[MissoulaGov] Committee Update 9-30-09 Bikes on Sidewalks

[Andrew Stickney]

I have been watching this conversation with great interest. So far, I
have not been moved to contribute to it because I have felt I have
nothing to add. However, after reading the post by Jeremy Hood
regarding proposed solutions for Missoula's economy, I felt compelled
to respond.

The problems we are facing with the homeless, tight city funds and
conflicting priorities are not new, but rather, cyclical. When the
economy tanks, city revenues shrinks with its tax base, and projects
we used to fund with surplus money get dropped. Sometimes we are able
to turn to the private businesses and non-profit organizations for
assistance. Unfortunately, they can only do so much themselves because
they are subject to the same restraints as the city.

When this happens, many people, organizations and even nations are
tempted to pull out of the larger community - whether at the local,
state, national, or global scale, and protect their own. They argue
that they ultimately gain no benefit from the larger community, that
their money is wasted on outside interests unrelated to the welfare of
their own members. When you take a short-term outlook on the future,
their arguments seem feasible. However, when you look farther into the
future, those proposals often cause more harm than good.

Since February, I have been doing internships with the EPA in
Washington, DC and have essentially "lived" the national debate. What
I have found is that yes, in some cases, large businesses can oppose
progressive change and initiatives that can help the underserved, as
their primary purpose is protecting their stakeholder's interests - to
generate the greatest profit for them first. However, what we can (and
must) do is show them that policies and changes that benefit the
greater community that they (just as we) belong to, make businesses
sense for them.

As an example of an issue that affects us all at the national level,
consider climate change. I'm not going to argue the science as Steve
Running and others do well enough on that front. What I am focusing on
is the role that various "actors" play in this debate. When you read
the newspapers, it sounds like the same old story - business
(represented by the US Chamber of Commerce) opposing progress, the
government (represented by EPA) wanting to regulate the life out of
the market, Congress debating the issue endlessly, and the public
upset, confused, and wanting more jobs and cleaner air and water.

However, recently, there has been a new voice lately - the voice of
dissent from big businesses, most recently by Apple. As reported on
October 6th the Washington Post states that Apple, a prominent figure
in the computer industry, has pulled out of the US Chamber of Commerce
in protest of its stance on climate change issues. (Source:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/10/05/AR2009100502744.html)
It, along with three power companies, believe that there is a way to
reduce emissions in a way that makes business sense. Nike took this
argument a step further and maintained its membership in order to
advocate for change within the Chamber, according to the same article.
They believe that it is possible to remain in the national community
that is the US, make a profit, and yet do their part to contribute to
a cleaner environment and reduce the chance of catastrophic
consequences resulting from a significant change in climate. I don't
know who or what prompted them to change their position, but I'm
certain their shareholders and customers played a large role in the
decision.

 To bring this discussion back to Missoula, I argue that it is now our
turn as Missoula citizens to advocate to local businesses to help
support the causes we care about – whether that is subsidized housing,
more bike trails, etc. Having said that, I don’t just mean ‘advocate’
as in go knocking door to door begging for donations or holding daily
protests and boycotts (although Missoula is certainly known for that).
We need to show them that supporting these causes makes sense from the
perspective of the company’s bottom line. And I propose extending this
movement not just to local businesses but to the big companies that
call Missoula home – such as Best Buy and Lowes. While we often view
them with disdain, they are equally valid members of our community and
should be treated as such, albeit with deference given to local
business.

Previous posters, such as Geoff and Jim have both provided examples of
how the city has done its part to try and listen to businesses and
promote economic development while listening to those of us who want
safer roads for bicyclists and better use of public or alternative
transportations, among other things. Now it is up to Missoula
citizens. If we want them to help support new housing efforts by
strengthening our economy and freeing up city funds, let's give them a
reason to.

Thanks for reading and hope this provides another perspective.

 Sincerely yours,

Andrew Stickney
stickneyal at gmail.com