The following appeared in an editorial in the Garden City Gazette.

“To address the parking problems in our downtown business district, it has been proposed that the city increase parking capacity by building a four-story parking garage. However, this project would cost more than it would to improve the downtown pedestrian plaza. Because the pedestrian plaza is an important attraction that draws people to the downtown area, improvements to it will increase business for downtown merchants. The merchants’ higher profits will ultimately produce increased tax revenues for the city. Therefore, we should invest in the plaza improvements first and then use the revenues thus generated to pay for the construction of the parking garage.”

The above article appeared in an editorial in the Garden City Gazette. The arguer wants to recommend improvements in downtown pedestrian plaza and the revenues thus generated would be used in the construction of the parking garage which would solve the parking problem. The arguer gives various reasons to support his argument. The first argument which the arguer gives in favor of his stand is that the project of parking is more costly, therefore first downtown pedestrian plaza should be constructed. The second argument presented by the arguer in support of his stand is that the pedestrian plaza is an important attraction and further improvements would draw more people and hence more business for downtown merchants. The third argument presented by the arguer is the increased tax revenues for the city which would be used for construction of parking garage. The suggestions made by the arguer are not convincing and thus should not be accepted.

The first argument presented by the arguer is absolutely baseless. There is a need of making a parking place and instead the focus is being shifted to improving the pedestrian plaza. The arguer has not mentioned the present state of the plaza. It is also not been mentioned whether the plaza needs any improvement or not. It is possible that the plaza was constructed recently and there was no scope for any improvements. The improvements in the plaza would increase the rent for all the business owners and the arguer has not mentioned whether they are ready to pay the increased rent or not.

The second argument presented by the arguer is that downtown pedestrian plaza is an important attraction and further improvements would draw more people and hence more business for downtown merchants. The arguer mentions about increased revenue but it is also possible that some business owner leave because of the increased rent and this will adversely affect the revenue from downtown business. It is also possible that the plaza was already drawing as much attraction as possible and any improvement would not affect the revenue much but the cost for improvement would be tremendous. The arguer fails to bring into notice that the same amount can be used at a place where there is more need.

The arguer talks about the increased revenues from the plaza which would be used for the construction of the parking place. If the revenues generated are not enough then the parking place would be constructed from the government funds and in stead of providing help in the parking construction, improvements in the plaza would prove to be an expensive deal.

Thus, the arguments presented by the arguer are very vague and unconvincing. The construction of a parking place includes heavy infrastructure and the decision for the same has to be very deliberate. Therefore, the arguer needs to present more authenticated facts to make his recommendation accepted.