Silos as Hi-Tech Accelerators

High-risk municipal incentives are not needed to kick-start next economy companies. Speculative bets are the domain of the private sector. It is not Council's mandate to provide seed capital. Needed is a culture conducive to starting and growing businesses, i.e. an arms-length role by council in coordinating and cultivating.
By underwriting London Economic Development Corp'n and contributing to various incubators, London taxpayers already prime the growth pump to the tune of $30 millions annually. Some would have us "up the ante" another 2 to 3 million. Out-of-control civic expenditures outpace home-owner tolerance for aggregating yearly tax increases ...and send progressive businesses to better managed jurisdictions.
Venture capitalists shun early stage investments. Why would a city council venture where professional VC partnerships dare to tread ... and draft taxpayers as guillible investors?
The most attractive lure for new entreprneurs is a competitive tax level. It is attained by operational management -not equity risk management. The city will never have the expertise to compete with angels, banks and venture capital firms. Stick to municipal basics. Do them well, and economic health follows.
To play devil's advocate: if the city has no business being lead VC, what in the name of economic development can be salvaged from the Next Economy Report?
1.Synergy amongst city silos : LEDC, Stiller Center, and TechAlliance should realize economies of combining info-structure before infusion of new civic money is even considered. Industry and university collaboration is best for fostering home-grown hi-tech. Any government-sponsored VC pool should be left to the Feds or the Province a la Israel's Yozma fund.
2. Regionalism: This would be a noble departure for London. A place to start is working with municipal partners from Woodstock to Strathroy in lobbying for an extended 403 trade corridor. Short-sighted turf mentality is the barrier.
The single-silo Toronto Region Research Alliance (with Fed and Prov support) also chases the holy grail of a high-wage economy. Unlike London, there is no sign that Toronto City Hall dares take equity positions in early stage startups.
New Directions: We have to decide between an emerging research, development, and commercialization center ...or an encroaching wilderness. Tree City's council must reverse its back-woods image and get its priorities straight by putting "open for business" ahead of saving old buildings that have outlived their usefulness ...and using property taxes to acquire woodlots at subdivision land prices.
T'is time for those seeking re-election to worry more about high taxes and decaying infrastructure and to worry less about promoting the hip element and starting a municipal venture capital pool. Millwaukee recognizes the drivers of standard of living are competitiveness and productivity. Its next economy slogan is "Competitive City." Also, for reality in the post dot com economy, read Uncool Cities.
Only enlightened leadership can instill the requisite "next economy" mind-set on Council ...and curtail excess zeal for investing tax dollars in nano/bio start-ups, woodlot acquisition and decrepit building preservation.

Old posts may be updated with new information. Re-visit.

With their location and cultural mix, Montreal and Vancouver rate high on Fast Cities. All speed-readers (and Prof Florida fans) should click on those side bar titles.

Within weeks of Christmas, creation of the new London Regional Development Development Board is announced as a merger of LEDC, TechAlliance, Stiller Centre for Biotechnology and the Small Business Centre.

While regional members in the new single silo are sparse, we still expect to see a noticeable leap in our region's techno-competitiveness. Regular reports on projects and results would be appreciated; no need for expensive annual high-gloss PR ...just a straight-from-the-shoulder blog by the honcho would suffice.

A week before commercial Xmas, a couple of tech-hip councillors use their BlackBerrys to message that the Civic VC fund died before birth ...and that a city-funded agri-expressway is among the walking dead.

On the eve of the penultimate longest night: Merry Holiday to all, and to all a good hike!

Dateline Queen's Park Nov 15, 2007 7, The Provincial Liberals have assembled a Super VC fund with four institutional investors to administer an initial $165 million pool.

Election Issue # 2 -size

How many does it take to change a bulb in council chambers of Mississauga vs. London?
Mississauga: One to turn the bulb + ten to hold the ladder.
London: One to hold the bulb plus 1.5 dozen to turn the ladder.

Mississauga, with nearly twice London's population, manages well with 11 council members. Ditto for Windsor.

London voters asked for a downsized council at the last election; by a 9-7 recommendation on May 17, members opted for preserving the backward-looking status-quo; full council will decide on June 13th whether to protect their jobs with 19 positions, consider expansion to 14 NIMBY wards, ...or consider a 7-ward re-alignment based on broad commonality of economic interests. In any case, voters capable of envisioning the benefits and possibilities change offers, will note the "status-quo" holdouts or expansionists...and take appropriate action at the 2006 polls.

Council Size

Things are tough when a blogger links to his own archives.
http://londont.blogspot.com/2005_01_01_londont_archive.html
In the midst of these posts is a Sept 2002 op-ed proposing 4 wards for the suburbs, 2 for mid-town, and one for the rural south. Scroll to: Better Model For City Government.
Inclusion of the far southern lands draining into a Lake Erie watershed was an accident of annexation. Since they could not be urbanized, the Annexation Act stipulated a distinct rural ward.
In spoke wards, councillors have to pretend they are qualified to represent all of the above distinct communities. They struggle with their given cross-section ...and the central and rural areas are marginalized.
With re-population of core underway (in spite of fights over demolition of every low-density eye-sore that has out-lived its usefulness), burgeoning central inhabitants deserve meaningful representation. Without a ward shake-up, the bulk of voters will live in the subdivisions and those they re-elect will continue to cater to suburbia.
Were candidates drawn form broad "Community of Interest" wards, they would have an excellent grasp of local concerns ...and constituents (and the city) would be better served. Using the proposed structure with 1 councillor per ward we get 11 elected civic servants --including controllers but excluding the Mayor.
Servants who won't put aside self-interest (job protection & name recognition) to advance the public good are requested to make the case for London having over 50% more elected reps than well-managed Mississauga. A comment of 25 to 30 words on this post should suffice. If they have no comment ...or their case is not not convincing, they risk being rejected by their masters at the polls. Incumbents are always an important election issue. Let the spin begin.
Given historical turn-out, voters themselves are perhaps the most pressing issue; that calls for a separate post.

PS posted May 26~~In reacting to a 14-ward proposal by the Urban League, Prof Sancton commented that London is too small for communities of interest. Such conundrum is avoided by the Sept 2002 proposal for 7 wards based more on communities of common economic interests than on feuding neighbourhoods.

~PS posted on eve of 2006 municipal election ~~~ Voters coping with 14 wards rather than 7, might want to review the 1991 Supreme Court decision in the Saskatchewan Povinicail ridings case. Professor Sancton was prescient in observing that groups will inevitably argue "effective representation" means boundaries must be drawn to take account of their particular concerns. As applied to London, an OMB Chair (not a boundary commission) determined "the right to effective representation" meant a doubling of wards.

Better Model for City Government

All organizations represent the basic idea of community of interests. A few years ago such a structure was circulated to stimulate thinking on how to attract a strong team of political candidates. That was expecting too much. Through the device of an "appointed" task force, the status quo report council so desperately wanted was delivered.
The city has three main economic engines -agriculture, commercial/ industrial, and university/medical. There are three somewhat corresponding population bands: the outlying rural area, the expanding circle of of post-war suburbs, and the more mature central area. In the spoke configuration, the mid-town and rural sectors are marginalized since councillors cater to the concentration of voters in the "burbs."
Spoke wards neither reflect distinct communities nor optimize the mix of skills and experience needed. A more balanced council respectful of distinct community needs corrects the slide to a suburban agenda at the expense of central job growth and agri-enterprise. Eliminate a profusion of ward boundaries, and there will be less infighting over dollars for road upkeep and sports facilities. And, with the focus on community conditions and outcomes, more spokespeople will engage the civic process.
Better to allocate four wards to the urban ring, two wards to mid-town, and one to the rural south. This helps counter disruptive rivalry amongst too many councillors in too many wards. The board of trade in Brampton contends the 17-member council is too large for their city of 300,000. Neighbouring Mississauga functions well with a 10-member council. At 19 members, London is bloated.
The challenge: change both size and structure to put broad community interests ahead of special interests. That is the only way we will get what we need -a lean team of the brightest and the best.
There is always a better way; find it, refine it.
Proposal Advnced in a September 2002 issue of TheLondoner