I believe the story of Bon-Ton and Herberger's being over-leveraged. It's happened to a lot of retailers lately (Toys R Us for example). And I'm sympathetic to his claim that they "had a fragile business model, one that was far too responsive to investors far beyond our little city limits."
But a few things undermine his argument:
1. He makes a passing reference to Herberger's having "cheaper clothes" compared to the downtown stores, but that's not really doing justice to the fact that the downtown stores went out of business because the local people preferred the prices and products at Herberger's. No one issued an edict saying "there shall be no more mom and pop stores downtown."
2. He complains about Walmart, Target, etc. being "in the neighboring city". But if you look on Google maps, the distance from downtown Brainerd to Walmart is 3 miles. A 7 minute drive. That is not a major inconvenience for residents. It sounds more like sour grapes from a city planner who resents the commercial taxes going to Baxter instead of Brainerd.
3. He mentions the sewer, water, and roads that were built to support the mall location, without identifying who paid for them. Was it the town, or the developer? I'm worried he's trying to puff up his argument by being vague about this.
> No one issued an edict saying "there shall be no more mom and pop stores downtown."
In our case, here in Bloomington, IN, that's precisely what happened. The owners (primarily Indiana University Foundation) raised rents on the city square. They tripled rents.
It's knocked 2 businesses right out. They couldn't relocate, because the previous locations were destroyed for "affordable housing for rich foreign students". Read that as rents hovering around $1500/mo. So what did those businesses do? They went out of business. Gone. But hey, we'll get more overly-expensive housing!
> It sounds more like sour grapes from a city planner who resents the commercial taxes going to Baxter instead of Brainerd.
Unfortunately, there's one main topic that dismisses this reasoning. 10 year abatements. I've seen the abatements come up again and again. It's a form of corporate welfare. Where's MY abatements? Where's the small business abatements? Where's the 'small guy' relief?
Well, to put it bluntly, "We don't get no relief". Big business has this hand-wavey ambience that we somehow absolutely want them here, for perceived benefits. But what it amounts to is a shell game with corporate welfare, money exfiltrated out of the community, and a worthless husk in a few decades.
> He mentions the sewer, water, and roads that were built to support the mall location
It's regardless who initially paid for them. Those pipes are there, and will require significant upkeep to keep them in any sort of standard. And those business again, with abatements, aren't paying. And nobody's paying if the malls are dead and shuttered. Those pipes are what I would call a "Toxic Asset". And that's before discussing massive water quality issues we're seeing in small and midrange communities around the country. Flint's the worst, but happening in hundreds of areas.
I've been to Bloomington Indiana, the downtown is thriving, at least from what I can see. A lot of new buildings. Hotels, apartments, restaurants and shops, hardly a vacancy to be seen. A good number of bars of course. It's a college town. The economy is going to be dominated by students and the University.
The idea is that malls are built with public subsidies, publicly financed infrastructure, and unusually permissive development regulations that are not afforded to mom-and-pop shops. Remember that this an anti-car website; in the future it’s trying to build, 3 miles is a big deal.
I also don't think it's an anti-car website, it's essentially site focused on the financial aspects of small towns, and they're asserting that towns built around cars are poor financial investments for the cities themselves [0].
I believe the story of Bon-Ton and Herberger's being over-leveraged. It's happened to a lot of retailers lately (Toys R Us for example). And I'm sympathetic to his claim that they "had a fragile business model, one that was far too responsive to investors far beyond our little city limits."
But a few things undermine his argument:
1. He makes a passing reference to Herberger's having "cheaper clothes" compared to the downtown stores, but that's not really doing justice to the fact that the downtown stores went out of business because the local people preferred the prices and products at Herberger's. No one issued an edict saying "there shall be no more mom and pop stores downtown."
2. He complains about Walmart, Target, etc. being "in the neighboring city". But if you look on Google maps, the distance from downtown Brainerd to Walmart is 3 miles. A 7 minute drive. That is not a major inconvenience for residents. It sounds more like sour grapes from a city planner who resents the commercial taxes going to Baxter instead of Brainerd.
3. He mentions the sewer, water, and roads that were built to support the mall location, without identifying who paid for them. Was it the town, or the developer? I'm worried he's trying to puff up his argument by being vague about this.