THE LAUNCH DOCK

Where Business, Power, and Policy Intersect

When the Door Never Really Closes

In healthy markets, opportunity is earned through competition, transparency, and accountability.
In distorted markets, opportunity is quietly positioned.

Sometimes the advantage isn’t a secret deal or a hidden payment.
Sometimes it’s proximity — to decision-makers, to planning conversations, to early information, to long-term contracts discussed before the public ever sees a proposal.

This is not about dramatic corruption.
It’s about how power consolidates when civic leadership, private enterprise, and public projects overlap — without clear guardrails.

The Business Pattern Worth Studying

Across the country, communities are pursuing large-scale infrastructure projects tied to economic development, energy capacity, technology expansion, and data centers. These projects are often marketed as:

• “Future-ready”

• “Cost-saving”

• “Innovative”

• “Too complex for traditional bidding”

Sometimes, those claims are accurate.

But complexity can also reduce scrutiny, especially when:

• Longtime civic leaders shape early planning conversations

• Advisory roles overlap with private business interests

• Contracts extend decades beyond current leadership

• Vendors offer “turnkey” solutions that bundle design, construction, financing, and long-term management

From a business perspective, this creates a quiet advantage:
Early access → influence over scope → reduced competition → long-term revenue stability.

That advantage isn’t illegal by default.
But it does distort markets when transparency lags behind momentum.

Why Public-Private Partnerships Matter to Entrepreneurs

Public-private partnerships (P3s) are powerful tools. Nationally, they represent hundreds of billions of dollars in infrastructure investment, particularly in energy, technology, and public facilities (U.S. Government Accountability Office, 2023).

What’s often overlooked is this:

Once a bundled, long-term contract is approved:

• Smaller local firms may be excluded entirely

• Public leverage diminishes over time

• Oversight shifts from public meetings to contract management

• Financial commitments outlast the leaders who approved them

For entrepreneurs and communities alike, who participates in early planning often determines who profits later.

A Real-World Scenario

Imagine this increasingly common sequence in communities pursuing data centers or energy-intensive infrastructure:

1. A community is approached about a data center or advanced technology project, framed as a major economic opportunity.

2. Early discussions occur quietly — feasibility studies, site readiness, zoning considerations, and energy capacity are evaluated before public proposals appear.

3. Trusted civic leaders or advisors help frame the project as time-sensitive, highly technical, and unsuitable for traditional competitive bidding.

4. A public-private partnership is introduced as the most efficient solution, bundling planning, construction, financing, and long-term management.

5. Contracts are approved that extend 20–30 years, often tied to facilities, utilities, and operational guarantees.

6. Leadership changes — board members rotate, people retire, committees dissolve.

7. The data center remains, along with its infrastructure demands, utility commitments, and long-term financial obligations — now inherited by a community that had limited visibility into the earliest decisions.

No wrongdoing is required for this to raise legitimate questions:

• Who shaped the project before public discussion began?

• Who benefited from early access to planning conversations?

• Who bears the risk if projected economic benefits fall short?

• Who answers to the public when contracts outlast the people who approved them?

These are governance and market questions, not accusations.

Facts & Context

• Long-term infrastructure and P3 contracts often span 20–30 years, exceeding the tenure of most elected officials and board members (GAO, 2023).

• Research shows reduced competitive bidding can increase lifecycle costs by 10–20% in certain P3 arrangements when oversight is limited (World Bank, 2022).

• Oversight and transparency requirements vary significantly by state, placing much of the burden on local governance practices and public records access (NCSL, 2024).

Why This Belongs in The Launch Dock

The Launch Dock exists to help people understand how systems actually operate, not just how they’re marketed.

For entrepreneurs:

• Watch how influence compounds

• Pay attention to who sits at early planning tables

• Notice when “complexity” replaces competition

• Learn where opportunity concentrates — and where it disappears

For communities:

• Economic development without transparency isn’t growth

• It’s risk transfer

Call to Action — Business Literacy Is Civic Literacy

If projects are already approved, the question becomes “Now what?”

• Request public records related to planning, advisory roles, and vendor selection

• Understand your state’s Sunshine or Open Records laws

• Document timelines when records are delayed or withheld

• Notify the state Attorney General when public records laws are not complied with

• Track governance changes alongside contract timelines

You don’t need to allege wrongdoing to demand clarity.
You only need to insist on accountability that lasts as long as the contracts do.

Closing

Transparency isn’t anti-business.
It’s pro-competition, pro-community, and pro-future.

When we understand how power, policy, and profit intersect, we build better businesses — and better systems.

In solidarity,
Lyndsay LaBrier
Merchant Ship Collective

References

Government Accountability Office. (2023). Public-private partnerships: Key practices and oversight considerations. https://www.gao.gov

National Conference of State Legislatures. (2024). Public-private partnerships and state oversight frameworks. https://www.ncsl.org

World Bank. (2022). Public-private partnerships reference guide. https://ppp.worldbank.org