Continued from front page

Joining in the conversation were a number of experts who represented a broad spectrum of economic viewpoints:

Speaking first, John Schneider thanked the Innovation Institute for hosting such a dialogue. He said there were stark differences between Greater Boston and the 11 other major cities studied in the MassINC report. He identified the two primary areas to focus upon to change the economic health of these “Gateway” cities: education—effective K-12 education, adult education and English-language classes—and workforce development.

David Soule explained the origins of his report, trying to understand the reasons why there had been “disinvestment” in smaller Massachusetts cities. The four-year project focused on “deal breakers” that had become barriers to development. He identified the need to change the outside perception of these cities, as well as the need for the cities to engage with a “sophisticated investment partner,” as the key steps moving forward.

Aaron Gorstein focused on housing, and praised the Patrick Administration’s initial steps to address foreclosure issues and revitalize public housing. He said that strategic policy about reclaiming buildings needed to be an important element in any strategy. In many core cities, renovation may cost more than the resale of a building, and community planning assistance, market analysis and technical expertise offered by the state could prove very helpful in expanding home ownership.

Jim Stergios noted that each of the four reports had a very different perspective, and said that the focus of the debate had seemed to shift from social policy to economic development. He said that at the root of the issue for what he termed “middle cities” was a loss of function and purpose, which was often compounded by aging infrastructure and a lack of leadership. Stergios proposed that the state consider “benchmarking” investments in order to provide incentives for improvement. He also said the emphasis needed to be on improving public safety and education before a middle city could expect to attract private sector investment.

In the discussion that followed, members of the Governing Board explored how benchmarking of investments could be pursued without worsening already dire circumstances, or where centralized support for cities would create an unhealthy dependence.

Further, there was concern voiced that overcoming a lack of leadership and an attitude of failure were just as crucial as new investments. Others voiced the need for higher educational institutions to play a key collaborative role in future efforts.

Chris Gabrieli, invited by Chair Don Dubendorf to engage in the conversation, said that he felt it was too early for him to make large claims. Major hurdles to overcome, he said, included basic good government tasks: balancing the books, establishing transparent structures of governance, and improving the school systems. He noted that there was very little awareness and knowledge in Eastern Massachusetts about the rest of the state.

Mitchell Adams, Executive Director of the Massachusetts Technology Collaborative, said that big state investments, such as the development of a medical school in Worcester, can make a significant difference over a long period of time.

Ranch Kimball, the state’s former secretary for economic development, said that it would be very hard for these cities to aspire to become like Cambridge or Boston, and it was more realistic for them to identify their strengths to establish a base upon which to grow.