economic development implementation plan for miami … · economic development implementation plan...

Economic Development Implementation Planfor Miami-Dade County

Prepared for:

Miami-Dade County

Prepared by:

Florida International UniversityMetropolitan Center150 SE 2nd Avenue, Suite 1201Miami, FL 33131(305) 349-1251

Faculty:Dr. Ned Murray, AICPDr. Jim Rivers

Consultant:James Carras

Metropolitan Center Researchers:Liga ReplogleInes Hernandez-Siqueira

April 2001

1Florida International University / Metropolitan CenterEconomic Development Implementation Plan: April, 2001

The Florida International University (FIU)Metropolitan Center’s (MC) Economic Develop-ment Plan (EDIP) is the product of a nine monthassessment of the “impediments” to economicdevelopment in Miami-Dade. The economicdevelopment planning process was initiated bythe Mayor’s Mosaic 2000 Partnership and ap-proved by resolution of the Miami-Dade Boardof County Commissioners (BCC) on July 25,2000. The goal of the planis to identify clear andworkable economic devel-opment strategies toovercome existing impedi-ments, increase the benefitsand the positive conse-quences of economicdevelopment programs andto help ensure the mostefficient and effectiveinvestment of public andprivate resources.

The EDIP process consisted of several levelsof inquiry, public discussion and analysis. Theprocess began with a preliminary assessment byFIU/MC of Miami-Dade’s economic develop-ment delivery system and interviews with eco-nomic development stakeholders. The secondstep in the process involved a site assessmentand a second round of interviews by an invitedNational Panel of economic and community

development experts. The community assess-ments and interviews were followed by anEconomic Development Policy Forum on Octo-ber 27, 2000 that discussed the National Panel’sfindings and conclusions. In February, 2001 athird round of interviews and second EconomicDevelopment Policy Forum were held to specifi-cally focus on the economic development con-cerns of Miami-Dade’s Black business leaders.

FIU/MC’s assessmentof Miami-Dade’s economicdevelopment deliverysystem determined that theCounty has made signifi-cant progress in recentyears building communityconsensus on economicdevelopment issues andsolutions. The Mayor’sEconomic Summit, RoundII Empowerment Zone

application process and Mayor’s Task Force onUrban Economic Revitalization demonstrate thelevel of political leadership and communityvisioning that is necessary to successfully addressthe economic development issues of Miami-Dade. It was determined, however, that theimplementation of past and present economicdevelopment plans and initiatives has beenproblematic for Miami-Dade. The reasons forfailed implementation are complex and are, in

Executive Summary

The goal of the plan is to identify clear

and workable economic development

strategies to overcome existing

impediments, increase the benefits and

the positive consequences of economic

development programs and to help

ensure the most efficient and effective

investment of public and private

resources.

Florida International University / Metropolitan CenterEconomic Development Implementation Plan: April, 2001

2

effect, the impediments to successful economicdevelopment. FIU/MC’s assessment and com-munity planning process identified the followingten key impediments to economic developmentin Miami-Dade County:

Absence of a coherent and unifying eco-nomic vision and policy.

Insufficient access to private capital.

Isolation and alienationof the African-Ameri-can community.

Absence of an entre-preneurial environment.

Fragmented economicdevelopment deliverysystem.

Lack of public infra-structure investment.

Disconnect betweenplanning and economicdevelopment.

Lack of benchmarking and performancestandards.

No clear economic development authority.

Absence of formalized and tailoredworkforce development programs.

To address these key findings, the EDIPrecommends the consideration of four “opera-tional elements” and their accompanying policystrategies. The operational elements are: 1)creation of a strong entrepreneurial environment;2) community collaboration and capacity-build-ing; 3) comprehensive economic developmentplanning with a coordinated and integratedeconomic development delivery system; and 4)building a public/private lending capacity.

The EDIP recommends the

consideration of four “operational

elements” and policy strategies: 1)

creation of a strong entrepreneurial

environment; 2) community

collaboration and capacity-building; 3)

comprehensive economic development

planning with a coordinated and

integrated economic development

delivery system; and 4) building a

public/private lending capacity.


On July 25, 2000 Florida InternationalUniversity (FIU) was authorized by the Miami-Dade Board of County Commissioners (BCC) toformulate an Economic Development Implemen-tation Plan (EDIP) to identify and assess theimpediments to economic development inMiami-Dade County. The stimulus for BCCaction came from an on-going dialogue withinMayor Alex Penelas’ Mosaic 2000 Partnership.

The goal of the imple-mentation plan is to iden-tify clear and workableeconomic developmentstrategies, to increasebenefits and the positiveconsequences of economicdevelopment programs, and to help ensure themost efficient investment of public and privateresources. Initial analysis strongly suggested thatthe plan’s focus should be on economic develop-ment programs and funding mechanisms targetedto distressed neighborhoods within urban Miami-Dade County. These neighborhoods are charac-terized by high poverty rates and unemployment,blighted physical conditions and overall privatedisinvestments. The racial composition of theneighborhoods is primarily African-Americanwith pockets of Haitian-American and Hispanicpopulations of various national origins.

The EDIP process also considered thecompetitive advantage of urban Miami-Dadewithin the larger countywide economy. Thecompetitive advantage model weighs the eco-nomic capacity of a specific geographic area byassessing specific conditions that either enhanceor diminish economic opportunity and invest-ment. Areas can be defined at the regional, city,or neighborhood levels. The endowment of a

locale’s factor conditions orinputs, including govern-ment, public infrastructure,skilled labor and capital isconsidered an importantrequisite for gaining acompetitive advantage and

a sustainable economic base in both regional andglobal markets.

The EDIP process recognizes that there areinextricable links among economic development,social equity and the overall quality of life of acommunity. For example, one of the majorissues in urban economic development is thepersistence of structural unemployment, themismatch between labor supply and demand.The mismatch may also apply to worker skills,the discordance between job training and labordemands, which is an increasing problem giventhe pace of technological change.

The EDIP process recognizes that there

are inextricable links among economic

development, social equity and the

overall quality of life of a community.

I. Purpose


4

The issue of structural unemploymentdeserves special attention because it is far moreevident in Miami-Dade’s urban neighborhoodsthan in other areas of South Florida. It is par-ticularly acute in minority and low-income inner-city areas due to a combination of factors includ-ing poor public education, lack of formalized jobtraining programs and chronic unemployment.This understanding is particularly importantwhen considering economic development strate-gies designed for distressed neighborhoods withinurban Miami-Dade County. The longstandingissues of poverty, unemployment, job trainingand public educationrepresent economic andsocial barriers that impedesustainable community andeconomic developmentinitiatives.

The longstanding issues of poverty,

unemployment, job training and public

education represent economic and

social barriers that impede

sustainable community and economic

development initiatives.


The expanding global economy has had aprofound influence on economic developmentpolicy and practice at the local level.Policymakers and practitioners are challenged torethink many traditional assumptions on regionalgrowth and development and to create neworganizational and institutional approaches forachieving local economic development goals. Itis simply no longer enough for cities and regionsto attract firms and createjobs. Economic develop-ment within today’s globaleconomy now requires thatgreater attention be givento three issues: 1) the typesof jobs created; 2) whether these jobs are associ-ated with higher skills and pay; and 3) whetherthe community and its workforce and businesseshave the capacity to sustain its economic produc-tivity and competitiveness over time. Recentshifts in economic development thinking giveparticular weight to the goal of promoting“sustainable development” policy and practice.Sustainable development was defined by the Jobsand Environment Campaign for the EconomicDevelopment Administration (EDA) as “a newframework for thinking about the causes andsymptoms of economic distress and approachesto alleviating such problems. The concept isrooted in the hypothesis that economic viability,environmental quality, and social equity are

interrelated in complex ways and suggests thatachieving any one of these outcomes requiresattention in some way to all three.” Given theseinterrelationships, the EDA encourages thatsustainable development goals be integrated intothe larger community planning process.

The notion of sustainable development is notnew to South Florida. Sustainability has been

the rubric for the EastwardHo! Initiative since itsinception in 1996. In the2000 Imaging The Regionreport by the FAU/FIUJoint Center for Urban andEnvironmental Problems,

South Florida’s growth and development areviewed through several “lenses” of sustainability.Locally, the Mayor’s 1998 Economic SummitReport included quality of life recommendationsfor Miami-Dade with specific attention given tothe creation of a “living city” for areas desig-nated as Empowerment Zones and EnterpriseCommunities. The subsequent report and workof the Mayor’s Task Force on Urban EconomicRevitalization has the embracing goal of “sus-tainable economic growth within the historicallyblack communities of Miami-Dade County.”

Where the challenge once was how to con-vince the public to embrace the concept ofsustainability, the task now and in the coming

It is simply no longer enough

for cities and regions to attract firms

and create jobs.

II. Introduction: Toward a Meaning of LocalEconomic Development


6

years is to specify the details and learn how toput the concept into practice. In fact, the goalsof sustainability and economic development arerarely congruent. The traditional economicdevelopment paradigm has a passive supply-oriented view of urban space that assumesminimal financial incentives are needed forbusiness and industry to avail itself of ad-equately serviced, centrally located land. Underthis model, total job creation and increased taxrevenues are a community’s major economicdevelopment goals and thefoci of most local eco-nomic development poli-cies and programs. Recentnationwide surveys ofeconomic developmentorganizations by the Na-tional League of Cities andthe Council for UrbanEconomic Development(CUED) listed “number ofjobs created” and “improving the city’s tax base”as their top economic development goals. Inorder to achieve these goals, local economicdevelopment organizations have become moreinvolved with marketing and promotional activi-ties. However, job creation and increased taxrevenues are not necessarily synonymous andmay represent divergent community goals andinterests. Moreover, preoccupation with total jobcreation and expansion of the tax base oftenoverlooks the real economic developmentadvantages and needs of a particular communityor region.

One of today’s important economic develop-ment challenges is to recognize the geographicalreality and understand the importance of urbancenters to the larger metropolitan marketplace.The new economy may be global in scope, butimportant economic functions are still performedby regions and metropolitan areas. In fact, theUnited States economy is increasingly a system

of metropolitan-centered economies that tran-scend municipal boundaries. However, fewurban metropolitan areas and central cities havethe institutional base to develop and implementeconomic development strategies. And becauselocal economic development initiatives havetypically overlooked the poorer populationsrather than viewing them as potential resources,they and their communities are generally discon-nected from the economic opportunities of thelarger regional economy. This situation has been

exacerbated by a prolifera-tion of new public, quasi-public and private eco-nomic development organi-zations in recent years thathas confused and frag-mented local economicdevelopment deliverysystems. Commenting onthis trend, Harvard econo-mist Michael Porter con-

tends that there has been a tendency in recentyears to actually expand the definition of eco-nomic development to include virtually every-thing, further contributing to the confusion andcontroversy. He additionally notes, however,that individuals and organizations have tended tofocus on one or a few specific elements ofeconomic development and assert their primacy.

The new geographical reality is that urbancenters with their high concentrations of povertyand unskilled and uneducated labor force under-mine the economic health of the larger metro-politan region. In order to thrive, metropolitanregions need economically vital urban centers.

A sustainable economic development ap-proach must aim to build local competencythrough investments in education, worker train-ing and the public infrastructure to supporteconomic growth, opportunity and the generalquality of life in both urban centers and the

Because local economic

development initiatives have typically

overlooked the poorer populations

rather than viewing them as potential

resources, they and their communities

are generally disconnected from the

economic opportunities of the larger

regional economy.


larger metropolitan region. In order to level theplaying field, targeted public investments andneighborhood capacity-building initiatives needto be implemented within urban centers. Sus-tainable economic development policy dictatesthat government assumes more of a leadershiprole in building consensus and support for acommunity’s economic development initiatives.

Sustainable economic development strategiesmust be more cognizant and, thereby, moreinclusive of the diverse interests of the commu-nity. Sustainable economic development policymust recognize these diverse interests and helpto build meaningful and effective partnershipsamong local government, business, labor, educa-tion, non-profit organizations and various civicand community groups. While economic devel-opment must continue to use some of the“traditional” approaches and strategies to help

provide the balance among industrial sectors thata community needs to develop for economicgrowth, there will continue to be a shift inemphasis away from external demand and towardinternal need. The challenge is to create neworganizational and institutional approaches thatwill support sustainable economic developmentpolicies and strategies along with broader com-munity vision and involvement.

Statistical data from the 1990 US Census shows that

the unemployment rate between the predominantly

Black neighborhoods, the County and the State of

Florida only differs by one percentage point–14% in

the concentrated neighborhood, 13% in Miami-Dade

County, and 12% in the State. Considering that the

concentration of individuals without a high school

education is twice as great in Black neighborhoods as

it is in the State and almost a third more than in the

Table 1: A comparison of educational attainment, unemployment andincome between Miami-Dade’s predominantly Black neighborhoods,Miami-Dade County and the State of Florida.

county, one would expect a greater discrepancy in the

unemployment rate. It appears that the problem in

the concentrated Black community is not being

unemployed, but wage rates. A comparison of Black

neighborhoods to the total population of Miami-Dade

County shows that per-capita and median income are

half the county income figures. The State figures

show an even greater disparity.

AREA

Miami-Dade CensusTracts with 80-100%Black Population

Miami-Dade County1989

State of Florida 1990

% Black

91

21

14

% without a HighSchool Education(total population)

51

35

26

% Unemployed(Black

population)

14

13

12

Median FamilyIncome 1989

18,572

31,113

32,212

Per Capita Incomefor the BlackPopulation

6,745

13,686

14,698


8

Survey of Minority-Owned Enterprises

The U.S. Census Bureau, as part of the economic

census program, conducts every five years Surveys

of Minority and Women Enterprises. The published

data include number of firms, sales and receipts,

paid employees, and annual payroll presented by

geographic area, industry, firm size, and legal form

of organization.

The Survey of Black Minority-Owned Enterprises for

the two recent reporting years (1992 and 1997)

indicated that the number of Black-owned

businesses with employees in Miami-Dade has

doubled from 926 establishments in 1992 to 1,806

in 1997. However, Black-owned businesses

represented only 1.5 percent of the total (63,029)

business establishments Countywide in 1992 and

2.7 percent of the total (67,203) in 1997.

The Survey of Hispanic-Owned Enterprises for the

same reporting periods indicated a sizeable increase

from 10,537 business establishments in 1992 to

26,332 in 1997. Hispanic-owned business

establishments represented 16.2 percent of the

Countywide total in 1992 and a dramatic 39

percent of the total in 1997.

Composition and Wages of Black-owned

Business Establishments

According to the U.S. Census Survey of Black-

Owned Enterprises (1992 and 1997), the sectoral

composition of Miami-Dade’s business

establishments are similar for Whites (non-Hispanic),

Blacks and Hispanics with the majority of business

establishments in the service and retail sectors. A

noteworthy difference is that manufacturing

establishments, while steadily declining from 3,336

Countywide in 1992 to 3,031 in 1997, showed

growth among Black business establishments.

Black manufacturers with employees grew from 10

in 1992 to 51 in 1997. The average annual payroll

per employee for Black-owned manufacturing

establishments in 1997 was $23,149 compared to

$17,192 in Black-owned service sector

establishments.


Comparison of Income between Miami-Dade's Highly Concentrated Black Neighborhoods, Miami-Dade County and the State of Florida

0

5000

10000

15000

20000

25000

30000

35000

Average for CensusTracts with 80-100%

Black Population



Dol

lars

Median Family Income 1989 Per Capita Income for the Black Population

Comparison of Income between Miami-Dade's Highly Concentrated Black Neighborhoods, Miami-Dade County and the State of Florida

0

5000

10000

15000

20000

25000

30000

35000

Average for CensusTracts with 80-100%

Black Population



Dol

lars

Median Family Income 1989 Per Capita Income for the Black Population


1 0

This page left intentionally blank

1 1Florida International University / Metropolitan CenterEconomic Development Implementation Plan: April, 2001

The EDIP process consisted of several levelsof inquiry, public discussion and analysis. Theprocess began in August, 2000 with a preliminaryassessment by FIU/MC of Miami-Dade’s eco-nomic development environment including itsorganizational delivery system and existingeconomic development plans. An importantearly step involved recruitment by FIU/MC of alocal Advisory Committee consisting of Mr.George Knox, Esquire, Ms.Cynthia Curry, Presidentand CEO of CWC andAssociates, and Dr. RonaldBerkman, Dean of theCollege of Health andUrban Affairs at FIU. TheFIU/MC preliminaryassessment and interviewprocess was followed in September by an on-siteassessment and a second round of interviewsthat included a National Panel of communityand economic development experts. The jointFIU/MC and National Panel assessment culmi-nated with an Economic Development PolicyForum in October. Subsequent to the EconomicDevelopment Policy Forum, it was decided that athird round of interviews and second economicdevelopment policy forum be added to the EDIPprocess. The additional interviews and thesecond policy forum were conducted in Februaryof 2001.

FIU/MC Preliminary Assessment

The FIU/MC preliminary assessment beganwith a series of interviews with local economicdevelopment stakeholders. The FIU/MC de-vised a standard set of interview questions tohelp elicit responses that would guide but notdictate an open discussion concerning the im-pediments to economic development within

Miami-Dade County. Theinterview was designed to:1) develop an understand-ing of each organization/agency’s mission, fundingand target/service areas, 2)assess the level of commu-nication, coordination andintegration among thevarious economic develop-

ment organizations/agencies, and 3) obtain eachorganization/agency’s perception of existingimpediments to the delivery of economic devel-opment programs and services in Miami-DadeCounty.

National Panel Assessment

(September 24-28, 2000)

Following the initial round of interviews anda preliminary assessment, the FIU/MC as-sembled a National Panel of community and

The interview was designed to:

1) understand missions, funding

and target/service areas, 2) assess

communication, coordination and

integration, and 3) obtain perceptions

of existing impediments.

III. The EDIP Process


1 2

economic development experts to perform an on-site assessment of Miami-Dade’s economicdevelopment environment. This panel wasselected with the advice and assistance of Mr.James Carras of Carras Community Investments,Inc., a consultant to the project. The NationalPanel was provided a briefing packet prior totheir arrival that included the FIU/MC’s prelimi-nary assessments, demographic profiles, maps,newspaper clippings and an itinerary of theweek’s proceedings. The panel convened on theevening of their arrival with an orientation andoverview of the EDIP process and a review ofthe week’s agenda. Mr. Johnny Mack of theNational Institute for Community Empowerment(N.I.C.E.) was selected by the FIU/MC tofacilitate the deliberationsand the report of the panel.They toured target neigh-borhoods on the first fullday and began their inter-viewing of local economicdevelopment stakeholders.Interviews and debriefingscontinued the following two days. On their finalday, the panel delivered their oral reports andprepared draft policy and strategy recommenda-tions. The Report of the National Panel, datedOctober 2000, is included as Attachment C tothis report.

FIU/MC Economic Development Policy

Forum (October 27, 2000)

The joint findings and conclusions of theFIU/MC and National Panel elicited a numberof policy issues that served as the focus ofdiscussion at the first FIU/MC Economic Devel-opment Policy Forum held on October 27, 2000.The policy forum also provided an opportunityfor community leaders to express their views onimportant economic development issues affect-ing Miami-Dade County. Mr. Mack of N.I.C.E.

was brought back by the FIU/MC to facilitatethe policy forum deliberations, adding continuityfrom the National Expert Panel and its report.The November, 2000 FIU/MC EconomicDevelopment Policy Forum Report is included asAttachment B.

FIU/MC Economic Development Policy

Forum (February 15, 2001)

Following the October, 2000 EconomicDevelopment Policy Forum, a meeting of theEDIP Advisory Committee was held to reviewthe EDIP process and the preliminary findings ofboth FIU/MC and the National Panel of Ex-perts. The advisory committee then recom-

mended that a third roundof interviews and a secondeconomic developmentpolicy forum be conductedto include Black commu-nity and business leaderswho had not participated inthe prior rounds of inter-

views nor the first policy forum. FIU/MCsubmitted an amended scope of work to Miami-Dade County that proposed this course ofaction, which was subsequently approved. Theadded EDIP phase was delegated by FIU/MC toMr. Mack of N.I.C.E. who conducted the con-cluding set of individual interviews and facili-tated the second policy forum at the CalebCenter on February 15, 2001. Ms. Elaine Blackand the staff at Tools for Change assistedN.I.C.E. in organizing both the interview processand the policy forum. The process resulted in areport prepared by N.I.C.E., “Perspectives ofEconomic Development in Miami-Dade: A BlackView” is included as Attachment A.

The policy forum provided an

opportunity for community leaders to

express their views on important

economic development issues affecting

Miami-Dade County.


In his opening statement in the 1989 report“Tools for Change: The Planned Process toStimulate Black Economic Development inMiami-Dade,” Steering Committee ChairmanGarth Reeves remarked that the report “reflectsthe reality that in spite of the efforts of dozensof organizations throughout [Miami-] DadeCounty, black economic conditions in manyarenas are worse than they were in 1980.” Thissentiment was echoed in the 1998 Urban Eco-nomic Revitalization Planfor Designated TargetedUrban Areas and mostrecently by Mayor Penelas’Mosaic 2000 PartnershipInitiative.

The reality is thatMiami-Dade’s current economic developmentdelivery system is the culmination of twentyyears of economic development plans, studiesand reports. Miami-Dade’s first attempt toformulate a countywide economic developmentpolicy was through the creation of an OverallEconomic Development Program (OEDP)Committee in 1977. Economic developmentplanning, as implemented through the OEDPwas a prerequisite for receiving federal EconomicDevelopment Administration (EDA) publicworks project funding. More importantly, how-ever, the OEDP process encouraged communi-ties to begin to think strategically about their

assets and liabilities, the direction they want togo and what steps must be taken to get there.According to the 1991 FIU study “MinorityBusiness and Economic Development in DadeCounty, Florida: An Analysis,” the OEDP wasvoluntary, having no permanent staff assigned tocarry out its activities. Its primary purpose wasto “advise” the Board of County Commissionerson Economic development policies and strate-gies.

A. Miami-Dade’s

Economic

Development Plans

and Initiatives

The first comprehen-sive policy plan to address minority business andeconomic development was the result of anotherEDA funded initiative. The 1981 “EconomicAdjustment Plan for the County” prepared byJanus Associates recommended alternativemethods for assisting minority firms in participat-ing in County projects. The Janus Report was areaction to the civil disturbances of 1980.Subsequent economic development plans andinitiatives were also spawned by racial unrest anda general dissatisfaction with the lack of progressof these prior planning efforts.

Miami-Dade County’s current economic

development delivery system is the

culmination of twenty years of economic

development plans, studies and reports.

IV. Miami-Dade’s Economic DevelopmentDelivery System


1 4

The following is a chronology and briefsummary of Miami-Dade’s major economicdevelopment policy and planning initiativesduring the past twenty years. Table 2 is a moreextensive look at the various plans that havebeen undertaken in the past 25 years.

Adjustment Plan for Civil Disturbance

Areas: Janus Associates Report, 1981

The 1981 Janus Associates Report was theCounty’s first comprehensive policy plan toinclude small and minority business develop-ment. The EDA-funded plan provided a com-prehensive assessment of the problems affectingDade’s black population and recommendedstrategies for job development and alternativemethods for assisting minority firms to partici-pate in County funded projects.

Economic Development Strategies in

Dade County: Update to the Janus

Report, 1983

The economic recession of the early 1980scoupled with new waves of immigration fromCuba and Haiti created new demands on Miami-Dade’s social and economic structure. In 1983,the Miami-Dade Department of Community andEconomic Development (DCED) updated andrestructured the strategies recommended in theprior Janus Report. The intent was to updateeconomic and demographic characteristics of theCounty, review the problems inherent in Miami-Dade’s economy (particularly as they related tominorities and distressed target areas), anddevelop strategies to address problems for theentire system. This shift in strategy changed thegeographic focus of the original Janus Reportfrom targeted Black communities to the largerCounty.

Year

1977

1981

1983

1984

1989

1994

1997

1997

1998

1998

2001

Table 2: Chronology of PlansPolicy/Plan

Overall Economic Development Plan Committee

Adjustment Report for Civil Disturbances: JanusReport

Economic Development Strategies in Dade County:Update to Janus Report, 1983

Dade Strategic Plan

Tools for Change: Planned Process to Stimulate BlackEconomic Development in Dade County

Miami Metro-Dade Empowerment Zone Application

One Community One Goal(R)

Mayor’s Economic Summit

Urban Economic Revitalization Plan for theDesignated Targeted Urban Areas of Miami-DadeCounty, Florida

Miami Metro-Dade Empowerment Zone: Round TwoApplication

Economic Element-Comprehensive DevelopmentMaster Plan

Agency/Author

Board of County Commissioners

Janus Associates

Department of Community andEconomic Development

Arthur Anderson

Metro-Miami Action Plan andthe Greater Miami United Way

Miami-Dade County and City ofMiami

Greater Miami Chamber ofCommerce

Miami-Dade County, Office ofthe Mayor

Task Force on Urban EconomicRevitalization

Miami-Dade County and City ofMiami

Miami-Dade County


Dade Strategic Plan: The Arthur

Anderson Report, 1984

The Arthur Anderson Report evolved basedon the County’s concern for improving thecoordination of economic and communitydevelopment programs and services. The DCEDrecommended that $35,000 in CommunityDevelopment Block Grant (CDBG) funds beappropriated for the study. The study’s eventualcountywide emphasis resulted in the creation ofthe Beacon Council in 1985 and the develop-ment of a plan for all of Miami-Dade. Thestrategic plan stressed the attraction of neweconomic development to Dade County byimproving the “marketing, advertising, andpromotional activities of key actors in both thepublic and private sectors.” As noted in FIU’s1991 “Minority Business and Economic Devel-opment in Dade County, Florida: An Analysis,”the Beacon Council declined to consider smalland minority business economic development aspart of their mandate stating that their missionwas to “increase the size of the economic pie foreveryone, not divide the pie.”

Tools for Change: Planned Process to

Stimulate Black Economic Development

in Dade County, 1989

In 1989, the DCED once again proposed anupdate to the Janus Report. “Tools for Change”was established as a “planned process to stimu-late Black economic development in Miami-Dade County.” The plan’s mission was to:

Establish a common vision of the future ofBlack Dade County,

Identify and focus resources on actionsrequired to stimulate the growth of Blackenterprises,

Identify and focus resources on actionsrequired to stimulate employment opportuni-ties for Blacks, and

Reach consensus on actions necessary tofulfill the vision, countywide.

The primary objective of the process was todevelop a strategic economic development planthat included defining the strengths, weaknesses,constraints and threats to the future of Blackeconomic development in Dade County. Blackeconomic development was operationally definedas “all activities that increase the amounts of andcirculation of income among Blacks living orworking in Dade County” (income includes therevenues, purchases and profits of Black-ownedbusinesses and the salaries, wages and passiveincomes of Black individuals).

A consensus was developed around thepriorities projected to have the highest impactand probability of occurrence. The planningprocess identified three basic problem areas andtheir key interrelationships:

Jobs and Income Development

Income from jobs supports homeownership

Income from jobs supports businesses

Business Development

Businesses support commercial corridors

Businesses create jobs

Infrastructure Development

Affordable, decent housing reducesmiddle/working class flight

Competitive commercial corridors attractquality businesses


1 6

1997—One Community One Goal(R)

(updated to 1999)

Through the 1997 One Community OneGoal(R) (OCOG) planning process, nine eco-nomic industry/sectors with the greatest growthpotential for Miami-Dade were targeted by theGreater Miami Chamber of Commerce andorganizations including Miami-Dade Countygovernment, were given tasks with appropriateactions and/or policies aimed at facilitatingexpansion in these industries. OCOG presenteda Master Plan with a detailed implementationblueprint for seven industries targeted—Bio-medical, Film & Entertainment, InternationalCommerce, Education, Financial Services,Telecommunications, and the Visitor Industry.Since then OCOG has added the convergingindustries of Information Technology andTelecommunications (IT and Telecom), andAviation Technologies.

An Oversight Committee was established in1998 to identify measurable progress of OCOG.The Oversight Committee’s charge was twofold:1) to ensure that the action steps and strategiesare accomplished by the “Responsible Parties” tomeet the objectives in One Community OneGoal’s Reports to the Community and in theMayor’s Economic Summit findings (see 1998Mayor’s Economic Summit), and 2) to periodi-cally report progress in achieving these Goals tothe Community .

1998—Mayor’s Economic Summit

The mission of the Mayor’s EconomicSummit was “to provide a singular forum todiscuss and condense all of the community’seconomic efforts into one common platform inconformance with the long-range initiative OneCommunity One Goal.” The community-wideSummit, convened by Mayor Alex Penelas, wasstructured to attract broad community participa-

tion and include public policy recommendationsto the Mayor and Miami-Dade Board of CountyCommissioners in ten critical areas:

Crime reduction

Culture

Economic Revitalization

Film and Entertainment

Global Perception

Housing Affordability

International Trade

South Dade Revitalization

Welfare-to-Work

Workforce Preparation and Education

The Economic Revitalization componentfocused “on an economic development strategythat included a comprehensive plan to createjobs that would benefit the Miami-Dade commu-nity by increasing the tax base and promotingeconomic development and business activity.”Recommendations included exploring creativefunding sources for economic development,revising County policy and structure to increaseefficiency and create a business friendly environ-ment, and developing a coordinated strategy tosecure an Empowerment Zone designation.

1998—Federal Empowerment Zone (EZ)

Application

Bolstered by the Mayor’s Economic Summit,Miami-Dade responded with a Round II FederalEmpowerment Zone application that includedan extensive neighborhood planning processincluding two rounds of neighborhood forums.Several elements were added to improve theunsuccessful 1994 application. More than 1,000residents participated in the planning process.The 1998 EZ application process was more


inclusive of the business community. A formallinkage was made with the One Community OneGoal strategy. A total of 18 area financialinstitutions pledged nearly $400 million to EZneighborhoods. During Year I, the financialinstitutions made 4,127 commercial, consumerand affordable loans to the EZ communitiesworth a reported $187 million. Loans to smallbusinesses accounted for $78 million of the total.

1998—Urban Economic Revitalization

Plan for the Designated Targeted Urban

Areas of Miami-Dade County, Florida

In May 1998, the mayor and county commis-sion received Task Force on Urban EconomicRevitalization’s “Urban Economic RevitalizationPlan for Designated Targeted Urban Areas ofMiami-Dade County, Florida.” Building on the1989 “Tools for Change” study, the plan’s all-embracing goal was to create sustainable eco-nomic growth within the historically blackcommunities of Miami-Dade County. The planfurther stated that the “dynamism of the overallMiami-Dade economy and the potential forleadership in international commerce as the‘Gateway to the Americas’ is hampered by theeconomic stagnation in these historically blackneighborhoods.”

The plan’s designation of Targeted UrbanAreas (TUAs) was an attempt to meet long-standing needs and to achieve economic devel-opment goals in Black communities through atargeted high impact strategy including signifi-cant levels of investment in major commercialand industrial projects, the creation of significantnumbers of jobs and an unprecedented commit-ment and public investment of funds to meetsevere infrastructure needs (e.g. roads, side-walks, lighting, water, sewer, etc.).

The plan also addressed criticisms that thepast and current economic development project

funding in the TUAs was not focused and wasoften subject to the machinations of politicsrather than held accountable to objective mea-sures, standards, or results. The plan attemptedto provide a clear focus to Miami-Dade’s eco-nomic development funding process, and byencouraging the formation of public/privatepartnerships to participate in and foster eco-nomic development in the TUAs. It also pro-vided “measures to assure that the awarding offunds under the Community Development BlockGrant (CDBG) Program are consistent withcriteria set out in the plan and that organizationsreceiving county funds are provided with perfor-mance standards and are monitored to assureeffective performance.”

The plan developed Area-Wide and TargetedUrban Area Economic Revitalization Strategiesin the areas of commercial revitalization, indus-trial development, workforce development andbusiness opportunities, capital development,legislative and public policy strategies, housingaffordability and small business development andentrepreneurial technical assistance.

2001 Economic Element, Miami-Dade

Comprehensive Development Master

Plan

In the FY 1999/2000 budget, Miami-Dade’sDepartment of Planning and Zoning (DP&Z)was allocated $100,000 for preparation of anEconomic Element to the ComprehensiveDevelopment Master Plan. The original impetusfor including an economic element in the Com-prehensive Plan came after the massive destruc-tion caused by Hurricane Andrew. In recentyears, dissatisfaction with the community-basedorganization (CBO) funding process promptedseveral county commissioners to press for a“plan” to guide the allocation process. Thiselement will present a set of public policies for


1 8

adoption by elected officials to assist in achiev-ing economic growth and full employment. TheBeacon Council, having contributed to thedevelopment of Miami-Dade’s long-range strate-gic plan under the Greater Miami Chamber ofCommerce’s One Community One Goal(R)

process was engaged by the DP&Z to assist it incompleting the Economic Element.

B. Lead Economic Development

Agencies

With the passage of the landmark Housingand Community Development Act of 1974, mostlocal governments began to combine theircommunity and economic development functionsunder one county or city department. Typically,the local government department was chargedwith administering the Community DevelopmentBlock Grant (CDBG) and other HUD housingand community development programs. Thecity/county department would also administerFederal economic development programs such asthe Economic Development Administration’s(EDA) planning and public works programsalong with various state housing and communitydevelopment programs. In Miami-Dade, thesefunctions have been administered under theauspices of the Department of Community andEconomic Development (DCED) that has sincechanged its name to the Office of Communityand Economic Development (OCED).

Miami-Dade’s various Chambers of Com-merce have been responsible for economicdevelopment marketing, sales and promotion.The most noteworthy of the Chambers are theGreater Miami Chamber of Commerce, Miami-Dade Chamber of Commerce, and the LatinChamber of Commerce. The economic develop-ment marketing of Miami-Dade became morecentralized in 1985 with the creation of theBeacon Council. The following provides a

summary of Miami-Dade’s lead economic devel-opment agencies.

The Beacon Council

The Beacon Council was created in 1985with the goal to coordinate and increase eco-nomic development in Miami-Dade County on acomprehensive, countywide basis. The objec-tives of the new public/private partnership wereto guide Miami-Dade County’s economic futurethrough sales and marketing, to implement thecounty’s economic development strategy (EDS)and coordinate the county’s economic develop-ment activities. The Beacon Council, whichbranched off from the Greater Miami Chamberof Commerce, was an outgrowth of the 1984Arthur Anderson economic development strate-gic planning study. Today, the Beacon Council isdeemed Miami-Dade’s “official” economicdevelopment partnership, a “not-for-profit,public/private organization that focuses on jobcreation and economic growth by coordinatingcommunity-wide programs: promoting minoritybusiness and economic development; providingassistance to local businesses in their expansionefforts; and marketing Greater Miami throughoutthe world.” The Beacon Council is funded jointlyfrom public and private sources including ap-proximately $2.9"million from the county’sOccupational License Fee and $1 million frommembership fees. The Beacon Council has astaff of 29 and approximately 500 membersincluding many of greater Miami’s largest corpo-rations and high-growth companies. The BeaconCouncil’s strategic plan deals almost exclusivelywith attracting targeted industries identifiedwithin the One Community One Goal(R) process.In addition to its marketing and promotionalactivities, the Beacon Council provides demo-graphic analysis and economic projections forMiami-Dade County.


In recent years, the Beacon Council hasfocused more on urban redevelopment encourag-ing potential businesses to locate in the Empow-erment Zone (EZ) and Targeted Urban Areas(TUAs). The Council notes that in the past threeyears, 17 businesses have located in the Empow-erment Zones. The Beacon Council’s UrbanEconomic Revitalization Initiatives programpromotes the creation of jobs and new invest-ment by assisting businesses to expand or relo-cate to the EZ, TUAs and Enterprise Zone.

Office of Community and Economic

Development (OCED)

The OCED’s mission is “to administerFederal and State funding which supports thedevelopment of viable neighborhoods in Miami-Dade County characterized by decent housing,expansion of economic opportunities and thepreservation of historic properties.” OCED’sprimary responsibility is the management ofMiami-Dade’s Community Development BlockGrant (CDBG) Program and other federal andstate economic development grant, loan and taxincentive programs. OCED is also responsiblefor administering the Community RevolvingLoan Fund, HUD Section 108 Guaranteed LoanProgram, Enterprise Center and Enterprise ZonePrograms. OCED’s planning involvement restsalmost exclusively with the five-year U.S. De-partment of Housing and Urban Development(USHUD) Consolidated Plan.

Miami-Dade’s current CDBG entitlement isapproximately $22 million down from $24 millionin 1995. OCED’s budget includes $269,000 ingeneral funds used for historic preservation andcounty-wide economic development activities.

Metro-Miami Action Plan (MMAP)

MMAP emerged in 1983 following the civilunrest that erupted in 1980. MMAP’s mission is

“to address the socio-economic disparity ofMiami-Dade County’s Black community byadvocating and coordinating initiatives andprograms for the benefit of the community-at-large.” Among MMAP’s listed accomplishmentsare the Overtown Revitalization Program (Con-gresswoman Meek Fund Project) that hasawarded $1,498,000 in grants for businesscreation, expansion and retention, administrationof the Moss Plan, a program that has awardedgrants to four franchises (including that firstBlack owned Denny’s Restaurant in the South-eastern U.S.), and 21 micro-businesses in SouthDade, a Homeownership Assistance Program(HAP) that has provided up to $4,000 each infinancial assistance and pre and post housingcounseling to more than 1500 residents inMiami-Dade since its inception in 1995.

Task Force on Urban Economic

Revitalization

The Miami-Dade Task Force on UrbanEconomic Revitalization was created in 1997 byordinance of the Board of County Commission-ers. The establishment of the Task Force was anattempt to marshal all county economic develop-ment resources and develop a focused approachtoward economic revitalization in TargetedUrban Areas (TUAs). To this end the Task Force“helps to focus Miami-Dade’s economic fundingprocess, encourage the formation of public/private partnerships, and place significant controlover funding of economic development projectsin designated Targeted Urban Areas (TUAs) inthe hands of a community-based county board.”The powers and duties of the Task Force includeserving in an advisory capacity to the mayor andthe Board of County Commissioners regardingurban economic revitalization in the TUAs anddeveloping a “Plan” that would “identify thegoals of the Plan and identify specific, focused,achievable economic development projects,


2 0

delineate action steps, and develop a plan forprivate sector fundraising.”

Miami-Dade Empowerment Trust

Miami-Dade’s Federal Empowerment Zoneapplication was approved in the second round offunding in 1998. Since then, the EmpowermentTrust has received grant-funding commitmentstotaling over $9 million from federal, state andlocal governments. The Empowerment Trusthas forged partnerships with the four mayors whorepresent Empowerment Zone communitiesincluding Miami-Dade County, the City ofMiami, Homestead and Florida City. Otherimportant collaborations include the Bankers’Empowerment Partnership and the greaterMiami Chamber of Commerce EmpowermentZone Committee. Through the organization andimplementation of these community partner-ships, four key strategies of the EmpowermentZone Plan have been identified: 1) growing newjobs and businesses; 2) creating pathways to jobsand businesses; 3) building in the EmpowermentZone; and 4) sustainable community develop-ment. To achieve its goals and objectives theTrust has a variety of financing tools includingtax increment bond financing, Brownfield TaxIncentives, Qualified Zone Academy Bond,Work Opportunity Tax Credits, and Welfare toWork Credits. The EZ received $3 million fromCongress upon approval of its original applica-tion. However, the remaining $97 million ofadditional funding that was anticipated appearsin jeopardy due to a lack of support in both theHouse and Senate.


The EDIP process included an open andevolving assessment of Miami-Dade’s economicdevelopment delivery system. The assessmentallowed for substantial input from local eco-nomic development stakeholders, businessleaders and the community at large. Due to thefact that the EDIP was intended to focus onimpediments to economic development withinthe African-American community, special effortwas made to engage Afri-can-American business andcommunity leaders in theassessment process.

The FIU/MC con-ducted its assessment inconjunction with theNational Panel of Expertsand the National Institutefor Community Empowerment (N.I.C.E.). TheEDIP’s findings were based on the input receivedfrom three phases of interviews, two economicdevelopment policy forums and research onstate-of-the art community and economic devel-opment practice.

The first phase of interviews occurredconcurrent with the FIU/MC’s preliminaryassessment of Miami-Dade’s economic develop-ment environment. Phase two interviews wereconducted by the National Panel of Experts aspart of their on-site assessment. Phase three

interviews were conducted by N.I.C.E prior tothe second economic development policy forum.The first two phases of the interview processprimarily targeted Miami-Dade’s economicdevelopment stakeholders, while the third phasetargeted Black business and community leaders.The stakeholders represented governmental andquasi-governmental agencies involved with thedelivery of economic development programs and

services. The initial inter-views conducted by theFIU/MC were held on-siteat each agency location.The subsequent interviewsconducted by the NationalPanel were held at theoffices of the FIU/MC. Inboth instances, the agencieswere typically represented

by the director or chief executive officer and twoor more agency officials or board members.Phase three interviews of Black business andcommunity leaders were conducted one-on-oneby N.I.C.E. at the Tools for Change offices. Intotal, the interviews provided an importantstakeholder and community perspective on theissues and impediments to economic develop-ment in Miami-Dade.

Subsequent to the three rounds of inter-views, the FIU/MC began a process of summa-rizing, interpreting and categorizing the re-

The EDIP’s findings were based on the

input received from three phases of

interviews, two economic development

policy forums and research on state-of-

the art community and economic

development practice.

V. Principal Findings


2 2

sponses. The following are the principal findingsthat emerged from the analytical processes. Thefindings identify and briefly discuss the keyimpediments to economic development inMiami-Dade County.

1. Absence of a coherent and

unifying economic development

vision and policy

It is widely recognized that government mustplay a key role in local economic development.A clear economic development policy promotesand enables sound decision making, professionalprogram management, strategic communityinvestment and the creation of effective public/private partnerships. A clear and unified policycan also help to instill government leadership inpromoting economic development goals andobjectives. Effective government leadership canforge the necessary working relationships withprivate sector businesses and the community.

The absence of a clear and unifying eco-nomic development vision and policy was themajor theme of both the economic developmentstakeholders (Table 3) and Black business leaders(Table 4) comments and observations. Thevision/policy issue was repeatedly raised inresponse to questions pertaining to impedimentsto economic development within Miami-DadeCounty. While several stakeholders pointed tothe lack of political leadership on this issue,most of the respondents felt that the problemwas attributed more to a lack of understandingof economic development. However, several ofthe stakeholders commented that the absence ofa coherent and unifying economic developmentpolicy is deliberate. They stated that there is a“white” economic development vision/policyembodied in One Community One Goal(R) andseparate, Black economic development visions/policies found in MMAP, the Urban EconomicRevitalization Plan and The Empowerment Zone.

Table 3: Responses of Economic DevelopmentStakeholdersFinding/Impediment No. Comments/ No. Interviewees Percent Interviewees

Observations (34 Total)

Absence Economic Development 50 26 76%Vision and Policy

Disconnect Planning 33 24 70%and Development

Fragmented Delivery System 37 27 79%

Isolation and Alienation 24 15 44%of Black Community

No Central Authority 30 17 50%

Need for Workforce Development 19 14 41%

Need for Benchmarking 15 12 35%

Absence of Entrepreneurial 18 15 44%Environment

Lack of Private Capital 14 12 35%

Lack of Public Infrastructure 11 10 29%


2. Isolation and alienation of the

African-American community

Lack of progress and the failure of pastplanning efforts have created a general feeling ofisolation and alienation within the African-American community. Stakeholders and commu-nity and business leaders of different racesexpressed that there is a general feeling of

1. “Absence of a coherent and

unifying economic development

vision and policy”

Sample Interview Quotes

“We need a vision to guide the economic

development process.”

“No one has a clear purpose. There are no shared

objectives with agreements. There is no leadership

to stay the course and implement.”

“I have never seen a community with so much

money to put out and with no idea of what to do

with it.”

“The private sector needs to see a management

structure that they understand. The private sector

doesn’t know what to do with the county.”

“The business community does not believe us

anymore. They ask, why should we put our efforts

in this again?”

“Miami-Dade has no economic development vision.”

Table 4: Responses of Black Business andCommunity LeadersFinding/Impediment No. Comments/ No. Interviewees Percent Interviewees

Observations (22 Total)

Absence Economic Development 28 18 82%Vision and Policy

Disconnect Planning 14 8 36%and Development

Fragmented Delivery System 24 15 68%

Isolation and Alienation of 27 15 68%the Black Community

No Central Authority 28 14 64%

Need for Workforce 7 6 27%

Need for Benchmarking 6 3 14%

Absence of Entrepreneurial 11 9 41%Environment

Lack of Private Capital 18 12 55%

Lack of Public Infrastructure 5 5 23%

2. “Isolation and alienation of the

African-American community”


“There is a sense of hopelessness in the Black

community.”

“What exists is a benign ambivalence towards

Blacks.”

“There is no commitment from the community to

improve the conditions of Black areas.”

“Our Black communities remain Balkanized.”


2 4

isolation and alienation within the African-American community that has resulted in a highlevel of cynicism and distrust toward Miami-Dade’s government and its leaders. While theissue of isolation and alienation was viewed asthe second leading impediment to economicdevelopment according to Black leaders (68%),this observation was also noted by many (44%)of the other stakeholders as well.

3. Fragmented economic

development delivery system

A direct consequence of the absence of aclear and unified economic development policy isa fragmented economic development deliverysystem. Policy should direct the organization ofgovernment and its respective departments,boards and commissions. Economic develop-ment programs and services must then be coordi-nated and integrated within that organizationalstructure. However, Miami-Dade’s fragmentedapproach to economic development delivery has

created an environment of competition, duplica-tion and overlapping missions.

Stakeholders (79%) viewed Miami-Dade’sfragmented economic development deliverysystem as the number one impediment. Many ofthe economic development stakeholders inter-viewed commented that Miami-Dade’s economicdevelopment delivery system was in a conditionof disarray and marked by program duplication,competition and a general lack of communica-tion. Black leaders (68%) also viewed fragmen-tation of the delivery system as a major impedi-ment to economic development.

4. Disconnect between

comprehensive planning and

economic development

While it is essential to integrate local eco-nomic development efforts into a larger planningframework, the connection to Miami-Dade’scomprehensive planning process is tenuous atbest. Miami-Dade’s economic developmentpolicy must be implemented as part of a compre-

4. “Disconnect between

comprehensive planning and

economic development”


“There are many plans but most do not address the

economic development needs of the community.”

“What exists in Miami-Dade are social service

programs, we have no true economic development

plan.”

“CDBG funds are granted based on a good idea or

political connections, not on a sound business

plan.”

“We have no strategic plan that provides a clearly

defined role for all agencies.”

3. “Fragmented economic

development delivery system”


“The economic development parts are here, but

they don’t work together.”

“We need to create a cohesive structure with a

comprehensive approach that cuts across the

different layers of government. This organization

must have the resources its needs.”

“The shepherds of cooperation become the wolves

when they need to compete for funding.”

“Where is the one-stop shop for economic

development?”

“Nothing is working well, no one has control, there

is no coordination.”


hensive plan with clear linkages to land use,transportation and housing. It is also essentialthat the comprehensive plan direct Miami-Dade’scapital improvement program (CIP) to targetedeconomic development activities. The compre-hensive plan should also help guide allocationdecisions for the Community DevelopmentBlock Grant (CDBG) program.

A disconnect between planning and eco-nomic development and, specifically, the generalirrelevance of comprehensive land use planningwas a major concern expressed by the stakehold-ers (70%). The need for a comprehensiveeconomic development plan was cited by severalofficials who viewed the plan as a way of clarify-ing the economic development roles of eachagency. Black leaders (36%) also commented onthis issue.

5. No clear economic development

authority

Many of the stakeholders noted the absenceof a clear economic development authoritywithin Miami-Dade as a clear impediment toeffective program and service delivery. Insteadof a central economic development authority, thestakeholders point to a dispersed and fragmentedeconomic development system that has beenproven largely ineffective.

5. “No clear economic

development authority”


“There is no accountability for performance, who is

in charge?”

“Who is holding government accountable for its

performance?”

“We have no clear line of authority or

accountability.”

6. Insufficient access to private

capital

Access to private capital (equity and debtfinancing) is viewed as a major impediment forMiami-Dade’s distressed urban neighborhoods.This is generally perceived as a complex issuethat speaks to Miami-Dade’s inability to forgeeffective public /private partnerships and alending culture for economic development wheregovernment, non-profits and the banking com-munity have failed to fully develop the necessarylending capacity.

Many interviewees and forum participantsindicated that gaps exist in the availability ofcapital for small business development and forhomeownership programs, especially to minori-ties and economically distressed communities.The greatest perceived gaps are for long-termand unsecured debt for small and moderatelysized businesses, equity financing for new busi-nesses and early stage businesses that are un-likely to go public and for small businesses thatwant to develop new products, predevelopmentand other loans for nontraditional borrowers suchas non-profit organizations and communitydevelopment corporations, loans of all types to

6. “Insufficient access to private

capital”


“Private capital is needed to stimulate the local

economy, but there are no funds to draw from.”

“Miami-Dade economic development agencies aren’t

qualified to do in-house lending.”

“In the inner-city there isn’t enough equity to push

the deals.”

“The Black community, for the most part, does not

satisfy the lending criteria of commercial lenders.”


2 6

businesses in low-income neighborhoods, andhome-mortgage loans to minorities.

Community-based development organiza-tions and their network of service providersindicated that they sorely need funding for pre-development that includes pre-planning, assess-ment and implementation vehicles that arenecessary to support sustainable economicdevelopment initiatives.

Finally, many of those interviewed, alongwith economic development forum attendees,claimed that the County has had minimal impactutilizing the concept of leveraging private sectorcapital for debt and equity for business, commu-nity development initiatives and housing loans.They indicated that the lack of a focused agenda,competing and uncomplementary initiatives, andthe lack of consensus on the allocation ofresources have prevented targeted investmentsthat would leverage other public and privateresources.

7. Absence of an entrepreneurial

environment

The nation’s “new economy rules” empha-sizes creating entrepreneurial environments.Entrepreneurship nurtures successful businessstart-ups and the growth of new ventures.However, entrepreneur development is severelylacking in Miami-Dade.

Entrepreneurs and growing companies needequity and “near equity” to assist their start-upcosts, fund product development, and workcapital. This type of investment is virtually non-existent in Miami-Dade. There is a need for asignificant venture capital effort that addressesequity needs in minority and low-wealth commu-nities.

Many stakeholders commented on thegeneral absence of an entrepreneurial environ-ment within Miami Dade. These comments weredirected at county government and the commu-nity at large. It was noted that entrepreneurialdevelopment and training are also lacking.

8. Lack of public infrastructure

investment

Fundamental supply-side economic develop-ment practice requires that sufficient publicinfrastructure dollars be targeted to prioritycommercial and industrial areas. There is noapparent targeting of Capital ImprovementProgram (CIP) or Federal Community Develop-ment Block Grant (CDBG) funds for publicinfrastructure improvements in support ofeconomic development projects. Conversely,there is evidence that Miami-Dade disperses itsCIP and CDBG funds thereby limiting their

7. “Absence of an entrepreneurial

environment”


“Blacks lack experience in business. We need to

foster entrepreneurship.”

“We need an entrepreneurial approach for our

economic development organizations.”

“You have a number of agencies that are supposedly

doing entrepreneurial training. Is any of that real?”

“Most clients don’t know their business plan or their

industry. In many cases, someone else has

prepared it for them.”

“County agencies like to say that CDCs lack

capacity, but the county needs to look at their own

capacity.”


effectiveness because targeted funds have greaterimpact.

Many economic development stakeholdersbelieve there is inadequate public infrastructureinvestment to stimulate economic development.Stakeholders cited the need to target CIP andCDBG funds to support economic developmentprojects.

9. Lack of benchmarking and

performance standards

Benchmarking practices are used routinelythroughout the country to monitor the success ofeconomic development programs and services.Benchmarking practice is an evaluative tool fordetermining the successful implementation ofeconomic development policy objectives. Thereis no evidence that formalized benchmarkingpractice exists within Miami-Dade’s economicdevelopment delivery system.

Stakeholders noted the absence of clearbenchmarking and performance standards forMiami-Dade’s economic development programs.This response was generally made during broaderdiscussions regarding the issues of authority,accountability and the disconnect betweenplanning and economic development.

10. Absence of formalized and

tailored workforce development

program

Workforce development must be an integralpart of local economic development policy andhas become the number one challenge for eco-nomic developers throughout the country.Sustainable economic development cannot occurunless there is full support for a formalized andtailored workforce development program at thelocal level.

The issue of structural unemployment is amajor impediment to economic developmentwithin Miami-Dade’s urban communities. Struc-tural unemployment refers to the mismatchbetween the supply and the demand for labor.The mismatch may also apply to worker skills.The mismatch between worker skills and labordemand is particularly problematic given therequired and ever-changing technology applica-tions of most industries. Miami-Dade’sworkforce capacity has been identified in priorplanning initiatives as a major barrier to eco-nomic development. The Urban EconomicRevitalization Plan for Targeted Urban Areas

9. “Lack of benchmarking and

performance standards”


“Regardless of who has gotten the money, the

outcomes have been horrendous for the Black

community. There has been much investment, but

no results.”

“No systems have ever been put in place, no central

planning and program evaluation.”

“We do our own program evaluation.”

“Where has all the money gone?”

8. “Lack of public infrastructure

investment”


“There is no infrastructure to support land

assemblage.”

“When you don’t have CDBG money being spent on

infrastructure needs in your community, there is a

problem.”

“We need better streets (paved well, lighting), we

need adequate sewer systems and drainage.”


2 8

cited low education levels in the Black commu-nity, lack of relevant labor market skills, and lackof employability skills as several of the “chiefbarriers” to job development. The Mayor’sEconomic Summit Report identified welfare-to-work and workforce preparation and educationas “critical issues” that need to be addressed aspart of Miami-Dade’s economic developmentpolicy.

Many of the interviewees and forum attend-ees noted the mismatch between worker skillsand labor demand particularly as it related toOCOG targeted industries. Others cited the lackof coordination and collaboration betweenworkforce development agencies and privateindustry.

10. “Absence of formalized and

tailored workforce development

program”


“We have companies that have to import a labor

force because our workforce does not have the

skills they need.”

“There are opportunities for work, but our labor

force does not meet the needs of the market.”

“There is a wide gap between the required job skills

of many of the One Community One Goal target

industries and the job skills of the community.”

“There needs to be more formal job training and

apprenticeship programs in various industries.”


The EDIP process began with an assessmentof Miami-Dade’s economic development deliverysystem. The assessment included a survey andreview of Miami-Dade’s economic developmentdepartments and agencies, prior and currenteconomic development plans and existing eco-nomic development programs and services. Theconclusions and findings reported in the previoussection represent FIU/MC’s interpretation andcategorization of its assess-ment. The findings consti-tute the impediments toeconomic development inMiami Dade. The conclu-sions and findings wereinformed by communityinterviews, public policyforums and professional assessments performedby the National Panel of Experts and otherconsultants.

An economic development vision and policyfor Miami-Dade must recognize the importanceof urban centers to the larger regional economy.The balkanization of poor, predominantly Blackneighborhoods cannot continue. The eyes of thenation are on Miami-Dade to see what willbecome of the metropolitan region that has beenreferred to as “ground zero” for 21st Centuryurban America. No single plan will erase thedecades of alienation, disappointment andcynicism within Miami-Dade’s urban communi-

ties. However, a shared economic vision mightbegin with an understanding of the importanceof these urban neighborhoods and their vitalrelationship to the larger local economy. Col-laborations that develop from this understandingcan provide the institutional framework andsupport for more comprehensive and sustainablecommunity initiatives. FIU/MC’s position is thatimpediments to economic development should

be viewed as resolvablehindrances rather than un-wielding obstructions. Thestakes and the opportuni-ties are far too great not tomove forward in a positiveand proactive manner.

Miami-Dade Countyhas taken notable strides in recent years buildingcommunity consensus for an economic vision.The visioning process exemplified in the Mayor’sEconomic Summit and the heralded Round IIFederal Empowerment Zone community plan-ning process demonstrate that political leadershipand community support do exist. The challengenow is to carefully craft the operational elementsof a unified economic policy for implementationhas been the County’s major stumbling block.FIU/MC’s position is that, absent a coherent andunified economic vision and policy and thecommunity capacity for implementation, Miami-Dade lacks the essential guidance and compe-

VI. Policy Recommendations and Strategies

The eyes of the nation are on Miami-

Dade to see what will become of the

metropolitan region that has been

referred to as “ground zero” for 21st

Century urban America.


3 0

tence for confronting and removing long-standingimpediments to authentic and sustainable eco-nomic development. The FIU/MC suggests thatthe ingredients or elements of such a vision andpolicy were identified through the EDIP process.The “operational elements” can be found in therecurring issues or themes extracted from theprocess and FIU/MC’s interpretation and catego-rization of those issues and themes into findings.Based on this interpretation and categorization,FIU/MC recommends that Miami-Dade considerfour essential and interrelated operational ele-ments that would directand implement a vision andpolicy aimed at confrontingand removing these long-standing impediments toeconomic development.

Each of the fourOperational Elementsbegins with a policy state-ment followed by specific policy recommenda-tions. These Elements are: 1) Creating anEntrepreneurial Environment; 2) CommunityCollaboration and Capacity-Building; 3) Compre-hensive Economic Development Planning and aCoordinated and Integrated Economic Develop-ment Delivery System; and 4) Building Public/Private Lending Capacity.

1. On Creating an Entrepreneurial

Environment

An often overlooked but necessary initialstep towards successful local economic develop-ment implementation is the creation of a strongentrepreneurial environment. Today’s localeconomic policy thinking is that environments,not projects and programs, produce entrepreneur-ial behavior and development. Successfulentrepreneurial environments “inspire” invest-ment in the community. The tasks involvecreating professional management capacity,

building collaborative partnerships, removingbarriers to investment, providing information andcreating community spirit and confidence.Ultimately, the community develops an entrepre-neurial behavior pattern that functions as thehuman infrastructure to support the desired leveland quality of investment. The community itselfacts as an “incubator” of new business.

RECOMMENDATIONS

a) Support and develop professional

competence-building at

each level of the

economic development

delivery system

Miami-Dade mustdevelop the governmentaland community capacity toeffectively implement its

economic development objectives. The Mayor,County Manager and Board of County Commis-sioners must assume leadership roles in establish-ing and supporting an entrepreneurial environ-ment. The process begins by developing andsupporting competence-building and entrepre-neurial training for government agencies andcommunity economic development organizationsto ensure they possess the professional manage-ment capacity to plan and administer economicdevelopment programs and services. Localgovernments are expected to assume a leadershiprole in advancing the economic developmentagenda of the community. Ultimately, stronggovernment leadership and professional manage-ment will help guide and improve the capacity ofother economic development organizationswithin the community.

There is a growing consensus that leaders aremade, not born. It is crucial to focus explicitlyon providing employees and Board members with

Ultimately, strong government leadership

and professional management will help

guide and improve the capacity of other

economic development organizations

within the community.


formal leadership and technical training andother leadership and development support likecoaching or mentoring.

CDCs and their funders are aware of theneeds in training and learning opportunities,primarily technical training. However, this is notenough. Technical training is important, but toooften a person with technical capabilities getspromoted to a management and supervisory levelwithout the needed management and leadershipskills. Staff and CDC boards need to be exposedto technical and leadership and managementtraining on a continuingbasis.

b) Support and develop

a formalized and

tailored workforce

development

initiative

Within the past decadewe have seen a gradualshift in the relative importance that business andindustry give to certain location factors. Revolu-tionary developments in telecommunications andthe changing workplace have lessened theimportance of a community’s proximity to rail,water and highways, while giving heightenedvalue to a community’s quality of life and itsskilled and educated labor force. Meanwhile,many communities have shifted their economicdevelopment focus away from a strong relianceon the traditional business attraction model tostrategies that seek to improve the performanceof existing industries. The emphasis is notsimply on job creation, but job retention and jobquality. At the same time, there is a growinginterest in establishing formal linkages betweenbusiness development and workforce development(see Appendix A: Best Practice case studies).

A tailored and formalized workforce devel-opment initiative should serve as the foundationof Miami-Dade’s entrepreneurial environment.Workforce development must become vitallyintegral to Miami-Dade’s economic developmentdelivery system. The lack of skilled and high-tech workers in today’s global economy is acritical impediment that severely limits theCounty’s ability to implement its economicdevelopment objectives. Conversely, the system-atic development of the local workforce capacitywould greatly enhance Miami-Dade’s competitive

advantage in a host ofindustries. Moreover, acommitment to workforcedevelopment coupled withimprovements to publiceducation is the mosteffective and sustainablemeans for creating eco-nomic opportunity forMiami-Dade’s poor andunemployed residents.

Miami-Dade’s tailored and formalizedworkforce development initiative should build onthe framework of the Federal Workforce Invest-ment Act (WIA) of 1998. The WIA replaced theJob Training Partnership Act (JTPA) system. TheWIA’s operational principles include creatingone-stop systems that provide a central locationfor training, education, employment and informa-tion services; empowering individuals throughinformation and individual training accounts;establishing business led boards to design andmanage training and employment programs; andincreasing accountability and evaluation capacitythrough regular performance measurement. Atailored and formalized Miami-Dade workforcedevelopment initiative for Miami-Dade mustinclude the following qualities:

Comprehensive: workforce developmentmust consider the full range of worker and

A commitment to workforce

development coupled with

improvements to public education

is the most effective and sustainable

means for creating economic

opportunity for Miami-Dade’s poor

and unemployed residents.


3 2

employer needs. Employment readiness,welfare-to-work and support services (accessto child care, transportation, healthcare, andcounseling) are fundamental.

Integrative: workforce development mustreduce institutional fragmentation throughthe use of collaborations among government,education, business and existing workforcetraining programs. There must also be greaterbusiness influence and cooperation with K-12 education to ensurerelevance.

Networked: workforcedevelopment mustcreate a formal net-working system of keygovernment, educationand business resourcesand institutions.

Community-based: workforce developmentmust be community-based and centrallylocated in target neighborhoods to ensurephysical accessibility.

Market-oriented: job training skills must betargeted to existing and potential employersand their specific worker demands. Basic andtransferable skills (e.g. computers, computeraided drafting/computer aided manufactur-ing—CAD/CAM) should be emphasized.

Entrepreneurial: workforce developmentmust take place in an entrepreneurial envi-ronment wherein disadvantaged youth andadults are not perceived merely as clients butas future entrepreneurs.

c) Develop and leverage capital resources

for equity and debt entrepreneur

development

Without capital sources for equity and debt,entrepreneur development in Miami Dade will

continue to suffer. Access to small businessloans is especially difficult for start-up andgrowing companies. For instance, approximately90% of the County’s minority-owned businessesare sole proprietorships. Many of these busi-nesses struggle with accumulating personal andbusiness assets to help secure their debts. Main-stream financial institutions, while having in-creased overall small business lending, still donot have the capacity or business will to financethese small minority-owned businesses.

Young, independententerprises, community-based development organi-zations and minoritiessuffer the greatest impactdue to these capital marketfailures. Lenders’ andinvestors’ risk adversity,

perceived and real high transactions costs, andovert and subtle discrimination make it difficultfor small companies and community develop-ment entities to acquire long-term debt andequity. These ongoing capital market failurescreate an important role for a developmentfinance policy and strategies that address theseissues.

A Community Development Lenders Net-work should be created in Miami Dade County toprovide market research, training, capacity-building, shared services and a potential role as acapital intermediary. The proposed Networkwould include community development andcommunity reinvestment officers from regulatedfinancial institutions who would share theirexpertise and invest their resources into support-ing community development financial institu-tions (CDFIs) in Miami-Dade (see OperationalElement #4). The Network would also serve asa mechanism for seeking out developmentopportunities. To be successful, CDFIs andother community development lenders must beproactive in identifying deals.

Young, independent enterprises,

community-based development

organizations and minorities suffer

the greatest impact due to these

capital market failures.


d) Invest in CDC Organizational Needs

CDCs rely heavily on a mix of funding andfinancing sources for both operational supportand project development and implementation.Many have mastered a complex maize of fundingcycles, program requirements and the art ofleveraging scarce resources. A CDC supportintermediary should be responsible for massingfinancial resources from public, private andcharitable sectors to better target and leverageresources.

It must be acknowl-edged that self-sufficiencyis unlikely for most CDCs.Therefore, in order tomaximize return on Miami-Dade’s investment inCDCs, an effective andwell-conceived organiza-tional and strategic plan should earn CDCsmultiple year funding so that the planning is notsubverted by organizational urgencies. Fundingsupport, provided by the resources amassed bythe intermediary, needs to include both operatingfunds and flexible resources to meetpredevelopment and subsidy requirements. Moreattention to carrying out a development programand not just a set of projects is a likely outcomewhen community development goals are pursuedas a priority over “production.”

For many CDCs, the emphasis is on the“project.” Not enough attention is given tostrengthening the organization and choosingprojects as part of an overall development plan.The Empowerment Zone has taken steps toaddress this challenge through its neighborhoodplanning process and its work with selectedCDCs in implementation. This planning/projectmodel must be expanded throughout all ofMiami-Dade’s targeted communities.

The problems CDCs sometimes face in thedevelopment process can be traced directly toorganizational deficiencies or to poor planning.With the urgency to stay “alive,” few CDCs canor will voluntarily carry out organizationalassessments or business planning. Any effort toincrease capacity among the existing CDCs hasto be based on ongoing organizational assess-ments and strategic business plans.

CDC funders shoulder much of the blame forpoor management practicesacross the sector. They putmuch of their money intoCDC projects, programsand services while ignoringorganizational develop-ment. As a result, thecommunity developmentfield in Miami Dade tends

to struggle with the overall quality relative tohuman resources and organizational accountabil-ity. Symptoms include competitively poorsalaries and benefit packages, limited trainingresources, and limited opportunities for profes-sional and board development. All of this mustchange if Miami-Dade’s approximately 40 CDCsare going to prosper in the 21st century. Intoday’s competitive environment, it’s no longersmart or practical to continue making minimalinvestment in CDCs’ human capital and organi-zational needs.

2. On Community Collaboration and

Capacity-building

The National Panel’s report included severalcritical findings concerning the condition ofcommunity within Miami-Dade’s urban neighbor-hoods. From a community perspective thefindings concerning “leadership and participationwithin the African American community” and“competing plans, proposals and initiatives” areparticularly noteworthy. Concerning the issue of

A CDC support intermediary should be

responsible for massing financial

resources from public, private and

charitable sectors to better target and

leverage resources.


3 4

leadership and participation within the AfricanAmerican community, the panel noted the needfor black leadership in the economic develop-ment process and in sustaining revitalizationefforts over time. Without the necessary leader-ship and participation economic policy develop-ment, planning and implementation are dispro-portionately made up of governmental agencies,financial institutions and private businesses withlittle bottom-up planning. The panel contendsthat this condition relegates community residentsto passive recipients of theideas and plans of otherswho have no stake in thecommunity’s future andthat such exclusion worksagainst a sense of pride anddevelopment of ownership,the essential ingredients forsuccessful economicdevelopment planning.Similarly, according to thePanel, the finding concern-ing “competing plans, proposals and initiatives”often represents duplication, fragmentation oreven isolation, conditions that impede theprocess of effective community-based economicdevelopment.

RECOMMENDATIONS

a) Create and Support a Sustainable

Neighborhoods Initiative

The FIU/MC and N.I.C.E. recommend thatMiami-Dade create and support a “SustainableNeighborhoods Initiative” that would build aworking and sustainable collaboration of neigh-borhood constituents and stakeholders throughan environment of mutual learning, technicalassistance and capacity building. The purpose ofthe initiative would be to enable active citizenparticipation in community restoration and

neighborhood revitalization strategies. TheSustainable Neighborhoods Initiative wouldinclude the following action steps:

Initiation of a formal neighborhood-by-neighborhood discussion of the EDIPfindings.

Initiation of a community dialogue on theneed for an effective and sustainable collabo-ration of community economic developmentorganizations.

Identification andassessment of the“points of conflict”that serve as impedi-ments to collaboration.

Development of aneighborhood-basededucation and trainingprogram designed tobuild leadership andorganizational capac-ity in target neighbor-hoods.

Development of neighborhood workshopson community restoration and neighborhoodrevitalization strategies that include tools forpreventing, managing, and resolving conflict.

Assessment of the current and potentialcollaborative efforts within the target neigh-borhoods and any attendant issues that serveas impediments to effective collaboration.

b) Create a CDC Support Collaborative Model

There should be a clear commitment tocommunity development corporations (CDCs) asan economic development tool through a fundingand a capacity-building intermediary with gov-ernment, private sector and philanthropy. Boththe intermediary and the community develop-

Without the necessary leadership

and participation economic policy

development, planning and

implementation are disproportionately

made up of governmental

agencies, financial institutions and

private businesses with little

bottom-up planning.


ment corporations must base this commitmenton performance. The intermediary should beresponsible for training, strategic planning,organizational assessment, technical assistance,operating support, predevelopment/gap financ-ing and benchmarking performance services. Bymelding different funding streams that aretailored to the needs of CDCs, the intermediarycan be an accountable and dedicated engine forcommunity empowerment and development.

The CDC collaborative support model offersthe best possibility ofincreasing and leveragingresources, respecting theintegrity of existing organi-zations, and focusing localattention on capacitybuilding and productionwhile providing outsidesupport. It also provides for the targeting ofincremental resources to places that might nototherwise receive them. It allows for localpartnerships and the enrichment of local leader-ship.

The intermediary needs to be the vehicle inwhich a wide range of resources are delivered toCDCs, for increasing the pool of funds, andincreasing the number of investors in CDCs.The intermediary model is utilized in most majorAmerican cities to varying degrees. Miami has anintermediary, the Greater Miami Local InitiativesSupport Corporation that may serve as a founda-tion for a much larger role in effectively allocat-ing CDC resources.

The CDC intermediary should serve as afinancing entity for CDC projects by identifyingsources of financing, adapting the investor andlender products to meet the needs of CDCs andassisting in underwriting terms that address themutual concerns of community developers onthe one hand, and lenders and investors on the

other. The intermediary should provide bothdebt and equity type of products.

3. On a Comprehensive Economic

Development Plan and a Coordinated

and Integrated Economic

Development Delivery System

A coherent economic development policywill by definition provide for an organizationalstructure with clear management responsibilities.

A coordinated and inte-grated economic develop-ment system would have anorganizational structurewith a central authority.Authority only exists whenthere is clear governmentpolicy that determines who

is in charge. In addition, economic developmentfunctions must be coordinated and integratedwith other planning and development depart-ments.

An economic vision and policy for Miami-Dade must recognize the importance of connect-ing economic development goals and objectiveswith a comprehensive planning process. Allplanning and development functions must derivefrom a single, unified process that understandsthe interconnectedness of economic develop-ment, transportation, housing, communitydevelopment and environmental management.

RECOMMENDATIONS

a) Create and support a new position of

chief development officer

One individual must be given the full respon-sibility for managing Miami-Dade’s economicdevelopment programs and services. The depart-ment head, at an assistant city manager level,

A coherent economic development

policy will by definition provide for an

organizational structure with clear

management responsibilities.


3 6

would be clearly identified and recognized asMiami-Dade’s chief development officer. Thechief development officer would need to begiven the professional staff and funding re-sources to effectively discharge the economicdevelopment functions of the office.

b) Coordinate and integrate Miami-Dade’s

planning and development functions

The chief development officer would also beresponsible for coordinatingand integrating all of theCounty’s planning anddevelopment departmentsand agencies. This wouldinclude economic develop-ment, community develop-ment, and planning andzoning. The chief develop-ment officer should also begiven the charge and the necessary support tocreate an interdepartmental communicationsystem with all county departments responsiblefor planning and development functions includ-ing Building, Code Enforcement, Engineeringand the Department of Environmental Re-sources Management (DERM).

c) Initiate a Comprehensive Economic

Development Strategy (CEDS)

Miami-Dade’s Department of Planning andZoning was allocated $100,000 for the prepara-tion of an Economic Element to the Compre-hensive Development Master Plan (CDMP) inaccordance with Chapter 163 F.S. The purposeof the Economic Element is “to provide a set ofpublic policies for adoption by elected officials toassist in achieving economic growth and fullemployment for all Miami-Dade residents.”

The proposed Economic Element is anexcellent means for formally linking Miami-

Dade’s economic development goals and objec-tives with its overall comprehensive planningprocess. However, absent a coherent economicdevelopment vision and policy it will be difficultto articulate a truly comprehensive and commu-nity supported economic development agenda.For this reason it is recommended that Miami-Dade initiate a Comprehensive EconomicDevelopment Strategy (CEDS) in accordancewith the guidelines of the U.S. Department ofCommerce’s Economic Development Adminis-

tration (EDA). The CEDSwould emerge from acontinuous, broad-basedplanning process for ad-dressing Miami-Dade’seconomic developmentproblems and opportunities.

The guiding principlesof a CEDS for Miami-Dade

would include the following:

For economic development to be successful,it has to be based on effective strategicplanning.

A broad spectrum of stakeholders, includingthe private and non-profit sectors and alllevels of the public sector, must be activelyengaged in the process. Collaboration andoutreach are central to good planning.

Economic development planning should beviewed as an integrative process that takesinto account other planning activities relatingto the service area including transportation,capital improvements, workforce develop-ment, public education and environmentalprotection.

Economic development is inextricably linkedto issues of social equity and environmentalprotection. Sustainable development shouldbe a core value and mission of the strategicplan.

Absent a coherent economic

development vision and policy it

will be difficult to articulate a truly

comprehensive and community

supported economic

development agenda.


There needs to be a greater emphasis onlearning and sharing and less reliance onfederal mandates and requirements. Thegrowing literature of best practice in commu-nity-based planning should be incorporatedinto the strategic planning process.

A higher priority needs to be given to defin-ing performance measures and benchmarkingto help ensure successful economic develop-ment practice.

Roles and responsibili-ties need to be clearlydefined and agreed toby each department andagency. There must bea formal “buy-in” byeach economic devel-opment department andagency to the final CEDS.

d) Maximize use and leveraging of federal

resources by creating a comprehensive,

accountable and collaborative business

finance system.

Community economic development organiza-tions have pursued traditional federal funding fortheir economic development projects. Grantsand loans are annually requested from existingsources such as:

HUD’s Community Development BlockGrant Program;

HUD’s Section 108/ Economic Develop-ment Initiative (EDI);

Economic Development Administration(EDA) resources from the Department ofCommerce;

“Equity-like” grants from the Department ofHealth and Human Services Office ofCommunity Services;

Lending and capacity-building resources fromthe Treasury Department’s CommunityDevelopment Financial Institution (CDFI);

Brownfields restoration programs usingEnvironmental Protection Agency, HUD,Department of Defense, and EDA funds;and

Small Business Association (SBA) 504 LoanCorporations—New sources include: SBANew Markets Venture Capital Companies

and New Markets TaxCredits.

With potential cut-backs or limited growth inthese programs, communityeconomic developmentadvocates must become

resourceful in pursuing project funding frommore diverse sources. New and enhancedlinkages with corporate partners and relatednetworks must be pursued in order to maximizeleveraging of these public resources. Futureeconomic development initiatives that accesspublic funds and apply maximum leverage fromprivate sources will find fewer barriers to capital-izing innovative community economic develop-ment initiatives.

To this end, a thorough review of theCounty’s access to all these and other lesser-known resources should be undertaken. Thesefunds in part can help create a comprehensivebusiness finance system of regulated communitydevelopment lenders and community develop-ment financial institutions that address thedemand in targeted urban markets. Mindful ofthe need of greater community control, account-ability and benchmarking, the efforts and re-sources of all capital stakeholders must beintegrated. For example, the County currentlyplans to utilize the Section 108 program to createa lending program for mid-sized businesses.

Community economic development

advocates must become resourceful in

pursuing project funding from more

diverse sources.


3 8

While the initiative is needed, an assessmentshould be conducted on whether the County isbest served by doing “in-house” lending versusthe potential to invest these funds in a commu-nity development financial institution (CDFI)that can leverage additional funds, such as theCDFI Fund and New Market Tax Credits. Inaddition, the current duplication of services andlack of services exists in some areas. An inte-grated process will help mitigate the currentsystem.

The comprehensivesystem of business financeneeds commitments fromthe private sector to pro-vide the resources neces-sary to augment publiccapital. Foundation andphilanthropic communitiesmust also commit to the collaborative businessfinance system.

e) Coordinate and Dedicate Capital

Improvement Program (CIP) and

Community Development Block Grant

(CDBG) funding for targeted public

infrastructure improvements

Successful private redevelopment in SouthFlorida has typically followed significant andtargeted public infrastructure investment. Rede-velopment areas, such as the Miami-Dade’sTargeted Urban Areas (TUAs), generally lack thenecessary water, sanitary sewer, storm sewer,utilities and roadway capacity for medium andlarge-scale economic development projects.Dedicated CIP and CDBG funds for targetedpublic infrastructure improvements wouldprovide an important incentive for business,private developers and lenders to invest in high-risk urban locations.

The initiation of a CEDS for Miami-Dadehas important timing implications. The City ofMiami recently received an EDA planning grantto formulate a strategic economic developmentplan in accordance with CEDS guidelines fornearly all of the FEC Corridor north of thedowntown. The study area will include inner-city neighborhoods with the highest povertyrates, double-digit unemployment and the highestconcentrations of minority populations. Thearea lost nearly 20,000 jobs in the past twenty

years but contains 70percent of the city’s re-maining land zoned forindustrial and warehouseuses. As such, the planningboundaries provide sub-stantial opportunity fordirect economic develop-ment benefit to the com-

munity. The Miami CEDS process will be“action” oriented focusing on market opportuni-ties within and adjacent to the corridor alongwith the institutional and collaborative supportmechanisms that would need to be established.The plan will provide specific economic develop-ment strategies tailored to the redevelopmentpotential of the FEC Corridor and it sub-areas.The strategies will be formulated on both anincremental and short-term (1-3 years) basis.Miami’s strategic plan will also incorporateperformance measurements in accordance withEDA requirements.

The City of Miami’s FEC Corridor planprovides an important opportunity for a coordi-nated and comprehensive economic developmentstrategy. The majority of Miami-Dade’s TargetedUrban Areas (TUAs) either border or are in closeproximity to the FEC Corridor.

Redevelopment areas generally lack the

necessary water, sanitary sewer, storm

sewer, utilities and roadway capacity for

medium and large-scale economic

development projects.


4. On Building Public/Private

Lending Capacity

The Miami-Dade banking market haschanged considerably over the past ten years. In-state and subsequent interstate mergers andconsolidations and bank and savings and loanfailures have produced a new capital mosaic oflarge banks headquartered in other states andsmall, often new, “community” banks. The largebanks, while attempting to fulfill CommunityReinvestment Act (CRA)commitments, still have nostake in lending in Miami-Dade over another area.This shift has been hailedas a boon for growingcommunities but a warningthat declining communities may experience amore rapid flight of capital. Most new commu-nity banks are small in size, have limited capac-ity, and have a market focus in growing areas andnot economically distressed communities.

While the system for supplying capital hasbeen radically altered, the corresponding need fortarget market assessments has grown. Lendersand investors can only achieve goals and objec-tives for community development impact if theyunderstand local capital markets well enough toarticulate the needs they will meet. Capitalmarket assessments once required by the CRA ofregulated financial institutions, must be under-taken and differentiate between community needand market demand. While community needshave been well documented, the demand forcapital, for financial products and services hasnot. Where capital is used productively is theunderlying issue in community economic devel-opment and capital assessments must be under-taken to determine the demand. Another impor-tant piece of the capital-market assessment isverification that existing financial institutions areunable or unwilling to fill the identified gaps.

From the perspective of the homebuyer, areview of Home Mortgage Disclosure Act data inthe County’s minority areas will unveil that manyof the area’s top lenders are private mortgagecompanies who are considered “sub primelenders.” These lenders often have been accusedof high fees and interest rates as well as onerousterms that lead to increased foreclosures in theseareas.

Miami-Dade has a number of alternativepublic and public/privatecapital entities and initia-tives including the BusinessAssistance Corporation(BAC), the newly formedMiami-Dade Empower-ment Trust Fund, the

Urban Reinvestment Task Force Section 108loan program, community development creditunions, and a significant micro-enterprise loanfund. These efforts share a common demand tomake investments that have radically differentcharacteristics than regulated financial institu-tions. Their investments are often small,undiversified, offer risks not easily hedged, needunique terms, and require patient investors.They move against the strong currents in today’sfinancial markets, away from integration withinternational markets, expectations of short-termreturns, transaction rather than relationshipbanking, and quick decision-making.

RECOMMENDATIONS

a) Insure that regulated financial

institutions are investing in all of Miami-

Dade’s markets and communities.

The Federal Community Reinvestment Actrequires that all regulated financial institutions“help meet the credit needs of their entirecommunity.” With nearly twenty-five years of

While community needs have been well

documented, the demand for capital, for

financial products and services has not.


4 0

CRA experience, most major lenders havepositioned themselves to respond only to the callfor “safe and sound” investment. Thoseinterviewees who discussed capital issues shareda perception that Miami-Dade’s financial institu-tions are “not doing enough.” Whether it is inlending to small businesses or community-basedorganizations or affordable mortgages the percep-tion is that “CRA-related” lending is oftenwindow dressing.

Federal regulatoryagencies examine periodi-cally financial institutionsfor CRA performance.Virtually all of the County’sfinancial institutions havereceived either passing or“Outstanding” CRAratings. Community advo-cates who point to national statistics that over97% of institutions receive CRA passing gradesdispute these ratings. Regardless whether theseratings are deserved or not, Miami-Dade shouldmonitor the lending activities of area lendersmore proactively.

Capital market assessments also must beconducted in all targeted urban markets. Forinstance, annual research should be conducted toassess the demand and level of communityinvestment (i.e. home mortgage lending, smallbusiness lending, and community developmentloans and participation). This assessment can becorroborated and augmented through a commu-nity survey, interviews and public data analysis(i.e. Home Mortgage Disclosure Act and SmallBusiness lending statistics). This researchfunction could be carried out by an independentorganization similar to the Massachusetts Com-munity and Banking Council that can serve as aforum for both community representatives andbankers to review, discuss and respond to theresults. Other community capital issues such as

predatory lending, credit scoring, and othercommunity credit needs could be discussedthrough this entity.

b) Create and strengthen alternative

community development financial

institutions

Community development financial institu-tions (CDFIs) have a shared vision of commu-nity economic development and can be a signifi-

cant source of much-needed capital in economi-cally distressed communi-ties. Many of them arecommunity or residentcontrolled, increase theirimpact through collabora-tion with other public and

private actors, and empower the targeted marketsthey serve. As part of a comprehensive eco-nomic development delivery system, CDFIs mustbe provided with the necessary capital for invest-ment and their own capacity building.

A community development financial institu-tion is more likely to be effective if its servicesare offered as part of a comprehensive economicdevelopment vision, plan and strategy. Forinstance, lending to minority businesses must beaccompanied by an overall economic develop-ment and/or redevelopment strategy.

For community development financialinstitutions in Miami-Dade to fulfill their eco-nomic development role, they must insulatethemselves from the turmoil and change infinancial markets. Patient investors, such asgovernment, foundations, and faith-based institu-tions, need to be identified and encouraged toinvest in these locally controlled institutions.They need to create new funding mechanismsthat broaden the pool of investors. They alsomust develop products for which they can be

A community development financial

institution is more likely to be effective if

its services are offered as part of a

comprehensive economic development

vision, plan and strategy.


adequately compensated and find ways to deliverthem more cheaply, manage their risk, andincrease their liquidity. This “capital cushion” isoften provided by government investments suchas community development block grants, generalfunds, or investments from the U.S. Treasury’sCommunity Development Financial InstitutionsFund.

The CDFI Fund has made over $200 millionin investments in certified CDFIs across thecountry including some in Miami-Dade County.The County’s existing and new CDFIs needassistance in accessing further funding from theCDFI Fund. Their organizational capacity mustbe strengthened as well as their liquidity andcapital position.

A new and significant federal initiative, theNew Markets Tax Credit will help local CDFIsattract private capital for their investmentactivities. The program will provide tax creditsto investors in low-income communities of $1billion in 2001 and $15 billion over the nextseven years. The effective rate of return to aprivate investor is 30% over a six-year period.The U.S. Department of Treasury CommunityDevelopment Financial Institutions Fund isexpected to issue a Notice of Funds Availability(NOFA) for the New Markets Tax Credit Pro-gram by the Fall of 2001.

c) Create a predevelopment fund to provide

funding for community building and

predevelopment efforts

Currently the Greater Miami Local InitiativesSupport Corporation (LISC) providespredevelopment financing to community devel-opment corporations. However their sources ofcapital as well as their scope are limited tophysical development projects. Additionalresources are needed to expand this effort to

include more development initiatives and fund-ing for community building.

d) Create Community Development Credit

Unions to address the financial literacy

and basic services needs of lower-income

markets.

In order to stimulate financial literacy and toprovide basic banking services that have beenlost due to the demise of many inner-citybranches, a network of community developmentcredit unions should be created. These regulatedfinancial institutions provide their members withthe basic banking services that now are providedby check-cashing stores and pawnshops. Com-munity development credit unions are allowed tobe established in low-income communities andattract non-member institutional deposits fromcorporations, banks and other credit unions.North Dade Community Development FederalCredit Union and the Little Haiti Federal CreditUnion provide excellent examples.

e) Create a venture capital company to serve

the equity needs of minority-owned small

and medium-size businesses.

Miami-Dade should create a New MarketsVenture Capital Company with the support ofprivate investors to provide equity investmentsinto minority-owned business located in targetedurban markets. The SBA will provide up to fivemillion dollars in matching investments as well asgrants for technical assistance. The privateinvestments can be additionally leveragedthrough the use of New Market Tax Credits.


4 2

American Economic Development Council,1996. Practicing Economic Development.

Blakely, Edward J., Planning for EconomicDevelopment, Sage Publications

Center for Community Change, 1997. “Develop-ing a Policy Agenda on Jobs.”

Council for Urban Economic Development andthe Indianapolis Private Industry Council,1998. “Help Wanted: Building a CompetitiveWorkforce.”

FAU/FIU Joint Center for Environmental andUrban Problems, 1998. Eastward Ho! Finan-cial Impediments and Solutions to Redevel-opment.

Florida International University Institute ofGovernment, 1991. Minority Business andEconomic Development in Dade County,Florida: An Analysis.

Harrison, Bennett, Weiss, Marcus, and Gant, Jon,1995. Building Bridges: Community Devel-opment Corporations and the World ofEmployment Training, a report to the FordFoundation.

Joint Center for Environmental and UrbanProblems at Florida Atlantic University,2000. “Imaging the Region: South Florida viaIndicators and Public Opinions.”

Institute for Urban Economic Development,1992. Understanding Your Economy: UsingAnalysis to Guide Local Strategic Planning.

Kotval, Zenia, Mullin, John, and Murray, Ned1998. “Measurable Indicators of EconomicSuccess.”

Mt. Auburn Associates, 1995. Jobs and theUrban Poor: Publicly Initiated SectoralStrategies.

Murray, Ned 1998. “Sustainable EconomicDevelopment in Practice: The Challenge forSouth Florida’s Eastward Ho! Initiative.”

Murray, Ned 1997. A Conceptual EconomicDevelopment Plan for Pompano BeachFlorida.

Porter, Michael E. 1995. “The CompetitiveAdvantage of the Inner-City,” HarvardBusiness Review.

Porter, Michael E. 1997. “New Strategies forInner-City Economic Development,” Eco-nomic Development Quarterly, Sage Publica-tions.

Portes, Alejandro and Stepick, Alex 1993. Cityon the Edge: The Transformation of Miami,Berleley, CA: University of California Press.

South Florida Regional Planning Council, 1995.Strategic Regional Policy Plan for SouthFlorida.

U.S. Department of Commerce, EconomicDevelopment Administration, 2000. Pro-grams Guide.

U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Devel-opment, 2000. What Works in Communities:HUD’s Best Practice Program.

Selected References


Table of Contents

Executive Summary ........................................... 1

1. Purpose ................................................... 3

II. Introduction: Toward a Meaning of Local Economic Development... 5

Table 1: A comparison of educational attainment, unemploymentand income between Miami-Dade, the County, andthe State of Florida .............................................. 7

III. The EDIP Process ..........................................11

IV. Miami-Dade's Economic Development Delivery System ...........13

A. Miami-Dade's Economic Development Plans and Initiatives ........ 13

Table 2: Chronology of Plans .................................... 14

B. Lead Economic Development Agencies ......................... 18

V. Principal Findings ..........................................21

Table 3: Responses of Economic Development Stakeholders ......... 22

Table 4: Responses of Black Business and Community Leaders........ 23

VI. Policy Recommendations and Strategies ......................29

Selected References ...........................................42

Appendix A: Community Development.......................... A-1

Case Study #1: Columbus, GA....................................A-2

Case Study #2: Boston, MA ......................................A-2

Case Study #3: Columbia, SC.....................................A-3

Case Study #4: Los Angeles, CA ..................................A-3

Appendix B: Philanthropy & Economic Development .............. A-5

Appendix C: Workforce Development ........................... A-9

Wisconsin Regional Training Partnership ........................ A-10

Best Practice Case Study: San Jose's Center for Employment Training A-12

Appendix D: Sustainable Development ........................ A-15

Appendix E: Glossary of Economic Development Resources ....... A-17


Additional Attachments,included in separate report

Attachment A: Perspectives of Economic Development in Miami-DadeCounty: A Black View

Prepared by N.I.C.E.,February, 2001

Attachment B: Economic Development Policy Forum Report

Prepared by Florida International UniversityMetropolitan CenterNovember, 2000

Attachment C: Economic Development Implementation Plan Assessmentof Miami Dade County

Prepared by the National Panel of Expertsfor Florida International UniversityMetropolitan CenterOctober, 2000


Acknowledgments

This Economic Development Implementation Plan was developed by the Metropolitan Center(MC) at Florida International University (FIU) in response to Mayor Penelas’ Mosaic 2000Partnership’s dialogue concerning the impediments to economic development in Miami-Dade.Funding for the study was approved by the Miami-Dade Board of County Commissioners.

The FIU/MC wishes to recognize the support and assistance of Mayor Penelas and his SpecialAssistant, Ari Turner; former County Manager Merritt Stierheim and Assistant County Manager,Barbara Jordan; Tony Crapp and the professional staff of the Office of Community and EconomicDevelopment (OCED); and the Department of Planning and Zoning.

The FIU/MC appreciates the guidance and support of EDIP Advisory Committees members—Dean Ronald Berkman, Cynthia Curry and George Knox, Esquire; the FIU/MC research staff—RosaDavis, Gus Newell, Liga Repogle, Eva Vela, and Ines Hernandez-Siqueira; the MC’s CommunityOutreach Partnership Director, Gisele Michele; the FIU Institute of Government—Director Dr.Howard Frank, Assistant Director Juan Covas, and staff, Kerlan Jacques and Charla McPhee; MCFinancial and Contract Management staff Lucy Maharaj and Shana Goetz; and clerical staff MaureenEntingh. A special thanks to FIU doctoral candidate, Jill Strube, for her expert organization andpresentation of the final EDIP document.

The FIU/MC recognizes the important contributions of sub-consultants James Carras, CarrasCommunity Investments, Inc.; Johnny Mack, National Institute for Community Empowerment, andhis sub-consultant Elaine Black, Tools for Change; and the National Panel members—BarbaraBurnham, Local Initiatives Support Corporation (LISC) Washington office; Kristen Faust, formerAssistant State Treasurer, State of California; Dr. John Mullin, FAICP, University of Massachusetts-Amherst; Abdul Rasheed, President and CEO, North Carolina Community Development CapitalInitiative; and Jim Reid, Director, Southern Dallas Development Corporation. A special thanks toBryan Finnie, President and CEO, Miami-Dade Empowerment Trust and Robert Schwarzreich, Cityof Miami, Department of Real Estate and Economic Development for graciously providing theNational Panel with a tour of Miami-Dade’s urban neighborhoods.

The FIU/MC extends our sincere thanks and appreciation to the many government andcommunity agency officials, business and community leaders who participated in the interviewprocess. A special thanks to those Miami-Dade’s economic development stakeholders and communityand business leaders who participated in FIU/MC’s two Economic Development Policy Forums.

With appreciation to all who participated and sincere hope that this report accurately reflects theirinput and provides constructive analyses and recommendations.

Ned Murray, Ph.D., AICP James Rivers, Ph.D.

A-17Florida International University / Metropolitan CenterEconomic Development Implementation Plan: April, 2001 / Appendix

American Economic Development

Council

The American Economic DevelopmentCouncil (AEDC) is a high participation nationalorganization for people committed to economicdevelopment and the new jobs and economicopportunities it brings to the community. AEDChas been a home base for the profession since1926. AEDC assists members in their efforts tocreate sustainable local economic developmentcapabilities that are globally competitive; leads inbuilding knowledge, forming alliances, andmanaging key issues; and serves anchor for theprofession. (http://www.aedc.org)

Beacon Council (Miami)

The Beacon Council, Miami-Dade County’sofficial economic development partnership, is anot-for-profit, public-private organization thatfocuses on job creation and economic growth bycoordinating community-wide programs; promot-ing minority business and economic develop-ment; providing assistance to local businesses intheir expansion efforts; and marketing GreaterMiami throughout the world.

The Beacon Council is funded jointly frompublic and private sources. The approximately500 members include many of Greater Miami’s

largest corporations and high-growth companies.(www.beaconcouncil.com)

Center for Community Change

For almost 30 years, CCC has been nationallyrecognized for its work helping people buildorganizations and create better communities andpolicies. The Center’s 57 person staff includesmany of the nation’s leading experts on commu-nity development, community organizing, leader-ship training, coalition-building, housing, welfarereform, jobs, economic development, bankingand reinvestment, and Native American issues.

On-site assistance to grassroots groups isprovided in everything from organizing andoutreach to fundraising and financial manage-ment. The Center connects organizations withsimilar missions, or within the same states orregions, to encourage them to work together andlearn from each other to increase capacity. TheCenter builds coalitions at the local, state andregional levels to increase the impact of commu-nity-based groups trying to change public poli-cies. (http://www.communitychange.org)

Center for Economic Development

Research

The Center for Economic Development andResearch at the University of North Texas was

Appendix E

Glossary of Economic Development Resources

economic development implementation plan for miami … · economic development implementation plan...

Documents