RE: [Futurework] Local living economies

[Karen Watters Cole]

Darryl, what began simply enough as offering more, cheaper one-stop shopping with a promise of added jobs and revenue from national brands became an avalanche.  Data shows now that the economic benefits were not as good as promised.  The problem is that this avalanche has not been restricted to middle sized or larger communities, and has proliferated to the point that Big Box retail consumes the local merchants and then can pull out of the community for whatever reasons, not just market share or labor issues, leaving the community with nothing but vacant retail space and added blight.   The fact that poor planning happens at the local level is an understatement, but not a fair categorization of all planning agencies – there really are some good guys out there doing what they can to put into place reasonable and improvising new enterprises that have a viable chance of surviving and contributing to the local and state economic health.  Unlike evidence of WMD in Iraq, the evidence of rampant “big is better” and “growth at all costs” is sitting there in front of us, showing up as lost jobs and revenue in state tax coffers, and the for lease signs on vacant property everywhere.   From my perspective, what I can contribute is challenging the notion that this is the “price of progress” and what the “consumer votes with its dollars” therefore must be sacrosanct.  It is not.  People are seeing what has happened in their own and other communities and taking a second look at the notion of unfettered monopolization of choices and consumer culture.  A case for balance and moderation can always be made, even with wild-eyed free market zealots.  People have emotional and logical reasons for tapping into community sustainability themes that are basic to human group survival, whether Harry declares them as “without merit” or not.  The human spirit will not subject itself to tyranny forever, and this manifests itself in a variety of new and evolving ways as we swim our way upstream through modern society.  Thanks for your comments. - KWC   A couple of inserted comments.Darryl All true, Arthur.  It’s just that in more cities and even small towns, people are beginning to question what became a runaway avalanche.  There is no reason in my mind why we can’t strike a balance.  Note the number of towns passing caps on formula retail growth and the current debate and counter debate about smart growth.    Maybe the dot.com collapse and the ongoing recession have helped people to look at their communities in a different light.  If the economy were still going gangbusters and there had not been several political and culturally significant events (i.e.. Florida election, 9/11, USA Patriot Act, Enron – WorldCom scandals affecting innocent pension holders, and now a public deeply divided over US foreign policy) the economic viability of their own communities might never have caught the attention of many of the comatose, sleep-walking, non-questioning public.    Public policy has its rightful place in the civic domain.  Why shouldn’t local and state governments endow local entrepreneurs with the same go-for-broke attitude (some say unquestioning desperation) that they do recruiting and underwriting (some say submitting to economic blackmail) (why blackmail, when you can bribe through campaign financing or gifts of "Board Positions" when leaving public office?) large corporations?  Shouldn’t we look at the long term goals and consequences of our actions, not just individually but collectively?    Yes, I agree with your following email that some (especially small) centres can block this intrusion (or, is the centre too small for the se mega-corps. to even consider). This is especially true of "tourist towns". But the main problem is still the federal and state/provincial legislatures that cater to these international giants for reasons only THEY will actually know. Here in Canada we have no "personal liability" for someone in public office or for the owners of businesses. Either the office is sued or the business; but you cannot go after the "individual" for "damages to the community, the environment or any of the structures therein.   BAD GOVERNMENTS CREATE BAD COMMUNITIES. CORRUPT INDIVIDUALS CORRUPT THE BEST OF GOVERNMENTS.   Maybe we could take our cue from Keith’s musings about Novelty.  Local living economies could be marketed as a new novel way to solve the fiscal sand trap we are in, then the politicians can take up sides for and against and the media can generate case studies and dig into current data by researches and opinion of academics (ahem) CBC radio here in Canada has had MANY excellent shows done on many topics, some on just these items, but they do not have a mass appeal and so relate to a very low % of population. The rest would rather watch sports, drink beer, and bitch about how hard their lives are (and this still occurs when they are OUT of work). and the public might be surprised to find out just how resourceful the little guy can be.  - KWC   CBC   It's interesting. Most of these arguments were and are used against foreign ownership in Canada.  With little effect.  Canadians voted with their pocketbooks as do most of those in the US who reap short term savings at the longer term cost of loss of community, both literally and figuratively.  arthur Bill wrote: Harry, Wal-Mart is cheap and I do shop there. Something about the end of small stores and the fact that Wal-Mart and others use basically a temporary work force that will have to live totally off of SS at the end it would appear.   There are other points to consider.  As the Institute for Self-Reliance (www.islr.org) and The Hometown Advantage (Stacy Mitchell) document, communities dominated by corporate chains are worse off economically than are diverse economies maintaining small-scale, locally owned enterprises.  Here is Mitchell’s list of why, paraphrased by yours truly: 1. Jobs and taxes. A new Home Depot will not sell anymore hammers and nails than 3 local hardware stores – it’s supply and demand. But because the Home Depot will eventually force the local stores to decline, all the revenue exchange goes out of town rather than staying local.  For every 1 job that a Wal-Mart provides it takes away 3 previous jobs.   2. Public costs. Land use patterns accommodating big corporate retail contribute not just to sprawl but the costs of additional roads, sewers and fire and police protection. This adds to the costs local taxpayers are already paying without adding to the revenue base when corporations have received lucrative tax incentives.  The community bears the brunt of the investment and gets a small return in the long run.   3. Multiplier effect.  Indie retailers keep their profits local, and tend to trade goods and do business with other local operations, such as accountants, lawyers, advertisers, printers, and of course, local banks.  Chain stores not only distribute from giant national warehouses but produce their advertising and do their other support tasks outside the community in which they build.  Sending your consumer dollars to Arkansas (much less offshore banks- kwc) is not good for community sustainability in the long term.   4. Fewer Choices.  Consolidation of buying patterns reduces choices and the range of products available to the consumer.  You can see this on your grocer’s shelves when mega buyers demand more shelf space or at the bookstore where one Barnes & Nobles is just like every other in terms of selection. (What about local culture and color? – kwc)   5. Monopoly Prices.  Surveys found that prices vary significantly from one major chain outlet to another and are higher in areas where the local competition has been eliminated.  This includes Wal-Mart and Home Depot.  (Note lawsuits where unfair business practices are proliferating – kwc)   6. Long-term Commitment.  Local merchants are residents of the communities they invest in, it’s where they pay their taxes and raise their children, whereas global chains are highly mobile.  In addition to demanding tax incentives to come into a community, when they leave with changing economic winds they leave behind large properties not well-suited to other development, and in fact often hold their leases for years to keep competitors from coming in, so that vacant big box stores are now a common blight – by itself, Wal-Mart has almost 400 empty stores across the US.   7. The Big Picture.  Economic research being gathered shows that cookie cutter developments lessen a community’s appeal to entrepreneurs and skilled workers and in the long run reduces prospects for new investments and jobs.    Too many of us for too long have assumed that bigger is better, that the liabilities are offset by the advantages, or this is just “the price of progress”.  Aside from the environmental and social/civic costs to the community when local businesses are displaced, there is the even broader issue of democracy and sovereignty, since large corporate chains are wielding their assets long-distance.  What needs to be addressed here, those who are studying this seem to be saying is, level the playing field with public policy.  For those of us in industrialized countries staring at sprawl and closed businesses with high unemployment, we should be addressing the rules of doing business at the local level more intelligently and aggressively.  I am a cultural Globalist but want to see local businesses have as much given to them as the big corporate houses.  Who needs a monoculture?  It’s all about balance and moderation.  – KWC   Also see Failed Empire, a four part series in the Buffalo News concerning enterprise zones and tax incentives http://www.buffalonews.com/editorial/20030608/1048744.asp  or contact me offline for a compiled Word document.