Technically, yes, it would work, but we need to become far more ambitious in terms of public input re: goals, objs, metrics, impacts, and outcomes. A "Strategic" plan is a living document which needs qrtly assessment by a Standing Committee on Economic Well-Being and Mobility. There are other cutting-edge ideas worth discussing and adopting.
One problem I see with the data center controversy is the lack of policy context. This issue is treated as an isolated shiny object when in fact, virtually every local and regional govt has an adopted, long-tetm Vision, and, they have an adopted "Strategic" Economic Development plan. How do data centers fit into these plans, if at all?
Bear in mind, bc these data centers are heavily subsidized, create some jobs, and expand the tax base, they are treated as "economic development" (ED)projects. Except that, ED is a derivative of the Community Economic Development paradigm, taken by the commercial real estate industry to subsidize private sector real estate deals -- but these deals DO NOT constitute ED.
ED is a public concept, while business development is a private concept, thus, they are not equivalent terms. Each has its distinct purpose, goals, objectives, metrics, impacts, and outcomes. Concepts do matter, so pls stop equating "economic" with "business" development, and, be sure to define your terms, which hasn't been done by anyone.
Fernando — this is exactly the kind of pushback I was hoping for, and you're right to name it. You've put your finger on something I glossed over: a subsidized data center that expands the tax base and creates a handful of permanent jobs is being sold as "economic development" when it's often just a private real estate deal wearing the ED costume. Those aren't the same thing, and confusing the two lets these projects skip the question that matters: how does this fit the community's actual long-term plan, if at all?
That's the conversation I want us to have out loud — not "data centers good" or "data centers bad," but "show me where this sits in the strategic plan, and show me the metrics you're measuring it against."
What if it was a city-owned data center that leases capacity to private companies at market rates with asset allocation toward community needs built into the framework from the start? A public-private operating agreement: city owns the asset, private operator runs it under contract. Could that work?
Technically yes, but this is only a legal arrangement. It's just like an "Eco Dev" performance contract, but ED is far more than a business transaction. We need to see a true ROI for the community, where needs are greatest. We need knowledgeable CED practitioners who understand this arena.
Technically, yes, it would work, but we need to become far more ambitious in terms of public input re: goals, objs, metrics, impacts, and outcomes. A "Strategic" plan is a living document which needs qrtly assessment by a Standing Committee on Economic Well-Being and Mobility. There are other cutting-edge ideas worth discussing and adopting.
One problem I see with the data center controversy is the lack of policy context. This issue is treated as an isolated shiny object when in fact, virtually every local and regional govt has an adopted, long-tetm Vision, and, they have an adopted "Strategic" Economic Development plan. How do data centers fit into these plans, if at all?
Bear in mind, bc these data centers are heavily subsidized, create some jobs, and expand the tax base, they are treated as "economic development" (ED)projects. Except that, ED is a derivative of the Community Economic Development paradigm, taken by the commercial real estate industry to subsidize private sector real estate deals -- but these deals DO NOT constitute ED.
ED is a public concept, while business development is a private concept, thus, they are not equivalent terms. Each has its distinct purpose, goals, objectives, metrics, impacts, and outcomes. Concepts do matter, so pls stop equating "economic" with "business" development, and, be sure to define your terms, which hasn't been done by anyone.
It certainly could. You should explore the business model of Austin Energy. It could be close.
Fernando — this is exactly the kind of pushback I was hoping for, and you're right to name it. You've put your finger on something I glossed over: a subsidized data center that expands the tax base and creates a handful of permanent jobs is being sold as "economic development" when it's often just a private real estate deal wearing the ED costume. Those aren't the same thing, and confusing the two lets these projects skip the question that matters: how does this fit the community's actual long-term plan, if at all?
That's the conversation I want us to have out loud — not "data centers good" or "data centers bad," but "show me where this sits in the strategic plan, and show me the metrics you're measuring it against."
What if it was a city-owned data center that leases capacity to private companies at market rates with asset allocation toward community needs built into the framework from the start? A public-private operating agreement: city owns the asset, private operator runs it under contract. Could that work?
Technically yes, but this is only a legal arrangement. It's just like an "Eco Dev" performance contract, but ED is far more than a business transaction. We need to see a true ROI for the community, where needs are greatest. We need knowledgeable CED practitioners who understand this arena.