An interesting exchange here between Spokesman-Review reporter Jonathan Brunt and City Council candidate Jon Snyder regarding the “big box” development on the South Hill approved by the Council last year. Snyder had stated that he would not have approved the zoning change which will allow the development. (Exchange begins ~ 37 minutes).

——
Brunt: How do you judge when to keep a business out and when to allow a business in?

Snyder: I want to reframe that question . . . the question is, How do we plan or create development that is good for everyone . . .? There are some really great examples in other parts of the Northwest of creating an urban village that is walkable, bikeable, doesn’t involve the maximum amount of square footage, that integrates a mixed-use approach, that allows people to live near where they’re going to be walking to . . . that is the question — how do we create that up there? In order to do that is why we need leadership on the City Council. The City Council should not wait until a developer comes to them and says, “We want this . . . how do we change the Comprehensive Plan to get it?” The City needs to be out front, working with the neighborhoods and developers trying to come up with a planned solution that makes sense for everybody.

Brunt: Is there a place say, south of I-90, that would be OK for a Home Depot, or a Walmart?

Snyder: I don’t see any place that would be great for a Walmart. We have plenty of Walmarts in this town. We don’t need any more.

Brunt: What about a Target or a Home Depot?

Snyder: I’m not interested in advocating for any one of those particular national chains. I mean, people may have their favorites and what not, but what I look at is, I see a Manito Center and a South Perry district. Those places really need some support. You know, Manito went through this whole planning process a couple of years ago, which really didn’t go anywhere . . . That needs to be started up again . . . But unfortunately we have a situation where a lot of retail energy is going to be sucked away from Manito because of the Southgate development.
——

Well, that’s about as clear an example of what Hayek called the “Fatal Conceit” — not to mention bureaucratic arrogance — as you’re likely to find anywhere.

Chains like Walmart, Home Depot, et al, are as successful as they are for only one reason: because they offer a selection of products and services which are in demand, at prices consumers find attractive. But for Snyder, that is of no consequence. “People may have their favorites,” he says dismissively, but he prefers Manito Center and the South Perry district.

The people who shop at Walmart do so because selection is great (they can get most of what they need in one stop), prices are lower than anyone else’s, parking is ample. People who shop at Home Depot for such things as lumber, BBQ grills, bags of fertilizer and insulation, etc., are certainly not going to be trucking those purchases home on their backs or their bikes. For them, “walkability” and “bikeability” are utterly irrelevant.

Snyder not only lacks the faintest understanding of how economies work, he has no interest in such matters. He is enamoured of a certain urban aesthetic. It is of no concern to him whether there is a demand for the style of retailing he prefers, or whether that style is more costly or less convenient for customers, or even feasible. He has his Utopian vision, and is not about to permit economic realities or consumers’ preferences to thwart it. He cannot allow the market to drive urban development, lest it respond to those preferences, rather than implement his fantasy. Instead, it must be driven by planners: “The City must be out front … to come up with a planned solution.” But planning never produces solutions, as Snyder himself admits: “Manito went through this whole planning process a couple of years ago, which really didn’t go anywhere . . .”

Of course it didn’t go anywhere. Yet he wants to “start it up again.” Planning cannot produce solutions because planners have no money to invest. They can write plans until they run out of ink, and the money will still go where there is a profit to be made. And a profit can be made only when developers can meet a real demand. They are not about to invest their money, and lose it, to satisfy the aesthetic whims of Utopians and planners.

The City Council’s job (among others) is to see that the city develops in a way that works for its residents. That means that it satisfies their needs and preferences as expressed by their behavior in the market. If people prefer to shop at Walmart or Home Depot – and the sales figures indicate they do – the Council’s job is is to see to it that City policies do not frustrate those preferences. Anyone determined to substitute his own preferences for those of his constituents is unqualified prima facie for any public office.

Tags: individual freedom, Spokesman-Review, Urban Planning

This entry was posted on Saturday, October 10th, 2009 at 10:16 pm and is filed under Urban Development. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. Both comments and pings are currently closed.