There are two ways to view a moratorium. Some may view one as necessary, a vehicle for stopping out-of-control development, as in the case of last year's large-homes-on-small-lots controversy in our unincorporated areas.
Others view a moratorium as a threat to our free enterprise system in which "big brother" is controlling our choices.
The Los Altos City Council faced the moratorium question last week with regard to downtown beauty salons, which are far too abundant for some people's tastes. However, council members did the smart thing in deciding against a moratorium: they looked at the numbers, and over a period of years.
They found that over a four-year period, the number of salons increased by two (32 to 34), hardly a trend that shows a rush of salons to the downtown.
Unlike other moratoriums that are addressing resident lifestyle problems, like the county housing issue last year, or public safety concerns, such as the ban on massage parlors, the beauty salon proposal came from perceptions that the downtown retail scene was out of balance with too much of one thing.
However, one could argue there are too many restaurants as well. But in both cases, the demand is meeting the supply - and isn't that what free enterprise is all about?
Sure, some of us would like to see fewer personal grooming establishments in favor of stores that the downtown doesn't have, such as a men's clothing store. But most of the salons do a brisk business - they're here because their customers want them here. Besides, their clientele supports other businesses in town, too.
It will be up to the city and business community to come up with a plan to attract a variety of retailers into town, as both groups work to define the role of an economic development coordinator. However, restricting salons is not necessary.