Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.
 

Re: [einpc] Digest Number 1122

Expand Messages
  • Audrey& Steve
    Jerry wrote: It seems obvious to me that if important policy restrictions are based on falsehoods, it is right to point that out. Except that you didn t
    Message 1 of 2 , Feb 1, 2005
      Jerry wrote: "It seems obvious to me that if important policy restrictions are based on
      falsehoods, it is right to point that out.
      "

      Except that you didn't point out any falsehoods, you simply labeled the ordinance paranoid fantasy followed with more of same..

      Large format stores - Walmart, Target, Home Depot, and more - are building multi-story stores around the country, including in more dense urban areas. These include some of their most profitable stores.

      It is completely legitimate for communities, through their government, to set standards for how the built environment should look and function - to meet public and economic goals.

      policy required it - for the most part. Let's dispense with this myth already that the real estate market is a product We get buildings like we do in large part because we require them by zoning, and create the conditions that give rise to them through transportation policy that concentrates cars on few large roads, creating the favored intersections with high volumes of cars (highly mobile wallets, from a retailers standpoint). Within that context, companies create the most effiecient model they can. Westgate, Eastgate, American Family were built that way not mostly because the company said they wanted chaotic, congested, ugly, land wasting, stormwater nightmare environments - but because the zoning, subdivision and transportation policies required it - for the most part. The big box ordinance will require a better environment - both for the public and for econoimc performance of companies.

      Steve Steinhoff

      jerrydenise@... wrote:
      Much of what Barrett said is not constructive so I hope he will respond.

      I thought it was clear what I was suggesting constructively: Don't pass
      arbitrary restrictions on constructing big box stores. (I may be more
      constructive when it comes to stores.)

      Barrett's constructive suggestion (build vertically) is not very
      practical, I suspect.

      It seems obvious to me that if important policy restrictions are based on
      falsehoods, it is right to point that out.

      --Jerry Bridgman

      PS According to various internet sources, Sam's Clubs are larger than
      100,000 square feet. Hypermarkets, a French invention taken
      international, are generally twice as big as Sam's. Meijer's (a chain
      started in Michigan and not yet available in Wisconsin) has stores of
      close to 200,000 sq. ft. Some Walmart stores are over 100,000. Walmart
      Supercenters are sometimes over 200,000. Other large stores are
      constructed by Target, K-Mart etc.(There weren't very many good pictures
      of all these types of stores on the internet, but from what I could tell,
      they are single-storey.) That could be alot to be banning. Some stores of
      these types already exist here. The effect would be to reduce competition
      (and choice) and thus to subsidize the existing stores.

      > Message: 2        
      >    Date: Mon, 31 Jan 2005 09:01:44 -0600
      >    From: "Gary Tipler" <gtipler@...>
      > Subject: Re: Digest Number 1121
      >
      > Who's paranoid? How about limiting comments to constructive
      > suggestions?
      >
      > ----- Original Message -----
      > From: <jerrydenise@...>
      > To: <einpc@yahoogroups.com>
      > Sent: Sunday, January 30, 2005 11:59 PM
      > Subject: Re: [einpc] Digest Number 1121
      >
      >
      > >
      > > So stores with a bigger footprint would be prohibited.
      > >
      > > Isn't the 100,000 sq. ft. limit pretty arbitrary? How was it
      > arrived at?
      > >
      > > What if larger stores built "horizontally" aren't economically
      > practical?
      > > Then wouldn't you have banned larger stores?
      > >
      > > The rest is paranoid fantasy. We get the kind of development that
      > we do
      > > precisely because it is what people prefer (and are willing to pay
      > for).
      > > I suspect your problem is that most people don't agree with you
      > and you
      > > need excuses to try to impose your ideas on them. The minority who
      > want
      > > to live the way you prefer have many alternatives in central
      > Madison. But
      > > let those who prefer bigger stores with more choices and lower
      > prices
      > > have their choice too. Live and let live!
      > >
      > > --Jerry Bridgman
      > >
      > > > Message: 1
      > > >    Date: Sat, 29 Jan 2005 21:14:56 -0600
      > > >    From: "Michael D. Barrett" <mikeb@...>
      > > > Subject: WSJ article: "City may regulate 'big box' retailers"
      > > >
      > > > To The Editor:
      > > >
      > > > The article "City may regulate 'big box' retailers" (1/29/2005)
      > > > states:
      > > >
      > > > "The law would limit the footprint of a single
      > > > retail building to 100,000 square feet....Bigger
      > > > stores would be prohibited unless a developer
      > > > offered a proposal that satisfied the spirit of
      > > > the law."
      > > >
      > > > The first sentence is a fact.  The second is a
      > > > fabrication.  "Bigger stores" are explicitly
      > > > permissible under the Big Box ordinance. Spirits
      > > > need not be invoked.
      > > >
      > > > Here is what the proposed ordinance says *in fact*:
      > > >
      > > > "2. Maximum Building Footprint.  No single new
      > > > retail business establishment shall exceed a
      > > > building footprint of one hundred thousand
      > > > (100,000) square feet as defined by the exterior
      > > > walls."
      > > >
      > > > *Footprint*.  That means, build more stories,
      > > > and, *voilà!* a big box may be as big as a
      > > > developer wants. Just not horizontally bigger.
      > > >
      > > > But the real story is not developers vs.
      > > > anti-developers as this article implies. The
      > > > heart of the matter is quality, people-oriented
      > > > development vs. Dallas-style car-burbs.
      > > >
      > > > It is a divide between the majority of
      > > > Madisonians who want to live in a
      > > > community-oriented city versus selfish interests
      > > > who want to force us to live in their corporate
      > > > compartmentalization schemes.  These interests
      > > > want us to be automatons moving from pod to pod:
      > > > Live in plastic 3-car-garage-with-attached-house
      > > > pod.  DO NOT SAY HELLO TO NEIGHBOR. Need
      > > > sustenance and pod purchasing power.  Go to
      > > > garage pod. Climb in automobile pod.  Put pod on
      > > > highway grid.  Be aggressive against other pods.
      > > > Arrive at office pod. DO NOT SAY HELLO TO
      > > > CO-WORKER. Purchase sustenance at drive-thru pod
      > > > interface.  DO NOT SAY HELLO TO CLERK! Privacy is
      > > > primacy. DO NOT SAY HELLO. Buy more pods at
      > > > megabox-pod. DO NOT SAY HELLO. Stay in your pod.
      > > >
      > > > The 'he said/she said' reporting style used in
      > > > this article (and most Wisconsin State Journal
      > > > news articles) once again fails to draw
      > > > meaningful connections.  Journalism--fact pod.
      > > >
      > > > Michael D. Barrett
      > > > 2137 Sommers Avenue
      > > > Madison, Wisconsin 53704
      > > > (608)245-1059
      > > > ************************************************************
      > > >
      > > > Original article can be found here:
      > > > http://www.madison.com/wsj/mad/local/index.php?ntid=26485
      > > >
      > > >
      > > >
      > >
      >
      ________________________________________________________________________
      > > >
      > >
      >
      ________________________________________________________________________
      > > >
      > > >
      > > > To Post a message, send it to: einpc@yahoogroups.com
      > > >
      > > > To Subscribe, send a blank message to:
      > > > einpc-subscribe@yahoogroups.com
      > > >
      > > > To Unsubscribe, send a blank message to:
      > > > einpc-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
      > > >
      > >
      >
      ------------------------------------------------------------------------
      > > > Yahoo! Groups Links
      > > >
      > > >
      > > >
      > > >
      > > >
      > >
      >
      ------------------------------------------------------------------------
      > > >
      > > >
      > > >
      > > >
      > > >
      > > >
      > >
      > >
      > > To Post a message, send it to: einpc@yahoogroups.com
      > >
      > > To Subscribe, send a blank message to:
      > einpc-subscribe@yahoogroups.com
      > >
      > > To Unsubscribe, send a blank message to:
      > einpc-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
      > > Yahoo! Groups Links
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      ________________________________________________________________________
      >
      ________________________________________________________________________
      >
      >
      > To Post a message, send it to: einpc@yahoogroups.com
      >


      To Post a message, send it to: einpc@yahoogroups.com

      To Subscribe, send a blank message to: einpc-subscribe@yahoogroups.com

      To Unsubscribe, send a blank message to: einpc-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com



    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.