Bill Overview
Title: INVEST in Our Communities Act
Description: This bill modifies and expands the Economic Development Administration's (EDA) public works and economic development programs. For example, the bill (1) establishes grants to support the outdoor recreation, travel, tourism, hospitality, and special event industries; and (2) establishes within the EDA the Office of Rural and Native American Economic Development to develop rural and tribal economic development strategies.
Sponsors: Sen. Cortez Masto, Catherine [D-NV]
Target Audience
Population: People engaged in or relying on outdoor recreation, travel, tourism, hospitality, and special event industries
Estimated Size: 30000000
- The bill supports the outdoor recreation, travel, tourism, hospitality, and special event industries, potentially affecting both employees and consumers of these services.
- By establishing an Office of Rural and Native American Economic Development, the bill specifically targets rural and tribal populations within the US.
- According to the World Tourism Organization, tourism is a major economic sector worldwide, suggesting a substantial global workforce and indirect beneficiaries.
- Many communities worldwide rely on outdoor recreation and hospitality sectors for employment and economic activity.
Reasoning
- The policy primarily targets those in the tourism, hospitality, outdoor recreation, and special event industries, which are substantial sectors in the US economy.
- Rural and Native American communities are a focus, meaning individuals in these areas are likely to experience direct benefits, potentially leading to increased economic development and resilience.
- The impact will vary across different demographics and occupations, with some individuals seeing notable improvements, while others may be unaffected.
- Budget considerations suggest that the grant allocation will need to be strategic, potentially prioritizing areas with the most pronounced economic or infrastructural needs.
Simulated Interviews
Event Planner (Austin, Texas)
Age: 28 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The policy could help my business by providing more funds for local events and festivals, leading to more work for people like me.
- I'm hopeful but cautious because such programs sometimes don't reach independent planners like myself.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 5 |
Hotel Manager (Seattle, Washington)
Age: 45 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Additional support for the tourism industry could mean better occupancy rates and the ability to upgrade our facilities.
- However, the impact might be diluted if funds are spread too thinly.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 5 |
Park Ranger (Flagstaff, Arizona)
Age: 34 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The focus on outdoor recreation could bring more visitors, but it might also strain resources if not managed properly.
- I hope there are enough funds dedicated to maintaining the environment and infrastructure.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 5 |
Rancher (Billings, Montana)
Age: 52 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 4.0 years
Commonness: 3/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Any economic development in rural areas could benefit my community and business indirectly.
- I'm skeptical about how much will actually come to us, though.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 5 |
University Student (Boulder, Colorado)
Age: 19 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 2.0 years
Commonness: 7/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I think supporting outdoor recreation is great for the environment and tourism.
- I'm not sure if it will affect me directly as a student, but my community might benefit.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 5 |
Retired (Phoenix, Arizona)
Age: 60 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 15/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Improvements in the travel industry could make my leisure activities more enjoyable and perhaps even more affordable.
- I hope it leads to better services and more destinations to explore.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 6 |
Small Business Owner (Chicago, Illinois)
Age: 40 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Funding for tourism could really help small operators like me expand our services and reach.
- However, we've been disappointed with similar promises in the past.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 5 |
Software Engineer (San Francisco, California)
Age: 30 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 0.0 years
Commonness: 20/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I don't see this policy affecting my life directly, but if it helps the economy, that's a positive.
- My wellbeing is more tied to the tech industry and urban development.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 8 |
Bartender (Miami, Florida)
Age: 25 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 12/20
Statement of Opinion:
- More tourism could mean more tips and better job stability for me.
- It's a wait-and-see situation; hopefully the aid reaches businesses effectively.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 5 |
Tribal Economic Developer (Santa Fe, New Mexico)
Age: 50 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 2/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy holds potential for significant positive changes in tribal communities if executed correctly.
- I look forward to collaborating with the new Office of Rural and Native American Economic Development.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 5 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $600000000 (Low: $500000000, High: $750000000)
Year 2: $650000000 (Low: $550000000, High: $800000000)
Year 3: $675000000 (Low: $575000000, High: $825000000)
Year 5: $700000000 (Low: $600000000, High: $850000000)
Year 10: $750000000 (Low: $650000000, High: $900000000)
Year 100: $850000000 (Low: $700000000, High: $1000000000)
Key Considerations
- The effectiveness of grant distribution and use in stimulating economic growth will affect overall outcomes.
- Coordination with local and state governments is crucial for the successful implementation of rural development programs.
- The economic benefits might take some years to materialize significantly, especially in rural and tribal areas.
- Potential risks include misallocation of funds or insufficient oversight leading to suboptimal economic benefits.