Worcester Business Journal

www.wbjournal.com April 13, 2015 • Worcester Business Journal 29 So, Gov. Charlie Baker's recent signing of an executive order launching a comprehensive review of all regulations enforced by the administration, and his extension of a moratorium on new regulations are welcome developments; the goal being to determine which rules should stay, which could be eliminated, and which ones should be modified. Depending on the outcome of that review, it could go a long way toward reducing the red tape that businesses face when they want to establish, grow or expand. "This will be an intensive process that ultimately makes Massachusetts a more efficient and competitive place to live and work, while driving economic growth," Baker said in announcing the executive order. Judging from the results of the two surveys, red tape and investment in transportation and infrastructure seem to be the major factors restraining business growth in Massachusetts. In its annual survey on small business friendliness last year, Thumbtack.com gave the Bay State an overall grade of D+. But it ranked within the top third — with an A-minus — in ease of hiring, which addresses not only how easily businesses can fill jobs, but also the qualifications of Massachusetts workers. Since the state's unemployment rate has been lower than that of the nation since 2010, that says a lot about the employability of Bay State residents. The other survey, conducted in 2013 by the publishers of Chief Executive Magazine, was harsher, ranking Massachusetts 47th — or fourth worst — among the states as places to do business. But the survey was also conducted at a time when then-Gov. Deval Patrick was pushing for a hike in the state's income tax and an expansion of the sales tax to services (though he also sought a cut in the sales tax to 4.5 percent from its current 6.25 percent). While that lowered the state's grade on taxes and regulation, Massachusetts ranked higher on its workforce and quality of life. One comment from that survey pointed out a particular challenge Massachusetts has when it comes to growing its tech base: "Massachusetts has been strong economically because of small to mid- size technology-driven companies … While there may be excitement here for early-stage technology companies, more established companies may consider growth and expansion elsewhere." Therein lies a significant challenge for Baker and the rest of the state leadership. While Massachusetts may be a great incubator for new, innovative businesses, it must do more to help established, innovative companies grow here and not elsewhere. The same goes for lower-margin industries that don't rely so much on innovation, such as retail. While they're more impacted by such progressive government policies as increases in the minimum wage, they also benefit directly from any government action that can help lower their costs. Regulatory reform is needed, but should not come at the expense of environmental health and the overall health and wellbeing of the state's residents. The Baker administration and lawmakers must balance the need for greater efficiency with the necessity to make adequate investments in our transportation infrastructure, especially public transit, which has emerged as a top priority after a harsh winter. Both business and political leaders are pushing for maintenance and equipment upgrades at the MBTA, as well as an expansion of the system to help make it a more viable option for working commuters. Q Regulatory review welcome for business, but with limits E D I T O R I A L The Worcester Business Journal welcomes letters to the editor and commentary submissions. Please send submissions to Rick Saia, editor, at rsaia@wbjournal.com. Letters can also be faxed to 508-755-8860. T he Olympics is a wonderful sporting event. But it's also a business. Its model: Make money by working with organizing groups around the world (such as Boston 2024) whose job is to, among other things, get billions of dollars in taxpayer subsidies. The People's Vote Olympics Committee, of which I'm chairman, is working to get a statewide vote in November 2016 that would bar the use of taxpayer money for the games. Here are three reasons we must vote and have voters' voices heard. 1. We aren't getting a straight story from Boston 2024. Boston 2024 insists it doesn't want any taxpayer money. But its bid documents, the history of the Olympics, and the fact that the group's payroll is dominated by a "dream team" of lobbyists, political consultants and former government officials says otherwise. The big prize: a guarantee that if there are cost overruns or revenue shortfalls, Massachusetts taxpayers will pick up the tab. Since a typical Olympics cost overrun tops 250 percent, this would amount to billions of dollars. 2. We can't rely on our elected leaders to do the right thing. Elected officials haven't had much to say about Boston 2024. Gov. Baker, Speaker DeLeo and Senate President Rosenberg have claimed they don't want taxpayer money spent on the Olympics. But they recently announced they would spend up to $250,000 for a consultant to study the 2024 bid. During just one recent week, Boston 2024 had three closed-door meetings with these three leaders. We don't know what was discussed, but for a group that says it doesn't want taxpayer money, Boston 2024 spends a lot of time meeting in private with the people in charge of spending it. 3. We have the opportunity to set priorities in a way that benefits everyone. Voters often say they don't believe government represents their interests. If you're a small-business owner, live outside the Boston area, want more support for cities and towns, or job training and education, Boston 2024 doesn't promise to deal with those issues. Instead, it promises to divert government's precious attention and taxpayer resources to serve its aims. But we aren't powerless. In Massachusetts, voters can put binding laws on the ballot. Our proposed law would bar the use of taxpayer money for the Olympics. Through this kind of direct democracy, we all have the power — and the opportunity — to make sure our future is focused on the needs of the people of Massachusetts. A connected group of insiders is driving government policy to serve the needs of a business to which so many of them are tied. As voters, we have two choices: Throw our hands up and say "There's nothing we can do," or act. A vote on the Olympics is an opportunity to restore our democracy and build the kind of accountable government we all know we need. Q Evan Falchuk is chairman of the United Independent Party and was an independent candidate for governor in 2014. Why we must vote on Olympics bid BY EVAN FALCHUK Special to the Worcester Business Journal V I E W P O I N T Evan Falchuk M assachusetts has possessed a long-standing reputation as a state that can be unfriendly to business. In some cases, it has earned that reputation. In two recent, notable, nationwide surveys the Bay State has not stacked up well against others when it comes to tax and regulatory policy, as well as its degree of "friendliness" to business. Courthouse deal: Wrong turn avoided S ometimes, government moves slowly. In the case of the $1.2-million deal Worcester struck with a New Hampshire developer that wants to redevelop the former county courthouse, a two-week-long delay in securing City Council approval ran the risk of sending the wrong message about doing business in Worcester. For years, Worcester officials have been working to entice more development and investment in the city, especially in and around downtown. This deal promises to shore up a key property in the Lincoln Square area by converting it into a combination of apartments and retail space. The labor coalition that raised questions about the proposed sale can claim a victory in having won a stronger commitment from the developer in hiring contractors from the region. However, the specter of special-interest groups with strong political ties holding developers hostage in the city is a real threat, and recalls a not-so- distant past when Worcester was viewed as overly parochial and a difficult place to do business. In the courthouse case, progress delayed was not necessarily progress denied. But it was a delay that was avoidable. We hope that in future deals, private developers will not be throwing up their hands in frustration. Worcester should be proud of the numbers of recently announced private development deals. They represent the fulfillment of a long-held promise that a vision and significant public investment will catalyze private investment. It's happening, and the city needs to use the leverage it has without biting the hands of private developers that are driving this new wave of growth. Q

• Cover