Great points. I would add though that some ordnances that prohibit certain building materials can also be business friendly - in the long run. Cities are continually filled with cheap vacant buildings that make being attractive to businesses in the future a real chore. I don't like ordnances dictating these kinds of restrictions (covenants work better) but I am content to accept it as a compromise. Being business friendly has never meant being agreeable to cheap businesses. In very expensive places, businesses thrive as well. The success of economic development comes at the price of long term savings, a zero debt attitude, and building everything in such a way that it is as sustainable as reasonably possible. Roads, buildings, and infrastructure must not be a pit for energy and resources.
I heartily agree, cities should shy away from any legislation that limits or discourages growth. But it should put more value on the economic viability over the next century over the temporary value of another cheap business.
By the way, I actually disagree that in all or even most cases, metal buildings are cheaper. There are many great examples of old, existing structures being reused with great savings. It just takes more time and work to make it happen.
Thanks so much for your insight! I know I personally am really looking forward to having your perspective here at COV.
All Comments
I heartily agree, cities should shy away from any legislation that limits or discourages growth. But it should put more value on the economic viability over the next century over the temporary value of another cheap business.
By the way, I actually disagree that in all or even most cases, metal buildings are cheaper. There are many great examples of old, existing structures being reused with great savings. It just takes more time and work to make it happen.
Thanks so much for your insight! I know I personally am really looking forward to having your perspective here at COV.