There are other issues than the fact one can put up a building that can easily be torn down in 10-20 years.
For example, the wasteful precedent that idea creates. Keep in mind that the taxpayer often gets hit with the cost of demolishing buildings later on, or the City is forced into giving incentives to developers for the cost of preparing an urban site, or cleaning up the mess of a blighted building.
Buildings require energy to be constructed--mostly from fossil fuels. Building construction also produces carbon dioxide, which remains in our atmosphere for years/decades/centuries, as well as other pollutants. Surface parking lots also require energy from fossil fuels--asphalt. Creating unused parking space is just a waste, and also contributes to the heat effect, too much water runoff, and flooding problems which requires public money to resolve later.
One of the arguments used in fighting against old buildings being demolished is the loss of the embedded energy it took to create them, as well as the fact that a good portion of landfill is made up of demolished building materials--many materials that are often laced with pollutants.
The goal should be that most buildings we construct should be designed to last for many, many years and able to serve various purposes over time.
I have less problem with a dollar store being the business on Troost. However, the City also needs to balance other things based on how retail has gone in past history.
I cite the many examples around the Metro of retail strips that fell into blight fairly quickly, or empty out in a few years.
City leaders need to consider past history when they make decisions. What can we learn from Bannister Mall, Metro North Mall, Independence Avenue, Main Street, other sections of Troost, North Oak Trafficway, Linwood, 31st Street, Highway 40 from Van Brunt to Sterling Avenue?
For example, instead of building a simple block building with a Family Dollar sign fixed to it, with all sorts of zoning variances, look at problems with zoning in general.
Questions like:
Is there too much parking surface for the store--twice as much as it will ever need. This creates no value in the long run. It only displaces other uses for the space. Stores placed too far apart mean it's difficult to walk between them, and requires more driving.
Do stores set-back from the street contribute to density problems, and not help resolve them?
Are there too many similar businesses like this nearby? For example, there are two Family Dollar Stores near Independence and White in the Old Northeast.
https://maps.google.com/maps?q=Family+D ... ollar&z=17
Does the City have too much zoning for retail? Does allowing more retail zoning only displace other retail nearby? If the City zoned less for low-density retail, it might make existing empty retail buildings more valuable, and there would be less vacancies. If you want to create demand for something, allow it to become scarce.
Are simple building designs like a Family Dollar not creating value in the built environment? Do they often contribute to later blight too soon after they are built?
Is the City making continued mistakes by allowing new retail to be built that is not mixed use, and has a residential component? Apartments or offices built over the stores for example.
Is the parcel in question better served for addition of new multi-tenant residential instead of retail altogether?
Also, does the neighborhood benefit in the long-term by the addition of this specific type of retail.
The lessons over the last century show that Americans really suck at maintaining healthy cities and doing urban development.
Part of the problem is that elected city officials have very little understanding or knowledge about urban development, and what has been learned from mistakes made in the past. More often, these same elected officials get campaign funding from real estate interests, and they green light too many developments thrown in front of them whether it is in the public interest or not. They ask few questions when these proposals come up.
