Stephanie said...
Sorry, Evelyn, but I respectfully disagree.
It is not up to local residents to make a point to support local merchants; it is up to local merchants to ATTRACT residents to their businesses. That is the way capitalism and free enterprise work.
If it takes a pointed effort to "get to know" the downtown merchants, then those merchants are doing something wrong -- being in an inconvenient location, not offering the services needed by their customer base, or not being competitively priced.
It is not a customer's job to make a business successful; it is a business-person's job.
1 December, 2010 6:54 PM
*****************************************
Stephanie makes a valid argument; from the perspective of a consumer.From the angle of the business corporation,that is the town,things are different.
I argued from Stephanie's angle seven years ago when town support for a Farmers' Market was being considered . It wasn't much money. It was the principle.
Since then and before then things have evolved.
The Market in the summer of 2010 became a people place on Wells Street. A gathering grew and became involved in town affairs. Something lost was found again. The Market became important. It was obvious it would be missed when it shut down in the Fall.
When it re-appeared at Church Street School last Saturday, its following followed. From a community perspective, that's a good thing.
From a municipal perspective, retail business failure is a drain on town revenues. Empty stores don't produce tax revenue.
The property receives all municipal services. Water,sewers snow-plowing.street-lighting, fire and police protection and a ton of other stuff representing millions of dollars outlay. Vacant property pays for nothing. It's a deficit.
The previous Council created and adopted a Plan called the Promenade Study. It outlined a vision of the town centre. It cost a quarter of million dollars.
Except for streets and sidewalks, the town owns none of the retail property impacted by the study. For the vision to be realized, private funds need to be spent on private property.
Price Chopper property owners have plans to develop. Commercial on the ground floor and multiple residential above.
It's their property and their investment. Presumably, they know what makes investment realistic. How much for the property. How much to process a plan. How much to construct a building. Realistic expectation of return on investment.
Developers are not philanthropists. Decisions are made on a realistic evaluation.
The Promenade Study dictates the location of the building on the site. It shall be built on an angle so that half a dozen old homes behind it will not be overlooked. Height will be limited so that it will not be out of scale with the hundred and fifty year old streetscape of old Aurora.
The property owners have presented at every meeting. The town's vision does not allow realistic development plans for the property.
No matter. Their serious and repeated arguments have been filed in a Matrix of Comments.
We spent a quarter of million dollars on talk, pages of verbiage and pretty pictures purported to promote economic stimulation in the town centre. At the same time, we actually created a deadlock which will ensure no agreement without the intervention of the Municipal Board and thousands of dollar on legal arguments which cannot succeed.
As long as property and investment are in private hands and planning is public, development is only likely to proceed with a meeting of minds about what is feasible. Public and the private needs must both be served. It cannot be one or the other.
Politics is the art of the possible.
It's what I meant during the election. The town's businesses community must be recognised and respected as full partners with the municipal corporation.They contribute the resources which provide the services we all like to have.
If they do not succeed, neither do we.
I understand that the tax assessment rates for commercial-zoned vacant lots versus actual buildings are different. But are vacant premises taxed at a lower rate than one occupied by a business?
ReplyDeleteEvelyn,
ReplyDeleteGreat post, as always
I have always appreciated that Otto Von Bismarck quote you posted "Politics is the art of the possible."
That was until I read John Kenneth Galbraith's "Politics is not the art of the possible. It consists in choosing between the disastrous and the unpalatable."
It is unfortunate that prominent Canadian-born US economist Mr. Gailbraith is no longer with us to argue his point.
But from an outsider's perspective witnessing the past term of council and the laughable "Promenade study" I have to agree.
I look forward to this council, and your participation to prove us wrong.
On the other hand, could we try politics is the art of the possible when compromise is a possibility.
ReplyDeleteWhen a property or building is empty, it is just an investment. It doesn't generate income. It sits.
When an enterprise is in place, it has excitement, dreams, plans, and inspiration!
A business contributes to the community in many ways. Tax dollars are one kind of contribution, but giving the community a service, whether it's medical, legal, retail, or any other person-to-person commercial exchange
Treating an empty building as an investment ignores so many other aspects of the community.
So here's a bit of a radical idea. Give the tax break to the places with businesses, not the empty buildings.