The growth button

Before we launch into what could be construed as criticism, we want to emphasize that we applaud the Baker City Community Vision Project.

It was a good idea.

We appreciate city officials’ effort to give residents a chance to talk about what they like about their town, about the aspects they’re not so fond of, and about what they hope the city looks like in the future.

We were especially pleased with the diversity of the 133 people who participated.

They were divided into 14 separate focus groups, in categories ranging from young working adults to senior citizens and retirees, from newcomers to longtime residents.

We like that our town lacks traffic jams but has an abundance of well-preserved historic buildings.

We like that it’s easy to get around on foot or bike, and that there are two beautiful mountain ranges to look at while we’re doing so.

We’re not so pleased, though, with the sluggish economy and the scarcity of jobs for young people who want to stay in Baker City, or return after college.

We wish too that there was a wider variety of retail businesses, including restaurants, and that they had more generous hours of operation.

There’s a lot of other interesting data in the 17-page report, “Inventing the Future.” It’s available at the city’s Web site, www.bakercity.com

Which brings us to our main complaint about the report: It implies that determining the city’s future is simply a matter of choice — if we want to grow we can, if we don’t want to grow then we won’t.

We don’t believe this is so.

Participants considered three scenarios: 1) current trends, in which the city basically stays as is; 2) aggressive growth, on the Bend/Redmond model; 3) middle ground, with the population rising from the current 10,000 to 20,000-25,000 during the next 20 to 25 years.

The vast majority of people preferred No. 3, which was given the unofficial title “a little bigger and a lot better.”

We understand the allure of such a scenario: The city gains amenities such as a more vibrant retail sector, without losing its small town charms.

We’re skeptical, though, that Baker City could double its population in two decades and still retain most of its current character.

Also, growth on that scale — what urban planners consider a slow to moderate rate — hasn’t happened here since the 19th century.

In fact, the city’s population has stayed between 9,000 and 10,000 for the past 70 years.

We’re concerned, though, that residents, after reading “Inventing the Future,” will believe that if Baker City’s population continues its post-World War II stagnation, then the fault will lie with city leaders who refused to push the growth button.

There is, fortunately, one paragraph in the report that exposes the fallacy; we only wish the paragraph were given more prominence.

The issue is whether the population growth in the preferred No. 3 scenario — rising from 10,000 to 20,000-25,000 over 20-25 years — is “even a possibility.”

The report goes on: “That is, even with a coordinated effort and consensus vision supported by the community, what were the odds that even modest growth and economic development could be achieved? In truth, this is a far more relevant consideration than a concern that the community could be overrun by growth. The real issue for Baker City, put into economic terms, is that deflation is far more a risk to the community than inflation.”

In other words, there is no growth button.

To reiterate, we credit the city for trying to involve citizens in thinking about the future of their town.

But we hope our fellow residents aren’t misled into believing that “economic development” — that favorite prescription for whatever ails small towns — is an omnipotent force that’s exempt from economic reality.