Running Government like a Business

We’ve all heard the common quip that “government ought to run like a business.” You’d think that if that was going to happen anywhere, it would be Idaho where the Governor and much of his cabinet (like Mike Gwartney and Richard Armstrong) are former business executives. But I’ve noticed in recent weeks that government policy and private sector behavior in Idaho are taking wildly different paths. Consider:

• The Governor is opting out of the high risk insurance pool.
• Idaho has joined a lawsuit against the United States government challenging the Constitutionality of federal health care reform.
• An utterly bizarre new law authored by Chuck Winder of all people, granting health care providers the right to ignore living wills and other advanced directives. The message: don’t die here.
• $247 million in reduced Medicaid spending in the state.

Meanwhile, here’s what is happening in Idaho’s private sector related to health care:

• Massive new investment by St. Alphonsus in area hospitals and clinics.
• A 36% increase since 2005 in the number of beds in assisted living facilities.
• $5 million in new spending at St. Lukes Mountain States Tumor Institute.

I’m not here to advocate for policy one way or another. I just want to point out that just maybe Idaho’s leaders - ostensibly concerned with economic development and economic recovery - might want to take a look at where the private sector is investing. In Idaho, that’s in health care.

You say you want a research institution, eh?

The buzz this week in Idaho Economic Development land is the newly formed Idaho Technology Council. You can read all about it at the Idaho Business Review.

This is a great and welcome effort, and desperately needed in our state. The only thing that immediately concerns me is that the players in this effort do not seem to understand the price of the things they hope to achieve. What is it that they are asking for? Here’s some snippets from the IBR’s reporting:

“Idaho’s growth as a technology center has cooled, and the Idaho economy cannot afford that,” stated ITC Chairman Rich Raimondi, a recently retired vice president at Hewlett-Packard. “We know the priorities to re-energize growth in this critical sector are human capital, public policy, financial capital and research and development, and we have formed committees with leaders from across the state to work those issues.”

and

“Growing an innovation economy starts with the government, whether it’s federal or state; then it’s research institutions; then it goes to the commercialization of intellectual property. From there you get industry, access to capital and the last part is quality work force.”

Human capital. Research and development. Research institutions. That’s what they want.

And that IS what will work to drive the economy here.

But does anyone realize what this will cost? I do. Here’s the current (at least as of 2007) financial capacity of the WAC and Mountain West Universities as measured by endowments:

1. Hawaii - $ 3 billion
2. Texas Christian University - $1.1 billion
3. BYU $1 billion
4. San Diego State - ($115/ but shares Cal State pool of $875 mm)
5. University of Utah - $700 million
6. La. Tech - ($656 shared)
7. UNLV - $500 million
8. University of New Mexico - $385 million
9. University of Wyoming - $304 million
10. Reno - $240 million
11. Colorado State - $193 million
12. U of Idaho - $188 million
13. New Mexico State - $175 million
14. Utah State - $130 million
15. Fresno State - $113million
16. Boise State - $74 million
17. San Jose State - $50 million
18. Air Force - $15 million (only has a 2 yr old endowment)

So - the picture here is pretty clear. BSU is at the bottom of the pack when it comes to having a big pot of money to fund world-class faculty, graduate students, and lab space. U of I isn’t much better. In this group, the University of Utah is clearly the research powerhouse - but look what they have to operate with: a $700 million endowment.

Don’t get me wrong - in a perfect world we’d do what was necessary to achieve the vision of the Technology Council. However, as I have noted before, there certainly isn’t the private capacity in Idaho to do what this group hopes. If there was sufficient private ability to fund Idaho’s universities at the level of say, the University of Utah, then the “Destination Distinction” capital campaign at Boise State would have a far bigger goal than $175 million. But that goal is the realistic capacity of the private sector in this state.

So that leaves government (and research grants which is another topic entirely) to make up the difference. But with current state support of Boise State running about 22% of BSU’s budget, it’s pretty clear that the requisite financial support of Idaho’s universities is not going to come from the public sector.

Mind you, the Mountain West and the WAC are two of the poorer conference in academe. What if we wanted Idaho’s Universities to be competitive with say, the PAC TEN (which is every Bronco fan’s dream conference) or the Big-10. Well here’s what the financial picture looks like for those schools:

PAC 10

1. Stanford University - $17.2 billion
2. University of Southern California - $3.7 billion
3. University of Washington - $3.2 billion
4. University of California - $2.8 billion
5. University of California, Los Angeles - $2.6 billion
6. Washington State University - $678 million
7. The University of Arizona - $519 million
8. University of Oregon - $498 million
9. Oregon State University - $476 million
10. Arizona State University - $407 million

Wanna be a player in Stanford’s league? Never gonna happen. Even if Boise State is successful in its capital campaign, it still won’t even have half the endowment of ASU. In fact, BSU and U of I combined don’t have the money that ASU has.

What about the Big-10?

Michigan - $7.1 billion
Northwestern - $6.5 billion
Minnesota - $2.8 billion
Ohio State - $2.3 billion
Purdue - $1.8 billion
Penn State - $1.6 billion
Wisconsin - $1.6 billion
Indiana - $1.6 billion
Illinois - $1.5 billion
Michigan State - $1.2 billion
Iowa - $1.0 billion

There is a reason that Michigan, Northwestern, Minnesota, and Wisconsin have world renowned schools of business and/or economics. There is a reason that Illinois has a legendary super computer center. There is a reason that Indiana graduates armies of engineers. MONEY. These schools are rich, rich, rich and can attract the best faculty in the world to their ranks. That is another reason that even the “poorest” school on this list, Iowa, attracts TEN TIMES the research grants of Boise State (Iowa hauls in about $400 million ANNUALLY in research grants and contracts; Boise State is nearing $40 million). They have a lot of money to hire killer faculty that do cutting edge research.

So. You say you want a research institution, eh? Now at least, you know what it’s gonna cost.

Of Gadflys and Guardians: A Tribute to Dave Frazier

People who read this blog regularly know that I like to use Dave Frazier from the Guardian as a foil, and he’s an awfully good sport about it - and that’s just plain and simply because he’s a good dude.

Dave and I strongly disagree on the level of fiscal authority that should be accorded to Idaho’s municipalities. He likes the current set up where cities have to ask the state and the voters permission to do what is routine in the rest of the United States. I’d like to see cities in Idaho have broader authority. I think his arguments over the airport bond issues, and fire station financing were malarky (the Judges however agreed with him, not me). And, I think his no-growth vision for Boise and the Valley is wrong headed.

But I like Dave Frazier. He’s a nice guy. He’s a fun guy to have coffee with and can talk about a lot of subjects. If you spend any time at the Vista Moxie you know this. Dave is also a damn fine citizen. He cares about this place, devotes a lot of time to watchdogging local government, and has a hell of a following on his Guardian Blog, which I read regularly.

Dave sent me a note asking why I called him a “gadfly” in a previous post - he took it as an offense, and for that I apologize. But I meant it to mean a person who upsets the status quo by posing upsetting or novel questions. Dave is every bit of that. He’s a thorn in the side of city government, and that is ok. In fact it’s important. Boise would be a better place if we had a hundred more people that were engaged as Dave (I just hope they’d all agree with me, though!).

You keep being a gadfly, Frazier, and next time I see you coffee is on me.

Time to get real about education in Idaho

If there is one precept in social science that can be taken as absolute gospel, it is this: your income potential is largely dependent upon your level of education. That is, more education leads to higher income potential. So a couple of trends that I see happening around the intermountain west cause me some concern. Let’s start with the work world.

In case you did not know it, the largest private employer in the State of Idaho is Wal Mart.

In case you are skimming this post, let me type that again: the largest private employer in the state of Idaho is Wal Mart.

Micron was formerly the top private employer in the state, but no more. Those jobs are now in China where they make stuff that they sell at Wal Mart. But I digress.

So as we have lost high-wage jobs in the private sector, we’ve also frankly just sat idle on education. And, no, not everyone has. In fact, the news today if you dig deep enough was actually quite revealing. Late today, this story hit the wire:

Faculty at ID universities decry policy changes
The Associated Press
Published: 12/15/09

BOISE, Idaho — Faculty representatives at Idaho’s public universities say proposed changes to state Board of Education policies would give presidents of the institutions broad power to make salary cuts during tough times.

Faculty say the revisions would allow university presidents to make permanent salary reductions - regardless of contracts with tenured and non-tenured professors and some staff members.

The proposed revisions, faculty say, would also allow the university presidents facing financial challenges to temporarily reduce wages through furloughs.

Board officials say the revisions aim to give presidents at the University of Idaho, Idaho State University, Boise State University and Lewis-Clark State College more authority and flexibility to make budget cuts amid state shortfalls.

Everyone is in crisis, though, so these budget cuts have to happen, right. Wrong.

If you read the Brookings Report that came out this week, which everyone has by now, you’ll note that the economic recovery (just as I said) is uneven all across the United States. And now, thanks to Brookings and its new Mountain West initiative, we can see exactly how Boise compares to its neighbors in the region. But the important part of the Brookings report for me was noting who wrote it. As it turns out, the Director of this new Brookings initiative is none other than Dr. Robert Lang, one of the nation’s most respected urbanists, and now a new faculty member at University Nevada Las Vegas.

This point is important: as Idaho looks to find ways to pay faculty less, UNLV is luring rock star faculty. Last year they hired noted historian Greg Hise away from USC. Faculty like that don’t come cheap - these guys make real money. And UNLV isn’t the only regional competitor to Boise State that has been hiring rock stars. Last year the University of Utah hired noted urban planning professor Chris Nelson, one of Lang’s colleagues at Virginia Tech.

Idaho is fast becoming a backwater. Our universities are not competitive, our people work at Wal Mart. Dear Legislature, are you listening?

Streetcar Opponents LOSE in City Elections

The Portland Streetcar in front of Portland State University

John Miller from the Associated Press reports it the other way around - streetcar advocates WIN. No matter how you slice it, proposed streetcars in 80 cities across America brought voters to the polls. The AP reports:

A U.S. streetcar revival fared well in Tuesday’s elections, with pro-trolley candidates for mayor in Cincinnati and Charlotte, N.C., winning. A critic of Boise’s proposal lost.

Streetcars are being considered by as many as 80 U.S. cities, as federal grants are available, and President Barack Obama’s administration has given urban rail favorable reviews.

In Charlotte, streetcar advocate Anthony Foxx beat John Lassiter.

Cincinnati Mayor Mark Mallory won against Brad Wenstrup, a streetcar critic.

And in Boise, voters in a city council race chose TJ Thomson over David Litster, who is trying to kill a plan in Idaho’s capital to build a 2.3-mile trolley loop.

It will be interesting to see how this issue shakes out in the future. I was unimpressed with TJ Thomson’s waffling on this issue during the campaign; he refused to take a position. My prediction is that we will see more of the same from him as he settles into office after the first of the year. I also predict that we have heard the last of Dave Litster. What we have not heard the last of is the streetcar.

When an Expert is not an Expert

This year when I went to get my annual check up, I called my Doctor - a guy who went to medical school, earned the degree, and then developed a successful medical practice as evidenced by the hundreds of clients that see him year after year. And many years ago when I remodeled my home on the Bench, I used the services of two licensed, and bonded contractors who had nearly eighty years of building experience between the two of them.

When I told people I had my annual physical no one said to me, “Hell, you shoulda called my neighbor. He runs marathons and reads lots of health magazines.” The same holds true when I remodeled my house: no one suggested that I would have been better off calling their cousin Elmer who almost earned an A in high school wood shop. But, when it comes to public policy, and more specifically the transit issue, people seem to have a difficult time discerning who the experts are in this debate.

I cannot count the times in the Trolley debate that someone has told me that I need to read Randall O’Toole. I was even recently chastised for not “keeping an open mind” because I don’t reference or pay attention to O’Toole. There is good reason for this: he is not a credible expert on transportation, or planning, the two subjects on which he speaks a great deal. Why do I say this?

It is not because I disagree with him. I disagree with Paul Krugman for the most part, but because Krugman has a Ph.D. in economics from MIT, writes for a respectable publication (the New York Times), and earned a Nobel Prize for his work in economics, we must take him seriously.

I don’t disregard O’Toole because he is an affiliate of the CATO Institute. I have a great deal of esteem for CATO. I carry my CATO pocket Constitution in my briefcase. I think CATO criminal justice policy planner Radley Balko is spot on. So my rejection of O’Toole has nothing to do with politics.

And it also isn’t entirely because O’Toole simply has no training in planning or transportation that I disregard his work. His official bio indicates that he “studied forestry” at the University of Oregon. I don’t know what that means, but typically when someone asks me about my educational background, I say I earned a masters in applied historical research. Now it isn’t a requirement that an expert be educated or trained in the field they study. Jane Jacobs and Lewis Mumford are two of the most influential urbanists of our time, yet neither were classically trained in architecture, planning, or urbanism.

The ideas of Mumford and Jacobs matter though because they are relevant and have been found to be valid and reliable commentaries on urban life. The same cannot be said of O’Toole’s work. I can generalize with a couple of examples.

O’Toole has made a career on criticizing Portland’s world-wide acclaimed public transportation system. This is akin to making the claim that “baseball isn’t popular.” One could easily argue that over a hundred countries don’t have organized baseball at all, and billions of people will go without watching the World Series. But claiming that Portland’s rail system is a failure is ridiculous on its face. We should no more consider that argument than my senseless baseball argument.

The real issue for not reading his work is the fact that it simply brings nothing to the debate. Like when you ask your two year old if he wants mac and cheese or chicken nuggets for lunch and he blurts out “BWANNANO,” O’Toole’s answer to any transportation question is, “buy a car.” There simply is no rail plan that passes his muster, so why bother?

If you really want to understand the different classes of rail, the application of different transportation solutions to problems, how to plan for transit, etc., I’d suggest referencing the works of a real expert. Maybe a guy like Dr. Vukan Vucich, a professor of transportation engineering at the University of Pennsylvania. You might reference one of his books such as Urban Transit: Operations, Planning, and Economics, which happens to be one of the best selling transportation texts in the world. Or you might read one of the 120 peer-reviewed articles on transportation planning that he’s published over his 50 year career in transportation planning.

I am no expert in transportation planning, but I can differentiate between Vucich and O’Toole as sources on the subject, and realize when someone is just yelling “BWANNANO” in my face.

David v. Goliath III: Blanchard v. Glaeser “No one lives in the West”

The road less travelled

According to his bio, “Ed Glaeser is the Fred and Eleanor Glimp Professor of Economics at Harvard, where he also serves as Director of the Taubman Center for State and Local Government and the Rappaport Institute for Greater Boston. He studies the economics of cities, and has written scores of urban issues, including the growth of cities, segregation, crime, and housing markets. He has been particularly interested in the role that geographic proximity can play in creating knowledge and innovation. He received his Ph.D. from the University of Chicago in 1992 and has been at Harvard since then.” An obviously brilliant and esteemed urban economist, you’ll see why I find his article “Put Transit Where the People Are” so bizarre. From the article:

MASS TRANSIT needs mass to work: enough people must live and work near train stations and bus stops. Densely populated Eastern Massachusetts should therefore be a prime location for public transportation. . . Despite the difficulties trains face in urban Boston, the Obama administration is pushing a new transportation agenda that promises high-speed rail in unlikely spots like Alabama and Oklahoma.

Dr. Glaeser continues:

So far the Obama administration’s transportation spending has gone overwhelmingly to highways in states with plenty of roads relative to people. Per capita federal transportation spending in the 10 densest states, which include Massachusetts, is less than half of spending in the 10 least-dense states. This policy follows an established formula, but it makes little sense. Congestion problems are most severe in the dense areas that get less funding.

Ok - that sounds plausible. Cities that are more dense should get more funding. But here he comes again with his misreading of the west:

Now the administration wants Americans to envision high-speed rail lines in the wide-open spaces of Texas.

Ok. So I think we get it. He is convinced that there is no one in the west, and that there isn’t sufficient density in the west to build rail. That’s his first argument. So let’s dissect that.

Unless legendary urban historian Carl Abbott is wrong, here is the reality: the west is plenty dense. In his latest book, How Cities Won the West: Four Centuries of Urban Change in Western North America, Abbott writes:

“Densities of western cities are surprisingly high. It remains surprising to many people that Los Angeles is more densely populated than Detroit, Cleveland, or Pittsburgh. There were forty-nine metro areas in the United States with one million or more people in 2000. Ten of the twelve most densely populated were western - Las Vegas, Los Angeles, San Diego, San Francisco, Phoenix, Sacramento, Seattle, Portland, San Antonio, and Salt Lake City.” Pg 229-230.

So we’ve busted Harvard/East Coast myth number one. But then there’s Glaeser’s contention that cars and planes are preferred over public transportation choices out west:

There is a reason why 48 percent of Amtrak’s passengers travel on only two routes: the Northeast Corridor and the Los Angeles-San Diego line. For travelers in the less-dense areas between the coasts, cars beat trains for modest distances and planes win over long hauls.

Glaeser of course leaves out the fact that many Amtrak lines in the west aren’t in operation any longer (could this be a reason the other lines get all the traffic?). A particular noteworthy example is the Pioneer Line that formerly ran from Seattle, through Portland, Boise, Salt Lake, Denver, Omaha, and Chicago. So the issue of the availability of western rail lines aside, Carl Abbott once again can enlighten us on the transportation preferences issue:

“Sacramento, Los Angeles, Denver, Dallas, Salt Lake City, and Phoenix built more limited rail systems after 1990, although some of them continue to expand (as in Denver and Phoenix). One consequence is that four cities of the western U.S. ranked in the nation’s top ten for percentage of journey-to-work trips made by public transit, with San Francisco/Oakland comparable to Washington D.C., Honolulu comparable to Philadelphia, and Seattle and Portland comparable to Pittsburgh.” pg 225

So I think we’ve scuttled that argument. Funny, though, Glaeser wasn’t the only Harvard guy recently to write such an article. Robert Samuelson wrote one very similar not long after, decrying the proposed building of a rail corridor from Houston to New Orleans where no one lives (Houston is the fourth largest city in the United States, and the “Texas Triangle” of Houston, Dallas, and San Antonio accounts for 7% of U.S. GDP). But recall that only a minuscule percentage of Harvard grads ever take jobs out west, so perhaps these fellas have never been out here amongst the cowboys, Indians, and sagebrush.

There are so many issues one could cover here. Glaeser admits that more spending won’t relieve congestion in the Eastern corridors, yet calls for more spending in those corridors. Samuelson also claims that there is no economic gain to be had from building rail which is completely unbelievable because U.S. history since the 1850’s cannot even be understood without contemplating the development of the railroad.

But just so all you Harvard guys are clear: yes - there are folks out west. Really. To close with a last fact from Carl Abbott:

“In the 2000 census of the United States, western metropolitan areas took eight of the top twenty slots. These eight super-cities - Los Angeles, the San Francisco Bay metropolis, Dallas/Fort Worth, Houston, Seattle, Phoenix, San Antonio and Denver - all had more than two million residents.” pg 9

And that, my dear Harvard friends, is like your own motto says, “veritas.”

David v. Goliath II: Blanchard v. Nelson on growth along the Snake River Plain

At the NewWest.net planning conference in June of this year, Professor Arthur (Chris) Nelson of the University of Utah raised some eyebrows when he outlined his predictions for the U.S. housing market over the coming decades, and his thoughts on what that meant for Idaho.

USC Professor Richard Green openly disagreed with Nelson’s projections as did BoDo developer Mark Rivers. The Calculated Risk blog also had some critiques, but nothing major.

Nelson’s analysis indicated that Idaho’s population would fill in along the Snake River Plain from it’s western edge in Ontario, OR, over to the eastern side of Idaho ending at Rexburg. For me it’s not how many people will move here, but where they will actually settle. Though Nelson believes growth will fill in along the I-84 corridor, evidence seems to contradict him indicating that growth will instead occur between the Wasatch Front, and move north to Rexburg - skipping the Boise Valley all together. There are good reasons for this.

Wealth is already leaving the Boise Valley for eastern Idaho and the Wasatch Front.

IRS data from 2006 and 2007 show positive migration to Ada County within Idaho. However, those migrating to Ada County from other parts of the state had average adjusted gross incomes of $33,337 annually, while those leaving Ada County for other parts of the state had annual incomes of $40,582. In total, residents worth $139 million moved to Ada County, and residents worth a total of $154 million moved out. That is a loss of $15 million in gross income for Ada County, to other parts of Idaho.

Additionally, in that same period, half of the top ten cities to which Boiseans moved were along the I-15 corridor with Provo, UT ranking first; Salt Lake City (2); Idaho Falls (5); Ogden, UT (7); and Pocatello (8). The more stable economic climate of eastern Idaho and Utah is but one reason why Boiseans are leaving.

There are strong sociocultural linkages between eastern Idaho and Utah.

It used to be said that Idaho had two capitals: Spokane, and Salt Lake City. Indeed, Coeur D’ Alene, ID is part of a two-state metropolitan statistical area (MSA) that includes Spokane and Coeur D’ Alene, and the Logan, UT MSA includes counties in southern Idaho. But physical proximity is not the only connection. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints exudes a strong cultural presence along the Wasatch Front and Eastern Idaho. With the presence of the new Temple in Rexburg and a growing BYU-Idaho campus there as well, the cultural linkages between eastern Idaho and Utah are only getting stronger.

Gaps in the transportation system separate the Boise Valley from eastern Idaho, and eastern Idaho from Utah. The gap between Utah and eastern Idaho, however, is shrinking more quickly.

Traffic patterns along Idaho’s highway system (seen below) show a consistent level of traffic between Ontario, OR and Heyburn, ID. Traffic drops off significantly, though, between Heyburn and American Falls. Traffic flows again pick up significantly between American Falls and Rexburg.

Lower traffic counts also show up on I-84 heading south out of Heyburn, and on I-15 heading south out of Pocatello, much like the reduced counts between Heyburn and American Falls. In this day and age of regional employment exchange will eastern Idaho ultimately align itself along I-84, or I-15?

If America’s foremost planners with the America2050 project have their way, the Pioneer rail line - which runs from Seattle to Chicago by way of Boise and Salt Lake City - will one day run again. But that line also contains another important spur: the link from Salt Lake City to Pocatello. As gas prices rise, airlines will offer fewer flights meaning Boise will inevitably end up with less air service in favor of airlines servicing larger airports such as Salt Lake and Denver. The rail link between Salt Lake and Pocatello, which also mirrors the west coast’s chief north-south land route between Mexico and Canada (CANAMEX) will exert strong pressure on the region to further develop in a north-south manner, and not throughout the Snake River Plain.

With white-collar job growth flat or shrinking in the Boise Valley and the economy in eastern Idaho more stable, strong sociocultural linkages between eastern Idaho and Utah, and a developing transportation network between eastern Idaho and Utah, evidence seems to suggest that the north-south corridor along I-15, rather than the east-west corridor along I-84 seems better poised for long-term economic and population growth. Alas, only time will tell.

Where Harvard grads fear to tread

Few Harvard grads are moving west

Saw this report a week or so ago and thought it interesting. As you can very nearly see from the infographic above, only California really got a significant number of grads from the last Harvard class. 13% of Harvard 2009 grads moved to California for work or grad school. Another 2.3% moved to other places in the West. The largest share of grads stayed right there in the Northeast Megaregion. What’s up with the Brahmins? They don’t imbue a sense of adventure among Harvard students anymore?

Next Cities report: Boise #8 for young, talented workers

I am sure the Boise Young Professionals hopes this is true, but again, I find myself with questions after reading the latest national report. This one, from Next Cities™ lists the City of Boise as the eighth hottest midsize city for young, talented workers. Here’s the ranking of midsize cities:

Next Cities list of the 8 hottest midsize cities for young, talented workers

I like this organization - Next Cities. But again, its methodology is proprietary so we have no way to review the data it used. We can tell right away though that there are some obvious questions with the way it weights things. For example, San Francisco ranks #1 on the megacities list. Next Generation Consulting says that cost of living is the highest weighted index in its algorithm, yet San Francisco has one of the highest costs of living in the U.S., if not the world. So I am not sure how they achieve this rating.

Organizing this by population also seems odd. Boise compares with Atlanta, Orlando, and St. Paul. Some other U.S. Census delineation might be more helpful.

The matrix used by Next Cities includes cost of living; earning; vitality; after hours; learning; around town; and social capital. Here’s what I’d say about Boise.

Cost of living Obviously we’d score high here. Cost of living, even close to town is really cheap, as are utilities. Food cost is low, gas is a little high usually. Overall - pretty good comparatively.

Earning Terrible. Wages here are low, low, low. Everyone knows it. Another complicating issue with the wage issue is that if you come here and don’t like your high paying white collar professional services job, or engineering position, a lateral move to a like firm is a longshot since the economic base here is neither wide nor deep.

Vitality For Next Cities, this means clean air and water, overall health of the resident, and green space. I’d say we do pretty well here except that we are barely within federal guidelines for air quality standards so again, that must not be weighted very highly in the vitality index.

After Hours This includes not only clubs and what not, but other recreational activities. We obviously score high on the natural side of things, but even though we have a nice, clean, safe downtown that is easy to get around anyone coming from a bigger city would wish we had a little more going on. Still, I’d say we’re not too bad overall.

Learning This is another composite index based on educational opportunities, free WiFi and public library use. Here we are really, really low. The Boise Valley is only now opening its first community college, and satellite libraries. The downtown library is small and overused for its size, but in citizen surveys, building new libraries has never been a high priority.

Around town Compared to larger cities, our commute times are pretty good as long as you don’t live west of Boise. Our airport serves a fairly narrow regional market, and public transportation here is not well funded.

Social Capital Here is where things get really murky. From the Next Cities website: “This index accounts for how open, safe, and accessible your city is to all people. It includes measures of diversity, crime rates, voter participation rates, and the percentage of women and minority-owned businesses.” This sounds like some kind of Richard Florida like amalgam, and I am not so certain that this is useful. It is the lowest weighted variable.

I have little doubt that this report is methodologically rigorous (coming from Madison, whose university is famous for quantitative rigor), and that the results are valid - I just don’t think they are completely reliable as presented. It is an interesting report, however, and there are things we can learn from it, and things we can’t.

Things we CAN’T learn:

• Where we stack up against ALL cities in the U.S. and the world. As the report itself notes, this demographic appears to pick where they want to live, then picks a job. The research does not indicate that this demographic chooses a place to live based on city size, so the organization of the report by city size doesn’t yield any usable conclusions.
• The specific strengths and weaknesses of each city on each index.
• Where each city is in relation to its regional competitors. For instance, where is the City of Boise in relation to the cities to which it is losing population (Provo, Salt Lake, Portland, Seattle), and the cities from which it is gaining population (Los Angeles, Riverside, Phoenix, Sacramento), and is this research relevant to those population flows.

Things we CAN learn:

• According to this research, workers in this demographic make employment choices based upon these indices, in order. So, if Boise wants to attract this kind of talent focusing on cost if living is the most important factor, creating higher paying jobs is the second most important thing. Since we already have a low cost of living here, the primary task of economic developers should be creating higher wage jobs. This isn’t new news. The debate is what is the best strategy for creating higher paying jobs.
• Where Boise ranks against a set of cities that in at least one measure (population) are alike. This is helpful in the sense that it gives some insight into how well other cities have done at creating conditions favorable to attracting workers of this demographic, and may provide models for us to emulate.

Next Generation Consulting is a great group that has excellent insight into how cities develop human capital. We could perhaps learn a lot more with a more detailed report on our own region so we could peel back the layers of the onion and see what our real strengths and weaknesses are. This report though doesn’t give economic developers any real actionable information.