Experts from Out of Town Reveal Secrets to Port Angeles
Okay ladies and gentlemen, let me have a little sarcastic fun with this article. Don’t take this so serious that you are offended, after all I’m asking more questions than I’m answering here, and your comments may just set me straight. You know the saying, “You’re never a prophet in your home town.” There’s another saying I find fascinating. “Experts always come from out of town.”
This week the experts arrived, all seven of them. Their resumes are impressive, and I love the way they can take normal words and turn them into $10,000 phrases. For example, while most of us grow up referring to the “seasons,” experts like to say, “the year to year seasonality.” I noticed the more degrees you have, the more you end words with “ality.” Seasonality, sustainability, causality. These are big words for a country hick like me. Their favorite word by far is “sustainable” or “sustainability.” In the brief profiles introducing our experts to us, the word “sustainable” or “sustainability” was used eight times. I’ve used it five times in this paragraph alone. Pretty good, huh?
I used to joke about lawyers (having been one), and I would say it takes a lawyer 100 words to say what a normal man can say in 10. Experts from “out of town” can say in 1,000 words what a normal lawyer can say in 100.
Why were the out-of-town experts here? That’s a little hard for a guy who grew up in a cabin in Alaska with a Coleman lantern, a wood stove and an outhouse to explain. I think I’d better quote their purpose, and maybe it will make sense to you. “A team of AIA representatives with varying expertise will be in Port Angeles to facilitate this planning exercise from March 16-18, 2009. The AIA team consists of a group of seven multidisciplinary experts who will provide an ‘outside eye’ assessment of the City’s gateways: First and Front Street corridors, and the Central Business District. The assessment will focus on beautification and revitalization in terms of economic, environmental, and social priorities.”
Let me see if I can summarize that. The multidisciplinary experts will provide an assessment for the beautification and revitalization in terms of economic, environmental, and social priorities.
Got it? Good. Let’s move on.
I decided to go to the Chamber luncheon where our experts were introduced. Each of them were given an opportunity to say something profound. I decided to bring my notepad and a pen, because I’m just a country hick, and if I don’t take notes on the spot I might not be able to remember the latest phrases we should be using in casual conversation at Starbucks to impress our friends. Alas, after 45 minutes of good note taking, I realized that I had no substance on paper. Oh sure, I had lots of ink, but the “Team Leader” and the “Team Members” as they like to call themselves, had praised each other so much, I began to think I was not at a Chamber luncheon but a love-fest.
Then I looked around and saw Sheriff Bill Benedict at a table nearby and realized there is no way our good Sheriff would casually attend a love-fest. This must be a serious event. So determined to learn something, pen in hand, I buckled down and concentrated.
When I was young (maybe a dozen years ago), I would come home from elementary school and watch the three stooges and have cookies and milk. One episode still sticks out in my mind. The Three Stooges had a dilemna of some kind, and all three were thinking real hard. Finally Moe turns to Larry and says, “Think!” Moe looks up and down and around and says, “I’m thinking but nothin’s happenin’.” I was listening to our experts but nothin’ was happenin’.
I chalked it up to not drinking enough coffee. Everyone else at the meeting was either just giddy or maybe there were drugs in the buffet food. They were all quite happy. Must be something wrong with me.
Today I read a little about the report of the experts, figuring that profound wisdom will probably jump off the page and knock me out of my chair, and then for sure I’ll be repentent about my attitude at the Chamber luncheon. I read and read but nothin’ was happenin’. I saw the fixation on downtown parking lots. I saw the generalizations about attracting people. Then I was able to pick out the most important recommendation in the entire report. I knew it was the most imprtant recommendation, because the “Team Leader” called it the “biggest thing.” “The biggest thing you can do for the economy, environment and community is to create a sustainable downtown,” Wayne Feiden said.
Ah, there’s that word “sustainable.” Now I feel better. It looks like the $15,000 government grant (meaning tax dollars) was spent wisely. (See comments about the grant money. The comments can be opened by clicking on “comments” above.) Can we all go home now until next year when we can bring in another team of experts to show us how it should be done. Don’t get frustrated folks. I promise you that in 20 years downtown Port Angeles and the waterfront will look exactly like it does today, as it did 20 years ago. Everything will be okay.
I want to add a portion of a comment, because some readers passionate about the future of Port Angeles may get side tracked with minor points in my article. So here is the focus of this article:
I hope their [the experts'] recommendations will be implemented. But notice two important things: 1.) their recommendations are nothing new for anyone who has been in the area for a while, and 2.) other experts’ recommendations have not been implemented in past years, why should we think that the fly bouncing off the window is going to do something different this time? Hey, I hope things do happen. I want growth in the right direction for my business, too, but I am skeptical. And with good cause. Prove me wrong P.A. leaders, and I will be the first to praise you.
I also want to append this article with another thought that some may not comprehend only because they don’t know me personally. None of what I say here or anywhere attacks anyone’s character. I attack ideas with conviction, but I am teachable. I hope others are too, so we can all move forward and make progress. I believe our leaders in P.A. are all men and women of good character, working hard for what they believe is a good cause. I believe all our city and county leaders, our Chamber leaders, our EDC, the Downtown Business Assoc., our Business Incubator, and so on, are all well intentioned, and all good people. Period. There’s no “but” anywhere in there. It’s ideas that are worthy of debating. It’s in the debate of ideas that we ultimately find good. That’s where I am coming from. Does anyone else want to share their ideas here? Don’t be afraid. Be gutsy, like I am. Yes, some will shoot at you, but so what. That’s life, and if we are to contribute our knowledge and experience for the betterment of Port Angeles, we should in the heat of honest and open debate.
As I understand it this wasn’t a government grant. The $15,000 grant came from the American Institute of Architects.
Are you sure? A “grant” in the United States almost universally finds its source in tax dollars from citizens. Government and non-profits don’t generate money themselves. Money is donated to them or government agencies use tax dollars collected to then offer “grants.” If the source of the $15,000 was from AIA membership dues, it would more often be referred to as “funded by the AIA.” My guess is that the source of these funds are ultimately tax dollars. There’s a very good possibility that the grant was a government grant (tax dollars collected) given to the AIA. We must always remember that money doesn’t just appear magically as “grants.” Someone worked hard to earn that money and grants are almost always find their source in state or federal funding. But frankly, does it really matter? The real point of my article is that regardless of the experts’ recommendations, nothing will be done. I hope their recommendations will be implemented. But notice two important things: 1.) their recommendations are nothing new for anyone who has been in the area for a while, and 2.) other experts recommendations have not been implemented in past years, why should we think that the fly bouncing off the window is going to do something different this time? Hey, I hope things do happen. I want growth in the right direction for my business, too, but I am skeptical. And with good cause. Prove me wrong P.A. leaders, and I will be the first to praise you.
That is true, there has been much done and nothing does seem to get implemented. It did seem like there were a lot of generic suggestions. I hope that some are implemented but I know that it is difficult when we have such slow development in PA even in a good economy. Wish they would’ve spent more time on how to move forward with no money and no development.
Simply because something is called a “grant” does not automatically mean it was funded by taxpayer dollars.
According to the Foundation Center (http://foundationcenter.org/), whose stated mission is to “strengthen the nonprofit sector by advancing knowledge about U.S. philanthropy,” there are a number of grantmaking sources. The taxonomy (a big word meaning classification) of exempt entities under the tax code designation (T) includes “philanthropy, volunteerism & grantmaking.”
According to the Foundation Center website, there are eight different types of organizations that fall under the (T) category. These are: Named Trusts; Venture Philanthropy; Community Funds & Federated Giving Programs; Non-Grantmaking, Non-Operating Foundations; Philanthropic/Charity/Voluntarism Promotion; Voluntarism Promotion & Assistance Services; Public Foundations; and Private Grantmaking Foundations.
Considering only the last category, T20 Private Grantmaking Foundations has two sub-categories: family and private foundations. Family foundations (http://foundationcenter.org/ntee/) are defined as “Private foundations whose grant funds are derived from the contributions of a single donor who may be an individual or a family and are distributed to other organizations whose work is charitable.”
Similarly, private foundations (http://foundationcenter.org/ntee/) are defined as “Nongovernmental, nonprofit organizations that are established to maintain or aid social, educational, religious or other charitable activities primarily through grants using assets which are usually contributed by a single source such as an individual, family or corporation.”
In other words, organizations other than the Federal Government.
All that said, this does not mean that the American Institute of Architects SDAT grant was NOT funded by taxpayer dollars. This response is only meant to refute the myth that all grants are funded by the Federal Government. Clearly they are not.
Hi Lee. Thanks for your input.
I guess you were not necessarily commenting to what I had written when you wrote, “Simply because something is called a “grant” does not automatically mean it was funded by taxpayer dollars,” because I wrote earlier, “A ‘grant’ in the United States almost universally finds its source in tax dollars from citizens.” I’m sharing this because I also wrote “almost universally” which means not 100% of the time. So we agree. But you also wrote, “All that said, this does not mean that the American Institute of Architects SDAT grant was NOT funded by taxpayer dollars.” So we agree again.
Of course, my main point in my article was not the grant or the source of the grant. That was probably the most minor point of the entire article. My real point was that we will not likely see change because the experts came to town. That is the most important point of all.
I emailed the American Institute of Architects regarding how they fund the SDAT grant. I asked, “Knowing that grants such as these may have a variety of funding sources, can you tell me if this grant is partly, completely, or in no way funded by taxpayer monies?”
Erin Simmons if the AIA responded with the following:
“The SDAT program is funded entirely by the American Institute of Architects, a professional non profit organization. Funding the SDAT program is a public service of the AIA; in no way is that $15,000 federally funded. The $15,000 is used to pay for the team members travel, room and board, as well as for the materials that are used throughout the visit and for the cost of producing the report. None of the team members are compensated for their time; they are all volunteers who merely believe in the process and are willing to donate their time to communities in need.”
Your “real point” is noted, Chuck, but with a sense of sorrow regarding your pessimism. As Teddy Roosevelt said in his 1899 speech before Chicago’s Hamilton Club, “Far better to dare mighty things, to win glorious triumphs, even checkered by failure, than to take rank with those poor spirits who neither enjoy much nor suffer much, because they live in the gray twilight that knows neither victory nor defeat.”
Very good Lee. Thanks for clarifying where the funds come from. On my pessimism, actually I am probably one of the most positive minded people you could know. Totally positive. I was nicknamed smiley when I was young. I am positive about business and my future. The skepticism about Port Angeles responding and implementing effective strategies is based on what I see from our history over the past 30 years. I would be delighted to see dramatic and positive change downtown P.A. and on the water front. But since we have not ever had that here, to think we suddenly will is a bit unrealistic it would seem. Still, I would love to see growth, because my own business would also benefit.