Hmm, good points, I see it from a slightly different angle.
I've been building websites professionally for the last 6 years (and for quite a while before that as an amateur), being involved in the technical side (databases, software, commerce integration etc), rather than what I would call design. I am often however crucially involved in the planning and structuring of sites, which is maybe a different form of design.
I know how to make sites that are usable and accessible, having had to conform to WAI guidelines on a few government related sites (don't hold that against me though

), as well as some massive e-commerce sites, so I know from good experience how people use websites, what is likely to work, and what is likely to cause grief (ie. the user-interface design, and bearing in mind issues for less abled customers)
I can't however make them look good. The detailed layout, choice of colours, images etc I find difficult to do, time consuming, and not very enjoyable. Things just tend to look bad. For this reason, when working on anything that's going to be public facing, I opt to work with a designer, and things tend to work out a lot better. I'd certainly never describe myself as a web designer.
Sadly my experience with many designers - including some large design agencies - is that there's a lack of understanding of some of the technical necessities, and appropriate ways of doing things, so unfortunately I often have to get more involved with the design process than I'd like. I feel that this is starting to improve as training and technology catches up with what people want to do.
My take on the "design tools" is that they enable people to have websites who otherwise wouldn't be able to. This can be bad from a planning and concept point of view (ie. bad sites with no point, bad layouts, and photos of people's cats), but also from a technical point of view. Historically a lot of "design tools" produce bad, incompatible, browser-specific, non-validating, inaccessible code.
The difficulty in building websites is that a number of rather disconnected skills are required, meaning that it's uncommon for people to have all required skills to a high level without investing a lot of time and money into it (plus I'm not sure how easily people can be trained in design without having some degree of natural aptitude in it ?).
Usually it's pretty clear when a website has been planned and designed properly, as the experience of using it is a lot smoother, things generally work well. It's clearly somethnig worth paying for in any commercial undertaking.
In the case of this guy who wants to promote himself as an "occasionally working pro" magician, it's probably not worth breaking the bank, but it is worth ensuring that it's done properly, and it's also worth understanding that having a website is not the same as promoting one.
Simply having a website without working to actively market it is rather like having a business on a quiet industrial estate and never telling anyone about it. You certainly should have a site, so you can list it on your business card and other stationary, but be aware that it won't magically cause people to find you.
I wonder if magic is something that's best when mainly promoted through word of mouth, and referalls, of course allowing people to see further details on your site. Shrug, I'm no expert on marketing.
Damn these soapboxes