Last week, I wrote concerning West Palm Beach’s City Place and how we could avoid making the same errors. I am a proponent of the government not becoming more involved in the market than is absolutely necessary. Governments do not understand the true nature of free markets. In my experience, when government seeks to have more than a minimum involvement, it corrupts market forces.

In the U.S. today, real estate is as perfect a market as possible . What is a perfect market? It has to have certain characteristics such as no participant in the market can set prices. Another characteristic is that there are no artificial boundaries to entering or leaving the market. There must be opportunity to fully maximize profit from one’s investment.

The one factor that can truly influence outcome without contributing to the general equilibrium of the market is government interference. The moment any government entity enters the market with any expectation of a desired outcome that is in contradiction to market forces, the market becomes imperfect. One of the biggest problems for the market is when government owns the means of production (i.e., the land or building). When government sells or leases property, it tends to have other motives which pervert not only that one parcel but the entire market which is unduly affected.

I am not suggesting that building and zoning codes are not needed. Our citizens and residents do need to have a community that reflects their desires in the place they want to live.  However, that being said, government should tread very, very carefully when becoming the Owner of income-producing property.  The irony is not lost on me that Stuart will continue to be the ground owner of the Triangle Property, and as such, has contributed to just what I am saying I am against. At the present moment and with that particular property, it would not have been developed because of earlier government involvement.

The City of Stuart’s next construction venture may be building a parking garage. Before even contemplating spending tax dollars on such a project, a few questions must be thoroughly vetted. This week, I learned from senior staff that within the downtown area, there are approximately 1700 parking spaces of which 1450 are public. Without being a traffic engineer or expert, I can’t believe we do not have adequate parking at present.

I am downtown almost every day and several evenings per week and have found no problem finding a space. During peak times in the evening, I will park at the Sailfish lot which is less than a 2 minute walk from the Lyric or The Gafford. With the tram and now valet parking, it is convenient for everyone to use either that lot or the Kiwanis lot and be at your destination within minutes.

For argument’s sake, I will assume that a garage is needed. Where should it be built? The most likely places for construction would still be on the present parking lots or at least in a location just as far away. Therefore, how many spaces would we actually gain? If we acquire private property to build a garage it would still be in the general areas where we now have lots, and we would be losing the ad valorem tax revenue by the taking of private property and converting to a public use.

Wherever we locate a public garage, the city will be perverting the market today and in the future. It is evident that there is no private market for a parking structure or it would have been built using private dollars and then charging the users. This then leads me to the conclusion that even if the city built a garage, the cost of construction and the continuous maintenance would fall on our taxpayers and not the users. Is it the city’s place to subsidize a perceived need for the private businesses in our downtown area using the tax dollars of all taxpayers?

For the next half century, the location of the garage would determine the direction and shape of development for the entire corridor. Depending on area and height, the garage could end up being the largest building in the district. Both aesthetically and economically, the garage will have an enormous impact on the real estate market for years. Once again, by insinuating itself in the private market, government would most likely have an outsized say in the future of downtown development and all of Stuart.

Before Stuart spends millions of dollars of taxpayer money on a perceived solution in search of a problem, much more objective sturdy would be needed. Societal and technological trends also should be taken into account. Thirty years ago we needed to go to a physical store to buy every conceivable product. Today, I ordered two hats, office supplies and a new kitchen blender without leaving my office. As society continues to evolve perhaps thirty years in the future, children will look to an empty parking structure (that Stuart will still be paying for) and ask “What’s that, Mommy?”