Tribune guest columnist says "open downtown to business," but reaches errant conclusion.

In yesterday’s Tribune, guest columnist Jeff Roudenbush wrote:

The regulations that force bar and restaurant owners to pay so much for a license to sell liquor are disgraceful in a country that prides itself on free and unrestricted trade.

Yes, indeed. That's true.

See, it certainly is possible for us to be in agreement about something.

----

The column hasn’t yet passed muster with the mysterious rules that power the Tribune’s bizarrely erratic random archive generator (RAG). You’ll have to get a copy of the newspaper to read the whole piece (as of Thursday morning, two days followig publication, the column is archived).

While I agree with the overall tone of Jeff’s article, which supports the idea of a riverfront development area and the state of Indiana’s commensurate offer to help with the district’s revitalization by providing non-quota alcohol sales permits at a lower price point, it still seems to me a good idea to forge consensus among existing license holders before proceeding.

According to Jeff, “a greater flow of customers into the downtown will mean that both old and new businesses will be competing for a part of a much larger source of revenue,” and I believe current license holders will come to see the truth of this in time – something that the city’s economic development director can assist them in doing by explaining the special rules governing permits in this scenario and the ultimate benefits to be accrued from their issuance.

In spite of several solid points, Jeff is unable to avoid a mistaken conclusion owing to pre-existing ideological attachments – although the first clauses are accurate:

This new downtown entertainment district has a real chance to bring life into our downtown. Each customer equals actual dollars in spending.

Yes ... but then, a sudden wrong turn:

The YMCA cannot promise that. This is a better direction for downtown development. Let’s give it a try.

"Better direction"?

That's artful, but fallacious in its implication.

By “YMCA,” Jeff is referring to the prospective Scribner Place project, but he is absolutely incorrect in expressing the downtown development equation as an “either/or” proposition.

Scribner Place, while not a panacea, will be the ideal complement to any future “entertainment district” that takes shape downtown. I’ve yet to hear opponents of Scribner Place differ in any serious way with the ability of the YMCA to attract members, and not coincidentally, these members occupy a target demographic precisely the same as that served by restaurants, cafes and pubs of the sort Jeff correctly sees as making use of the benefits of the riverfront development area.

Many critics of Scribner Place seem to base their opposition to the project on a continuing failure to see this demographic staring back at them when they look in the mirror each morning.

This doesn't mean it isn't out there for the plucking.

A riverfront development/entertainment area and Scribner Place are joined at the hip, with each inspiring its own ripple effect – if for no other reason, by bringing people downtown and offering options for their discretionary spending. Tack on the future benefits of recreation offered by Cannon Acres and the Greenway, and the vision becomes even clearer and more obvious.

But don’t take my word for it alone.

Ask the existing downtown merchants and those real estate agents who’re willing to dirty their hands in the vicinity of Scribner Place -- people like Dave at Federal Hill Café and Mike Kopp from Lopp Realty.

Ask Mike what potential clients ask him.

All in all, a good column by Jeff – marred by an erroneous conclusion, but a start, nonetheless.