Urban Sprawl Rules
Inner Cities Continue Decline
By Daniel Muniz

For those who loathe and decry urban sprawl, the news has been dismal but hardly a surprise. According to a Harvard University study based from 1995 to 2003, about half of the country's 82 largest municipalities lost jobs. And in sharp contrast during the same period, just one surrounding suburban metropolitan area lost any jobs.

Also, investment by businesses does not happen deep inside of a city even when the federal government throws billions of dollars at it as confirmed by a separate analysis by The Associated Press. AP discovered that none of the best-performing cities even participated in the federal empowerment zone and renewal community programs. They simply performed better without government assistance. And this assistance was supposed to provide tax incentives so that businesses in certain depressed areas of a city could expand by hiring new employees. It never happened.

But what went wrong?

Why don’t businesses want to relocate to the inner city or at least bring in a little bit more commercial development?

Brian Sullivan, a spokesman for the Department of Housing and Urban Development said:

"We're not trying to preach to people that you are over-regulating… but it is true that in some parts of the country the regulatory climate puts out the unwelcome mat."

Excessive red tape is part of the equation but hostility in general is what created the problem in the first place.

In my hometown of San Antonio Texas, I have seen numerous community leaders of depressed parts of the city clamor about needing more commercial development in their neighborhoods. In all reality, strong economic activity is what will transform blighted neighborhoods.

Sadly, when big corporations do try to either invest or expand, they are often met with fierce and often virulent opposition, many times by the same community leaders who wanted them there in the first place.

For instance, a large regional supermarket chain had a location deep inside the inner city. The chain wanted to expand its present store and bought up some of the surrounding land. During this process, community activists combed all the nearby neighborhoods for people to sign petitions to stop the development. Some of the activist’s arguments did have merit such as how the roads could accommodate increased traffic, etc.
 

Story Continues Below ê

Today's Top Stories

● Retirement Quiz - The Responsibility of Retirement ● Ban Cell Phones: Do Students Need Phones in Schools? ● Overcrowded Solution - But the Unions Really Hate It ● Victoria’s Secret - Has Sexy Become Too Trashy?

Yesterday's Top Stories

● Bad Example - School Principal Driving Drunk ● Banning Toy Guns - Laws That Go Way Too Far ● Shoplifter Dies - And Parent Files Lawsuit ● Hey S*** Face - Abusive Bill Collectors

But most of the complaints were downright ludicrous such as demanding input in employee benefits, management practices, and involvement in other financial aspects of the company. In addition, the activists brought out inflammatory and incendiary accusations from global warming to exploitation of Third-World workers, and about every other left-wing cause. About the only thing they didn’t do was accuse management of stealing children.

Naturally, the supermarket chain rejected almost all of the activist demands and then pointed to its involvement in community activities as a responsible corporate citizen and its numerous donations to local charities. They also explained the economic benefit that they would bring to the neighborhood as well as being part of the catalyst that could bring more development to the area.

The activists were not swayed.

In fact, it is just about impossible to persuade such community leaders since they have a deep suspicion of the free market and the free economy itself. Sadly, the free market is exactly what will help such depressed areas of town. The more financial investments that are made will attract more economic development.

But the activists don’t see it that way. They encourage city governments to impose more restrictions and more regulations. And unless it is on their terms, most activist groups will oppose just about any kind of economic development. Unfortunately, it is nearly impossible for companies to make any sort of profits by acquiescing to their demands

In contrast, the suburbs are different. They actually want the big retail strip centers, the shopping malls, and big office buildings. They want development and they don’t mind co-existing with it. Not surprisingly, economic development goes to where it is welcomed, encouraged, and even nurtured.

I remember near the time I graduated high school; the same regional supermarket chain had a location far out into the suburbs which was close to where I lived. The chain acquired a much larger vacant lot nearby to build a bigger store. The response was tremendous. The suburbanites packed the larger store and were delighted to have a better selection of products at a place nearby. The opposition to this development was practically non-existent.

And that has pretty much been the story of the suburbs of my teens. My parents still live there and I am often amazed at how much investment that the area has attracted. Huge retail shops, movie theaters, and plenty of other business activity in places that were just empty ranch land during my teenage years. My parents really don’t have to drive very far at all which was a different story when I was in high school.

But the story is not much different in other suburbs. What was once desolate is now brimming with shops and economic activity. And on a larger scale, this process has repeated itself across the country.

So what can be done to bring development back inside the city?

First, end the hypocrisy.

Community leaders cannot have it both ways. Complain about the lack of business activity and then become hostile to the companies that do want to invest. And that leads up to the next step.

End the hostility.

Many depressed areas of a city represent a huge market to businesses. Developers want to go to the inner city and hawk their products and services to an under-served segment of the population. Unfortunately, activist groups and local government officials fight them every step of the way even though their investments benefits that part of town.

But the inverse to ending hostility is to embrace the free market. And that is the major sticking point that usually ends all discussion. So until community leaders realize that big corporate investment in their area will bring about prosperity instead of oppression, their neighborhoods will continue to be depressed and forsaken.

We want your opinion! Tell us what you thought about this article. Click the Your Feedback menu item to send us your comments.