In the ongoing public debate about the proposed Interstate 35 lifestyle center, the proponents of the center have relied on two basic arguments.

1. They believe the lifestyle center will generate growth in sales tax revenues. This argument has been countered effectively by demonstrating that the most likely amount of additional retail sales that could be generated in Ames (much of it at the expense of the surrounding communities) is about $60 million — not the $350 million developer Bucky Wolford claims.

2. The construction of the lifestyle center supports a free market economy. Proponents on the Ames City Council say if a developer does not ask for a tax abatement or other breaks, then Ames cannot deny a developer’s request and the city should not “pick winners and losers.” Balderdash! If taxpayers believe in free markets, does that mean they have to favor rezoning for a freeway lifestyle center?

No.

In fact, quite the opposite is the case. It is the responsibility of the government to determine whether private benefits (those accrued to Wolford Development) outweigh the social costs — for example, the lost business in the downtown district when shoppers stop only at the freeway and don’t actually enter Ames, the increased cost of transportation for the citizens of Ames, the disruption caused in the North Grand neighborhood with its concomitant decline in property values.

We need to remember that “free” markets come at a fairly high cost. Governments expend significant amounts on activities that lower the cost of business, such as enforcing property rights and contracts, maintaining infrastructure, providing an educated work force and so forth.

Business and government co-exist and are mutually dependent. It is why the city of Ames has a Department of Planning and Housing and not a Department of Whoopee!

We elect people to our City Council with the expectation that they will carefully distinguish business proposals that will ultimately lead to a greater social good from those which are unlikely to.

Making these informed decisions requires our City Council to deny some developers, as the council did in rejecting Lowe’s initial request to build around North Grand, and as they did in rejecting the Hubbell Realty proposal for a huge residential development around the quarry that has now become the beautiful Ada Hayden Heritage Park.

We are pleased to say yes to industrial growth such as the Barilla plant and other opportunities for meaningful employment for our residents, but there are times we want our City Council to say no to developers.

If someone applied to build an adult book store or a factory farm in your neighborhood, you would probably want our City Council to say no, even if such a developer came with complete funding, signed leases and agreed not to ask for any tax abatement. It is our City Council’s responsibility to make well-informed choices about likely benefits versus likely costs (social and economic) to the public.

Do city officials pick winners and losers? Absolutely! They do so all the time. Most often, the selection of winners and losers doesn’t involve direct subsidies or other such payments. However, by allowing a business to build in Ames, our City Council is picking what its members believe to be a winner. Instead of working with GK Development (the new owners of North Grand Mall) the council is acting as if it has decided that Wolford Development should be the winner in a town that Wolford claims isn’t big enough for both a mall and a lifestyle center.

If the Ames City Council picks Wolford Development as a winner by granting it rezoning, and does so without gathering the appropriate information, then our council is gambling with our money and our town’s future.

Janet E. Klaas

Resident

Ames