The two summits, one in Pullman and one in Moscow, were sponsored by the
Palouse Economic Forum. According to a handout, the Forum was organized in
'96 and is made up of 20 organizations, businesses, and government
agencies. To give you an idea — they include the Idaho Research
Foundation, Moscow-Pullman Daily News, Palouse Economic Development
Council, the two Rotary Clubs, and the WSU Research and Technology Park.
The mission of the forum is to “promote the economic vitality of the
Palouse.”
The summits were similar in format — they started with an economist who
gave an overview of local population and economic change, followed by a
presentation on infrastructure issues, “pros and cons” of growth, and
views of a business person . . . five panelists, with Mark Trahant
moderating. The last 45 minutes of each summit were devoted to questions,
which were livelier and more far-ranging in Moscow than Pullman because of
the open format.
The Daily News covered the panelists’ presentations so I won’t re-cap.
Among the information and assertions I found intriguing — Pullman’s
population growth has been relatively flat, far flatter than housing
construction would suggest, and due — if Ed Schweitzer has it right — to
restrictive land use policy. Very little mention was made of agriculture,
either in terms of land use, history, politics, or contribution to the
economy. The business perspectives (from Schweitzer and Tony Driver,
President of Bon Terra) were new to me and very informative. To a man (and
they all were), the panelists talked about quality of life as something to
preserve but only Tony Driver and Jim Weddell discussed what that might
mean. The notion that kids who grow up here should have the option of
finding jobs after leaving school was generally viewed as a priority for
economic development. The audience in Moscow raised excellent questions
about what might be an optimal growth rate, what kinds of businesses are
most likely to support the arts, and the school district’s role w.r.t.
vocational training.
I think the organizers understand that the two summits were only the
beginning of a much bigger discussion that should be nurtured. Context
that was glaringly absent, I believe, is how the Palouse fits into regional
trends in the Rocky Mountain West, and how we compare to similarly
configured rural areas in terms of economic diversity, demographics, and
land use. Other voices certainly need to be engaged and other issues
discussed, but I’ll save these for a letter to the editor in the next few
days.
A final thought — Vision 2020 was not involved in the Forums except to the
extent a few participants attended the Moscow event. We should ask
ourselves why this is the case.
Your faithful adjunct reporter and poser of serious questions, P. Salant