Let me say at the outset that I am adamantly opposed to growth. Growth means change and in my view, all change is for the worse. I’d rather have everything stay the same – or, better still, revert to the idyllic, prehistoric past (accompanied by modern amenities such as air-conditioning, hot tubs, 500 channels, etc., of course.) Otherwise, I follow Lawrence’s quarrels about growth with the impartiality of one who rusticates in the bucolic hinterlands of Douglas County…

Like many cities, Lawrence seems to lurch back and forth between periods of galloping growth and campaigns to combat growth. The recent election suggests that Lawrence is headed back toward a pro-growth direction, amid cries about candidates in the hip pockets of greedy developers and dire warnings of an explosion of giant shopping centers and barracks-style apartments. It would be better if the interests of growth and preservation were approached by the spirit of cooperation and compromise. But that’s not the way of the world, and Lawrence has its fair share of contentious residents who like to vent rage and to demonize those who disagree with them.

In a well-run city with a coherent vision of the future, a developer ought to be able to submit plans with a reliable sense of what will pass muster and to get a prompt answer. Lawrence, however, has acquired a reputation for lengthy delays and whimsical, inconsistent interpretations of its own rules. In the case of the proposed Wal-Mart at Sixth Street and Wakarusa Drive, the city should have had requirements in place that Wal-Mart could either fulfill or pack its bags. Instead, the city obliged Wal-Mart to read its mind and guess what magic formula would open the doors. Some commissioners seemed categorically opposed to Wal-Mart and unlikely to approve any design. The case has wound up in court, a costly approach to city planning.

Wal-Mart, of course, is a bane to some and many love to hate it. A letter in this paper sniffed at people who shop there “for things they don’t need.” (Like what: detergent, toothpaste, groceries, underwear?) But Wal-Mart’s low prices are a boon to people of modest means And why do people rant about the “big box” look but give a pass to the monolithic school across the street, which is hardly a thing of beauty either?

Antipathy to growth in Lawrence has produced some dubious ideas. A proposal to ration the amount of various types of retail store has been promoted as a means of preventing overbuilding. But overbuilding is usually self-correcting and the argument that too many shoe stores, for instance, would lead to vacancies and blight sounds farfetched and disingenuous. The proposal really looks like a ploy to frustrate development. Developers may be willing to sell their own children for a dime and may eat asphalt for breakfast, but if they really “care for nothing but profit,” why would they build something for which there’s no demand, which is doomed to fail?

The question of whether new construction “pays for itself” in terms of city services has likewise been raised. But it involves so many variables, it may defy a certain answer. Proposed “impact fees” based on evaluations of this question come across as another device whose real purpose is to foil development.

Much of Lawrence’s anti-growth sentiment is justified on the need to protect downtown, one of Lawrence’s prime attractions. But it may be time for a fresh look at what downtown needs to survive and prosper. The self-congratulatory mantra, “We saved downtown by defeating the Cornfield Mall,” has been repeated ad infinitum and has acquired the stature of a sacred truth. But the Cornfield Mall got built anyway – piecemeal – on South Iowa street and elsewhere. Downtown survived by adapting.

Conventional wisdom argues that people come to downtown for the unique “Mom and Pop” shops, which must be protected from competition. But how many of these unusual shops – Reiki Ray’s Holistic Center, Kwality Comics, The Giant Flea, Lawrence Metaphysical Psychic Shop, Big Daddy Cadillac’s Tattoos, to name a few – are really threatened by chain stores and the basic, interchangeable products they offer? Protectionism, moreover, usually has unhealthy side effects. And I defy any chain store to compete with the likes of Wheatfields, the Free State Brewery or Silverworks.

Loathing of chain stores is widespread in Lawrence, but according to a recent article in the Atlantic Monthly, the attempt to keep downtowns “authentically local” has backfired elsewhere. “Downtown stores stay empty, or sell low-value tourist items like candles and kites, while chains open on the edge of town,” writes Virginia Postrel. She also challenges the bromide that “everywhere looks like everywhere else” due to the sameness of shopping centers. “Stores don’t give places their character. Terrain and weather and culture do.”

Downtown Lawrence currently has an alarming number of vacant spaces. Are these caused by suburban competition or other factors? Limiting the number of chain stores downtown has been proposed, but are chain stores really breaking down doors to get in? There are usually good crowds on the sidewalks, an essential for the atmosphere that makes a downtown vibrant. But downtown’s rowdy night life is an increasing problem. Tax breaks and other incentives for downtown’s small retail operators and property owners might be more helpful than attempts to curtail suburban development. (How about requiring every Lawrence resident to spend at least $100 a month downtown – or spend a day in the pillory?)

Rising property values and taxes are fueling a backlash on the no-growth approach to retail and commercial development. Regardless of whether Lawrence “needs” a second Wal-Mart, its sales and real estate taxes would contribute substantially to the city’s coffers. A letter to this newspaper extolled Claremont, Calif., for its “smart” and no growth policies and Claremont is a lovely town. But its homes are expensive and real estate taxes are high. Only the affluent can live there. I don’t know anyone who’s crazy about “barracks-like apartments,” but some people can’t afford anything more elegant.

The specters of Olathe and Topeka are evoked as examples of towns that sold their souls to growth and much homage is paid to Lawrence’s “quality of life.” But is life utterly degraded in those towns? Lawrence has much to recommend it, but the habit of seeing it as exceptional encourages an unhealthy kind of snobbism and the notion that it must be immunized against all change.

Lawrence has a right and an obligation to oversee its growth and developers must be kept in harness. But hatchet-wielding ideologues may be as harmful to the town’s future as rapacious developers. If the champions of growth and the proponents of preservation could learn to negotiate with one another, both sides could win. Lawrence could be a trend setter in enlightened, environmentally positive development. But if the two sides persist in vilifying one another – if the town develops without vision or withers from overprotection – there will be no winners.