Lowell's

The Promise (and Predicament) of CentrePointe

Since CentrePointe was initially proposed over three years ago, the project has been marked by fantastical bluster, broken promises, poor designs, and, ultimately, a failure to build.  All of which was compounded by the developers' riteously indignant, arrogant, and combative attitude when challenged on the wisdom of CentrePointe.

A couple of years ago, after declaring CentrePointe an impossible-to-build failure, we outlined some basic principles for reconceiving the (still) empty block in the heart of our city.  Here's an abbreviated excerpt from that post:

• Create a vibrant destination which attracts residents, workers, and tourists.
• Make that destination a distinctive place which no other city has.
• Create public and private spaces within the destination.
• Balance the types of uses within the development.
• Ensure local businesses have significant presence.
• Ensure that the space is well-integrated with the surrounding community.
• Build it soon.

After three years of apparent tone-deafness by CentrePointe's developers, the prospects for such a "signature place" seemed quite dim.

::

On the sweltering third floor of the old courthouse yesterday, an overflow crowd of some 300 Lexingtonians received a tantalizing glimpse of a new approach to the CentrePointe project.

And that approach represented an enormous (and refreshing) step in the right direction.

With the encouragement of Lexington's new mayor, the developers engaged Jeanne Gang of Chicago's Studio Gang Architects (SGA) to rethink the CentrePointe block.

On Thursday, she present preliminary site design concepts for the CentrePointe block.  And she presented a marked departure from the old approach to CentrePointe.

Gang's presentation and the developers' new approach are refreshing in a number of ways:

• Design. SGA abandons the "Fortress Lexington" approach of the old CentrePointe.  By breaking the project into independent components with different volumes and designs, SGA will avoid the imposing and monolithic designs offered in previous iterations of CentrePointe.
• Openness. By showing preliminary design concepts and inviting public input on them, CentrePointe promises to be a much more open project.  The developers are even inviting local architects to design the Main Street components of the project.
• Humility. Gang showed her work and her thinking while it was still in progress, while it was still incomplete.  Exposing this level of uncertainty takes a striking degree of humility and confidence - for both the architect and the developer.  Whereas previous iterations of CentrePointe were presented as a fait accompli to be adored by a passive audience, SGA's version promises to be a shared community treasure which we might be able to design together.  In this more humble regime, once-adversarial relationships might transform into more-cooperative ones.

The mayor and the developers and SGA are to be commended for crafting this new approach to CentrePointe.  

The chances for creating a unique, signature place for Lexington went way up yesterday. And the developers deserve some credit for allowing that to happen.

::

Despite the new approach to designing CentrePointe, a number of nagging issues remain for the tortuous project.

While Gang's site design breaks up the monolithic tower of previous CentrePointe concepts, it appears to maintain the overall square footage and volume of the last iteration of the project.  If the project is roughly the same size, it should be roughly the same cost - around $200 million.

And if the developers have had difficulty lining up financing for the past three years, what will allow them to line it up now?  The commercial real estate market remains deeply depressed, and it isn't clear that such abundant premium space would find tenants in Lexington.  The business model issues we identified early in the project haven't fundamentally changed.

Is it possible that the new design will be so revolutionary, so inspirational, so great that investors and tenants will line up around the CentrePointe block to get in?  Perhaps.  We'd be thrilled.  But we doubt it.

The $200 million price tag is also important because that is the minimum required to qualify for tax increment financing (TIF).  TIF allows cities and states to allocate future incremental tax revenues to finance today's public improvements related to new economic development initiatives.  

In CentrePointe's case, the city and state would finance about $50 million in improvements - a parking garage, sidewalks, storm sewers, etc. - around the project, and they would hope to recoup that investment from new taxes generated by CentrePointe.  In previous analysis, we've found that the CentrePointe TIF is highly problematic, and that it is doubtful that the city or state would ever get their money back.

Even though the new design direction is encouraging, several other aspects of the project are still unresolved.  Is the project the appropriate scale for Lexington?  Can it find willing tenants? Can the developers nail down financing?  Is the TIF worth the up-front expense?

The developers find themselves in a dilemma: If their project falls below the $200 million mark, it will be much more realistic to finance and to find occupants.  But it will lose the $50 million boost from TIF financing.  

If the project comes in over $200 million, it is much more difficult to finance and occupy, and the opportunity for financing the project in the next 5 to 6 years looks grim.  (The TIF agreement between the Kentucky Economic Development Finance Authority and the city specifies that the $200 million be spent by January 2015).

::

We applaud the developers' new, more-open approach to designing CentrePointe.  Bringing Jeanne Gang and SGA in to rethink the site is a welcome departure from the past three years. As frequent critics of CentrePointe and its developers, we're very encouraged by the new direction of the project.

But because the economic challenges to the project linger on, we'd like to see a more open, more flexible approach applied to the execution of the project as well.  Perhaps the project could be built progressively or in stages, to allow for further construction as new financing becomes available. Perhaps it could be downsized to multiply financing options.  

If - and this is a big 'if' - the developers can rethink their business model the way they've begun to rethink the design, the future of CentrePointe may be bright indeed.

UPDATE 6/6/2011: Graham Pohl now has a fine post up on an architect's perspective of the new CentrePointe design and process over at ProgressLex.

Beyond Angelou

In December, I was honored when Lexington Mayor-elect Jim Gray asked me to join one of his economic development transition teams.  In preparation for our first meeting, we were given a packet which described the state of economic development in Lexington.  

As I reviewed those materials, I noticed several references to "the" strategic plan for Lexington's economic development; Yet that strategic plan wasn't part of our materials.  I scanned the city government website for the strategic plan, and came up empty.  

At our first meeting, I mentioned that we needed to get our hands on that strategic plan.

But Lexington didn't actually have a strategic plan for economic development.  Despite having a Mayor's Office of Economic Development and a staff of economic development folks at Commerce Lexington, we hadn't developed a comprehensive approach to Lexington's development.

Instead, the city and Commerce Lexington co-sponsored a $150,000 engagement with Angelou Economics, an Austin-based economic development consultancy.  The final Angelou deliverable would include an economic development strategy for Lexington.  

I was stunned.  Not only did we not have a coherent economic development strategy, but we had seemingly outsourced the formulation of that strategy to an out-of-town consultant!

::

Angelou released a draft of Lexington's economic development strategy last week.  In the process, they unleashed a torrent of criticism after Ben Self showed that Angelou essentially recycled reports they had provided to other cities, often copying entire paragraphs and even pages.

The recommendations that Angelou makes aren't bad.  They recommend creating a better support network for entrepreneurs.  They recommend setting up a minority business accelerator.  They recommend setting up a comprehensive marketing plan for Lexington to help recruit new businesses.

The trouble with Angelou's report (as might be expected after Ben's analysis) is that "Lexington" is missing.  Much of what makes Lexington special and unique - our history, our geography, and our culture - is largely absent from the Angelou strategy.  

There's no significant mention of downtown.  Of the Distillery District.  Of our neighborhoods.  Of our unique individuals and personalities.  Of our history.  There's only a passing mention of our horse farms and our rural landscape.  There's no mention of the World Equestrian Games.

As a result, Angelou fails to identify what gives Lexington a competitive advantage in the global competition for businesses, jobs, and talent.  So while the recommendations aren't bad, they just ring hollow.  They are bland and generic.  They don't feel special to Lexington.  

When Angelou recommends focusing on "Clean Technology", for instance, that sounds like a good idea.  But what gives Lexington any special advantage over any other city in pursuing clean tech (Especially when every other city is pursing such a "hot" industry)?

These kinds of questions arise with most of the Angelou recommendations. What would a marketing plan for Lexington look like?  What would it build upon?  What - specifically - would give Lexington the ability to create a best-in-class workforce?

::

We have the beginnings of a very solid economic development plan.  It just didn't come from Angelou.  It came out of the two economic development transition teams that Mayor Gray appointed.  (You can download PDFs of the two "Economic Opportunity" reports from the mayor's transition website.)

The two teams - made up of leaders from across the city - developed recommendations for how the mayor should approach economic development in Lexington.  

And the transition teams recommended many of the same actions that Angelou did.  The difference?  The ideas contained in these reports are far more actionable than the ones we received from Angelou.  They are far more interesting.  They are far more relevant.  They are far more tailored to Lexington's specific challenges and opportunities.

Like Angelou, the transition teams recommended enhancing support for entrepreneurs.  But the transition teams went further, and offered much more specific examples.  These included: Having the mayor visit 5 entrepreneurial events each year (along with a list of suggested events); Having the mayor organize an annual innovation conference, along with specific suggestions on structure and format; and, having the mayor's office produce "The Lexington Entrepreneur's Guide" online and in print.  

The transition teams' suggestions for a marketing plan for Lexington included specific, actionable ideas on who to include and how to approach marketing our city.  We could get testimonials from Jess Jackson (of Kendall Jackson Wineries) or Elizabeth Arden (Note the Streetsweeper's comment below), who happen to own horse farms here.  The transition reports recommended building databases of local resources which could be called upon when recruiting new businesses to Lexington.  

The transition teams also offered suggestions on how to better utilize downtown, our horse farms, and the Distillery District.  They offered specific ideas on building upon our health and educational systems.

And unlike Angelou, the recommendations contained in the transition team reports are much more tailored to Lexington, and - as a result - the recommendations are much more actionable.  They form the foundations of a real economic development plan for our city.  

::

Somehow, about 25 volunteers - in the span of a few meetings across a few weeks - leveraged their knowledge and experience to produce some innovative ways for Lexington to pursue economic development.  And the final product is more valuable than the report the consultant provided.  And it didn't cost $150,000.

There are a lot of great ideas in these transition team reports.  That said, those ideas don't yet form a cohesive economic development plan.  That work remains to be done.  

Given how productive the transition teams were in such a short time, why not let leaders from throughout the community develop the strategy for Lexington's economic development?  Why not let them recommend the structure, the direction, and the financing of Lexington's economic development efforts?  

All it took to create these transition reports was leadership from our mayor.  Likewise, our mayor should initiate the process of building an economic development strategy for Lexington, created by us.

We should use the Angelou fiasco not only to penalize Angelou for doing poor consulting work, but also to learn how to do our own economic development better.

On Compromise

Last night, Congress passed the $900 billion tax compromise reached between President Obama and Republican leaders.  

In the end, progressives and conservatives alike lambasted the deal.  And that might be a very good thing.

I'm no fan of the bonus tax cuts for the wealthy that Obama conceded to congressional Republicans; Despite Republican claims, those cuts fail to create significant job growth.

Lost in much of the analysis over what Obama conceded, however, is just how many bigger concessions he won back from Republican leaders, as Ezra Klein points out with this chart:

Unproductive and unneeded tax cuts for the wealthy make up only one-eighth of the compromise. The other seven-eighths of the deal are much more stimulative to our economy and to job production.  

In essence, this tax deal is a second "stimulus" which is much-needed at this stage of our fragile economic recovery.

::

During the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia in 1787, representatives of each state teetered on the knife's edge between walking away from the proposed Constitution for what they might have to give up, and giving up important principles (and power) in order to gain something better, stronger, and more resilient.

While the present compromise is not nearly as momentous, it does remind me of what Benjamin Franklin - then 82 years old - said when addressing that convention in September, which galvanized the representatives into agreement:

I confess that there are several parts of this constitution which I do not at present approve, but I am not sure I shall never approve them: For having lived long, I have experienced many instances of being obliged by better information, or fuller consideration, to change opinions even on important subjects, which I once thought right, but found to be otherwise. It is therefore that the older I grow, the more apt I am to doubt my own judgment, and to pay more respect to the judgment of others. Most men indeed as well as most sects in Religion, think themselves in possession of all truth, and that wherever others differ from them it is so far error. Steele a Protestant in a Dedication tells the Pope, that the only difference between our Churches in their opinions of the certainty of their doctrines is, the Church of Rome is infallible and the Church of England is never in the wrong. But though many private persons think almost as highly of their own infallibility as of that of their sect, few express it so naturally as a certain french lady, who in a dispute with her sister, said "I don't know how it happens, Sister but I meet with no body but myself, that's always in the right - Il n'y a que moi qui a toujours raison."

In these sentiments, Sir, I agree to this Constitution with all its faults, if they are such; because I think a general Government necessary for us, and there is no form of Government but what may be a blessing to the people if well administered, and believe farther that this is likely to be well administered for a course of years, and can only end in Despotism, as other forms have done before it, when the people shall become so corrupted as to need despotic Government, being incapable of any other. I doubt too whether any other Convention we can obtain, may be able to make a better Constitution. For when you assemble a number of men to have the advantage of their joint wisdom, you inevitably assemble with those men, all their prejudices, their passions, their errors of opinion, their local interests, and their selfish views. From such an assembly can a perfect production be expected? It therefore astonishes me, Sir, to find this system approaching so near to perfection as it does; and I think it will astonish our enemies, who are waiting with confidence to hear that our councils are confounded like those of the Builders of Babel; and that our States are on the point of separation, only to meet hereafter for the purpose of cutting one another's throats. Thus I consent, Sir, to this Constitution because I expect no better, and because I am not sure, that it is not the best. The opinions I have had of its errors, I sacrifice to the public good. I have never whispered a syllable of them abroad. Within these walls they were born, and here they shall die. (...) I hope therefore that for our own sakes as a part of the people, and for the sake of posterity, we shall act heartily and unanimously in recommending this Constitution (if approved by Congress & confirmed by the Conventions) wherever our influence may extend, and turn our future thoughts & endeavors to the means of having it well administered.

On the whole, Sir, I can not help expressing a wish that every member of the Convention who may still have objections to it, would with me, on this occasion doubt a little of his own infallibility, and to make manifest our unanimity, put his name to this instrument.

::

Progressives hate what was conceded in this deal.  So do conservatives.  And everyone should be concerned over how much this deal grows our national debt.

Both sides wanted their leaders to stick to core principles - no matter the cost.  But that's demogoguery, not democracy.  It isn't how our country works.  It isn't how our country was formed.

"Compromise" has become a foul word in this political season.  

But it is the very heart of a functioning democracy.

A Small Business Perspective on Jobs and Tax Cuts

In late July, one of our technicians left our award-winning auto repair shop to return to his hometown.  He has been our only employee to leave since I bought the business over two years ago.  

His departure raised a question for us that a lot of small businesses have faced in this economy: Do we accept the risks of hiring a new employee to replace him?

The answer, I think, is instructive for many of the economic and political issues facing our country.

::

Impatient voters punished Democrats two weeks ago for not giving enough focus to our nation's sputtering economy after the near-implosion of 2008.

With our nation's unemployment rate hovering just under 10% (and 'real' unemployment much higher), voters sent a clear signal that they want government to focus on creating jobs and growth.

According to the Small Business Administration [PDF Link], small businesses like ours make up 99.7% of employer firms, and account for two-thirds of new job creation.

Both Republicans and Democrats have reiterated the importance of getting small businesses hiring to get our country's economy moving again.  

::

This week, congress reassembles in the wake of the elections to consider extending temporary tax cuts  implemented under the Bush administration in 2001 and 2003.

Republicans want to extend the entirety of the Bush tax cuts, which would add $5 trillion to the national deficit over the next ten years, and vastly expanded the national debt over the past decade.

Democrats want to extend the tax cuts as well, but would let them expire for the highest-income households which make over $250,000 per year.  The Democratic plan would cost almost $700 billion less than the Republican plan over the next ten years.

Republican leaders claim that giving tax breaks to top earners is critical to generating the new jobs that the economy needs to recover.

Unfortunately, they're wrong.

::

Just how would the Republican proposal affect small business jobs? A hypothetical example from my industry might help us get to an answer.

A very healthy auto shop might have annual sales of $1,000,000 - an amount which would put it well into the top 5% of shops nationwide.  If that shop is exceptionally well-run, it might see net profits of 30%, or $300,000.

For those few shop owners in such a fortunate situation, what are the implications of extending the Bush tax cuts for those making more than $250,000?  Under the Republican plan, that shop owner would save an incremental $1,500 in taxes over the Democratic tax cut plan.  

As a small business owner, I'd happily take the $1,500.  But such a small amount would give me zero incentive to undertake the much greater expense - and risk - of hiring a new employee.  

So while extending the Bush tax cuts would certainly line my pockets, they would do little to encourage me to create jobs in my small business.    

::

Some observers might contend, as incoming House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan did on CNBC yesterday, that most job growth comes from larger "small" businesses and that my example above isn't really that relevant to job creation.

So let's pretend, for a moment, that our hypothetical business is actually 10 times as large as the example above: It has annual sales of $10,000,000, and its owners see profits of $3,000,000 per year.  

Under the Republican plan, that business owner would save an additional $125,000 in taxes over the Democratic tax cut plan.  Now, this seems like an amount which might let a business hire a couple of additional employees.

But while the tax savings might be enough to hire additional employees, it provides little actual incentive to use that newfound money to hire in an uncertain economic environment.  

A tax windfall fails to meet a prudent business owner's criteria for making a hiring decision. Business owners don't hire because we have extra money laying around. We don't hire out of charity. We hire when there is more work to do.  

Again, I'd happily take the $125,000.  But I'd also know that a drop of just 1% in my sales - a fairly likely risk in our current economy - would wipe out my tax savings.  If I were that business owner, I'd stash my cash as a hedge against an uncertain economy.  Net effect: no new jobs created.

The criteria for hiring is scalable: Whether a business has $1 million, $10 million, or $100 million in sales, the decision to hire is based on needing employees to meet demand - not on having spare cash supplied by tax cuts.

::

In my shop, the economic slowdown - coupled with a nearby street closing for almost a year - contributed to a sales decline of over fifteen percent from our record 2008 levels.  The declines would have been worse if not for our solid reputation, our increased community involvement, and our vigorous marketing.

In fact, our business has more customers than ever before; It's just that each one is investing far less in their cars.  We see a lot more folks putting off needed maintenance and hoping that their cars won't break down.

And as I look at replacing the technician who left in July, this drop in sales has been my primary consideration.

An extra $1,500 from tax cuts wouldn't induce me to hire a new technician.  Neither, frankly, would an extra $125,000.  

I'll hire when our core business is better - when there is more work to do - and not just when I have a convenient pile of cash.

And to make our business better, we need more customers with more money - and more willingness to spend. 

::

To encourage small business hiring, policymakers need to encourage spending.  In particular, they need to encourage the kind of spending which reverberates through the economy as that money is spent and respent in the form of wages, further buying, more wages, and - ultimately - hiring.  

This respending feedback loop is key to creating enough demand that businesses like mine will start to hire again.  It is key to driving our nation's self-sustained economic growth.

The fatal flaw of tax cuts for the wealthy is that the cuts don't foster respending at a scale which drives significant hiring.  As seen in my examples above, a large chunk of each dollar given out in tax cuts to the wealthy is stowed away in savings - thereby stunting the benefits to the economy.

Mark Zandi, Moody's Chief Economist, has found the same phenomenon in his research (Full PDF Here).  

Tax cuts to the rich don't yield as much overall economic benefit because the wealthy don't need to (and won't) spend that money, thus diminishing the virtuous feedback loop.

Government spending which goes to those in need - the poor, the unemployed, state governments - does get respent (often out of necessity) and the feedback loop is much, much stronger than with tax cuts.

::

If I'm looking at my bank account, the tax cuts seem like a fantastic idea. More money for me!

But if I'm looking at my business, my employees, their families, and my community - I want the government to focus on assisting those in need.  I want the government to encourage buying (especially from small, local businesses).  That's what will help my business for the long term. That's what will - ultimately - encourage me to hire. 

Lose the tax cuts.  Give me customers instead.

Will Creative Cities Matter?

Lexington hosted the third installment of the Creative Cities Summit late last week (previous editions were in St. Petersburg in 2004 and Detroit in 2008), and the event was headlined by internationally-recognized experts in urban growth and vitality: Charles Landry, Rebecca Ryan, Richard Florida, and Bill Strickland, among others.  

 The event drew participants from across North America, but most of the attendees seemed to be from Lexington.  And while Lexington was not the central focus of the event, our city naturally entered into many of the conversations.

In the wake of the event, a vigorous local debate emerged about whether Creative Cities was significant for our city.  What's intriguing is that much of the debate is occurring between folks who normally get along.  And much of the negative criticism is coming from folks that I like and respect (see here, here, here, and here), and who aren't typically curmudgeonly.

That criticism has led to head-scratching - and, at times, indignance - from those who felt that the summit was a worthwhile, transformational, and enlightening experience.  

And that leads us to an interesting - and telling - distinction: Most of the attendees of the summit seemed energized by the discussions and the ideas which emerged from Creative Cities; Most of the criticism came from those not in attendance.  

* * *

There seem to be three basic criticisms of Creative Cities:

1. It was too exclusive.  This criticism usually centers around conference participation: who was invited, who wasn't, and the perceived snobbery of some of the attendees.

2. It was too expensive.  This criticism focuses on the $199 registration, and whether the scholarships to the event were adequately publicized.

3. It was too much talk (and much of that talk was self-involved drivel).  This criticism takes multiple forms, including:

• The conference was too self-involved and self-congratulatory, and prioritized self-help and good feelings over substantial change.
• It glorified out-of-town gurus who repackaged the obvious while angling for their next consulting gig.
• It didn't involve enough meaningful action, and thus amounted to a vacuous echo-chamber of do-nothing happytalk.

As an attendee of the summit, I find a kernel of truth in all of these criticisms.  But I don't think that any of them are completely fair, and none are particularly helpful in crafting a better future for Lexington.  

I have to admit I'm not all that patient with the 'exclusive' or 'expensive' arguments.  Everyone was invited; everyone had a chance to participate.  While the price of the event was problematic for many, it was far cheaper than similar events with participants of this caliber.  Events like this cost a lot - and high-quality speakers, food, and facilities are necessary to draw a national audience.

What concerned me the most about these critiques was that the perceived exclusivity or expense of the event often became an excuse for dismissing the good ideas which arose there: A good idea is still a good idea, even when someone has to pay to hear it.  

And if the criticisms of conference ideas are based upon bruised egos and hurt feelings, then I've got zero patience for that.

I'm much more sympathetic to the 'too much talk' reasoning.  

Before I bought Lowell's, much of my corporate life was spent in the company of very skilled consultants: research consultants, design consultants, business strategy consultants.  

There was a predictable part of nearly every consulting engagement where the consultant would suggest that hiring them for another engagement was part of the solution to the problems we hired them to resolve - "The way you fix that is to hire me again!".  Consultants always position themselves for doing more consulting.

We did get to see that angling-for-the-next-gig routine with some consultants at Creative Cities.

And admittedly, there was a little too much excitement over slick ideas and catch-phrases, and not enough thought about the hard work needed to truly transform Lexington for the better.

But that hard work isn't what a conference is for: The summit was for learning and for exchanging ideas; the hard work comes after.

* * *

The structure of the conference didn't help its perception - especially on Twitter - for those who didn't attend.  In the process, I think some of the shortcomings of Twitter for civic conversations like these were exposed.

The most compelling (and, presumably, highest-paid) 'keynote' speakers addressed all participants at the same time.  For these speakers, attendees usually tweeted about the same inspiring messages, giving rise to the echo-chamber perception.

For instance, when Bill Strickland spoke at the end of the conference, many non-attendees mocked his 'poor people should be considered assets, not liabilities' line.  They seemed to say What fool would pay to hear something so blatantly obvious?  

But Strickland had spent several emotional minutes demonstrating how attitudes, institutions, and architecture in his native Pittsburgh neighborhood treated poor people like liabilities.  At the same time, he had shown how he had successfully used beauty and light and architecture and respect to transform his home neighborhood by treating poor people like assets.

When those present tweeted the 'assets' line, they were truly moved and inspired by Strickland's story and context.  Those outside the venue only saw vacant platitudes.

This same pattern repeated itself again and again throughout the other keynotes: The rich, compelling images and backgrounds and stories couldn't traverse Twitter effectively; only the catchiest (and apparently empty) phrases made it out.

In between keynotes, there were 4 simultaneous breakout sessions.  While the breakouts weren't as inspiring (or 'tweet-worthy'), they were far more practical and hands-on about the mechanics of transforming a city for the better.  They were - for me - the most beneficial part of the conference.  I learned about:

• Detroit's strategies for reviving long-neglected neighborhoods, building-by-building and block-by-block.
• How Toronto and Portland are funding and implementing inspiring, for-profit social innovation initiatives which pull people and neighborhoods out of poverty and make their cities more livable.
• The model Massachussetts' Creative Economy Director uses to get tangible economic development successes in arts, software, design, video games, and music.

From the discussions around my table, other Lexingtonians learned even more from the sessions I wasn't able to attend.  We also talked with people on the ground in Atlanta, Des Moines, and San Antonio about their experiences in their cities.

Because I was so busy listening and taking notes, I was much less occupied with getting the word out on Twitter.  I saw this effect repeated with other attendees, as well.

So the resulting Twitter stream was decidedly biased in favor of the least-important, most self-helpy kinds of messages, while the deeper, more important insights went relatively silent.  

And I think that is the source of the skepticism and derision from those 'out-of-the-room', while those 'in-the-room' were decidedly enthusiastic about how the event played out.

***

Will the Creative Cities Summit matter to Lexington?

It is far too early to tell.  It will take time, work, and discipline to realize the vision that many of us had leaving the summit.

Should the Creative Cities Summit matter to Lexington?

Absolutely.

Seeing the innovations that other cities have applied in improving their quality of life is vital as we attempt to build a better Lexington.  We need that kind of cross-pollenation with our own innovative initiatives to ensure the best possible future for us and for our city.

For those who feel as though we need a lot less talk and a lot more action, then mark this coming Saturday 17th April on your calendar.  That is when ProgressLex is hosting the Now What, Lexington? 'unconference' at the Carnegie Center in Gratz Park.  

Now What? is explicitly geared toward generating tangible action from the ideas of the Creative Cities Summit.  Whether or not you attended Creative Cities, you should come to Now What? if you want to join with others to make Lexington better. 

Now What? will be tweeted, too.  But it will be better if you show up.  As we've seen, Twitter isn't always the most effective medium for conveying important ideas. 

It is free.  Everyone is invited.  We'll be doing things.  No excuses.

Read more of the continuing conversation about the Creative Cities Summit on Twitter with the hashtags #ccslex, #uncreatives, and #uncreativelex.  Read about the upcoming Now What, Lexington? unconference with the hashtag #nowwhatlex.  Full disclosure: Lowell's is a sponsor of Now What, Lexington?

Lowell's Teams with Debra’s Social $timulus for Haitian relief

Lowell's is joining Debra Hensley's brilliant campaign to support Haitian earthquake relief efforts.   Together, we will match the first $2000 that you donate toward helping the quake victims. You can drop off a check at Debra’s office at 1513 Nicholasville Road or at our shop at 111 Mechanic Street in Lexington.

Make checks payable to the Red Cross International Fund or the 501(c)(3) of your choice that is helping HAITI. Texting HAITI to 90999 will donate $10 to the Red Cross relief efforts in Haiti.  If you donate by text message, forward a copy of your confirmation to us at:

[email protected]
debrassocialstimulus.com
859-333-3431

Thank you for your help in this global effort!

*** UPDATE: 1/15/2010 ***

We delivered the first batch of Haitian relief checks to Terry Burkhart of the Bluegrass Chapter of the American Red Cross this afternoon, collected from across our generous community.

Thank you so much for your donations.  Here's how Debra said it:

We just delivered the first set of checks to the Red Cross. 100% of these funds will get to the Haiti Relief Fund very quickly. You have also supported - Doctors Without Borders, Food For the Poor, Salvation Army, Oxfam America, and so many other fine organizations.

We asked you to step up and you did.  We told you we would match the first $2,000 and we did.  We will continue to ask other like businesses and organizations to join with matching funds for the need is so great.  As of this moment we have raised $6520, including our match. We will post an entire list of contributors once we have cleared it with them. Thank you, thank you and more later.

If you haven't had a chance to donate yet, we will continue to collect your contributions - as you can see in the photos and stories emerging from the tragedy, the need is profound.  Let's do all we can.

*** UPDATE: 1/19/2010 ***

Your tremendous generosity continues to mount!  Including our match, Debra and Lowell's have raised over $9600 in relief from over 100 people.  We just delivered another batch of relief checks to the Red Cross this afternoon.

If you haven't had a chance to contribute yet, we are still collecting your contributions.  Keep 'em coming!

Let's Change the World: A Review of Seth Godin's "Linchpin"

It was a few months before his third birthday.  It was also the day before he started school, and he was thrilled to embark upon this new adventure.  (He was also mighty proud of his new backpack.)

The sense of possibility radiates from his face: He's leaning forward, ready for anything, eager to engage with the new world awaiting him.

::

What happened to us?  

Once, we were like Carson is now.  We sang without fear.  We played with abandon.  We learned at incomprehensible speed.  We pretended.  We asked difficult questions.  We created things.  We did things.  We overflowed with joy.  It was (and is) a magical time in a child's life.

And no one "judged" our performance - we were just kids, after all.  In this stage of development, only a cruel adult (or sibling) would declare us "bad" at blocks or singing or playing or creating. 

But then, as we grew older, the regimen of school and critical teachers and vicious peers and numbing conformity drummed a lot of the magic out of us.  We became more anxious about singing or playing in public.  We became reluctant to stand out.  And many of us lost that childish joy associated with learning and discovery.

Then we graduated and went to work.  And the workplace actively stomped out anything which wasn't structured and standardized and routinized.  Our childish joy was smothered by conforming to the system.  But we accepted the slow, imperceptible death of our joy and creativity and genius in exchange for security.  Conforming, for all of its flaws, paid us well.

Until now.

Now, those standardized and routinized jobs that we worked so hard to "fit in" to can be (and are being) all-too-easily outsourced to someone else who will do them for less pay and less security. They are too easy to outsource precisely because the jobs are standardized and routinized and dehumanized and documented and commodified.  And it becomes a race to the bottom: There is always someone willing to do a standardized job for less.

As the economy has disintegrated, millions of jobs are evaporating as they move overseas or are consolidated.  And the sad truth is that many of those jobs won't reappear when the economy recovers.

::

I love books.  Especially business books.  I have a couple thousand books tucked into the nooks and crannies of my home, my basement, my office, and my Kindle. 

I also love learning, so the vast majority of my books are nonfiction, and most of them are business-related.  There are the software development books, many of which are getting dustier than I'd like.  There are the e-commerce books, the career-advice books, the business histories and biographies, the innovation books, the marketing books, the business-strategy books.  

Nearly every book had interesting information, insights, or perspectives.

But only a few really stand out.  Once every few years, I come across a book which rocks my worldview, which changes how I approach things and challenges me to do better. 

Seth Godin's forthcoming Linchpin: Are You Indispensable? is one of those books.

Seth is best known for his contributions to marketing, where he systematically dismantled business-as-usual approaches to marketing.  Interrupting and shouting at people (also known as "advertising") with boring "me-too" products is discredited in large part because of Seth's creative, insightful writing in books like Permission Marketing and Purple Cow.  His blog is a must-read for anyone in business.

But Linchpin is different.

::

Many of the themes in Linchpin will be familiar ones to readers of Seth's previous writing, but the scope and purpose of this book is much more grand (and effective): With Linchpin, Seth wants to do no less than help us change the world.  He wants to help restore humanity, creativity, generosity, and artistry into our work and our lives. 

When we are more human, creative, generous, and artistic, Seth shows how unique and invaluable we become.  Suddenly, instead of being another easily-replaced drone in the workplace, we are the critical links - the linchpins - of our organization (and our community).  We become indispensable.

Standing out is no longer dangerous.  Standing out is now the single most effective strategy for not being replaced or being forgotten.  Merely "fitting in" - once the source of our security and our income - is now the most dangerous strategy of all.  The more we fit in, the easier we are to outsource and the more precarious our jobs become.

How do we stand out?  By doing original, human, generous work.  Seth calls it "art", which he defines as "a personal gift that changes the recipient". 

The way for us and our work to stand out is to imbue it with artistry.  Only by adding our personal insight, ideas, innovation, and genius to what we do - only by being more human - can we avoid becoming a disposable cog in the system. 

::

Often, we have plenty of insight, and lots of ideas, and a surplus of genius.  But we fail to see it through.  We fail to produce our art.

What stands in the way?  Usually, it's ourselves.  More specifically, it is our fear.  Fear of failure.  Fear of being judged.  Fear of being rejected.  Fear of success.

So we wait.  We delay.  We procrastinate.  We go to the fridge.  We scan our email. 

And nothing happens.

In the most vital part of Linchpin (and the one which jolted me the most), Seth breaks down what really stops us from becoming great contributors.  He shows how we get in the way of our most brilliant ideas or plans.

And then he shows why that fear-mongering part of us can't be tolerated any longer.

We must confront our own delay tactics and call out our fears.  We must deal with the things which scare us and overcome them.  

Only then can we produce the art which will allow us to stand out and allow us to contribute meaningfully to our organizations and communities.

With his usual compelling and incisive style, Seth names each of these killers of our creativity, shows how they work, and demonstrates how to dismantle them.  In a fifty-page tour de force, he decimates the fears which limit our contributions.

Ridding ourselves of these paralyzing dread-monsters (or, at least, bringing them down to an appropriate size) allows us to inject some of that creative, playful, innovative, childish joy back into our work.  It allows us to connect more genuinely with others.  It allows us to change the world.

::

We face a choice.

We can attempt to hunker down, fit in, and conform, and live in dread that the economic storm will sweep our livelihood away.

- or -

We can take control of our careers and our lives to create unique, remarkable, significant work - "art" - and be determined to change the world for the better.

One is a passive victim's path, where the world - and life - "happens" to you. 

The other is an active, creative, joyful, innovative, human path for those who are liberated to leave a footprint on the world.  It is the same path that Carson is on right now.

It isn't really a choice, is it?

::

As I was reading Linchpin, I struggled with how to categorize this remarkable book.  Is it a self-help book?  A leadership book?  A business strategy book?

And then it hit me: It's a Seth Godin book.  And it's his best work.  And it will help you change the world - if you let it.

Let it.

[Linchpin: Are You Indispensable? will be released on January 26th.  Mark your calendars. Start here to check out other reviews.]

To-Do List for Lexington: Postscript

(Part of the To-Do List for Lexington series.  Click here for an overview and links to the rest of the series.)

Every night we go through the same routine.

After he takes his bath and gets his pajamas on, we go to his room.  I sit in the recliner, and he clambers up into my lap.  We pull a book from the shelf - the books are getting longer now - and I add a bit of vocal drama as I read to him.  

His little brain absorbs everything - pictures, sounds, words.  He asks lots of questions now, too.  We finish the book, and place it back on the shelf.

I pick him up, and we say good night to mementos from his young life, scattered about the room.  It started with 2 or 3 items after finishing Goodnight Moon, but has steadily grown to a list of 13 things: a stuffed polar bear and penguin from his great-grandmother, a huge stuffed giraffe, and an array of other objects from around the room.

I take him down the hall to say a final good night to Mommy, and we go back to his room.  I sit back in the recliner as he turns out the light, and we find each other in the darkness.  I pull him up into my lap, and give him a little water to drink.  I tell him "that's enough", and place the cup back on the shelf. 

I pull him up onto my chest, and he places his head on my shoulder.  After a few seconds of silence, I tell him I love him in Spanish: "Te amo, Carson" and he responds "te amo, Daddy"*.  He's starting to get tired now, and his words are slurring slightly.  I then quote from one of my favorite baby books, and he matches my cadence shortly after I start: "I love you through and through - yesterday, today, and tomorrow, too."  Then, "I love you, Carson" followed by a barely audible "I love you, Daddy".

I hold him tight.  In the darkness, silent except for our slow breathing, I feel the twinge of nostalgia for this moment.  He turns 3 this week.  He's growing so fast, and it won't be too long before he needs to be independent from hugs and kisses from his dad.  It won't be long before we won't experience this kind of closeness.

My mind wanders a bit as I ponder our future, his future.  I am holding so much potential in my arms.  What kind of world will he inherit?

I get up from the recliner and place him in his bed.  I tuck him in with three more stuffed animals, and kiss his forehead.  He stirs a bit to get comfortable, and I leave his room. "Good night Carson.  I love you.  See you in the morning."

::

I often get asked why I speak out so much on this blog - especially during this To-Do List for Lexington series.  Behind the questions are a variety of thoughts about my motives:

• Some folks think that I must have an enormous ego, and that I believe that I have all of the answers.
• Others think that I must be preparing to run for elected office, and these posts are part of some sort of political platform.
• Some people - including members of my family - think I'm just crazy.

They're all wrong.

I may or may not have a huge ego, but I don't assume I have all of the answers.  I am perfectly willing to engage in democratic debate on these ideas.

I don't have the time or patience to devote to political office.  I've seen the demands on elected representatives, and the kinds of people they deal with day-to-day.  This isn't a political platform.  (Not for me, anyway.)

And, I'm not crazy.  Well... at least as far as my motives behind my writing.

The underlying assumption most folks have is that there is huge risk to speaking out, especially when addressing powerful interests in our city.  I could scare away customers.  The powerful could make life more difficult for me or for my family or for my employees.

And those risks may or may not be real.

But there is an even greater, very real risk in not speaking out, in being quiet.

There is the risk that we pursue the wrong kinds of economic development.  There is the risk of wasteful spending in the face of economic crisis.  There is the risk of choking off our city's downtown.  There is the risk of further stagnation in the local economy. 

There is the risk that Lexington loses what makes it a special place to live and work - that Lexington becomes less than it should be.

I find that those risks to our future far outweigh the risks of speaking out.  I would be 'crazy' to remain silent.

::

I want Lexington to be special.  I want it to be a vibrant, exciting, growing kind of place that my son can stay in and prosper.  I want Lexington to be better.  And I hope that you do, too.

That is why I speak out.  That is why I hope you will join me.  Let's craft a better future for our city.  For ourselves.  For our children.

I love you, Carson.

* I know that "te amo" is usually reserved for romantic love, and that "te quiero" is probably more appropriate, but this habit was ingrained before I caught my error...  We'll fix it later.

To-Do List for Lexington: 9. Do!

(Part of the To-Do List for Lexington series.  Click here for an overview and links to the rest of the series.)

Throughout this To-Do List series, we've talked about the kinds of things we need to do to make Lexington a better city, especially with regard to improving our city's economic development. 

In Get Real, we talked about the need to curtail boosterism - the compulsive promotion of our city at the expense of real, substantive economic initiatives.  Lexington needs to get a lot more realistic about what kinds of civic activity drive true prosperity.

We talked about promoting growth at home as the best way to attract new growth from the outside in Stop Seeking Saviors.  Rather than spending huge, speculative amounts to draw in new firms from outside the city, Lexington should target spending on growing its economy from within.

We talked about the multiplier benefits of buying products and services from local providers in Local First.  Lexington should prioritize local purchasing, development, and investing in order to supercharge its growth.

In Embrace Openness, we talked about the need for our city to adopt an open approach to serving citizens, including open access to data about our city.  Lexington should find new, more transparent ways of serving and communicating with its citizens.

We talked about how to grow, keep, and attract educated talent - talent which is currently bleeding from Lexington - in Leverage Intellectual Capital.  We must find ways to keep experienced and specialized workers - who contribute enormously to our economy - in our city.

We talked about taking advantage of Lexington's uniqueness - including the promise of the Distillery District - in Be Original.  We must leverage that uniqueness to make Lexington a city worth visiting and worth living in.

We talked about the need for intermediate-term strategic planning as a way to connect action to vision in Plan Well.  Lexington must make thoughtful, strategic investments with its public dollars.

Then, in Demand Accountability, we talked about how good initiatives get derailed and about how we must step up to make our leaders - and ourselves - responsible for keeping such initiatives on track.

While the list covers a lot of ground, it isn't comprehensive by any means.  For instance, we didn't delve into the importance of the arts in our community.  We didn't talk about becoming more environmentally responsible, and building a sustainable Lexington.  We didn't talk about how to improve conditions for Lexington's poor. 

Our To-Do List for Lexington isn't complete.  We'll continue to add to it in the months ahead.  There's a lot more to talk about... 

But it is time to stop talking.  Stop complaining.  Stop whining.  Stop planning.  Stop theorizing.  We need to shift from analysis to execution.  This is a To-Do List, not a list of discussion items. 

Lexington must start to do these things. 

We need to ensure that leaders from across the community understand and implement these principles.  If they disagree, that's fine, but they need to articulate why they disagree in open, democratic debate. 

And if they don't, we need to get new leaders.

We need to commit our time, money, and effort to applying these principles for the betterment of our community. 

We need to go build a prosperous, beautiful, livable city.  We need to go make Lexington better.

Who's in?

Next: Postscript

To-Do List for Lexington: 8. Demand Accountability

(Part of the To-Do List for Lexington series.  Click here for an overview and links to the rest of the series.)

Why don't more good things happen?

Throughout my career, I've had the all-too-frequent opportunity to observe how things don't work out - in academics, in business, and in local politics. 

A good share of the blame resides with 'bad actors' - folks who gum up the decision-making process and derail worthy initiatives.  For fun, I've begun a typology of these people.

• There's the Smug Know-It-All, who pretends to have all of the answers, and therefore doesn't need or seek input from experts or the public.  The Smug Know-It-All just wants to be 'right'.
• There's the Intentionally Clueless, who lacks sufficient information or sound principles for making strategic decisions, and who instead makes those decisions based upon personalities of the people involved.  The Intentionally Clueless just wants to be liked.
• There's the Do-Nothing, who struggles mightily to rationalize the status quo, and who hunkers down and defers decisions in the face of any initiative which promises change.  The Do-Nothing just wants to avoid doing anything.
• And, there's the Obstructionist, who actively blocks initiatives by constructing elaborate hurdles for an initiative, often by invoking process-related parliamentary maneuvers.

What is common to all of these bad actors is an unwillingness to enter into an open, rational, democratic debate on an initiative's merits. 

 Notice that none of these folks are engaged in solving problems.  Instead, they pour their energy toward squelching debate, often by exhausting or diverting their opponents' ability to continue the fight.

Attend an Urban County Council session - or watch one on GTV3 - and it is surprising to see how many of these bad actors are on the council or work for city government.   We were able to see versions of all of these bad actors on display during the Parsons Affair, when the council decided whether or not to bond the Distillery District.

Throughout Lexington's leadership, we can see these bad actors.  We see them among our elected representatives, among public employees, in publicly-supported agencies (like Commerce Lexington or the Downtown Development Authority), and in local businesses.

More troubling, we see this behavior among our own citizens - amongst ourselves.  We know it all.  We remain clueless.  We do nothing.  We obstruct. 

We are the bad actors, too.

If we are to build a better Lexington, we must declare such behavior unacceptable.  Then, we must make bad actors answer for their actions.

Lexington must demand accountability.  From its leaders.  And from its citizens.

::

How do we begin to make good things happen in Lexington?

By making Lexington's leaders and citizens accountable for doing good things.  Reward them when they do the right things; punish them when they don't. 

Sounds simple, doesn't it?  But what, exactly, do we do?  How do we really demand accountability?

Here's a partial list of what I think we need to do.  I hope you will expand on these ideas in the comments below:

• Speak up.  Let your representatives, neighbors, friends, and fellow citizens know what matters to you.  Write letters.  Make phone calls.  Send emails.
• Show up.  Make time to attend council meetings or local neighborhood meetings, especially when they address issues which matter to you.
• Inform yourself.  Find out what is happening in our city.
• Join together.  Actively look for people with similar viewpoints, and unite your voices.  One voice is too easy to ignore; a movement is not.
• Campaign.  Fight for your causes, and recruit others to them.  Lobby for your point of view.
• Call 'em out.  When you see bad actors squelching public discussion, don't let them get away with it.  Call out their anti-democratic behavior for being anti-democratic.  Make them think twice before they do it again.
• Vote 'em out.  When representatives, public employees, organizations, or businesses continue to act in bad faith, deprive them of what they need most: Votes, jobs, or funds.
• Persist.  Bad actors are betting that you'll give up.  Make them lose that bet.

Gandhi urged us to "be the change you wish to see in the world".  William Johnsen offered this pithier 18th-century version, in 10 two-letter words: "If it is to be, it is up to me."  Both of them recognized that real, productive change takes place when we stop waiting for someone else to fix things.

If Lexington is to reach its full potential - if we are to build a better, more livable, more prosperous city - we must demand accountability from our leaders and from ourselves.  Especially from ourselves.

Next: 9. Do!

To-Do List for Lexington: 7. Plan Well

(Part of the To-Do List for Lexington series.  Click here for an overview and links to the rest of the series.)

Last week, Lexington's Urban County Council deliberated on the projects the city would issue bonds for.  When we issue bonds, we are borrowing money from bond investors - Bonds are new debt that we will pay off at some point in the future to fund today's projects.

In that bond deliberation process, one word kept coming up: Streetscapes. 

The council has earmarked some $30 million in new bonds for four streetscape projects.  In addition to funding the ongoing project on South Limestone (whose ever-escalating price tag now stands at $17 million), the council will fund new streetscape projects on Cheapside, West Main, and West Vine for $12.7 million. 

All four projects are slated for completion by July 1st, 2010 - less than 7 months from now.

::

Barely two weeks earlier, the Mayor announced a $12 to $13 million shortfall in the current year's budget, noting that - after several previous rounds of cuts - the city would likely have to cut services to balance its budget this time. 

Yet, in this economically-strapped environment, the Mayor pushed for (and council approved) a disruptive $30 million spending spree to make streets look pretty.

Why the rush?  The World Equestrian Games are coming to Lexington in September 2010, and we must look our best for "the world". 

This is boosterism run amok: In the mad scramble to make Lexington 'pretty' for out-of-town visitors next fall, the city is simultaneously 1) spending $30 million to make streets look better, 2) incurring $30 million in new bond debt, and 3) destroying $90 million of economic value by disrupting local business operations. 

And the next 6 months promise to be even more disruptive, as the four separate street projects further entangle downtown Lexington.

In the face of financial crisis, massive spending on discretionary aesthetic projects - especially ones which disrupt commerce - seems wildly irresponsible.  It is the urban equivalent of not being able to make the mortgage payment, yet getting a new loan to redesign the landscaping.

::

Last January, at the request of Lexington's Mayor, a group of citizens delivered a long-term vision for our city to the Mayor and to the Urban County Council.  Dubbed Destination 2040, the document outlined strategies and initiatives for maintaining "great city life in a productive rural paradise" for the next 30 years in Lexington.

I have previously written that I believe that Destination 2040 is destined to fail.  I make that assessment not because there is anything fundamentally wrong with the Destination 2040 vision, but because Lexington lacks the mechanisms and processes to realize such a vision.

::

Together, streetscapes and Destination 2040 provide a snapshot of Lexington's inability to implement strategic economic and urban development plans.

At the scale of decades, Destination 2040's objectives are too distant to grapple with in a systematic fashion.  It is too difficult to tangibly connect today's initiatives to the distant future.

At the scale of months, the scramble for streetscapes is ripped from a broader strategic context: Are these really the wisest investments for our city to make while facing a very distressed economic environment?  What emerges from such short-term focus is a series of disconnected, momentarily-important initiatives with spotty results.

Lexington needs t0 better connect its near-term projects to its long-term vision.  We need to invest in projects which fit within well-defined urban development goals.  We need to clearly articulate a coherent strategy for sustainable growth.

Lexington needs to learn to plan well.

Planning isn't very exciting to talk about, but it is critical that we do it well - especially when we are incurring public debt that we'll be paying back over several years.  So here are some thoughts on how Lexington can better plan its future.

Choose big, specific, near-term goals. 
Lexington needs to choose audacious goals, and then work diligently to make those goals happen.  Ideally, those audacious goals would connect to our long-term vision (such as that outlined in Destination 2040).  Then, instead of thinking in terms of months (like streetscapes) or decades (Destination 2040), we need to think in 3- to 5-year "chunks" and establish deadlines and accountability accordingly. 

Some examples:

• Aggressive growth of high-paying new jobs:  "10,000 net new jobs by 2014, adding $1 billion to the local economy".
• Dramatic increases in urban density through incentives which promote responsible infill and redevelopment: "10% greater residential and commercial density in downtown Lexington by 2015".
• Reclaim blighted areas of Lexington.  Encourage new growth and investment in those areas.  Capitalize on our originality: "Make the Distillery District one of Lexington's signature, must-visit places.  Target getting 20 stories about the District in national or regional media."

Don't just spend; make investments. 
Public money is a resource to be invested for public benefit, not a handout or slush fund to be spent.  We must evaluate discretionary public spending based upon what that investment returns (or fails to return) to the public. 

This was the massive failure of the South Limestone streetscape project - A simple analysis would have revealed the tremendous costs associated with closing a major artery to downtown for a year.

If we begin adopting an investor's mentality to urban development, we will ensure that our tax dollars are more wisely spent.

Invest selectively and intensively. 
To maximize the returns on Lexington's tax dollars, we should concentrate our investments in select strategic areas (job growth, for instance), and then allocate disproportionate amounts toward those investments.

This strategy yields two major benefits when compared to spreading public investment to multiple, disconnected projects. 

• It creates a self-imposed discipline on the ways in which we will spend public money.
• It lets us leverage previous investments, as concentrated cumulative investing can compound the desired effect.

Invest in factories, not fish. 
We can give someone a fish.  We can teach someone to fish.  Or we can invest in an infrastructure - "boat factories", if you will - to create the conditions in which they can reliably and efficiently feed millions.

Hopefully you get my metaphor.  If not, here's how my favorite charity, Acumen Fund, puts it with regard to generosity:

All too often, boosters promote one-time wins which give our city a short-term economic 'pop', but the hoped-for lasting effect never materializes.  Boosters usually hand us a dead fish.   Occasionally, they teach a few of us to fish.  That isn't enough.

When it comes to investing the public dollar, we must plan smart, sustainable investments - ones which keep growing and keep repaying the public for its investment many times over.  We need to identify gifts which keep on giving, and maximize our investments.  

::

By better connecting its short-term projects to its long-term vision, Lexington can begin to make smarter, more effective decisions about its future.  We can begin to invest public money wisely and productively toward crafting a better Lexington. 

Next: 8. Demand Accountability

Be Original. But Be Smart, Too...

(A fun little break from our To-Do List for Lexington series.  Click here for an overview and links to the rest of the series.)

Yesterday, we asked readers to support a $3.2 million bond issue for Lexington's Distillery District, which includes much of Town Branch Trail.

As part of the same post, we called for Lexington to "be original". 

But we didn't expect so much originality so soon.  And we didn't expect it to be so completely inept...

::

As we mentioned yesterday, the Urban County Council is in a financial pinch.  And it was deciding what projects to issue bonds for, including the ever-growing bill for South Limestone streetscape construction (now at over $17 million) and early 2010 streetscape projects on Main, Vine, and Cheapside, totaling $12.7 million.

At $3.2 million, the Distillery District bonds were relatively small, and the Distillery District was the only bond project which would provide infrastructure to spawn new jobs and new revenue - meaning that it was the only initiative which could provide taxpayers a return on their investment.

This return on investment is a principal feature of tax increment financing (TIF) projects.  Public funds are made available to such projects as those projects generate tax revenues back to the city.

Roughly two-thirds of the Distillery District's bond would go directly for public improvements for direct public benefit - building out the Town Branch Trail and improving pedestrian access throughout the district.  The rest would go for researching road and utility improvements along Manchester Street (the District's primary corridor). 

::

An hour before the council met yesterday, councilmembers were sent an ominous memo [PDF link] from a former counsel (attorney James Parsons) who formerly advised LFUCG on the TIF process. 

The last-minute memo appears to be a very deliberate misreading of the Distillery District request. 

It creates the incorrect impression that the developer (Barry McNees) could simply pocket the bond funds and leave the city in the lurch.  As mentioned above, most of the funds would go directly toward civic infrastructure improvements, not the developer's bottom line.  And the remaining funds would go toward research and design initiatives - also not the developer.

And the memo is plain wrong on the developer's ability to start the project - The Distillery District already has one active, successful entertainment venue (Buster's) which employs over 30 people and, in just a few months since opening, has drawn 10,000 fans from across the region.  Other, smaller businesses are already in place, too.  And McNees has a letter of intent from a major investor to start a new distillery in Downtown Lexington.

In total, the Parsons memo appears to intentionally mislead the council on the magnitude of "dangers" associated with the project - It appears to be a blatant scare tactic designed to squelch the Distillery District.

Good News, Bad News
The good news is that the council saw through the transparent attempt to derail a worthy project.  The bad news is that they only partially funded the request (about $2.2 million).  The council narrowly (6 to 5 vote) missed approving the entire $3.2 million request.

But the Parsons affair raises a number of troubling questions:

• Why was the former TIF advisor weighing in on this project?
• Why did he so badly mischaracterize the project?
• Were taxpayer funds used to craft this diversion? (If so, this taxpayer wants a refund.)
• Who requested Parsons' input?  Why?
• Was Parsons directed to magnify the potential dangers to the project?  Again, by whom?
• And where was this alarmist "DANGER, DANGER!" attitude toward TIF while Mr. Parsons was advising LFUCG on CentrePointe?

The broader question is this: Who wanted to derail the Distillery District so badly that they used such a transparent, ham-handed approach?  

::

When we called for Lexington to be more original, we wanted that originality to be smart, too.  The Parsons memo was certainly "original".  Smart?  Not so much.

To-Do List for Lexington: 6. Be Original

(Part of the To-Do List for Lexington series.  Click here for an overview and links to the rest of the series.)

Quick!  Think of a city you love (outside of Lexington).  Really savor that mental image.  Let your positive thoughts run for a bit. 

Got it? OK.

If you're like most folks, when you think of your favorite city, you think of one (or a combination) of a few key types of memories:

• Places.  You remember neighborhoods, buildings, parks, alleys, establishments, etc.
• History.  You remember important things that happened there.
• Products.  You remember things that they have or that they produce there.
• People.  You remember who you met and how they treated you there. 

I have the wonderful affliction of loving nearly every place I visit - but always for different reasons. 

I loved crawling through the historic back alleys (and patronizing the restaurants and bars) of Boston's North End.  I had the fortune of being there in a little Italian restaurant while Italy won the World Cup in 2006.  I remember the flags, the honking, the cheering, the flavors and smells...

I loved going to Tokyo with a couple guys I worked with in my last job, and visiting the temples at Asakusa and seeing the bewildering variety of Japanese people at the temple and at surrounding neighborhoods and markets.  In one of those inexplicable cultural moments, I remember 3 separate families awkwardly approaching me to take pictures with their sons (and giving me their sons' "business card" afterward).

I love Portland.  I love Austin.  I love Boulder.

More than anything else, I love the utter originality of those cities' places, history, products, and people.

But Lexington is the city I chose. 

::

Our city leaders often go on tours of "model cities" which Lexington might be able to learn from, including Boulder, Austin, and Madison.  In the process, they see many unique things to love about those cities. 

But too often, rather than focus on what original qualities Lexington should leverage, our leadership focuses on what those cities have that Lexington does not: "If Madison has bike trails, so should we!"  (No, I'm not opposed to bike trails; I am opposed to the mindless parroting of other cities' actions.)

Lexington must be original.

What impressions do we make on people when they visit Lexington?  What impressions do we make upon our own citizens?  What unique experiences do we create?

Here are a few which jump out at me.  I'm sure there are more I missed.  (Add your own in the comments below!)

There are the memorable places like no other - Keeneland, Ashland, Gratz Park, the UK campus, the Transy campus, Victorian Square, and the downtown pasture at CentrePointe, just to name a few.  (OK, I'm joking on the last one.)  I love the North Limestone neighborhood that Lowell's is privileged to be a part of.

There are the memorable histories of Henry Clay, Town Branch, the East End, and the Carnegie Center.

There are the memorable world's-best products - basketball, Camrys, horses, and bourbon.

There are the incredible people of our city - smart, thoughtful, hard-working, and funny.

When we're looking to influence how people - tourists, visitors, job applicants, investors, business owners, our own citizens - view our city, we need to amplify our best assets. 

And, when we are presented with the rare opportunity to leverage all four memorable assets  - original places, original history, original products, and original people - at the same time, we must jump on those opportunities.

Right now, we have such an opportunity with Lexington's Distillery District and Town Branch Trail. Many people still don't know that Lexington even has a Distillery District, so I'll offer a brief overview.  On Manchester Street, there are several old, historic, and distinctive distillery buildings and warehouses which were last used last century to make bourbon in downtown Lexington.  They used the water supply from nearby Town Branch, a stream which used to run through the center of Lexington, but is now buried under Vine Street.  Several of Lexington's best and brightest people want to transform the largely abandoned district into a vibrant neighborhood with entertainment, arts, shops, restaurants, and - for the first time in nearly a century - distilling.  Businesses are already beginning to open in the district, and one - Buster's - is an entertainment venue which is already attracting notable new talent to Lexington.  The Distillery District would also be the starting point for Kentucky's Bourbon Trail.

This afternoon (at 4 PM), Lexington's Urban County Council is voting on whether to issue $3.2 in infrastructure bonds for the Distillery District.  Issuing the bonds would not be a handout - the funds would be reimbursed through taxes on the new commerce that takes place within the District.  Also, the funds would be released incrementally - as new commerce takes place, more funds would be available for needed infrastructure improvements. 

The bonds would be used to create parts of Town Branch Trail (a greenspace and walkway along historic Town Branch), to improve pedestrian access along Manchester Street, and to look at how to improve utilities, roadways, and streetscapes along Manchester as well.  

Lexington is in a financial pinch at present, and there are many on the council who just want to "wait a while" for things to get better in the economy.  The trouble with waiting is that - often - waiting turns into permanent deferral, and projects never get done.  Unlike CentrePointe - of which I have been highly critical - the Distillery District has active businesses and active investors who are ready to utilize the improvements that this bond offers.  These businesses are poised to contribute far more than $3.2 million back to our city's coffers over the coming years.

::

Lexington has the all-too-rare opportunity to create a unique place in our city - the kind of place which ultimately would stand next to Keeneland, Gratz Park, and Ashland as one of Lexington's "signature" locations.  We should leverage our our originality - our unique and memorable places, history, products, and people - to craft a better Lexington. 

That's why we should support the Distillery District, even in difficult financial times.

Let's be original.

(This post is awfully late in getting up - If you don't have time to contact your council person prior to their 4 PM vote, please do take the time to see how they voted.  And remember that for the next election.)

Postscript: The backroom intrigue as the council vote approached.

Next: 7. Plan Well

To-Do List for Lexington: 5. Leverage Intellectual Capital

(Part of the To-Do List for Lexington series.  Click here for an overview and links to the rest of the series.)

Lexington is losing its minds.

At 100,000 strong, Lexington's college graduates represent approximately one-third of the population over 25 [Source: US Census Bureau, American Community Survey, 2006 and 2008].

The University of Kentucky and Transylvania University churn out over 6,000 new graduates - including over 4,000 new bachelor's degrees - each year.  With 4,000 new degree-holders per year, Lexington should have increased this talent pool from 100,000 in 2005 to about 112,000 in 2008.

But we didn't.

Instead, even as Lexington's overall adult population grew by 9,000 in that 2005 to 2008 period, the number of college graduates remained stuck at 100,000.  (For comparison purposes, Louisville grew from 191,000 college graduates in 2005 to 202,000 in 2008 - growth of 5.7%).

Somehow, 12,000 graduates have slipped from our economy - far more than can be explained through normal attrition (retirement, death, etc.).

The explanation: Educated talent is leaving Lexington.  We suffer from a "brain drain".

::

In recent years, it has become fashionable for Lexington's leaders to talk about attracting the "creative class" to Lexington.  Coined by Richard Florida, "creative class" refers to professionals who work in knowledge-intensive industries, and Florida's theory is that this group of professionals drives economic development in "creative cities".  

When our leaders talk of the creative class, they frequently focus on diversionary amenities which will attract young creatives to our city - entertainment, events, and facilities which will make life in Lexington more enjoyable outside of work. 

While not entirely misguided, the problem with this approach is threefold:

1. It confuses cause and effect.  Is this creative environment really the driver of economic prosperity in American cities?  Or, more likely, are they the result - the pleasant side-effect - of a prospering economy?
2. The flagrant boosterism which permeates Lexington's attempt to attract new talent often comes at the direct expense of retaining the talent we already have, as Steve Austin ably points out.
3. It assumes that the creative class is something 'out there'.  Lexington already has a creative class.  And we must cultivate it here first.

Instead of focusing on amenities, Lexington should focus on crafting a vibrant economic engine which will keep the educated talent our city produces and which will create real demand for those amenities.

::

Who's leaving?

When we see that Lexington has lost 12,000 college graduates in 3 years, our impulse is to look for an exodus of newly-minted degree-holders, and to start thinking about what we could do to retain our newest, youngest graduates.

And while the loss of a departing new graduate's energy, potential, and future is certainly tragic, there is an even-more-profound tragedy which Lexington must actively address: the loss of the experienced employee.

When experienced employees with college degrees leave Lexington, they injure our economic engine far more than a young graduate.  Experienced employees represent significant investments in training, dollars, relationships, know-how, and, well, experience.

In aggregate, these experienced employees are vast pools of expertise which create enormous economic advantage for Lexington.  They have more income than recent graduates.  They provide more tax revenue.  They have higher property values.  They spend more money in the local economy, which creates more local jobs.  They tend to add more value to their companies.

This is the primary reason I have been so publicly critical of Lexmark's implosion.  Every few quarters, Lexmark announces fresh rounds of layoffs and "restructuring" which shed dozens or hundreds of local employees.  Many other employees have left of their own accord. 

Seeking employment which can utilize their expertise, these folks often leave Lexington.  Many who remain in Lexington are underemployed.  When so many highly-trained experts in engineering, software development, logistics, and marketing leave our city, it is an enormous hit to the local economy. 

Lexington must find ways to solve this exodus of talent (in both new graduates and experienced employees).  We need to be creative in how we grow, keep, and attract smart people.

Lexington must leverage its intellectual capital.

::

How do we grow, keep and attract smart people?  We need to start by helping to create new local jobs.

There is a common misconception that all job growth in the US comes from small businesses.  But business size isn't the determining factor; business age is.  The Kauffman Foundation found that all job growth in our country comes from young businesses (regardless of their size).  Entrepreneurial ventures founded in the last 5 years drove all job growth in our nation's economy.

When we think about entrepreneurship, our focus is often (again) on our younger generations.  We are drawn to stories of Gates, Jobs, Dell, and Zuckerberg launching wildly-successful ventures from their dorm rooms or garages.  They came so far from such modest beginnings.  In Lexington, we see this youthful energy and creativity exhibited in Awesome, Inc. (who are awesome, by the way), a local business incubator.

They make really compelling stories.  But the meteoric rises of Microsoft, Apple, Dell, and Facebook are so compelling precisely because they are so rare. 

And they misrepresent the realities of the entrepreneurial world.

In another counterintuitive study, the Kauffman Foundation found that older, more experienced workers actually start new businesses at higher rates.  Other studies have found that the vast majority of technology startups are founded by people 35 or older.  And where do many of those older entrepreneurs come from?  Often, from large corporations.

So how do we create new jobs in Lexington?  How do we keep and attract members of the "creative class"?  How do we stem the bleeding of expert talent from our city?  Here's a starting list for leveraging our intellectual capital.  I hope you will add to it:

1. Fuel the entrepreneurial engine.  From experience, I can tell you that starting a business is daunting hard work.  There is the bewildering array of legal and tax implications.  There are a variety of financial hurdles.  And, unless you've done this sort of thing before, there is a ton of on-the-job learning about what you don't know about starting a business.

Lexington (LFUCG and Commerce Lexington) should strive to streamline the start-up process far more than they do today.  Our city should embrace entrepreneurs as they seek to create new jobs for our economy. 

We should help them flatten the usual barriers to getting a business started.  We should provide forums for getting enrepreneurs connected with other talents and businesses which can assist them in the setup and growth of their businesses.  We should give them open access to critical business data about our city.  We should give them some amount of preference in local bidding contracts.  We should provide them with essential training in operating their businesses (e.g., If they are brilliant engineers, that doesn't always mean that they are brilliant marketers or financial analysts). 

When possible, we could even provide them with financial support or space (such as setting them up in the plentiful space available in Lexington's Distillery District).

In short, Lexington needs to foster the conditions under which entrepreneurs can create jobs.

2. Grow our pools of expertise.  Our mayor frequently talks about how Lexington's 3 H's (Horses, High tech, and Healthcare) form the foundation of our city's economic development strategy.  Those sectors may be the right ones to leverage going forward. 

But when we think about stopping our exodus of talent, we need to think in more flexible terms than specific industries.  A supply chain manager leaving Toyota has a unique skillset (how to get things made overseas, optimizing inventory, logistics, etc.) which can carry over to a variety of other - not necessarily high-tech -  industries.  A marketer leaving Lexmark has a vast array of experiences with retailers, ad agencies, design firms, and product strategy which could be redeployed to, say, UK Healthcare.

In addition to choosing strategic industrial sectors, we should also choose strategic, functional areas of expertise that we can tap into as one industry wanes and another expands.  Some ideas? Supply chain, marketing, sales, engineering (multiple types), software development, etc.  (Add your own in the comments below.)

Not every employee currently leaving Lexington will want to become an entrepreneur.  But nearly every one wants a job. 

As companies like Lexmark shrink, Lexington should seek to actively funnel their fleeing employees to growing local enterprises like Alltech, UK Healthcare, HP's Exstream, or some new entrepreneurial venture.  We should inject some "liquidity" into the local job market, so that finding local opportunities is an easier, more streamlined process.  When we learn of new layoffs, our city should mobilize to keep that valuable talent local.

We shouldn't allow employees, especially experienced ones, to leak from our economy.  

3. Coordinate and amplify existing efforts.  Today, we have a patchwork of agencies and institutions which have missions to grow Lexington's economy and provide jobs.  We have one person working on economic development in the Mayor's office.  Commerce Lexington is given tax dollars to help produce new jobs, but is unable to show that they have actually created any.

We should coordinate such efforts in a more strategic, consistent, coherent, and effective way.  We should designate a person or an agency who has accountability for results - especially for job growth in our city. That entity should also have responsibility for fueling our entrepreneurial engine and for growing our pools of expertise.

And then - and this is really important - we must hold them accountable for the results they get.

::

The loss of 12,000 educated Lexingtonians shows us that our city needs to work hard to grow, keep, and attract talent.  If we create the mechanisms to create new entrepreneurs while simultaneously magnifying our existing expertise, our economy should have the raw materials to begin growing again.

Next: 6. Be Original

To-Do List for Lexington: 4. Embrace Openness

(Part of the To-Do List for Lexington series.  Click here for an overview and links to the rest of the series.)

In January 2008, we were in early discussions to buy Lowell's.  Since Lowell's focused only on Toyota brands, I had a simple question: How many Toyotas, Lexuses, and Scions are in Lexington?

It seemed like a fairly straightforward question, and since the county and state kept vehicle registration records, it seemed like the answer should be easy to find - especially since Indiana freely published precisely the kind of data I needed, but not for Kentucky counties.

After trying internet searches and coming up empty, I contacted the Fayette County Clerk's office, who referred me to the state Department of Transportation.  After a few more phone calls, I learned that I'd need to file a request under the Open Records Act, specifying the exact data that I would need.  I later found that I'd also have to pay $225 to get the data.

It all seemed so needlessly bureaucratic: It was public information, after all - so why wasn't it more public?

What followed was 13 months of a couple dozen intermittent phone calls, a similar number of emails, maddening unresponsiveness, and inane forms (including a mandatory contract which required that I wouldn't use anyone's personal data, even though the data I requested contained no personal information - it was just counts of vehicles by county).

Finally, this past February, I got the report I needed.  Well, sort of.  It was in a file and format which was nearly useless.  And, we got it a full 7 months after we bought the business, so much of the urgency to get the data had dissipated.  Still, we eventually wrangled it into something we thought was interesting and informative, and published the results in early April as the Bluegrass Vehicle Report 2009.

::

Bureaucracies often have a maddening, self-perpetuating logic wherein the only purpose of the bureaucracy appears to be to maintain the bureaucracy.  Laden with rules and restrictions, such organizations often turn their focus inward and forget their true purpose.  And rather than engaging with and serving their constituencies, they tend to serve the bureaucracy's interests.

In the process, bureaucracies become tangled, closed, unmovable beasts which are hostile to the very people they are bound to serve.

Our vehicle data experience is, unfortunately, all-too-typical.  But it doesn't have to be...

Lexington suffers from a bureaucratically-driven lack of openness (as does Kentucky at large).  And that lack of openness hinders our city's economic, social, and political progress.

Lexington needs to embrace openness.

There are (at least) two ways in which we can create a more open city: 

1. By creating more open information and information systems
2. By adopting more open approaches to how our city serves its citizens

Open Information
Portland, Oregon recently approved an economic development strategy which directed the city to open its information to the public in a structured, standardized format.  Portland is just one of the latest in a fast-growing list of progressive communities who are opening their data to their citizens.

Portland followed in the footsteps of San Francisco which - through DataSF.org - has created a clearinghouse of over 100 sets of up-to-date government data.  That data includes geographic information, crime statistics, transportation data, and measures of performance for key city departments. 

By standardizing this data and making it easy to download, San Francisco has enabled software developers to create rich new applications.  In just a few months, this move toward openness has spawned several mobile applications dedicated to anything from getting around the city to spotting neighborhood crime trends to finding places to take the kids.  It has even created a showcase of these applications, encouraging both users and developers to make use of the open data.

Indiana - for many years - has offered incredibly rich datasets on a wide variety of the state's data on Indiana University's StatsIndiana site.

By sharing this data - even when it is uncomfortable (like the crime data) - these places are enabling citizens to understand their communities better.  If the crime data highlights problems, so much the better - at least citizens know what they are dealing with, and the community can begin to address problems with knowledge and insight.

In short, these places are making their communities more livable, while simultaneously encouraging local entrepreneurs to leverage the data to create new applications and new businesses.

These places follow a few simple rules to create useful clearinghouses of data:

• Data should be standardized into a structured, machine-readable format so that it may be easily imported into databases and spreadsheets for use with other applications.
• Data should be updated regularly.  If possible, it should tap into data sources in real time.
  
• It should cover the widest possible array of government information - statistics, contracts, spending, performance, etc.  (Don't try to predict or direct what information will be needed - let citizens decide on their own.)

In addition, most of the places adopting open data standards are also standardizing on lower-cost open source software.  By adopting open source platforms like Linux (operating systems), Apache (web servers), MySQL (databases), and Ruby (software development), the cities are able to move away from expensive proprietary systems from Microsoft, Oracle, and PeopleSoft, while simultaneously tapping into a rich community of developers, applications, and support.

Lexington can and should learn from these cities.  

From an economic development standpoint, this kind of open information is crucial to business growth.  In Lowell's case, vehicle registration information would have been valuable for developing better, more informed business plans and strategies.  Such information is crucial to local businesses as they evaluate market opportunities in our city.  It would be equally critical for businesses who wish to locate in Lexington from the outside. 

And, most important, having more complete, more open information would help Lexington make better, more informed decisions and have smarter conversations about our future.  For example, we could have better evaluated the closure of South Limestone:

• How much traffic would be diverted to other streets?
• How much congestion would that cause?
• What are the environmental impacts of the increased congestion?
  
• How much commuter time would be lost?
• What are the costs to downtown businesses in lost customers, lost productivity, and lost services?
• What are the tax implications of those business and commuter losses?
• How did the bid process actually work?
• What did the bid documents say regarding daily work schedule, incentives, and overall timeframe?

Some of these questions may have been answered inside the Lexington-Fayette County Urban Government (LFUCG), but those answers didn't enter into the public discussions in a meaningful way.  If this data and these processes had been more open and transparent, the decisions made around the South Limestone project may have been very different.

Open Approaches
One of our most frequent critiques of LFUCG is the way in which it serves (or fails to serve) the interests of Lexington's citizens and economy.

Nowhere is this more apparent than in the structure, timing, and conduct of LFUCG's Urban County Council meetings, which seem designed to suppress thoughtful public discourse.

The council holds a bewildering array of meetings with a variety of purposes, but two of the most important meetings are held on Tuesdays at 3 PM or on alternate Thursdays at 7 PM. Depending on the agenda, citizen input comes either at the very beginning or very end of the meeting.  Each citizen is limited to three minutes to speak to council.  In fact, both citizens and council members are placed on a visible countdown clock to limit their discussion times.

This format poses a number of problems:

• Participation.  Because of the timing of meetings, our ability to participate is restrained.  Most citizens have work or family obligations at 3 PM on a Tuesday.
• Beat the Clock.  Generally, the three-minute limit and the countdown clock stifle thoughtful civic discussion on complex and nuanced issues like CentrePointe, underground utilities, or South Limestone.  This is especially the case under the iron hand of Mayor Newberry, who - whatever his other qualities as an executive - is a ruthlessly efficient timekeeper.
• Timing.  Putting citizen commentary at the beginning or end of meetings divorces it from the council's discussion of those topics, which comes in the middle of the meeting.  Thus, citizen input is placed at the margins of the discussion instead of in the midst of it.
• Abuse.  The time limits, when coupled with parliamentary maneuvers, allow some council members to squelch the discussion when it goes in directions they don't like.  One council member is so adept at using this technique - on citizens and on fellow council members alike - that it should be named "the Myers" in his honor.

Such scheduling and time-allotment rules are relics of the last century: They seem more at home in the 1950's or 1850's than in 2009.  And they are leftovers of a bureaucracy which has lost its way - squelching civic discussion rather than contributing to it.  Worse, it shows disrespect and disdain for the very citizens those rules are supposed to serve.

LFUCG should adopt more open - and more modern - approaches to debating issues and to gathering citizen input.

[Note: What follows is excerpted from an old post which we feel framed the issue best.  Sorry to self-plagiarize.]

In an age of websites, blogs, Twitter, and Facebook, every business has had to engage in conversations with customers on the customers' terms.  The ubiquity of the internet means that these tools are available to nearly everyone, nearly everywhere.  The latency of the internet means that the conversations don't have to happen at the same time - they can build over time.  The internet's ubiquity and latency forms the foundation of a new and better town hall.

Why should we all have to cram into a room at the same time?  Why should we have to play 'beat the clock' when talking about issues which are complex and nuanced?  Why should we have to forgo pressing business or personal matters to attend a meeting which is designed to be convenient for our representatives?

The internet provides the perfect public forum for every citizen to express his or her public policy views, ideas, and thinking.  Even better, our ideas can build on one another as we tinker with and improve the ideas of our neighbors.  Plus, conducting civic conversations on the internet can happen around the clock.  Citizens can participate in the public discussion when and where it is convenient for them, not for the elected representatives who serve them.  Isn't that the way it should be?

Further, every single representative should publish their conversations, thinking, dilemmas, trade-offs, beliefs and positions (and the transactions between them and other interested parties - like developers or investors or campaign contributors).  These records should be posted online for all citizens to see, comment on, debate, and improve.

The council members' emails are listed on the city's website, as are the mayor's newsletters.  But these are old, closed, one-way forms of communication.  They aren't vibrant community discussions.

So, do I want to see tweets that the mayor's advisor is picking up eggs?  Or a Facebook entry featuring the halloween costumes of the councilwoman's children?  Not particularly.  But we deserve to see real-time updates of their thinking on critical community issues.  We should know why they have changed their minds at the last minute.  They should tell us who they talked with and what they said.  After all, they are public officials.  We should see into a transparent civic machine which serves all of us.

What is clear is that a 19th-century civic apparatus has hamstrung our 21st-century community. The ancient contraption allows far too many secrets to hide within.  Whether our representatives and our governments use blogs, Twitter, Facebook, or some other platform matters far less than whether they start participating in open conversations with the people they serve.

The technology already exists.  Millions of people already use it.  Thousands of your constituents use it every day.  It's easy.  It's free.  And it will make Lexington better.  What are you waiting for?

::

Lexington needs to adopt open, transparent, and up-to-date approaches to serving its citizens.  Lexington should also provide open information about the city so that we all can make smarter, more informed decisions.

Our lack of openness impedes our commerce.  It impedes our democracy.  It impedes our path to a better Lexington.

Let's change that.

Next: 5. Leverage Intellectual Capital

To-Do List for Lexington: 3. Local First

(Part of the To-Do List for Lexington series.  Click here for an overview and links to the rest of the series.)

When we spend a dollar in Lexington, what, exactly, happens to it?

It sounds like a silly kind of question, but it is actually quite essential to our city's economic vitality.

When we spend money in Lexington, some of that money is extracted out of the local economy (going to other parts of the country or of the world), and some continues to circulate inside the local economy.  Whatever amount stays in Lexington is available to help fund other purchases, other jobs, other investments, and other businesses. 

This is known as a "local multiplier effect".  As each dollar reverberates through the local economy, as it is re-used over and over for other purchases or investments, its effect becomes larger than just a dollar.

So understanding where money goes and how much remains in the local economy is important as we craft a sound economic development strategy for Lexington.

And, to a great extent, how much remains in Lexington depends on where we spend it.

A study by Civic Economics looked at Austin bookstores and found that out of every dollar spent in a national chain's bookstore, about 85 cents leaked out of the Austin economy.  That 85 cents "leaves" to pay national and international suppliers for the books, to distribute profits to owners (shareholders) around the world, to pay federal taxes, and to pay for support staff -- marketing, finance, administration, etc. -- located elsewhere.  The remaining 15 cents stayed in Austin (mainly in the form of local employee wages, local utilities, and local taxes).

When the study shifted its focus to a local bookstore, some interesting effects kicked in.  Because the owners were local, more profits stayed in Austin.  Because they used more local suppliers, more of that money stayed in Austin, as well.  The support staff was also local.  The net effect?  Out of every dollar spent at the local bookstores, 45 cents remained in Austin - 3 times as much.

If we apply the same rates to Lexington, that means that $100 spent at, say, locally-owned Morris Bookshop (no relation to this author, by the way) turns into $145 as the initial $100 sale ripples through the local economy, and other businesses realize an additional $45 in sales.  The same $100 spent at, say, the Hamburg Barnes and Noble yields only $115 for the local economy.  Are these numbers absolute?  No - but they do provide a relative measure of the value of a local purchase.

How representative is a bookstore to the rest of the economy?  It depends.

Books are manufactured things, and they tend to be manufactured 'somewhere else'.  That means that much of the money used to buy a book leaves the local economy pretty quickly.

If we look at businesses which produce goods or services with even more local content, then the money spent on those products tends to circulate through the local economy for much longer.   

Here at Lowell's, we did some back-of-the-envelope multiplier calculations.  Roughly half of our sales are goods (mainly car parts) and half are services (the expert labor of our technicians). 

The parts side of our business works a lot like the local bookstore - most of our suppliers are local parts distributors, but most of their suppliers are national distributors who get parts from Japan or China.  So the money spent on parts at Lowell's bounces around the local economy for a couple of rounds, but much of it eventually leaves Lexington because our parts are made overseas.

The services side of Lowell's, however, is very different.  Because our 'suppliers' (employees) are all local, the majority of each dollar spent on services at Lowell's circulates through the local economy for 3 rounds or more, with a little more leaking out of Lexington in each round. 

Our rough estimate is that each dollar spent at spent at Lowell's turns into at least 2 dollars for the local economy. 

And we aren't - by any means - the best example of a local multiplier.  

As the local content of goods or service ramps up, the multiplier compounds.  In some cases, the local multiplier could reach 5 or more: each dollar spent results in $5 recirculating through the local economy. 

A great example of this compounding is Good Foods Market, a local co-op which sells a lot of locally-produced items.  That local produce often uses local labor and local inputs, and the multiplier compounds quickly.

We often hear the phrase "Buy Local".  And it often sounds defensive or protectionist or even a bit naïve.  And sometimes it is.

But purchasing goods and services from local providers also pays hefty benefits for Lexington's economic health.  And finding those local providers is relatively easy, with sites like Kentucky Proud and Local First Lexington providing useful directories of local products and services.

::

Lexington needs to think 'local' first.

Because of the way local purchases supercharge our economy (through the multiplier effect), prioritizing local business investment and development should be a cornerstone of Lexington's economic development strategy.

But it doesn't appear to be.

Commerce Lexington - our local chamber of commerce - is also commissioned by the Lexington-Fayette Urban County Government (LFUCG) to marshal economic development efforts in our city.  More than any other organization, Commerce Lexington should understand the economic benefits of prioritizing local investments over external ones.  

Looking through Commerce Lexington's policy statements on economic development, they are filled with booster-speak - pushing incentives aimed at attracting new businesses (see our last post on why this strategy is deeply flawed).  And, we see nothing in those statements regarding prioritizing local business investment.

Other Lexington leadership seems to have overlooked the local multiplier as well.  LFUCG paid Vision Internet (based in California) $24,000 to redesign the lexingtonky.gov website.  Rather than injecting $48,000 into the Lexington economy (assuming a 2x multiplier) and helping sustain a local business, the city created a multiplier of 0 and drained $24,000 from the local economy.

And the Lexington Convention and Visitors Bureau contracted with New York's Pentagram to design the CVB's 'Big Lex' logo.  Regardless of your feelings about the logo itself (we didn't find it relevant), the CVB missed a big opportunity to contribute to Lexington's own thriving branding-and-design community.  They could have created a compelling story by working with a bigger, award-winning local firm like Elevation Creative.  Or, they could have partnered with a smaller, growing local firm like Martin Design Studios (who crafted the crisp, clean new logo for Lowell's).  Instead, CVB missed out on a chance to leverage local relationships to create a new logo and contribute to the community's economy.

Some observers might (rightly) be concerned about the effects of nepotism or cronyism if the government (or their agents) were to award such contracts to local firms.  The "good ole boy" network is alive and well throughout the city, but there are ways to ensure local preference while simultaneously ensuring that taxpayers are not being fleeced.  Several progressive communities throughout the country have identified and adopted rules for local government purchasing which do just that if a local bidder is within, say, 5% of the best non-local bid. 

Lexington should explore our options for implementing similar local-preference purchasing rules, so that our community may benefit from the local multiplier.

In any case, Lexington should make local business development and investment a cornerstone of its economic development strategy. 

Next: 4. Embrace Openness

To-Do List for Lexington: 2. Stop seeking saviors. Start making them.

(Part of the To-Do List for Lexington series.  Click here for an overview and links to the rest of the series.)

Last July, Florida Tile announced that it was relocating its headquarters to Lexington from Lakeland, Florida.  Kentucky's state government made a $3.7 million capital investment to bring 25 new Florida Tile jobs to Lexington.  Florida Tile estimates that the number of jobs may grow to as many as 51 in 10 years.  In October, Lexington's Urban County Council dropped the occupational license tax for Florida Tile to 1.25% from the normal 2.25% - a benefit of up to $1.3 million over the next 10 years.

How will 25 (or 51) new jobs pay back the millions of public dollars invested in bringing Florida Tile to Lexington?  It is doubtful that they will.  And that points out significant problems with Lexington's economic development strategy.

::

In our last post (Get Real), we talked about the destructive effects of Lexington's booster mentality, which couples a self-deceiving optimism with a compulsive need to look good to others.  Boosters often pursue expensive, highly-visible, ego-driven civic projects with the promise of vague future rewards.

The economic development strategy which springs from such boosterism is one in which a great deal of effort and capital is expended to attract outside commerce to Lexington.  So boosters promote big civic investments (events, buildings, infrastructure projects, or incentives) with the hopes that those projects will entice new companies to invest or locate here.  And the underlying assumption is that the firms we attract to Lexington will - eventually - pay back the investments of effort and capital.

But this kind of economic development strategy has a number of irredeemable flaws:

• Waste.  Projects like the 2010 World Equestrian Games and CentrePointe are wildly speculative and profoundly inefficient ways to draw new commerce into our city.  And, when one looks at the numbers, it is doubtful that Florida Tile's incentive package will pay back taxpayers over the next 20 years - if they stick around that long.
• Loss of Power.  When we try to attract companies from outside Lexington, we cede significant negotiating power to the company we are courting.  That company can stay where they are, or go to a city other than Lexington.  We are prone to enter bidding wars with other desperate cities in the pursuit of desirable 'saviors', and the process becomes a race to the bottom: Who can offer the most lucrative incentives and conditions?
  
• Misguided.  These strategies pursue the wrong kinds of firms.  When we resort to incentives to, in essence, bribe companies to come to Lexington, what kinds of companies are we attracting?  Ones which are much more mercenary and which - by definition - have less investment in our community and its future than firms who are already here.  To be clear, every business should be concerned with improving  its bottom line.   But when public dollars are at stake, we must decide how to allocate those dollars based upon public benefit.  And underwriting mercenaries is not the best use of public funds.
• Hidden Penalties.  The incentives granted to companies like Florida Tile disadvantage already-local firms.  Those local firms not only help pay for the new firms' incentives through taxes, but they also don't get the financial subsidies, new facilities, or extended tax advantages that are often granted to newcomers.

This economic development approach - attract outside saviors to drive growth - also ignores a vital question: Where are these firms coming from?

Or, put differently: How is it that such firms even have the capability to expand to a city like Lexington?  How did they grow?  What did their home cities do to foster that growth?  And, most importantly, why isn't Lexington doing that to grow great businesses at home?

Lexington's leaders frequently look to similar American cities in the attempt to understand how those cities have grown and how they have built a great quality of life.  If we look at 'model' cities like Austin, Madison, Portland, and Pittsburgh, we see a very different economic development model at work. 

In fact, these cities suggest that the old booster model has it exactly backwards: Those cities invest in growth at home first, then outsider attraction follows.

Lexington should be asking a lot of questions about those cities:

• How did they foster key industries at home?  (For instance, how did Austin nurture the development of vibrant economies around semiconductors, computers, and music?)
• How did those cities redevelop key districts into vibrant contributors to their economic engines? (Think Sixth Street in Austin or The Pearl District in Portland.)
• What specific approaches did these cities use to leverage their relationships with local universities to drive economic growth?  (Think Carnegie Mellon or University of Wisconsin.)
• What infrastructural moves did they make to enhance the local economy? (Example: How did Austin Energy help the city save enough energy - even as Austin grew - to avoid building a new power plant?)
• What did they do to nurture and promote the careers of key locals?  (Think Michael Dell in Austin or Rebecca Ryan in Madison.)

And then Lexington needs to take a hard look inward and think about how those lessons apply here.  For instance:

• Who are Lexington's Michael Dells or Rebecca Ryans?  How would we know?
• What are the best ways to allocate economic development funds to cultivate growth in their businesses?
• Which districts in Lexington hold the most promise for redevelopment?  What specific lessons can we draw from, say, the Pearl District redevelopment process?
•  How can we leverage the University of Kentucky and Transylvania University as key resources for economic growth (and not think of them only as educational institutions)?

These cities suggest that Lexington should stop seeking external 'saviors', and instead focus on building up our city's internal competencies and infrastructure.  Then, outsiders might find our city desirable without requiring huge ransoms. 

Focusing on internal growth is, in fact, how cities like Austin, Madison, Portland, and Pittsburgh have fueled sustained growth over the past 20 years.  Lexington should follow their example.

Lexington should stop seeking saviors, and start making them instead.

How does that look?  Here are some initial ideas:

1. Make targeted investments. Instead of, for example, throwing $80 million at the World Equestrian Games in the speculative hope that the investment will draw future commerce from outside the city, make smaller, more targeted investments in growing specific businesses with specific growth measurements and targets (jobs, tax revenues, etc.).
2. Select target industries, and invest there.  Choosing particular industries will allow Lexington to develop self-reinforcing ecosystems around key technologies or competencies.  Lexington's mayor has frequently touted the "3 H's" strategy for Lexington's economic development: Horses, health care, and high-tech.  These might be valid industries to target, but we've allocated precious little development resources toward those goals and seen precious little progress in those areas. 
3. Oversee development with sharp business intellects.  Typically, Lexington's economic development has been overseen either by developer-driven boosters (Commerce Lexington) or by academics and architects (Downtown Development Authority).  Lexington needs to shift the balance to more entrepreneurial businesspeople who have experience in business growth and who understand which business models work and which don't.  
4. Prioritize business investment over infrastructure investment.  Projects like streetscapes and buried utility lines, while pretty, will contribute relatively little to Lexington in the way of tangible jobs or revenues.  And attempts to financially justify these projects frequently cross into sheer booster speculation about making better impressions.  Instead, we should focus on cultivating growing businesses and directly creating jobs and revenues with our development funds.
5. Think "local" first.  Supercharge our investments by prioritizing local businesses before external ones.  More on this in our next post in this series.

Rather than spend hundreds of millions of dollars on hope and speculation, we need to make smarter, more targeted investments with our public development dollars.  We need to run the business of growing our city like a business.  Anything less is a waste of our time and money.

Next: 3. Local First

To-Do List for Lexington: 1. Get Real

(Part of the To-Do List for Lexington series.  Click here for an overview and links to the rest of the series.)

Lexington suffers from a booster mentality.  That mentality dictates that we must constantly paint our city in the most favorable light.  And, often, the booster mentality buys into its own hype: "Everything is great; Everything is wonderful; No problems here!"  Boosters often champion ego-enhancing feel-good projects with questionable economic value.

The trouble with such unrelenting optimism is that it frequently crosses into rampant self-deception.  When things are going badly, the booster cannot admit it; Doing so would destroy their carefully-constructed mental image of the perfect city. 

The booster mentality partly stems from wanting to look good for others, for outsiders.  And, from an economic development standpoint, boosters look to attract commerce (businesses) from outside the city.

The trouble with such primping and preening is that an obsessive amount of effort is spent on cosmetic rather than substantive improvement.  By spending so much time trying to look good for the outside world, boosters often neglect very real problems at home.  And their self-deception means they have trouble even acknowledging the existence of such problems.

Boosterism takes a number of  forms, but follows a pretty standard recipe:

1. Hold out the promise of a vague future reward
2. Leverage that promise to justify current sacrifices
3. Question the patriotism, loyalty, intellectual ability, credibility, and / or intentions of all who question either the extent of the reward or the merit of the sacrifice
4. Never, ever admit that maybe the reward wasn't worth the sacrifice

We see this all over town.

With CentrePointe, there was the promise of the state's tallest building, containing a J.W. Marriott and a fictionalized Hard Rock Café.  Lexington would have status.  If it meant destroying some historic buildings and taking some gigantic leaps of faith, so be it.  And, if folks make too much of a fuss over the historic buildings, marginalize them and the block the buildings stood on.  And never, ever admit that the whole speculative venture was a mistake.

With streetscape projects, there was the promise that we'd look good for our out-of-town visitors while the world's eyes were upon us during the 2010 World Equestrian Games (WEG 2010).  By looking good to the world, Lexington might be able to attract more tourists. Or maybe businesses.  Or something.  If it means severing the most significant southside artery (South Limestone) for over a year and losing some downtown businesses along the way, so be it.  And, if folks make too much of a fuss over the cost ($88 million), dismiss their calculations without offering any of your own.  Or use silly diversionary tactics like forcing them to remove their logos from key presentations.  And never, ever admit that the project's execution and timing were poor.

Sport is a common justification for such development projects.  For the promise of "major league status", cities have destroyed historic neighborhoods or paid huge ransoms to attract (or keep) a major sports team or event (such as the Olympic Games).  Boosters cite the added visibility and prestige that comes with such status as justification enough.  But most such "investments" rarely pay off.

With WEG 2010, we have such an example of sports-led economic development right here at home.  And the promise of the world's attention and the event's prestige have become their own rationale for action - without regard for whether such action is truly justified by a real-world reward. 

Boosters assert that today's torn-up streets, empty blocks, disrupted commerce, and vast new facilities - often paid for with tens of millions of public dollars - will all be worth it...

Someday. 

They hold out the vague and unmeasured promise of future visibility, prestige, tourists, businesses, investments, and commerce.  In the meantime, they drain significant economic vitality from the city while pursuing future attention and dollars.  But the boosters of CentrePointe, streetscapes, and WEG rarely do a realistic accounting of the true value (or value destruction) of their ventures. 

In essence, boosterism is an incredibly expensive and inefficient form of untargeted advertising: Hundreds of millions of dollars thrown at the rest of the world in the faint hope that someone - anyone - will throw some of it back into our economy.  And, as we've written before, Lexington needs to focus less on advertising and promoting how great it is and focus more on actually being great.

Lexington needs to get real.

We need to get real about which community investments will actually pay dividends.

We need to get real about what is wrong (and what is right) with our community and about what it will take to craft a better Lexington.

We need to get real about the destruction wrought by unbridled boosterism.

Getting real isn't about ceasing to support our fine city.  It isn't about becoming negative - 'nay-saying' every project or bad-mouthing Lexington. 

It does mean that we start openly discussing and debating the merits and shortfalls of the investments our community makes.

Only by acknowledging that we have significant problems can we begin to wrestle with them.  I've written before that Lexington is too polite.  In conversation, we are so indirect that we avoid confronting our difficult issues. 

But we must.  We must begin to engage and debate our city's future.  We must get a full accounting for the folly, waste, and fraud which accompanies such unbridled boosterism.  We must redirect effort and attention from this glamorous-but-questionable boosterism to projects and investments which, while far less ego-boosting, will yield tangible economic benefits for our city.  And we must get real about the present state and future possibility of our city.

And getting real is what the rest of this series is about.

Next: 2. Stop seeking saviors. Start making them.

To-Do List for Lexington: An Overview

On November 8th, this blog will turn turned one year old.  It has been an interesting year, and the blog has turned into something very different than what we initially conceived.

One of the surprises: how much we ended up focusing on issues and ideas of local interest, especially those related to downtown Lexington. 

We've not been shy about offering our opinions on CentrePointe, on South Limestone, on Lexmark, on our local government, and on the future of our city, just to name a few.  And you've not been shy in offering your (often very different) opinions in return.  

We believe that Lexington is a really great city.  But we also believe it needs to be much better.  And we've got some ideas on how to get to that better future. 

So, as we end our first year of blogging, we thought it might be good to put together an agenda for our city.  Over the next several posts, we'll share ideas on improving Lexington.  Some will be ideas we've touched on before; some will be brand-new.  We'll focus a lot on our city's economic and urban development.

As we build out this list over the next week month or so, please add your thoughts and comments.  We believe that an open discussion about our city is vital to crafting a better future for Lexington.

So think of this series as a conversation-starter.  Think of it as a love letter to what our city could be.  Think of it as the rantings of your local mechanic.

Think of it as a to-do list for Lexington.

To-Do List for Lexington

1. Get Real (11/2/2009)
   
2. Stop seeking saviors. Start making them. (11/3/2009)
   
3. Local First (11/4/2009)
   
4. Embrace Openness (11/6/2009)
   
5. Leverage Intellectual Capital (12/3/2009)
   
6. Be Original (12/3/2009)
   
7. Plan Well (12/9/2009)
8. Demand Accountability (12/14/2009)
9. Do! (12/15/2009)

Postscript (12/15/2009)

This series is dedicated to my son, Carson, and to the future Lexington that he and his generation will inherit.

The Spotlight Effect

There's an old saw in business: "That which gets measured gets results". 

I have to admit I've always been a bit dismissive of that saying (usually attributed to the late business guru Peter Drucker).  In corporate life, I saw plenty of things that were measured which didn't get results.  The mere act of measuring something accomplishes nothing if effort doesn't also go into improving that 'something'.

But a couple of events over the past few weeks has me thinking about what does get results. 

Newtown Pike Extension
The first event was the much-acclaimed burial of utility lines along Lexington's Newtown Pike extension.  After Graham and Clive Pohl (of Pohl Rosa Pohl Architects) highlighted the discrepancy between the pretty artists' renderings of the extension and the actual plans for the construction that was about to begin.  Instead of the beautiful, pristine streets promised in the renderings, the extension would have been littered with utility poles and power lines.

LFUCG engineers cited the high relative cost of burying the utilities, estimating that putting them underground would add nearly $900,000 to the project's cost.

Since the extension will be a kind of "gateway" into Lexington, there was an outcry from many on the Urban County Council about how important it was for us to look good for visitors.  Our Vice Mayor was quoted as saying "We'll never get a second chance to make a first impression."  Local columnists and Lexington's online community jumped on the issue as well, and it snowballed.

Within a couple of weeks, city leaders lined up with Kentucky's Governor to announce that they had found the extra funds to put the utilities underground in the Governor's contingency fund.

I have to admit, I support putting utilities underground, but am dubious of the "first impression" argument.  The utilities are currently slated to go underground only on the Newtown Pike Extension.  The existing stretch of Newtown will still have above-ground utilities.  So a visitor's true first impression will still be filled with wires and poles from I-75 to Main Street, as seen in this shot of Newtown from this afternoon.

The Treeds Experiment
The second event was a little closer to home.  In the Treeds Experiment, I decided take up a challenge from an Urban County Councilmember to see how long it took to get a response from LFUCG's Division of Code Enforcement.  So, last Friday - just before the holiday weekend - I sent an email to Code Enforcement about a lot next to our main building which had become overgrown with tree-weeds, or "treeds".  

At the same time I sent the email, I posted an outline of the experiment on my blog, along with pictures of the overgrowth.  And I pledged to chronicle the responses I got from the city. 

This past Tuesday, the city's contractors showed up to clear the lot - less than one business day after my email and post.  Pretty impressive by any measure.  Code Enforcement hasn't addressed all of the concerns I outlined (the main drain in the lot is still clogged).  But, to be fair, they have addressed most of the public safety issues which accompanied the blight in that lot.

On Twitter, a couple of folks brought up valid points.  Russell and Ann both pointed out that Treeds had an unfair advantage - because I talked about it publicly, that may have helped artificially accelerate the responsiveness of the city.  (Indeed, within hours of my initial Treeds post, a city employee commented that the experiment would 'fail'.)

The Spotlight Effect
These two events both benefited from the "spotlight effect": When the public's spotlight turns to a particular issue, and that spotlight begins burning intensely, 'normal' reactions and 'normal' timelines are no longer acceptable.

Russell and Ann were right: my experiment wasn't 'normal', and the average citizen shouldn't expect that kind of responsiveness.

And others would point out that the Newtown Pike Extension wasn't 'normal' either - it was a one-time event which utilized one-time funds.  We shouldn't expect city officials to move that quickly to fix an oversight or mistake.

But we should. 

Everyone should get prompt action on valid complaints.  Everyone should expect city leaders to fix their mistakes, to do the right things, and to do them quickly.

But we can't wait for our leaders to do the right thing.  We need to push them.  We need to build bigger, brighter spotlights, and we need to shine those spotlights on the things that matter. 

It is up to us.

Building a Spotlight
What does it take to build an effective spotlight?  I can't claim to be an expert, but here are some of my thoughts culled from the past few days and weeks (feel free to contribute your own in the comments below):

• We must be more vocal.  We tend to be indirect folks here in Lexington.  It is awkward and impolite to complain; it is much better for the other person to do what they should.  But they don't.  And we stew.  And nothing much changes.  

It is time for that to change.  As out-of-character as it may be for many of us, we need to become much more vocal about what is wrong and what we expect.  Only then can things improve.

• We must join our voices.  When one person calls a city department, they are a complainer.  When several people call - and are joined by bloggers, columnists, and media - that's a movement. 

And a movement is what dislodged the status quo of the Newtown Pike Extension.  We need more movements in Lexington with more voices working in concert.  We need to utilize our public platforms - Twitter, Facebook, blogs, and papers - to draw others to our cause.

• We must be more visible.  When one person calls one other person at LFUCG, there's no spotlight.  No one else knows about the call, and no one else can amplify the sentiments expressed there. 

One of the reasons that Treeds got such a rapid response was probably the 'publicness' of the experiment.  That visibility helped the amplify the spotlight and, in all likelihood, accelerated the response.

• We must measure.  This statement isn't about micro-measuring every detail of every issue.  It is about documenting who we talked with and what they said, and holding them accountable for their actions (or lack thereof). 

Any regular reader of my posts knows that I'm not shy.  They know that I'm not afraid to use my platforms to try to build a movement.  In the past few months, my blogging and writing has become fairly visible.  (And, for what it is worth, I've got some like-minded friends.) 

So if you need a spotlight, let me help you.  If you see blight around campus or around downtown, let me know.  If your business is suffering from the South Limestone road closure, let me know.  If you have a great idea for our city, let me know.  If you see a problem which needs fixing, let me know.

Together, let's be more vocal.  Let's join our voices with others who agree.  Let's be more visible.  And, then, let's hold people accountable.

I want a better Lexington.  One where businesses aren't squeezed out of their locations by poorly-planned year-long road closures.  One where our government operates much more transparently.  One where blight is quickly and effectively addressed.  One which has a real (and realistic) urban development plan for downtown.  One which has a thriving arts and business community.  One which leverages its past to build a brighter future.  One which will make my son homesick if he ever leaves.

If you want that too, then join me - or rather, have me join you.  Tell me what matters. 

And I'll do my best to help you build a spotlight.  Let's make a better, faster Lexington.