The last public advocate election in NY had just over 6% participation. I didn’t vote in it, and before yesterday, I didn’t realize the next election for public advocate is today — Tuesday, February 26.

Despite the low levels of participation, elections have an impact, and these roles in municipal government matter. Researching the various candidates, I was surprised to see very little focus on matters of economic development. Therefore, in consideration of voting tomorrow, it is useful to remember a few things about economic development and the factors that make a city an attractive place to live and work.

A fundamental property of a dynamic market economy is that things come and go. Industries, companies, products, people; new ones are created, and old ones fade away. This causes a lot of understandable anxiety in the present and near-term future but is easier to contextualize if we zoom out to a longer time horizon. I doubt many people are advocating the resurgence of defunct typewriter factories or domestic textile mills, and most are probably glad to have significantly higher growth and wages in other industries.

The exodus of firms and industries cannot, for the most part, be stopped. It is an inevitable consequence of human progress, a civic and economic equivalent to the biological circle of life. The coming, however, is a different story. It is possible to create environments that are more attractive to businesses and people, and every city needs to plan thoughtfully for the role they want to play in economic development. History is littered with cities that were meccas of industry and fantastic creators of wealth that succumbed to decay once those industries declined and new ones did not come. For example, Gary, Indiana was a thriving center of the American steel industry and decayed sharply once that business declined.

People make choices on where they want to live and work. Companies make choices on where to build offices, manufacture products, and market their services. Developers make choices on where to build new housing. Immigrants make choices on which cities and towns give them the best opportunity to pursue their American dreams. The cities that win the future will be those who attract those that seek opportunity.

This is not only about commerce. It is important for our society to have a robust safety net. Healthcare for all so people don’t have to worry about bankruptcy and foreclosure if they get sick; assistance for the disabled and unemployed so that nobody need go hungry; access to education to allow everyone to reach his or her potential and to fulfill the promise of economic mobility embedded within America’s ideals. Of course, all these things cost money, and the way that governments obtain money is through creation of an environment that promotes economic growth and then taxing that growth to fund government operations and investment. Cities that don’t provide this favorable environment will not only lose business; they will lose the ability to provide the human experience that befits a wealthy country in the 21st century.

The recent episode of Amazon’s initial selection and then rejection of NYC as a 2nd headquarters location is a great example of these dynamics coming to bear in an intensely political climate. There are many complexities to that particular situation, and they are best addressed in the statement from NY State Budget Director Robert Mujica — someone with intimate knowledge of the details.

New York City has a choice as to what its future will be, and each of us can participate in this choice. If you are interested in these matters, please consider researching the candidates and voting in this and other elections.