CCP 04-13-1987 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

. -_..- J Humphrey Intitute's East Metro Stucly I 1. EXECUTIVE SUrmARY ] The tie t r 0 East Area: Inventory-Profile, contains an analysis of socio-economic statistics and interview responses of individualS in the private and public sectors who influence I economic development in the eastern half of the Twin eit ies metropolitan area--the Metro East Area. (See 14ap 1). The Inventory-profile has been prepared as a basis for developing I Btrategic options to capture a greater share of new development and create a greater sense of a commllnity of intereBt between st. Paul and the other cities in the Metro East Area. I Our conclusions from this analysis are: 1 1. The 11et ro East Area clearly accounts for only a t h i rd of the regional development to date, but there is no one sector of the t economy here which is significantly weak or over-developed. Using one-third share as the base, the perception of the {-lEA J having a "weak economic base" is stronger than the real ity. 2. projected slow down in the pace of met ropoli tan growth will limit , in absolute terms, the amount of new development. There , is likely be II ze [a-sum" in which communities will ~ more to a game try to maintain a level of growth. Developers are pull ing back - on growth plans and projects, and as a result, the "zero-sum" game could be more intense. The two-thirds, one-third split between the role t ropol it an Region and the ~let ro East Area will continue for some time. Growth patterns will result not from I increasing demand, but rather from stealing demand from other markets. I 3. Legitimate barriers to capturing a larger share of the market are the result of lack of confidence and a lack of knowledge of the eastern sub-markets. Fewer medium sized businesses (those most likely to grow) , and fewer "highest income" households 1 proportionate to the total number, contribute to this lack of , detailed knowledge. It is, therefore, incumbent upon the HEA cOf,lmunities to provide additional market information to decision 1 makers in both the private and public sectors. 4. Regional policy makers are most likely to respond to political 1 pressure and will accommodate development already here, rat he r than actively promote a more balanced pattern of growth. This increases the need for MEA communities to increase their pol it ical influence when it comes to insuring policies to take ] advantage of existing regional investments. Currently there is no organ i zed system for promoting that political position which encourages development in the NEA. , 5 . Late cor.lpletion of the freeway systems on the east side has fI worked to the detriment of these communities in general. Access is now provided, but the region has no uncommitted resources to expand sewe r or transit systems to these "new highway corridors". The opportunity to "shape development" is precarious at best. 1