“Economic development” or economic development?
By Tom Sgouros
in UpRiseRI
People
who follow the local economy recognize that as a statistic that is likely true,
but doesn’t mean at all what Pryor wants you to think. It was a weak economy
that COVID upended, and if you can’t fall far, you won’t have far to climb
back: this is the same reason toddlers don’t bruise while learning to walk. A
look at the detailed data bears this out; right after us in that list are
Nebraska, South Dakota, and West Virginia, none exactly economic powerhouses.
Should we be proud to be a competitor of West Virginia?
This
is how you succeed (personally) as an economic development professional: by
learning to make a sow’s ear sound like a silk purse.
In
truth, the economic development industrial complex rests on a mirage everyone
agrees to see: that lasting prosperity can be created by directly affecting the
location and investment decisions of rich people and large corporations. Time
and again we see the fleeting nature of these deals, where a corporation
extorts a government by moving somewhere or promising to hire people. But when
the tax breaks expire, usually the benefit does, too. This kind of “economic
development” often seems little more than a game by which rich people and
corporations suck money from the public treasury.
As
neighbors of Massachusetts, we are accustomed to saying its economic success is
due to all those universities and research, but think what that says: patient
investment in higher education led to prosperity. Over recent decades,
Massachusetts also made similarly long-term investments in elementary and
secondary education and public transportation. With patience, they built a
middle class proportionally much larger and more prosperous than Rhode
Island’s. Boston booms, while Providence… doesn’t. This was not the result of
“economic development” but it certainly was economic development.
So
sure, you can criticize Stefan Pryor’s multi-state record: as Deputy Mayor of
Newark, he oversaw an economic development agency so troubled its auditors
recommended it simply stop making loans; as Connecticut Education Commissioner
he was so controversial he resigned rather than threaten his governor’s
reelection; and as director of CommerceRI, Rebuild RI tax credits were managed
so they cannot possibly meet the original goals, according to a study by
Pryor’s colleagues at the Department of Revenue. But the real danger here is a
fundamental misunderstanding of economic development. Rhode Island doesn’t need
more “economic development” that are just bad tax deals, we need fundamental
reform of how our government thinks about our economy. We need real investments
in education, in public transit, in housing, in making the lives of Rhode
Islanders better. And we need the patience to see that work make good.
The
job of state Commerce Secretary is mostly about being nice to businesses that
want to grow here. But by Stefan Pryor’s telling, he’s in charge of the Rhode
Island economy. My advice is if you think that our state’s economy is fine — if
you think he built the conditions for long-term growth — vote for him.
Otherwise consider James Diossa, who is familiar with struggle and has
managed a city with near-zero resources to great effect. Diossa understands
that government exists to help people who need help, and to make those
long-term investments that will pay off — in a permanent way. That’s why I’ll
vote for Diossa.
EDITOR'S NOTE: As on many other things, I agree with Tom in his comparison of James Diossa to Stephan Pryor. I too support Diossa whole-heartedly. He took Central Falls from the deepest hole possible and helped to make it a liveable city again. CF was such a write-off that the state tried to pay Pawtucket to absorb the city - and Pawtucket refused. Diossa involved the community and built a great team to bring the city back from beyond the fringe. And he modestly credits others rather than take the credit he deserves.
Stefan Pryor, on the other hand, takes almost sole credit for everything he even comes near. Sure, he was involved in some high profile efforts, such as the rebuilding of lower Manhattan. But that's not so hard when you are running a project with limitless cash and national priority. Pryor's campaign is now throwing rocks at James for "not being ready" for the job of General Treasurer because he "only" saved Central Falls, while Pryor is clearly an ubermenchen.
No thanks, Stefan. I'm voting for James. - Will Collette
