What Comes First?

When we jumped rope in grade school, the chant always ended the same way: “First comes love, then comes marriage, then comes a baby in a baby carriage.” Classic playground rhyme. Classic recess outside North Lawn Elementary in Neodesha, Kansas.

Lately I have been having a lot of conversations about what comes first in community improvement. I keep hearing that nothing else matters until you land big manufacturing or warehouse projects, with large buildings and large workforces. All the energy and all the expectations get pinned to that one goal. The timeline for those projects is three to five years, start to finish. If you insist they have to happen first, a lot of other development will not happen at all.

But is that actually true? It may be common wisdom, but that does not make it accurate.

Not long ago I sat with a group that wanted to see their town grow. Most of their questions focused on affordable housing and recruiting big employers. My answer surprised them. I told them that unless they made their town more appealing, none of that would stick. I used the simple example of hosting guests. My wife will not have anyone over unless the house looks presentable. She wants it sharp. She is proud of what she has built and wants visitors to see it at its best. If I brought someone over without giving her a heads-up, I might be in trouble.

Why do communities not see themselves the same way? You are inviting people into your “home,” and it does not look sharp. That sends a message.

If you clean up your community and make it welcoming, investment will follow. Then you can invite the large manufacturer or the big-box warehouse, and they will be more likely to choose you because you look like a place that is proud of itself and ready to win.

One person in that meeting, who had recently moved from a community in Oklahoma, said, “You are right.” In his last job they offered tax breaks and grants to recruit companies. Some came, then left a few years later. The incentives did not solve retention because employees did not enjoy living there. You can write checks, but if people do not want to put down roots, the company will struggle. I am not saying we should not recruit large employers. I am saying the sequence matters. If you do not invest in quality of life, if you do not work on the downtown with signage, banners, art, and everyday upkeep, you might recruit them, but they may not stay. Or their employees will live in the next community over, the one they view more positively.

I have seen that too. A city works hard to land a major manufacturer. Sales tax and property values eventually rise. The school district benefits. But what changed downtown? What improved quality of life? Most employees bought homes in the community a few miles away with the more vibrant, attractive core. That other community benefits without offering any incentives and their town gets the new home sales, the dinner tabs, the weekend shopping, and the pride. The recruiting city paid for the business to come, but did it capture the full benefit it could have? Did its small businesses feel the lift? Is downtown growing? Did new entrepreneurs choose that place because it felt alive?

So what comes first? I will argue that downtown development and community attractiveness need to be near the top of any economic development plan. Clean streets, clear wayfinding, lively storefronts, consistent branding, public art, and well-kept parks are not window dressings. They are the invitations. They make people want to visit, stay, work, and invest.

Get the place right, then go get the projects.