The editorial above cites two arguments in support of its claim that the Oak City Mall has caused a downturn in economic activity in the area. The first argument is that the mall has resulted in a parking shortage, and that this is causing local businesses to suffer. The second argument, which I feel is far more valid, is that the increase in crime and vagrancy has actually helped to keep Mall City residents from shopping in the downtown area, causing even more local businesses to suffer

The first argument, concerning the parking shortage, is flimsy at best. It assumes that there is a shortage of parking in the downtown area, and that the mall causes that shortage. For the sake of argument, let’s assume that there is indeed a shortage of parking. Before the mall was built, the downtown business area probably had 50 or more parking spaces. Now, it has less than 10. The first argument therefore has to assume that the mall has caused this shortage. Even if this is true, a mall is not the cause of the shortage. The mall was built because the downtown area had very few businesses. Most of the businesses that existed there did not cater to the suburban clientele that prefers malls. In fact, they were mostly restaurants, bars and a few shops of relatively obscure items. The parking shortage that has occurred is a result of the closure of these shops, not of the construction of the mall itself. It is my belief that the shops that closed were doing poorly, and that the construction of the mall did not really hurt them. The businesses that had been downtown were catering to a clientele that did not exist any longer. The failure of the businesses to keep up with changing times is what caused them to close, not the construction of the mall. If those businesses were doing well, they would not have had to close. The second argument, concerning crime and vagrancy, is much stronger than the first. The Oak City Mall was built nearly two decades ago. During that time, crime has soared and vagrancy has increased. One can reasonably assume that the construction of the mall did not contribute to these changes. The mall itself was built with public money, so it would not have been built if money had any effect on crime. Furthermore, most of the people living downtown were poor and, quite understandably, chose to remain poor. Crime and vagrancy are not things that poor people can afford. The residents of Oak City were not poor before the mall was built, and they are not poor now. The drop in crime is almost certainly due to the economy, not the construction of the mall. The rise in vagrancy is due to the fact that there are more people living downtown, which means there are more people available for vagrancy

The argument above is flawed on two counts. The first is that it fails to consider the effect it has on downtown residents. The second is that it assumes that criminals and vagrants are drawn to the mall. Both of these flaws weaken its conclusion. The first flaw is addressed by the fact that downtown residents are not poor. Those who live downtown are drawing from the wider economy, not from the mall itself. If the businesses downtown were doing well, then the closing of these shops would not cause a problem. The second flaw is addressed in the last paragraph. It shows that the opening of new shops and restaurants in the downtown area has not led to an increase in vagrancy or crime. This makes it clear that the mall is not attracting criminals and vagrants, and that the real problems are elsewhere.