Buy Local is Back Again
Posted by Jeff Pruitt - 7/12/09 @ 12:26 pm - Filed Under Featured, Local Politics
Karen Goldner and Tom Didier’s buy local ordinance passed out of committee last Tuesday by a 7-2 vote and all I can say is that it’s about time. Last year the mayor undermined Goldner’s effort by sending purchasing director Jim Howard to the council table to argue against it. Now Howard says it’s different:
Now the purchasing department has help verifying that contracts and contractors meet the conditions they are held to by the city. That means the department can absorb additional duties under the ordinance.
Second, the ordinance doesn’t call on city government to register potential bidders and investigate their eligibility. Instead, the city would piggyback on state-maintained registration for the “buy Indiana” program. Besides reducing the work city employees must do to follow the program, Howard said, it also introduces local businesses to the process of competing for business with state government.
I have to wonder why these two issues couldn’t have been worked out last year when the original legislation was introduced? Honestly I think the mayor’s opposition had nothing to do with the items described above and everything to do with the IT contract that was being debated at the time.
While I still support this new ordinance I find it unfortunate that it does not cover consultants. In my opinion the city has always relied too heavily on consultants but if we’re going to spend the money it would be nice to throw the support behind good paying jobs here in Fort Wayne. This concern was one of the reasons cited by councilwoman Liz Brown for voting against the ordinance, and while I agree with Brown on this point I don’t think throwing the baby out with the bathwater would be the right move.
The other vote against the measure came from councilman Mitch Harper who was concerned that nearby businesses in Van Wert, who provide local jobs, would be penalized because they are located just across the border. He also opposes the protectionist message sent by the ordinance:
Harper expressed a concern that by jumping on a “buy local” train, Fort Wayne might contribute to a protectionist atmosphere in the U.S. and Canada. He said encouraging robust trading relationships with other countries is much more important to creating jobs in Fort Wayne than steering a bit more city business to Indiana firms.
I agree with Harper’s first concern and wonder if a redefinition of “local” could’ve helped alleviate this concern. However, this probably would’ve affected other portions of the legislation - particularly the portions Jim Howard described.
I could not disagree more about the protectionist concern. Globalization and the fake “free trade” policies promoted by the federal government the last 20 years have been a massive failure and have devastated Indiana and the Midwest in general. Local government is a consumer and should be allowed to make rational economic decisions when spending taxpayer dollars. It is completely rational to support local businesses in order to promote local jobs.
Of course there comes a point where the premium is too high and at that point it would be equally rational to spend the money out of state. So the debate in my mind is whether or not the premium we are paying is reasonable. Personally I think the premium is too low but it’s listed below for everyone to draw their own conclusion:
- 5 percent on purchases less than $500,000
- 3 percent on purchases between $500,000 and $1 million
- 1 percent on purchases of more than $1 million
- 5 points (out of 100 total) in evaluating responses to requests for proposals
Comments
10 Responses to “Buy Local is Back Again”
Leave a Reply
So the city gooses the taxpayer once again. Selecting contractors simply because they are local is a throwback concept not in tune with today’s world economy and certainly not in tune with my pocketbook.
Businesses compete every day for sales and it is not now, nor should it ever be the concern of politicians. If business is conducted illegally, it is a problem for the police but if a business agrees to perform under a contract for the lowest price, then the contract should simply be awarded to that low bidder.
I understand that this goes against “Good Ol’ Boy” politics which readily permits businesses to influence contract awards based upon favors performed and political contributions made to individual politicians . . . but what readers agree with such a concept?
There is already a propensity among government agencies to write contract specifications that restrict possible awards to few or sometimes to only one bidder. Now there would no barriers to prevent local bidders with buddies in government to always win without ever bidding low.
Tell me again . . . why would favoring local independent businesses be good for the taxpayer? It certainly is strange to me that Fort Wayne citizens can be burdened with inane laws such as the anti-smoking ordinance, but the city government cannot be required to spend our taxes wisely.
Yes, please define “local”. My “Japanese” Suzuki Swift and Gloria Diaz’s “American” Geo Metro were both made in the same plant in Ontario.
And do we really want to start treating Ohio as if it’s a foreign country?
Globalization is not a failure, nor is it a success. It is not a policy, it is a economic force just as gravity is a physical force. If you drop an egg on the floor, that is a failure on your part and not gravity’s. If a business moves out of town for tax reasons, then that is a failure on the part of the city and not a failure of globalization. There are cheaper, more effective ways that we can attract businesses here.
You may be the first person I’ve seen question the integrity of the city’s purchasing director Jim Howard. The policy contains specific criteria for favoring local businesses, which I highlighted. If you don’t like the policy, that’s fair game, but to suggest that a professional career employee like Howard is going to be on the take is altogether different.
Robert,
With all due respect that makes no sense to me. Globalization is an economic phenomenon caused by a collection of government policies. In the US we have created a weak-dollar trade policy that allows us to run massive federal deficits.
And in this case the government is not passing trade law. Citizens are still free to buy goods from whatever state they want (unless it’s wine, but I digress).
The government, as a consumer, is making policy on the best way to spend tax dollars. Spending that money locally, whenever possible and reasonable, is a rational economic decision.
The money local government spends doesn’t fall into a black hole, a portion of it is recirculated in the community. So you can choose whether you want that community to be Fort Wayne, or say Atlanta, Georgia…
I definately support the buy local ordinance. I am very disappointed that the ordinance does not include consultants.
Mike Sylvester
Mike-I have mixed emotions about the “buy local” concept since I believe that the “market” should determine the price and seller of goods and services.However ,if there is any justification for “buy local” it should apply doubly for consultants. There are lots of goods which are only sold or distributed here but all consulting services are or can be “made locally” by folks who live here or would move here for some of the consulting business. But that would lessen the ability to use consulting contracts to create favors owed when it comes time for political contributions etc. The whole process is rotten to the core and the primary reason that certain architects,consulting firms etc get most of the public business.How many more $99000 per year contracts over multiple years before City Council or the State Attorney General fixes this shady practice?
The bottom line is that the city should spend as little money as possible while providing essential services. If a good or service is important enough that a government contract is required, then it is vital that the contract go to the vendor that can deliver at the best price. To grant a contract to a company just because it is local only benefits a handful of residents. Such a practice would be unfair to the 249,000+ Fort Wayne residents who don’t work for that company.
Having said that, local contractors would already have an advantage in that they would save on lodging and transportation costs. So we would expect that many contracts would go to local contractors. But if they can’t put the lowest bid even with this advantage, then they simply don’t deserve the contract.
I would also think that it is easier to exert pressure on a local contractor that isn’t holding up its end of the bargain. But that shouldn’t be a scenario that happens often…
Jeff:
I don’t know the City Purchasing Agent but I know what good internal control is about. Locks on doors are there to keep honest people honest and proper financial control is needed in all enterprises.
Sorry to say that the entire government structure with its last minute granting of consulting contracts without competitive bids raises my suspicions as did the employee vehicle scandal of a couple of years ago.
Add in Harrison Square and the use of Jefferson Pointe economic zone taxes for purposes not intended and I am all for more controls not less.
As I said before, the city has no right to increase my taxes in order to benefit private businesses in this town.
I don’t know much about that Purchasing Agent either. I mean, just exactly who is that guy??
It’s a secret. But rumor has it that he does read the local blogs!