WSJ reports that across the country, malls are turning into ghost towns due to the recession/depression. And of course there are plans to build two new major ones here.

Been curious to follow that discussion, because a lot of people seem to want Manheim Township commissioners to prohibit the construction of new shopping malls because we “have enough” or because of the economic downturn and vacancies in other malls. But there’s no law permitting township officials to reject a proposal on these grounds - that’s how you get sued, and maybe successfully, regardless of how strongly citizens feel about it.

There’s actually a story here, I think, one I might pursue in the coming weeks, because I was struck by a similar dynamic in the East Hempfield church controversy. You get these situations in Lancaster County - and probably everywhere - where the law says one thing, but “the people” want another. In East Hempfield, it would seem that federal law would permit the Mormons to build that church - that’s what the church attorney keeps asserting - but of course many nearby residents oppose it.

So if you’re a township official in those communities - do you follow the “rule of law” even though residents, perhaps a majority of residents, want you to do otherwise? Or do you do what your constituents want - and then run the risk of being successfully sued, and having the project jammed down your throat anyway?

As per the MT mall proposals - I cannot believe, in this economic environment, that they will go forward. A lot of money has been spent on the plans, to be sure - but in this environment, it would seem madness to spend even more.