I had promised to stop writing about the proposed takeover of the South Charleston Technology Park because it is a done deal, but it is hard for me to remain silent when specious comparisons are being made between the Tech Park and other technology parks across the United States.

Dave Hardy makes a comparison to Research Triangle Park in North Carolina.  Eric Eyre says: “The University of Pittsburgh’s Applied Research Center, called U-PARC, appears to share the most similarities with the tech park in South Charleston.”  Other suggested comparisons: the Oklahoma State University-affiliated national sensor-testing center, the Michigan State University-led “bioeconomy” research and development center, and the University of Michigan’s biomedical research campus. Please, everyone, stop drinking the Tech Park water and answer some common sense questions.

• Is the combination of West Virginia University and Marshall University anywhere near the presence in research that the Duke University/University of North Carolina/North Carolina State University triumvirate are?  The University of Pittsburgh?  Michigan State University or the University of Michigan?  Let’s review one set of rankings: Among public universities, University of Michigan – 5, University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill – 6, University of Pittsburgh – 11, Michigan State University – 22, North Carolina State University – 27.  Then, of course, you have Duke University and Carnegie-Mellon University near the top of the private institutions list.  Now check out WVU’s and MU’s rankings.  (This assignment requires persistence, folks.  Don’t quit so soon.)
• So we’re left with research mid-tier Oklahoma State University and the smallish ConocoPhillips-gifted national sensor testing center in Ponca City.  But at least Stillwater and Ponca City are within commuting distance of one another.  How about the South Charleston Technology Park?  There’s a smallish Marshall University Graduate College that doesn’t focus on STEM (science, technology, engineering and math) education next door, Marshall University an hour west, and West Virginia University two-and-three-quarters hours northeast.  Does the West Virginia Higher Education Policy Commission employ a single STEM researcher?  No.
• Next, I challenge remaining wishers and a hopers and a prayers who suggest that South Charleston can have a strong research park to take that two-and-three-quarter hour trip to Morgantown and visit their “research park” off Route 705 (aka “Where the Broomsedge Grows”).  Then go to Kinetic Park in Huntington for another tour.  If WVU, which has West Virginia’s strongest research presence, cannot make a go of a research park in its own back door, neither can South Charleston with none of Morgantown’s advantages besides a few more empty buildings.
• Finally, please note that there’s another dog that isn’t barking.  And that’s West Virginia University.  If any organization is critical to the Tech Park’s success, it’s WVU.  Where are they?  Where is MU?  Short of a MAJOR commitment by WVU, the longshot possibility becomes a virtual impossibility.

Having grown up in the Charleston area, I too would like to engage in a little wishin’ and a hopin’ and a prayin’, but my inferior Lincoln County education only taught me thinkin’, and it doesn’t take much thinkin’ to realize that a Research Triangle Park vision for the Tech Park is a pipe dream. It’s no accident that technology parks thrive only near major research universities.  We need to have realistic expectations for the South Charleston Technology Park’s possibility.

I’m thinking of Ronald Reagan tonight as I read the latest news.  I plan to move on to other topics, but expect to revisit this topic in a few years.

Today’s Charleston Gazette contains the latest update on the Dow Tech Center project, and the story grows sadder and sadder.

As I predicted, instead of unveiling their well-thought-out plan for the South Charleston Tech Center, leaders are scrambling to develop a plan.  One minute the Lottery Commission is moving there; the next minute it is not.  One minute a “mere” $1.8 million will be needed to operate the site; the next minute it’s closer to $7.8 million, and that doesn’t include renovations.  One minute Building 2000 needs to be leveled; the next minute it does not.

On the latter front, the Governor absurdly announced that the West Virginia Higher Education Policy Commission and Council for Community and Technical College Education would move to the site, while at the same time announcing that the only building that logically could house them would be leveled.

And now we have a TWO-PAGE environmental report that identifies contaminants and says “further evaluation is recommended,” but concludes that there are no “unacceptable human health risks” despite WVU’s conclusion a mere three years ago that the risks were serious.

The saddest thing here: No one apparently learned ANYTHING from the Governor’s 2006 announcement that WVU Institute of Technology was going to relocate its engineering program to this very site.  When I learned of that plan shortly before the Governor’s State-of-the-State Address announcement in 2006, I asked the leaders some of the most basic questions imaginable about how they were going to operate the site and meet basic student needs.  I was stunned to discover they had no answers.  I urged the leaders not to rush an announcement without a meaningful plan in place, but no one listened … and the rest is history. The Governor, WVU and WVUIT leaders made it very easy for the “Take Back Tech” folks to shut down that effort.

A mere four years later everyone is in a mad dash to make a multi-million decision by Friday.   As occurred in 2006, basic due diligence has not been performed.  And that’s a shame because the Governor finds himself in a precarious situation.  Take a wild gamble that property that Dow could not make profitable can be made profitable by the State of West Virginia and the environmental hazards really aren’t that bad, or risk the loss of important jobs unless MATRIC and other tenants can find suitable space somewhere else.

Charleston Gazette reporter Eric Eyre quotes Paul Arbogast, chairman of tech park tenant Mid-Atlantic Technology Research and Innovation Center (MATRIC), saying, “it’s going to be an easy decision.”  I couldn’t agree more with Mr. Arbogast’s statement, if not his conclusion, if the decision truly has to be made by Friday.  I urge everyone involved to BEG, GROVEL, or do whatever is necessary to get Dow to give them two months to perform the due diligence that should have been performed months and years ago.  I’d personally even support having the State pay Dow for the two additional months of financial losses (about $1.3 million?) so it has time to get its due diligence house in order.  Otherwise, the State may lose a lot more than $1.3 million.

It’s no accident that Dow is not only offering to “give away” this property but also throw in $10 million to boot.  And it’s no accident that no one learned anything from the events of 2006.  How sad!

The Charleston Daily Mail provides some answers to my South Charleston Tech Park questions.

• Dow Chemical Co. pays $10 million annually ($7.8 million net) for upkeep, but the State’s going to manage to reduce that amount to $1.8-$1.9 million?  Who says the government isn’t more efficient than the private sector?!?  Still a deficit mind you, but a pretty amazing proposed accomplishment by the agile and efficient public sector.
• The State is going to tear down an old building.  Who’s paying for that?
• Dow is throwing in $10 million to get rid of the property?!?  Because they’re such strong supporters of the State of West Virginia and the Kanawha Valley?  Someone might want to check with the Valley’s many former Dow employees.
• The State will use federal stimulus money to convert one building into a “green” building and save $1 million in heating costs?  How much will that cost?  How long will it take to accomplish?
• “I still think it could serve as a catalyst for West Virginia University and Marshall University.”  Just like the West Virginia University Research Park and Huntington’s Kinetic Park?
• “He said it is projected that by the end of 2012 the park will be home to 300 jobs with an average salary of $100,000 a year.”  I’d love to see the basis for those projections.
• “The governor said he’s asked stakeholders to come back Monday with recommendations on what should be torn down, renovated or otherwise changed.  He promised that all of the figures will be made public … WHEN THE STATE HAS A FINAL PLAN.”  (Emphasis mine, of course.)

I think we have our answer.  The Governor did not need to use the word “FINAL.”  I don’t know whether to laugh or cry.  I hope everyone can come up with a plan before next Tuesday.

I am baffled by media coverage of the South Charleston Tech Center story. While I understand that a race to meet a company’s artificial deadline, one politician’s decision to snub another, and the possible destruction of formerly thriving facilities make for interesting stories, I do not understand the media’s, government’s and higher education’s utter and complete silence concerning a subject of utmost importance: Has anyone prepared a detailed business plan that analyzes what it would take to make the South Charleston Tech Center a viable property?

Dow obviously has determined that it cannot operate the South Charleston Tech Center profitably, whether as a research park or as far more mundane rental property. Potential buyers that Dow has courted over the years surely have reached much the same conclusion, or the property would have sold long ago.

So what makes the “Friends of the Tech Park” think they are going to be able to turn things around? Some really basic questions:

• How much revenue does the site currently generate?
• How much does the site currently cost to operate?
• What are the ongoing maintenance costs for the facilities?  The deferred maintenance costs?
• How much additional revenue is going to be generated next year?  Two years from now?  Five years from now?
• Who is going to provide that revenue?  The private sector?  Government agencies?
• What is going to change to make the property a mecca for private sector companies?  Is the “mecca”-nization of the property going to cost anything?  If so, from whence is that money coming?
• How is the property going to be marketed?  Is a “government” park going to attract non-government tenants?
• How is West Virginia’s higher education research establishment, which on its best day is not spoken of in the same breath as North Carolina’s Research Triangle Park research establishment, unless, that is, Charleston Newspapers are providing the coverage, going to support this effort?
• Isn’t the movement of government offices anywhere largely a zero-sum game unless someone expects to hire a lot more government employees?  What’s going to happen to all the rental property currently housing government employees?  Why is this mass move of government agencies a net positive?
• What makes anyone think the Higher Education Policy Commission, which owns a single piece of property that has not been well-maintained, or state government, which owns a lot of poorly maintained properties, is going to be able to turn things around?
• How is the environmental calculus that led West Virginia University to decline a “gift” of much of this property different now?

There might be a beautifully bound plan that answers every last one of these questions in exquisite detail and contains every chart and graph I’d ever want.  But if so, why is no one quoted in the newspapers mentioning it?  And why is no reporter asking for it?

In The Hound of the Baskervilles, Sherlock Holmes solves the case based on the fact that a dog did not bark.  In this case, no one seems to be noticing the eerie silence.