Since the initial presentation in April, I’ve had the chance to discuss my plan with economic development officials from Roanoke City, Roanoke County, as well as the leadership of the Regional Partnership and the Roanoke Regional Chamber of Commerce. On Monday, I had the opportunity to share my proposal at a joint meeting of the Economic Development Authority and the City Council. I’m working to arrange a meeting later this month that will allow all of us to discuss the concept in greater detail and determine the feasibility of the plan.

In preparation for that meeting, I would like to get as much input as possible from my readers. Please take a few moments to look over the following plan summary, and share your thoughts in the comments. I need your ideas, suggestions and constructive criticisms.

Introduction

In his book, The Rise of The Creative Class, regional economic development expert Richard Florida stresses the point that creative class workers are unlikely to migrate to an area on the basis of a single job opportunity. Instead, they seek out those localities that provide access to the widest range of career possibilities. The regions that are most successful in attracting the creative class are the ones that offer the greatest variety of Plan B career alternatives. With the exception of the healthcare sector, the Roanoke Valley simply does not provide the range of opportunities needed to attract creative class professionals in numbers required to sustain a critical mass.

The changing nature of the relationship between employers and employees adds to the challenges we face in attracting and retaining members of the creative class. Workers in virtually all fields change jobs more frequently, and the expectation of job security has become an antiquated notion. This lack of security makes the availability of alternative employment options all the more important in our efforts to create a more robust regional economy.

In addition to frequent job changes, current trends indicate that younger workers will actually change career fields between three and seven times. Many of these changes will be involuntary, resulting from downsizing or obsolescence. In between jobs, an increasing number of creative class professionals will find it necessary to work as independent consultants or freelance agents on a temporary basis. This will be especially true during periods of declining economic activity such as we are currently experiencing.

While some of these people will ultimately decide to stick with consulting work for the lifestyle advantages it offers, the majority will continue to prefer the security of full-time employment. These people will move in and out of the freelance market on as needed basis at different times in their careers. The challenges they face will be daunting, and the resources available to assist them are limited. By providing a mechanism to assist these independent consultants in their efforts to connect with potential clients or employers, the Roanoke region could benefit in many ways.

The following plan proposes a public/private partnership between the City of Roanoke, Roanoke County, local business and economic development organizations, and the consultants and freelance professionals living and working in the Roanoke Valley. The ultimate objectives would be to prevent the outward migration of skilled professionals from the area due to job loss or lack of opportunities, and to make the Roanoke region a more appealing career destination for creative class professionals seeking to relocate.

Challenges Faced By Freelance Professionals

We tend to think of freelancers as being engaged primarily in fields such as journalism or graphic design, but the realty is that independent consultants can be found in virtually every profession. Regardless of their occupation, they face a wide variety of challenges. The knowledge and skills required to perform their primary job functions are only a fraction of what they need to become successful independent practitioners. In addition to a mastery of their billable skills, they must also be adept at marketing, self-promotion, networking, bookkeeping, collections, and more. Lack of these secondary skills is a major obstacle to success for most independent professionals.

Limited financial resources are also a major problem. People tend to enter the freelance market after the loss of a job, and they often lack the start-up capital required to equip an office or to advertise their services. As a result, many would-be consultants simply give up before they ever get started. Others remain underemployed for extended periods.

The market for connecting independent professionals with potential clients is highly inefficient. Not only do the majority of consultants lack the talent and resources to promote themselves effectively, but clients in need of freelance services often have no idea where to find qualified practitioners. Developing a mechanism to streamline this connection process would provide substantial benefits to the regional economy.

Roanoke Regional Freelance Cooperative Plan

This plan envision a public/private partnership whereby the City of Roanoke, Roanoke County, and a variety of local business and economic development organizations would assist in the creation of a central clearinghouse for local freelance talent. The key elements of the proposal are as follows:

• Marketing Co-Op: Freelance professionals typically have very limited resources for self-promotion. The plan calls for the creation of a marketing cooperative that would allow members to combine their resources in a manner that will draw significant attention to the organization. The objective would be to create awareness of the co-op as a one stop source for regional freelance talent. Whether a business was in need of an IT consultant, a web designer, a human resources professional, or a technical writer, co-op members could achieve first in mind position through their combined marketing efforts.
• Online Job Board: A private internet job board would be the primary method of matching co-op members with potential clients. Modeled after the Elance.com concept, clients could post project specifications and search for qualified talent, while freelancers could find projects that fit their skill sets and submit proposals for work. The site would contain a complete directory of co-op members organized by professional specialty, along with portfolio pages that would allow members to demonstrate their expertise.
• Shared Meeting Space: Freelance professionals sometimes face a credibility challenge brought on by the fact that most work out of home offices. This is not a problem under ordinary circumstances, but client meetings and group presentations are a different story. A coffee shop is not the ideal venue for a business meeting. This plan calls for the creation of a small shared office suite that would be available to co-op members on an as needed basis. The space would consist of a conference room, one or two private meeting rooms, and a small number of temporary workspaces.
• Structured Networking: Regularly scheduled networking events for co-op members would be an integral part of the program. These networking events will provide members with the opportunity to exchange leads and form collaborative partnerships to take on larger projects.
• Director: The cooperative would have one full-time employee to serve as Executive Director. This person would handle the day-to-day administration of the co-op, and serve as the liaison with the local business community. Major responsibilities would include membership recruiting and promoting awareness of the resources available to businesses in the Roanoke region.
• Governance: The group would be governed by an elected board composed of co-op members. In addition to this governing body, a marketing committee would be responsible for the creation and execution of a comprehensive advertising and marketing strategy for the group.

Benefits To The Freelance Community

• Creating a network of independent professionals in a variety of fields will ultimately lead to the formation of partnerships to take on projects that are beyond the capability of a single practitioner. Some of these joint ventures will dissolve as soon as the project is completed, while others are likely to form the basis for new business start-ups.
• The publicity generated by the joint marketing efforts will ultimately give co-op members exposure and access to clients beyond the Roanoke Valley.
• Participation in the co-op would allow temporary freelancers seeking full-time employment the opportunity to test-drive potential employers.
• Sufficient membership in the co-op will allow participants to pool their resources to qualify for group health and other benefits that are typically beyond the reach of most freelance professionals.

Benefits To The Business Community

• Local businesses will be exposed to a wide range of professional services that many were previously unaware of. This will be particularly beneficial to small businesses, many of which never consider the possibility of utilizing freelance practitioners.
• Taking on new employees is a risk for any business, regardless of the current state of the economy. This plan would allow employers the opportunity to test drive potential employees before hiring.
• Freelance professionals typically charge hourly rates that are several times higher than the cost of a full-time employee to perform the same task. This is necessary to make up for the large amount of non-billable time they must spend on promotion and prospecting. Membership in the marketing co-op will allow members to dedicate more time to billable activities, and to offer their services at reduced hourly rates. Clients will obviously benefit by having access to a wider range of services at a lower cost.

Benefits To The Region

• The freelance co-op will serve as an incubator of sorts to generate new business ventures.
• The co-op can help to reduce the number of creative class professionals who leave the region due to lost jobs or lack of opportunity.
• New businesses will be attracted to the Roanoke Valley by the availability of a wide range of affordable freelance talent. This will be particularly attractive to start-ups that lack the resources to hire full-time employees.
• The co-op will help to reduce the number of independent professionals operating in the shadows without proper licensing.
• The plan can help the Roanoke Valley to become a haven for freelance professionals, and it can provide the necessary Plan B career alternative required to attract creative class professionals from other regions.

Financial Projections

Based on very rough back of the envelope calculations, the startup cost for the project would be in the range of $100,000.00 to $175,000.00. This includes creation of the website, leasehold improvements, furnishings and equipment, Director’s salary, and a substantial initial advertising blitz.

Operating costs would consist mainly of advertising and marketing expenses, Director’s salary, and rent. Based on very rough initial calculations, annual operating costs would range from $125,000.00 to $200,000.00. While some annual subsidies may be required in the form of grants, it is anticipated that the bulk of the operating costs will be paid with membership dues after the initial start-up period.

The city has once again engaged an out of town consulting group, but this time it looks like things might be different. The Creative Class Group is led by noted regional economic development expert Richard Florida. They have designed the Creative Communities Leadership Program which uses a proven framework for the development of regional prosperity based on Talent, Tolerance, Technology, and Territorial Assets.

What sets this apart from the failed programs of the past is that the vision comes from within the community. Facilitators from the Creative Class Group will provide the operational framework, but the real work will be done by a group of 30 members of the community acting as Creative Connectors. According to Stuart Mease, what makes this different is that the consultants recommendations represent the beginning of a process rather than the end.

Roanoke is one of three cities chosen to participate in the CCLP this year, along with Bloomington, IL and Vancouver, BC. Past participants have included Tacoma, WA; El Paso, TX; Tallahassee, FL; Charlotte, NC; Duluth, MN; and Dayton, OH. Some of the projects developed as a result of the program include local social networking websites, green business councils, and creative business incubators.

According to the city website, “the Creative Connectors will represent a diverse team of community leaders through their background, industry, age, race, orientation, and experience. The team’s task will involve working with the community to build a more authentic and prosperous region through the creation of sustainable projects. Furthermore, this group will encourage the entire community to support these projects, which will be aimed at fostering a creative base for Roanoke.”

The deadline for applications to participate in the program as a Creative Connector is February 23rd. As of this morning, approximately 70 applications have been submitted. According to Mease, the city hopes to announce the names of the 30 selected participants sometime during the first week in March. The candidates will be chosen by a panel of city officials along with input from members of the local education and business communities.

If you are interested in participating in the program, and you can commit 4 to 5 hours per week over the next 12 months, please submit an online application available here. Please note that participation is not limited to the 30 chosen to be creative connectors. While those people are expected to be the driving force behind the program, Mease anticipates that there will be opportunities for hundreds of people to get involved in the various programs as they develop over the next year.

RELATED POST

My Application To Be A Creative Connector

For decades, our federal government has made a concerted effort to increase the ranks of homeowners. Our current tax policies place a punitive burden on those individuals and families who choose to rent rather than own a home. Many analysts trace the roots of our current problems directly to government policies favoring home ownership. The Community Reinvestment Act of 1977 was one of several laws passed to encourage lending in low income neighborhoods that eventually led to a relaxation of lending standards for all borrowers.

During his presidency, George W. Bush frequently spoke of the benefits of an ownership society. He saw home ownership as a key element of upward mobility, providing individuals and families the opportunity to gain a solid financial footing through equity growth. Unfortunately, the unintended consequences of our tax policies often produce the opposite effect. Many Americans today view their homes as a source of short-term revolving credit, and their mortgage balances actually increase over time. Rather than a source of wealth, the home becomes an ever increasing debt burden.

In spite of all the government programs aimed at increasing home ownership, there has never been a sufficient explanation as to why it is necessarily beneficial from a societal standpoint. Rather than promoting the accumulation of wealth, government subsidies in the form of preferential tax treatment actually encourage people to live beyond their means. We spend more on housing than we would otherwise, and thus have less to spend on other priorities. This over spending on housing is one of the key factors that led to the current crisis, and to an economy wide over investment in non-productive capital assets.

Proponents of home ownership will claim that it leads to more stable neighborhoods with higher property values, lower crime, and better schools. These people operate on the assumption that owners are more likely than renters to maintain their properties, and to take an interest in the well being of their communities. I maintain that this basic assumption is flawed. All you have to do is visit a major city where a large portion of the population are long-term renters to see that this argument does not hold water.

There is nothing magical about home ownership that turns people into responsible citizens, and the current economic downturn has provided us with plenty of evidence to demonstrate this fact. A significant number of homeowners facing foreclosure today are not in trouble because they have lost jobs or had adjustable rate mortgages. Many have simply stopped making payments because the value of their homes has declined.

Regardless of the perceived benefits of home ownership, there is no doubt that there is also a very real drawback. Owning a home during challenging economic times ties us to a particular place and limits our economic mobility. While the unemployment rate for the nation stands at 7.6%, the loss of jobs has not been evenly distributed. While no place has been entirely immune to the downturn, some areas have been much harder hit than others. In December, the unemployment rate in Detroit was 21%.

The long-term prospects for people living in the hardest hit areas are bleak. When the broader economy does recover, rust-belt cities like Detroit are likely to be passed over. Rather than being able to take advantage of opportunities elsewhere, homeowners in these areas will be chained to an economy in perpetual decline. Their only option will be to simply walk away from homes they cannot sell for any price.

Mobility of the labor force is a vital ingredient for a healthy economy. The current crisis has already led to many government reforms, and we will likely see many more before it is over. While it wouldn’t end our current problems, eliminating the massive tax preferences for homeowners would provide greater freedom of choice and mobility in the future.

The reality is that Roanoke rarely suffers to the same extent as the rest of the nation when times are bad. It’s as if we are somehow immune to the bust portion of the typical boom and bust cycle. While many might view this as a positive aspect of life in the Valley, unfortunately, it is only half of the story. Through our deep seated resistance to change, we have also made ourselves immune to the boom.

Among certain groups in the Roanoke Valley, opposition to any proposed change is the default position. Whether it’s building a new art museum, demolishing an obsolete stadium, or renovating the Market Building, a sizable portion of the population will always protest, driven as much by reflex as by reason. Unless we can somehow overcome this obsession with preserving the status quo, we will continue to miss out on opportunities for economic growth.

I left Roanoke in 1982 and set off in search of opportunities that were not available locally. I lived in several major metropolitan areas during this time including, Richmond, Charlotte and Washington, DC. I witnessed first-hand the benefits and the drawbacks of the explosive growth taking place in these areas. I also lived in Buffalo, New York, and saw the devastating effects of a local economy in decline.

When I returned to Roanoke in 2002, I was amazed to see that virtually nothing had changed. It was if the entire valley had been encapsulated in a drop of amber and fossilized. Roanoke in 2002 was virtually indistinguishable from Roanoke in 1982. Those people whose mission in life is to keep things “just so” probably viewed that as a good thing. To everyone else, it meant 2 decades of lost opportunity.

The geographic realities of our location will always be a limiting factor in our growth. The kind of runaway sprawl found in places like Richmond and Charlotte is simply not possible here unless we figure out a way to literally move mountains. On the other hand, the agonizing decline experienced by cities like Buffalo is a distinct possibility. If you need examples closer to home, look no further than Huntington or Charleston to see what we might become if we refuse to embrace the future.

The people who are the most vocal opponents of change in the valley are often the same ones who bemoan the fact that their children and grand-children are forced to look elsewhere for employment opportunities. They still blame the railroad for the lack of jobs, and would prefer to wallow in the past than to consider the needs of future generations. Unfortunately we find these people in all walks of life, from the factory floor to the mayor’s office.

Those of us who believe that developing a vibrant and diverse economy in the Roanoke Valley is an urgent priority need to make our voices heard. In the introduction to his book, The Rise of The Creative Class, Richard Florida speaks about the need to “squelch the squelchers”. We need to drown out the voices of those who stand for nothing but oppose everything. We need to convince our fellow Roanokers that change is the price of opportunity. We must make it clear that economic growth cannot occur in a state of suspended animation. The future is inevitable. We can either embrace it and reap the benefits, or ignore it and continue to fall behind.

The Redevelopment & Housing Authority has blamed the slowdown in the housing market for the work stoppage, and they have continued to insist that work will start again as soon as the existing inventory of completed homes is sold. The problem is that they started without the resources necessary to finance the project, and now they are entirely dependent on the sale proceeds from one house to pay for the renovations on the next one. This leaves the homeowners who have already bought into the project trapped in an impossible situation. Unfortunately, it is a situation that the city can simply walk away from while the homeowners are left holding the bag.

The project consists of 17 houses, five of which have already been completed and sold, and there are two other finished houses available for sale. The building permits for the other 10 houses in the project have expired, and no work has taken place on the site since December of 2007. For all intents and purposes, the effort has been abandoned by the RRHA.

There are two fundamental issues that will prevent the project from ever moving forward unless the city is willing to take a dramatically different course. Without a firm commitment to complete the project in a reasonable period of time, no buyer in their right mind is going to be willing to purchase either of the remaining finished houses. The more serious problem is that even if someone were foolish enough to want one of these homes, no mortgage lender is going to take a chance. The uncertainty surrounding the completion of project means that the homes have essentially no collateral value. Without willing lenders, the project will never move forward.

There are several ways that the city could rectify the problem and get the project moving again. One would be to provide the RRHA with the funds necessary to complete the remaining 10 homes, and the city could recoup the investment once the houses are sold. Another option would be to simply give the remaining properties to a private developer with the resources to complete the project in strict accordance with the original plans. If no developer is willing to take on the entire project, the properties could be given on an individual basis to qualified homeowners willing to abide by the project specifications. In this case, the city would also need to provide loan guarantees to ensure that mortgage lenders would be willing to participate in the project.

The 10 unrestored houses have been stripped of their protective vinyl siding, and their condition is continuing to deteriorate. The longer the city waits to take action, the more it will ultimately cost to bring these homes back to life. Any of the above actions would result in a satisfactory outcome for the current homeowners, and would provide the kind of catalyst for neighborhood revitalization that was the original purpose of the project. Failure to do anything would constitute an act of fraud.

All of these are positive developments, but there are still two major blighting influences that must be addressed if we hope for a complete transformation. The Heironimus Building and the Patrick Henry Hotel both cast desolate shadows over Jefferson Street, and their looming presence discourages the revitalization of neighboring structures. Finding creative new purposes for these obsolete buildings would serve as a catalyst to shift the transformation of downtown Roanoke into high gear.

Rising energy costs and increasing concern over environmental issues will eventually bring about dramatic changes in where we choose to live and work. We’re already experiencing a significant increase in the number of people living in downtown Roanoke, and the transformation of former commercial buildings into apartments and condos has been an essential element of the emerging downtown renaissance.

Mounting evidence suggests that more people are becoming interested in living in close proximity to their workplaces. The Heironimus and Patrick Henry buildings represent a tremendous opportunity to take the next logical step in the process by allowing people to live and work under the same roof. Transforming either or both of these buildings into a combination of retail, professional and residential space would provide a tremendous boost to the pace of downtown revitalization.

Our mayor recently criticized the proposal to renovate the Market Building for being too much like a grocery store. What he failed to consider is that a grocery store is a vital amenity for people living downtown. If we hope for the trend to continue, the day to day needs of downtown residents must be taken into consideration. It doesn’t make sense to live within walking distance of work if you still have to drive to the suburbs to buy groceries. The ground floor of the Heironimus building would be a perfect location for a small grocery store.

There are two basic approaches that can be used when creating live and work spaces, depending on the limitations presented by the existing building. The simplest method would be to designate certain floors as office space and others as residential. For people who choose to live and work in the same building, the daily commute would consist of an elevator ride. The Patrick Henry building would probably be well suited to this sort of adaptive reuse.

The second approach would be to combine home and office in loft-like spaces where the daily commute would involve nothing more than walking from one room to the next. This would be an ideal setup for architects, designers, or other creative professionals. There would need to be limitations on the types of activities allowed to prevent excessive noise or traffic from disturbing other tenants, but a wide variety of uses could be permissible. This type of adaptive reuse would also contribute greatly to what councilman Trinkle refers to as “the vibe”, which Roanoke so desperately needs to generate.

The Heironimus building is already owned by a private developer who appears to have run out of ideas for what to do with it. The Patrick Henry has been in a state of limbo since it was purchased by an investment group in 1990. The city may have an opportunity to acquire the building if the owners do not make good on past due property tax obligations before the end of the year. While I don’t believe that the city should be directly involved in the redevelopment of either of these buildings, city officials can lead the way with sensible incentives and creative variances for zoning and building use.

Earlier today, I submitted an application for a vacant seat on the Economic Development Authority. I’ve never had an interest in politics, and frankly don’t have much patience for the process, but I believe our city is in desperate need of new ideas and fresh thinking. It remains to be seen whether our newly composed city council will actually appoint someone who has been highly critical of past council actions, but there is only one way to find out. Stay tuned here to see what happens.

The City of Roanoke suffers from a severe case of multiple personality disorder when it comes to economic development issues. We hear a great deal of talk about the need for the city to be hip, cool and green in order to attract young professionals, while at the same time we’re talking about sacrificing open space at Countryside for the purpose of creating more suburban sprawl. Nothing could be farther from hip, cool or green than another vinyl clad housing development where residents would rely on their automobiles for even the briefest errand.

One of the fundamental principles of modern urban planning is the discouragement of suburban sprawl in favor of revitalization of older neighborhoods closer to the city center. Vibrant neighborhoods with diverse populations, and easy access to a wide variety of urban amenities, will be far more appealing to the young professional crowd than generic suburban developments lacking in style or sense of place.

For decades, the Old Southwest neighborhood has teetered on the brink of revitalization or further decline. While a number of preservation enthusiasts have done an admirable job of bringing historic homes back to life, the area has never achieved the critical mass required to make it a viable choice for those who lack the urban pioneer spirit. As long as the effort remains limited to one house at a time, the majority of potential home buyers will be reluctant to invest in an uncertain proposition.

The project at Miller’s Hill is a great example of the kind of effort that is needed to jumpstart the revitalization of Old Southwest. Instead of one house at a time, the idea is to renovate an entire block which would serve as a catalyst for further revitalization efforts throughout the surrounding area. Unfortunately, the project appears to have been abandoned by the city as a result of the slowdown in the housing market. This is an incredibly short-sighted decision, and a blatant betrayal of the people who have already bought into the project.

In 2005, the Roanoke Housing and Redevelopment Authority was presented with the unique opportunity to acquire 17 of the 20 houses on the 400 block of Day Avenue. The previous owner agreed to transfer the houses to the city in exchange for assumption of $344,400.00 in outstanding debts on the properties. The plan was to preserve the architectural integrity of these homes while upgrading them with modern conveniences and mechanical systems. The stated purpose at the time was to “help reknit the fabric of the neighborhood.”

Since the project began, seven of the 17 homes have been renovated, and five have sold for prices ranging from $270,000.00 to $383,000.00. The two other completed homes are currently listed for sale at $317,500.00 and $354,500.00. The last recorded sale took place in June of 2007, and there has been virtually no activity on the site since that time. The other 10 houses are simply boarded up and continuing to deteriorate, and all outstanding building permits on the project have expired. This leaves five homeowners holding the bag while the value of their property is reduced to virtually nothing by the surrounding blight.

City officials have cited conditions in the overall real estate market as the reason behind the work stoppage. If encouraging downtown living is important enough to justify a gift of $880,000.00 to the developers of the Hancock Building, then there should be no excuse for the abandonment of this project.

Property tax incentives are available to the purchasers of these homes, but these incentives are not sufficient to lure buyers back to the project. Without a firm commitment by the city to complete the renovations as originally promised, no sane buyer is going to invest $300,000.00 or more in one of these homes. Given the current situation in the mortgage market, no lender would take the risk either. The only solution is for the city to live up to its commitment and complete the renovation work on the remaining houses. The carrying costs might be higher than originally planned, but the long-term benefits will certainly outweigh the price.

Interestingly, there has been virtually no public outcry from the Miller’s Hill property owners. Unlike the folks at Countryside, they have not lobbied aggressively for the preservation of their property values. The reality is that they have a much stronger case against the city than the more vocal Countryside residents.

The Countryside Neighborhood Alliance is composed primarily of residents of a patio home development built between 1999 and 2002. The current assessed values of these homes range from roughly $170,000.00 to $220,000.00. They purchased their homes from a private developer with no promise or commitment that the golf course would remain in operation. While the course does enhance the value of their properties, additional development on the site will not have a devastating effect on those values. It should also be noted that the value of these properties is not wildly out of line with those in the surrounding area, or with similar homes in neighborhoods without a golf course.

Residents of Miller’s Hill, on the other hand, purchased their homes with a firm commitment from the city the project would be completed in accordance with a strict plan. Take a look at the Miller’s Hill website to get an idea of the lifestyle that residents were led to expect. What they have instead are beautifully renovated homes rendered unsalable by the surrounding abandoned properties.

It is the responsibility of our elected leaders to make wise decisions when it comes to allocating our limited resources, and to spend our money on projects that will produce the greatest benefit to the greatest number of citizens. Revitalizing our decaying older neighborhoods will have a far more positive impact on the city than owning a golf course for the enjoyment of a few. The $4 million currently tied up in the Countryside fiasco would be more than enough to complete the Miller’s Hill project, and the city would get its money back when the houses are eventually sold.

When U.S. manufacturers first began exporting jobs to countries like China, the relatively low price of oil made it economically feasible to transport finished goods across the Pacific. Even with the cost of shipping, companies could still enjoy a substantial savings based on the labor cost alone. As transportation becomes more expensive, that equation no longer balances. Since the start of the decade, the cost of shipping a standard container from China has tripled, and there is every reason to believe that the price will continue to rise. When the increased cost of shipping finally outweighs the labor savings, the logical decision for U.S. based manufactures will be to bring jobs back home.

This is not to say that every lost manufacturing job will return to American soil, or that companies will come back to the same cities and towns they left behind. As long as they are plagued by high taxes, onerous regulations, and hostile labor unions, the rustbelt states will continue to suffer job losses. On the other hand, business friendly, right-to-work states like Virginia stand to benefit. This is good news for a region that has lost thousands of manufacturing jobs in the textile and furniture industries. It also highlights the need for increased cooperation among our local and regional governments.

With rising oil prices, the cost of transporting raw materials and finished goods is going to play an increasingly important role in determining the location of new manufacturing facilities, and first consideration will be given to sites with ready access to transportation infrastructure. The cost advantage of shipping products by rail will also increase. All of this means that the need for an intermodal freight facility in the Roanoke Valley is more vital than ever. Not only will it make the decision easier for furniture and textile manufactures to return to the region, but could also serve as a major enticement for other companies seeking alternatives to their former rustbelt locations.

After years of study, Norfolk Southern and the State of Virginia have determined that the Elliston site is the most feasible location for the proposed freight yard. The only hitch is that the people of Elliston clearly don’t want it there, and the Montgomery County Board of Supervisors has vowed to stop it. While the projected benefits of the facility are expected to provide an economic boost for a region encompassing nine counties, the people of Elliston are the only ones who are being asked to pay the price in terms of quality of life and environmental degradation.

This is clearly the kind of issue that demonstrates the need for true regional cooperation, but so far all we’ve heard are calls for the people of Elliston to “suck it up” or “take one for the team”. Before losing his seat on the Roanoke City Council, Bev Fitzpatrick publicly stated that “one government cannot keep this region from moving forward.” In reality, they can. While the railroad could exercise it’s power of eminent domain as a last resort, the county and the town could also choose to dig in their heels for a protracted legal battle that the railroad may choose not to fight. In that event, we would all lose.

There is a far better alternative. Rather than simply bullying the citizens of Elliston into accepting a project that will dramatically alter their landscape and their way of life, our elected leaders need to focus on a solution that will benefit everyone, including those who will suffer the negative impact. Instead of demanding that the people of Elliston suck it up, why not ask them what we can offer in return? A package of incentives with money for local schools, or for preservation of other green space in the surrounding area just might make the project palatable. Perhaps the answer will be hiring preferences for local residents once the new facility is operational. In any event, a carrot will be far more effective than a stick. This facility represents an economic development opportunity that our region cannot afford to lose, and it’s up to our elected leaders to work together to make it a reality.

Sadly, this stubborn insistence on leaving things “just so” means that we are often forced to live with third rate compromises, rather than allowing our city to live up to it’s full potential. The downtown market area is a perfect example. Over the past few years, a number of creative ideas have been put forth for substantial improvements, but judging by the knee-jerk opposition to these proposals, you would think that someone had suggested bulldozing the Market Square to build a Wal-Mart in it’s place.

While it is true that the market area is the heart of Downtown Roanoke, it is also true that the untapped potential of the area far exceeds the current reality. The truth of the matter is that the market square area is run-down, heavily congested, hard to walk, hard to park, and lacking much in the way of real farmers. On any given day, visitors can find the same selection of out-of-state produce typically found in local supermarkets, while a majority of the stall space is occupied by craft vendors, hawking everything from bird feeders to handbags. On most days, the term farmer’s market must be applied pretty loosely.

One of the major reasons that changing anything in the market area is so difficult is that we continue to place the priorities of the so called “farmers” above those of any other stakeholders. We seem to forget that these people only pay $35.00 per month for the privilege of using this remarkably valuable space. That’s less than they would pay for monthly parking anywhere else in the downtown area, yet their vocal protests always manage to drown out the concerns of every other party. Successful retail areas are designed first and foremost with the convenience of the customers in mind. Until we come to terms with this simple truth, any improvements will be incremental at best.

The single best proposal in recent years was part of the Downtown Improvement Study completed in 2006. The suggestion was to convert Market Street to a pedestrian mall between Campbell and Church, and to relocate the market stalls to the center of the street. This solution would create a more pedestrian friendly shopping experience while also providing more space for outdoor dining. It would reduce traffic congestion on Campbell Avenue, and provide increased visibility and easier access for shop owners on Market Street. Unfortunately, the proposal was shouted down immediately by the “farmers”, who claimed they couldn’t operate without access to their vehicles.

Since opening in 1983, Center in the Square has contributed more to the transformation of downtown Roanoke than any other organization or enterprise. This transformation has taken place in spite of the fact that the facility is virtually invisible from the street. When the Center proposed increasing their visibility and accessibility by relocating a small number of vendors as part of a $26 million dollar renovation, the protests of the “farmers” were so vehement that the plans had to be extensively modified. We’ve got a serious problem when we place a greater value on the convenience of street vendors, than on the survival of the economic engine that makes their presence possible in the first place.

Roanoke is rightfully proud of the fact that our market has been in continuous use since 1882, but our claim to be the oldest in the state is questionable. The market in Old Town Alexandria has been operating in the same location since 1753. It is held year round on Saturday mornings in a large courtyard in front of City Hall. Vendors here offer a wide range of items, including baked goods and organic produce, and there is a strict limit on the number of craft vendors. There are also a variety of musicians and other performers, and free parking is provided by the city. There are no permanent stalls, and there are no vehicles on site.

In my humble opinion, the best farmer’s market in the state is held in Williamsburg. It is a seasonal weekend only event that takes place in a large pedestrian mall immediately adjacent to the historic area. In addition to real local produce, fresh seafood is a major attraction. There are plenty of musical performers, and local restaurants provide sidewalk cooking demonstrations as part of the fun. Again, free parking is available, there are no permanent stalls, and no pickup trucks in sight. Somehow, these vendors manage to get along just fine without them.