Artie See has an interesting post up at his site from yesterday getting into the idea of economic development - specifically, how much of it the convention center project has to generate if it is going to qualify as a “success”:

The sole purpose of this project is “economic development”. “Economic development” is defined as creating or expanding businesses and jobs, which will create new tax revenue above and beyond what existed before the project opens for business. Therefore, “return on investment” can be defined on new tax revenue created specifically because of the taxpayers’ investments in this project. This would include new property tax, sales tax, and income tax revenue; since there is no Federal money invested in this project, the only income tax that should be considered would be State and local.

In other words, this project would “break even” only when the amount of new property tax, sales tax, plus State and local income tax revenue which results from this project equals the amortized cost of this project to taxpayers. Anything less would mean that taxpayer dollars are being wasted.

I’ll agree with that - with the caveat that I don’t think everyone’s on the same page when it comes to the parameters of “success.”

Specifically: The standard Artie is using, while valid, may never be met. Is it possible that the project will never “break even?” I’d guess that yes, it is possible, though I’m obviously not speaking for the people behind the project, who might argue that strenuously.

But even if it doesn’t break even, even if the amount of tax revenue generated by the attendant development never measures up to the amortized costs - either Artie’s or the official version - the project can still be seen, by some at least, as a success.

That’s because the rationale for the project, at its most basic, isn’t economic. It’s aesthetic.

Let’s pretend you own a major company that makes its corporate headquarters right in the center of your town. You’ve got this gleaming structure, in which you’ve invested tens of millions of dollars.

And right across the street you’ve got the falling-down, increasingly decrepit Watt & Shand building.

Now: Do you think you might be motivated, to say the least, to try and do something about that? That’s not real good, having your customers, be they retail or major corporate multi-million-dollar bigwigs, in and out of your offices, trundling by the crumbling structure, the homeless types that lingered in the broken-brick courtyard. It’s not giving anybody a warm fuzzy. For the sake of your own business - and, you might claim  in altruistic fashion, for the sake of this town which your corporate headquarters calls home - you think something needs to be done about it.

You want to see it fixed. Turned into something gleaming and new - something that complements the investment you’ve already made. This one, of course, will need to be made with tax dollars. But there is indeed a case to be made that it will precipitate additional investment; no one can know how much. But how much is a “revitalized” center of town worth, anyway? You might total up the dollars and cents in one column and decide that the numbers show that you would have been better off leaving the structure to rot.

But would the town have been better off with that decision, really? Sure, using the tax dollars to do this benefits your business. But you’re hardly the only one. The newspaper over there; the bank over here. The law office on the opposite corner; the coffee shop and the restaurant and even the local government offices. Basically, everyone right there in the center of town benefits in an aesthetic sense - but also, probably, in an economic sense - from the decision to do this.

And in that we’re talking the geographic center of town - it’s arguably true for the city on the whole.

Now, such aesthetic concerns certainly are not sufficient justification for spending this amount of public money on the project. But couple that with the job-creation aspect of this project, which we may also deem insufficient but is probably better than nothing; couple this also with the fact that it appears a federal courthouse in the same general vicinity seems likely. And couple this with whatever additional development the project may spark.

It may spark nothing, or there may be a few, meager, pathetically insufficient puffs of smoke. But as I’d noted at one point, I am told that there are people waiting in the wings to make sure this thing is going to go, who - once assured it is - will pull their own triggers. Is this true? If it isn’t, if the convention center/hotel does not spark a significant wave of private development in its wake - then the whole thing will have been a waste.

But if it does, even if the fiscal projections are not met, even if the hotel tax will need to be hiked - maybe several times - to cover operational losses, the project will be seen in some quarters as a “success” - in that it will have achieved its primary goal of “revitalizing” Lancaster in an aesthetic sense.

What I’m trying to not so much defend as explain is something that might have been explained had this project not turned into Godzilla vs. King Kong; had project supporters laid out a careful and honest case for what they wanted to do, rather than the sort of demagoging that’s been all too common. That “we had no choice but to do this.” That’s nonsense, and offensive. Of course we had choices. What was incumbent upon project supporters was to explain and argue that this was the best choice, or at least a solid choice. And if that had been the tack taken, rather than the sort of haughty steamroller “oh-they’re-just-naysayers” thing, then this might not have escalated into Godzilla vs. King Kong.

That, I think, would have been better for everyone - no matter where on the square you sit.