Richard Beddie's take on simplifying the world we live in
IT Hub for Christchurch – but needs money
I read with interest today an article in the Christchurch Press (online) about an IT hub plan to spark revival.
The idea was it was a group of businesses planning to set up an IT hub in the Christchurch CBD to help reinvigorate the city after the earthquake (remember most of the CBD is still off limits, and many businesses have moved out). Great idea I thought. But as I read on what struck me as amusing was the lack of a business sustainability here:
The IT business group, Enterprise Precinct and Innovation Campus (Epic), has asked the Christchurch City Council, which owns the 4000-square-metre block, to grant it site use for three years at no cost.
and
Anderson said the cost of setting up the IT campus would be substantial and the group had approached the Government for funding.
OK, so let’s get this clear: They want the council to give them free use of the land for 3 years, and the government to pay for the cost of setting it up?
Although it’s not all one sided:
Epic co-leader Colin Anderson, director of IT consultancy Effectus, said a cluster of IT companies would add much-needed vibrancy to the central city because IT workers were socialisers, had more disposable income than many people and were aligned to inner-city living.
I was wondering if I offered to move back to the CBD and buy my groceries there, would the Council give me free land, and the Government build me a house? Probably not.
Black and White Version: Sometimes I wish the media would actually analyse a story more that just printing an idea.
Although I’m not happy about my rates money being thrown at anyone who comes along, and I still have need to know details of this plan to be able to comment with certainty, I am sure at least that the “free groceries” analogy is not appropriate here. What is being aimed at is an initiative that could help boost the region, and as such it should be compared alongside such ideas as roading improvements and other infrastructure investments. If you have (say) a block of land that isn’t doing anything – is an eyesore even – is the most prudent stewardship decision to (a) put a fence around it so it can remain ugly and useless but at least unseen? (b) sell it to your business buddies at firesale prices, then buy it back from them at top-dollar when they struggle with rebuilding (but with a great deal to sell it back to them without inflation adjustment if they want it later)? or (c) use it for something that the region needs, will give greater rates income in the long term, and probably won’t get any other way?
I tend to go with (c), but it has to be a case-by-case decision. There is an opportunity cost question, and maybe the underlying problem (which is real in Christchurch especially at the moment) might really need a different solution. But it may very well need this. In any case, it certainly is nothing like free groceries handout, in my humble opinion. The CCC and others have very little in the kitty to commit to investments or any encouragements for the future… what they choose to do has to pay off really well. The NZCS seems to understand the situation, and I agree with you that the Press front page is hardly likely to carry enough information to base a sensible conclusion on, but on the face of it they are probably on to a good idea.