I'm late getting to the Perfesser's snide commentary about Missoula's new equality ordinance:
Most business people aren't stupid. If a city dedicates itself to tormenting them, they don't care much about how smooth and glitzy the local "economic development" agency is.
Job-creators want to see things like low taxes, a friendly regulatory environment, and community respect.
Few seem to have noticed the irony here: Just a few weeks before the hand-wringing about poor economic development began, the Missoula city council (by a 10-2 vote) studiously eschewed wiser counsels and crammed through an intrusive new ordinance regulating how businesses relate to cross-dressers and similar odd balls. So if you set up a business in Missoula, now you can look forward to a whole new world of lawsuits and bureaucratic bossiness.
That action alone sent a nasty message to potential new employers that it may take years to counter.
And it comes on top of Missoula's relative high property taxes and its long record of making life miserable for new enterprises who want to locate in the area.
Wulfgar's been here already and rightfully notes that ol' Natelson linking two unrelated events and is following crazy Rand Paul's undefensible defense of discrimination.
What's truly sad is that Rob uses his absolutely specious argument that "oddballs" are being protected to carry over his conclusion to an argument he never supports; he holds that businesses do best in unregulated environments. His only foundation is a fallacy about "cross-dressers" and Butte's difficult business environment. That might actually be possible ... if, as Rob assumes, the health of a business' bottom line is all that really matters to the employed these employers hire.
Forgetting here for a moment that Natelson uses Butte as an example of the effects of Missoula's civic institutions - Missoula, somewhat awkwardly to the Perfesser's argument, actually has a pretty strong economy and is experiencing growth - his argument, as Wulfgar rests on the assumption that the employed and employers care only about the bottom line.
Maybe there's something about a community besides taxes that employers need? Like...say...quality employees? Educated in quality schools? Perhaps business owners like to take a walk on the river, or bike to work, or buy fresh croissants from a locally-owned bakery? Or maybe business owners like communities that stand up to anti-gay discrimination. Believe it or not, there are gay business owners, or business owners with gay friends, relatives, or children.
Or maybe business owners like to operate where a lot of people live. You know, the customer thing.
Because most business owners are people - like the two business owners on the Missoula city council that voted for the anti-discrimination ordinance - and simply want to live a good life.
But then I don't think Natelson is really talking about actual business owners. My guess is that he's thinking about big business. Corporations. GE and Boeing. Wal-Mart won't be moving its corporate headquarters to Missoula for the tax break. But...why would you want to tether your city's future to a gigantic corporation? Didn't work out so great for Flint or Pittsfield, Massachusetts, where I grew up.
Here's what you need to know about Missoula's "dysfunctional" economic development: all consultants agree that Missoula was poised for success because of its "skilled/educated workforce," its "adequate wastewater treatment capacity and sewer lines," its "outdoor amenities" and "cultural opportunities," "all of which define Missoula as a high-quality place to live and recreate." Which makes it poised for economic growth.
And part of what makes Missoula a "high-quality place to live and recreate" is its anti-discrimination ordinance. |
