Welcome to the Small Town Project
Jewels of Eastern Iowa
We must protect these jewels of eastern Iowa. These towns. Mount Vernon and Lisbon are near perfect examples of classic American small towns. We residents cherish their small town character. Indeed, many of us live here in large part because Lisbon and MV are such lovely small towns. These are towns where our children can walk to school, where half the town shows up to cheer on the high school football team, towns surrounded by farmland and open spaces, where neighborly values lost in larger cities remain — towns, in short, with true small town character.
But today that character is at risk. Current residential development threatens to erode it. New subdivisions are appearing at an alarming pace, and continued development is planned with no clear end in sight.
The largest development currently under construction is the near 300 home Stonebrook subdivision under way in Southwest MV. That’s easily 1,000 new residents. This town of 4,000 will go to 5,000, a 25% jump in population as a result of this single development!
When is enough enough? Just how big do MV and Lisbon have to be? Many of us believe they’re wonderful towns as they are. With continued growth that will inevitably change.
Who Says Growth is Necessarily Good?
Supporters of unceasing residential development frequently offer economic arguments to justify their agendas, even insisting that such development is necessary for the health of our towns’ economies. Yet their arguments are fundamentally flawed, as we will see in future installments on this site.
But here’s the kicker. Even if their economic assertions were valid, there is a larger problem. Even if residential growth were an effective route to a healthy economy, it is a completely unsustainable strategy. By the logic of such economic theory we would have to keep growing forever to avoid an economic downfall. If you talk with some of the central figures in local government, that seems vaguely to be the plan. Just keep growing and we’ll be okay. It’s a strategy fraught with serious problems.
Soon we’ll examine this issue in detail. Suffice it for now to point out that if you believe, as many do, that if MV and Lisbon were to grow too large, the victims of suburban sprawl, they would lose much that makes them appealing, then you can see one problem. Even if it were economically valid, the “unlimited growth” strategy says, in effect, “To support our economy, we need to ruin our town!” As Michael Kinsley at the Rocky Mountain Institute points out, growth beyond maturity is a cancer.
Community Relations
On viewing the content on this site, some members of our communities will, no doubt, take offense. And this concerns me. My aim is not to offend those who profit from residential expansion. Nor do I wish to insult owners of homes in newer developments. These are good people, and some are my friends. I believe, in fact, that they will be open minded enough to take a new look at development issues, in part by way of the information here. In any case, the concern is less with existing developments and more with plans for further residential construction. And I would never have built this site had I expected no one but “the choir” to listen with open minds. For more on this point see the page, This Site and Community Relations.
We Have Alternatives
The Small Town Project will examine the flawed, “unlimited growth” strategy, and will offer sustainable, tested alternatives which can help nourish our towns’ economies while allowing them to retain the small town character which drew so many of us here in the first place. When it comes to residential development, we do not need to grow to thrive!
- John
(Don’t stop there! Feel free to post a comment on what you’ve read, or explore and learn more about the Small Town Project.)
September 18th, 2005 at 9:08 pm
Re: WalMart, I suspect the reason we don’t have immediate pressure to build one is because there’s one 10 miles away on the east side of Cedar Rapids. Tipton, the county seat of Cedar County, has one and Tipton is smaller than Mt. Vernon. The WalMart in CR, like the Menards, is close enough in retail terms to draw MV business and have the attendant harmful effect on local MV business. So, in effect, we have a WalMart. Preserving MV/Lisbon as an independent economy is rather a moot point.
September 18th, 2005 at 11:26 pm
Hi Carrie. Yep, you’re right — MV and Lisbon businesses are already affected by Walmart. The one you mention is close enough that it does draw some business away from here (just as Menards does).
Still, I think you’d concur, it’s a matter of degree. MV and Lisbon have been lucky that that CR Walmart is just far enough away that its impact on our businesses as a whole has been more limited than what you see in towns whose main streets have been decimated by the arrival of big box retailers. I think MV and Lisbon business owners would do well to start thinking ahead a few years about what might entice Walmart (or similar) to put a store right here. Population growth would of course be near the top of the list.
-John
September 21st, 2005 at 8:06 am
Attempting to insulate ourselves from box stores creates a false and weak local economy. Much of the population’s purchases are price driven, and in tough economic times, business becomes even more Darwinian.
Boutique stores have to set themselves apart, much in the way Mount Vernon businesses have.
For example, MV Hardware offers expertise and superior customer service. Even though their prices are somewhat higher, you can be guaranteed a much higher quality product.
The Silver Spider specializes in items not commonly found in mainstream stores.
The Lincoln Cafe offers a quality and uniqueness unmatched for hundreds of miles.
Finally, people need to weigh the convenience of local patronage, especially in light of current fuel prices. It now costs the average driver $3 for a round-trip to Cedar Rapids.
As far as population expansion . . . I used to live in the Chicago suburbs where it seemed all of these little towns were connected by strip malls. The only community that managed to preserve any character was Wheaton. I’m not sure how they did it but they were landlocked in a sea of gas stations, 7-11s and parking lots. Horrible.
September 21st, 2005 at 9:22 am
Hi David,
You said,
I didn’t want to get heavily into this Walmart issue right now as it’s just a sub-issue and isn’t the topic of the post/article to which we’re all responding. But I ended up writing a treatise anyway.
Oh well…
I’m not sure I really see it as artificial to fight off a Walmart or to see to it that a community doesn’t grow to the point of enticing one to come there to begin with. It’s just one way of approaching the problem. I agree, though, that it’s wise for a would-be business owner to think ahead and consider what sort of business would best survive in the presence of the big box stores. Existing owners, too, should think about how they can evolve for such survival. But again, we can do things to prevent their arrival too.
And yes, certain boutique stores such as Silver Spider or antique shops are well positioned for this. (That’s no sure thing though. I hear the CR Super Target now sells a lot of stuff that puts it in competition with a store like Cottage Kitsch, for example.) But what would we tell existing businesses that were directly challenged by the big box stores? I wouldn’t like Ace Hardware’s or Gary’s or Bauman’s or some others’ chances of survival in the presence of a Walmart (or perhaps a Menards in the case of Ace). How many small towns’ grocery stores, hardware stores, and the like have been driven out of business by big box retailers despite their offering far superior customer service? Can any small hardware store, no matter how it positions itself, really survive with a Menards or Home Depot a half mile away? Now that stores like Super Targets are stocking things like organic produce and other “health food” items, even a store like Big Creek Market could be threatened.
Another angle: Some communities have successfully kept Walmart out. I suppose we could welcome its arrival and just let the free market correct itself. But (a) that’s pretty harsh on businesses that it will kill, and (b) I doubt I’m the only one who thinks the aesthetics of a big box store on the edge of town is reason enough to keep them out. I’m suggesting that we plan ahead so that we don’t actually get to the point where we have to fight them directly.
Of course, looking even farther ahead, the issue of the encroachment of the CR and IC suburbs will loom large, possibly bringing with it Walmarts and such. But that’s a little farther down the road. The first step is to avoid bringing them here ourselves.
There’s a fascinating Frontline piece on Walmart which you can view online. Whatever tolerance I had for Walmart, I pretty much lost after watching it.
A quick tangent: Some have suggested that the nice boutique businesses in MV might actually lose business simply as a result of continued residential development. If it progresses far enough, such development will change the entire character of the town, reducing it’s attraction to tourists who generate a large portion of some stores’ business. Tourists like to visit small, charming MV, but who cares about visiting just another soulless suburban sprawl?
You also said,
Now here we completely agree. And the suburbs of CR and IC are spreading. Before too long I think concerned citizens may want to look at tools such as land trusts to buy up farmland and open land before the developers do. It may be the only way to preserve some of the land that separates us from those suburbs. The vision of MV and Lisbon eventually being part of an endless suburban tract throughout this region of Iowa is an ugly one.
-John
September 22nd, 2005 at 9:26 am
Let me be clear: I do not want a box store here.
However, patronizing a MV/Lisbon store just because it is local is not making the local stores competitive. A business that survives simply because it is “local” will suffer during an economic downturn if people are forced to choose products based on price. That is what I meant by a “false economy.”
I’d like to think people would turn their backs on Wal-Mart and seek quality in goods AND service.
On the other hand, we often blame merchants for selling inferior products.
The truth is, if people didn’t buy crappy stuff, merchants wouldn’t bother selling it.
Wal-Mart is selling beef from cattle that have been pumped with antibiotics, fed cardboard, other animal parts and municpal waste because people are buying it.
Menard’s will sell inferior tools that should last a lifetime but fail in less than a year because too many people simply buy instead of invest.
Back to the topic of residential development.
I have to ask: What need do our city leaders forsee that requires tremendous gains in property tax?
I admit I am uninformed here.
September 22nd, 2005 at 10:45 am
David,
Thanks for the clarification. Your points about big box stores, local business, and what people buy are very well taken.
Your question about the city leaders’ desires for more property taxes goes right to a topic about which I’m just now writing a post. That will go into it in detail, but the capsule version is that here, as in towns around the country, city leaders, often in collaboration with developers and others who profit from development, have adopted a little economic theory which drives many of their decisions. It says that we need constantly to add to the population in order to “expand the tax base” (i.e., to bring in more payers of property taxes). We need to do this, they say, because expenses keep growing and without more taxpayers there’s no way to keep up with them.
This economic model is riddled with flaws and myths, and in the upcoming post I’ll begin to dissect those. Suffice it to say that a great many studies have now concluded that residential development almost always costs more to service (police, fire, infrastructure, schools…) than the taxes it brings in. (See the links section here for a link about “cost of community services” studies.)
They go on to say (and I quote Dan Stoner here) “New developments pay for the old developments.” That is, a newer development needs less service/maintainance than an older one. So the taxes from the new development should cover it’s expenses and leave some left over to help serve the older parts of town. Then, as the newer development ages and begins to cost more to maintain, you put up another new one to bring in that tax money to once again pay for the older developments.
I’m somewhere between laughing and choking as I write that. I want to wait to cover it in more detail in the upcoming post or one after it, but that little component of their economic theory could be used as a textbook example of unsustainability. In fact it hints that, by that model, as a city grows, its growth will have to constantly accelerate so that the new developments can keep “paying for” the ever larger older parts of town.
In any case, while there may be some chance that a brand new development will, for a while, bring in more in taxes than it costs to serve, the evidence indicates that, on the whole, residential development simply doesn’t pay for itself.
Anyway, the post will begin to really look at that stuff.
-John
September 23rd, 2005 at 2:02 pm
Since you’ve looked into the american farmland trust, John, I’m curious if you know of anything like that in Iowa. Is there an Iowa Farmland Trust or Prairie Trust? Should there be?
September 23rd, 2005 at 4:44 pm
Carrie,
I don’t think there is such an organization here, unless it so small that it’s pretty far under the radar. A representative of AFT told me, as well, that there had historically been little enthusiasm for their services in Iowa. She said that seems to be changing though. For instance, over the summer there was a worshop on farmland preservation in Cedar Rapids, sponsored in part by some Iowa entities like “Iowa County Zoning Officials.”
Yeah, I definitely think there ought to be some statewide or similar organization here. (a prairie trust would be a cool variation; farmland isn’t the only land worth preserving, though we sure have a lot of that here.)
[Edit: I neglected to mention that the reason some sort of land trust options might be important is that it’s hard to think of other effective ways of preserving large stretches of farmland and open land, such as those between here and CR and IC. If those aren’t preserved, not only is it an environmental loss, but it seems to me it ultimately connects us with those larger cities, ending our identity as separate small towns. And of course there are similar scenarios being played out around the state. I’ve only touched on looking into them, but land trusts seem to come in a variety of shapes and sizes. The North Shore of O’ahu appears to have the sort a group of interested citizens could put together.]
-John
September 26th, 2005 at 12:17 pm
I know that Indian Creek Nature Center has bought up land and returned it to native prairie. They’re working on buying another old farm this fall, according to their newsletter. Might be a good local place to talk to, although I think they try to play to a broad base and stay out of political controversies.
September 26th, 2005 at 10:16 pm
Thanks for the idea, Carrie. I’ll try to contact them soon.
I know, as well, that at the CR workshop on farmland preservation this summer, there were plans made for some folks from Linn County to visit Maryland to learn about some preserved farmland there. Les Beck of Linn County Planning and Development was involved with that. I need to follow up with him to see what’s come of it.
-John
October 4th, 2005 at 7:08 am
John, thanks for putting together this blog! It’s been very informative.
I mentioned our growth concerns with one of our law profs last week. He responded with words of caution, exclaiming, careful, friend! You can’t prevent people from moving into your small community, but you can regulate how growth occurs.
I feel fortunate to have moved here 11 years ago. (Most of us were not born here, after all.) But the problems and oversights that dog explosions of growth does concern me.
This idea of land preserves and trusts does seem appealing. Also, I’d like to hear from the Mount Vernonites living in these developments, too.
Again, thanks, John, for starting the dialogue.
October 4th, 2005 at 2:42 pm
Hi Patty!
I hear the law prof., and should probably do more on this site to make clear that I’m not trying to prevent anyone from moving here. But, as he touched on, there’s quite a lot you can do to restrict growth, to establish growth boundaries, to have a city buy up open space around the city so as to effectively prevent further development, to enact a wide range of policies, etc. In my view, people should be welcome to move here. Developers just shouldn’t be welcome to build subdivisions here.
One of the national models in this regard is Boulder. It is of course bigger than MV/Lisbon, but there’s no reason we couldn’t follow their lead. They enacted a tax which has allowed the city to buy up huge amounts of land around the town, creating a protective breenbelt system. There are things like that and so many other tools as well. But it takes a populace willing to fight for it.
Thanks for commenting. I get the sense a lot of folks are checking in here, but it doesn’t hurt to have a visible activity level as well!
[Edit] I want to elabortate a bit because I figured at some point this question of keeping people from moving here would come up. If someone wants to move here, and finds a house they want to buy, of course they have a right to buy it. I wouldn’t presume to stop them, nor do I think any town has ever taken a tack of, “You aren’t allowed to move here.”
People can move here, though, without adding to the population. It’s the building of subdivisions that’s the problem. People will always come and go. But it’s the development of subdivisions which will allow the population to swell to points where we lose the character of our towns. Without that development, people would simply wait until a house they liked came up for sale. With it, some folks are tempted by the convenience of an immediately available, maintenance free home, so they buy it.
Local governments have all sorts of legal options to apply in order to prevent developers from ruining their towns, and it’s time we started implementing them here. We really aren’t at the mercy of developers, and if everyone knows these developments don’t even help these towns financially, but instead actually hurt them, and can forsee what they will do to the character of our towns, things may start to change — I hope.
And Patty, you better know I’m not directing these vigorous comments at you
or even the law prof., who I’m sure was just reacting to a quick summary. They’re really just an attempt to head off at the pass (excuse my Southwestern heritage 
), anyone who might come along suggesting I or you or anyone else was trying to keep people from moving here.
I’m a veritable welcome wagon.
-John
October 5th, 2005 at 7:00 am
John, lol, nothing personal taken or was intended on my end. We all love this community, the newbies as well as the second generation (plus) Mount Vernonites. We all take pride in our community, many contributing as they believe benefits the whole.
I checked out the link in your previous comment “protective breenbelt system” and found the Boulder Open Space Program. The compelling reasons to create such preserves throughout Iowa include but are not limited to defining spatial parameters around communities. The loss of our countryside, of valuable farm land and woods, once developed, gone forever. And for me…I see Grant Wood country every time I drive through our rolling countryside.
Info on farmland trusts at our state extension office: http://www.extension.iastate.edu/Publications/PM1868B.pdf
“A number of organizations concerned about the loss of farmland have developed policy guidelines for ways states and localities can begin to preserve farms and farmland. Principal among these organizations are the American Planning Association (APA) and the Ameri-can Farmland Trust (AFT)”
Enjoy the Fall days, everyone!
Patty
October 5th, 2005 at 1:13 pm
Patty,
It would indeed be great to see a lot more land preservation happen around here and elsewhere in Iowa.
That’s a very relevant link you provided! It will find a permanent home here. I notice on page 2, under “Agricultural Zoning Protections,” it says:
…zoning regulations adopted in accordance with a comprehensive plan must be designed to preserve the availability of agricultural land, consider techniques to prevent the loss of soil from wind and water erosion, and encourage efficient urban development.
I can’t help wondering if our own zoning regulations fail in this regard. They certainly don’t appear to be doing much to “preserve the availability of agricultural land.”
Anyone know if there’s any legal issue of substance to be addressed in this regard?
-John
October 9th, 2005 at 7:31 am
Yesterday I went to a home built by a friend in the Quad Cities. He built it as an investment for resale.
It was in a new development area where homes sell from between a half and one million dollars.
I left thinking, “These may be upscale houses, but the entire development is void of homes.
October 9th, 2005 at 8:08 pm
David — Yes, I think that’s an example of why any development that absolutely has to happen [1] should be very, very carefully thought out. These older towns were built using a pre-WWII model with a certain street grid, certain size setbacks, etc. which is very different from the typical new development.
There are parts of MV, built somewhere around the ’60s or ’70s I think, connected to to the older parts, where I think they did a pretty good job of keeping with the old street grid and such. While the houses aren’t copies of the old ones, the areas still have much the same intimate feeling. But the new, isolated developments seem out of step.
[1]By now I’m sure it’s clear that in my view, in towns like ours, these developments usually don’t have to happen. One time when new development makes sense, of course, is with a new town just taking shape. Even there, I suspect problems may often arise when you have someone coming in building large scale cookie cutter developments. i.e., I think a lot of these older towns grew kind of organically, a few houses at a time. I’m kind of speculating, but I think this gives them a more natural, more real feel.
When you put in 300 homes all at once, it’s challenging to make it feel like a real community.
October 23rd, 2005 at 8:51 am
John, I am glad you found the extension office link informative, thanks for posting:)
One reason why people choose to live in new homes is the belief there will be less upkeep than with an older home. With well-built new homes, this is true. I agree with David; I, too, prefer the soul of an old home although I know this is my personal preference and doesn’t imply “soul” doesn’t exist within the walls of these new houses.
When I visited Sweden many years ago with my swedish stepmother, we saw incredible old farms and homes throughout the countryside. My stepmother told me it was not permitted to build new when old homes still existed. One had to purchase and preserve these first. What resulted is this marvelous heritage of homes and barns, passed on to be appreciated by future generations.
We all know the maintenance and upkeep of older houses is very expensive AND time consuming (I refer to ALL existing houses in MV that aren’t new construction). If this is a significant factor, which influences many to choose to live in outlying new developments rather than purchase older houses, how does one address this?
October 23rd, 2005 at 1:13 pm
Patty — I’m going to respond to your comments here and close comments for this article as I think it’s too buried for the casual reader to find at this point. Thanks for the comment!
-John