An ongoing dispute that has gotten some recent attention this week: the proprietor of the Martin Coffeehouse, John Sellers, and Martin’s Historic Zoning Commission have been in conflict over the string lights outside the downtown business.
Local WPSD reports that the Commission has taken issue with the lights because they ruin the aesthetic cohesion of Martin’s Historic Downtown. While Sellers submitted an “application of appropriateness” for his lights, he has since been denied. Since then, he has had to keep the lights off or face a fine. Sellers has the option to appeal the decision in court.
Sellers was quoted by WPSD as saying that the guidelines hurt his business and made his customers feel less safe because the area is not illuminated as well at night.
The community seems to be in support of Sellers, with a Change.org petition in favor of the lights garnering over 3,000 signatories so far. You can view the petition here.
The issue of Sellers’ decorative lights, while highly localized to small-town Martin, brings to the fore issues that have been cropping up in urban renewal, development, and preservation across the world and for many years.
Oftentimes, there is a tension between economic development and the reasonable desire of some citizens to preserve the character of historic neighborhoods. This is, ostensibly, what the Martin Historic Zoning Commission is all about.
So then the question arises: what do we do when the success of business, especially local business, is being hampered by zoning and aesthetic guidelines that seem arcane, even silly, to many?
In this specific case, I happen to agree with the owner of the coffee shop. His lights, while they do interrupt the uniformity of the avenue, don’t interfere with the historicity of the area in any meaningful way. The Commission would be better off saving its ammo for things that really mattered, like attempts to widen the streets, new development for chain stores and restaurants, and those sorts of changes which would radically alter the character of the neighborhood.
I weigh this against the fact that Sellers’ economic case here appears dubious to me. The idea that turning off some string lights could account for a 30% drop in patronage doesn’t seem plausible, and their absence could have merely coincided with a drop in business occurring for other reasons.
The specifics of the case in Martin are one thing, but it serves as a low-stakes, even somewhat pedantic example of a wider trend. My knee-jerk reaction is to side with the Commission, even though I think they’re wrong on this particular issue. We Americans have to get more comfortable putting our foot down and standing up for the way we want our own communities to look and feel, regardless of the concerns of business.
