Michael Gallerani, Brockton 21st Century Corp.

Since the end of World War II, and probably before, community decision makers, politicians, and investors have been students of economic development, constantly in search of ways to make their communities prosper and grow economically. Tax incentives, pocket parks, bike paths, and similar efforts have in the end proven to be tools but not the answer.

Back in the tremendous post World War II growth period leading up to and through the 1960s communities looked to attract new industries by offering tax breaks, favorable loans, and infrastructure improvements. The targeted industry was expected to bring job growth and wealth creation. Technology provided the tools necessary to create the mathematical models, econometrics, and multipliers used by the planners and decision makers. It seemed so simple.

The next great thing was the advent of industrial parks, large tracts of land set aside in a community, typically along the outer edges. Some have been highly successful, others so much. Competitive land and labor costs, proximity to major markets, and an educated workforce are important factors; having education and research facilities close by are of great value.  Those communities lacking any of the above have struggled. At times the billboards declaring a community the next great economic boom area have been left standing long after the reality set in. The smiling faces in the ground breaking pictures, sign unveilings and ribbon cuttings soon enough gave way to the frowns of disappointment, when community leaders found that “if you build it, they will come” sounded nice but was less than true.

Oftentimes the industrial parks and clusters resulted in the diminishing of the core business districts, such as the downtown or Main St. As the new industrial areas became more self- contained with consumer amenities on-site or newly established nearby (shopping centers and malls) people found themselves in the downtown areas less and less. Over time the mom and pop restaurants and goods and services businesses ceased to exist. Property values were affected, and the next generation of owners moved on.

Then came the so-called “community economic development” initiatives which were a reaction to the inherent failure of smokestack-chasing and handout strategies. Oftentimes companies moved their facilities elsewhere leaving behind underutilized or empty buildings that had been made possible by the host community’s development of industrial parks and offers of tax breaks. Community leaders looked to the local business community for new growth. Goals such as “poverty reduction” local employment and the encouragement of the “entrepreneurial spirit” became the basis for planning and development. Once again loans, tax breaks, and a new wrinkle, counseling, were the tools used to attract new businesses.

Today, branding has become the popular method employed by cities and towns as they attempt to entice companies to relocate. A catchy slogan or pretty pictures cannot be the whole story.  Consultants’ walls are littered with failed slogans and marketing campaigns. How many communities can truly be “the greatest place to live, work, and play”? The story – quality of life, workforce, educational opportunities, and accessibility, weather, and community successes – must be the basis from which everything is told.

Much like 100 years ago, the answer lies in the ability to build a sustainable community. Baby Boomers are reaching retirement. Communities need to attract the right people (young, educated, creative, and talented) to build their new economy. Creative people create.

It is simply a return to basics. Competency, sound policy, good planning, reasonable costs, safe and clean neighborhoods, competitive tax rates, less regulation, and good governance will provide a community with the competitive edge needed to build strong and robust local economies.

Michael Gallerani, is the executive director at Brockton 21st Century Corp., Brockton, Mass.