Since all of Oak Cliff is spending all of their litigious days toiling away on facebook, I though I might pose a question I raised in one of the endless and countless threads about Oak Cliff development. It’s one that I don’t believe has an answer:
We could argue that more [business owners] need to [own their property], but is that really the best scenario? It’s difficult to say, getting back to the age old question of what’s better: democracy or benevolent dictator? Well, each can go sour. Bishop Arts has been carefully cultivated and protected from chains and what not primarily [by a very select few]. Imagine if every single business owned their particularly property. Certainly at least one would cash out when a McDonalds or Chili’s came calling with a golden parachute. I suspect ownership of property is right for some businesses but maybe not right for others that need a boost without having that extra necessary capital. Perhaps they need the nimbleness, when once successful they can go buy somewhere else and put down roots (until gentrification arrives at this newly minted area and they’re ready to cash in). There is no one right answer except to consistently push for better place and improved, safer, more attractive public realm (of which, facades are most certainly part of the public realm).