(Continuing the song theme...)

One of the terms I've used in this campaign is to not "homogenize" the city, to make it all look the same. Irvine, California, makes my Top 10 List for the most over-planned, over-done city I've ever seen. To me, it is sterile. That is not what I want for Garland.

Today, one of my opponents, posted a proposition that he said first was working its way through the council and then he said he was the author. He proposed spacing requirements for certain non-obnoxious businesses. Specifically, he proposed allowing only one bank and one nail salon every three miles. I was compelled to reply.

I often talk about planning and I think good planning is essential. However, I want to emphasize that laying a good foundation for businesses and neighborhoods does not mean that government should dictate the exact placement of everything that goes on that foundation. Good planning is not a checkboard with controlled locations for businesses.

At least, I don't consider banks and nail salons detrimental.

Update: This proposition was brought before the Council at a Work Session for discussion by Michael Holden and Terri Dunn. They requested that staff be directed to look at such spacing requirements for all "like" businesses. The request failed to receive support from a majority of the Council, therefore it died.

To preserve the content of the links above, the referenced posts are quoted below:

[Proposition:] This thread is to discuss the pros and cons of creating a business distance overlay within the City of Garland that would restrict similar businesses from locating within a close proximity to another similar business.

For example, if a bank were to build on a corner, they would have exclusive use within a distance of say 5000 yards. Another bank would not be able to locate within 5000 yards of this existing bank.

This is something that the council will be hearing about very soon. Citizen input would be appreciated.

This is not something that will be voted on any time soon. There will probably be a advisory committee developed to review it and determine if this is actually a good thing for Garland before moving forward.

[Reply:]This is a perfect thread to point out that two philosophies are represented in the council races. You have those that want to control when there are elections, want to control what color you paint your house, and now want to control each and every business that catches their eye. Does anyone detect a trend?

This "thinking" does smack of economic systems that have failed and been discredited. My business education and professional experience scream when I see ideas like this cooked up and fostered on the community.

We must grow our tax base. Neighborhoods are going to continue to carry the bulk of the tax burden unless we diversify and increase our tax base. You don't do that by driving out businesses or restricting them to an administering council's concept of where they need to do business.

That doesn't mean opening the doors wide to strip joints, sexually-oriented businesses, and other businesses that discourage further development.

We have zoning for a purpose and development standards for a purpose. Maybe that is a gray area too difficult for some to maneuver.

When a bunch of restaurants opened on North Stemmons Frwy, a lot of people said it would never work, that they would all fail. I hope that anyone that has made the trec to Mesquite, Addison, Grapevine, or any of the other restaurant "rows" will recognize the shortsightedness. When Loew's announced they planned to build near Home Depot, many said it would never work, that both would go out of business. I often shop at both in the same day and I'm thankful for the opportunity.

Does anyone believe that all the banks opening on N Garland Rd are spending all that money to buy land, erect buildings, buy furniture and equipment, on a gamble that they might be successful? Seventy percent of Americans shop at Wal-Mart or Target or a similar store. The banks have moved close to the people. Do we have a lottery to see who gets access to this market? And how much does the developer get to charge for his sudden government-created monopoly? I know how one or two individuals might benefit economically or have their esthetics less challenged, but how does Garland benefit?

You can plan a development baseline for a community that allows smart development as we have done on SH-190, but you can't start grading which business is in favor this week and out next.

I have heard over and over again from developers that they won't come to Garland. Is it any wonder why they go to Allen or Rockwall? Both communities have development standards, aren't okaying strip joints, but they do have consistency and a supportive attitude in their ordinances.

We can recognize that the market system, like democracy, is messy sometimes but that it is the best system. In other parts of the Metroplex many of those corner gas stations that closed after mergers are now being revived as Starbucks, flower shops, and other businesses. It could start in Garland if we don't start trying to regulate how far it must be between Starbucks.

Or you can try to regulate every aspect of other peoples' lives and businesses.

In truth, it's not simple to understand the dynamics between too little control and too much. It takes time to learn the basics; it takes educating oneself; it takes self-restraint; it takes having faith in the market place to decide. It does help to have read the experience of Ayn Rand's John Galt and it especially helps to have some comprehension of Adam Smith's principle of Laissez-Faire. Even with education, it's important to admit how little we really know and to have some faith. We don't need to micro-manage every aspect of other people's lives. That is what Adam Smith was trying to teach us.