A recent entry noted the emerging coalition of groups trying to push developers for certain goods-green buildings, living wages, etc.-and noted that their pleas are probably only going to get louder.
One would think that the PG editorial noting that "the City Shouldn’t Dictate an Employer’s Wages" would be a blow against the coalition’s calls for super-minimum wages, also known as living wages. And the editorial notes that it would likely push developers to other communities.
Except that the editorial seems to be ok if a "larger region, preferably the whole state, had the same rules in place"; and it seems ok to require green architecture for development, or for "City Council can find a way to encourage developers to build close to public transit, for instance" (there already is the statewide Transit Revitalization Investment District program). On top of what we always hear from consolidation proponents about building permits and Byzantine regulations, along with zoning and community impacts, these additional requirements are likely to have the same "push" effect on businesses that the wage requirements the editorial does not like.
It would be nice to see investment-not the subsidized Downtown tower, not the casino (which came by way of a monopoly license from the state), and not the conversion of a subsidized department store into condos-that comes by way of developers taking the risk, abiding by sensible codes and regulations, and undertaking a project.
