News
Opinion
As we have experienced the “change” that the election of Nov. 3, 2008, wrought and the nation has since endured, with trepidation I foresee the “change” that our municipal election of Jan. 5, 2010, will bring to Eagle were ERS approved by an “enlightened” majority.
I therefore resolved to become more receptive of the good tidings that the developer (RED) promises were Eagle River Station to come to fruition in our little corner of Eden.
To maintain a positive mindset, and be fair to RED, I then resorted to applying the bedrock economics of an open marketplace, the law of supply and demand. Is the “engine” of the market the demand side or the supply side?
In other words, where there is a strong demand for certain goods or services would that in turn give impetus to suppliers (competitors) to meet or service that demand? Or conversely, where there is an excess of supply of those goods or services, would that result in greater demand in the marketplace for those items, or simply have the affect of depressing prices and values?
I concluded that the driving force for the marketplace is the demand for goods and services in a free and open market where a need (or a want) is satisfied by a producer, manufacturer or even a developer.
The entire rationale behind selling the ERS project to the voters is that there is or will be a strong demand in Eagle for at least 550,000 square feet of shopping space and no less than 500 more residential dwellings in the mid-range price strata -- and that this developer (RED) is the supplier to meet those needs or wants.
If that demand does in fact exist, then the project is founded on sound capitalistic and economic principles. To accept RED's rationale, and justify a yes vote at the ballot box, it became necessary to find evidence of the demand to be sated or fulfilled by the ERS project.
In my investigation to discern some evidence of this demand, I came to realize that: Eagle's population is rather meager (5,800 at most); there is a myriad of empty storefronts (retail spaces) in the old town and at Eagle Ranch; there is a large commercial-industrial complex (Airport Gateway) immediately to the west of Eagle that has been stymied for want of a demand for goods and services, except for Costco; there is a glut of unoccupied, unrented or unsold residential dwellings on the market; there is unemployment of no less than 10 percent at a minimum to use the government's own number, with the local governments (themselves) laying off employees; there is a recession that will be prolonged by a change in the buying habits of the traditional consumer where saving and frugality will become more paramount in the market place; and the inflating dollar diminishes the buying ability of the public in general.
The economic winds do not bode well for RED, for the resident-taxpayers of Eagle, and for the prospective bond holders that are naive enough to invest in ERS rather than in a more prosperous future for Eagle, albeit a more simplistic one.
What the voter may wish for Eagle (a strong demand) cannot be found in its marketplace. What RED may wish for in its quest for profits from sales or a rental return may not materialize,if demand is lacking for its product (ERS).
A “yes” vote for ERS would be premised on one's “wish book” for Eagle's future, whereas a “no” vote would be a testament to one's appreciation for the tried-and-true principles of economics -- a recognition that there must be a market demand to satiate the profit cravings of supply.
Fredric Butler
I therefore resolved to become more receptive of the good tidings that the developer (RED) promises were Eagle River Station to come to fruition in our little corner of Eden.
To maintain a positive mindset, and be fair to RED, I then resorted to applying the bedrock economics of an open marketplace, the law of supply and demand. Is the “engine” of the market the demand side or the supply side?
In other words, where there is a strong demand for certain goods or services would that in turn give impetus to suppliers (competitors) to meet or service that demand? Or conversely, where there is an excess of supply of those goods or services, would that result in greater demand in the marketplace for those items, or simply have the affect of depressing prices and values?
I concluded that the driving force for the marketplace is the demand for goods and services in a free and open market where a need (or a want) is satisfied by a producer, manufacturer or even a developer.
The entire rationale behind selling the ERS project to the voters is that there is or will be a strong demand in Eagle for at least 550,000 square feet of shopping space and no less than 500 more residential dwellings in the mid-range price strata -- and that this developer (RED) is the supplier to meet those needs or wants.
If that demand does in fact exist, then the project is founded on sound capitalistic and economic principles. To accept RED's rationale, and justify a yes vote at the ballot box, it became necessary to find evidence of the demand to be sated or fulfilled by the ERS project.
In my investigation to discern some evidence of this demand, I came to realize that: Eagle's population is rather meager (5,800 at most); there is a myriad of empty storefronts (retail spaces) in the old town and at Eagle Ranch; there is a large commercial-industrial complex (Airport Gateway) immediately to the west of Eagle that has been stymied for want of a demand for goods and services, except for Costco; there is a glut of unoccupied, unrented or unsold residential dwellings on the market; there is unemployment of no less than 10 percent at a minimum to use the government's own number, with the local governments (themselves) laying off employees; there is a recession that will be prolonged by a change in the buying habits of the traditional consumer where saving and frugality will become more paramount in the market place; and the inflating dollar diminishes the buying ability of the public in general.
The economic winds do not bode well for RED, for the resident-taxpayers of Eagle, and for the prospective bond holders that are naive enough to invest in ERS rather than in a more prosperous future for Eagle, albeit a more simplistic one.
What the voter may wish for Eagle (a strong demand) cannot be found in its marketplace. What RED may wish for in its quest for profits from sales or a rental return may not materialize,if demand is lacking for its product (ERS).
A “yes” vote for ERS would be premised on one's “wish book” for Eagle's future, whereas a “no” vote would be a testament to one's appreciation for the tried-and-true principles of economics -- a recognition that there must be a market demand to satiate the profit cravings of supply.
Fredric Butler
