This proposal discusses building relationships between anchor institutions like colleges, hospitals, and cultural organizations and urban communities to promote economic development. It suggests forming a committee of stakeholders to define objectives like hiring local residents and purchasing locally. The proposal argues that anchor institutions have a vested interest in the economic health of their surrounding neighborhoods and that collaborating can help revitalize areas through job creation, local business support, and improving living conditions while avoiding displacement of existing residents. By increasing coordination between anchors, government and community leaders, incentives and programs can be established to stimulate urban renewal in a fiscally responsible way.

1. Proposal 1: Building Institutional Relationships within Urban Centers
Eamon Wizner
At the heart of any economic development initiative lies jobs. If a business is able to
thrive and employ residents of an urban center, those residents will in turn spend their wages in
their communities and spur more growth. However, Connecticut is currently regarded as not
being “business-friendly” at all, which means companies (especially large corporations not based
in CT) are seemingly always on the brink of simply leaving. Some recent examples include Colt
Firearms moving to Texas, insurance companies threatening to leave the state over tax increases
during the most recent budget negotiations, and casinos putting out bids looking for incentives to
set up shop in a new town.
Given that these large corporations bring jobs to the area, but have no ties to their
communities and no desire to engage in long-term redevelopment of Connecticut urban centers,
we must look at other institutions that are tied to economic growth but do have a vested interest
in their communities. These are often referred to as “anchor institutions” and are typically
thought of as “eds and meds” (colleges and hospitals), although it can be more broadly defined to
include cultural landmarks such as museums, sports franchises, faith-based and philanthropic
institutions, and military installations. Even though all of these organizations are considered non-
profits, they still utilize significant amounts of human and material resources—and they are
physically anchored to a specific geographic area. Collaboration among these non-profits can
create tangible and lasting results in regards to community revitalization.
The creation of a committee of stakeholders involved with anchor-led economic
development is the first step in producing results of cooperation. Such a committee would
include representatives from the institutions themselves, the municipal government, and
community leaders. After all concerned parties are in a room together, the focus of early
meetings should be to define their objectives and obstacles. Such objectives should include
increasing accommodation and enrollment of area residents, increasing local hiring and local
purchasing, and making downtown communities more connected and attractive.
Existing residents in a community have special standing when it comes to revitalization
efforts, and it is for this reason that community activists should have a leadership role in
institutional partnerships. As mentioned previously, the most basic foundation of economic

2. development is an employed population that turns around and spends money at local businesses.
Improving the living conditions of surrounding neighborhoods benefits the institutions directly
as well—as stated in a report on Cleveland’s “Greater University Circle Initiative,” businesses
recognize that they cannot prosper in an island while the neighborhoods around them are in
decline and that the creation of a vibrant urban center contributes to increased interest,
investment, and tourism in the area which is good for everybody1. For these reasons, creating a
jobs pipeline for area residents, transitioning bulk purchasing agreements away from
multinational corporations in favor of local businesses, and attracting new residents while
guarding against the displacement of existing community members should be top priorities.
Through a collaborative, coordinated effort among municipal government, institutions,
and community leaders, various incentives and programs can be set up that help revitalize
neighborhoods. Increased communication among these stakeholders, regardless of policy
objectives, is bound to produce positive results because they are aligned in their interests. A
collaborative partnership will also create a forum for discussion in regards to state legislation and
unforeseen catastrophes so that those involved can be sure they are not working at cross-
purposes and are instead focusing on a concerted, coordinated response. Municipalities do not
receive property taxes from non-profits, and as budget concerns are not subsiding anytime soon
and PILOT grants are being cut, institutional partnerships represent an innovative and fiscally
responsible solution to urban decline.
1 http://community-wealth.org/sites/clone.community-
wealth.org/files/downloads/Cleveland%27s%20Greater%20University%20Circle%20Anchor%20Initi ative.%20Case
%20Study.pdf