This was originally posted in The Grayson Buzz in November, 2003.
I cannot say how much government meddling drives me nuts!! Throw in activists who lack a sufficient understanding of economics and I really get irritated. I was taking a brief break from drafting a document for work, so I pulled up the Atlanta Urinal & Constipation (the Atlanta newspaper for those not aware) to see what as going on there. There, linked off the main front page, was an article about empty former Wal-Mart stores in my hometown of Lawrenceville. Intrigued, I clicked on the article. (On a side note, I was met with a familiar picture. There was a photo of a lady by the name of Denise Nye, formerly Denise Rousselle, with whom I was in high school band.) In a nutshell, these protesters are opposed to building a brand new SuperCenter when the previous Lawrenceville Wal-Mart stands empty. This store closed about a year ago when Wal-Mart opened their first Lawrenceville SuperCenter north of town. Since then, the old store has stood empty. I agree with some of the comments about that area looking rough since the closing. However, the article does not tell you that that area began slowly sliding into blight well before Wal-Mart closed. A big catalyst in this was when the Town Center Cinemas, the main movie theater in town before the AMC opened, closed. The demographics of south Lawrenceville have undergone a significant shift. Not to say it is a completely bad area. The families of two close friends still live in this vicinity. However, there is no denying that the area has changed and I cannot believe that I am the only person that basically stopped going to that old Wal-Mart. It was small, cramped, and dirty. Why go there when I could drive just about as far from my house and go the new SuperCenter in Snellville. Ok…enough background, and on to my problems with what was reported in the article.
First, the placement of large retail outlets is not just dependant upon being able to acquire land. Demographics, housing development, infrastructure, vehicular traffic, and many other factors go into site selection. I am, of course, not privy to the parameters that Wal-Mart uses but I think it is safe to say that the old location did not meet the minimum requirements to support a store of the size of a SuperCenter. Thus, rebuilding the old Lawrenceville Wal-Mart may not be economically feasible. If the company cannot earn a sufficient profit to justify their investment, they will just not build. Plain and simple. Companies such as Wal-Mart are not charities nor are they in the business of urban/suburban renewal. Of course they do have a certain duty to the communities they serve to not cause unnecessary blight. However, as discussed above, the change in the area was NOT Wal-Mart’s responsibility. So now you have people protesting the new store which is located much more conveniently to where people are living now (the greater Grayson area is already growing rapidly and could be the next boom area in Gwinnett). I do not challenge their right to protest and speak out to the City Council, but it annoys me that they are doing so from an economically and business ignorant position. Because politicians pander for votes, if the protesters holler loud enough, the citizens of Lawrenceville will be deprived of amenities that stand to improve their quality of life in the area. This ultimately has a tangible impact on property values, which hits local residents right in the wallet.
What is even more annoying are some of the comments attributed to government officials in the article. I cannot blame the citizens that much because they are only responsible for their own interests and you cannot expect everyone to be in business school so as to more fully understand the issues. That is just reality. However, we can expect elected officials to protect the interests of the citizens while avoiding meddlesome tactics with legal business enterprises. In my line of work as a cell phone engineer, my company continually has to seek approval for cell sites from local governments and the level of meddling never ceases to incense me. It is my belief that unless the use of a certain piece of property can be shown to have a direct and relevant impact to another individual’s use of their property, then the government has NO business disallowing such a use. Note, this direct impact does NOT include another landowner not liking the land use in question. That is the issue here with Lawrenceville Councilman Rick Johnson feeling that the Wal-Mart SuperCenter is too intense of a land use to be adjancent to residential property. How is the property zoned? Will there be any REAL and direct impact that would be negative? Can he prove his assertion? I know, he is a politician and he does not have to prove his assertion to vote a certain way. But as a holder of government power, should the citizenry not expect this of him? A similar example in the article references an ordinance in the Peachtree City SSR south of Atlanta prohibiting the construction of stores larger than 32,000 sq. ft within the city. Are you kidding me??? How can a government justify such rules?? I have experience with Peachtree City in trying to get cell sites and they are a quite a bunch. Course if the people continue to elect people like that, they deserve what they get.
The final statement that really steams me is Councilman Johnson’s speculation that the new Wal-Mart could force the adjacent Ingle’s grocery store out of business. SO???? When did it become the role of the City of Lawrenceville to insert itself into the functioning of the grocery market in Lawrenceille??? This is an issue for the free market to sort out. If Ingle’s does not have a value offering sufficient to attract customers in a competitive environment, that is simply the nature of capitalistic competition. It is not the place of the Lawrenceville City Council or any other local government to involve itself with the efficient functioning of the market. Unbelievable how local governments love to wield their power and meddle.