But does anyone else see the flaw that was present in this boondoggle from the beginning? Fall River was never going to be Kendall Square or Lexington, no matter how much pork (sorry, investment) got thrown at prospective employers. I don’t begrudge Fall River leaders for their role in this — either getting the “BioPark” dollars or pulling an about-face to make it a casino development. They are in an awful situation, and have been for decades. But it would be nice if our statewide leaders (Gov. Patrick, Sec. Bialecki) recognized that we live in a world of scarce resources, and transportation / development resources need to be steered to where they will get the most bang for the buck.
Places like Fall River do not need new infrastructure. In fact, because of its economic decline, it suffers from a glut of infrastructure relative to its population (think, Detroit… albeit on a less biblical scale). Furthermore, every struggling city in the country is playing the same (dumb) game of chasing these jobs. Meanwhile, the transportation infrastructure of metro Boston (which accounts for roughly 70% of the state’s GDP), is taxed by overcrowding (packed train cars, highways, etc.) and in dire need of maintenance (how many times can the subway catch on fire?). Indeed, these issues (which are also intertwined with unsustainably high housing costs) threaten Boston’s future economic growth that is vital to the entire state’s continued wellbeing.
Obviously the political process will always misallocate resources like this (it’s our “Bridge to Nowhere… and one reason why a Development Bank is a preferable way to doll out funds). It’s hard to point the figure at one individual as at “fault.” But an epic failure such as this needs to be noted and considered as a cautionary tale in making funding decisions.
You’re advocating a game of “winners”.
<
p>Boston is successful, Fall River is not — therefore give the most help to Boston, and forget about Fall River.
<
p>Sporting leagues recognize that “winners” doesn’t work for the good of the league. Imagine how basketball would play out if there was no salary cap, and if the top draft picks were doled out by best record.
<
p>Fall River needs public incentives to attract private investment. Boston does not. Private investment will occur in Boston simply because Boston is the winning team right now.
There may be a place for incentives in Fall River. But sorry, it shouldn’t be trying to get Genzyme to build a research facility there.
<
p>I support treating areas differently depending on their needs. Rural places, for instance, need more investment in roads per capita. Inner cities often need more money for education and policing. Bristol County needs more adjustment assistance to deal with deindustrialization. I don’t begrudge that. What I can’t stand is giving everyone a slice of every pie because it’s “fair.” Everett doesn’t need agriculture spending, and the Berkshires don’t need mass transit funding. If we as a state are going to have a Life Science Initiative, then we should be intelligent with respect to how we spend that money. I don’t think I’m taking a radical stance here.
<
p>And even if you’re right, how did this work out in practice? If you had it to do over, would you support funding this project again? Can you think of better ways to spend $70m in transportation dollars?
I can appreciate what you’re saying — not all places need to be treated equally. But that is easier said than done.
<
p>The state spent a lot of money to bring broadband to rural areas. But isn’t one of the tradeoffs of living in a rural area the lack of services which are possible due to dense living? Where do you draw the line? Each decision to equalize impacts others. More money to equalize rural areas makes rural areas more attractive for urban flight. Yet rural living is massively inefficient — you spend more on roads, schools, plowing, etc.
<
p>I believe that urban areas deserve help because they have historical problems, not deficiencies. Fall River needs jobs — you’re right, it has an infrastructure that is based on its past, but you can’t just write that off. Reality is that the housing infrastructure that used to support mills and manufacturing has been converted — with state and federal policy approval — into a warehousing solution for the state’s poor. Apartment blocks that used to house blue collar workers now house government subsidized people who have no skills, no jobs, few prospects, and increased needs.
<
p>That is why the state has a responsibility to help places like Fall River out, to give them hope. Because without that hope, such places will turn into Detroit, and that is not a path we want to take, because it is agonizing and has no end.