Yesterday, in "A dream destroyed for nothing", I briefly told the story of the Fuji-Ya restaurant and it's destruction by the Park and Recreation Board 20 years ago. I said that today I would challenge the attitudes and justifications that lead to such destruction.

I don't know what specific purpose the P&RB had in mind when they took the parking space from the Fuji-Ya, but it was a "public" purpose. I suspect the members of the board had no ill will toward the Fuji-Ya or Reiko Weston, but they had some other "public good" plan that required that parking space. Declaring something to be for the "public good" is supposed to implicitly overrule any "private" value that might exist. A public project is for everyone, not just a few, and that is thought to justify taking from the few to give to the many.

A public project might be for the "cultural edification" of the public, or to satiate a public need for recreation and entertainment. We often hear public projects justified as needed to make Minneapolis, for example, a "world-class" city. We're all supposed to know what that means... skyscrapers, museums, professional sports teams and stadiums, grand theatres, major hotels, etc. We might even lump all that together and describe a city as world-class if it is able to attract and host large conventions, major sports events, and large touring entertainment events.

The kind of public project I'm concerned with in this discussion are those in which the city government (or county or port authority, etc.) plays a major role... such as providing financial incentives, clearing existing properties, or in any other way "buying into the boondoggle". In case you're wondering, you don't have to have a port to have a "port authority". Bloomington Port Authority owned the land now under the Mall of America. In fact, a "port authority" is simply a separate governmental organization designed to avoid some of the restrictions and accountability the city or county might have.

It will create new jobs and spending

It seems that the most frequent justification for a public project is that it will create new jobs and increase visitor spending in the area. Most of that is false projection, counting money that would have been spent elsewhere in the city, and counting jobs that replaced other jobs in the city. Public projects may draw people to a location, but those people would have been somewhere else, and would have been spending there instead of the new location. That's a gain for the area that gets the public project, but a loss for all other competing areas. Within a city, it's simply giving an unfair advantage to one area over the others.

It will improve our city image

This is the one that gets my goat most frequently. The idea that a big new building is better than several old ones, or that one big business is better than several small ones is simply wrongheaded. This justification has been used over and over again here, and it usually comes down to a matter of preference on the part of planners. They seem to appreciate big and devalue small. They seem to value the new and devalue the old. I can understand developers wanting to do replacements; that's how they make money, but why do city councils so often fall into line behind big projects? Haven't the historical losses to urban renewal of the 60's reached those in public office?

Why is it that public officials will protect a property that is very old, but trash property that is only a few decades old? How can neglected, burned-out mill ruins from 150 years ago be important, but businesses that have survived for 30, 40 or 50 years can simply be told that they're being evicted for a new structure for a big business?

Cities often claim "blight" when they want to implement a new project... the area needs "renewal". Blight is in the eye of the beholder, and it's clear that what is blight to one person may be home or livelihood to another. It's often a question of personal preference. I happen to like old buildings. They often have style that is absent on newer structures. I'm far from alone. Most European cities value existing structures far more than American cities, which is why they HAVE old buildings they're proud of. If you don't let buildings survive past 30 or 40 years, you'll never have any 200-year-old buildings.

More than all the other objections I have to public-financed projects, it is an issue of morality. A government entity simply should have no right to take property unless it's truly needed for part of the city's infrastructure... roads, utilities, etc. There is NO justification for claiming that a property isn't nice enough, or that it could be replaced by property that would return more tax revenue... even if the increased tax revenue were guaranteed... which it never is. It's wrong to allow public officials to make aesthetic or financial judgments that cost people their homes or businesses.

I resent the upscale condos, apartments, lofts, and big new buildings that are springing up around Minneapolis, because I know what they've cost us in human terms. They're part of a city that is becoming an enclave only for those who can afford it. It has cost the city its vitality, and much of its history. It is becoming a city of major corporations and event venues. I now view the downtown area as alien to the rest of the city... a place to visit only when necessary, not to live. To a large extent, it has become a place for tourists, not for those who live here... and pay the taxes.

Historically, cities have destroyed the areas that grew naturally, without planning, and were home to a lot of people. Now the planners are lamenting "urban sprawl" and even resorting to expensive rail systems in an attempt to get some of them to return as visitors. Perhaps the worst effect of big-city planned development is that it has lured suburban cities into doing much the same. Until we kill the idea that government has the right to determine who will survive and who will be sacrificed, we will continue to see a society in which the haves and have-nots become even more severely divided. Anti-capitalists take note: it's governments that have the power that allows such class division. It's not my idea of a healthy society.