Much has been said about the Wal-Mart “situation.” Sayings such as “I saw half of Fairhope there,” “It’s prettier than the library,” “At least we got the utilities and some sales tax,” “It’s just another Wal-Mart,” “It’s fantastic,” “I’ll never set foot in there,” “Another shop closed downtown today,” or,“There’s a Target already in the works” can be heard around town. All of the justifications and accusations have been spoken. Much has been said, but is there anything to be done?

Adam Smith knew a lot about Wal-Mart and us today in Fairhope when he wrote his “Lecture on Justice, Policy, Revenue, and Arms” in 1752.

“Such is the delicacy of man alone, that no object is produced to his liking. He finds that in everything there is need for improvement…. The whole industry of human life is employed not in procuring the supply of our three humble necessities; food, clothes and lodging, but in procuring the conveniences of it according to the nicety and delicacy of our tastes.”

The “delicacy of our tastes” in 1752 has metastasized into the “Consumerism” and (Wal-Marts) of today. Most of the challenges of the Wal-Mart “situation” have been dealt with before. This is not a unique planning issue, but an 80-year-old one, brought on by our cars. Whatever “solution” is chosen, whether it is reactionary sprawl planning (our Wal-Mart), or a comprehensively planned community (what we thought our Comprehensive Plan provides), the cost is the hidden, unresolved issue. These costs would include the political, financial, sociological and environmental capital that is required to continue Fairhope’s story. Who, When and How will we pay the costs of our compulsions and desires? Sprawl isn’t cheap or freedom-giving (although it always seems so on the front end). Well-Planned communities aren’t free either, and the costs of these ideas usually manifest themselves in higher consumer costs or higher taxes (although many politicians and developers usually try to obscure this).

Many of us know new Fairhopers who tell the story of how their taxes up north were “$2,000 a month,” and that’s why they love Fairhope. What they are saying is that the cost of living in their old town (the “community cost”) was more that they were willing or able to pay, so they moved to a low-cost provider like Fairhope. Right now, the community cost in Fairhope is relatively low, and we are thus attracting immigration from other high-cost areas. Our system encourages this mobility, another “community cost” to be accounted for.

Can Fairhope sustain itself as a “low-cost” provider? Is it possible to maintain the amazing array of city services without fully paying for them? In our present political climate, the community costs are often obscured. Our politicians are no different from others. Who wants to tell their guests that the wonderful party costs a lot more than they thought, or that we should pay the fiddler tonight instead of next year? If the “delicacy of our tastes” requires constantly evolving “big boxes” on an expanding perimeter (like many communities today) then the community cost of this model should be known. If the “delicacy of our tastes” can be satisfied by another planning model (there are many examples of successful, progressively planned communities), then the community cost of this model should also be known.

To some, Fairhope was asleep at the switch regarding Wal-Mart. For others, the project went exactly as it should, and laid the groundwork for others to happen the same way. In either case, the community cost has yet to be determined, and probably will never be calculated, given the mud wrestling at City Hall now. The bedrock of our Comprehensive Plan is the dialog and cooperation between the landowners and the city to achieve the “Fairhope Villages” goal. Is this able to happen today in Fairhope? The city has spoken with numerous voices over the last few years, a Babel-like arrangement that deters both those who wish to “develop” and those who wish to “protect” Fairhope. Some feel that this “Babel” form of planning is an effective way to stymie, and thus manage, growth in Fairhope (e.g. recent moratoriums). For others, it is ample justification for legal action against the city (e.g. discussions about legal costs). For most of us, it’s just more obfuscation and confusion about the telling of Fairhope’s story. It prevents the sharing and implementation of our community vision.

It will be a good while before the waters at City Hall are clear again (if they ever were). The election next year might be the best clarifier, as intended. Until then, perhaps its time for the citizens to tell their own story, rather than waiting for the mud to settle at 161 Section St. This “Citizens Story” could be a bottom-up dialog that is not sponsored by the city. It could be organized in a transparent manner, with an open door intended to give all Fairhopers a voice (those who will take time to participate). Perhaps this “Citizens Story” is one way of returning to the communitarian roots that made Fairhope. Stay tuned, maybe the next story has already started.