By Bill Godwin
From a systems point of view, Los Alamos consists of two thoroughly interdependent parts – the lab and the town. I stress the word “interdependent”. The town exists because of the lab, and the lab is the primary economic engine of the town, the largest employer. The town needs a healthy lab to survive. But the lab needs an attractive town to attract and retain high-quality staff. Without a well-funded lab, the town would be in trouble. But without a vital and attractive town, the lab would be in trouble.
However, despite being the third wealthiest county in America, Los Alamos has historically been remarkably resistant to funding civic improvements. School bonds have failed more than once (and our dilapidated school buildings show it), the civic center proposal was voted down by a healthy margin, and one hears continuous grumbling about everything from the costs of planting trees along Central Avenue to supporting the Aquatic Center to the Trinity Place proposal. I think this is because many people see and judge these as individual decisions – they don’t see the whole systems picture. A recent proposal to revise the County charter suggests subjecting capital projects and real estate matters to cafeteria style elections would further fragment decision processes.
Los Alamos Laboratory, like any high-tech research facility, depends upon a steady inflow of bright young talent to keep healthy and productive, and to replace retirements. There is a lot of competition across the country for that bright young talent, and it will tend to go where young families can find good schools, good libraries, attractive living conditions, and a lively recreation life. So the long-term health of the laboratory is directly dependent on how attractive and vital our town is.
And just as important, from the point of view of a homeowner in the town, our property values depend directly on how well the lab is doing, which depends on the quality of the lab staff, which in turn depends pretty directly on how willing we are to fund things like good schools, good libraries, good recreation facilities, and things which make the town attractive to the bright young talent that is the lifeblood of the laboratory. Saving a few mills of property tax may in the long run cost us far more in decreased home values.
So the next time there is a proposal to spend some money or float a bond or raise our taxes to improve our town in some way, look at the whole system, not just the immediate proposal. Remember that a town which will attract new families is not an expensive luxury for us; it is a necessity if we are to compete successfully for the bright young lab talent that keeps the lab – and our property values – healthy.
Welcome
Monday, February 1, 2010
Friday, January 29, 2010
No ROI Without Investment
By Steve Laurent
Our local economy is 97% LANL-related. While an amazing statistic, it’s certainly not surprising, and it makes achieving a more economically self-sufficient community a very tall order. Increasing retail opportunities and improving our economic diversity requires new investment, both private and public.
Let’s begin with the private investment problem. Since most of us stayed in school much longer than most and chose to work in the private sector, let’s assume risk aversion is a given. Therefore, we’ll look at private investment through a role play in which you can invest in a retail opportunity in one of two locations.
Opportunity A, in a city of over 200,000, is in a new strip development containing a Walmart and several chain businesses. The mall serves not only the growing neighborhoods nearby, but also traffic from the freeway. Its advantages are many, including a brand new building on cheap land with lots of guaranteed customers. Its risks are few.
Opportunity B is in a smaller town of 20,000, located on an island a short ferry ride from Opportunity A. Most residents work in commercial fishing, the island’s only industry, but the industry pays well and the residents are by no means poor. The islanders are a captive audience, with cash, who are craving retail opportunities.
While the potential rewards of investing in the island are great, the risks are equally high: you will be gambling on the long-term health of a one-industry town; your business must break the cycle of islanders traveling to the mainland for goods and services; the only available site on the island is a tired old building with less than ideal parking or storefront; and rents are higher on the island because land is scarce.
So which opportunity do you choose? Surely most would choose A as the safer bet for your money to grow. But if you’d rather place your money on B, then congratulations - you’ve joined the ranks of our successful local retailers. It may be time for you to open a shop on the Hill!
Like it or not, Opportunity B is how many entrepreneurs view Los Alamos – a risky investment. If we are to increase retail opportunities and diversify our economy, we must overcome both the real and perceived hurdles that arise from our being an “island” on the Pajarito Plateau.
The playing field must be leveled if Los Alamos is to compete for new business. This is where the public aspect of local investment comes in.
If you think that you don’t have to deal with our economic diversity dilemma because you’re not investing in Los Alamos, then you’d better think again. We are all investors in our community because we spend (at least some of) our money here. We all invest indirectly through our local government which collects tax dollars. And again, like it or not, our County government has an important role to play in making our community a more attractive business investment.
In traditional communities (i.e., everywhere except Los Alamos), the primary role of government is to act as service provider and health/safety regulator, and private capital runs the engine of business. Not so here. Our transition from a government town to private community has burdened government with many traditionally non-governmental tasks, not the least of which is catalyst for creating a self-sustaining community – townbuilding if you will.
Because private capital is reluctant to invest in Los Alamos, our local government must incentivize growth and diversification through the application of any number of strategies (e.g., tax breaks, infrastructure improvements, low interest loans) that are worthy of a separate editorial’s worth of discussion. As the County implements such strategies, regardless of our ideologies we as taxpayer investors have essentially only one question to ask: Will the government program provide a good return on our investment? In the business world, ROI is the acronym for return on investment. “Roi” also means “king” in French, and ROI should be king here in Los Alamos as we look to create a more diverse economic future.
Our duties as residents and investor-taxpayers are twofold: (1) to support new and established local businesses; and (2) to support government efforts to attract new business. This will require some investment of local tax dollars. While the expenditure of tax dollars as economic incentive may be unpalatable for some, knee-jerk reactions against such investment can be short-sighted and costly to our long-term future. Let’s make sure that ROI becomes a standard part of all of the conversation moving forward, recognizing that the short-term investment of tax dollars can sometimes bring a great long-term return.
In the year to come, in which many difficult decisions will be made about our County’s economic future, let’s commit to remain open to diverse and new ideas, and keep ROI at the forefront of our dialogue.
Our local economy is 97% LANL-related. While an amazing statistic, it’s certainly not surprising, and it makes achieving a more economically self-sufficient community a very tall order. Increasing retail opportunities and improving our economic diversity requires new investment, both private and public.
Let’s begin with the private investment problem. Since most of us stayed in school much longer than most and chose to work in the private sector, let’s assume risk aversion is a given. Therefore, we’ll look at private investment through a role play in which you can invest in a retail opportunity in one of two locations.
Opportunity A, in a city of over 200,000, is in a new strip development containing a Walmart and several chain businesses. The mall serves not only the growing neighborhoods nearby, but also traffic from the freeway. Its advantages are many, including a brand new building on cheap land with lots of guaranteed customers. Its risks are few.
Opportunity B is in a smaller town of 20,000, located on an island a short ferry ride from Opportunity A. Most residents work in commercial fishing, the island’s only industry, but the industry pays well and the residents are by no means poor. The islanders are a captive audience, with cash, who are craving retail opportunities.
While the potential rewards of investing in the island are great, the risks are equally high: you will be gambling on the long-term health of a one-industry town; your business must break the cycle of islanders traveling to the mainland for goods and services; the only available site on the island is a tired old building with less than ideal parking or storefront; and rents are higher on the island because land is scarce.
So which opportunity do you choose? Surely most would choose A as the safer bet for your money to grow. But if you’d rather place your money on B, then congratulations - you’ve joined the ranks of our successful local retailers. It may be time for you to open a shop on the Hill!
Like it or not, Opportunity B is how many entrepreneurs view Los Alamos – a risky investment. If we are to increase retail opportunities and diversify our economy, we must overcome both the real and perceived hurdles that arise from our being an “island” on the Pajarito Plateau.
The playing field must be leveled if Los Alamos is to compete for new business. This is where the public aspect of local investment comes in.
If you think that you don’t have to deal with our economic diversity dilemma because you’re not investing in Los Alamos, then you’d better think again. We are all investors in our community because we spend (at least some of) our money here. We all invest indirectly through our local government which collects tax dollars. And again, like it or not, our County government has an important role to play in making our community a more attractive business investment.
In traditional communities (i.e., everywhere except Los Alamos), the primary role of government is to act as service provider and health/safety regulator, and private capital runs the engine of business. Not so here. Our transition from a government town to private community has burdened government with many traditionally non-governmental tasks, not the least of which is catalyst for creating a self-sustaining community – townbuilding if you will.
Because private capital is reluctant to invest in Los Alamos, our local government must incentivize growth and diversification through the application of any number of strategies (e.g., tax breaks, infrastructure improvements, low interest loans) that are worthy of a separate editorial’s worth of discussion. As the County implements such strategies, regardless of our ideologies we as taxpayer investors have essentially only one question to ask: Will the government program provide a good return on our investment? In the business world, ROI is the acronym for return on investment. “Roi” also means “king” in French, and ROI should be king here in Los Alamos as we look to create a more diverse economic future.
Our duties as residents and investor-taxpayers are twofold: (1) to support new and established local businesses; and (2) to support government efforts to attract new business. This will require some investment of local tax dollars. While the expenditure of tax dollars as economic incentive may be unpalatable for some, knee-jerk reactions against such investment can be short-sighted and costly to our long-term future. Let’s make sure that ROI becomes a standard part of all of the conversation moving forward, recognizing that the short-term investment of tax dollars can sometimes bring a great long-term return.
In the year to come, in which many difficult decisions will be made about our County’s economic future, let’s commit to remain open to diverse and new ideas, and keep ROI at the forefront of our dialogue.
Wednesday, January 27, 2010
Move Ahead with Muni Building
Stan Primak, Chair
Kendra Henning, Member
Municipal Building Site Selection Citizen's Steering Committee
On January 28th at 7:00pm at the Community Building, our County Council has municipal building site selection on its agenda. The Municipal Building Site Selection Citizen's Steering Committee looks forward to discussion and a final site selection decision at this meeting.
The Site Selection Citizen's Steering Committee enjoyed the opportunity to serve our County to select a new municipal building site that will host a symbol of our community, provide an efficient facility to serve County employees and residents, and enhance our County’s downtown and economic development goals. Our committee of 16 members evaluated 25 prospective building sites with the help of many County staff and outside economic and architectural consultants. We participated in 10 meetings, hosted 5 community outreach events, and used a rigorous, well-documented process. Our evaluation centered on 13 detailed evaluation criteria given to us by the Council. In summary, the criteria were:
Our meeting schedule was published, meetings were open to the public, and all committee data (including the detailed selection criteria) and discussion was regularly posted to this public County website and is available for your review at any time: www.losalamosnm.us/PROJECTS/
In October 2009 our committee delivered a comprehensive final report to Council. We responded in detail to Council’s questions about our process and our reasoning for evaluating some sites more favorably than others. In the end, our Committee recommended two sites as our top picks for the new municipal building: Site 6, the former location of the Los Alamos Apartments on Central Avenue; and Site 13, a series of existing commercial properties consisting of 1247 Central Avenue plus 1360 and 1372 Trinity Drive. Based on Council’s site selection criteria, the committee determined these two sites to have the most benefits and least shortcomings of all 25 possible sites with no close runners-up.
Many residents are aware that the municipal building effort has been ongoing since early 2007 when plans to demolish the old building started taking shape. Since the building was demolished in 2008, County employees have languished in transportable buildings scattered across town compromising their efficiency of operations both internally and for the public. These transportable buildings have blighted the downtown landscape, and cost the County considerable money in rent.
New building site selection and plans for a new building was started, completed, and aborted once before in 2008. Over a minimum of three years, thousands of man-hours and considerable dollars have been spent by Council members, County staff, outside consultants, local commercial property owners, site selection committee members and residents to provide input and achieve the goal of constructing this new, important building.
Three years of analysis is more than enough. Due diligence has clearly been exercised. We must satisfy our current (and long overdue) need for a new municipal building. It’s time to move ahead with Site 6 or Site 13. Let’s show that we’re not only a community of thinkers, but also a community of doers.
Kendra Henning, Member
Municipal Building Site Selection Citizen's Steering Committee
On January 28th at 7:00pm at the Community Building, our County Council has municipal building site selection on its agenda. The Municipal Building Site Selection Citizen's Steering Committee looks forward to discussion and a final site selection decision at this meeting.
The Site Selection Citizen's Steering Committee enjoyed the opportunity to serve our County to select a new municipal building site that will host a symbol of our community, provide an efficient facility to serve County employees and residents, and enhance our County’s downtown and economic development goals. Our committee of 16 members evaluated 25 prospective building sites with the help of many County staff and outside economic and architectural consultants. We participated in 10 meetings, hosted 5 community outreach events, and used a rigorous, well-documented process. Our evaluation centered on 13 detailed evaluation criteria given to us by the Council. In summary, the criteria were:
- Best Fit for Building/Parking Requirements,
- Project Cost,
- Project Schedule,
- Economic Development Opportunity,
- Conservation of Views/Open Space,
- Impact on Surrounding Properties,
- Optimal Utilization of Land,
- Redevelopment of Blighted Property,
- Support for County Master,
- Comprehensive,
- Downtown and Economic Development plans,
- Achieving LEED Silver Building Criteria
Our meeting schedule was published, meetings were open to the public, and all committee data (including the detailed selection criteria) and discussion was regularly posted to this public County website and is available for your review at any time: www.losalamosnm.us/PROJECTS/
In October 2009 our committee delivered a comprehensive final report to Council. We responded in detail to Council’s questions about our process and our reasoning for evaluating some sites more favorably than others. In the end, our Committee recommended two sites as our top picks for the new municipal building: Site 6, the former location of the Los Alamos Apartments on Central Avenue; and Site 13, a series of existing commercial properties consisting of 1247 Central Avenue plus 1360 and 1372 Trinity Drive. Based on Council’s site selection criteria, the committee determined these two sites to have the most benefits and least shortcomings of all 25 possible sites with no close runners-up.
Many residents are aware that the municipal building effort has been ongoing since early 2007 when plans to demolish the old building started taking shape. Since the building was demolished in 2008, County employees have languished in transportable buildings scattered across town compromising their efficiency of operations both internally and for the public. These transportable buildings have blighted the downtown landscape, and cost the County considerable money in rent.
New building site selection and plans for a new building was started, completed, and aborted once before in 2008. Over a minimum of three years, thousands of man-hours and considerable dollars have been spent by Council members, County staff, outside consultants, local commercial property owners, site selection committee members and residents to provide input and achieve the goal of constructing this new, important building.
Three years of analysis is more than enough. Due diligence has clearly been exercised. We must satisfy our current (and long overdue) need for a new municipal building. It’s time to move ahead with Site 6 or Site 13. Let’s show that we’re not only a community of thinkers, but also a community of doers.
American Government
A very sobering video, without any political overtones, but if we don't listen to history, we are doomed to repeat it.
A must watch!
Fran Berting
Fran Berting
Sunday, January 24, 2010
Economics 101
By Bill Godwin
One frequently hears the complaint that Los Alamos has too little retail choice – too few stores, too limited an inventory in the few stores we have, and too high prices. The unspoken assumption behind these complaints is that this is the fault of the retailers themselves, or perhaps of the county government. In fact, it is no one’s fault but our own.
It’s not rocket science – it is basic economics. Retail can only survive if there are enough customers and enough sales to cover the costs and pay the bills. Stores can only carry more inventory if there are enough sales to support that much inventory. Prices can only be lower if sales volume is high enough to amortize the business costs over more sales. It is that simple. Statewide, about 44 cents of every dollar spent stays in the community. In our community, only about 11 cents of every dollar spent stays on the Hill. No wonder retail has such a hard time here.
If we want locally-owned businesses like The Coffee Booth, The Blue Window, The Hill Diner, the Reel Deal theater and Finishing Touch to stay around, we need to patronize them. If we want CB Fox to survive, we need to buy clothes and furniture from them instead of from someplace in Espanola or Santa Fe. If we want Otowi Books to stay in business, we need to buy our books from them instead of from Amazon.com or Borders in Santa Fe. If we want Metzger’s Hardware to stay in business, we need to look there first for our hardware needs, instead of going directly to Home Depot or Lowes in Espanola.
Yes, buying locally may sometimes cost a bit more than buying online or from a big box store in Santa Fe. That is the cost of keeping a retail presence in Los Alamos. That is the price of helping your friends and neighbors stay in business in this small town. That is the price of supporting your community.
The LACDC and Chamber, as part of the CommunityMatters initiative, is promoting a consciousness raising effort called the 3/50 Project. The idea is to support our local economy … at least three businesses at a time. The 3/50 name suggests spending $50 a month with each of the three businesses to support them and help to sustain them. Making a conscious effort to support local businesses can pay significant dividends for our community’s economy as well. In our community, $50 in expenditures by 50% of the people who work in our community results in $450,000 in revenues, a very significant number. Go to www.fyiLA.com to learn more about this project … and enter the Chamber drawing for three 50’s while you are there.
If price is all that matters, then by all means burn the gas to go to Santa Fe, but then don’t complain that there isn’t enough retail in Los Alamos. If on the other hand you really care about retail business in Los Alamos, go spend $50 this month at your three favorite Los Alamos stores or businesses. Then you will be part of the solution instead of part of the problem.
One frequently hears the complaint that Los Alamos has too little retail choice – too few stores, too limited an inventory in the few stores we have, and too high prices. The unspoken assumption behind these complaints is that this is the fault of the retailers themselves, or perhaps of the county government. In fact, it is no one’s fault but our own.
It’s not rocket science – it is basic economics. Retail can only survive if there are enough customers and enough sales to cover the costs and pay the bills. Stores can only carry more inventory if there are enough sales to support that much inventory. Prices can only be lower if sales volume is high enough to amortize the business costs over more sales. It is that simple. Statewide, about 44 cents of every dollar spent stays in the community. In our community, only about 11 cents of every dollar spent stays on the Hill. No wonder retail has such a hard time here.
If we want locally-owned businesses like The Coffee Booth, The Blue Window, The Hill Diner, the Reel Deal theater and Finishing Touch to stay around, we need to patronize them. If we want CB Fox to survive, we need to buy clothes and furniture from them instead of from someplace in Espanola or Santa Fe. If we want Otowi Books to stay in business, we need to buy our books from them instead of from Amazon.com or Borders in Santa Fe. If we want Metzger’s Hardware to stay in business, we need to look there first for our hardware needs, instead of going directly to Home Depot or Lowes in Espanola.
Yes, buying locally may sometimes cost a bit more than buying online or from a big box store in Santa Fe. That is the cost of keeping a retail presence in Los Alamos. That is the price of helping your friends and neighbors stay in business in this small town. That is the price of supporting your community.
The LACDC and Chamber, as part of the CommunityMatters initiative, is promoting a consciousness raising effort called the 3/50 Project. The idea is to support our local economy … at least three businesses at a time. The 3/50 name suggests spending $50 a month with each of the three businesses to support them and help to sustain them. Making a conscious effort to support local businesses can pay significant dividends for our community’s economy as well. In our community, $50 in expenditures by 50% of the people who work in our community results in $450,000 in revenues, a very significant number. Go to www.fyiLA.com to learn more about this project … and enter the Chamber drawing for three 50’s while you are there.
If price is all that matters, then by all means burn the gas to go to Santa Fe, but then don’t complain that there isn’t enough retail in Los Alamos. If on the other hand you really care about retail business in Los Alamos, go spend $50 this month at your three favorite Los Alamos stores or businesses. Then you will be part of the solution instead of part of the problem.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)