A state association of businesses has pushed legislation into our state house that would limit the on-premise retail sales volume of a related group of businesses.
Yes, we talked about this recently, but today let’s go beyond this one business, this one time.
That situation is just a symptom of a far bigger concern.
For an established business with good wholesale distribution in place, retail sales limitations wouldn’t be a big deal – except that those same businesses already have legislated production and sales volumes that limit their growth.
These production/sales limitations brilliantly restrict both growth and new businesses in that market.
One of our town’s newest businesses, started by a young family, is placed in jeopardy by this legislation just weeks before their doors open.
That doesn’t mean the “other guys” don’t have grievances to settle (such as a level compliance playing field), but those grievances aren’t going to be cured by artificially limiting sales numbers.
Even so, it shouldn’t be about one business group over the other – both have the right to do business. I know business owners and employees on both sides. I believe these two groups have much more to gain by cooperating.
While the specifics of issues like this will change from year to year, what concerns me most is the message these situations send.
What’s the message to young families and entrepreneurs?
Last week, we talked last week about what communities do to encourage young families and businesses to put down roots or return to the area. Governments and community economic development groups put a lot of effort into these programs. Meanwhile, legislative proposals that limit the growth of new small businesses fly directly in the face of that work.
My question to those in the State House is this: Does legislation that chooses one market over another send the message you want to send from your state, much less your community?
Do laws like that encourage young families to stay and invest in your community? Does the legislature realize that when a small business person sees this done to one business niche, they can’t help but wonder if it will be done to another niche in the next session?
The message we heard then
When we moved our family and our business here in the late 1990s, one of the reasons we chose Columbia Falls was the warm response we received from folks around town. When we said we were considering moving here, the typical response was something like “That’s great. We’d be happy to have you here.”
While schools, the Park and recreation opportunities were important, the overwhelming “this is the right place” feeling came from the welcoming nature of the people we met.
The message I heard back in the 90s was not “Be a no-holds-barred success at all costs.” It was “Build it here. Be a good corporate citizen, a good employer, a profitable example for others who want to build / relocate a business here, and an asset to your community. Become a member of the family.”
If things didn’t work out or legislation targeted my business, I could always move it out of state because it isn’t tied to a brick and mortar retail location. It’s a by-design luxury and a property of the kind of work we do.
Thing is, brick and mortar retailers, restaurants, microbreweries and most services businesses really don’t have that choice.
What’s the message now?
No matter what the state house is working on, they must be careful about the message being sent by legislation that artificially manipulates markets and favors one group over another. It’s a message that other business owners and entrepreneurs look for when they choose a home. Business is hard enough as it is without having to fight off competition from the state house.
This session’s controversy in your state house, whatever it might be, will likely be old news next session.
The real concern to have is this: What our legislators do sets out your state’s welcome mat.
Do you want it to say “Welcome to our state” or “Build it somewhere else”?