I got an e-mail the other day with a provocative message.  Let me re-phrase.  Of the e-mails I get with provocative messages, one was not spam and was actually worth reading.  This particular e-mail was an invitation to take part in a discussion hosted by Case Western Reserve University and Cleveland State University.  It will be a discussion of the premise that economic development isn't only about attracting new companies to communities or about expanding those you already have.  It isn't really about economics in the traditional sense.  Nor is it about bricks and mortar, square feet in buildings, utility infrastructure or sewer extensions.  No, the discussion in Cleveland will be about people development.  That is, the development of people who are literate, engaged, adaptable, resilient, healthy and content with their life's trajectory.  It is a broadening of the concept of development to encompass the enrichment of human beings in more than a monetary sense in a process that begins before conception.

Viewed in this broad sense, the process of economic development suddenly moves out of the province of a CAN DO or county or city economic development department.  It isn't something that can be compartmentalized into one, or even several offices or disciplines.  It becomes the business of improving as a society.  It becomes our collective agenda-our collective responsibility.  It's suddenly your job as well as mine.  The myriad choices we make day in and day out become part of the process.  Choices have consequences individually and collectively.  Do we have kids?  When?  Are we married or not?  If we have kids, do we read to them or watch television?  Do I stick with a job?  Or quit when the going gets rough?   Do I vote?  For whom?  What do I think about the future of my community?  Will I invest my time or money to affect that future?  Do I lead a healthy lifestyle?  Or is it diminished by drugs, alcohol, tobacco?  Our individual decisions create who and what we are-each of us a thread in the fabric of community. 

Soon, you may be asked to participate in a discussion locally.  Ohio State University's extension service is facilitating a process of fact-gathering designed to result in a more complete comprehensive plan for the community.  Your chance to weigh in on what's worth preserving in our community and what you'd like to see in the future is coming soon to a school, church, senior center, or conference room near you.  Take the opportunity to be heard!

I think I'll attend the discussion in Cleveland.  It is always helpful to step back and look with fresh eyes at what one does and why.  A recent vote in Marion's City Council was another reason to pause and evaluate the mission.  In order to balance the city government's budget, the administration required 5.1 percent cuts across the board in city departments.  These cuts extended to the city's support for CAN DO and the Downtown Marion efforts as well.  In order to effect those cuts, Council was required to vote on ordinances supporting the two organizations, but making the cuts in city appropriations of 5.1% below the funding level established for CAN DO twelve years ago.  In a previous column, we discussed the results of these cuts combined with a drop in private sector funding-a 66% cut in CAN DO staffing plus elimination of most advertising.

Council voted 7-2 in favor of those ordinances supporting CAN DO and Downtown Marion.  It was the two "no" votes from council members Thomas and Blevins that caused me to pause.  Are they opposed to CAN DO's mission of business growth and attraction?  Are they opposed to downtown revitalization?  Is it personal?  What message, exactly, do those no votes convey?  And what would elicit a yes vote?  What course should development take in this town?  Is it something that's important to the city, the county, the people who live here-and who might inhabit this place in the future?  If a council member is opposed to this course, what course would they take instead?  There will be ample opportunity to ask and answer those questions in the days ahead.

The questions we face in our community differ only in degree from those faced by Iraqi citizens no longer under the autocracy of Saddam Hussein.  They are the same questions faced by tsunami survivors in Southeast Asia or the county next door.  What shall we build?  How will we construct our portion of society?  How can we make life all it can be, from cradle to grave, in this patch of earth we call home?