Boxing up the West

What’s Smart Got To Do With It?: Growth vs. Grit In Southern Colorado

A well written article, especially the words about Alamosa..."a grand canvas on which to work"... How true. But, a canvas painted is assumed to be a canvas viewed. The "sprawl" now being painted is a picture of prosperity and prosperity is a much prettier and much more comfortable picture than poverty. At every turn we hear so much about poverty in the SLV. God is truly blessing Alamosa with prosperity, wonderful citizens and beautiful surrounding country. Many communities all over the U. S. would happily trade their share of poverty for a small or even a generous helping of "sprawl". Be thankful.

Certainly, though there's responsible, well-planned 'sprawl' and development, and there's garish, unhealthy and value-less sprawl. The difference between the two can mean the difference between a successful community that raises quality of life for its residents, and one that has a proliferation of bland boxes, a few dozen more minimum-wage jobs floating around, and an increased convenience to fast-food, fast-service lovers - but makes little difference in the overall lifeblood of a region.

Tonya,
Do you live in a small town, or do you live in suburbia? As a small town resident, I am very tired of eating hamburgers. A little variety when it comes to "eating out" will be welcomed. Would you be happier if Applebees was opening a restaurant instead of Taco Bell? Not everyone in the Valley could afford that. Eating at a convenient, drive-through, fast-food restaurant is a big night on the town for some folks. People who live in small towns deserve improvements in their standards of living, even if that means building a Taco Bell or (God forbid) a Walmart. If you live in Suburbia, you may not think that Taco Bell and Walmart is a great asset, but I'd be willing to bet that you don't have to drive more than 15 minutes to get to one. Try living in small-town America for more than a couple of weeks during your vacation and lets see if you get tired of eating hamburgers too.

>>.. "but I'd be willing to bet that you don't have to drive more than 15 minutes to get to one. Try living in small-town America for more than a couple of weeks during your vacation and lets see if you get tired of eating hamburgers too."

Debate is one thing, and I'm up for it. Blind assumptions are another. To answer your question (if that's what it was): I live in Crestone. It doesn't get a whole lot more small town than that in this valley when it comes to available services. 15 minutes? Try an hour, each way. I spend 2-3 days a week, every week, in Alamosa - and have found a multitude of great, local mom-and-pop dining options there where I've paid no more than $5-$7 bucks a meal. The Pizza/Pasta Den, the Lamplighter Cafe, Hunans, Nino's, and a healthy handful of others. In fact I've probably had about 20-30 meals in Alamosa in the last several months - and none of them have been hamburgers, and very few have cost me more than a full meal at McDonald's would. So, forgive me, but I'm not quite sure why you're suggesting that Taco Bell and KFC will provide the only viable alternatives to "burgers all the time".

However, to redirect you to the point of the piece: you're absolutely right, people in small towns DO deserve those improvements. I believe the post said as much. But the primary point was that if fast food and chain stores are the city's only plan for development - don't expect quality of life to improve anytime soon as a result.

I absolutely love this area. I'd love to see it succeed.. I live here too. But I suspect, based on the track records of box-store-development in other small towns, this isn't the path to get us there. I'm hoping other plans are in place to balance that out with more local, community-centric business and programs that feed dollars into the community more efficiently, and provide a true value, not just a convenience, above and beyond heavily-processed foods.

"I'm not aware of any other American company more disconnected with or disinterested in the real desires of a community than Wal-Mart."

Really?

In 2004 Wal-Mart sold nearly $259 billion in goods and became the largest private employer in the U.S. It didn’t do this by selling people things they didn’t want or by forcing workers to accept employment they didn’t desire.

By making decisions they thought best, millions of individuals made Wal-Mart successful.

It’s fashionable in some circles to believe that the uncultured masses make the wrong decisions and purchase goods they really don’t need. The bumper sticker of this movement proclaims: “Mall-Wart: Your Source for Cheap Plastic Crap.” Must our citizens be protected from their shortsighted fixation on such trivial matters as lower prices, convenience, and selection?

Beware our “betters” who pretend to know how others should live and work. Their attempts to impose their preferences over the choices of other individuals is neither fair nor democratic.

By disconnect, disinterest and disregard I'm referring to the dozens of communities whose residents have rallied against the proposal of Walmart stores opening in their neighborhoods - people who've instead preferred to support neighborhood stores and locally-made/grown products, and who fear the increase in traffic congestion and pollution that a large superstore inevitably brings to a neighborhood. Yes, Walmart is a favorite springboard for elitist activists who rail on the "cheap crap" train. But that's not what this piece is about.

I'm looking for balance in my community. Walmart provides a service and products to the populations it serves, but it unfortunately also edges out nearly all other possibilities for local, family-owned shops in a community like this one. That's unfortunate, because I've witnessed how wonderful a community can be when you've got a variety of options, rich local character and support for local business. I'm a little surprised. Based on the comments here, you'd get the impression that health, balance and opportunity (beyond minimum wage jobs and convenience) are terrible things to work toward in a small town. Forgive me for valuing those things, won't you?

Not so fast Tonya. Communities value many different things. My point is to be wary of those who would impose their preference on others. Are their feet made of a finer clay...?

Life is not a zero sum game. In regard to Wal-Mart, the City of Bozeman learned this in two commissioned economic studies that found few impact on local business. Those rallying against Wal-Mart often have ulterior motives than protecting their community.

Come visit Bozeman’s main street if you’d like to see diversity and varieties of opportunity.

Business (be they local or national chains) survive and flourish by responding to consumer demands. By making decisions they thought best, individuals make these stores successful.

Here’s the key point: Decisions will be made. But by whom? “Progressives” who oppose or try to ban these particular stores are attempting to impose their preferences over the choices of millions of other individuals. This sort of protectionism is a hyper-conservative position. Is this fair?

Not so fast yourself. Beyond my reference to residents attempting to ban the installation of a Walmart - I never advocated nor even mentioned banning Walmart, Taco Bell, Long John Silver's, AutoZone or anything else for that matter. I expressed disappointment that it appears - based on local buzz - that these are our best and only options for growing the city. I won't apologize for being disappointed by that.

In larger towns, Walmart may be able to co-exist relatively peacefully with other local options and thereby have less affect on variety and opportunity for local business. But in a town of less than 10,000 people, it becomes The Big Only. And we continue to watch downtown shops that have otherwise subsisted on the local market for years shrivel up and close doors leaving little more than dust and increasingly depressed, unvisited downtown in their wake. Similar things are true in the restaurant business, though not as profoundly.

To take itself in the direction it's hoping to, Alamosa will need to find a way to combat an economy of scale that will fast grow out-of-whack as free market options shrink and local income production evaporates. I'm always happy to discuss comments, but I'd appreciate at this point if you'd stop pushing this into an us vs. them debate (seems like you're poised to do so, and looking for a target), and suggesting that only progressive elitists value local community health and welfare. Nobody's looking for boutique here. Just balance

Your angst over the changes to Alamosa are common to New West residents.

Folks across our region see every manifestation of competitive, dynamic economy leading us to an impoverished future. They decry the homogenization of America and perhaps worry that their town’s character and sense of community are being eroded.

These are reasonable fears. But at their root is a strong opposition to change. But change is the natural state of things. And it usually occurs faster in social than in ecological systems.

I’m concerned about the undemocratic desires that well up to constrain change, that are in reality, attempts to impose one set of values over others; often in the guise of protecting "community" values or "balance."

Forgive me if I'm wrong, but it seems as though you're saying that having an opinion about where a community is going, and a preference for local merchants and products and to support local community infusions (which you've called a "guise", so apparently we're lying, too), is to be undemocratic. Rather, we should follow along with the majority and the money and surpress our own opinions and preferences... thereby letting democracy do its thing? That sounds pretty ridiculous. And being resistant to change has little to nothing to do with an opinion - and we all have them - on the trajectory a community takes. Change is in the formula either way - I support some, oppose others. Is this not true for all of us?

But we can agree to disagree.