I have always considered that area planning consisted of two principal
elements; a physical component for infrastructure, (roads, schools, parks,
power, etc.) and an economic base portion. The two are closely interlocked.
Existing and projected economic indicators such as population
characteristics; the various business sectors and their growth potential
point the way for future infrastructure investment. As a particular
location on the island experiences growth, it follows that sooner or later
existing roads, power, water, sewer and sometimes schools will have to be
either provided or improved. Logically, roads should not be resurfaced and
then dug up a short time later to install a sewer or water line. The line
should should go in first. Citing another example, when a road is
resurfaced, vehicle speeds increase, the accident rate goes up and some
thought must be given to enlarging  hospital emergency facilities. These
obvious examples fall within the infrastructure or physical portion of a
plan. It is one thing to create a plan - which by the way - should have
broad community support, it is quite another matter to implement it.
Usually, the only implementation tools available are: the budgeting
process, various laws such as building codes and directing the use of land.
Looking very briefly at land and just a couple of the many elements to
consider, a particular use of land can also be a generator of vehicle
traffic since its use can be either an origin or destination of traffic
patterns. To cite another example, when it is known that a new road will
one day be necessary, or an exiting roadway realigned at some point in the
future, a plan can suggest that the necessary right of way be purchased at
today’s prices rather than at some future time when the right of way is
certain to be more expensive. A lot of common sense goes into creating a
plan.
     The economic portion is quite different from the physical component of
a plan. It is no secret that rigid economic planning is the anathema of
private enterprise. Traditionally, economic planning, per se, has been the
hallmark of socialistic and communist countries and we have all seen where
that has led in recent years. Indeed, the United States does not have an
economic plan for the nation and while many states and cities have plans
for the physical development of their respective areas, I am not aware that
any have extensive plans relative to economic development other than to
strive toward establishing a conducive business and investment climate by
offering incentives, constructing industrial parks and free trade zones.
Economic development cannot be “legislated” to occur, only the business
climate within which the private sector is expected to thrive and prosper
can be established by an area’s legal environment and even then it is only
a welcome mat for potential investors, both local and foreign.
     The economic base portion of any plan is an important component since,
in the absence of federal grants and programs, it is the economy that
generates the tax revenues that will finance the infrastructure of the
future and provide for the social programs for society, and it is the
economic base that will provide the funds for the maintenance of
facilities.
     There are many issues that have the potential for influencing the
Commonwealth’s economic future in both positive and negative ways - all of
which are difficult to foresee and measure, many of which are beyond the
control of the Commonwealth. These include: the threat of United States
control over immigration and the imposition of the U. S. minimum wage; a
continuation of the benefits afforded by Headnote 3 (a) permitting duty
free access to U. S. markets; the impact of the North American Free Trade
Agreement on the CNMI’s garment industry; the influx of increasing numbers
of unemployed, unskilled youth from the Federated States of Micronesia  as
that nation’s Compact funds become exhausted in a few years. Should their
economy falter, it will stimulate  an outward migration to the Marianas and
elsewhere for jobs. Still other uncertainties involve the relationship of
the dollar to the yen and the continued health of Japan’s export economy;
the Philippine Government’s ban on certain categories of expatriate
workers; budget difficulties; the competitiveness of other tourist
destinations around the Pacific; whether casino gambling will materialize
on Saipan, Tinian and Rota and its economic contribution; the concern of
future potential investors over Article XII and the sanctity of land title.
These unknown issues make it difficult to make forecasts for any distance
into the future. Any one of the above can have a major impact on the
economy. Having mentioned some of the difficulties in anticipating the
future direction of the economy does not mean that attempts to develop a
“best estimate scenario” should not be made. It should. Hazardous as
forecasting can be it is an improvement over the intuitive method which
some would employ without any attempt to measure the many factors involved
- but care must be exercised. To digress a bit, I am reminded of the
economists in New York City, who at the start of this century, were
concerned as to where all of the land would be found to grow the oats for
all the horses that would be needed for transportation purposes by the year
1950. As we can see technology has a way of nullifying the best of
projections.
     Since each of the islands are different, a development plan tailored
to fit the special circumstances of each would be worthwhile. Unlike Guam,
the three principal inhabited  islands of the Northern Marianas require a
tremendous duplication of services that cannot be consolidated. Three
airports, three school systems, three power and water systems, fire
immigration, health, etc. Thus, the high cost of providing government
services.

Back