I came across a recent article about smart cities on feed I follow. http://www.fastcoexist.com/1679261/how-can-you-build-a-smart-city
It makes some interesting points and some even more interesting suggestions. The current state of Chatham-Kent economically is unfortunate. Brought on by big automotive deciding several years ago to takes its toys and go play elsewhere. We became a community reliant on a single industry (yes I know agriculture is still here as well). It only makes sense that when that industry scales back that it affects anyone whose lifeline is directly tied to it. The only solution at this point, because automotive will never regain the traction it once had, is to diversify our portfolio. That’s where this article really hit a chord with me, and not because I’m in the tech industry.

The first step in the sub-heading outlines the problem and the solution. “Make your city appealing to young innovators”. While that statement makes it seem like an easy task, we all know differently. But, doing so solves two of our biggest problems. It brings in youth to our community and it boosts economical growth bringing in new businesses. The key factor in the whole article is right near the end. “Before competing for talent, cities need to increase livability and grow their enabling infrastructure to support emerging companies before embarking on a smart-city branding initiative.” All the re-branding in the world won’t bring the people here if there still exists a lack of support. It’s time to put a real focus on not only the tech industry, but entreprenuerialism as a whole. Once that’s done you can focus on good branding. It’s still important. It’s what makes us marketable to the world. One of the best points in the article states “Good city branding attracts and retains new talent, startups, services, and the arts.” So support and branding are the key. Then we can let the young innovators be the driving force that helps get the community noticed.

That’s where I think Chatham-Kent can really shine. Why not change direction and embrace new opportunity. Because really, has trying to chase the same old dream paid off yet?

You’re exactly right Michael. I came back to Chatham after living in Oakville for two years and I can definitely appreciate the cost of housing here in comparison. While Chatham-Kent can’t provide the bright lights and big action of a city like Toronto, it can compete in other arenas. I lived it and experienced it for two years and was happy to move back because of the community here. If the arts and culture scene was more prominent then I think Chatham-Kent would be very well positioned to draw people in. If you can’t bring the jobs here, then attract the creative and innovative people that can create new opportunities. It doesn’t solve the unemployment issue but it keeps the city alive and it would establish Chatham-Kent as a rural hub for innovation and ideas.

That’s a great article. Thanks for sharing. It’s a different approach that I’m sure would scare most governments but one that I think would benefit the economy and entrepreneurs. A report on small business last year stated that Just under 98% of businesses in Ontario are small (under 100 employees). 55% of those have less than 5 employees and I would be willing to bet that a large portion are single entrepreneurs. A huge percent of small businesses fail every year but I have to wonder if the direction of that article was followed if the success rate would increase. Granted there are many business ideas that simply aren’t viable, but many are, and a select few are major winners. By providing the support to help innovative people establish and grow their ideas easier there would be a lot more winners. The best example I’ve always liked when talking about business ideas is that of James Dyson. He designed over 5000 prototypes of his vacuum idea over a 5 year span until he struck gold. There are thousands of ideas out there that just won’t work, but one that will. Translated to innovative people, there are thousands of them with ideas that won’t work, a large handful of some that will, and a select few that will hit the jackpot.

A government, or even a local municipality that provides a support model for these ideas wins in the end because the more support provided, the more chance for success in a greater number of people. There will still always be bad ideas out there and people that will fail, but what’s the alternative? Stifling creativity by making the market entrypoint difficult and having them sit unemployed? I think I would rather place my bets and spin the wheel.