There's No Place For Racial and Religious Pandering In Memphis Politics, Whatever Its Source

The ugly underbelly of Memphis politics was exposed this week after a whisper campaign against Tennessee Senator Steve Cohen by some African-American political leaders burst into the open.

For weeks, some well-known African-American politicians have demeaned the campaign season – as well as themselves -- as they spread some of the sorriest rumors injected into the local political scene. Human nature is human nature, and we try to keep our expectations grounded in reality, but still, it’s discouraging that some people who had the courage to demand that society reject stereotypes and bigotry are so willing to traffic in them themselves.

It really doesn’t matter whether we support or oppose Senator Cohen in his race to replace Harold Ford Jr. as Congressman for the Ninth District, recent developments should disturb us all.

It was a test of our local political maturity that Memphis Mayor Willie W. Herenton and Shelby County Mayor A C Wharton have received key bi-racial support, and in his race for re-election, Mayor Wharton has been endorsed by the mayors of the suburban cities.

Subterranean Racism

This is not to suggest that there is not residual malignant racism present in our city, but we take comfort in the fact of how far it has been forced underground as we served notice that racial slurs are not acceptable political tactic and prejudice is not a campaign platform.

With this year’s race for Congress, it feels like we have taken a step backward. At a time when African-American elected officials have a powerful chance to remind us of the tolerance and inclusiveness that lay at the heart of the Civil Rights movement and gave them their long-deserved place at the political table, some instead resort to the lowest form of political rhetoric.

Regrettably, the candidacy of Mr. Cohen seems to somehow threaten the status quo (although his record includes strong support of civil rights and related causes) and the black power structure to the point that some local politicians treat the prospect of a white, Jewish Congressman representing Memphis in the U.S. House of Representatives as cause for hysterical concern and "anything goes" tactics.

Shelby County Commissioner Julian Bolton, another candidate in the Congressional race, has tied himself in knots trying to explain away his use of the term, complexion, to describe his concerns with the Cohen candidacy. Commissioner Bolton’s examination of alternate meanings of the word and efforts to illuminate its etymology explain nothing so much as what he was clearly trying to say about Senator Cohen’s race.

Code Words

Meanwhile, others have engaged in code words worthy of George Wallace as they have railed in recent months against the prospect of a white politician assuming a Congressional seat that they see as a pre-ordained “black seat.” These comments broke into the open with City Councilwoman TaJuan Stout Mitchell’s letter to the editor of The Commercial Appeal, which displayed the racial and religious baiting for all to see.

She wrote that the candidate’s ideology should represent the majority of residents in the district, rather than the majority of votes in an overcrowded race. Based on that strong statement of belief, we’re surprised she hasn’t been insisting that City Council members and the city mayor must be elected with a majority vote rather than a plurality.

She continued by questioning Senator Cohen’s character, saying that most of the district doesn’t support “same-sex marriage, the legalization of drugs, Sunday liquor sales and restricted prayer…” The fact that she had stretched the facts to a level of incredulity seemed to matter little, because as she was proving, intolerance is not just a Caucasian vice.

Most upsetting of all is the way she is willing to peddle her gratuitous anti-gay politics. Nothing is as demoralizing as African-American ministers and elected officials, some of whom once fought for a broad definition of civil rights, calling for a restriction of rights for another minority. The personal costs of this anti-gay sentiment are seen throughout the black community as gays hide in the shadows and live secret lives rather than be pushed to the fringes of society.

WWJD

However, the most unconscionable comment by Councilwoman Mitchell was to come. “Most of the district’s constituents are of the Christian faith…” she said, accusing Sen. Cohen of trying to prevent ministers from saying, “in the name of Jesus,” apparently believing that she had cleverly disguised this bit of anti-Semitism as political rhetoric.

Not to be outdone, Commissioner Bolton works a cross into the stagecraft of his television advertisement, and manages somewhat awkwardly to work Christianity into the ad as one of his important qualities.

Although sharing the same religion as Jesus and having a better understanding of his message within the context of Jewish tradition, history and culture, Sen. Cohen has wisely ignored these ad hominem attacks. Sadly missing are the condemnations from African-American leaders and ministers who normally have no patience with bigotry and intolerance.

If it is true that government always abuses its power, it seems equally true that political power seems to corrupt common sense, not to mention the common decency, of some long-time politicians.

All of this reminds us of a panel organized at Rhodes College about 15 years ago. One of the panelists was the local organizer for a Saul Alinsky-style grassroots campaign, and he was asked a question about whether in light of demographic changes under way in Memphis, African-Americans could operate government and conduct politics in a more open, tolerant and inclusive way than the white establishment had done.

White People

The panelist answered: “Well, who do you think we learned government and politics from – white people? Now you want us to treat you better than you ever treated us.”

The “eye for an eye” answer stirred protests from African-Americans in the audience, and one said quickly:

It is not enough for us to say that it is o.k. for us to continue the hatred and prejudice because that’s what we learned from white people. It just continues a spiral to the bottom. We’ve called for openness, we’ve marched for fairness, we’ve protested against injustice. It’s not enough for us now to justify our behavior by saying it was done to us. We have to aspire to the best that we can be.

In this way, the Cohen candidacy is a test to see whether the panelist or the audience was right. Sadly, comments in recent days indicate that prejudice and intolerance are shaping up to be the real winners in the upcoming Congressional election.

Law and Order Dilemma: Who Checks The Prosecutors?

We've written before about the need for nonpolitical prosecutors whose actions have no place for ego or self-promotion or special rules for special people. In light of the election of the district attorney general in the election in about 10 days and the recent appointment of a new U.S. attorney, the following column by national syndicated columnist Neal Peirce seemed especially timely:

With a recent uptick in crime, tough prosecutors who are ready to convict and imprison perpetrators are likely to be more popular than ever.

But a warning flag is being hoisted by American University law professor Angela J. Davis, past director of the District of Columbia Public Defender Service (and no relation to the more famed liberal activist Angela Y. Davis).

Prosecutors, notes Davis, are “the most powerful officials in the criminal justice system” -- more so even than judges. Why? “The charging and plea bargaining power they exercise almost predetermines the outcome of most criminal cases. Over 95 percent of all criminal cases are resolved by a guilty plea.”

Consider a person arrested for having a quantity of drugs on them. Depending on the amount, the prosecutor can charge simple possession (a misdemeanor), or possession with intent to distribute (a felony which in most jurisdictions means a mandatory prison sentence). So it’s the prosecutor, through his charge and plea bargaining powers, who really decides prison time (and most likely a wrecked life) for the defendant, or not.

The most serious system-wide issue, argues Davis in her forthcoming book, “Arbitrary Justice: The Power of the American Prosecutor,” isn’t the isolated, fairly rare case of a prosecutor coercing witnesses, fabricating evidence, or consciously targeting racial minorities.

Rather, it’s the lack of controls on, or accountability for, the every-day decisions of prosecutors. Their legal responsibility isn’t just to represent the state in seeking convictions; it’s to pursue justice. But too often, Davis asserts, prosecutors exercise their discretion “haphazardly at worst and arbitrarily at best, resulting in inequitable treatment of both victims and defendants.”

There’s the “win-win-win” ethos in many prosecutors’ offices -- elected prosecutors and their staffs out to show how tough they are on crime, or how eager to impose death penalties in heinous cases (especially when there’s strong media interest, or photogenic victims). Sometimes prosecutors overcharge grossly so they can wring heavier plea bargains out of defendants. Or adopt a “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy toward potential police abuses in the arresting phrase.

Views on class and race, even unconsciously, lead prosecutors to make shoot-from-the-hip decisions easily at odds with true justice, Davis asserts: “I saw it all the time in the D.C. system. A rich kid comes in (though few are arrested) with parents and family lawyer, explaining ‘Little Johnny has a drug problem and let’s put him in a program, not lock him up.’ The prosecutor usually agrees. But a poor, black or Latino kid comes in on a parallel drug case, maybe with a public defender, and the prosecutor figures -- ‘I can’t let you back into the neighborhood, I’ll send you to jail.’”

Davis also pinpoints how appointed U.S. Attorneys, pursuing the country’s “war on drugs,” have focused relentlessly on convicting and incarcerating even small-time neighborhood drug dealers and their girlfriends and family members, especially from inner-city neighborhoods, even on the scantiest of evidence. Federal drug prosecutions tripled between 1981 and 1990.

Under our system, all officials wielding government power should be and are subject to checks -- but we’ve ended up, Davis asserts, “giving prosecutors a pass” -- no effective control by voters, legislatures, or the judiciary itself. Voters have little idea of how prosecutors are actually handling cases. Legislatures (and Congress) pay scant attention beyond frequently bolstering prosecution powers.

The U.S. Supreme Court has severely circumscribed conditions under which prosecutors’ judgment can be questioned at all, referring cases to states’ attorney disciplinary authorities that are themselves known to be weak. From 1970 to the mid-1990s, one study found, there were only 44 cases nationwide in which prosecutors faced disciplinary hearings of misconduct; even then, a reprimand was generally the worst punishment.

So what’s to be done? Prosecutors themselves have traditionally resisted oversight. The public has been inundated with television programming that justifies prosecutors going right up to the edge on ethics and law to get the “bad guys.” The American Bar Association publishes standards of behavior for prosecutors, but the strictures have no teeth -- they’re just “aspirational,” Davis notes.

Davis would have national, state and local bar associations conduct in-depth investigations to determine adequacy of current prosecutorial misconduct controls, and possible reforms. She’d have bar associations set up state and/or local prosecution review boards -- not only to receive specific complaints brought by the public, but undertake random reviews of prosecutions and (with colleges and universities) launch surveys to reveal discriminatory practices by race or class.

The idea is that an outside eye could discourage arbitrary, hard-to-justify choices by prosecutors without chilling the essential, fair law enforcement we all depend on prosecutors to perform.

Against the formidable, entrenched power of today’s federal-state-local prosecutorial systems, any prospect of significant culture reform seems remote. But if we’re ever to dare a start, Davis offers a group of eminently reasonable first steps.

Smart City: The Future Of American Cities

Our subject is sprawl and development this week on Smart City.

For the past 50 years development in America has been sprawling away from the old urban cores into ever farther suburbs and exurbs. Why did it happen?

Our guests this week have some answers. Anthony Flint is author of This Land, The Battle Over Sprawl and the Future of America. It's a history of modern development in our nation and a call for a national conversation about how the country should grow. Anthony is a veteran journalist who covered planning, development, and housing for the Boston Globe for 16 years and was a visiting scholar in 2005 at the Harvard Design School.

Diana Dillaway explores how development decisions affected one American city, Buffalo, New York. Her new book, Power Failure: Politics, Patronage, and the Economic Future of Buffalo, New York is a chronicle of local misfires, misdirection, and missed opportunities. Diana has worked for more than 25 years in California on urban and economic development.

Smart City is broadcast on WKNO FM, 91.1, at 9 a.m. Sundays. It is also webcast and podcast at the Smart City website.

What To Do Now To Improve Downtown, Addendum

Here are my nominations for things to do now in downtown in priority order:

1. Do whatever it takes to remove panhandlers.

2. Clean up. That means maintenance and trash removal.

3. Green up. That means plant and maintain.

4. Develop a cluster strategy for business segments (4-5) that can naturally be attracted to downtown and will benefit from being close to each other.

5. Develop amenities accordingly. (Why, for instance, do we have a decrepit general interest public library in downtown Memphis? Has no one thought to make it a specialty center serving, say, the advertising and design business?)

6. Develop a realistic retail strategy and put someone in charge of execution who has successfully created a unique retail strategy before. I nominate Pogue and McEwen.

7. Get started on the riverfront plans.

There. That cost $0.

Couldn't resist two additions:

8. Improve the entrances to downtown. Make Union the priority. When we finish that, tackle Poplar.

9. Pinpoint every people generator in downtown, then improve one block beyond it in every direction. Think broadly. For instance, include the courts. (Poplar from Danny Thomas to Third looks like hell.)

btw... Kudos to Andy and team for the Farmers Market. Very nice job.

A Priority For Downtown: Getting The Basics Right

There is no place more near and dear to our hearts than downtown Memphis, as evidenced by the fact that a couple of us have worked or lived here for more than 30 years apiece. There is nothing that we’re more passionate about, as proven by our posts over the past year.

Lately, we’ve received emails asking us what we think the priorities should be for downtown development, and from the tone of some of them, it’s clear that there is a simmering resentment by some that their neighborhoods have been neglected so downtown could succeed. Poll results on this question would surprise some long-time downtown boosters who assume that every one shares an understanding of the area’s importance to the region.

So, one of the first things to be done is make a persuasive case for why Memphis’ neighborhoods should care about a healthy downtown, but conversely, why healthy neighborhoods are important to downtown. It’s a given these days that the future of cities and suburbs are inextricably intertwined. The same is certainly true for downtown and neighborhoods.

Another priority is the development of a strategic retail plan, one that addresses realistically a significant challenge – how to connect a downtown business to its market.

Public Square

Somewhat related is a stronger office market, which is about more than recruiting and marketing. More to the point, increasing office occupancy begins with greater attention to the state of the “public square.” For a sizable portion of this community, the minuses of downtown outweigh the pluses.

If we are serious about selling downtown as an office center, we need to be dead serious about making downtown the kind of place where management and workers want to be in the first place. The bad news is that the downtown environment is frequently a deterrent, but the good news is that the most powerful strategy is simple - getting the basics right.

So, what are some of the basics?

One is making downtown cleaner. In our decades of experience, we can’t remember downtown being dirtier, and littering more prevalent. As we’ve mentioned previously, litter in high visibility locations (such as Union Avenue from the Peabody to the riverfront) routinely remains for weeks.

Design

Another basic is higher design standards and more thought about the downtown esthetic. Some symptoms of the problem are the presence of planters too big for sidewalks, some public signage that looks like they were made in shop class, trees cut down at will and nothing put in their places and public space that is poorly maintained.

Then, there is safety. We have repeated downtown crime statistics for years to make the case that it is safer here than in most parts of Memphis. However, in recent months, there has been an up tick in the number of robberies and assaults that is troubling, not to mention, the ubiquitous presence of panhandlers who harass workers and visitors and sleep in alleys and doorways reeking of urine does nothing so much as injecting a feeling of risk into the downtown scene.

We don’t want it to sound like the Center City Commission doesn’t do anything right. It is ham-stringed by a budget that is too small for its mission, it suffers from limited support from city and county governments and its aversion to risk stems from the takeover of the board by elected and appointed officials.

It wasn’t supposed to be like this. Thirty years ago, when the Center City Commission was being created, the idea was that the public sector would create the agency in concert with the private sector, because it was thought that for it to be successful, it needed to have an entrepreneurial culture more in keeping with business.

Orientation

Unfortunately, the Memphis Chamber of Commerce closed its doors and was essentially bankrupt. Shelby County Government then developed some reluctance to support the agency, and in the end, only Memphis City Government moved ahead with its creation.

Later, county government joined in, but it would take time before the Chamber was reinvented, and by then, the moment for real change had passed. Ever since, hopes that the agency would reflect a business orientation have been, well, hopes.

About 15 years ago, in a discussion inspired by downtown guru Henry Turley, there was talk about returning to the founding vision of the Center City Commission, but the effort faltered for lack of political will to get it done. Sadly, the current of change ran in precisely the opposite direction.

The private sector orientation almost disappeared as more and more politicians added themselves to the group. It was difficult enough to act entrepreneurially before, but with the addition of state senators and representative, and more local politicians, entrepreneurship has become the exception, not the rule.

Wisdom

There’s no question that members of the Center City Commission are good people. It’s just that the public sector doesn’t possess the skills most needed for the agency to be most successful in its work.

Often, when the conversation turns to downtown development, we think of the words of Mr. Turley 15 years ago:

We need to quit planning and do something. Let’s pick two or three things and go do them, and when we’re done, we’ll pick two or three more, and we’ll do them, too.

It sounded like wise advice back then, and it seems absolutely prescient now.

There’s no doubt that downtown development agencies serve many masters, they balance conflicting agendas and they contend with divergent political forces. But, sometimes, the best course of action is to narrow the focus and accomplish two or three projects with impact.

In the end, that can create something downtown that is often the hardest thing of all – momentum.

Why CEOs Flock to New York

The following is from Otis White's Urban Notebook. He can be heard each week on Smart City:

In the 1970s, New York leaked corporate headquarters like a busted hose. One after another, big corporations decamped for the suburbs (Pepsi, General Electric) or other parts of the country (American Airlines). But that was then. Now, New York is attracting corporate headquarters, and the reasons tell us a lot about how cities and companies have changed — and what companies need from cities these days.

It was easy to understand why companies fled New York in the 1970s. Crime was on the rise, so were taxes, and the population was headed to the suburbs, particularly the middle class. Companies left for logical reasons: If you want smart, talented people to work for you, you needed to be in nice places, like the suburbs. So why are companies coming back to New York? In a way, for the same reason: It’s where the smart, talented people are.

And this isn’t just a few companies. According to federal statistics, the number of corporate, subsidiary and regional headquarters in New York has more than doubled in the last 15 years, from 274 in 1990 to 602 today, the New York Times reported recently. There are important differences, though, between those who left in the 1970s and those returning now: For one thing, these relocations tend to involve only the most senior executives. The corporate staffs have remained in the suburbs or in other cities. For another, there’s not a lot of fanfare to these moves. Unlike when American Airlines left for Fort Worth in the 1970s, to the accompaniment of enormous public hand-wringing in New York, the recent moves have come almost unnoticed.

Example: Alcoa Corp., long a part of Pittsburgh’s corporate community, is now headquartered in New York. Or, at least, its CEO and 50 executives and assistants are there. About 2,000 other executives and staffers are still in Pittsburgh. Didn’t know that Alcoa had moved? Few did. The company hasn’t attached its name to a Manhattan skyscraper, didn’t announce the move back in 2001 and didn’t even acknowledge New York as its corporate address until earlier this year.

So why did Alcoa move? Not so much to attract employees (most are, after all, back in Pittsburgh) but so that its top executives could be close to New York’s deep business and professional services talent pool. Here’s how Alcoa’s CEO explained the move in a speech to a New York business group:

“We need access to the best and the brightest. We need it when we need it, not a week from today when they can lose a whole day to come and meet with us in Pittsburgh. We need them for breakfast meetings, for just a five-minute break, when the idea or the need comes. We need it every day.”

Well, great for New York. But what does this have to do with other cities? It points to the critical importance of human capital in urban economies. Get the right people to live in your city and the businesses will come in search of them — and not just as employees, but as advisors and high-level service providers.

Footnote: This obviously brings up the question of what attracts the “right people” to a city in the first place. It helps if, like New York, the city has successfully reduced crime and made its neighborhoods more attractive and livable. Great colleges and university are assets. So are cultural institutions, sports and entertainment. But just being a fun place helps. As a former New York economic development official told the Times, “People enjoy being here. It’s totally different than the 1970s.”

The Mistake Of Measuring Memphis Against Itself As Proof Of Success

For too long, we’ve had the tendency here to measure success by comparing Memphis against itself.

At best, it’s an incomplete context for making realistic plans, and at worst, it deludes us into thinking we’re making substantial progress.

It’s a tendency given form in exaggerated rhetoric about “history-making” economic events and breathless prose about the downtown “renaissance.”

We are reminded of this as Memphis and Shelby County continue to produce plans, strategic and otherwise, that are intended to identify key priorities and to accomplish major goals, but routinely stop short of the real destination.

What seems missing so often is a context that extends beyond our own borders. For example, we believe that downtown is booming, because we compare it to itself. We repeat some familiar numbers as justification for our hyperbole – more residents, the amount of the public investment and new restaurants.

Broader View

And yet, what is routinely missing is a broader understanding of what’s taking place in cities across the U.S. It’s not enough to set goals that are local in nature. They need also to be national in scope if Memphis is to be a competitive force in the future.

Understanding this broader context would tell us how limited our downtown progress has been. The truth is that downtown has pockets of vibrancy, generally in the Beale Street entertainment district. The rest of downtown is characterized by a lethargy that reinforces a prevailing image of Memphis as a lazy, slow-moving Southern city. This severely inhibits our ability to compete against other cities of our size, whose downtowns better reflect the kind of overall vibrancy that should be our goal.

So, who cares if downtown is vibrant or not? Most important, the kind of young, highly-educated professionals who fueling the knowledge economy. In survey after survey, including the Young and Restless reports undertaken by this firm and CEOs For Cities’ national study of these workers, these highly-coveted professionals say that vibrant cities are what they are looking for and where they want to live and work.

Cities Before Jobs

This has never been more important to Memphis, because now, two out of three of these professional workers select cities before they select jobs. In other words, in the competition for economic growth, Memphis must attract new workers, and its currency must be vibrancy. This is especially true of downtowns where people are looking for more than nodes of activity, but downtowns open 24 hours a day, active, tolerant and full of options.

Because of this, the release by the Center City Commission last week of “Downtown Memphis Moving Forward: A Strategic Framework for Success” was a significant event in the life of our community. In the report, the authors did a good job of summing up the state of downtown and summarizing general priorities for the future. There’s no question that they produced a fine report in keeping with the instructions given by their client, Center City Commission.

Unfortunately, the downtown development agency has become so defined by political considerations and dominated by political personalities that it seemed unable to instruct its consultants to develop a plan that could take downtown from good to great.

The strategies feel pretty much like those included in similar plans issued by the Center City Commission for a decade, laying out what downtown needs to do to succeed, but again, success is defined by measuring downtown Memphis against itself at a time when we need desperately to be leap frogging ahead of our rival cities.

Catapulting Ahead

Incremental change is simply not enough for Memphis. We’re in the lower rungs of U.S. cities and incremental change only means that we remain in the same comparative position. If we are to shake up our economy, invigorate our downtown and create a quality of life that is a competitive advantage, Memphis has to develop strategies for catapulting ahead of other cities.

In the past 20 years, we have moved from competing with Nashville and Charlotte to competing with Baton Rouge and Little Rock, and without dramatic, history-altering strategies, it will only get worse.

This is why there’s never been a better time to shed all provincial thinking and adopt a worldview that offers a compelling vision for the future. A sign of progress would be for all city and county agencies to adopt a policy that all plans will no longer be self-reflective. In the future, plans should adopt a national framework, and strategies like those laid out in the Center City Commission’s strategic plan should tell us how they would make downtown Memphis nationally competitive.

Too Safe

Like many plans in Memphis, there is nothing in the plan that challenges our boldness in envisioning a different future, that imagines new aspirations or inspires new thinking that can catapult downtown into more than just a place that is successful when compared to itself, but a downtown that is one of the best in the entire country when measured by the characteristics that make them successful and competitive.

These kinds of “safe” strategies and unchallenging plans are typical of government group think, and unfortunately, as the Center City Commission shifted from a private sector-driven agency to a political-driven agency, that has come to define it as well.

But, there’s good news. The Center City Commission has two “stars” on its payrolls and they should be the cornerstones on which is should build its plans for the future – Andy Kitsinger and Lee Warrren, respectively in charge of planning/development and marketing. They are imaginative, smart and articulate, and rather than interview and poll more than 1,000 citizens about downtown, perhaps the best plan of all might be to split the budget between them and turn them loose to pursue whatever strategies they think are important. We predict that this strategy would produce the best return on investment that the city-county agency could make.

New Thinking

But back to our starting point, we’ve got to shake off all parochial thinking and think beyond our own borders. There was a time when it was considered one of Memphis’ major strengths that we were located hundreds of miles from another major city, but today, this distance acts as a contributing factor to plans that are too limited in scope.

In addition, at a time when megapolitans are becoming a growing economic reality, the isolation of Memphis in the nation’s mid-section is clearly a drawback to its ability to compete within a national framework. However, we can take a major step ahead by making sure that all of our local planning takes a broader view of the challenges ahead of us and understands that concerted efforts and resources will be needed for us to compete on a national stage.

A Modest Proposal For Openness About Tax Freezes

It’s time for a modest proposal regarding the controversial city-county PILOT program waiving $60 million in property taxes this year.

“Modest” being the operative word, since it seems obvious at this point that is what government officials are going for as they study the tax freeze programs to death and seem poised to water down substantive changes recommended by the city and county’s own consultants.

Here’s the idea. While this issue drags on, post on the websites of Memphis and Shelby County Governments all existing tax freezes and every new one approved by the Memphis and Shelby County Industrial Development Board and the Center City Commission Revenue Finance Corporation.

It seems only fair that the citizens whose taxes are being waived know why.

Inertia

Mayor Herenton has been an outspoken defender of the tax freeze program, and at times seems to point to it as the answer to all that ails his city. Economic development officials claim that Memphis cannot compete unless it gives away its taxes. Mayor Wharton’s committee is eerily quiet. Memphis City Council rattles its saber, but takes no real action to improve things. The Shelby County Board of Commissioners avoids the subject like the plague, because after all, it’s election season and the real estate interests pushing for this program just happen to be major campaign contributors.

All forces seem to be in alignment – for complete inaction.

In light of the staunch defenders of the PILOT program and arguments about its important role in economic development, surely they would welcome the chance to post information about the tax freezes to the Web.

At this point, it’s as easy to find Shane Battier at a Grizzlies team meeting as to find information about the tax freezes on a local government website. In fact, the only place to find information is on the State of Tennessee website and there it is outdated.

Transparency

It would prove instructive to the public to see the length of each PILOT, how much in city and county taxes are being waived, the number of jobs being created and their average wages, and the recipients. Surely, there’s no reason that advocates of the status quo with the PILOT program wouldn’t object, since they confidently praise the program’s worth and tell the public that it’s good public policy.

It would be productive if we actually allowed the public to have the information to reach their own decision and to have a voice in the reforms that are needed for the program.

Accountability and transparency are the cornerstones for good government and the support by the people it serves. They are sadly lacking qualities when it comes to the tax freezes approved by the IDB and CCRFC.

Perhaps, we could learn from the state of Illinois, which now has a public website where any citizen can track which companies are receiving tax breaks, how much they amount to, the promises made by the businesses to get them and whether the company is delivering. Already, it’s been a revelation: 60 percent of the jobs supported by these public incentives pay less that what it takes for families to live on.

Sunset

Other states are looking into sunset provisions that mandate periodic evaluation of tax incentives to determine if their true costs are being calculated and if policy makers fully understand the trade-offs that they are making.

Ohio, for example, has a bill pending in the state legislature that would require the review of tax incentives every five years to guard against abuses and to ensure the wisest possible investments.

Already, we have the warning signs. Two researchers at George Mason University pointed out in a detailed analysis of the local PILOT program that tax freezes are regularly increased by the addition of discretionary points recommended without clear justification by the staff and awarded by the IDB.

The professors also poked holes in the economic impact study commissioned by the IDB that contends that the tax freezes generate monumental returns on investment. Of course the same firm predicted that the Grizzlies’ presence in Memphis would create $1.5 billion in economic impact.

Flaws

According to the George Mason professors, the economic impact study for the IDB had fatal flaws, such as erroneous calculations, fallacious assumptions and errors in fact.

This recent independent analysis, coupled with the indictment issued by local governments’ own consultants in December, should be enough to jump start changes in the PILOT program. And yet, city and county governments continue to dole out tax freezes to one and all if they can complete the application and check the right boxes.

Often, it’s a case of the rich get richer because small businesses get no such financial incentives. It’s also often a case of the poor staying poor, because some of the companies that enjoy the largesse of government pay so little that its employees also qualify for food stamps.

It’s a sad commentary on the state of local public policy analysis. Officials have watched as the freezes have mounted, now equating to $60 million in property taxes a year. And yet, we are still to wait. As we do, we should keep in mind that if city and county governments had those tax revenues, they could pay for the FedExForum in four years, or they could support enough bonds to pay for all new schools and school renovations requested by Memphis City Schools and Shelby County Schools or execute plans to upgrade city parks and improve Shelby Farms Park.

Tax Reduction

Or the city and county tax rates could both be reduced, possibly the most compelling action to make Memphis and Shelby County more competitive.

In other words, this is an issue that deserves serious consideration based on its public policy implications rather than its political implications. In the meantime, if people want to argue that the PILOT program should be protected from the fundamental reform that it needs, the least they can do is show us what they are talking about.

This begins with the posting of the PILOT’s on city and county websites, but there’s no need to get our hopes up. The detailed report by the consultants hired by city and county governments was made in December and only a couple of weeks ago did this report find its way onto the Shelby County website.

Core City Is Magnet For Young "Movers"

The following commentary from The Commercial Appeal was written by Carol Coletta:

Every few months, the U.S. Census Bureau releases data on which regions, cities or suburbs are gaining or losing population. And each time, the so-called "losers" react as if the news were a death sentence.

This is especially true in our nation's cities, including Memphis, where, according to Census estimates, the population dropped 2 percent between 2000 and 2005. Often, our urban leaders throw their hands up as if helpless to change the course. But it doesn't have to be this way.

A recent survey commissioned by CEOs for Cities revealed that college-educated young adults (the demographic most likely to move in our country) are giving priority to place.

Place Is Paramount

In fact, two-thirds of this highly coveted demographic now tell us that the place they live is more important than the job they hold, according to the survey conducted this spring by The Segmentation Company, a division of marketing consultancy Yankelovich Inc. It makes no difference if they are male, female, married, unmarried, with children or without, the power of place reigns supreme.

At a time when Memphis is faced with a serious need for talented workers, the new freedom to choose by these young highly educated adults has flung open the doors of opportunity for urban leaders, if we'll only answer by responding to the desires of this group.

What does Memphis need to do?

The Needed Attributes

The study showed that despite what we all thought, it doesn't take much to make them happy. First and foremost, they want to live in places that take care of the basics -- that are clean, green, attractive and safe. Just like the rest of us.

Also high on the list of attributes they seek are qualities that let them live the lives they want to lead. A city that expects to attract and hold talent, then, must tout opportunities in all forms -- personal, professional, educational and social.

Not surprisingly, talented young people also want to live in cities they can be proud of. Where once status was conveyed by where you work, now it is conveyed by where you live.

Downtown As Magnet

And, increasingly, where young people live is in the heart of the city, as shown in our own Downtown, where 29 percent of the residents are in this demographic. By 2000, 25- to 34-year-olds were 30 percent more likely than other Americans to live in neighborhoods within three miles of the central business district. That percentage increased from 10 percent in 1980 and 12 percent in 1990. (Now we know who accounts for the resurgence of our inner cities.)

And in this latest study, they continue to express that preference, with 42 percent saying they want to live in downtown and 59 percent saying they want to live in a neighborhood near downtown. The vast majority -- 70 percent -- said they want to live in or near the city. Still, others prefer the suburbs and exurbs.

What To Do

So how, then, can Memphis leaders respond to the desires of this demographic? Five places to start are:

* Make sure Memphis delivers on the attributes college-educated young adults seek.

* Find ways to telegraph that opportunities are available here to young adults.

* Make Memphis obviously "plug and play" -- easy for newcomers to plug in to community life and a network of people who can help them get what they want out of life.

* Fill in the blanks about Memphis. Young adults have only the vaguest impressions about various cities, and it's important to help them get to know our city's assets beyond the obvious tourist attractions so often featured in ads and on postcards.

* Make it easy for young entrepreneurs to do their thing. Take a look at older neighborhoods that are being revitalized, and you will likely find young entrepreneurs who didn't know any better and couldn't be told otherwise driving the action. They put a distinctive stamp on the city, and they should be encouraged.

Community-building

Building better communities is not a zero-sum game where suburbs win and Memphis loses, or vice-versa.

If the past decade and a half has proven anything, it's this: A successful Memphis will be a city of choice, with a wide array of housing options, be they Downtown lofts and condos, close-in older neighborhoods or roomy, sprawling suburbs.

And the recent boom in the nation's central cities showed us that if given the choice between clean, green and safe inner cities and suburbs, a significant number of people will come.

Suburbs will forever be a part of our country's landscape. With the right strategies, great cities will, too.

Carol Coletta of Memphis is president and CEO of CEOs for Cities, a national network of urban leaders speeding innovation in cities, and host of the nationally syndicated public radio show, "Smart City."

Charter Commission Needs Impartial, Fair and Reasonable Recommendations

If there’s ever been a question about our wonkish predilections, it has been answered. We’ve spent Friday night reading responses by Charter Commission candidates to questions from the Coalition for a Better Memphis.

We’ve been concerned lately that some of the candidates see their roles, which are already potent enough, as expansive vehicles to enact a set political agenda. For example, term limits seems to be the mantra by a slate of candidates and treated as a precondition for being “qualified” by an active base of voters, when in fact, the position often doesn’t seem to spring from any philosophical core, but from an intense hatred for the current city mayor.

If term limits are on the table for consideration, hopefully, it will not be driven by a specific personality, but in reaching a decision on whether term limits produce better, more dynamic leaders for city government. It’s easy to point to a mayor like Daley in Chicago, who, despite 17 years in office, continues to innovate and transform his city and wonder why term limits is so often seen as a magic bullet. Then, too, the county term limits requirement, passed in the wake of Mayor Bill Morris' 16 years in office, now will truncate Mayor A C Wharton's public service although he is unquestionably the most popular person to ever hold that office.

In other words, term limits deserves careful study and serious consideration, from all sides and all perspectives, so the Charter Commission can make a well-reasoned decision about whether it really produces better government or is just sloganeering.

Strong Mayor

There are other similarly important issues (such as the mayor's contracting authority, when the action of City Council becomes final and whether the mayor's signature should be required on resolutions, what the effect of a resolution really is, to name a few) that seem to be more a reaction to Mayor Herenton than an action to improve government. The 1966 charter amendment that established the mayor-council form of government ended a five-headed administrative structure (five commissioners, one of whom was mayor) that caused confusion and obscured accountability. Before any authority is taken away from the current mayor, we hope the Commission will remember that it will apply to city mayors for decades.

We are also puzzled by some candidates who are actually spending money on political signs to get elected. Some signs are even seen in Germantown, which may not be an error since a large reason that the Memphis Charter Commission exists is because of a Germantown citizen's persistence.

While we think the Charter Commission is a good idea (in fact, county government could use one itself although it's charter is so sound that the Memphis Charter Commission should start by reading it), we chafe enough over all those letter writers to The Commercial Appeal who heap criticism on all things Memphis, who find the embodiment of evil in its elected officials and who seem to despise anything found within the city limits, and then sign their letters as residents of Germantown, or Bartlett or Lakeland.

Impartial Jurors

So, for that reason, we need to thank the Germantown leader for the Charter Commission movement, and it would be a good time for him to bow out. While there is no question about his sincerity and his commitment, the slate of candidates endorsed by him and others puts an overlay of "politics as usual" on a process that should be a breath of fresh air.

While it’s probably easier to get elected by issuing opinions before you even hear the evidence, we’d prefer that Charter Commission members take the same oath as juries – to be fair, impartial and act solely on the facts. Serving on the Commission is a solemn duty (in the full import of the word) and candidates who are running because they think they can cure the ills of the city are off track.

We like the straightforward and honest approach taken by John Branston and Buckner Wellford, the former a highly-regarded local journalist and the latter a highly-regarded local lawyer. When asked one of the wide-ranging question by the Coalition for a Better Memphis that encourages an inflated view of the Charter Commission, Mr. Branston answered:

“I have opinions about these issues, but I don’t think they are relevant to the Charter Commission. Government consolidation and school system consolidation are decisions for elected officials, voters and fulltime administrations.”

Bosnia and Abortion

His answer conjured up the memory of a classic response by County Mayor Morris. During the years when abortion was being used as a litmus test in local races, he was asked his position, and replied: “I feel strongly about abortion. I feel strongly about the war in Bosnia, but as mayor of this county, I don’t have the power to do anything about either of them. That’s why I’m concentrating on the things I can actually do something about.”

When asked by the Coalition for a Better Memphis about serious new issues that the city government could face in the future, Mr. Wellford said that there are regional competitive concerns, net loss of population, limited options on annexation, terrorism and natural disaster, to name but a few.

“I used this example because I think it would be a mistake for the Charter Commission to think of itself as visionaries who need to anticipate future issues or trends in municipal government. I think it would make more sense to focus people’s attention on current issues: ethics in government, accountability and transparency in governing, a proper balance of power between the executive and legislative branches…”

In the end, the words of Mr. Branston seem definitive enough. In making the point that the Charter Commission should not be the vehicle to accomplish political goals or make public policy, he put it best: “The Charter Commission’s guiding rule should be the same as for doctors: First, Do No Harm. Then do as little as possible, do it as openly as possible and explain it as clearly as possible.”

Consensus

We can only hope that it becomes the consensus opinion of the entire Charter Commission, because misunderstood, its impact on city government can be profound, either positively or negatively.

The Charter Commission was set in motion in 2004 when 30,000 voters – about three times more than required by law - signed a petition calling for its creation. The original Memphis Home Rule Charter was created with the advent of home rule government approved by voters in 1966 and the only changes since have been those amendments approved at referenda. (Before home rule, all amendments had to be approved by the state legislature rather than by Memphis voters.) The new Commission will have about two years to report back to the public, and its recommendations will be put on the city ballot for a vote.

As one savvy, long-time observer of Memphis politics suggests, if the Charter Commission really wants to engage the public in the process and allay any fears of special agendas, it should issue its recommendations as a series of free-standing amendments voted on by the public separately, rather than a single, "take it or leave it" document that would be voted up or down. That way, voters are given real power, allowed to approve some and disapprove others.

Without question, there should be no argument that the City Charter should be reviewed, in light of changes in technology, if nothing else. Overall, the responses of Charter Commission candidates are thoughtful and sincere, but their charge, first and foremost, should be “do no harm.”

The Golden Age Of City Mayors

The following is the City Journal column in Memphis magazine written monthly by our colleague, Tom Jones:

This is the golden age of great city mayors.

In Chicago, Richard Daley transformed “Beirut on the Lake” into one of the world’s great cities - sophisticated, vibrant, seedbed for an astonishing array of enlightened “green” programs.

In Denver and San Francisco, two restaurateurs – respectively John Hickenlooper and Gavin Newsom – transplanted their customer service credo into city services and designed revolutionary programs for the homeless. Also, Hickenlooper’s determined regional fence-mending produced a 70 percent approval rating in the metro area, and he in turn used this reservoir of good will to lead seven counties and 31 cities to pass a sales tax increase to pay for 119 miles of new light rail and commuter trains costing $5 billion.

In Atlanta, Shirley Franklin slashed 1,000 jobs as well as her own salary, convinced 75 companies to analyze city government at no cost and began a 22-mile linear park connecting 45 neighborhoods. Through force of personality, Jerry Abramson convinced Louisville citizens to approve the largest government consolidation in 40 years; New York’s Michael Bloomberg turned a projected $6.5 billion deficit into a $3 billion surplus; Baltimore’s Martin O’Malley developed a unique computerized complaint system making city departments more accountable; Miami’s Manny Diaz moved the city bond rating from junk to A+ while rolling out a six-year program to rebuild the infrastructure; and Washington Mayor Anthony Williams delivered something thought impossible – stability.

In other words, cities are in an epic period of rebirth, and great mayors are the reason. Memphis has had great managers, great motivators and great speakers. But there’s no argument that Memphis has had a mayor who measures up to the standards of today’s great mayors.

Mayor Willie W. Herenton, contrary to critics who tend to blame him for everything from the economic downturn to global warming, flirted with a “Nixon to China” brand of greatness, but in the end, it was not to be and now seems as elusive as his being cheered at halfcourt at FedExForum.

In truth, the concept of Willie Herenton has always been more compelling than the reality of Willie Herenton. To his political base, he has special status as the city’s first African-American mayor, and the voter loyalty attached to that milestone will not be replicated again. To civic leaders, explanations for support have frequently begun with the sentence, “He’s better than….”

When a political brand outstrips personal reality, it’s often a good thing for the politician. The formidable image silences critics, drives public opinion and overwhelms public discussions. In Herenton’s case though, it’s no longer fair to him, and it’s not now fair to the city, because it has mutated into a mythology that polarizes every issue he touches.

The seminal example took place just over year ago when he convened a meeting to consider his innovative proposal for merger of the two local school systems. On that day, he made the best researched and most detailed analysis by a public official of the $1 billion spent locally each year for schools, and he did it all without mentioning once that Memphis is the only major metro area in Tennessee where schools aren’t already consolidated.

And yet, none of the statistics, none of the projections and none of the historical trends were reported. Instead, the media fixated on the fact that the chairs of the city and county school boards – respectively, Wanda Halbert and David Pickler - were petulant no-shows at the meeting.

It was a defining moment in the Herenton Era, because it was at that moment that it became unambiguously obvious that his personality, not his positions or programs, would be the overriding factor defining the news from then on. In this way, it no longer mattered if he was right, because he was robbed of his bully pulpit.

The sad truth of Memphis politics – and it is sad whether you like Herenton or not – is that the mayor no longer has the potential to be great, because the ultimate prisoner of the Herenton myth is now Willie Herenton himself. Because of it, he’s denied the chance to emulate great U.S. mayors who are creating bigger dreams for their cities that every one sees themselves being part of, reaching across political and racial boundaries and inspiring all of their citizens with the confidence to move ahead together.

It is a truism that every city is only one great mayor away from being a great city. No one knows this better than Herenton, and that’s why the question that only he can answer is so tough.

Like the talented boxer that he once was, he knows that he can keep winning, but he also knows that sometimes, the skill is not just in being able to win, but in knowing when it is no longer necessary to be in the ring.

Thoughts On An Afternoon Movie

So, I decide Saturday to go to a 2:20 movie at Malco’s Paradiso Theatre. We’re rushing because we’re late, but we get there just as the house lights are dimmed and the advertisements begin.

Yes, I said advertisements.

The show time given in the newspaper wasn’t the time when the movie or the previews would began. Rather, it was the time when those godawful, aggravating advertisements bombard us as we enjoy our $15 worth of popcorn and Diet Cokes.

Finally, the ads end after about seven minutes, and the previews begin. The first preview featured flatulence, a second one was built around a tube sock and self-gratification and several stale sexual innuendoes and the third was about a threesome…in high school.

By the time the movie I came to see finally started, I had endured a spate of ads that I didn’t want to see and three previews that injected a coarseness into our afternoon. I’ve never been a prude, but the sexual jokes these days are just cheap laughs from uninspired screenwriters.

And Hollywood can’t figure out why we aren’t buying as many movie tickets.

Civic Involvement As A Corporate Asset

From Otis White's Urban Journal at www.governing.com:


Not all things were better in the past, but one thing in cities was genuinely better 30 years ago: business leadership, particularly among big companies. Alas, today’s cities are filled with branch offices of large corporations that never participate in chambers of commerce, rarely offer more than token support for United Way campaigns, and never, ever dirty their hands with local politics. So it’s surprising to learn that there are a few large corporations that actually push their executives to participate in civic work. Even more surprising: IBM is one.

Why is that surprising? Because IBM has every excuse for distancing itself from the communities it does business in. It is a multinational corporation without ties to any particular region of the country (it is headquartered in suburban New York but has operations everywhere). While it does business with lots of governments, it isn’t primarily a government contractor, so it has little need to curry favor with localities. Nor is it part of a regulated industry, like a bank or utility, and thus dependent on the whims of politicians.

And its executives, like those of most large companies, are a nomadic lot. (The old joke was that IBM stood for “I’ve Been Moved.”) Add it up: No close ties to any region, no need to curry favor with politicians, a peripatetic group of executives, and you’d figure IBM would be among the least involved of companies. But you’d be wrong.

According to IBM, 60 of its executives in the U.S. are on United Way boards and 53 are on local or statewide chambers of commerce. Subtract community relations and government affairs officials, and you still find a surprising number of what corporations call “business-unit executives” (those who run departments related to services or products) on community boards (50 on United Way boards, 36 on chamber boards). Example: Lee Torrance, top executive in the Atlanta office, is on the Atlanta chamber and United Way boards and involved with Habitat for Humanity and the Atlanta Ballet. Another: Don Jue, director of operations for 20 Western states, sits on the Los Angeles chamber board, the Urban League board, the L.A. Sports Council and the Asian Pacific American Legal Center board.

This isn’t by accident, IBM officials say. The company has targeted 23 metro areas in the U.S. for local involvement by its executives, because these places have large company operations, a large group of clients or are seen as important future markets. (These regions range from Burlington, Vt., to New York.) The company requires top executives in these regions to be sure the company is represented on important civic boards and active in good causes. Finally, it makes “external relations” (translation: community involvement) part of these executives’ annual performance reviews.

But if the “how” of IBM’s community involvement is clear, the “why” is more mysterious. IBMers say it’s part of the corporate culture, something that goes back to its earliest days nearly a century ago. Employees like it, company officials say. And it’s good for business, part of the “base of integrity that gives people trust in doing business with IBM over and over,” says Ann W. Cramer, director of corporate community relations for North America.

Could other large companies do the same? Sure. Why don’t they? Because civic involvement isn’t seen as central to these companies’ business. Thus, when most big companies get involved in communities, they do so by sending PR executives or government-affairs people, officials whose work is seen as incidental to the company’s real business. This, then, is what makes IBM’s approach so remarkable. Its use of business-unit executives for most of its civic work shows that, to Big Blue at least, community involvement isn’t just marketing, it’s a corporate asset. And that’s an idea worth cheering.

The Vanishing Middle Class

Memphis is hollowing out.

That’s the conclusion of research by the Brookings Institution.

Earlier this week, we suggested that Memphis Mayor Willie W. Herenton read research about Memphis instead of relying on political insiders to convince him that their pet projects (think tax freezes) are the only things that keep our city from oblivion.

The recent report on middle-income neighborhoods would be a good place to start. While the Brookings Institution painted a trend that is hollowing out of U.S. cities, few did worse than Memphis.

It’s a conclusion that indicates more and more that our city is becoming a city of extremes – the rich stay because they can afford to live anywhere and the poor stay because they have no choice. It’s the middle income families that are voting with their feet and it’s a mandate of discontent.

The percentage of middle-income families in the largest 100 metros in the U.S. fell from 28 percent in 1970 to 21.5 percent in 2005. Meanwhile, the percentage of middle-income neighborhoods fell from 58.2 percent to 40.9 percent over the same period of time.

In Memphis in 2000, 19.9 percent of families were middle-income and 29.7 percent of neighborhoods. In fact, in the list of 100 largest metros, Memphis was 88th in the share of middle-income families and 98th in neighborhoods.

The report concludes that we are witnessing a shrinking proportion of families with middle incomes and an even faster decline in neighborhoods with middle income character. It is a polarization that could ultimately create greater political conflict and spirited competition for scarce resources.

While City Hall may be focused on preserving the largesse of the local PILOT program, a widening disenchantment with city services and a growing feeling that no one is in charge are driving more and more people to make the decision to leave Memphis.

The 2005 Memphis Poll is instructive in this regard.

Heading the list of concerns is crime protection, with 85 percent of the public saying it is government’s highest priority. Undoubtedly, that percentage could only have climbed after this week’s killing fields.

In 1996, only 18 percent of Memphians said they were concerned about gangs and crime in their neighborhoods. It had climbed to 30 percent in 2005.

Meanwhile, the falling confidence in City Hall is reflected in other indicators, such as the perception of parks. Four years ago, the perception was 86 percent positive. Today, it’s 72 percent. As for the physical condition of neighborhoods, only 10 percent were concerned in 1993, but that has climbed to 28 percent in 2005.

It seems obvious that it will take something dramatic to convince an increasingly cynical public that city government can be transformed. But it could begin by making Memphis a city of choice for the middle class.

College-Educated, Young Adults Consider "Place" First

This news release on some landmark research by CEOs For Cities seems especially pertinent today, with Memphis Mayor Willie W. Herenton saying that our city has to keep giving away tax freezes to counter the exodus of people from Memphis. We don't know how he connected those dots, except for the anecdotal evidence given to him by real estate developers on whom he seems to place such reliance for economic development advice. Hopefully, he'll actually ask some of the people on the move, because their responses could be instructive to him as the city's chief executive.

Surely, it goes without saying that people moving out of Memphis don't really have top of mind the tax freezes handed out by the IDB as a consideration in their move, except as a negative, since they cause the tax rate to climb and create a disincentive for anyone to stay inside the city limits. As a true believer in tax freezes, Mayor Herenton can double the number of them given out, but they'll have no effect on the movement of people from Memphis if nothing else changes. Rather than giving away money, city government needs to be making Memphis to create a better, safer, more competitive commmunity, because, as shown by this definitive research, the returns on these investments are crucial to the city's future.

Rather than concentrating on tax freezes, we can only hope that Mayor Herenton will take the time to read all of the reliable research about why people are moving and what he could be doing about it. All that the give-away program of the IDB does is give city government less to spend on basic services like police and law enforcement, and those are the things that have people voting with their feet. Meanwhile, we mindlessly dole out tax freezes as entitlements to low-wage employers who institutionalize our workforce development weaknesses. Now that's what our mayor should really be working to correct, and a first step is to reform and revamp the self-defeating PILOT program that is now in place.

Here's the release:

– Job opportunities are secondary, but cities must get the “basics” right –

Chicago -- Two-thirds of highly mobile 25- to 34-year-olds with college degrees say that they will decide where they live first, then look for a job, according to a new survey commissioned by CEOs for Cities and conducted by The Segmentation Company, a division of marketing consultancy Yankelovich Inc.

The survey follows the December 2005 report by CEOs for Cities titled The Young and Restless in a Knowledge Economy, which warned urban leaders to attract and retain college-educated workers to compete in the knowledge economy. A city’s best chance to attract these workers, the report said, is to focus on the most mobile of the group, those 25 to 34 years old.

The survey marks the first time that the preferences of this highly coveted group have been quantified. The results are based on online surveys of 1,000 25- to 34-year-old college-educated men and women from diverse backgrounds and geographic locations conducted March 3-11, 2006.

“The December report confirmed that college-educated 25 to 34 year-olds are critical to the success of cities,” said Carol Coletta, president and CEO of CEOs for Cities, a national network of urban leaders. “These new data tell us what they value and how they make decisions about where they choose to live.

“When you look at trends, such as the influence of women in the workforce, the fact that technology advances allow people to stay connected from virtually anywhere and that people are less loyal to companies, these numbers make perfect sense,” Coletta added. “This freedom has made place much more prominent.”

Key findings included:

• Two-thirds of college-educated 25 to 34 year-olds choose place before job, and this preference was true across all life stages and genders (male, female, single, married, with children, without children).

• Women place greater emphasis on the location decision than do men, although a majority of men also say they choose place before job.

• Basic quality of life issues (clean and attractive, can live the life I want to lead, safe streets and neighborhoods, can afford to buy a home, lots of parks and green space) ranked highest among attributes that young people looked for in a city.

• A place that feels welcoming, offers professional opportunities, has reasonable commute times, access to excellent schools, is a great place to raise children, is a place people are proud to say they live in were among attributes young people looked for in a city.

• Lifestyle attributes are also important to this demographic. They prefer places where they can connect with others and have meaningful social interactions; that are interesting and diverse; and are environmentally responsible.

• Young adults have a strong inclination to live downtown or close to downtown.

• Knowledge of city attributes is limited. When asked where they would like to live, respondents were quick to answer. But when asked why, their reasons were vague.

• Young adults rely most heavily on personal stories from friends and family to form their perceptions about a place. They also use the Internet and personal visits to shape their opinions.

“The good news for urban leaders is that these findings point to actions that they can take to make their cities more desirable to this demographic,” said Meredith Gilfeather, who directed the survey for Yankelovich.

Opportunities for urban leaders to attract and retain this desirable demographic include:

• Take care of the basics – Make sure your city is clean, green, safe and inviting. The basic functions of government such as trash collection and keeping parks maintained and litter off the streets will go a long way to bringing and keeping people. While it is not the only factor, a city that doesn’t take care of the basics will likely be dismissed or overlooked by this demographic.

• Make it easy for young people to reach their aspirations and goals – Young people are the most entrepreneurial in America, so foster their want for personal and professional success by, for instance, naming a talent czar who guides entrepreneurs through the process of starting a new business in the city. The aura of opportunity is very powerful.

• Highlight your downtown and close-in neighborhoods – Young people are 30 percent more likely than other Americans to live within three miles of a city’s center. This percentage has been increasing since 1980 (and dramatically since 1990) in each of the top 50 metro areas in the U.S.

• Develop a compelling narrative about your city. Because young people have only vague notions of what a city is like, this poses an opportunity for a city to define and brand itself and market that image to young people. But don’t promise something that can’t be delivered. And don’t settle for a tagline, logo or slogan to do the job.

• Work with local stakeholders to build a dynamic web presence that is appealing to tech and design-savvy young people and that accurately portrays your city’s narrative.

About CEOs for Cities
Dynamic cities drive America’s global economic competitiveness. That’s why CEOs for Cities was founded. It’s a network of mayors, corporate CEOs, university presidents, foundation officials and business and civic leaders from the nation’s leading cities. With research and its urban innovation consortium, CEOs for Cities provides its members with special insight into the challenges that matter to the success of cities and the new partnerships and thinking required to find innovative responses.

About Yankelovich Inc. and The Segmentation Company (TSC)
Yankelovich delivers measurable breakthroughs in marketing productivity for its clients. For more than 30 years, The Yankelovich MONITOR¨ has tracked and forecasted consumer value and lifestyle trends. Our Insights Integrationsm solutions directly link our key research findings on why people buy to databases of customers and prospects.

The Segmentation Company is a full-service custom research and consulting firm that helps clients precisely target their customers through segmentation and brand equity and positioning work. Yankelovich and TSC are headquartered in Chapel Hill, NC.

The Magnetic Pull Of FedEx Is The Most Powerful Business Incentive For Memphis And Shelby County

Would someone in city or county governments please buy copies of the current issue of Fast Company for members of the Memphis and Shelby County Industrial Development Board?

While you are at it, mark the article, “Rise of the Aerotropolis,” which tells of the airport-cities that are being created around the globe. It’s an article of special interest to Memphis as world headquarters for FedEx, the corporation that invented global commerce as we know it.

The article makes some graphic points:

· Over the past 30 years, the value of air cargo has risen 1,395 percent, compared to the GDP’s increase of 154 percent and the value of world trade’s increase of 355 percent.

· Today, 40 percent of the total economic value of all goods in the world and 50 percent of American goods are shipped by air.

· Virtually everything associated with the value-added economy – technology, pharmaceuticals, medical devices – is transported by air.

Airport-cities

The aerotropolis is a new thrust for urban planning in several world cities, notably Asian ones, where rather than banish airports to the outer reaches of cities, airports are moved to the center where cities are built around them. American cities are seen as falling behind in the development of these centers, because of our NIMBY sensitivity and zoning restrictions.

But perhaps, just as FedEx created world commerce, it can create a new future for the area around Memphis International Airport as a competitor for the aerotropolises developing in Tokyo, Hong Kong, Bangkok and Dubai. Rather than becoming a force driving sprawl like it is in these places, perhaps the distinctive U.S. brand of the airport-city could be invented here in Memphis.

According to the article, Memphis already has a rudimentary version of the aerotropolis along with Dallas and Ontario, California, with Denver and Detroit planning developments right now.

Architect of the aerotropolis concept is John Kasarda, a University of North Carolina business professor, who sees it as the logical evolution of globalization writ within a city context. While parts of his crystal ball forecasting into the future conjures up the unfeeling, robotic, gray world captured in so many apocalyptic films where people become mere dispensable cogs in the unrelenting global economic machinery, a uniquely American version of the aerotropolis is not only possible, but preferable to those in far flung parts of the globe.

FedEx

But what does this have with the IDB? Here’s the part that made us think of tax freeze policies.

The article says that “the closest thing to an aerotropolis in America today is Memphis International Airport, home for 25 years to FedEx,” adding that Memphis has led the world for 14 years in a row as the airport with the most air cargo, outdistancing powerhouses like Amsterdam and Tokyo.

Delivering the Memphis Regional Chamber’s sales pitch for it, Fast Company points out the distinct advantages of being located in Memphis where companies have midnight or 1 a.m. drop-off deadlines for FedEx, compared to 9 p.m. on the East Coat and 4 p.m. on the West Coast.

In a nation too often defined by a bi-coastal perspective, Memphis has a competitive advantage unmatched in the world – FedEx’s drop-off deadlines and the extra hours of production given to companies here.

Proximity Matters

Joe Ferreira, FedEx’s managing director of hub-area business development, is quoted in the article as saying that she “routinely juggles the requests of as many as 40 to 50 companies jockeying for space around Memphis and smaller hubs.”

“Proximity matters more and more to them,” she says, and Memphis offers an ideal combination of inexpensive, semiskilled labor, acres of turnkey warehouse space and the junction of three states all fighting for their business.

“But the biggest driver,” Ferreira says,” is the growing urge that when we want something, we want it now. And as soon as one company relocates here or to any of our hubs, the next thing that happens is that three or four of its competitors come calling.”

Fast Company says that “while Memphis might qualify for a proto-aerotropolis, with the FedEx hub providing just enough gravity to keep its customers from spinning out of orbit into Mississippi or Arkansas, few other American cities are even remotely ready to build their own analogues.”

Magnetic FedEx

So, once again, we’re told the obvious: FedEx is the ultimate economic magnet for Memphis. Its gravitational pull attracts smart companies that understand that by locating here, they get a competitive advantage found nowhere else, the competitive advantage of a longer, direct connection with the global economy made possible by the inventors of overnight air cargo delivery.

So, with this unmatchable competitive advantage, the obvious question for the IDB is why is it still handing out tax freezes as if we aren’t good enough to attract business otherwise?

Debate FedExForum Reality, Not Mythology

The current controversy about the FedExForum garage is quickly becoming about more than why plans were changed and how $6.3 million in federal funds were lost.

There are resurrected questions about the contract between Memphis and Shelby County Governments and the Grizzlies. There are shots taken at owner Michael Heisley by fans made mad by some of the team’s mistakes in the care and feeding of its customers. There is the expected political distancing by elected officials who were there and voted for the contract for the new arena.

All of this smoke runs the risk of obscuring any light that can be shed on the spark that ignited the fire in the first place – $6.3 million that was not spent in compliance with the guidelines for the federal program where the money originated before being channeled through Tennessee Department of Transportation.

That said, we’ll wade in any way. When our friends at the Memphis Flyer editorialize that the contract with the NBA team was “one-sided” and a “Faustian bargain,” it just feels like mythology is replacing reality when it comes to the history of the project.

Looking Back

So let’s rewind the tape.

Back in 2001, some of Memphis’ most directly engaged, civic-minded business leaders learned that there was a chance to land a professional basketball team in Memphis, a fulfillment of this city’s long-held dream and the antidote to the beating that our civic ego had taken in pursuit of the National Football League.

They heard that the Vancouver Grizzlies was looking to move. They contacted Michael Heisley, not the other way around, to ask if Memphis could be considered. Like it is in the world of professional sports franchises, there’s no warm, fuzzy feelings that lead a team to move to a new city. It’s nothing but clear-eyed financial benefit, frequently expressed in the public commitment to provide an NBA-quality arena that can be a revenue center to help make the absurd business model of the NBA work.

There is nothing unique about this, because Memphis’ experience is consistent with what happens in almost every city. (It’s worth noting that the team and the so-called local NBA pursuit team weren’t even demanding a new arena, because they were prepared to have The Pyramid upgraded to NBA standards. That’s when it was suggested by the county mayor, not Mr. Heisley, that for slightly more, a new arena could be built.)

It’s worth remembering another often forgotten fact these days: Memphis was competing with another city for the Grizzlies, and so Memphis and Shelby County weren’t just negotiating against the Grizzlies, but negotiating against a rival city.

Negotiations

From the beginning, negotiations between city, county and the Grizzlies were testy and emotional. At their first meeting, the Grizzlies laid out their requirements to move to Memphis. Local government didn’t respond to their list and instead presented their own list of demands. The team’s negotiators left the room to talk, and quickly walked out of the building and flew out of Memphis.

No one in the halls of government panicked and got on the phone to put things back together. City and county negotiators, of which I was one, had made a list of “deal breakers” that were nonnegotiable. Failure to agree on any of them would collapse the talks from the public side. So, when the Grizzlies walked out of the room, Memphis and Shelby County Governments concluded that it saved them a lot of time, because it didn’t look like the team would agree to the public conditions any way.

Through the mediation of a third party, the teams were reassembled to see if there was a way to restart the negotiations. Again, city and county negotiators listed their deal breakers, and over the next month, one by one, they were accepted, but not without the charges and countercharges that are part of any negotiation. Eventually, the big issues that had been deferred while the others were addressed were essentially all that was left: the Grizzlies paying the operating losses for the new arena and the team making a long-term commitment to stay in the arena and in Memphis.

Local government had been told by pro sports consultants and colleagues in other governments that a city our size would not win these two key concessions, and frequently, it looked as if they would kill any chances for a contract.

Non-compete

It was in the context of the Grizzlies’ accepting operating losses – estimated now at upwards of $5 million a year – that the non-compete clause was put on the table. No one with any business sense – much less an NBA team owner - would take on the obligation of paying the operating costs and not look to protect their downside in the form of competition from other buildings that could easily undercut rental rates for the newer, more expensive arena.

It was a lesson that city and county had learned painfully when The Pyramid opened without closing the Coliseum. That old arena – already paid for and with no official concessionaire or parking company – was adept at underbidding the newer building, accomplishing nothing so much as driving up the operating subsidy of The Pyramid year after year and putting more money in the pockets of promoters.

It was thought in 2001 and it’s still the case today that it’s in the long-term best interest of taxpayers for FedExForum to succeed, and in that vein, the non-compete clause was agreed to in return for the Grizzlies taking on the operating losses. In other words, the option was for taxpayers to pay more than $5 million a year for the operating deficit of the building, and it would probably have been higher. After all, sponsorships and advertising agreements are skills that government doesn’t possess and or ill-equipped to perform or oversee.

So, the cost of eliminating the non-compete clause would have been more than $5 million for the Forum, about $2 million for the operating deficit at The Pyramid and the $1 million deficit at the Coliseum. In other words, local government could have taken on a total of $8 million in operating deficits and all so promoters could make more money from their events.

That said, negotiators on all sides understood that the noncompete clause was not intended to block events from coming to Memphis, only to give the Forum first option to make them work there. That the Grizzlies took the position most advantageous to them in interpreting the contract should surprise no one, but over time, the application of the non-compete provisions are settling into the philosphy of the negotiations.

Debating The Merits

While it’s never out of bounds for people to question the public benefits of the arena project, or whether this is the best use of $250 million or whether research proves that professional sports underdeliver as an economic engine, the malignant notion that city and county governments simply agreed to whatever the Grizzlies demanded is just wrong.

As for the financing of the arena – which the Grizzlies had no part in developing (like the garage funding, they didn’t care where it came from, as long as they got the facilities built), in retrospect, it seems clear that the financing would have been better if it had not included PILOT payments from MLGW.

That said, lost in the fog of opinions is this fact: the preponderance of the financing on the arena come from user-related fees like the sales tax rebate from NBA events and the arena's seat use fee and from sources like the Tourism Development Zone that only could have been spent on an arena or convention center.

In other words, it’s a fair discussion to debate whether the political and civic leadership should have spent their energies pursuing the team and building a new arena, but keep in mind that the vast majority of the revenues paying for FedExForum could not be spent on anything else.

Looking back, a number of letter writers seem to believe this project was rammed through the public process with little public support for it. It’s worth remembering that the publicly-funded poll demanded by arena opponent Commissioner Walter Bailey, to his dismay, showed that a majority of people in this county supported the arena financing plan.

The Power Of Rhetoric

As we say, there is room to debate the facts, and there is the obligation to get the answers about how the Forum garage plans were changed without federal approval and in violation of the federal regulations.

But hopefully, we can keep in mind that if the Mud Island experience taught us anything, it is that we have the power to make FedExForum a failure. It happened to Mud Island on the day long ago when the Memphis City Council, putting distance from the project they had approved, called it a failure. From that day on, it was.

Let’s investigate the garage controversy until full accountability is reached. Let’s debate the public value of professional sports. Let’s discuss whether local government has its priorities wrong.

Let’s just try to remember that we won. We got the professional sports team that we had sought for more than 20 years, we got a long-term commitment from it to this city, we got it to pay the considerable operating losses of the new arena and we did it with no larger percentage of property taxes in the Forum project than city and county governments put into AutoZone Park.

Abandoning Incentives Of The "Old" Economy Like Tax Freezes

Dell Inc. is expanding its Nashville operations by as many as 1,000 employees, adding to 3,500-person workforce that has grown there since the computer giant started its $200 million Middle Tennessee operations in 1999.

For the new employees, Dell will receive $500 a year for each job from Nashville-Davidson County Metro government.

Meanwhile, back here at home, little has changed as our community’s overreliance on property tax freezes continues, resulting in aberrations that show just how smart Nashville has been in refusing to build its economic development program by selling the city at a discount.

In Nashville, Dell gets $500 for each job.

Here, we are preparing to pay $1,718 for each job created by NuVasive at its distribution center for surgical kits. In addition, we’ll also pay $843 for each job created by Knox St. Clair at its distribution and light manufacturing site for its interior doors and windows for construction projects.

Lower Than Average Salaries

That’s what we’re paying as a result of the Industrial Development Board for both of these companies, a fact made even more remarkable by the fact that neither will pay salaries that reach the average income in Shelby County.

NuVasive’s jobs will pay an average about $32,000, about six percent lower than the average per-capita income in Shelby County. Knox St. Clair’s jobs average $22,880, 33 percent lower than the per capita income in Shelby County, qualifying its workers for food stamps on their first day on the job.

Let’s ask it this way. If you were investing your money, what would you think is the smartest investment:

• $500 in Dell Inc.

• $1,718 in NuVasive

• $843 in Knox St. Clair

It’s no different for our city and county, because the IDB is in effect directly investing our money into these companies. Therein lies the problem. There is no sense by the IDB that tax freezes are public investments.

Tax Freezes

That’s why we admire Nashville for resisting the Siren’s call of tax freezes. Yes, they are attractive: they are easy, they aren’t generally understood by the public and economic impact studies can interpret them in ways that make them look grandly successful.

Nashville, on the other hand, in a 10-year period, only approved five tax freezes. Meanwhile, Memphis and Shelby County were handing out 415 tax freezes. In other words, we were approving in six weeks the same number of tax freezes that Nashville was approving in 520 weeks.

About 20 years ago, Memphis and Nashville were roughly in the same place. Both had ambition and expansive ideas. Both were trying to sort out and prepare for competitive position in the coming economy.

Nashville went one way. Memphis went another.

In Nashville, they were mindful of sending a message about quality government, quality of life and quality of public investments. They set out to execute “quality strategies” that would make them a magnet for young workers and skilled jobs. They identified the key public investments that could make this happen. They rejected the notion that they had to waive taxes to get companies to move there.

Transparent Business Incentives

Nashville remains resolute in its approach. Dell, for example, is the world’s largest personal computer maker, and yet, Nashville didn’t give it a tax freeze. Instead, it gives the company $500 for every worker in the city, a business incentive that is transparent and easily understood by the public.

If anything, Nashville’s approach to economic growth has been anchored in flexibility and opportunistic thinking, adjusting and recalibrating to take advantage of the new realities of the new economy.

Memphis, meanwhile, seems stuck in the economic development programs of the 1980s, continuing to depend on tax freezes, cheap labor and cheap land. Perhaps, you could argue that the philosophy may have made sense 20 years ago, but it’s more and more irrelevant in today’s economic development environment.

A few years ago, the director of economic development who staffed the IDB was asked to show how successful the board was in creating economic growth. He quickly cited the growing numbers and amounts of IDB tax freezes. It was as if the tax freezes themselves were the desired outcomes. It’s no wonder that they have become entitlements in the minds of many.

In truth, the greater indicator of success by IDB would be in weaning its dependency on waived taxes to lure business. Today, the amount of tax freezes amounts to about 7.5 percent of the total tax revenues of city government. Meanwhile, they add to the significant percentage of property that doesn’t pay taxes at all - 29 percent of the total land area in Shelby County is tax exempt.

Counterintuitive Policy

In the end, throwing money at companies to convince them they should love us is not only poor public policy, but it is counterintuitive, stimulating higher tax rates that choke off the small businesses and new entrepreneurs that create most jobs in the first place.

For too long, we have spent our time trying to identify specific industries that should be our economic development targets. What would pay greater dividends is to target the ingredients that produce a culture of economic growth – entrepreneurship, talent and innovation.

Rather than give away taxes, the better question for our community is how do we reform our tax structure to lower taxes as a economic stimulus and how do we make wiser public investments that do the same.

Memphis' Agreement With Grizzlies Trumps Nashville's Negotiation

It is the fundamental nature of negotiations that they are always susceptible to second guessing by anyone not involved directly in them. That’s the case whether the negotiation is for the sale of a business or for construction of a new arena for the Memphis Grizzlies.

That’s because negotiations are always about give and take, and perhaps the best indicator of a successful one is when both sides walk away somewhat unhappy, because both sides have compromised in what they had hoped to get.

It is because of this fact that it’s easy for us to look at an agreement in the cold, dispassionate light that distance and time gives us. While this is easy enough to do when second guessing our brother-in-law’s purchase of a company, it’s a given when it’s an agreement negotiated within a political environment.

So, it should be no surprise that the recent controversy about the New Arena Public Building Authority and Tennessee Department of Transportation misleading federal highway officials to qualify for $20 million in federal funds has sparked renewed complaints by some that Memphis and Shelby County Governments gave away the store to get the Grizzlies in the first place.

Hindsight

Now, five years after the city and county signed their agreement with the Grizzlies, we all are blessed with 20-20 hindsight. What’s not so easily remembered now is that our political and business leaders had sought a professional sports team for decades, and there was general consensus that our best bet would be a franchise with the National Basketball League.

In the face of this consensus was the stark reality that in negotiations with the Grizzlies, Memphis would be trying to convince the team to move to the smallest (some NBA executives said weakest) market for a team.

Despite all this, city and county staffers who negotiated the contract with the Grizzlies had a list of “deal breakers.” If the team refused any one of them, the public sector planned to break off the sessions in keeping with the first rule of negotiation: if you’re not prepared to walk out, you shouldn’t ever walk in.

On the deal breaker list was the city-county’s demand for a long-term contract with severe financial penalties for early termination if the team left before the term was reached. There were about five other deal breakers on the city-county list, but none had greater importance than this: city and county government wanted the team to pay all operating expenses for the new arena.

Toughest Negotiation Point

It was expected that the Grizzlies would object strenuously to this requirement, and the team did. On several occasions, it appeared that this single item would keep an agreement from ever being consummated. From the team’s perspective, they were already taking big risks in relocating to Memphis and wanted to protect themselves from additional losses. City and county, on the other hand, understood fully the political benefits of winning this single point and also avoiding the yearly political spectacle of budget hearings on the subsidies.

In the end, however, the Grizzlies blinked, agreeing to pay the yearly operating deficit for its new arena. It was the single most important concession won by city and county governments in their negotiations with the Grizzlies.

After all, 210 miles up I-40, Nashville turned over management of its arena, the Gaylord Entertainment Center, to the owners of its NHL team – Predators – and also agreed to pay its operating deficits.

All of this comes to mind, because of the proposed budget for 2006-2007 recently submitted by Nashville Mayor Bill Purcell. It includes $4.1 million to cover the operating deficit for Gaylord Entertainment Center, which is managed by Powers Management, a Predators-related company. Nashville Metro Government pays the company $235,092 in management fees, minus bonuses.

And the public subsidy has been higher. Just last year it was $5.3 million.

Operating Losses

Sources in the arena management industry predict that the operating losses of FedExForum covered by the Grizzlies are likely to be even higher than $5 million a year.

Meanwhile, in Nashville, the relationship between metro government and its NHL team have gotten so bad that the Predators are threatening to file a lawsuit to force Metro Government to pay $1 million for bonuses it claims the city owes its management company and for equipment for the arena.
Powers Management has also asked for $7.85 in capital improvements to Gaylord Entertainment Center, and Mayor Purcell’s budget fully funds that amount.

The relationship has gotten so bad that Metro Government and the Predators have been arguing for more than a year about terms of their contract.

While the team is asking for the $1 million payment, Nashville complains that the Predators’ “tangible net worth” is lower than the amount required in the contract under which Nashville contributed $35 million to recruit the team to the city in the first place.

The Grizzlies and FedExForum seem always destined to produce spirited debate about everything from the financing plan for the arena to the team’s playoffs implosion. Maybe, there's only one thing we should be able to agree on: we’re all glad that it’s the Grizzlies, not the taxpayers, who are paying operating deficits for the new arena.