustainability | No Comments »
The half-full, half-empty view from Oregon
Opinion makers at The Oregonian today offer differing takes on Oregon’s green reputation.
A self-described “glass-half-empty kind of guy,” columnist Steve Duin (URL unavailable) cites Oregon’s toothless Department of Environmental Quality, befouled Willamatte River and wind turbine opponents in the Columbia River Gorge. Then he concludes, “Green? Us? Please. Smug? Definitely. But as far as Oregon’s reputation as an environmental pacesetter? Way overrated.”
If Duin wants to find additional evidence for his case he need look no farther than one of his paper’s editorials today. The editorial board sees a green lining in a report by Joe Cortright. The Oregon economist dispenses with the notion that Portlanders are making financial sacrifices because of the city’s environmental protection policies. On the contrary, Portland’s economy is the richer for these policies, Cortright argues. The editorial writers like that, and — one might say, smugly — conclude, “And the other upshot — sigh — is continued stardom for Portland. It’s not easy being a green celebrity.”
I assume Duin is including Portland when he lashes out at Oregon’s “laziness and neglect” toward the environment. Portland, in particular, continues to haul in accolades across the country and globe for its green ethic. As far as Oregon overall, one of Duin’s sources laments that the state continues to “rest on our laurels.” Agree. Just look at the Willamette River. How can a so-called green state continue to tolerate such a cesspool for so long?
Still there’s no denying we’re making progress on many fronts, particularly in Portland: bicycle usage, renewable energy legislation, light rail, streetcars, green building. At the citizen level, I see widespread passion toward green issues. That’s the half-full view.
But to look through Duin’s eyes is to see that it was also the citizens who passed Measure 37, that ominous threat to our land-use laws. And you see unwillingness among state political leadership to fully fund DEQ and ensure that it enforces the environmental regulations in place.
Half full, half empty? It doesn’t really matter. In either case, the green glass is still not full. Until it’s overflowing, we can be optimistic or cranky, but not satisfied.
Posted in Oregon, Politics, Sustainability | Comments Off on The half-full, half-empty view from Oregon
Newspaper’s green pages worth the read
If you’re not among those regular readers of the Portland Tribune’s SustainableLife section, I suggest you become one. The staff there is doing a terrific job every couple weeks of bringing a cross-section of stories on all things green and sustainable, especially around these parts. I especially liked this week’s look at Cotton vs. Polyester.
When green values collide
Interesting article this morning foreshadowing what is almost certain to be an ongoing clash of values as Oregon and other regions of the country and world escalate their pursuits of renewable energy. In this case, a wind farm proposed for siting near the eastern mouth of the Columbia Gorge is drawing determined opposition from nearby residents and Gorge preservationists who fear a blighted landscape within view of their property and the Gorge.
The Oregonian reports the proposed development “sets up a conflict between Northwest values, pitting a revved-up desire to advance clean, renewable energy against the long-held belief that rural and scenic areas deserve special care.”
Meanwhile, owners of property where the 40 turbines would be located relish the idea of substantial new cash flow from their farmland. Kind of like I imagine ranchers once did when they learned that oil was below the surface of their property.
This is the kind of complicated, if not wrenching balancing act between conflicting interests that we can expect to see played out in public for years to come. What is the ultimate price we are willing to pay for renewable energy? Because renewable doesn’t mean it’s free. Wind farms dominate landscapes. As long as they are located in remote areas, most people don’t object. But when ideal wind conditions are found within view of many people’s homes or a national scenic area like the Gorge, then what? Does the need for renewable energy trump the desire to protect scenic treasures? Do property owner development rights exceed the rights of nearby residents who object to noisy, marred surroundings?
And I would add one other matter not touched on in today’s article: the value or lack thereof from having an outside company as the wind project developer. From an economic development standpoint, I would much rather see Oregon companies behind these projects. If we don’t have home-grown companies willing or able to tackle energy developments like this, that signals another problem. But first comes the larger question of whether this site should be developed for wind energy. What do you think?
Tags: clash of values, Columbia Gorge, Oregon, property rights, renewable energy, scenic treasures, wind farm, wind turbines
Posted in Business & Economics, Climate Change, Oregon, Politics, Sustainability | No Comments »
Local developer breaks with convention
I grew up near a bowling alley and have many fond memories hanging out there as a kid. But that’s not why I look forward to the opening later this year of the Grand Central Building on Portland’s inner east side. Before its large-scale remodel the building was a 28-lane bowling alley. In addition to retaining 12 bowling lanes it will house a bar, restaurant, billiards room and 12 tenants in storefronts along and between Belmont and Morrison avenues.
The local developer John Plew tells the Oregonian that tenant interest in the storefront spaces is high. What I was most pleased to hear him say is this: “I could fill it up tomorrow with the national guys, but I don’t want to…We want local and regional businesses that are distinctive to the city and region. We want an urban feel. We’re not looking to make it something you’d find in the suburbs.”
Now that’s something you don’t hear many developers say. Depending on which report you read, Plew’s firm sunk between $8 million and $11 million into buying and renovating the historic building. Even with that financial exposure, Plew isn’t following the depressingly conventional formula of filling it with national chain outlets. Although his tenants will pay a premium for their store space, Plew’s commitment to area businesses is hugely refreshing. And another re-emerging Portland neighborhood is soon to be the richer for it.
The fool’s gold of economic development
More than 200 people lost their jobs yesterday in Roseburg, Oregon after Dell closed its call center there. While the closure came as a shock to many employees and the community, no one should be the least bit surprised it came to this. What’s surprising is that elected and economic development officials, desperate for jobs, keep rolling out the red carpet for global corporations whose only long-term allegiance is to making money for their shareholders.
Back in 2002, Dell chose Roseburg for its call center after starting with a list of 3,300 communities as potential sites for the center, according to a December 23, 2002 article in The News-Review of Roseburg. To win the selection process, the city, Douglas County and the state of Oregon agreed to give Dell a package of tax breaks and other inducements. According to The News Review, the package included a property tax waiver of up to three years, a state income tax credit worth up to 25 percent of property investments that relate to online trade, a reimbursement of $250,000 for Dell expenditures on telecommunications upgrades and equipment, and even an agreement to build a 75-car parking lot at no cost to Dell.
In that same newspaper piece five years ago, well-known Oregon economist Joe Cortright warned, “Places that are going after call centers have to be very cautious.” He was very aware that the trend then (and now) was toward moving corporate call centers overseas to save costs. It’s also the case that business conditions change rapidly and companies react accordingly. That same month of December 2002, as the article noted, DirecTV closed its call center in Beaverton, Oregon and laid off 400 people after shutting down its Internet subsidiary.
The warning signs were there five years ago, making what happened yesterday in Roseburg no surprise. Too often winning the chase for jobs from outside corporations is nothing more than fool’s gold. It may look like real economic development, but it is soon followed by the realization that the same thing that draws large companies to a community – lower costs and higher profits – is what sends them on their way when their business declines or better opportunities present themselves elsewhere. Dell is just the latest example of this. As has been widely reported, Dell sales have been falling, and they are in the process of shedding jobs.
So what’s the choice for communities hungry for jobs, like Roseburg, which has long struggled to overcome the deterioration of timber industry employment? It’s doing everything possible to take care of existing local employers and to encourage local entrepreneurship. This is not the quick-fix answer public officials seek, and it doesn’t let them bask in the glow of ribbon-cutting ceremonies with out-of-town corporate fat cats. But independent locally owned businesses are the long-term foundation for a sustainable economy.
One Roseburg resident summed it up well yesterday in comments to The News Review:
“Did anyone know Dell was going to close?” Absolutely! Everyone who has been paying attention to the business world for the past few decades (at least). Small towns bend over backward to give big corporations whatever they want; the companies fail to deliver, and then leave in five years. If half the worth of incentives and tax breaks had gone to supporting locally-owned businesses instead of Dell, the people of Roseburg would be better off today.
Tags: call center, Dell, fool's gold, layoffs, locally owned independent business, Roseburg Oregon, tax breaks
Posted in Business & Economics, Oregon, Sustainability | 1 Comment »