31 May 2005

 

Council on fishing expedition

Bass Pro Shops is a $1.5-billion company. That means that they have very smart people running the business. My guess is that someone in the higher levels of the company has heard of Fresno, California and, perhaps, even knows of its relative size and location in comparison to other California and western cities. Someone at Bass Pro may even know something about the economics of the area and its suitability for a Bass Pro Shop. So why did the Fresno City Council need to come dangerously close to violating the Brown act in order to lobby Bass Pro? And why did Bass Pro entertain such lobbying when it's going to base its decisions on financial considerations, and not how hospitably and/or desperately the councilmembers approach them?

The Fresno Bee reports that Councilmember Jerry Duncan and Redevelopment Agency Executive Director Marlene Murphey said that the reportage of the council's wooing of Bass Pro may clue in other cities to do the same thing (as if reportage of what government officials, especially elected ones, are doing is a bad thing). Guys, the cat is out of the bag. Take a gander at this article from Oklahoma City. It appears that Bass Pro's modus operandi is to get cities to fight over each other to get the best package of tax cuts (a good thing because they keep their own money) and tax subsidies (a bad thing because they get their hands on OUR money). The $6 million Macon GA deal reported in the Bee is just peanuts! The article also cites some of the failures of Bass Pro deals in other cities.

Bass Pro would probably have found its own way to Fresno like most of the other commonly seen big-boxes. But, of course, Bass Pro wants to use other people's money to pay for the store if they can get away with it, and the council does not want Bass Pro to end up in River Park or Clovis (who had their own dog and pony show in Lost Taxes ... er ... Las Vegas). They want Bass Pro to be the crown jewel of its efforts at redevelopment of downtown Fresno south of that other crown jewel that has been so successful in enriching downtown businesses, Grizzlies Stadium (I really do need that audio laugh tract on this blog). It is a disservice to us as consumers and, more importantly, constituents that our elected public officials would work to force a private business into a position where the business cannot offer its customers the best deal possible.

There's hope, however, on the horizon as far as redevelopment reform is concerned. It is commonly known that the federal government owns obscenely huge chunks of most western states. But what about city government ownership of large chunks of land within a city's limits? This California Supreme Court case involving San Jose may bring about unprecedented reform of redevelopment activities.

We at the LPFC understand and share the desire to raise the economic profiles of indigent citizens and blighted areas. We are frustrated, though, that despite the overwhelming evidence of the power of free market principles and the numerous failures of governmental activities, especially "redevelopment", our public officials in Fresno County continue ad nauseum to turn to economically coercive policies rather than economically consensual policies. Our only choice as concerned citizens is to continue to bring to the public's attention the best information and reasoning available for libertarian reforms in this geographically wonderful valley.

|

<< Home

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?