cool revolution / Flickr)” width=”308″ height=”416″ />Walmart’s America. (Photo: cool revolution / Flickr)Controversy around big-box stores like Walmart, Target, Lowes and Home Depot is nothing new, but communities are getting smarter about tackling these corporate giants — sometimes against considerable odds. In Cape Cod and a handful of other areas across the country, the Economic Impact Review is becoming a vital tool for handling development disputes and related issues. The review forces a detailed, thoughtful conversation on the true local economic impact of big-box construction. The result, reports Stacy Mitchell at Grist, can be empowering.
You might think opposition to big-box stores is limited to chichi communities with decided ideas about their look, feel, and “character” as evidenced in communities like California’s Sonoma, which has a long history of very rigid restrictions on development. It turns out, opposition to these stores is about more than whether they look attractive or preserve the historic heritage of a community. Many people are legitimately concerned about the local economy, and unfortunately, development review meetings commonly exclude this vital factor from the conversation.
While planning commissions can meet to discuss environmental impact, adherence to the building code, and a range of other topics, a conversation about the local economic impact may not be part of what’s allowed to take place in deliberations. The Walmarts of the world typically like it that way, because it keeps negative economic impacts from interfering with their profits. Such businesses often argue that they bring jobs and income into the community, when in fact, the opposite appears to be true — at least according to Economic Impact Reviews’ research.
Take Cape Cod, for example, which started integrating local economic issues into development policy in the 1990s. Mitchell notes that the Cape Cod Commission, a collective of 15 towns, has been embroiled in reviews for a new Lowe’s: “In a filing [PDF] with the commission, Lowe’s said the store would create 115 new jobs. But an analysis [PDF] by FXM Associates found that Lowe’s would not be adding to the economy, but rather siphoning off 10 to 20 percent of the sales at dozens of local hardware, lumber, appliance, paint, plumbing, and other stores. Declining revenue would force these retailers to lay off 163 people.”
Think that’s bad? “These threatened jobs pay about 25 percent more on average than Lowe’s does, meaning the store’s arrival would trigger a net decline in household incomes of $3.2 million annually. The drain on the region’s economy is even greater, the analysis notes, if you consider the fact that, unlike competing locally owned retailers, Lowe’s will purchase very little in the way of goods and services from other Cape Cod businesses.”
To look just at the Lowe’s report submitted to the planning commission that would be approving the development, it would seem like a boom for the local economy. But if you drill below the surface, you find that approving the development would actually be bad for local people, businesses and the economy overall.
Numerous cities across the US have considered moratoriums and other crackdowns on big box development, but the Economic Impact Review may be a smarter long-term solution when it comes to sustainable, smart and equitable development. It provides communities with the tools they need to fairly evaluate proposed developments and reject them if they don’t meet community needs. The more ways communities start talking about land use policy and sustainable development, the better. Because these are issues that are only going to grow in the coming years.
We’re not backing down in the face of Trump’s threats.
As Donald Trump is inaugurated a second time, independent media organizations are faced with urgent mandates: Tell the truth more loudly than ever before. Do that work even as our standard modes of distribution (such as social media platforms) are being manipulated and curtailed by forces of fascist repression and ruthless capitalism. Do that work even as journalism and journalists face targeted attacks, including from the government itself. And do that work in community, never forgetting that we’re not shouting into a faceless void – we’re reaching out to real people amid a life-threatening political climate.
Our task is formidable, and it requires us to ground ourselves in our principles, remind ourselves of our utility, dig in and commit.
As a dizzying number of corporate news organizations – either through need or greed – rush to implement new ways to further monetize their content, and others acquiesce to Trump’s wishes, now is a time for movement media-makers to double down on community-first models.
At Truthout, we are reaffirming our commitments on this front: We won’t run ads or have a paywall because we believe that everyone should have access to information, and that access should exist without barriers and free of distractions from craven corporate interests. We recognize the implications for democracy when information-seekers click a link only to find the article trapped behind a paywall or buried on a page with dozens of invasive ads. The laws of capitalism dictate an unending increase in monetization, and much of the media simply follows those laws. Truthout and many of our peers are dedicating ourselves to following other paths – a commitment which feels vital in a moment when corporations are evermore overtly embedded in government.
Over 80 percent of Truthout‘s funding comes from small individual donations from our community of readers, and the remaining 20 percent comes from a handful of social justice-oriented foundations. Over a third of our total budget is supported by recurring monthly donors, many of whom give because they want to help us keep Truthout barrier-free for everyone.
You can help by giving today. Whether you can make a small monthly donation or a larger gift, Truthout only works with your support.