The store owner’s letter makes several points, but it fails to address one very important factor: How does the city plan to deal with the decrease in business if the population decides not to come downtown? The owner of the store assumes that any decrease in business would be a direct result of skateboarding, and that shutting the skateboarders down altogether would solve the problem. The city of Central Plaza is not sitting idly by as a pack of teenagers assembles on its sidewalks, but rather it is stepping up to address the situation. It is making an effort to educate the teens about the hazards of skateboarding as well as helping them form a legitimate skateboarding club. The city could also encourage teens to shop in its stores instead of at the skate park. The store owner is assuming that the city’s solution must involve banning an activity that is popular, but such a solution would not eliminate the problem. Skateboarding is a means of transportation, and banning skateboarding from the plaza would not prevent people from using it elsewhere in the city.

The store owner recognizes that the decrease in business at Central Plaza is a direct result of the increase in skateboarders. However, he fails to consider the possibility that the increase in skateboarders is a direct result of an increase in business. It is entirely possible that the increase in business contributed to the rise in skaters, and that the closing of the skate park would have a negative effect on the business in Central Plaza. If the storeowner had looked further into the issue, he would have seen that the population of Central Plaza has increased by 25% since 2000. If the population of Central Plaza had remained the same, the number of skateboarders would likely be minimal. However, since the population has risen, the teens are more likely to congregate outside, which attracts the skateboarders. The store owner also underestimates the resourcefulness of teenagers, who would find a way to circumvent the ban and continue skateboarding. He states that ‘If skateboarding is prohibited here, we predict that business in Central Plaza will return to its previously high levels’, but the storeowner fails to consider that banning an activity can have the opposite effect. If the storeowner had researched other cities that prohibit skateboarding, he would have discovered that business dropped drastically after the city enacted its ban. Businesses simply relocated elsewhere in the city. Central Plaza is missing out on the revenue generated by the skateboarders’ purchases, and the storeowner’s prediction that business would rebound if skateboarding were banned is unrealistic at best. The store owner’s recommendation may simply drive the skateboarders to other parts of town, where they could continue to skate, but they would not patronize Central Plaza.

In sum, the store owner’s letter makes several valid points. However, the city’s policy toward skateboarding should be based on facts, not assumptions. If Central Plaza wants to hold on to its existing businesses, it must continue to encourage business in the area. If the city does not succeed in attracting the teens to Central Plaza, then the store owner’s prediction that business would rebound is nothing more than wishful thinking.