Thanks, folks, for joining us. Doug and Lori are here and ready to take your questions. Let’s get started.
You make a fine point, Matt. My sense is that many corporations, and other institutions too, are still adjusting to a major demographic change.
The stress point for business is shifting to a shortage of young skilled workers. Businesses are going to need to rethink their priorities to attract those workers.
I think a lot of businesses are looking at what Amazon has chosen in Seattle, and wondering whether they need to reconsider cities.
Crime is always a concern, but often it is more of a perception problem.
In fact, crime is down sharply in Minneapolis, as in urban areas around the country.
Downtown security has been a concern, and especially the “feeling” of safety. The city is working on that, and it needs to redouble those efforts.
I've always liked the label Minneapolis chose a few years ago, "City by Nature." But I'm not sure it's right for that Millenial generation that the city needs to attract.
Maybe there's a better idea in a bumper sticker I saw the other day: The arts: they're what make the Twin Cities cool so we can stand the cold." It's too many words. but you get the idea: arts and amenities will matter a lot.
ive-away strategies need to be kept in check.
That said, there are complications. It’s natural, for example, for land prices to rise in the urban core, producing an incentive for development on the fringe, especially if taxpayer-funded roads are built to those areas.
There's a lot of interest in redeveloping old industrial sites. Our editorial mentioned the Upper Harbor Terminal, Shoreham Yards in Northeast and the industrial site between the two U of M campuses.
As for the rest of the city, the best hope for jobs lies alongside new and improved transit corridors. Bottineau light rail should be a boon to North Minneapolis.
Where was I on that subsidy question
What I wanted to say was that some incentives, in some circumstances, to level the competition may be defensible. They key is to see all of the “subsidies” for what they are.
The trouble with special incentives is that there is no net gain for the region or state for a whole.
It's just moving jobs around at great expense.
Much better to focus on keeping costs competitive for ALL businesses
I haven't seen evidence that Minneapolis has more trouble than other cities in keeping outside talent.
But maximizing homegrown talent has always been Minnesota's strength, and needs to be emphasized going forward.
That's why there's such concern about the achievement gap, and lagging educational attainment overall in recent years.
Minnesota's business trademark is its well-educated workforce. We can't let that slip.
Well, what’s wrong with that?
Minneapolis residents will get suburban jobs, too.
Of course the city wants jobs for its own.
But the key is for the region as a whole to prosper and create opportunities.
I'm a fan of Mayor Rybak's Grow North program. New employees in new North Side businesses get help with housing costs if they move to the North Side.
The evidence is along Hiawatha -- er, the Blue Line, as they call it now -- and from other cities.
Come to think about it, we've always known that transportation corridors lead to economic development. It's one of the reasons Minnesota subsidized railroads in the 19th century!