Michael Swickard
I have never known a politician who admits being business unfriendly. But they must be out there, because we have so many business-unfriendly ordinances. My friend claims, “I continue in business despite the actions of my local government rather than supported by them.”
Bringing this to the forefront is the Las Cruces City Council election to be held Nov. 3.
There are three citizen groups:
• Those active voters who view the local business community as an engine of prosperity to be encouraged and supported.
• Those who view the businesses as eroding the quality of life in our city by causing too much traffic and pollution.
• Finally, the vast majority of citizens, who are so wrapped up in their own lives that they do not bother to vote.
The upcoming city council elections are a defining moment for business leaders who feel the current council has made business-unfriendly decisions. Likewise, those people concerned about livability issues can vote for councilors who offer a move toward the small-town feeling of the fictional Mayberry in The Andy Griffith Show.
These candidates can promise to pass ordinances making our city less attractive to businesses. They can provide stricter ordinances, more open space and undevelopable land with a firmer control of businesses. In short, they represent more government and less business.
People who have not run a small business cannot understand that life. Owning a local business is part intellectual, financial and emotional. A good comparison is the World Series Of Poker no limit hold’em tournament, where even though someone has a string of good luck, just a couple of unlucky hands in row and they are gone.
Most businesses last less than two years, and only one in 20 lasts more than 10 years.
Examples of being business friendly
As to quality-of-life issues, I came to Las Cruces in 1968 as a freshman in college. I did not have a car, so traffic congestion did not bother me. At that time people wept for the “good old days” when there was only one traffic light in town. That nostalgia craze can get out of hand.
Here are two examples of being business friendly:
• There are prohibitions against letting dogs be in restaurants, except service dogs. The current local government protects us from owners who might let dogs join us at our table. In a business-friendly city, the restaurant owner could post signs warning that dogs are inside — “If you have a problem with dogs, do not enter.”
The point here is that the business owner and the customers would decide if dogs could be in the businesses. Some would vote with their feet and never darken the doorway of a business that allowed dogs inside. Others, though, might find the dog-friendly atmosphere enticing and when selecting where to spend dollars the deciding issue would be that policy.
• In the same way, out of the several hundred restaurants in our city a business-friendly council would permit a couple of restaurants to allow smoking. There are restaurants where the owner, cooks, wait and janitorial staff all smoke. These could have signs declaring, “Do not enter this restaurant if you dislike smoking — you have been warned!”
I would go often to the first restaurant and never ever to the second since I have never smoked and do not like smoke.
Why not do so when smoking is a legal activity in our country? A business-unfriendly council just prohibits smoking in all restaurants despite that fact that a smoking restaurant would be so attractive to some citizens and the traveling public on I-10.
Many travelers do not stop in our town because there is no smoking. The sanctimonious councilors can smirk because they do not have to try to stay in business. If your restaurant is just barely making it financially and all of your workers are smokers, which candidate might you vote for, the business-friendly or unfriendly?
A warning
Now this is not a discussion on dogs or smoking. I only use those examples to show how a business-friendly council would be different. The point in both examples is that an unfriendly council saddles businesses with many things that make it much harder to succeed, while a business-friendly council allows them a reasonable chance to prosper.
People can complain that businesses are ruining our city or that the city council is business adverse. These are meaningless words unless the candidates on both sides of the issue are actually able to be seen as supporting one side or the other.
I would not like to find out after the election that the elected councilor now surprisingly votes business-unfriendly.
Warning: I have been in towns where the business community was hammered too vigorously and smacked financially too often, and it resulted in the residents discovering way too late and to their dismay that the engine of prosperity can be silenced.
Swickard is a weekly columnist for this site. You can reach him at michael@swickard.com.
Swickard bio │ Archives │ Feed