Surviving Sustainable Chambers: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
No edit summary |
No edit summary |
||
| Line 4: | Line 4: | ||
* More than a dozen groups have succeeded and stood the test of time. The biggest is in [[Local First Arizona]] which is statewide, represents 2000+ businesses, and has a staff of about 25. There are also great groups in Bellingham (WA), [[Sustainable Connections]] | * More than a dozen groups have succeeded and stood the test of time. The biggest is in [[Local First Arizona]] which is statewide, represents 2000+ businesses, and has a staff of about 25. There are also great groups in Bellingham (WA), [[Sustainable Connections]] | ||
Austin, Boston, Charleston (SC),[[Sustain SC]] [[Local First]] Grand Rapids (MI), and a few others I'm forgetting. | Austin, Boston, | ||
Charleston (SC),[[Sustain SC]]; | |||
[[Local First]] Grand Rapids (MI), and a few others I'm forgetting. | |||
But hundreds--literally hundreds--of efforts have failed. | |||
* In my view, the central problem is the absence of a revenue model. Talented leaders step forward, pored their lives into organizing, and the only revenue model they have is fund-raising from foundations and city grants. Both are scarce and intermittent. The leaders burn out and that's that. My book, THE LOCAL ECONOMY SOLUTION, is all about models that could solve this problem. I cover nearly 30 of these models (and most have since failed, BTW). | * In my view, the central problem is the absence of a revenue model. Talented leaders step forward, pored their lives into organizing, and the only revenue model they have is fund-raising from foundations and city grants. Both are scarce and intermittent. The leaders burn out and that's that. My book, THE LOCAL ECONOMY SOLUTION, is all about models that could solve this problem. I cover nearly 30 of these models (and most have since failed, BTW). | ||
* I like Arizona Local First's approach. By going statewide and building a large network of businesses, its dues structure gives it some financial stability. With that, the organization does pitch grants but more importantly it pitches contract opportunities for state, county, and local government. That said, even they could use a better revenue model at their core. | * I like Arizona Local First's approach. By going statewide and building a large network of businesses, its dues structure gives it some financial stability. With that, the organization does pitch grants but more importantly it pitches contract opportunities for state, county, and local government. That said, even they could use a better revenue model at their core. | ||
Revision as of 10:44, 21 September 2024
From Michael Shuman question of how to structure advocacy and implementation of local economic development has been on my mind for three decades. Big picture, this is what I've seen:
* More than a dozen groups have succeeded and stood the test of time. The biggest is in Local First Arizona which is statewide, represents 2000+ businesses, and has a staff of about 25. There are also great groups in Bellingham (WA), Sustainable Connections
Austin, Boston,
Charleston (SC),Sustain SC;
Local First Grand Rapids (MI), and a few others I'm forgetting.
But hundreds--literally hundreds--of efforts have failed.
* In my view, the central problem is the absence of a revenue model. Talented leaders step forward, pored their lives into organizing, and the only revenue model they have is fund-raising from foundations and city grants. Both are scarce and intermittent. The leaders burn out and that's that. My book, THE LOCAL ECONOMY SOLUTION, is all about models that could solve this problem. I cover nearly 30 of these models (and most have since failed, BTW). * I like Arizona Local First's approach. By going statewide and building a large network of businesses, its dues structure gives it some financial stability. With that, the organization does pitch grants but more importantly it pitches contract opportunities for state, county, and local government. That said, even they could use a better revenue model at their core. * I believe that there's perhaps a local investing model that could serve as a backbone for reviving local economy groups. Specifically, a mothership fund (nationally or statewide), with subsidiary pots of money in communities, could draw lots of interest from businesses, investors, and others. The typical Local First groups focused on purchasing, but I believe investing might be a more promising vehicle. * Other things that could really help a movement of state-based efforts, with local tentacles, would be: online resources about best practices in local economic development; online lists of great local businesses across the country, plus communities of practice bringing them together; and resumption of annual conferences that bring people together and humanize the joy of our movement.