The Environment Court has banned the Swedish-headquartered furniture business from being a tenant in Redwood's new Mt Wellington venture because its stores are so popular it is feared traffic chaos will ensue.So what stores will the Environment Court allow? Ones that no one goes to, so there is no traffic? Or may be ones that people only bike to.
Even if the court is right and traffic problems could occur doesn't the fact that people are willing to pay both the price of the goods they buy and the costs of traffic congestion mean that they must really value those stores? How much consumer surplus must be generated if consumers are willing to pay both in terms of price and congestion? Why ban stores people actually want to go to? Also if people turn up to go to the Ikea will they not go to other stores nearby as well? Isn't having people shop at a mall the whole idea of malls? What logic/cost-benefit analysis did the court use to come to this decision?
(HT: Not PC)
2 comments:
The Environment Court must be the most mis-labeled organisation going arouind. What has the commerical power of a chain store, and car congestion on tar-sealed roads in the middle of a major city got to do with the environment?
A sad, sad decision. I am reminded of that quote: "When the productive need to ask permission from the unproductive in order to produce, then you may know that your culture is doomed."-Ayn Rand
"When the productive need to ask permission from the unproductive in order to produce, then you may know that your culture is doomed."-Ayn Rand
That I like. You got the full reference?
Post a Comment