The Lacey example?!

author : Marco Rosaire Rossi

by Marco Rosaire Rossi

In their Nov. 6 issue, editors of the Olympian proclaimed that Lacey was a "role model for its neighbors" because of the city's rapid growth in retail sales through "enticing business patrons." In particular, the editorial compared Lacey's economic growth to that of Olympia's -- where retail sales dropped.

The stated reason for Lacey's increase in sales growth was its "business-friendly environment," while one of the reasons cited for Olympia's sales decline was its "crisis of public safety" in its downtown core. Before everyone else follows the lead of the Olympian editorial board and jumps on the "Lacey model" for economic growth, it is time to ask some important questions: Is the Olympian's analysis of the situation accurate?

Specifically, is there really a public safety crisis in downtown Olympia, and is Lacey's formula for economic growth sustainable?

The public safety question

Despite all the rhetoric about the dangers of Olympia, comparatively speaking, has a very low violent crime rate.

According to FBI figures for 2004, Olympia experienced 333 violent crimes per every 100,000 persons. This is low for both state and national figures. For Washington state, the average is 461 violent crimes per every 100,000 persons, and for the nation it is 596 per every 100,000 persons. The figures become even more interesting when Olympia is compared to its neighbor Lacey for the past few years. In 2003, Olympia had a higher rate of violent crime than Lacey. (Olympia was at 3.3% while Lacey was at 2.8%). But a shift occurred in the following years. Olympia had 145 acts of violent crime in 2003, and by 2005 that figure had dropped to 115 violent crimes. Conversely, Lacey's violent crime rate jumped in 2004 (to 3.3%), and in 2005 remained higher than Olympia's. Olympia had 258 violent crimes per every 100,000 persons while Lacey had 272 violent crimes per every 100,000 persons.

This evidence makes clear that the so-called "public safety crisis" is unfounded. The myth persists and is seriously debated only because of an intense class-bias against the poor and homeless. People with this bias automatically assume that if the homeless or street vagabonds are hanging out together then they must be "up to no good," or if a person is engaging in anti-social behavior downtown, that person must be homeless.

The economic question

The editorial in the Olympian attributes Lacey's recent economic success to its ability to attract major corporate enterprises such as Home Depot and Costco with its "business-friendly environment." Lacey is a very young city -- especially compared to Olympia. It has only been incorporated since 1966, which means that Olympia and Lacey have two very different economic infrastructures. Lacey is very under-developed compared to Olympia. Rapid economic growth through corporate enterprises is possible in underdeveloped areas because you are starting from nothing.

Olympia, on the other hand, has built itself off of industries and businesses that have survived for decades. Allowing major corporate enterprises to move in could seriously disrupt these foundations -- which, for Olympia, would be locally owned businesses that are mostly located in the downtown core.

There is also the issue of how large corporate enterprises tend to depress the economies they enter over time. An essential part of any development plan is the ability to build off of previous gains.

This is difficult to do in a corporate-friendly atmosphere. Dollars spent at Home Depot and Costco vanish from circulation in the local economy. The ability of corporations to undercut prices and offer more services ends up destroying small independent businesses. The low pay and lack of job security for people who work at these businesses stagnates the economy because they only make enough money to cover their basic necessities. In the end, this corporate-friendly environment is not sustainable; it leads to economic growth, but not necessarily to economic development.

Perhaps the biggest and most important loss in this corporate-friendly environment is that of civic virtue. The reorganizing of city life -- with the elimination of public spaces, the arts, and recreation (essentially transforming the city into one big mall) -- also changes its people.

Soon, people start identifying more as consumers, managers, and workers than as citizens. Civic participation and social life end up taking a back seat to corporate-controlled markets. People become more concerned with shopping than they are with voting or more meaningful levels of civic engagement.

Ironically, this atmosphere of isolation and rampant materialism becomes a breeding ground for the very anti-social behavior which the editors of the Olympian claim is preventing people from shopping in downtown Olympia.

Creating our own example

The editors were right that Lacey's neighbors do have a lot to learn from the city, but the lesson is in what not to do. This of course does not mean to say that Olympia is "good" and Lacey is "bad." Both cities have their problems and both have residents who are working to create more livable and democratic communities.

If either city is to move forward in a manner that supports all its citizens, they must craft policies with a focus on social and economic justice. If not, then "lost sales" will be the least of either city's hardships in the perhaps not-so-distant future.

Marco Rosaire Rossi is a street outreach worker and member of The Olympia Movement for Justice and Peace.