Walgreens

There is a local resident (some might say gadfly) named Rick Tryon who I have enjoyed reading about in the Tribune. He's keeping an eye on city government, and that's a good thing.

In today's Tribune, he had a letter to the editor:

I’d like to make some observations about the zoning changes being proposed
in order to accommodate the construction of a Walgreens pharmacy on 10th Avenue
South, abutting 9th Avenue South. 

While I am strongly in favor of economic development for Great Falls, this
is the wrong kind. The proposed development (by an out-of-state developer) will
displace several local businesses to make way for an out-of-state corporation’s
retail outlet. 

Of the approximately 30 projected jobs created, the majority will probably
be low-wage, parttime, and providing minimal, if any, benefits. 

Also, we should be very concerned about the impact of this proposed
development on the property values of the homes in the affected area. 

One of the reasons for zoning is to protect homeowners in a residential
area from commercial traffic, noise, and other annoyances such as headlights
glaring through your living room window from cars at the drive-up pharmacy at
night. 

Furthermore, if this residential­ to-commercial zoning change is
allowed, what kind of precedent will this set for future zoning change
requests? 

Will the City Commission be expected to roll over in the name of “economic
development” every time an out-of-state (or any) developer wants to throw up a
pretty new national chain store at the expense of local homeowners? I am
especially concerned about the 9th Avenue South corridor in this regard. 

Let Walgreens find another site to build on that doesn’t require a zoning
change. Please contact the City Commission and a “no” vote on the Walgreens
zoning change.  — Rick Tryon, Republican candidate for House District 21, Great
Falls

This is one area where I must respectfully disagree with Mr. Tryon. He states that this is the "wrong kind" of economic development. This statement betrays, I think, an underlying assumption that is often found in government today, and was especially prevelent in the Gray Dynasty preceding the election of Dona Stebbins.

The state has no fundamental right, or ability, to plan economic activity. (Think Hayek, The Road to Serfdom) As soon as the state starts deciding what is a good business and a bad business (as opposed to a legal business and an illegal business), the state becomes involved in in the process of allocating resources on the objects of its beneficence and withholding those resources from others. Central planning doesn't work.

Further, he completely overlooks the impact of attitude on economic development. When people want to come into your community and spend money, you don't fight them on it. You don't necessarily roll over, either, but Walgreens wants to refurbish a run down portion of our commercial street. Forgive them if they do not particularly feel welcome.

And, if he feels that residential zones should be permanently ensconced, forever protecting against encroachment, I question where he thinks we should locate the economic development that he does approve of?