Mr. Drezner:

Good points. To the Ames Dept. Store I would add Woolworth's and Kresge's. You know, those two retailing behemoths that put the mom-and-pop stores out of business. Now they long for the 5 & 10 stores.

Mike

When my wife's paternal grandfather was still alive we used to visit him a couple of times a year at his home in Waterville, NY (Upstate), which is about 20 miles south of Utica on Rte 12. It was a lovely little town set in the rolling hills of New York State. The houses were big and inexpensive and we always came home enormously relaxed and refreshed.

After each trip we would talk about the idea of moving up there and buying one of those houses that, for the money, were so much bigger and less expensive than what we could consider in our home state of MA. But then the conversation always turned to the question of work. Where could we work? How much would it pay? Utica was (is?) a ghost town. If you weren't struggling to survive by growing peas for Libby's or raising cattle or growing feed corn, then you were selling cord word in the summer and plowing streets in the winter. Not that there's anything wrong with that, but it wasn't the style of life we were acustomed to or wanted.

It is amusing to hear these preservationist wax eloquent on behalf of preserving the historical fabric of quaint and quiet Vermont. Amusing because the preservation is for their benefit, and at the expense of the rest of the people who live there.

Occasionally, I would hear environmentalists or preservationists accused of wanting to turn places into theme parks for the amusement of the rich.

For example, someone would write about how the encroachment of English or Spanish into remote Andean villages was destroying the local language and culture, and that we should prevent that. Then someone else would comment that the actual people in the Andean village were learning outsider languages so that they and their children would not have to grow up dirt-poor, and that keeping them ignorant for tourist enjoyment and peace-of-mind was the worst sort of objectification.

I do buy into this accusation, and I think the National Historic Trust is guilty of the same kind of theme-parkification, treating all the residents of the state like characters in this image of Vermont.

Couple of comments. First, Steve, Utica is actually undergoing something of a "renaissance" if the local press is to be believed (this probably just means it's only 5 feet under, but still...). Eastern Europeans have been flocking there, resurrecting some of the old factories. Who knows?

Secondly, while I defer to no one in Walmart bashing (and unlike most detractors, I never set foot in one)I'm not inclined to go along here. Why bash Walmart when Ben and Jerry's has gone so corporate, the factory tour is now about as warm an experience as--well, a trip to WALMART! Blech.

Let's face it folks, Vermont has been so cheesed up in recent years (I blame Beetlejuice, by the way--the whole urban search for rural "authenticity" dates from its release almost exactly) that it IS a mall. No, it's a large scale "Cracker Barrell," only more precious and twee.

If the Preservationists want to expose themselves as wacko elitists with a neo-luddite bent--I say go for it. I am an historian by training and have always loved New England especially. But this type of stunt gets us nowhere. Cut the sepia-toned crap. Let people who live in a community/state decide what goes there, then let them pay the price (higher costs, more fat-assed tour buses, etc.). Wake me up when it's all over.

Vermont isn't actually big enough to hold four Wal-Marts and their parking lots, is it?

Here we have an organization that either was cryptoreactionary before or was coopted. Either way, we can now safely ignore anything they say.

The Beetlejuice observation is interesting. I've considered the same thing myself but I think the movie was just a reflection of the desires by the eastern elite yuppies to move out of the crime infested cities but to also bypass the detested 'Burbs.

Unfortuately, they all seemed to have moved into the New Hampshire/Maine coastal regions along 95.

I readily acknowledge the arguments why Wal-Mart is good for a state and why historical preservation is a reactionary movement that fundamentally is not interested in issues of equity.

But I think there is something to be said for a place maintaining an identity that is unique from every other place. I am not sure if the entire state of Vermont is the right size for this kind of project, but perhaps a single county in Vermont might be, or a collection of towns that currently lack large stores.

Of course there are the dangers that that place will just become a tourist attracton that will fundamentally destroy the historical preservation aspects of the project in the first place.

From an economic point of view though the decision is not so cut and dry. A very large portion of the state's GDP in Vermont comes from tourism. That tourism is based in part (and it is difficult to determine how much) on small towns, quaint shops, and unobstructed views of valleys. Wal-Mart threatens all of those things. It might actually be a smart economic move in the state of Vermont to make sure that they protect the life-blood of their local economy, tourism, and thus pay marginally higher prices for basic goods.

Every economic development decision has to be understood in the unique context of the situation it is being made. I am not sure that this is the correct decision for Vermont, but there are reasons why it might be. I also would acknowledge that a hard-headed argument about the costs and benefits of Wal-Mart is one that opponents have not been eager to get in because of fear of how it would turn out. However if there is any place where they have a chance of winning the argument it would be in Vermont.

Such an analysis would not be easy.

Rich,

I acknowledge your broader argument (stated much the same thing myself), but your specific point about tourist dollars being important raises a counterargument in my own mind. In a nutshell, this involves WHO gets to determine the desirable qualities of the "community" and WHO gets the economic payoff therefrom. If the choice for a working Vermonter is between working in a mom and pop store (or a quaint B and B, etc.) vs. working for a big multinational--where is she/he better off? I'm inclined to say the latter. Moreover, as Vermont is NOT its own country, but one state in a larger union, can we cede special rights to current residents there (we'll take the ugly Walmarts, you take the corner stores, we'll spend holidays with you, you shop big with us) at the long-term expense of FUTURE (potential) residents? This Vermont model of development seems to allow little scope for entrepreneurship altogether, but especially of the new immigrant/person of color variety. If we allow Vermont to cast itself in amber, are we enshrining a 19th century racial balance there, while the rest of the country changes and grows?

Food for thought, is it not?

“When my wife's paternal grandfather was still alive we used to visit him a couple of times a year at his home in Waterville, NY (Upstate), which is about 20 miles south of Utica on Rte 12.”

My mother lives not in Waterville, but in Watertown, New York. And yes, I agree completely with you. How desperate are things in that area of the country? A young man, the son of a very close friend, committed suicide because the State Police rejected his application. His whole life revolved around getting to be a state trooper. He was around 28 years old at the time of his death---and probably earning no more than $7-8 per hour as a house painter and other such employment. The state trooper’s position was virtually his last chance to obtain a good paying job. Another friend of my mother’s daughter graduated from college, and could only find a $6.50 per hour job in a retail store.

I laughed at Hillary Clinton’s absurd promise to significantly improve the plight of those residing in upper New York. Even God might find this goal daunting. The area's high taxes and other such nonsense severely limits opportunities for most people.

“If the choice for a working Vermonter is between working in a mom and pop store (or a quaint B and B, etc.) vs. working for a big multinational--where is she/he better off? I'm inclined to say the latter.”

I’m also inclined to say the latter. I doubt very much if one can point to even one economic study which can justify a community throwing all its economic hopes into the tourist trade. Even Las Vegas is developing a diverse economy. A tourist economy generally restricts the best paying jobs to the lucky few. The rest of the population is royally screwed.

Mark Steyn also has some perspicacious insights regarding the left wingers residing in Vermont:

“Vermonters marked the end of the Dean era by electing a Republican governor and a Republican House. Even Vermont isn't as liberal as liberals assume. What's liberal is the idea of Vermont as it's understood across America: a bucolic playground of quaint dairy farms punctuated by the occasional boutique business that's managed to wiggle through the Dean approval process. A lot of those dairy barns are empty and belong to weekending flatlanders, the rest are adorned with angry "Take Back Vermont" signs, and the quintessential Green Mountain boutique business, Ben and Jerry's, wound up selling out to the European multinational Unilever. But these dreary details are irrelevant. To Democratic primary voters across the land, Vermont is a shining, rigorously zoned, mandatory-recycling city on a hill. And the only way up the hill is by the bike path.”

http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110004441

I'm a native of Baldwinsville, NY, near Syracuse. The two surrounding townships have seen tremendous growth and development over the past few years, but the Syracuse metropolitan area as a whole is rapidly declining in population, and the economy is a basket case, notwithstanding the Republican domination of local and regional politics. Essentially what is happening is that fewer and fewer people are taking up more and more space. Right now, there's a controversy in Baldwinsville over a huge proposed development that will eat up one of the last pices of Class I farmland in Onondaga County. Farmland doesn't get any more productive than Class I. I for one am damn glad that there are people there who don't accep't the notion that the market is an unalloyed good and are willing to stand up to those who keep promising pie in the sky and don't deliver. Upstate NY doesn't have much of a tourist industry, and seems hell bent on destroying any such propects without leaving any viable alternative. Heavy industry is dead, agriculture is being killed by thoughtless development that does nothing but depress the value of exisitng housing stock, and the place now looks like shit compared to Vermont. Way to go, Ohio. I mean, New York.

“notwithstanding the Republican domination of local and regional politics.”

Conservative Republicans have almost no power in Albany. The Democrats and liberal Republicans like George Pataki pull the strings. Local and regional politicians have no ability to lower the taxes imposed by the state. It is the cost of doing business in New York that discourages investment. Only New York City is able to prosper. A cynic could point out that the rest of New York is paying the price for that city’s success.

As a life-long Vermonter who also happens to live about ten minutes away from one of the proposed locations for a Wal-Mart superstore (St. Albans), I feel like I should throw in my two cents.

When I was a kid in the 1980s, most people here did their shopping locally. Most towns had a small general store where people gathered to trade news and gossip and pick up a gallon of milk or a carton of eggs if they were running short. A mid-sized grocery store (about the size of the deli section at a typical suburban mega-grocery), and a hardware store, pharmacy and lumber-yard were never further than the next town over, and everyone was on a first name basis with the owners.

For things like clothing, toys, electronics, etc., a trip to St. Albans, about 15 minutes from most parts of Franklin County, was in order. There were about a half-dozen clothing stores, one toy store, a music store, and two department stores - Ames and Woolworths. Other than those last two, pretty much everything was locally-owned and operated. Once in a while, mostly for special occasions, people would drive the 45 minutes to Burlington, the only real "city" in Vermont with a population of about 40,000. There you could get things from the national chain stores.

Today, our area is still quite rural by most people's standards. Agriculture remains the dominant form of industry, the general stores and local pharmacies and hardware stores are mostly still in business. When my "city-friends" from college come to visit, they find it remarkably quaint and even a little backward. To someone who grew up here, though, huge changes are apparent. Because we are located along the I-89 corridor, the Vermont version of suburban sprawl and "bedroom community" development has been working its way north from Burlington. Each year, one or more family farms go under, and a new cul-de-sac development goes up. Every one of the local grocery stores is gone, overwhelmed by the entrance of two large grocery box stores on the outskirts of St. Albans.

As for St. Albans itself, the downtown area is failing. Over the years, the inventory and selection at the downtown stores grew increasingly sparse until, one by one, they just shut down altogether. Ames and Woolworths both closed, so now the nearest place to buy a pair of socks or a set of towels is Burlington. A few local stores have managed to hang on - Kevin Smith's Sports Connection, for example, does a healthy business, having cultivated a good relationship with the town and school athletic programs - but for the most part, people now do their shopping at the box stores near Burlington.

When all is said and done, I don't really know what I think of Wal-Mart coming to town. Maybe it'll be the coup de grace for our local economy and small-town way of life, or maybe it'll just be a cheap place to buy socks. God knows we need some local shopping oppotunities. I'm just not sure whether a mega-store like Wal-Mart is the best way of doing it.

I suppose my only real point in writing this is to say that outside observers shouldn't be overly non-chalant about how they look at this. The character of our town/state matters a great deal to most Vermonters, and the fact that it's slipping away concerns many of us. That doesn't make us Luddites or rich people trying to preserve a theme-park kind of existence. (My family and I definitely don't qualify as rich!) It just makes us diligent stewards of our communities, and that, in my opinion, is a good thing.

I do not accept the premise that state taxes are the reason for Upstate NY's protracted decline. It's much too easy to say that. My native region is unattractive because it's, well, unattractive. Buffalo is a beautiful city surrounded by truly hideous suburbs. Syracuse is an industrially blighted ghost town ringed by cookie-cutter shopping malls. This is not the result of state taxes. State taxes didn't force municipalities to adopt zoning laws that have wiped out millions of acres of high-grade farmland. State taxes don't force developers to surround dying towns with strip malls and they don't force people to drive their SUVs five miles to buy a gallon of milk. People up there are trashing what they have without any encouragement from the state. The beautiful Victorian villages of the region suffer from extremely depressed property values and the countryside is filling up with ugly houses to shelter a declining population. With its well-deserved reputation for horrible weather to top it off, who would want to locate new industry in that region, even with the tax breaks every town is desperately offering? Vermont would do very well to resist this model.

For al the talk about "high grade" farmland. You do realize that even the highest grade farmland in the Northeast is poor compared to the Midwest. Expecting people to break their backs farming subpar land for little to zero cash just to satisfy some nostaligic yearning for a rustic past that never was is just insanity. Farming is a profession best left to machines.

There is a reason the Northeast backcountry was abandoned WHOLESALE by farmers at the turn of the last century for the urban centers.

Matt,

Well said. I appreciate having a local perspective on a national issue. That's what makes a blog a great forum for debate. That said, however, let me ask you a question. Would you agree that there are already lots of places--town meetings, regional planning boards, the state legislature, local newspapers, AND the local taproom--where these issues are really being decided within Vermont by Vermonters? So what does this preservationist manifesto by a national organization add to the mix? Really, all WE can do on the outside is respond to this salvo; the rest is up to Vermonters. Ultimately, Vermont is going to have to come up with a more varied pool of businesses and employers or it is going to be at the mercy of people who make all their money elsewhere, and they will largely determine the character of the state (or large chunks of it). Maybe it will be the Walmarts and maybe it will be the rich flatlanders, but you can be damn sure it won't be nice people like you. That really would be a travesty.

As for Donny, I too am from outside Syracuse and I'd say DT has it closer to right than you do. Farms are being paved over all over the country--only in poorly run places like my hometown, however, does that coincide with an outright longterm decline in population. This is about way more than cows.

“(My family and I definitely don't qualify as rich!)”

I strongly suspect that you are deluding yourself. Nobody is demanding that you disclose your family’s annual income. That’s none of our business. However, it would truly stun me if you are not among the top twenty, if not even the top ten percent of the wealthiest Americans! You may be able to survive in Vermont, but most lower income people almost certainly are compelled to leave the state for better opportunities.

“Farms are being paved over all over the country”

This is wonderful news. It means that we are rapidly increasing our ability to provide food at dramatically lower prices. I have utter intellectual contempt for the reactionary right wingers of the “I’ll Take My Stand” mindset. Get this straight: an economy primarily focussed on agrarian values---is almost certainly a poor one. In the early part of the twentieth century about 40% of all American were employed in the farm sector. Today, thank God, that figure is under 3.5%.

Actually, David, from what I've seen, it's the other way around. Particularly among people my age, the more money and education you have, the more likely you are to leave the state, while poor and working class people stay put. As for my own economic standing, I've never made more than $38,000 a year, and my father, who's nearing retirement, makes about $75,000. Upper middle class, to be sure, but definitely not rich. If you think that undermines the value/credibility of my observations, I suppose that's your call.

My personal situation aside, though, I suspect you're operating under a mistaken assumption - i.e. that the opponents of box store development in Vermont are all a bunch of rich, liberal, tree-hugging namby-pambies, and "real" Vermonters, the hard-working people who just want to make a living, are all supporters of bringing Wal-Mart in. In reality, there's a real blurring of the political lines in Vermont on development issues.

Many native Vermonters tend to be gruff, individualistic and generally suspicious of government interference in their lives. However, they also tend to be hunters, anglers and all-around outdoorsmen who don't like seeing alot of traffic and large-scale development. Standing around at the local store, you'll hear alot of tough-guy talk about the tree-huggers and out-of-state groups like the Conservation Law Foundation getting into other people's business, but come town meeting day, alot of those same people will vote against letting Wal-Mart build its store. (Oh, and it's worth pointing out that alot of them will be making more than $50,000 per year too.)

Anyway, I don't deny that there's a rough correllation between a person's income level and their position on the Wal-Mart thing. I'm just saying that it's not so clear a relationship as you seem to think. There are plenty of rich people who want the development, and plenty of working class people who oppose it. *shrug* Welcome to Vermont politics.

“As for my own economic standing, I've never made more than $38,000 a year, and my father, who's nearing retirement, makes about $75,000. Upper middle class, to be sure, but definitely not rich. If you think that undermines the value/credibility of my observations, I suppose that's your call.”

Your father definitely rates among the top 20% of the wealthiest Americans. As for yourself, you did not mention your current family income. We must also remember one very important fact concerning Vermont: it is barely a state in the true sense of the word. It only has a population, according to the 2000 census figures, of 608, 827 people. Heck, I live in Houston, Texas and more people probably live in a twenty mile radius surrounding my house then reside in all of Vermont. What is my point? It is this: Vermont’s voters have decided to limit their population. They have also opted to severely limit the state’s economic growth. In other words, the USA would collapse if all the other states did likewise. Vermont must remain the exception---or we are finished as a nation.

If you'd read my prior post, Tollhouse, you'd know that Class I farmland, the best there is, and far more common than you realize in Upstate NY, Eastern PA, NJ and VT valleys, is just as threatened by development as the poorer, rocky variety typical of New England East of the Connecticut River. Once farmland like this is gone, there's no getting it back if we ever need it.

“Once farmland like this is gone, there's no getting it back if we ever need it.”

We will very unlikely ever again need that farm land. Every year we learn how to grow more food on less land. Thus, your concern is not to be taken seriously. Americans literally have better things to worry about.

Actually, the more hilarious inclusion on the list was Edward Durell Stone's atrocious building on the south side of Columbus Circle. Other than the fact that it has been there for fifty years, there is no merit to this monstrosity of marble. It would be a service to the city to tear it down.

Isn't somebody going to rant about dairy subsidies?

No Howard Dean jokes?

OK: the state is being preserved so future generations can view the by-then extinct early 21st century left/liberal in hisorher natural habitat.

Rule #1: Never take advice on land or economic planning from someone who lives in Houston, TX. They have neither. It works for them thanks to the oil industry and the federal subsidy known as the space program. That is their strategy, it works for them, but don't try to replicate it.

David Thomson,

How about this, we don't tell you how to run Houston, and you don't tell the rest of the US how they should run their place. It is called competition, and you should embrace it. In the end I would pay a whole lot more to enjoy the clean air of Vermont than the air in Houston.

I don't think the WalMart issue is totally one of externalities. Isn't there a "prisoner's dilemma" aspect? That is, isn't it possible that, if a WalMart is available, everyone is individually better off shopping there, but the community as a whole would be better off without one?

This certainly need not always be the case, but it could be in some circumstances. If so, then the "people shop there so it must be a good thing," argument doesn't necessarily hold.

Kelli,

You wrote:

Rich,

I acknowledge your broader argument (stated much the same thing myself), but your specific point about tourist dollars being important raises a counterargument in my own mind. In a nutshell, this involves WHO gets to determine the desirable qualities of the "community" and WHO gets the economic payoff therefrom. If the choice for a working Vermonter is between working in a mom and pop store (or a quaint B and B, etc.) vs. working for a big multinational--where is she/he better off? I'm inclined to say the latter. Moreover, as Vermont is NOT its own country, but one state in a larger union, can we cede special rights to current residents there (we'll take the ugly Walmarts, you take the corner stores, we'll spend holidays with you, you shop big with us) at the long-term expense of FUTURE (potential) residents? This Vermont model of development seems to allow little scope for entrepreneurship altogether, but especially of the new immigrant/person of color variety. If we allow Vermont to cast itself in amber, are we enshrining a 19th century racial balance there, while the rest of the country changes and grows?

Food for thought, is it not?

Food for thought indeed. I agree that preserving the past is a tricky thing when there are elements of the past that are rather distasteful. I am reminded of the classic example written about the East End of London by (the other) Jane Jacobs. Her story was how the effort to preserve the Spitalfields area of London was discrimination against the growing Bangladeshi community in the area. It highlights the tensions in preservation of the past, even if that is the name of remembering past immigrant groups. All I can say about that is one has to be careful towards what end historical preservation is being used towards. I think that racial elements are largely lacking in Vermont, at least right now.

As for the economics, I think you position the choice quite clearly. Is it better to work for a multi-national corporation or a Mom and Pop store? In the short-term I might agree that the multi-national is a better situation. However an environment with lots of small business is inherently more competitive locally than a market dominated by a single business. The prices might be higher in spite of the competition, but the competition opens up many doors for new entrepreneurship.

I would definitely argue that a fragmented marketplace encourages entrepreneurship more than a consolidated market. In a Wal-Mart model all the distribution is dominated by a single company that will not do business with a competitor. However in a fragmented market there are likely to be one or many distributors who are ready to sell to any new business.

Finally you put forward that Vermont is but one state in the Union and they should not be allowed to make the choice they are making. I think actually they are totally allowed to make the choice, which is why we have states, and are not just a single nation-state. Vermont is making a competitive choice here. It might end up being the wrong choice, but it is a choice they are making. Now if they say, "No Wal-Marts" that is wrong. But if they say, "Maximum square footage of retail establishments is 25,000 sq. ft" that is fine by me. They are allowed to regulate their own market. Almost every place does this with everything from zoning regulations to licencing barbers. There is certainly an argument against all state regulations of the market, but I think almost all reasonable economists agree that setting rules for the market is neccesary to having that market function.

This is certainly an interesting topic though, and definitely is bringing out the best in this blog. Thanks Dan.

Ahhhhhhhh... reminds me of the good old Reagan days of Enterprize Zones when some cities in California tried (unsucessfully) to have their entire city designated as an "enterprize zone".....

I propose that the entire State of Vermont be declared a National Park and preserved in its current state forever. All property will be siezed by eminent domain and all private citizens removed. Not only will this preserve natural beauty and historical locations, but it will also rid the Congress of Leahy, Jeffords and Sanders.

Join the movement for a VNP!

Lord knows, I want Vermonters to decide their own fate and it is perfectly within their rights to zone Walmart down or out of the state. I would were I in their shoes.

But there is something fundamentally wrong about declaring something--a state?!--perfect as it is and worthy of being protected and preserved in perpetuity.

I think of my college roommate as the quintessential Vermonter (though she was raised across the border in NH, apparently not quite perfect enough to merit museum status). She and her husband live on the side of a mountain in southern Vt. in a home they built (literally) themselves. On the other side of the hill live his parents. Two hills over live his brother and his family. They're organic sheep dairy farmers. My friend is a college prof. Hubby is a vet. Mom is a non-denomination preacher. Who can make this stuff up? I love them to death, they are great, hard-working people. Here's the catch: he was smart enough to have ancestors who bought up a large swath of land in S. Vermont some two hundred years ago. Can everyone do this? No. And there is something "baronial" (aristocratic) about the whole thing that smells to me. If no more than a tiny fraction of the local population can aspire to this lifestyle, can it be declared good for all?

One thing I think the pro-Walmart people ignore is the binary result of opening a Walmart. It is truly an either or type of proposition. If a Wal-mart opens and only 20% of the people in a given region shop there in the first year, this will decimate the small shops that are in competition - the small shops will go out of business. In effect, a minority will dictate what the lifestyle of the region will be.

MickSlam:

One thing I think the pro-Walmart people ignore is the binary result of opening a Walmart. It is truly an either or type of proposition. If a Wal-mart opens and only 20% of the people in a given region shop there in the first year, this will decimate the small shops that are in competition - the small shops will go out of business. In effect, a minority will dictate what the lifestyle of the region will be.

Seems to me this point of minority control might be applied to *any* degree of social change. For example, could this point be used in an argument against homosexual unions? The question in that case seems to me a similar one; societal impact on the majority by a relative few, and like the WalMart question is a question of rights on one side, vs the continuance of society's values on the other. And, like the Walmart issue, is an all-or-nothing thing; there's no half measures that will be accepted.

The more libertarian among us (and certainly, the more liberal) constantly ask how homosexuals being given the right to marry will affect the rest of us. Perhaps this kind of thing should be part of the answer given them?

Another matter, and perhaps a larger question than Vermont;

It strikes me as passing strange that there should be such interest in maintaining the trappings of small-town life in Vermont, while those in power there are so bent on imposing societal changes in that state by means of the same power; Government. A quickie search on Google on the string: "vermont social change" reveals several hits regarding 'social changes' being wrought in vermont by both government and various groups... including financial institutions, I notice.

Vermont is not unique here, but is merely the leading edge along with California and other leftist dominated states, such as Mass, for example. And so the question becomes one that involves western society as a whole;

How can it be productive to save the pleasant trappings of the culture,(by ironcly, eliminating economic growth within that culture) while eliminating the culture that produced them?

Can we forsee anything but the utter destruction of any society so caught between two such forces?

Ever seen the North side of Burlington? A Wal-Mart would be a giant improvement.

To add to Mike's first post, just in the last few years, New England has lost two big discount department store chains: Ames and Bradlees. Not too long before that, we also saw the bankruptcy of low-price Zayre, Caldor, and Lechmere.

We may be big box virgins but we are definitely not big store virgins. The decline of small local stores has been going on for a long time.

Perhaps it can be managed. But short of banning cars, I don't think it can be reversed.

Eighty years ago, everyone who wasn't a farmer worked in town and lived in town, so they shopped in town. Perhaps if we tightened the zoning laws and prohibited anyone from working more than five miles from their place of residence ...

The comment about externalities reminded me of a column written by Martin Feldstein sometime in the '80s. Feldstein is a hot-shot economist, generally considered a conservative. He was head of Ronald Reagan's Council of Economic Advisors before being fired for complaining about the deficit.

Without all the grazing of dairy cattle, he said, innumerable meadows and hillsides would revert to forest. And much of the scenic value of New England driving would be lost.

Don't laugh. He is probably right about that. The Skyline Drive around Shandoah National Park in Virgina used to be breathtaking. Much of the road went through farms that had failed during the '20s and '30s and been lost to taxes. However, now there is a uniform covering of trees. One drives through trees at low points and looks out onto tree tops at high points. Most people consider it boring (though not as boring as the Trans-Canada through the great boreal pine forest of east-central Canada, where the ground is level and the forest continuous).

Feldstein thought the loss of scenic value would be very significant. But since no one pays directly for scenic value, there was a market failure. For him, milk price supports which kept dairy farms in existence were a kind of second-best solution for this problem. By paying higher prices for milk, people would be indirectly paying for scenery.

I think the solution here is clear - pave over Vermont. New Hampshire needs more parking.

Roger, people would also be paying for more milk. Or they would be paying for less scenery somewhere else.

Farmers respond to higher milk prices by increasing production, much as other manufacturers do. If you increase milk prices, what you will get is production increases that will be greatest in the areas where milk is cheapest to produce (the West Coast) and where there are the greatest number of dairy farmers (Wisconsin). If you restrict the price increases to New England, as Congress has tried to do, you restrict access to that region's dairy market for producers in other parts of the country.

It would be possible to preserve Vermont's dairy industry as if in amber, by doing what Europe does: extravangantly subsidizing farmers while strictly regulating their production. That would be great for the preservation of scenery in one small state, but I am unable to think of any other reason it should be done.

But short of banning cars....

Perhaps if we tightened the zoning laws and prohibited anyone from working more than five miles from their place of residence ...

We're already seeing arguments that such would be a good thing for "environmental reasons".

Don't give 'em any ideas, Roger.

What's with everyone here saying "I acknowledge your argument" instead of "You're full of s**t!"?
You people call yourselves bloggers?

But seriously, folks: an entire state?

State of mind, maybe.

“Rule #1: Never take advice on land or economic planning from someone who lives in Houston, TX. They have neither. It works for them thanks to the oil industry and the federal subsidy known as the space program. That is their strategy, it works for them, but don't try to replicate it.

David Thomson,

How about this, we don't tell you how to run Houston, and you don't tell the rest of the US how they should run their place. It is called competition, and you should embrace it. In the end I would pay a whole lot more to enjoy the clean air of Vermont than the air in Houston.”

Vermont is only a good size suburb. Any state with a population of roughly 608, 827 people should not be taken too seriously. If Houston disappeared, the United States economy would be pushed into a depression. Vermont would barely impact the stock market for a couple of days. That’s just a harsh fact of life. Vermonters definitely have the right to democratically choose their way of life. However, It is very fair to assert that such a choice nationwide would bankrupt our country and turn us into a second rate power. Moreover, poor people are able to earn a living in Houston. In Vermont, they have to either move out of the state or go on welfare. This state literally passes laws that make poor people feel unwelcome. Any area the size of Vermont that has less than a million people may even be racist. Less than half of Houston’s population is white. Out of curiosity, how many minorities live in Vermont? Forbidding a Wal-Mart to open in your neighborhood is tantamount to declaring war on poor people.

“I think of my college roommate as the quintessential Vermonter (though she was raised across the border in NH, apparently not quite perfect enough to merit museum status). She and her husband live on the side of a mountain in southern Vt. in a home they built (literally) themselves. On the other side of the hill live his parents. Two hills over live his brother and his family. They're organic sheep dairy farmers. My friend is a college prof. Hubby is a vet. Mom is a non-denomination preacher.”

I bet that these folks are all white. Doesn't it remind you of pure Aryanism? Adolph Hitler would have probably loved living in Vermont. Gosh, they certainly know how to keep their neighborhoods free of minorities. The Ku Klux Klan should take lessons.

Zathras,

Feldstein was writing at a time when milk markets were more local (and even now federal law penalizes non-local milk). The idea was New Englanders would pay more for milk and in return get the scenery that deep in their hearts they wanted (and which also brought in some tourist dollars) but were unable to pay directly for.

David Thomson, you're either an idiot or an instigator. Either way, you're just about the only person in this discussion who hasn't contributed something positive. You want to compare the level of racism and the prevalence of the KKK in Vermont with your own stomping grounds in Texas? Fine. You'll lose that particular debate. You think Vermont is "unfriendly" to poor people? Then why are our poverty rates and unemployment rates consistently lower than the national average? Why do we ensure that every single child under age 18, and something like 96% of adults, is provided with health insurance coverage? You slam us for being "leftists" and then slam us by claiming we're stingy to poor people and minorities. Umm, it's either one or the other bub, and when it comes to being stingy, racist bastards, Texas is the posterchild, not Vermont.

“David Thomson, you're either an idiot or an instigator. Either way, you're just about the only person in this discussion who hasn't contributed something positive. You want to compare the level of racism and the prevalence of the KKK in Vermont with your own stomping grounds in Texas?”

The bottom line is this: Vermont is a very white state. Texas has far more minorities. Do the white people of Vermont deliberately scheme against racial minorities? No, not directly. However, the pervading economic policies of that state effectively brings about the same result. Am I exaggerating? OK, what are the population figures of Vermont? Is Vermont at least 90% white? Most of my neighbors are people of color. We have a Hispanic family on one side of our home, and a black one on the other side. I bet all your neighbors are white. Am I jumping to an invalid conclusion?

David, your other valid point aside...

Is Vermont at least 90% white?

Ummm..Isn't that the national average?
Or was it 8%? I forget.

Oh my God, Vermont is a very white state! I just found the US Census Bureau’s results of 2000. Look for yourself:

http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/50000.html

96.8% of all Vermonters are white. Black people represent only .o5% of the state’s population. Damn, it looks like only a few of them are allowed to be maids and butlers. The Ku Klux Klan was never this successful. They need to learn from the Vermonters. Talk about racial segregation.

Roger, milk markets in the 1980's were not dramatically different from what they are like today, except for the fact that there are now a smaller number of farmers serving them, each milking many more cows than was typical then. The structure of milk markets is largely determined by federal market orders that have remained essentially unchanged for decades. Feldstein's proposal for New Englanders to subsidize scenery through milk prices might work if New England were an island; since it isn't, the effects of his proposed policy change on people outside New England have to be considered too.

Also, who says New Englanders can't pay for scenery directly? Residents in many states pay for everything from subsidized college tuition to wildlife preservation through dedicated taxes, extra license plate fees, and even lottery proceeds. Why is subsidizing milk prices the only or indeed anything close to the most efficient way of funding scenery preservation?

Sure, Vermont's overwhelmingly white, but that has nothing whatsoever to do with racism or economic policies that discriminate against minorities. It has to do primarily with the fact that a) Vermont never had slavery, and hence no large-scale black population coming out of the 19th century, b) Vermont is obviously on the northern border, and hence has no geographical proximity to large hispanic populations, and c) Vermont is entirely rural, and so, like other rural areas, has no cosmopolitan urban centers to attract immigrants from other countries or people from states that do satisfy the previous two conditions.

At any rate, the suggestion that Vermont is a more racist place than Texas is so transparently ludicrous, that it really isn't worth discussing further. Like I said, you're either being an idiot or an instigator, and frankly, I'm wasting my time on you either way.

David Thomson,

The shallowness of your argument hurts. It pains me to see how conservatives love to throw around racism at their opponents while doing less than nothing to actually improve the situation of minorities.

OK, so there are no poor people in Vermont? Wrong. I worked at a housing project in Vermont. There is lots of poverty. It sucks. People are denied traditional livlihoods. This sucks. However it is more economically competitive to keep the forests for tourists to enjoy than loggers to log. You make the choice: allow people to protect was is valuable, or allow the old economy to continue without adjusting to new preferences.

As for minorities...did it occur to you that Vermont was poor a long time ago and did not bring slaves in? Perhaps that is a reason it is so white today? Doesn't sound like racism to me.

But wait, African-Americans moved north in the 20th century...why didn't they move to Vermont? Well, mostly because the place was poor. It lacks natural resources, it is isolated, it is hard to transport goods in the state, and it is cold. It didn't have the jobs that were in Baltimore, New York, Philly, and Chicago. In short, life sucked in Vermont. Why would you want to move there.

So, basically Vermont sucked...that is why they lack minorities, do you want to call that racism?

Today preferences has shifted. We have central heating and Land Rovers. Some of the disadvantages of Vermont have become advantages. Now they have a new population moving in. But is that population exclusively white? No. In fact a friend of mine's family just bought a house in Vermont. Guess what...Not White! No issues with Vermont being racist though.

However I don't want facts to get in the way of a good argument, so just believe what you are going to believe.

Bithead,

an almost good point. Note that while heteros don't have to look in the bedroom of homos, Vermonters will be forced to shop at Wal-mart. This is the essence of my argument. It is an either/or choice. Allow Wal-mart, and you cannot have the small town feel.

That being said, your point is also good - many situations can be viewed through this lens. In don't think gay marriage is a good example of this, though. Note in the gay marriage situation, a majority or near marjority support it, so while only small numbers of people will take advantage of it, many people actively support or are indifferent to gay marriage. Only a minorty oppose.

A better example is some school voucher programs. Specifically, when the voucher programs take away an amount of money from the public schools for every child that uses a voucher. Because it doesn't cost as much to teach the 18th kid in a class as it does the 2nd kid, taking away an average amount for every child using a voucher is a huge drain on resources for school districts. If 20% of kids use vouchers, well, you can be sure that costs are not 20% less for the school district. Some costs don't scale as a percentage of sales. Any businessperson will tell you this, businesses make their money on the tails, not per unit. You've got fixed costs to cover, my man.

Note that with incremental returns and competition, the cheapest always wins, despite the wishes of a majority of participants. It's one of the paradoxes that are thrown up by competitive markets in a democracy. Don't get me wrong, I love capitalism. You would be totally shocked at my background and profession.

take care

Sure, Vermont's overwhelmingly white, but that has nothing whatsoever to do with racism or economic policies that discriminate against minorities.

In today's climate, where a slihgt discrepancy between the employees at a given establishment, and the residential area area surrounding it, is ruled by the courts to be racism in action, proving Vermont is not all white by means of racism, may be problematic at best.

Before you start; Of course it's not racism per se'... I'm simply pointing up there's more to the story

That being said, your point is also good - many situations can be viewed through this lens. In don't think gay marriage is a good example of this, though. Note in the gay marriage situation, a majority or near marjority support it, so while only small numbers of people will take advantage of it, many people actively support or are indifferent to gay marriage. Only a minorty oppose.

I think you may be over-estimating support, but in reality the point was unintended and unknowable consequences for a given action.

A better example is some school voucher programs. Specifically, when the voucher programs take away an amount of money from the public schools for every child that uses a voucher. Because it doesn't cost as much to teach the 18th kid in a class as it does the 2nd kid, taking away an average amount for every child using a voucher is a huge drain on resources for school districts. If 20% of kids use vouchers, well, you can be sure that costs are not 20% less for the school district. Some costs don't scale as a percentage of sales. Any businessperson will tell you this, businesses make their money on the tails, not per unit. You've got fixed costs to cover, my man.

And here you have the situation reversed... increasingly, vouchers are desired by the majority... when they're given the clear chocies.

And since we're doing popularity contests, and given the numbers of people who shop at Walmart, it being the number one retailer in the world, much less the US in terms of dollar sales, one could argue that the majority's interests enter here as well.

Odd, how that works out.

bithead,

"I think you may be over-estimating support, but in reality the point was unintended and unknowable consequences for a given action."

I don't think the consequences are unknowable for bringing Wal-mart to small, rural communities, and it is not unintended. This was WM's business plan for most of their early growth.

1. I specifically made specific the style of voucher program I used as an example. I do not oppose vouchers as you seem to imply, but only wanted to further illustrate the principle at work. In addition, I made no claims about voucher popularity. By changing my example into something quite different you show your true intentions, or just missed my point entirely.

2. I did not claim that Wal-mart was unpopular nationwide, but only that bringing into a community where a majority oppose it effectively elimintates choice. You could read the statistic you quote as support for your point of view in two ways, one that more people like Wal-mart, and two, people don't have other choices in many communities served by Wal-mart. The second view is supported by Wal-marts famous business strategy of moving into small communities and deliberately putting local firms out of business. By choice, I mean between Wal-mart and small businesses, not between Wal-mart and supermarket chains or Target.

Zathras,

I wasn't trying to justify Feldstein's suggestion, just explain it. I suspect he would agree that for the plan to be successful, the New England milk market would have to be somewhat isolated from the rest of the country.

"I don't think the consequences are unknowable for bringing Wal-mart to small, rural communities, and it is not unintended. This was WM's business plan for most of their early growth"

OK, what busienss coming into an area, isn't hoping to dominate that marketplace? You may want to mark off such a business as one not to invest your retirement in.

The unintended part, in this case, is that the small towns will cease to exist as a result. Or, will they?

I specifically made specific the style of voucher program I used as an example. I do not oppose vouchers as you seem to imply, but only wanted to further illustrate the principle at work. In addition, I made no claims about voucher popularity. By changing my example into something quite different you show your true intentions, or just missed my point entirely.

Sorry, that you got that impression, and I don't mean to single you out, by any means... but frankly, I doubt that I missed much. Let me pull back for a moment, so as to allow us to focus on the wider angle.

My intent has been to poke holes in this argument against the Box stores from several angles. So far, I've dealt with only two.

I've brought questions about applying the original argument, regarding the minority exerting is influence on the majority, equally and fairly to other matters... and I take it that point was met lukewarmly at best. Understandable that folks would be discomforted by the comparison, I guess. Not exactly PC, that. Such a line of htinking would never see the light of day in Vermont. (Snicker!)

On this second sub-thread, I've raised the question about Box stores... BEING supported by a minority. The sales figures of the leader alone, WalMart, in this case, would seem to suggest that Walmart is in fact supported by a largish majority. When added to the remaining box stores, the numbers are overwhelming.

2: I did not claim that Wal-mart was unpopular nationwide, but only that bringing into a community where a majority oppose it effectively elimintates choice

And I would argue in response that, no, it does not eliminate choice. Quite the contrary, rather, since by definition, the effect you descrbe is people MAKING their choice. If in fact they manage to close off the other stores, people have voted with their feet, and the majority does not in fact oppose it's being there.

Put another way; if the majority opposed Box Stores, (WalMart, et al) they'd not be nearly the rally cry among protectionists, that they are today, would they, really?

"David Thomson, you're either an idiot or an instigator. Either way, you're just about the only person in this discussion who hasn't contributed something positive. You want to compare the level of racism and the prevalence of the KKK in Vermont with your own stomping grounds in Texas? Fine. You'll lose that particular debate. You think Vermont is "unfriendly" to poor people? Then why are our poverty rates and unemployment rates consistently lower than the national average? "

So you're backing up your statement that Vermont is not unfriendly to poor people by pointing out that Vermont has fewer poor people than Texas? I find that rather amusing.

Seems to me that it would be more friendly to poor people to stop hassling them and the people they work for and let them get by in peace. Judging by the number of poor people that congregate in jurisdictions that stay closer to that ideal, poor people themselves agree.

bithead,

Your remarks give me the impression you don't have even the smallest understanding of my points.

Mickslam

Oh, I understand them just fine, thank you. Apparently, I'm going to have to spell this out for you;

Where you're running into problems, apparently is that the logic you used to arrive at them doesn't work when it's applied elsewhere... and that's usually a prety good indication that the logic is faulty.