"Downtown" Socialism; E. W. Dykes

customers to live outside the congested city areas, beyond the reach of the public conveyances which channel cus tomers "downtown." Where there are people, there will be merchants and other servicers to cater to their wants; so that many who formerly took their trade "downtown" are now taking it to the local shopping centers that have sprung up in suburbia. The automobile has created seri ous competition for "downtown." The old and established "downtown" still has advan tages over the upstarts in that, because of its larger clientele, it can offer a greater variety of goods and [357 ] usually at more favorable prices. The automobilist knows this and would like to patronize these merchants, but the inconvenience of getting rid of his automobile once he reaches the central mart induces him to pay more for what he can get at the neighborhood shop. The parking problem is more of a threat to O:O:downtown" than new outlying competitors.

The merchants and servicers who built O:O:downtown" thrived on competition and the problems of business. They met them in their own ways and never asked for help from government. But these are different times. It is in the modern spirit to seek O:O:security"in the bottom less pit of the public treasury. So, instead of tackling off street parking as a business problem-like advertising, merchandising, warehousing, etc.-O:O:downtown"in many cities is demanding that the taxpayers come to its rescue. It is after the city to provide parking lots; of course, it insists that these facilities are for the O:O:generalgood," not for the benefit of its own business interests. In short, these dauntless free enterprisers are taking to the path of socialism. And most of them don't even know that they are. Arguments for Socialism It is interesting to note the 'O:publicspirit" that pervades the arguments of these proponents of city-owned parking lots. (Socialism is always "public spirited.") They run like this: [358 ] 1. Unless "downtown" is saved, its taxable property values will decline, and the city will lose needed revenue.

This is a specious argument. No business is established for the purpose of providing revenue for the city or any other taxing body. If "downtown" were really sincere in its solicitude for the city's revenues, why doesn't it ask the tax appraiser to assess its properties at their true mar ket value? It is a well-known fact that "downtown" is always objecting to what it calls overassessments. Putting that aside, the proponents of city-owned park ing lots overlook the fact that real estate values rise in the outlying sections built up by the automobile, and that the increased taxes on these locations will offset the loss of taxes on "downtown" properties. If they are really concerned about tax revenues, why don't they provide their own parking lots so that the values of their prop erties will not decline? 2. Private parking lots are poorly located. That is, they are not located next door to the stores that need them. So the city should exercise its right of eminent domain to obtain "proper sites." To which one is prompted to ask, how arrogant and selfish can a special interest get? What "downtown" is saying is something like this: "We believe that our businesses are more important (to the community, of course) than are the businesses in the areas where we would like to have parking lots.

Unfortunately, the law does not compel a man to sell his [359 ] property to another man, regardless of price. Eminent domain solves that problem. The city could use this power to seize the property we want, the court could set a proper price, and we could have the parking space so badly needed by the public." That is in essence the proposal made by those who consider themselves champions of private property. 8. Private lots are inadequate, and besides they are generally held on short-term leases, with no assurance of continuity. The charge of inadequacy of the lots is based on· the fact that there are times when they are full. But there are times when the lots could use customers. Every busi ness has its peak periods, and to provide facilities for more than that is to court losses. Should the city be asked to establish banks so that depositors would never have to stand in line? It is true that private parking lots are subject to short term leases. But this is also true of many retail stores, restaurants, beauty shops, every sort of service. Like any other business, the private off-street parking lot will be operated only as long as it is economically justified-as long as it pays its way. And no longer.

4. Cities with parking meters are already in the park ing business; the lot would simply be an extension of established practice. This is what logicians call the "undistributed middle"; it is fallacious reasoning. The fact is that meters were introduced for police purposes-to stop the practice of [360] all-day parking, to try to keep cars off the streets as much as possible-and not as a business venture. The coin put into the meter is in the nature of a tax or :fine, since it goes into the city treasury along with other taxes and fines, and is in no way related to services rendered. Rent ing parking space on a competitive basis, or at fees having some relation to costs, is an entirely different thing. Private Lots Could Not Survive 5. City-owned lots will be in competition with private lots, and parking fees will thus be kept down. This is true only because government competition with private business is unfair in the extreme. The govern ment does not tax itself, and therefore does not have to include this cost in its price. Besides, the government can and does, for political reasons, set its prices below operational costs, passing the loss on to the taxpayers; the private operator has no such escape.

If the city, therefore, should go into the off-street parking business, it would drive the private operator out of business. Nobody in his right mind would risk capital in the parking business (either in lots or buildings), since there would always be the possibility of the city~s open ing up next door and undercutting parking fees. Thus, what '''downtown'' is asking for is the elimination of pri vate enterprise in this particular field; and "downtown" consists of men who beat their breasts for free enterprise. "Downtown" insists that the city would lose nothing [361 ] in the operation of off-street parking facilities; the busi ness would be at least self-supporting. Putting aside the fact that the government seldom makes ends meet in its enterprises (except by trick bookkeeping), the question arises: if the city can do it, why can't the businessmen? Their establishments prove that they have the experi ence and the acumen for running businesses, and surely the parking business is not beyond their capacities. Or is it possible that they have looked into this business and know that it is not likely to be profitable or even self-sup porting? In that case, they are advocating that the city (the taxpayers) take the loss.

There is an excellent reason for "downtown" going into the parking business even if an operational loss is in evitable. Just as a merchant spends money on advertising with the expectation of recouping through increased sales, so the cost of providing parking space for his cus tomers would be offset by the profits on their trade. The merchant does not suggest that the city publish a news paper for the purpose of carrying his advertisements at lower rates. Why should he ask the city to provide a service which is fast becoming as essential as advertising to his business? Self-Serving Schemes But, when you start thinking about getting something for nothing, the principles of free enterprise, or self-reli ance, slip out of your mind and you find it easy to invent schemes to further your purpose. For instance, the [362 ] "downtown" socialists not only advocate city-owned parking lots but also advance a plan for financing this venture in socialism. They propose the issuance of municipal bonds to provide the money. They point out that since such bonds would be free of federal income taxes, there would be no difficulty in floating them.

The thought arises, why does not "downtown" borrow money for the proposed enterprise by issuing its own IOU~s? The reason is this: when a private enterprise borrows money, the loan becomes a lien on the business, and the borrower must run his affairs efficiently so that he can meet the terms of his obligation. A government bond, on the other hand, is a lien on the general taxing power of the government, not on the specinc purpose for which the money was borrowed. If the city should lose money in the off-street parking business, for which the loan was made, the bondholders will still get the interest called for in the indenture; even if the city should aban don the business, the taxpayers would have to meet the payments. So, what "downtown" is suggesting is that the city should hang on the necks of the citizens, present and future, a long-term or permanent debt so that ~'down town" can get the benefit of a service which it does not want to provide for itself.

No matter how you look at this effort to get the municipalities into a business which is essentially a pri vate affair, you find that it is a step toward socialism ~advocated not by long-haired doctrinaires but by many who loudly proclaim their adherence to the principles of free enterprise. [363 ] A SHORT HISTORY OF LIBERTY From Biblical times onward~ the history of lib erty and progress among various peoples seems to have followed a remarkably similar pattern. There are exceptions~ of course-and the time element varies widely~but the pattern may be generally described by ten key ideas in sequence: 1. BONDAGE. At some point in their histories, all peo.. pIes seem to have existed in some form of bondage or slavery-frequently even to their own domestic rulers by their own votes or acquiescence. But when thoughtful persons finally become aware that they are no longer free men, they want to know why. When they ask themselves that question, they automatically turn to contemplation and soul searching. Out of this grows. 0 0 2. FAlTHo If people in bondage have no faith-either in a personal Creator or impersonal ideal-they will re main slaves and eventually die out or be absorbed by another culture. But an intelligent faith will almost always develop into 0 0 0 3. UNDERSTANDING. A person's faith needs to be buttressed by an understanding of why it is evil to force [364 ] any peaceful person to conform to the will and ideas of another person. Otherwise, he is apt to remain a faithful slave or attempt to become a slave-owner. But the com bination of faith and understanding results in the neces sary •..