Everyone has strengths and weaknesses, subjects they are naturally good at and ones where they struggle even with maximum effort. The same is true for states. North Dakota is an energy-producing giant but it’ll never be a tourist magnet. They’ll probably accept that tradeoff. But you know a state is in trouble when it’s earning flunking grades in the subjects it has a natural advantage in.
That, of course, is the position Oregon finds itself in today. And the scary part is it’s not because of lack of desire.
For at least two decades, Oregon’s economic development strategy has focused on maximizing the economic impacts of industries that capitalize on Oregon’s strengths. The state primarily honed in on semiconductors and athletic apparel, two industries where it already had a strong foundation, and tourism, which in theory should benefit from the state’s abundant natural amenities.
Sadly, none of these industries currently are near their potential as the state’s economy languishes, ranking in the bottom of third of states in economic measures such as CNBC’s ranking of best states for business (42nd), economic growth (44th), seasonally adjusted unemployment rate (tied for highest), and personal income growth (38th).
The problems in Oregon’s semiconductor and athletic apparel industries are complicated, a product of anchor companies Intel and Nike struggling for reasons that were at least partially self-inflicted, broader changes in those industries, and the state relying too much on existing companies while failing to create a competitive environment that encourages formation of new businesses.
But the state’s economically puny outdoors industry is the biggest indictment of the way Oregon approaches business and economic development. As Mike Rogoway recently detailed in an insightful article in The Oregonian, Oregon lags other Western states in economic input from its outdoors industry. States like Idaho, Montana and Utah generate far more jobs and revenue from the outdoors, even though they rely almost entirely on mountain activities and lack Oregon’s advantage of having both mountains and ocean coastline. Few states can match Oregon’s natural geographic gifts.
But, while Oregon pays lip service to wanting to help its outdoors-related businesses, time after time it makes policy decisions that put Oregon businesses at a disadvantage when competing with businesses in other states.
The disadvantage Oregon outdoors businesses face is best illustrated by laws and court rulings involving liability they face when their customers have accidents at their resorts or facilities. For more than a decade, Oregon ski resorts and other action-sports businesses, including gyms, faced more legal risk than similar businesses in other states. The enhanced risk traced back to a 2014 Oregon Supreme Court ruling that made liability waivers that skiers and other customers of gyms and outdoors-related businesses sign toothless. In turn, insurers raised rates on Oregon businesses or declined to offer policies.
Senate Bill 1517B, a product of intense debate and compromise, restored the viability of waivers but allowed enough exceptions for many businesses to remain fearful of lawsuits.
On the plus side, Senate Bill 1517B was an example of the legislative process working in Oregon, delivering each side some of what they wanted. On the negative side, Oregon outdoors businesses still face more risk than their contemporaries in states like Idaho, Montana and Utah.
Worse, whatever you think of the compromise, outdoors-related businesses still have reason to wonder how fiscally prudent it is to operate in Oregon. Consider the recently failed effort to put an initiative on the November ballot that would have, among other things, banned hunting and fishing. While it’s some consolation that the effort failed, it’s scary that interest groups thought Oregon was a state where such a measure might receive voter approval.
Bottom line: If Oregon wants an outdoors industry that is competitive with other Western states, it has to show customers of these businesses that it values them.
I recently completed a vacation that included stops in Colorado, Wyoming and Idaho, each of which reap a higher percentage of state economic production from the outdoors than Oregon does. I saw something I’ve seen on previous trips: When I go to outdoors destinations in Oregon, I mostly see sightseers. In the other three states, I see people being active outdoors. Of course, hunting, fishing, skiing and other outdoors activities are riskier than sightseeing. In other words, Oregon’s outdoors infrastructure and legal environment is built for sightseers, and that’s what we attract.
That’s the way business works. It’s a lesson Oregon still hasn’t learned. It’s hard to attract jobs in any industry when you treat the businesses and their customers as intruders who must follow an elaborate set of rules for the privilege of being in Oregon. They’ll just go to a more welcoming state instead.
A guest post by Mark Hester
Mark worked 20 years at The Oregonian in positions including business editor & editorial writer. He is regular contributor to Oregon Roundup.
Find the article and more directly from Oregon Roundup https://oregonroundup.substack.com/p/oregons-outdoors-industry-is-lost
Republished by Right Now Oregon with Permission from Oregon Roundup. Oregon Roundup Foundation created this article. ORF is a 501(c)(3) nonprofit corporation dedicated to covering Oregon political and government news.
About the Author
Discover more from Right Now Oregon
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
