Should a city regulate numbers by type of biz?

[binki]

This is going on in our city and one next over. Both have old downtown areas. Both are dotted with hair salons and crap-tique stores. In both cities they want to stop issuing biz lic. for hair salons. At the same time they are paying (loaning money) to people who will put a restaurant downtown even though the traffic will not support another food place.

In a normal, single owner, retail location the owner normally limits the competition. If there is a tire store, sorry, no more tire stores. If there is a juice and coffee place, sorry, can't open either of those separate.

These old town areas don't have a single owner of all the properties. There are dozens of owners all competing for rent. I would rather see something in a place rather than an empty storefront.


Should the city really be involved in such a thing? I know they have a 'master plan' for the downtown and a look and feel that they want to have. I agree that the view of downtown is hair and old stuff but I really don't like the local gov. getting involved in limiting business.

If the city wants to have code that specifies minimum requirements for a biz then that I would go for. It would accomplish the same thing if they would specify min sq/ft or something like that for a particular type of business.

 

[James Burke]

but I really don't like the local gov. getting involved in limiting business.

Very much agree.

If the city wants to have code that specifies minimum requirements for a biz then that I would go for. It would accomplish the same thing if they would specify min sq/ft or something like that for a particular type of business.

Also agree.

I believe ordinances should only set standards and not dictate how many types of business join the party.

Left to "survival of the fittest", the numbers of these businesses will naturally grow, or shrink, to whatever the market will bear.

 

[Cadmn]

It should be none of the cities business to regulate the types that would seem like discrimination business abilities regulate that stuff I would think

 

[CheapVehicleWrap]

Once enough buildings are vacant and they start loosing taxes they will let up. Being in California, I'm surprised it hasn't happened yet. Just picture massage places down the entire block.

 

[WildWestDesigns]

There are types of regulation that has to happen. I'm not saying that this is one of those types, but just that there are types that have to happen. Otherwise what happens is that there is an over exploitation that goes on for the resources there.

As long as there is someone that is breaking even, they will stay in the game looking for that profit. Problem is that profit doesn't happen unless there are "X" number of places less then what is actually there. Businesses themselves don't actually regulate things. Under a perfect competition model that is actually mutually exclusive from one another. Pefect competition does have it's failings, resource management being the worst one. I'm not just talking about what most people refere to resource management, but even their profit resource management doesn't happen well at all. Efficiency doesn't happen as much in a perfect competition as one would think.

The clearest example would be fishing licenses. If those weren't issued, then there would be as many boats out there fishing until everything is gone and then they would move on. By limiting what, how much, and who(those that bought licenses) can fish that helps both the fishery as well as those that depend on catching fish survive to a future date. How far in the future depends on how well that regulation is done. Now there is one example in the NE US of where 4 or 5 family owned very large fishing operations have done their own bit of regulating along the same lines as a fishing license. However, it is a little more restrictive then a fishing license. That would be an example of a private business(es) doing their own regulating, but I think people would be on here damning them for that as well. There really aren't perfect solutions here, but unfortunately true Perfecto Competition isn't one either.

I'm not saying any and all regulation is good, I'm just saying be careful as to not use the blanket term of "regulation" as an evil thing. It has worked, come underbudget incredibly well and private business has actually flourished with profits because they were able to get efficient working within(for the most part) the system. Within my leftime that would have been the SO2 regulation program.

I've had too much economics both in school(my MA is in Economics) and in real life to just damn "regulation" on it's face. I won't blindly ask or allow it to happen, but I'm not foolish enough to think that it can't do good.

 

[weaselboogie]

The town decides how many and of what type of business a town can sustain by where the townsfolk spend their money. Liquor licenses, I understand, but I don't think a council needs to regulate what kind of businesses can open.

 

[Techman]

if the zoning allows it,, and the city denies it,, the city is in for some very heavy law suits.

Exclusionary policies has caused more than one city a huge suit.

 

[binki]

Yeah, I think the city is asking for another lawsuit over this. We had a barber forced out because the building was sold. Now they won't give her a biz lic for the new location. It pretty much sux.

 

[Rick]

Maybe they are not limiting business...

maybe they are:

1. Trying to give these downtown districts a fighting chance against malls... malls do this type of business selection all the time and have been doing it for years.

2. Cities have been losing their downtown since the 60's, especially in California. Cities are starting to realize a healthy downtown district will keep local people in and attract outside visitors. It also give the city a sense of place, some malls are only an illusion of it.

3. Downtowns have mostly gone down because of a lack of regulation, malls on the other have are privately regulated and at some point, many have had great success.

4. What do the downtown associations have to say about it, I'm thinking they are the ones pushing this type of regulation.

One of my early jobs was designing presentations for master plans at the height of downtown renovations, at the time it was working... I live near 2 downtown areas, one is struggling till money comes in so they can make it the city center, and transportation hub. The other is a crap-hole of salons, chump retailers, liquor and money stores that does not attract the foot and vehicular traffic because they offer very little variety and it does not look or feel like a place to hang around. Our downtowns should not the depository for the low end retail.

 

[binki]

Rick, that is exactly what has happened and is exactly what they are trying to do. A barber does not charge sales tax so only the biz license is revenue for the city. All other retail operations do charge sales tax and that money comes right back to the city.

I don't agree with the method but I understand the principle.

The city has paid for (via loans) more high volume places to come in. They paid Walmart (reduced fees and taxes) to open a few years back and they paid for a restaurant to open up downtown. What we need is a variety of retail but the method of offering incentives for downtown building owners and businesses is probably a better way to go than denying willing business owners a chance to be there.

 

[Wes Phifer]

How you feel if you were the land owner and couldn't rent to certain people that wanted it because the city wouldn't let them. You could loose your building because the city would not let you rent it to someone with the money to save you. That can't be right.

 

[WildWestDesigns]

How you feel if you were the land owner and couldn't rent to certain people that wanted it because the city wouldn't let them. You could loose your building because the city would not let you rent it to someone with the money to save you. That can't be right.

Also remember that you have rent control as well in some places, so even if you do have a tenant in your building, you have to rent to them at a fixed rate that could be based on say the 1950s living expenses.

They make up for the shortcomings in other ways though. I know one guy that has to pay 7k in monthly rent. That's just rent, he is getting it without lube on that one.

 

[crewchief97]

Sounds like Socialism to me

 

[andy]

Forcing low and middle income Americans to cover the losses of rich bankers and wealthy investors sounds like Socialism.... actually it IS socialism, just ass backwards socialism.

Socialism is all about trying to re balance the incomes of society as a whole... you don't want huge swathes of shanty towns and poor desperate people in any society... that's why you ask the really rich people to share a little bit of their wealth... spread the love if you will.

In Europe & America the really rich people have the ability to move to tax havens and pay accountants to hide their money.... the people who pay the most tax proportional to their income are people like you.... the middle section of society. The poor haven't got any money so you can't tax them... the rich don't want to pay tax at all and they'll expend a lot of time and effort making sure they don't have to.

So, as a middle class person you're taxed to help pay for the poor... something which most people would accept is not a bad thing. However, your task is a lot harder because the really rich people who could easily afford to pay their share don't want to... you end up paying more to cover their absence from the tax base.

After years of this struggle to pay tax and build a better life for your family you find that the rich have been frantically gambling away all their money.... they've lost BIG... you've just been volunteered to pay cover the loss. Your living standard is going backwards whilst the rich people you've redistributed your wealth crack open another bottle of champagne.

Mild socialism isn't a bad thing... it's kind of like your mum forcing you and your brother to play fair, play nice.

 

[WildWestDesigns]

In Europe & America the really rich people have the ability to move to tax havens and pay accountants to hide their money.... the people who pay the most tax proportional to their income are people like you.... the middle section of society. The poor haven't got any money so you can't tax them... the rich don't want to pay tax at all and they'll expend a lot of time and effort making sure they don't have to.

The loopholes that the rich use are there for everyone to use, the only difference is that the rich have the knowledge of those loopholes. Not that its denied knowledge to everyone else, it's just the rich took the effort to learn of those loopholes. Some you have to be in a position to use those loopholes, some it's just knowing that you can use them.

If people would just take the time to learn the law and learn the tax code and be proactive instead of just bitching, they would be in a better position.

Mild socialism isn't a bad thing... it's kind of like your mum forcing you and your brother to play fair, play nice.

Socialism is not a good thing if it is able to be used by those to play the system. As long as you pay people not to work and to squirt out as many babies as they can, they will and not contribute one iota to society and then bitch about not getting enough money.

I remember when Obama got elected, they had one woman that they interviewed who was jumping up and down saying: "Now I get my new car and my new house and all for free". That attitude is more the common way of thinking then not.

Is that they kind of person that you want your mild socialism to help?

 

[Pat Whatley]

The city council locally refused to give a business license to an "adult bookstore" for no reason other than they didn't like the idea of a porn shop in town. Porn shop sued for the income they were losing by being closed (federal courts eventually forced the city to let them open). City had to pay the owners $500,000.

 

[WildWestDesigns]

The city council locally refused to give a business license to an "adult bookstore" for no reason other than they didn't like the idea of a porn shop in town. Porn shop sued for the income they were losing by being closed (federal courts eventually forced the city to let them open). City had to pay the owners $500,000.

Around here, they just put up billboards with bible verses that would illustrate to what would happen to anybody that would go into one of those establishments. Not directly, but you can tell the target audience by the verses chosen.

 

[Craig Sjoquist]

The city can only deny if zoning does not allow.
A city or county has no business in trying to deal with private business unless it is harmful to community such as strip clubs and they are able to open is certain zoned areas.
They can also put moratoriums to put a hold on opening new business but unable to stop them if there is a reasonable reason.