Not so very long ago I was sitting across from Jack Goldman, then tech advisor to some obscure VC firm attempting to latch on to a pre dot-com bust tech company, and I was the pitching the unified theory of how $20 million would one day turn into a $1 billion windfall. The suits were questioning the company founders on why this particular tech enterprise was located in Danbury, and whether it was a good location. (It was not, but that’s a long techie digression.) I don’t think anyone else from our side caught the implications of the question, and I would have missed it were it not for the coincidence that I was reading one of the best books I ever read about the decision to locate the Xerox technology research center in Palo Alto, Dealers of Lightning: Xerox PARC and the Dawn of the Computer Age.
The internal play by play in assessing locating Xerox’s technology research center in New Haven versus Palo Alto is just as appropriate today for locating any technology business in Connecticut. The gist, that New Haven, Connecticut in general, and Yale were too closed minded to foster an open collaborative environment where research scientists could roam and exchange ideas that would spark the inventions in technology that would revolutionize the world. Goldman was one of the guys who is on that decision to locate in Palo Alto, and the rest is as they say history.
So was the tech company I worked at a few years later, not because it stayed in Danbury. In fact we got the funding and relocated the head quarters to NYC and silicon alley. But changing the location in a way doomed the tech company, because location and environment for most creative fueled companies matter.
Location is the theme today. With the state tax credit driving hollywood movies to shoot films in Connecticut, municipalities are scrambling for a way to manage the newfound business. Codifying some sort of film permit was on the table at the Building and Land use Committee meeting the other night, and from that we learn that Council member Laurel Lindstrom wants an ordinance. From The Hour:
According to Lindstrom, the ordinance would complement the Location Permit Application and License For Filming Locations now under consideration by the committee. She believes the Connecticut Commission on Culture and Tourism might help Norwalk develop the ordinance.Lindstrom’s proposal comes as the city officials work on the location license agreement. The several-page document spells out how filmmakers may use city property “in connection with media production, including video, film and still photography.” On Thursday night, the Land Use Committee tabled action on it.
Mayor Richard A. Moccia believes the license agreement, when hammered out, will be sufficient to serve the needs of residents and movie-making companies. An ordinance is not necessary, according to Moccia.”It’s just another layer of bureaucracy,” Moccia said. “We just want to simplify (the process), make one-stop shopping, but we don’t need an ordinance. I think (an ordinance) is just unnecessary. It will discourage film- making in town. I think there’s a tendency to overregulate.”
“I don’t have any problem with the permit,” Moccia added.Lindstrom said she is researching how other communities handle filmmaking. Ferndale, Calif., she noted, adopted an ordinance. That ordinance addresses, among other things, permits, rules and regulations, the application process, city oversight, fees, liability, hold harmless agreements and performance bonds.
Councilman Michael K. Geake said the Land Use Committee, upon which he sits, tabled action Thursday night on the location license agreement to allow city staff to gather more information from department heads about their concerns. Geake said the committee wants “the film companies to come to one place and know they have to pay this amount to police, this amount to rent a park, and this amount for trash collection.”
Geake also backs an ordinance, as proposed by Lindstrom.”I think it’s great that she’s doing this. It only makes sense,” Geake said. “If you lay things out, you don’t have to have each filmmaker negotiating the same issues over and over again.”
Nothing like taking a simple concept, like develop a film permit that codifies all fees and usage rights, and turn it into a layer of bureaucratic mess. Norwalk doesn’t need an ordinance to manage film permits but it likely needs a film office, or some other entity charged with developing a process for which to issue permits and a marketing arm to encourage film scouts to scout locations here. In addition, the many services that feed into the film industry will need to locate somewhere, and it might as well be Norwalk. But Norwalk has got to stop thinking, collectively, that it is some little feudal town stuck in the 16th century.
The purpose of a permit, is not as Lindstorm suggests to “include additional eyes on the process” but to streamline, make it easier and remove the uncertainty of cost and procedure from the process. It’s not a hard concept to grasp, but location scouts prefer dealing with locations that work with them in a professional environment. Which means when you are tasked with managing a shoot at $2500 a minute you need to know that unexpected delays are minimized.
The debate at the council level needs to climb to 35,000 feet and figure out what the big picture here is. Does Norwalk want to transform itself into a 21st century city, tapping the creative economy? We need only look to New Haven, where they still celebrate the Cotton Gin, Erector Set and Silly Putty as part of their technology history. As for Palo Alto, you’ve been reading this post on everything that spawned from that decision not so long ago.
source: The Hour, City may script film ordinance Proposal to complement filming license agreement now under consideration, By Jared Newman, February 23, 2008
