To-Do list(?)

In this space last week we asked the question, “What now? As a region, as a people and as a collection of cities, What-Fricking-Now? What are the collective goals of the region? What do we all want to be when 2020 rolls around? What!?”

The genesis of the question was the setback in being named an All American City. The city of Fort Smith applied for the All American City status based on efforts of those in the Fort Smith region to keep the 188th Fighter Wing based in Fort Smith; to successfully recruit the U.S. Marshals Museum; and to supports the Community Services Clearinghouse and its amazing work to feed the poor children among us.

In considering the question we noted the writings of James Burke and Robert Ornstein, who told us that things (plants, animals, people, cultures, communities, etc.) “go the way of anything in nature that stands still or doesn’t adapt: they die.”

At the conclusion of the previous commentary in which we pondered “What now?,” it was suggested we further ponder the simple but provocative interrogatory at our next gathering.

Well, here we are.

So ... what now? There are a wide range of intriguing and doable possibilities. Conversations with concerned citizens and Kind Readers (often one in the same) in the past 15-plus years have resulted in the compilation of too many good ideas to list here. Also, we know that our region of 300,000 folks is limited in its resources (and political will) to engage at one time a long and broad To-Do list. With that in mind, let’s briefly consider a few options possessing the potential of transformative socio-economic change in our metro area.

THREE OPTIONS FOR TRANSFORMATIVE CHANGE
• Small business development
The University of Arkansas at Fort Smith has proactively revamped its small business support structure to provide “an information-rich environment for start-up businesses, potential entrepreneurs, existing companies and family-owned enterprises and collect, analyze and disseminate information related to local and regional entrepreneurial, economic and business activities.” This is a tremendous and positive move by UAFS Chancellor Dr. Paul Beran and his staff.

However, the one thing we aren’t doing well as a region is aggressively pursuing teams of individuals who take their business ideas to national entrepreneurial competitions and/or matriculate out of incubator organizations at hundreds of universities around the country. And it’s been a few years since UAFS had teams competing in the entrepreneurial competition sponsored by Arkansas Capital Corp. That’s unfortunate, and shame on us if our regional economic development officials won’t better support local entrepreneurial upstarts and formulate a proactive plan that let’s the tens of thousands of brilliant entrepreneurial minds around the country know that we welcome their ideas to our fertile grounds.

If the world’s largest retailer and the world’s largest meat company could find success in out-of-the-way small Arkansas towns, then please don’t tell me the Fort Smith region is incapable of supporting a wide range of new business ideas. Please keep your defeatism to yourself. (Please note David Potts commentary about the recent UAFS developments and the importance of entrepreneurial support.)

• Tourism/sports venue growth
Sure, we’ve got the Marshals Museum on the hook, but it could be 10 years or more before the first tourist buys an overpriced plastic badge (made in China) in the museum’s gift shop.

Look, folks, we’ve got to quit kidding ourselves and get serious about bringing in thousands more folks a year who spend money in our stores, restaurants and hotels. We must demand that city of Fort Smith and Sebastian County officials remove their gray matter from their dark places and get serious about building a city/county sports complex at Ben Geren park that would rank within the top 20 among the nation’s 363 U.S. metro areas. We Fort Smithians also must demand that city officials bring some sanity into our tourism efforts by combining our tourism recruitment (advertising & promotion commission) with our convention center management — as is done in most cities enjoying success.

Here’s the plan. Get voter approval on a 2% restaurant tax that, combined with the existing hotel tax, would generate close to $3 million annually. We’ll need about $2 million of that to keep the convention center going and pay salaries and operating costs of the broad tourism effort. We’ll return to the remaining $1 million in a few sentences.

The voters also would be asked to redirect 25% of the street tax for a 10-year period to fund construction of a regional sports complex and to develop basic infrastructure for continued expansion of riverfront development plans. This redirection of tax money would generate about $40 million during the 10-year term, of which about $25 million would be used for the sports complex.

Of the remaining $15 million, $5 million would be placed in a reserve fund for future sports complex maintenance and capital improvements (generating $150,000-$200,000 a year in interest), and $10 million invested in a clever program that physically ties the Fort Smith Museum of History, Fort Smith trolley system, downtown Fort Smith and the riverfront area, the National Historic Site and the Marshals Museum into an “historic campus” that includes infotainment opportunities for a wide range of ages and interests.

At the end of the 10 years, the voter approved plan would include a provision to permanently (or as long as the street tax is collected) direct 5% to the maintenance and operation of the sports complex. The 5% redirection would generate between $800,000 and $1 million annually. Combine this with the about $1 million a year from the restaurant tax, and we’d have about $2 million annually to invest in park amenities (walkways, bike paths, riverfront expansion, etc.), upkeep and sports complex operations.

Is this a perfect plan? Probably not (primarily because it doesn’t account for financial input from Sebastian County, grants from state and federal agencies, and doesn’t mention possible financial support from businesses/individuals interested in naming rights). But it’s a plan, damnit! A plan from a guy who’s thought about this issue from several different angles in the past 15 years. And it’s a plan, damnit, from a guy tired of watching the city board of directors take small steps in hopes of obtaining big results — all because collectively they are afraid of their own shadows when it comes to proposing bold and transformative ideas.

• Regional council
The Fort Smith region could use a well-financed business-sponsored “council” focused on big picture improvements and/or lobbying.

“You want a bunch of shadowy overlords calling the shots in the Fort Smith area?” responded an acquaintance after my attempt to explain this concept.

No, this is not a suggestion to create and/or restore the Good Old Boys network. Maybe we consider the details in a future essay in this space, but the bottom line is that we could use a small staff (no more than four people) supported exclusively with private-sector funds.

“Oh, so you mean something like the Northwest Arkansas Council. Right?” the acquaintance responded after further explanation.

Yes. Very much like the Northwest Arkansas Council. In fact, our council might initially affiliate with the NWA Council in an effort to create collaborative bonds with our neighbors to the north and better ensure we don’t spend time reinventing the wheel.

Financial support from our regional council would come from businesses and individuals interested in SIGNIFICANTLY better connections in Little Rock and Washington, D.C., securing CONSISTENT and PROFESSIONAL efforts to obtain Interstate 49 funding, and interested in pressuring municipal and county governments to be PROACTIVE in regional infrastructure enhancements (water supplies, intermodal operations, parks and recreation, maximizing Fort Chaffee development, etc.).

Advertisement:

And please know that better connections to Little Rock means this proposed council would actively seek out Arkansas Legislative candidates more interested in progress than liberal and conservative political agendas. Left-wing tree huggers and right-wing bible thumpers won’t get us a seat on the Highway Commission; won’t get us more funding for UAFS; won’t obtain leadership positions in the Arkansas Legislature; won’t give us a voice in state agencies that oversee important aspects of state government; won’t do anything but continue to prove that narrow political agendas are the offspring of small minds that use unproven science and untestable scripture to obstruct the practice of proactive, results-oriented politics.

OTHER IDEAS
This essay is too long, so let’s simply list other ideas, including those posited by Kind Readers.
• Aggressive beautification campaign that might include an attempt to bury utilities (expect more on this in a future essay).
• Regional healthcare coalition that might financially benefit doctors, hospitals, clinics, businesses and patients. Especially patients. (Can we do this and avoid anti-trust laws?)
• Reformation of county government.
• Get serious about recruiting movie production to western Arkansas.
• Get serious about investing in the restoration of the Belle Grove Historic District.
• Develop an innovative model to reform public education and test it in Fort Smith.

You’re right, if not constructive, to caution that the devil is in the details with respect to all this talk about transformative change. But might we consider that if we fear the devilish details we’ll have economic and cultural hell to pay if we allow a fear of transformative change to diminish our ability to make the most of our opportunities.

Please forgive the repetition of a statement previously issued in this space, but it seems a fitting close to this rambling essay: What’s wrong with the Fort Smith regional economy is no match for what’s right with the Fort Smith area. Within our people and within our many public and private entities, we have the potential for great things; we have the potential — through better leadership — to direct overwhelming people-power on whatever problems and obstacles we face. We are a great people, in a great place, and we are capable of great progress.

Five Star Votes: 
No votes yet

Like This Article? Share It!

Comments

Michael Tilley for FS Board of Directors (again)

Michael, I've said it before and I'll say it again: PLEASE consider running for the FS Board of Directors. We need minds that think like yours!! Please give it some thought.

Name It, Brand It

Dear CC, I agree with you on the potential candidate or someone who thinks like him. One of the first steps in Nameing it would be to come up with a new brand. Does and old 1817 fort blockhouse really convey the idea of what the new Fort Smith is all about? I don't think so. Of course our "life's worth living, petal throwing" mayor is against it. He is the personification of the every thing's perfect, don't change a thing malaise that is holding us back. We have some great talent available to come up with a new brand, let's use it.

Naming it

This comment under CC's re Michael's article was also intended for Monte's comment under David Potts' article. It was Monte who proposed to Name It before we got off to opening doors to the future.

Transformative Change

Michael, I do not think that your essay was too long nor do I think that you rambled. The topic of tranformative change is no airy fairy topic that is conducive to sound bytes or grossly abbrievated text messages. No, such a topic as this demands an intense observation and evaluation of both subjective and objective realities as well as copious amounts of quality communication. Any plan is better than no plan and you, Micahel, in my opinion, have put forth a very reasonable plan. Certainly, a plan that will move us in the right direction. But, speaking of direction, what exactly is the direction? It is not my intention to be petty or nit picky or "preachy" with you but there is an order of relative importance involved in leadership/administration and, plan, is not the most senior element in this order. The senior and most important step is a clearly defined Goal followed by Purpose then Policy and then Plan (a strategic plan). The goal is something that is wanted and holds our interest. It does not yet exist as it sits somewhere out there in the future. The plan is the bridge that takes us from the existing scene to the envisioned and more elevated ideal scene. The subject is transformative change so let's make a statement that describes what we are transforming from and what we want to transform into. And, somewhere in that description where we state what we want to transform into is our goal statement. If we can name a goal that more people than not find interesting and desireable, we will have made a huge leap forward. Because, with the goal named all the other necessary planning and acting will have something to align to and we will create a flow of motion that has continuity. And, we will soon leave this condition of disbursed attention units, energy and action behind (where it should be left).
Michael, I do not think that your essay was too long nor do I think that you rambled. The topic of tranformative change is no airy fairy topic that is conducive to sound bytes or grossly abbrievated text messages. No, such a topic as this demands an intense observation and evaluation of both subjective and objective realities as well as copious amounts of quality communication. Any plan is better than no plan and you, Micahel, in my opinion, have put forth a very reasonable plan. Certainly, a plan that will move us in the right direction. But, speaking of direction, what exactly is the direction? It is not my intention to be petty or nit picky or ...>> Read the entire comment.

we've got goal

hear what you are saying Mr. Smith, but we as a community have been down this goal--purpose-policy-plan drill a few times and, frankly, it leads to paralysis through analysis.  we’re like the kid who tells himself all the way to the community swimming pool that he is by-golly gonna climb up the tall diving platform and jump, but when he gets to the top, he just can’t take that step.now, that doesn’t mean we just go shooting from the hip with any neat-idea-of-the month. it seems the consistent “goals” from past flipchart/high-paid consultant sessions come in three flavors:• diversify our regional economic base so that the jobs we recruit and the jobs we organically grow raise our average income levels.  this goal usually includes a close tie to UAFS with respect to entrepreneurial support and boosting regional ratio of college degrees/population.• expand/enhance entertainment and activity venues/options for broad interests among age groups.  this goal usually includes the “quality of place” mantra, and seeks to make the region more attractive to the young minds we’ll need to support the organic growth required for diversifying our regional economy (ahhhh, the great wheel of karma).• stay on top of infrastructure issues, to include water/sewer system, roads, intermodal/ports and utilities/advanced telecom.   this goal often includes the need to improve connections to Little Rock, D.C. and corporate America, and find funding for I-49.the three broad goals are solid priorities based on the past 10-20 years of filtering through the purpose-policy-plan sessions.please know that we instinctively/intuitively are aware that attacking and maximizing our socio-economic weaknesses and strengths, respectively, is the goal.  we know we are at Point A and need to quickly move to Point B;  in short, this region of communities must broaden the methods by which people earn money and broaden the venues through which people spend money.however, feel free to get your goal on and find your purpose and set your policy and then kick out your plan.  i’ve seen the sausage process several times, and figure i can do it one more time.
hear what you are saying Mr. Smith, but we as a community have been down this goal--purpose-policy-plan drill a few times and, frankly, it leads to paralysis through analysis.  we’re like the kid who tells himself all the way to the community swimming pool that he is by-golly gonna climb up the tall diving platform and jump, but when he gets to the top, he just can’t take that step.now, that doesn’t mean we just go shooting from the hip with any neat-idea-of-the month. it seems the consistent “goals” from past flipchart/high-paid consultant sessions come in three flavors:• diversify our regional economic base so that the jobs ...>> Read the entire comment.

MT's column no longer Riff Raff

M, you've finally gone and done it...and it probably should have taken at least six months or more of talking, listening and reading. This area has been screaming for enlightened, mature, practical leadership for a long time. Too long a time. We are paying a pretty heavy price for it. So you took a deep breath and jumped in. Your blurb above is really an excellent postscript to the excellent column you did: "To-do list(?) And as you would expect I don't agree with a few bits of it...but you did it! And for that you deserve a raise. TCW is growing up and will take an important role in this region. In fact your more important here than as a director, that's no fun, As many of you will learn or already have, a management process works much better in the text book than in real-world practice. To me your column lists a few very worthwhile long-term objectives that are very good. There could be, maybe should be a couple others. That will come. In " we've got goal" you begin to flirt with what I call short-term goals or plans. This needs to be filled out by somebody. Saturday someone in here suggested Leadership Fort Smith. As I understand the new Chamber President is about that this summer. Hell, you and the CW could do it and that wouldn't be to bad. Then comes the really tough part...and a serious problem for our democratic system. It is very difficult or almost impossible for legislative bodies at any level, local, state or national to set goals and priorities, which in the private sector is known as a budget or profit plan. State legislatures and Congress just cannot deal with priorities,it becomes too political I guess. That is why dictatorships become more efficient and productive. which most corporations and some churches really are. It could be the real downfall of this country as we enter a much more competitive world economy this decade. M, you've finally gotten the ball rolling, now who keeps kicking it along? No one seems to want to take that one on. Back to the beginning, M we need to save you for the state or federal level...your smart, and excellent communicator and a serious conservative something(which is part of what really worries me about you). The rest of us need to calm down, get on the team like your coach said, get to work and help out. But it really is the priorities for things that is important. Keep up the good work and have some fun. Hawk

Micheal, If the sports

Micheal, If the sports complex was to have had a vote at the Ben Geren park site (just makes cents!) I am sure it would have passed by the voters. I voted for the complex even though I felt the river location was wrong. Good read!

We own the land

Now there is talk of expanding Ben Geren Park to include a sports complex of greater magnitude than what is there now. This is fine as my interest is in having the facilities. I do want to pass on the fact that we, the city, already own 51 acres on the riverfront for this purpose. This was a combination of funds contributed by the Westphal family, the Rotary Club's two Gridiron shows and money obtained from the legislature for the purpose of expanding the National Cemetery. The ball fields had to move to expand the cemetery. As part of the election that was so handily defeated by Director Maddox et al the city was to buy another 150 acres for a complete sports complex. The railroad, who owns the land, was going to donate another 800 acres of undevelopable land on the river that could have been used for nature trails, ski courses between the islands and floating marina. Is that option still open? I don't know. I don't know why people are against developing an incredible park system on the river to complement Ben Geren. There is no such complex on the north side of town. Is there a predjudice in doing anything there because the wrong type of people live there? Ben Geren is a fine facility as it is and on Saturdays it is crawling with kids and their families. It will cost as much to build a facility there as on the land we presently own. Why the reluctance?
Now there is talk of expanding Ben Geren Park to include a sports complex of greater magnitude than what is there now. This is fine as my interest is in having the facilities. I do want to pass on the fact that we, the city, already own 51 acres on the riverfront for this purpose. This was a combination of funds contributed by the Westphal family, the Rotary Club's two Gridiron shows and money obtained from the legislature for the purpose of expanding the National Cemetery. The ball fields had to move to expand the cemetery. As part of the election that was so handily defeated by Director Maddox et al the city was to buy another 150 acres for a complete sports ...>> Read the entire comment.

One reason why you wouldn't

One reason why you wouldn't want a girls softball field by a river. Have you have ever been to any young children softball or baseball games? The younger brothers and sisters tend to roam. One minute you look away, the next you are combing the park. Creeks and streams and any water attracts rock skippers. The River and children don't mix and if you can't understand that then you must not have any children. It is a horrible location in that point itself.

Where the acreage is

Anon, You obviously don't know where the acreage is that was purchased for the softball fields. While it is riverfront, it is not on the river. It is on the other side of Clayton Expressway. The river is not available to skip rocks. It is a good 1/4 mile across Clayton and over the levy. This land is near a wonderful grove of pecan trees that would make a great picnic area and rest area for the players. Now, let me state again I am not opposed to Ben Geren with the existing infastructure. I have just never seen the county and the city play well together. BG is a county park and the funds to construct the additional venues will come from the city. There are those on the Quorum Court who will vote against anything in the city of Ft. Smith and the city will want to control what they pay for. I know these people and their different mindsets. David Hudson can't control these JP's, and FS, rightfully will want to control what they pay for. The obstacle here is political. If it can be overcome, great.
Anon, You obviously don't know where the acreage is that was purchased for the softball fields. While it is riverfront, it is not on the river. It is on the other side of Clayton Expressway. The river is not available to skip rocks. It is a good 1/4 mile across Clayton and over the levy. This land is near a wonderful grove of pecan trees that would make a great picnic area and rest area for the players. Now, let me state again I am not opposed to Ben Geren with the existing infastructure. I have just never seen the county and the city play well together. BG is a county park and the funds to construct the additional venues will come from the city. There are ...>> Read the entire comment.

Pointed

Staying in Lamar and raising turkeys may have been the path that should have been followed. It's not too late to see the light.

So we have goals

Michael, thank you very much for your explanation and for filling in some of my blank spaces. I'm now have new layers to ponder and have already begun to do so. Now, before I proceed, I would appreciate it if you just call me Monte. Mr. Smith just doesn't fit. Okay, so we have these three broad "goals" that are solid priorities based on the past 10-20 years of filtering through the purpose-policy-plan sessions. Yet, even with having these delineated goals, there is no action due to a paralysis brought on by too much analysis. Well, to me, and based upon the brief distillation of information that you have given me, the analysis paralysis could have been due to the fact that the analysis was being done, not on actual goals, but instead, on production targets or at best sub-goals that had been mistakenly placed on the goal pedestal. These three so called "goals" do not articulate the proverbial "carrot." If any one of the three or all of the three were accomplished what would we HAVE as a result? That is, what kind of city would Fort Smith BE as a result of accomplishing these stated objectives? Or, why should or why would, any of the residents of this region want to achieve any one of these "goals"? I've already posted this comment elsewhere but I'm going to repeat it here...there is a basic sequence involved in goal setting or in the establishment of a production target and it goes, Name, Want and Get. A condition could exist where you have a grand goal that in its accomplishment the results would be incredibly beneficial to many folks on many levels. However, if the goal is misnamed or misworded in such a way that the people, who will support and carry out the multitude of activities necessary to accomplish the goal, cannot understand its importance and grandness, they aren't going to want it. And if they don't WANT it, then they darn sure aren't going to be very intent (if at all) on GETTING it. Okay, I"m going to stop and go ponder but before I go I have a few questions. "...we’re like the kid who tells himself all the way to the community swimming pool that he is by-golly gonna climb up the tall diving platform and jump, but when he gets to the top, he just can’t take that step." Why? Why can't the kid take that step? Why does the goal-purpose-policy-plan drill wind up in a state of analysis paralysis? Why after the past 10-20 years of this process, does this continue to be the topic of conversation? Why is there such a prevailing sense of futility in Fort Smith?
Michael, thank you very much for your explanation and for filling in some of my blank spaces. I'm now have new layers to ponder and have already begun to do so. Now, before I proceed, I would appreciate it if you just call me Monte. Mr. Smith just doesn't fit. Okay, so we have these three broad "goals" that are solid priorities based on the past 10-20 years of filtering through the purpose-policy-plan sessions. Yet, even with having these delineated goals, there is no action due to a paralysis brought on by too much analysis. Well, to me, and based upon the brief distillation of information that you have given me, the analysis paralysis could have been ...>> Read the entire comment.

Sports Complex

Michael, Remember three years ago and the campaign to fund a sports complex. I actively campaigned for it as well as donated a moderate amount of money to support the campaign. The "Say No to Waste" campaign handed me and the other sports complex supporters our asses in a 3 to 1 defeat. What makes you think the naysayers will change their minds now?? However, it is obvious that had the sports complex been built we'd have many people filling hotel rooms and restaurants every Thursday thru Saturday. We'd also not have our softball teams and others having to go to venues in other cities to play. I'm all for your plan. It is even more farreaching than one I suggested at the retreat in January. Keep up the good work. Cole Goodman

If only there were firm city leadership

Mr. Tilley has been rightly banging this drum for some time now. If only there was a person (or persons) in a position of leadership who could make a firm, convincing argument for the need of a sports complex (or any other worthy city-initiated project) and rally the public to its support. Can we learn anything from the past? There once was a time when nobody thought the city could pass a street tax yet it passed in 1986. Are there any lessons to learn? What can we take away from the previous sports complex vote? I don't recall the arguments regarding the initial vote. Did anyone try to put figures on the potential direct economic impact of a complex? The need and benefits to the community? Perhaps asking for the passage of three major projects simutaneously was a mistake? Too much "change" or too much tax, $170 mil. sticker shock, at once for a majority of voters? Are people more likely to accept a restaurant tax? What if some local restaurant owners came together to publicly endorse this idea?

Sports Complex - Ben Geren or Riverfront

Yes I agree with you "observor", it would be nothing short of amzaing to be able to build a perfect sports park from scratch. However what is it going to cost us just to duplicate the roads, water, sewer, and electric infrastructure that already exists at Ben Geren where we currently have a good head start. We already have some soccer fields, some tennis courts, some softball fields and a host of other recreational activites at BG. Why not make those sites even bigger so we could attract some significant LARGE scale tournaments that can really bring in the revenue? If that's not the very definition of economic development then I don't know what else is. ((Elected officials serious about economic development - are you paying attention?)) There's no need to duplicate something, or better yet, stop and go back to the starting line when we're a quarter of the way through the race. Someone needs to do an economic study on how much revenue Van Buren receives from the Little League World Series. Maybe when I'm done with school I'll do one myself. But right now I can only guess that it's enough to pay a couple additional police officers salaries. And that event is just one week out of an entire year. We have the opportunity to do the same thing with a lot more sports that can cover a lot more weeks, not just one sport for one week. That's a lot of police salaries, fire trucks and emergency equipment that we the citizens won't have to fit the bill for. ((public safety minded citizens are you paying attention?)) Why not let the out-of-towners do it for us? Besides any event that is going to bring people in by the mini-van and suburban loads is only going to benefit the riverfront. All those traveling teams are going to need something to do when they aren't competing. I would imagine a developed riverfront would be one of the first places they go to donate their dollars into our economy. So it won't instantly improve the property values of the landowners near the river. You're right about that. But it will bring in thousands upon thousands of dollars to the city coffers that would subsidize our own taxes we citizens are going to have to pay for future city services. ((Tea Partiers are you paying attention?)) I'm sure we will find a very worthwhile public use for the Clayton expwy acerage that will fit in nicely with the ongoing riverfront developments, will make our city proud, and will make all the previous efforts and donations made to obtain the land well worth it. But for a sports themed park Ben Geren is just too good a fit. And if anyone still feels the riverfront is the ideal place please offer your points as to why. My mind is certainly open to change. Maybe you have a valid benefit I haven't heard yet. But I would also like to propose that the Ben Geren and Riverfront camps settle this debate quickly so we can then combine our efforts towards moving this initiative forward.
Yes I agree with you "observor", it would be nothing short of amzaing to be able to build a perfect sports park from scratch. However what is it going to cost us just to duplicate the roads, water, sewer, and electric infrastructure that already exists at Ben Geren where we currently have a good head start. We already have some soccer fields, some tennis courts, some softball fields and a host of other recreational activites at BG. Why not make those sites even bigger so we could attract some significant LARGE scale tournaments that can really bring in the revenue? If that's not the very definition of economic development then I don't know what else is. ((Elected ...>> Read the entire comment.