IBJOpinion

Criticism of IEDC was off-point

January 22, 2011
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share
IBJ Letters To The Editor

Professor [Morton] Marcus’ warning about the perceived under-appreciation of local economic development organizations [in his Jan. 10 column] places a spotlight on the importance of these groups and those who lead them.

Economic development is becoming increasingly competitive and complex. LEDOs often serve to distill the viewpoints of the divergent players at the local level, whether they are elected officials, advisers or business leaders, and provide a streamlined, central point of contact that addresses a prospect’s questions and needs.

But more than that, as Marcus suggests, a savvy LEDO also is able to play the multifaceted role of caregiver, innovator and adviser to any and all parties involved in a project to keep that deal alive. This critical skill greatly affects the strength of a community’s tenuous grip on a fast-moving, high-maintenance prospect.

Contrary to the article’s criticisms about the Indianapolis Economic Development Corp., however, my experiences with this organization and its predecessor, the Department of Commerce, are different. The IEDC that I work with values the contributions of local government.

Many past and present senior executives within the IEDC come from a LEDO background, and understand a LEDO’s role to a project’s success. The IEDC is keenly interested in the local government’s participation in a project and how the state can tailor its involvement to enhance that project’s chances for success.

I would also take issue with the argument that the state oversells its economic development victories in the press. The IEDC’s role is to retain and attract companies that have the potential to succeed, and to do the best job possible to protect the state’s assets in the process.

On the first point, no amount of due diligence by the IEDC will enable it to guarantee the outcomes of the projects it incentivizes. Further, incurring the expense and delays that would result from dedicating significant resources to that effort would be of a questionable cost/benefit result, since the IEDC’s typical support for a project is in the form of self-policing, performance-based incentives. This leads to the second point.

By definition, performance-based incentives are paid out on a pro-rata basis as benchmarks are achieved. If the jobs are not created, then the incentives are not provided. Criticizing job-commitment announcements for projects that don’t come to fruition may make for provocative headlines, but these announcements are, at worst, victimless events that don’t detract from the state’s deservingly laudable efforts to secure these deals. The fact there will be winners and losers with proposed economic development projects is an occupational hazard of the industry.

Tim Cook
Partner, State and Local Tax Services
KSM Economic Development Advisors

 

ADVERTISEMENT

  • do you think
    this guy will be told no if he asks the state for tax credits in the future? Marcus has the guts to call a spade a spade when he sees one no matter the fallout. hats off to him.

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in IBJ editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ on Facebook:
Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ's Tweets on these topics:
 
Subscribe to IBJ
  1. How can any company that has the cash and other assets be allowed to simply foreclose and not pay the debt? Simon, pay the debt and sell the property yourself. Don't just stiff the bank with the loan and require them to find a buyer.

  2. If you only knew....

  3. The proposal is structured in such a way that a private company (who has competitors in the marketplace) has struck a deal to get "financing" through utility ratepayers via IPL. Competitors to BlueIndy are at disadvantage now. The story isn't "how green can we be" but how creative "financing" through captive ratepayers benefits a company whose proposal should sink or float in the competitive marketplace without customer funding. If it was a great idea there would be financing available. IBJ needs to be doing a story on the utility ratemaking piece of this (which is pretty complicated) but instead it suggests that folks are whining about paying for being green.

  4. The facts contained in your post make your position so much more credible than those based on sheer emotion. Thanks for enlightening us.

  5. Please consider a couple of economic realities: First, retail is more consolidated now than it was when malls like this were built. There used to be many department stores. Now, in essence, there is one--Macy's. Right off, you've eliminated the need for multiple anchor stores in malls. And in-line retailers have consolidated or folded or have stopped building new stores because so much of their business is now online. The Limited, for example, Next, malls are closing all over the country, even some of the former gems are now derelict.Times change. And finally, as the income level of any particular area declines, so do the retail offerings. Sad, but true.

ADVERTISEMENT