The conservative free-market advocate known as the Show-Me Institute has sounded off this week on two development show-downs in the St. Louis area.
The research/educational institute pushes for free-market approaches to dealing with public policy issues. The object of its ire this week is the decisions by city leaders in Ellisville and Frontenac to impose moratoriums on development in parts of their communities.
In a blog post on its site headlined "We Need A Moratorium On Municipal Development Moratoriums," the institute questioned "Is this an appropriate use of municipal powers?" and answered its own question with, "No, it is not."
In Frontenac, according to while the comprehensive plan is updated for land use regulations."
City officials are concerned about moving too quickly on what limited property they have to redevelop at a key intersection at Lindbergh and Clayton roads.
Meanwhile, in Ellisville, officials are considering (and the planning commission has recommended) a .
A resident spoke out against the plan, saying a moratorium would be "time wasted," when a developer could create jobs and provide sales tax.
How much control should cities have over what's built in town? Are you satisfied with the pace of commercial development in your community? Is it managed well? What is the appropriate role for government in managing commercial development?
Do people line up across the street and run to be the first to build something? You might want to think that out a bit. People must purchase lots from those who already own them. Those people must come up with the money to build the building, and then it has to be leased or that same person must fill it with equipment and personnel and product to sell. How is that "every man for himself"? The market will determine what's too much and what isn't. If a developer builds too many properties and no one fills them, eventually those properties will be torn down or sold to others. What say does the city get in how free people use their own property, unless it directly impacts the health and safety of their neighbors?
Has anyone any concerns that our "Taxpayer Funded Schools" are now subsidizing Solar panel absurdity. Does anyone know WHY the private building would not could not justify the "Real" cost of solar power. So the Government bypasses the private market and Just TAXES the residents to make our Schools the "trial ballonns" of this extremely expensive TAXPAYER FUNDED Projects now used by many Public schools. YES! people you are paying for things NOT cost justified in the private building industry.
Once a developer has an application in process, the city can't change the land use. That has to be done during a time where nothing is actively in the pipeline, really the only way to do that any more is to have a moratorium. I wish Maryland Heights would declare a moratorium in their flood plain, while new land uses and densities were discussed.
Farmers and long-time landowners/homeowners finding their wells dry and having to invest in deeper wells and lower water supplies are just one small slice of this. The subdivisions filled with people needing water not only for their homes and families, but also using it for lawns, swimming pools, fountains and golf courses have put an extra demand and strain on a system, which becomes painfully evident in a drought. A development, or a group of them, is often built then it becomes evident that the sewers, roads, electric, natural gas and more are not sufficient and need to be expanded, at a cost to society as a whole, not the developer. It is appropriate that governing bodies limit development, especially when facing growing pains from the expenses of previously required additions and vacant properties that could and should be developed first before affecting existing businesses and residents.
Recent reports of crimes at the Galleria and Brentwood Square describe the actions of suspects who don't appear to be local residents. Security seems tight at the Galleria, yet the crimes continue as the retail sprawl rolls on. How much of this madness are we willing to tolerate? Would developers be so eager to buy and build if they had to acquire land without the force of eminent domain or blighting? What if they had to pay their fair share of taxes instead of getting big breaks at taxpayer expense? What if they had to live in the congested sprawl they create, with escalating noise and crime? "Free market" doesn't mean "Do whatever you want and damn the consequences." It means that you invest your own money, time, and resources, and you take full responsibility for the consequences. If your plans are sound, they're likely to succeed, and you and your shareholders will enjoy the profits. If your plans are flawed, they may fail, and you'll have to deal with the losses yourself. That's the kind of free market I respect and support. Elisabeth Boone