Whitewater’s City Manager, Kevin Brunner, trumpets what he considers a speedy advancement of a publicly-funded tech park for Whitewater. Brunner considers this a sign of accomplishment. He’s wrong, twice over. First, there’s less to Whitewater’s supposed accomplishments than meets the eye. Second, and even more important for our town, is the fundamental understanding among successful managers that a rapid pace for developing a tech park is a bad idea. Brunner may think that rushing though a project shows talent, but some tasks deserve more care & consideration than a hurried approach.
Earlier this month, the Daily Union wrote unquestioningly about Whitewater’s tech park in a story entitled, Whitewater Tech Park advances; panels to study second building. The story was, in the main, more dictation than reporting. I wrote on that newspaper story, and our tech park, in two posts entitled, On Whitewater’s “Advancing” Tech Park, Part 1 and On Whitewater’s “Advancing” Tech Park, Part 2.
(I offered several points in those two posts: (1) the story touted officials’ unverifiable claims, (2) one would expect some advancement with millions in public money, (3) there should be even more tenants by now, (4) the anchor tenant selected is unsuitable for a tech park, (5) current lack of a strategic plan is cavalier and embarrassing, (6) the building is ordinary, not unique in design, and (7) there’s nothing green about an office building, and it’s insulting to environmental concerns to pretend otherwise.)
Last week, the Journal Sentinel‘s Kathleen Gallagher wrote about successful tech parks in a story entitled, The Business of Growing Up: Madison pays attention to its young companies.
Two truths stand out prominently from her story: successful tech parks require careful thought over an extended period, and they’re filled with private ventures, not taxpayer-funded agencies.
Madison’s tech parks and the rest of its entrepreneurial infrastructure grew out of a unified strategy and long-term cooperation among the city, the state, the university and business people.
“This hasn’t happened overnight,” said David Linz, southeast regional director for the Wisconsin Entrepreneurs’ Network. “It’s been 25 years in the making.”
The list also reveals private companies after private companies that have used these tech parks to get started — even when the term ‘incubator’ isn’t used, that’s a common use for a successful tech park. These parks “…have helped breed companies including Jellyfish.com, Mirus Bio Corp., NimbleGen Systems Inc., Third Wave Technologies and TomoTherapy Inc., which have become some of Wisconsin’s biggest entrepreneurial success stories.”
Even without seeing how others have carefully, thoughtfully, and deliberately planned tech parks, one could sense that Whitewater’s park began as a slapdash effort — a scramble after federal money, a rush to issue public debt (bonds) to pay for a building or two.
That’s why a story that simply repeats what local leaders say isn’t much of a story. It’s more stenography than reporting, dutifully recording local bureaucrats praising themselves for accomplishments that simply aren’t very accomplished.