What community benefits are supposed to be versus what people think they are about

The Post editorialized against the proposed "Walmart" ordinance in Montgomery County last week, "Montgomery’s big-box bill sends the wrong signal to retailers," and today has another article about it, "Montgomery big-box bill is unconstitutional, county attorney says," where the County Counsel argues the bill is unconstitutional.

I started a blog entry about this last week, but didn't finish it. Here goes.

The proposed law in MoCo isn't unconstitutional, it's just flawed in concept and proposed execution.

I wouldn't even call it a big box bill, because it doesn't systematically focus on mitigating systematic negative economic impacts of such stores on independent retailers and commercial districts.

1. The point of community benefits agreements generally is that a developer/tenant receives monetizable benefits from density increases, zoning changes, and exceptions and variances from zoning regulations, and that the community should receive something in return for the positive changes to the economic value of the property received by the developer.

2. The point of big box review ordinances is to weigh the potential negative impact against positive impact, and ensure that the projected costs of the entry of the business are appropriately weighed in the review process, and plans and programs for mitigation provided.

-- Big-Box Ordinance and Conditional Use Permit (CUP) Tool-Kit, Midwest Environmental Advocates

-- In California, as part of environmental reviews, new developments are supposed to address issues of "urban decay" that they might cause.

From the Urban Decay Study, City of Sacramento Railyards Development Plan:

For the purpose of the assessment and consistent with the intent of the court decisions, “urban decay” is defined as the closure of retail and other stores in the surrounding area as a result of market competition and disinvestment - leaving decaying building shells in a state of sustained vacancy, long-term abandonment, repeated property damage, and/or deteriorated conditions that significantly impair the proper and safe use of the real estate. Properties in areas with higher than normal market vacancies and which have been empty and/or unused for at least three years or more are assumed to be in prolonged or sustained vacancies. An example in Sacramento would be the K-Street Mall, which has suffered urban decay – and is only now being transformed by coordinated public/private investment back to a state of economic vitality.

The point of big box ordinances is to address the potential for urban decay and mitigate it as part of the approval/disapproval process.

3. On the other hand, businesses aren't "eelemosynary" organizations--they aren't charitable.

Although there is this new kind of for profit organization called a "social benefit corporation." One is open in Takoma Park, Maryland ("Blessed Coffee in Takoma Park offers perks to community" from the Gazette). To me, there is too much effort and risk involved in creating, managing, growing, and maintaining a business to be able to sustain the effort while giving away all the profit. (It's also why member cooperatives have a difficult time staying in operation also.)

That doesn't mean you can't have a social orientation in doing your business. In fact, the underlying business/marking approach I am using for BicyclePASS is based on social change theory along with social marketing and collaborative consumption and product models. (See
"Professor Sarah Soule Explains Effective Social Movements" and "How Markets Are Made and Broken by Social Activists" from Stanford Business School Magazine.)

But, typically, wage rates and many aspects of how a business operates wouldn't be covered by the review process deriving from either one of these building regulation process.

I know that as I participate in the development of a business focused on "bicycle facilities systems integration" I don't want "the government" legislating various aspects of how we are to run our business either, as it can hamstring us.

Just as Eastern Market in DC isn't run very well based on the law that governs it, nor is the Post Office well served by being micromanaged by the U.S. Congress...

4. The proposed MoCo ordinance is flawed because it isn't construed as a law based on planning and zoning regulations based on government's "police powers" focused on maintaining the health and well being of individuals and communities so much as it is based on a belief that "businesses need to give back to the community."

Planning and zoning regulations shouldn't be about buying off community groups--giving some dribs and drabs to selected organizations (which is why various groups in DC have been bought off in favor of Walmart, because they've received charitable contributions and other benefits), it's to mitigate in a substantive manner the potential negatives generated by the entry of the business, and to monetize the value of the zoning "relief" received by the developer/tenant.

5. Communities need strong frameworks for community benefits agreements -- I've written about this in the past, "Community benefits agreements (revised)" from 2008, although in a recent conversation I had with Robin Diener of the DC Library Renaissance Project, she makes an argument that I need to write about, that community benefits processes are typically very localized, focused on the neighborhoods where the projects are being constructed, and instead should be focused on providing benefits captured by the city as a whole--and big box ordinances, as I wrote last week ("Lessons from Walmart's foray into Washington, DC").

6. The intent of the MoCo legislation is admirable, but lacks a strong basis in planning "theory" and therefore distracts from what really matters--mitigating negative impacts and ensuring a level playing field for businesses.

The process in DC is a perfect example of the failure to have strong zoning regulations, because the community "partnership" agreement negotiated with Walmart fails to provide any substantive mitigation programs and monies, even while it buys off various community groups through charitable contributions.

Something I forgot to mention about the Watergate and "Tower Renewal"

Image of the Watergate complex from Wikipedia.

It's a lot harder to revitalize/rehabilitate multiunit residential buildings that are owned by their tenants, as opposed to rental properties owned by developers and portfolio investors.

With the latter, you deal with a couple actors--the owner and the financiers. With a condominium or cooperative building, you have to get hundreds of individuals to agree. And if redevelopment is warranted, they aren't likely to approve it.

The Watergate residential buildings are organized as co-operatives, although the underlying land is owned by another corporation, and the co-ops have a long term lease. Note that they could get loans, presumably, from the National Co-operative.

(I have written about this issue before in terms of commercial districts. Owned buildings, as opposed to apartments, better be designed to be attractive for generations, because the likelihood of condominium owners agreeing to future assessments for updating the exterior design "treatment" of the building is unlikely.)

Occupy Seattle protest at a Walmart in Renton, Washington

It's cool because they protested inside so there are some good images. See:

- PHOTOS: Occupy Seattle protests at Walmart from the Seattle Post-Intelligencer website

- "Occupy Seattle visits Walmart's 99%," Seattle Times

Jason Mebane marches through Walmart in Renton during an Occupy Seattle protest at the retailer on Black Friday. Photo: JOSHUA TRUJILLO / SEATTLEPI.COM

Tower renewal: The Watergate and Southwest DC, and Toronto

Crankshaft comic, 11/27/2011.

Today's Post has an article, "Watergate’s decline accelerated by grocer’s exit," on the decline of the Watergate residential-office-hotel-retail complex in Northwest DC.

The complex is adjacent to a few dead zones--the Kennedy Center, a Foggy Bottom neighborhood significantly converted to housing precincts for George Washington University, parkland, an amenity, but not a big activity generator for the complex, and I-66. All make it hard to survive for the complex to survive as is.

Another problem with the Watergate complex is its focus on a higher end market as that audience seeks better connected locations (e.g., even the Ritz Carlton residences on M Street NW are just a little bit farther than the Trader Joes) and as more vibrant and new retail and residential complexes have opened up nearby in the Pennsylvania Avenue corridor, and closer to the subway station and to Downtown.

Even with the closing of the Safeway at the Watergate, it's not like the area is a food desert--for which the city would likely justify pumping in another Walmart--the area is served by newer and more vibrant retail options, including the city's only Trader Joes (less than one mile away as the crow flies but 1.0 mile based on being able to walk where bridges cross the roads) and a new Whole Foods Market at Washington Circle (0.5 miles away).

I'm not sure if the problem with the complex is its location, age and the physical decline of the facility, the relatively old age of the condominium owners, the high cost of the units and a decline in their appeal to younger audiences, the failure of the hotel, further reducing activity within the complex, the anti-human urban design of the Kennedy Center, the need for a larger number of residents and office workers to generate the support necessary for successful retail, and even with the supermarket, could an independent succeed where a chain store cannot, because of higher corporate overhead and other fixed costs.

When I read the story I joked to myself that maybe the residents could band together and create a food co-operative, or develop a senior aging in place program like Capitol Hill Village.

But then I was thinking that the issues are not unlike those that planning director Rollin Stanley sees as an issue in Montgomery County--that traditional subdivisions with large houses, populated by a lot of people around the same age in the 1960s and 1970s, have a difficult time regenerating as resident households age out and younger families aren't necessarily interested in taking their place in houses and living patterns that they may consider dated.

Clearly the Watergate complex is a candidate for "renewal" and a release from its basic urban renewal format--a complex of buildings inwardly focused in an area of minimal street activity.

Much of the time we don't think of "rich areas" as needing public planning assistance, but the issue isn't wealth or poverty as much as it is urban design and the transportation network, whether or not it is age-resilient

For example, the AARP is very active on transit issues and walkable communities these days out of a recognition that as people age, life in an automobile-dependent environment becomes untenable when you can no longer drive.

After this man retired--they live at Potomac Avenue Metro--he biked everywhere. After awhile he realized that by biking alone, he was excluding his wife, so they got a tandem bicycle and ride together. Among other places, they ride downtown to swim at the YMCA and to the Trader Joes in Foggy Bottom.

And increasingly, cities are seen as a desirable place to live during retirement because of the potential array of amenities available and the ability to get around without having to be automobile-dependent--walking and biking are options, as is transit, depending on the city and whether or not it has a high quality transit system. E.g., DC does, Phoenix doesn't...

Within the city, Southwest DC is a classic example of the urban renewal paradigm, in fact it was one of the test cases, along with New Haven, for the federal government urban renewal program. Traditional grid/block networks and rowhouse type housing were demolished in favor of the recreation of superblocks, large buildings (towers) set off by park type environments, and a focus on automobility rather than walking.

Over time, the area got tired. The area around the Metro stop, which was constructed in a manner that obstructed the street network (4th Street specifically no longer was continuous between the northwest and southwest quadrant), became tired and forlorn, as has the Maine Avenue waterfront district.

A couple years ago the area around the Metro station was rebuilt, 4th Street was reconnected, a new Safeway supermarket replaced the old, a plaza was created around the Metro, and new office buildings and housing were constructed.

The area around the Metro Station/M Street SE is so much more vibrant today, so much so that I was shocked, compared to my memories of how dreary and empty the area was not that long ago. (These photos were taken in the late afternoon, so there were fewer people on the street at that time.)

Top photo: while the area's redevelopment is incomplete, the attractive plaza at the Waterfront Metro station has seating organized in circles, a splash fountain, and a variety of trees and other plantings. Bottom photo: 4th Street SW, reconnected to the Northwest quadrant, is a much more active streetscape post-reconstruction, especially with the addition of tables and chairs as part of the street furniture set up in the public space.

The ongoing revitalization of southwest DC is not unlike how the area of "Downtown" north of Massachusetts Avenue up to New York Avenue is becoming a real community, with the addition of condominiums, apartments, and retail, including as it happens, a Safeway supermarket, but also a hardware store and restaurants including a branch of Busboys & Poets.

The Watergate complex needs a similar intervention to that which is occurring in Southwest DC, not just with the area around the Metro station but also the Waterfront, such as The Wharf District that is being created there, which will reconnect the city to some of its waterfront.

Toronto's Tower Renewal Program

While Toronto's high rise boom continues today with continued building of tall condominium buildings across the city--so much so that the Toronto Star runs a weekly feature by Christopher Hume evaluating the design of new condo buildings--at the same time they have recognized that multiunit buildings constructed 30 to 50 years ago are due for an upgrade, not unlike various HUD programs in the United States or the HOPE VI program, which has reconstructed public housing complexes to include market rate housing.

From the Tower Renewal blog:

The Toronto area contains the second largest concentration of high-rise buildings in North America. The bulk of these are aging mid century apartment towers, built throughout the City and its suburbs in the post-war boom.

The Tower Renewal Project is an initiative to re-examine this remarkable heritage, neighbourhood histories, their current place in our city, and their future potential in a green and equitable Toronto.

Key considerations for this multidisciplinary project include decreasing greenhouse gas emissions through building and site retrofit, as well as enabling ‘complete communities’ through the introduction of on-site mixed-use, community services delivery, usable open and recreation space, as well as new retail, housing and employment opportunities.

The funny thing is that the issue isn't really about the building stock is it, because subdivisions in Montgomery County can have the same issues that are present in multistory apartment or condominium buildings in Washington, DC like the Watergate.

Having communities with a variety of housing types matters, because then a variety of household types, market segments, and age groups can be accommodated. Single-use type places--be they apartments/condominiums or subdivisions constructed of the same type of single family house--become less resilient and capable of adaption over time, as the circumstances that shaped their original development change in the face of new social, economic, and demographic realities.

The webpage from the Toronto Tower Renewal blog has dozens of links to articles about their project. This piece from APT Bulletin: Journal of Preservation Technology, is particularly good, "Reassessing the Recent Past: Tower Neighborhood Renewal in Toronto."

-- Tower Renewal Implementation Book, City of Toronto

-- Tower Renewal initiative webpage, City of Toronto

It also happens that the Toronto Star is running a three-part series of graphics on Vertical housing. The third installment will be next Sunday, and the additional graphics will be folded into the link

-- Vertical Toronto: The high life, Toronto Star

Extract from the Vertical Toronto graphic feature in the Toronto Star.

The Watergate story in today's Post merely indicates a need for more systematic planning for a similar kind of renewal of like properties in DC.

Murals project, Wynwood neighborhood, Miami

The New York Times travel magazine did a feature on the Wynwood neighborhood in Miami and its Wynwood Walls project, a "tightly curated and manicured exhibition of murals," complemented by a performance space, Vespa tours of the murals by Roam Rides, and some restaurants.

Because the area is mostly a warehouse district, they decided to use the blank cinder block walls and gates-doors as canvases.

Note the focus on "curation" and a critical mass within a particular neighborhood. This entry, "A Walk Around Miami’s Wynwood Walls For Street Art," from the Graffiti EU website, along with the Wynwood Walls website, has plenty of images.

National Harbor in Prince George's County and the Inter County Connector in Montgomery and PG Counties: belated critical analysis in the Post

I've noticed that it takes years for the Post to get around to writing critical analysis of big infrastructure projects, as opposed to taking a more cheerleading perspective early on.

Song, Carole King -- "It's Too Late"

This was particularly pronounced with the big Convention Center in DC, where the business section of the paper, only after the building opened, ran a couple of critical articles.

Chris Carney, a member of the Sierra Club, protests the proposed route for the Inter-County Connector. (Baltimore Sun photo by Elizabeth Malby). Jul 11, 2005.

I've written about this before with regard to the Inter County Connector, a highway connecting the I-270 corridor in Montgomery County with the I-95 corridor in Prince George's County. Maybe such a road is needed--and it will save people traveling that way a lot of time--but the development comes at the cost of encumbering any significant roadway infrastructure development in the State of Maryland for the next 20 years.

This point was made by advocates against the project in 2005, but for the most part the Post didn't cover that issue, although the Baltimore Sun, more oriented to the concerns of the entire state, and of course, the interests of the Baltimore region vis-a-vis the DC region, did and took a different position from the Post. See the blog entry, "Interesting difference of opinion between the Baltimore Sun and the Washington Post on the Inter County Connector," from 2006.

Earlier in the week, on the eve of most of the route being opened for operation, the Post ran an article about the economic negatives resulting from the ICC, "ICC puts strain on Maryland’s transportation funds." From the article:

The 18.8-mile Intercounty Connector, which opened in full Tuesday, could be the last publicly funded highway built in Maryland for a generation, as the state’s tolling agency, which financed its $2.56 billion construction, reaches its debt limit, local transportation experts said.

Financing for the six-lane toll road linking Interstate 270 in Montgomery County with Interstate 95 in Prince George’s County leveraged the Maryland Transportation Authority’s statewide toll collections.

But the transportation authority’s debt capacity is tapped out from borrowing to build the ICC and $1 billion in express toll lanes on I-95 northeast of Baltimore, state budget analysts said. Mounting debt recently prompted the authority to raise tolls statewide as the authority also struggles to maintain its aging bridges, tunnels and roads.

“You’re probably looking at another 20 years before we see another major road like this be built,” said Lon Anderson, a spokesman for AAA Mid-Atlantic.

While I am not a fan of building new roads necessarily, limiting the ability to do so for 20-30 years, in favor of constructing 19 miles of road in one place in the entire state doesn't seem to be a sound tradeoff.

Today there is an article about National Harbor, a big development in Prince George's County, a project positioned next to Beltway, disconnected from high capacity transit, and marketed as DC but not in DC, "Disney backs out of National Harbor" about how Disney is no longer going to build a resort there.

But the article has what feels to me to be the first printed critical analysis in the paper about the project, stuff I (and others) have written about for years. From the article:

The loss hits home just as the development, majority-owned by the Peterson Cos., was recovering some positive buzz. It got off to a slow start in 2008, running immediately into a severe economic downturn.

“We are disappointed,” Jon Peterson, senior vice president of the Peterson Cos., said Friday. But he added that “there was always a little bit of uncertainty” over whether Disney would follow through after the company bought the land.

Prince George’s and the Peterson Cos. had ballyhooed Disney’s May 2009 purchase of 11 acres for $11 million as a validation of their vision for the 300-acre site. ...

But the harbor has had mixed success in persuading national retailers to open stores there and has faced some head winds in encouraging families to buy condominium units there. It is not readily accessible by Metro or by car from Northern Virginia and parts of Maryland. With only one-third of the development completed, about $2.2 billion has been spent.

Little previous coverage raised these issues, and the Post never editorializes in favor of linking transportation investments and transit expansion to big land development projects like National Harbor.

Specifically with regard to National Harbor, the point could have and should have been made that, especially in conjunction with the Wilson Bridge reconstruction, that a portion of the proposed circumferential Purple Line--the section now being designed for Montgomery and Prince George's County is just a small portion of the idealized route--could have been designed and constructed to run from Alexandria, Virginia to National Harbor and beyond to the southern end point of the Green line heavy rail subway line in Suitland, leaving only the section between New Carrollton and Suitland to be designed on the Maryland side of the Purple Line route.

Proposed Purple Line circumferential light rail line, DC Metropolitan area. Image: Sierra Club Sustainable DC program.

Note that during the Wilson Bridge project, the Sierra Club did push for this, although their focus was on a heavy rail line, as depicted in the rendering below, rather than linking with Purple Line planning, although at that time, under the administration of Maryland State Governor Robert Ehrlich, an anti-transit Republican, the Purple Line was being planned as a bus service, not rail.

Newspapers are always going to favor new building projects, because newspapers are dependent on the success of the local economy for their own success. This is the basic "Growth Machine" argument concerning the role of the media in the creation and maintenance of the local pro-growth coalition.

But given that there are limited funds available, the media should focus more attention and energy on achieving successful projects, because funds are limited and decisions have multi-generational impact.

Failure, or middling success, helps no one.

Critical analysis articles and editorials about the best course of action in the early stage of projects would have far more positive impact and greater likelihood of improving and correcting gaps and potential failures within the projects long before they are built.

Writing these kinds of articles years later, like the lawsuit in Brookland over undergrounding utilities after the streetscape has already been constructed, is hot air.

It's no wonder why the process of organizational improvement and process innovation in the region is soooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo slow, because we don't look at ourselves and how we do things, and there are limited outlets for critical analysis, and limited ways for the thinking public and advocates to shape the process, especially because we can expect very little press coverage of our positions, until it is too late to have any substantive positive impact.

Undergrounding electric utility lines

This is an issue in DC generally, in areas of the city that are outside of the original "L'enfant city," where there is a ban on overhead wires being placed along streets, and in the nearby counties, in response to frequent storm-related power outages.

Residents in the Brookland neighborhood, in a completely back-a**ed way, tried to make this an issue during the streetscape renovation planning and construction process there, but by not working with the planners and other government officials during the planning process (mostly the active residents focused on denigrating the planners) they didn't achieve their goal. Instead, they raised this when the streetscape was being constructed, and some particularly litigious and obstreperous residents sued the city (to no avail).

Of course, Pepco didn't make it any easier, because they say it costs about $22 million per mile to underground electric wires--a price that is about 12-15 times higher than national averages.

Paradise Valley in Greater Phoenix has been, over the past 20 years, undergrounding their electric and telephone wire infrastructure "making way for more unobstructed views" according to "Paradise Valley close to its goal of burying all utility lines" from the Arizona Republic.

Note that to do this--they've completed 55 miles and have 3 miles to go--it's paid for partly by the city and residents through a special taxing district, and the rest from the local utility. From the article:

He said the undergrounding costs over the years have totaled more than $12 million from Arizona Public Service Co. and $15 million from the town. ...

Residents in a designated district are assessed a fee that helps subsidize the costs, LeMarr said. In 2009, the property owners in District 6 paid $160,000 for the undergrounding.

LeMarr said residents favor the project, but the economic downturn slowed its progress.

"Some residents in this district have been waiting four years for this leg to be completed," he said. "We're committed to this project, and over the years, we've never wavered."

The town has an agreement with APS, which serves most of Paradise Valley, to bury the lines. In areas not served by APS, the town works with Salt River Project on individual removal and undergrounding projects.

The Paradise Valley process demonstates the need to have all parties--residents, the local government, and the local utilities--on board from the outset, otherwise it is impossible to achieve the goal, as any one uncommitted stakeholder can scuttle the attempt.

Why it's hard to (holiday) shop in DC's neighborhood retail districts

Commercial district newspaper ad promotion, Cleveland Park, Northwest Washington, DC, Northwest Current community newspaper, 11/16/2011.

... there just isn't that much retail. According to the ads shown here, there are 2 retail stores and 1 attraction featured in an ad on Cleveland Park, and 4 stores, two very specialized--bikes and animals--in the ad for Barracks Row Main Street on Capitol Hill. (I know there are more non-food retailers in these districts, but not that many more.)

Part of the problem is that there are more extant neighborhood commercial districts and therefore spaces in DC than there is demand, based on the nature of today's shopping patterns.

So only a few places can be successful, unless they get many non-immediate residents as customers.

And the rents generally are too high for independent retailers to be able to be successful--which is why retail spots tend to turn over.

At the same time, since Washington residents consume meals out-of-home at a rate higher than the national average, restaurants can be successful, especially in neighborhood commercial districts, like Barracks Row in southeast DC, which so far also benefits from there being minimal alternatives near the Washington Nationals baseball stadium, and Cleveland Park.

So ads from Barracks Row and Cleveland Park promoting their districts as places to shop while important, are somewhat misleading, because these places are not commercial districts for shopping so much as they are places to go out to eat.

I have hundreds of posts in my blog on this general topic, but these are some of the most important:

- "Why ask why? Because," from 2007 about analyzing failure in neighborhood commercial districts, and building robust operations within retailers

- "Independent retailers can succeed and thrive" from 2008

- "Retail and Restaurant Check Up Surveys" from 2009, about methods for analyzing individual businesses

- The Soft side of commercial district revitalization" from 2006, which discusses factors of the business and commercial district beyond how the business is managed.

- "Retail Action Strategy" from 2007 is an omnibus entry listing a number of previous entries, in relation to various subtopics concerning the state of retail revitalization and development in DC, during the process of creating DC's Retail Action Strategy Plan.

I know I maybe over-extend the idea of the Reilly Law of Retail Gravitation somewhat, which was originally developed to explain why some (market) towns developed over others. But the general point is still relevant--population, transportation efficiency, civic attractions (i.e., Courthouse) are contributors to the development of market centers, and the places with more and better retail and attractions are the places that are preferred.

One of the biggest issues in DC has to do with how DC values commercial properties. Commercial properties in DC's corridors (like Georgia Avenue) and traditional commercial districts (like Takoma) tend to be overvalued based on the revenue generating capability of the property, thereby making rents much higher than what they should be, in terms of generating successful retail.

This comes about because the real estate development and ownership market in Downtown and key submarkets is a national and international market, and commercial properties all across the city tend to be valued if they can be purchased by a national-international actor.

It's the biggest reason why independent retail districts tend to fail in DC, as DC rents are 50% to 150% higher than they are in successful independent districts in other places (such as Richmond, Philadelphia, Baltimore, and Frederick). It's also why retailers, as opposed to restaurants, tend to fail--restaurants can pay higher rents because people eat food more frequently than they purchase apparel, furniture, watches, books, etc.

- This entry from 2007, using the example of the Takoma Theatre, "Avoiding the real problem with DC's property tax assessment methodologies" is one of many that discusses the tax issue.

These two entries from 2009 on Cleveland Park explain the rents issue in more detail, including the economics:

- "Cleveland Park Retail, my off-hand assessment is that the rents are too high"
- "Commercial retail rents #2"

I have testified about this issue a few times, and each time the City Council has militant refused to acknowledge the argument.

Speaking of small business and ward 4, the effect of Walmart's entry won't just be as a chain very big business with incredibly great purchasing power allowing them to sell goods at lower prices than independent businesses can buy at wholesale, the other impact will be that other chain stores will be drawn to Walmart's proximity, and more independent businesses will be crowded out, as the retail environment within the ward "chains up."

I do think it's possible to significantly improve the climate for independent retail in DC, but it will be almost impossible to achieve as long as commercial properties are taxed at values higher than their revenue capability warrants.

Commercial district newspaper ad promotion, Barracks Row, 8th Street SE, Washington, DC, Express Newspaper, 11/23/2011.

Shopping Main Street-Small Business Saturday

Even I wanted to go shop on Black Friday, because of a deal at Old Navy involving a free camera. But since everyone else will want the same deal and I hate crowds, I blew it off.

Most attempts by small businesses and commercial districts to compete against the chain stores and their super-duper deals fail. It's just too hard to compete, e.g., the deal I wanted at Old Navy was to get a free Kodak camera worth about $80 at retail, when you buy $40 of merchandise.

The Washington Post story, "New research reveals the reasons we shop on Black Friday," has some disturbing discussion about what makes us buy so much junk, when stores want us to do so:

1. Crowds make us happy
2. Those who plan, push
3. We love the hunt
4. It's about togetherness

that our rituals and sense of togetherness has been commodified.

And if that isn't enough, traditional shopping centers are being made over along "traditional commercial district" lines ("lifestyle centers"). See "Main Street replacing the shopping mall" from the Washington Post.

The American Express-initiated "Small Business Saturday" is a good counter to "Black Friday" and its hyper chain focus.

Small Business Saturday is an attempt to focus consumers on shopping at locally owned businesses and in traditional commercial districts.

It's smart positioning, rather than going head to head in a contest you'll lose, position and focus for another day. And American Express does advertising and provides marketing materials that independent businesses can use.

Last week, USA Today had a couple nice stories on shopping local, "Gift buyers like local shops' options" and "Local gift shopping has perks, minuses."

Shopping local matters. Local businesses spend more money in the community than chain stores. And they are typically tenants in local (neighborhood) commercial districts, in locations that chains aren't normally interested in.

So this holiday season, make the time and take the effort to shop and purchase at local stores, in local commercial districts.

These days, the drop in consumer spending is crushing retail businesses, large and small, especially in the music and book retail sectors (e.g., "Plan 9 Music files for bankruptcy" from the Richmond Times-Dispatch).

But independent businesses have access to fewer resources and therefore our purchases make a bigger impact there.

Top photo: Takoma Park, Maryland. Middle photo: State Street, Media, Pennsylvania. Bottom photo: Carytown, Richmond, Virginia.

Thanksgiving and food: roundup in honor of Thanksgiving, Part 2: Temporary market at Union Market

I didn't know that there was a fire at the DC Farmers Market, part of the "Union Market" district, so the building with its 20+ vendors is closed.

It's privately owned, so it doesn't have the same cachet or connection with the community so that there wasn't a massive public response about the fire. I don't think the Post even ran a story about the fire. If it did I missed it.

I found out from a email query and an editorial in the Washington Post, "More mischief from Harry Thomas," excoriating Councilman Harry Thomas for putting forward legislation giving the property owner a $5 million tax abatement to help speed reconstruction. (Also see "Capital City Market recovers from a bad week" from the Post Capital Business blog.)

Now I am not a fan of Harry Thomas, but despite his general ethical issues, the real problem wasn't his ethics--doing the bidding for a business based in his ward--and the legislation's intent so much as the "write legislation first, think second" inclination of members of the City Council generally.

Councilmembers think if they write a law that it's a good idea and when they pass it they think they create substantive change. Usually their laws are under-thought, address a wee bit of the issue, and are overly complicated/convoluted but at the same time infuriatingly simple.

You can understand why Councilman Thomas would strike up this initiative, given that it is a "public market" type building, albeit serving a lower income demographic compared to Eastern Market (but privately owned), considering that when Eastern Market, publicly-owned, burned in April 2007, the city and community responded immediately, with funding for vendors to open up temporary stands first on the street, then in a temporary building, and the City spent $20+ million to restore the building after the fire.

Eastern Market post-fire. Note that the walls easily withstood the fire because when the building was constructed, in the 1870s it was typical to "over-engineer" walls compared to today's standards. In this photo you can see the impact of the fire on the roof. Flickr photo by act.design.

The thing about the fire at Union Market is that it complicates an already complicated situation.

But it might speed forward redevelopment of the section that Edens & Avant, a large shopping center developer and manager, owns, faster than would normally have happened.

Much of the market is in play for some sort of redevelopment, as I have been writing about for more than 6 years.

The fire creates an opportunity to rebuild, but better, not merely to replace the building with another cinder block building.

So it's better for E&A to simultaneously think long term and short term, in a way that Thomas' legislation, a $5 million tax abatement, is incapable of, as it is not an action that is able to be fine-tuned.

In the short run, a temporary market setup could be created so that the market could go on in the interim, and that's the kind of initiative that Councilman Thomas could have sparked, had he possessed the imagination to do so.

a. Although it's by now already sold in an auction, maybe DC Government could rescind the sale of the temporary Eastern Market building ("East Hall," pictured below), and truck it over to the parking lot across from the Farmers Market building at Union Market. I know it wouldn't be cheap, and that building cost a fortune to heat and cool.

That would require the purchaser to agree, as well as Gallaudet University.

And the building would still need to be outfitted with equipment, and there isn't a Capitol Hill Community Foundation and committed community there to step up and buy the equipment for the Union Market vendors like there was for Eastern Market ("Eastern Market: More than a Building").

Top photo: A vendor operating in the post-fire interim at Union Market. Bottom photo: Gallaudet parking lot.

b. Similarly, the DeKalb Market in Brooklyn is a food and flea market that runs out of repurposed containers. See "BUSINESS START UP CONCEPT IN A SHIPPING CONTAINER" from the Demian Repucci blog and "Dekalb Market and Dekalb Farm Open in Brooklyn" from Food Systems Network NYC.

Top image: Demian Repucci. Middle and bottom images: Food Systems Network NYC.

c. Plus some University of Washington graduates have the idea that containers can be a good option for providing grocery sales in "food deserts." See "Stockbox Grocers to Convert Shipping Containers into Local Grocery Stores in Food Deserts" from Inhabitat.

Combine the temporary Eastern Market building, repurposed containers, and the Gallaudet-owned parking lot, and you have a functioning market again, if only on a "temporary" basis.

Thanksgiving and food: roundup in honor of Thanksgiving, Part 1

1. Happy thanksgiving!

(Someone once asked me what my favorite food was and I responded that Thanksgiving, turkey etc. is my favorite meal.)

2. Food is definitely more expensive these days/going up in price.

I do the bulk of grocery shopping for our household, and over the past couple months I have definitely noticed a significant increase in prices, not just at Safeway--their prices have definitely creeped up significantly since their big "rollback" about 18 months ago--but also ethnic markets like PanAm International.

So I can appreciate the sentiment expressed in this article from the Post, "Grocery store openings boost underserved communities in D.C. region," about the opening of an Aldi, a deep discount limited selection grocery store (I really like their dishwashing detergent and will buy "generic items" there like canned beans):

“I’ve been praying that they’d bring a store like Aldi’s or Wal-Mart to this neighborhood because that’s where we spend our money,” Davis said. “The stores where consumers spend most of their money is outside of D.C. This is going to improve everything in the neighborhood.”

City officials said having a branch of Aldi, which is known for low prices, will help meet several needs.

It made me realize that in commercial district revitalization planning, it might be reasonable to plan for different price points within various retail categories, especially food and restaurants.

3. USDA released a study about the local food movement, see the blog entry "New Report: Local Foods are Working for the Nation," and AP did a story, "Locally grown food a $4.8 billion business" too. This is the report: Direct and Intermediated Marketing of Local Foods in the United States. From the USDA blog entry:

Local markets are important for a lot of farmers. ERS finds that a whopping 40 percent of all vegetable, fruit and nut farms in the United States sell their products in local and regional markets. Nearly 110,000 farms across the nation are engaged. Some of these same farms are also selling into national or international markets.

For all of these farms, local markets are key to their bottom line. On average, these farms reported that local food sales accounted for 61 percent of their total sales. Almost two-thirds of the producers, regardless of size, reported that local food sales were at least seventy-five percent of their total sales!

The market for local foods goes well beyond direct-to-consumer sales. ... Combined, intermediated and direct local food sales totaled nearly $5 billion in 2008. Intermediated sales were three times larger than direct-to-consumer sales – so in other words, farm sales to regional distributors, grocers and restaurants are a big piece of the local food picture.

Local doesn’t necessarily mean small. Farms selling locally run the gamut from small to large – those with gross sales under $50,000 to those grossing over $250,000. Large farms are more likely to sell to restaurants, distributors and retailers than are small farms, and direct-to-consumer sales are evenly split between small, midsized and large farms.

Local means jobs. One out of every twelve jobs in the U.S. is associated with agriculture, and local food plays a role in that. The ERS report finds that fruit and vegetable farms selling into local and regional markets employ 13 fulltime workers per $1 million in revenue earned, for a total of 61,000 jobs in 2008. In comparison, fruit and vegetable farms not engaged in local food sales employed 3 fulltime workers per $1 million in revenue.

4. In my previous entry on Walmart, I forget to mention that just about all the discussion with regard to the proposed Walmart locations in DC and food deserts is bullsh*t. Most of the stores are to be located within a couple miles of other grocery stores. Only a handful of Census tracts in DC, maybe 5, are defined as food deserts by the USDA.

The Walmart on Georgia Avenue will be 2 miles from one Safeway and 1 mile from another. The Walmart on Riggs Road will be 0.3 miles from the Giant at Eastern Avenue and will be under 2 miles from the other Walmart on Georgia Avenue.

Giant Supermarket at Riggs Plaza, Prince George's County, Maryland.

The Post story mentioned above, "Grocery store openings boost underserved communities in D.C. region," has a big discussion on the Aldi opening and food deserts, even though the new Aldi is located across the street from a Safeway (less than 600 feet away), and the new Aldi doesn't take WIC benefits. See "D.C. Aldi Doesn't Accept WIC" from WAMU radio. (Although the difference in price is significant and does matter, unless you have WIC food benefits...)

5. The Mariposa Food Cooperative in Philadelphia is setting up a program to fund membership equity accounts for lower income households.

Typically, member-owned food cooperatives require that members pay in some capital, an amount ranging from $100 to a few hundred dollars, to help fund the store. This usually entitles members to a discount from list price, although nonmembers can also shop at the store.

From their press release:

In advance of the grand opening of its new grocery store at 4824 Baltimore Avenue, Mariposa Food Co-op is excited to announce the launch of its “Revolving Equity Fund” campaign. The Co-op is seeking donations to seed the fund, which will offer the benefits of Co-op membership, including ownership rights and discounts, to low-income families and individuals who could not otherwise afford the $200 member investment requirement. The creation of the fund reflects Mariposa’s deep commitment to improving access to fresh food for all residents of its West Philadelphia neighborhood.

Mariposa has been operating out of a small storefront at 4726 Baltimore since the 1970s. In January 2012 Mariposa will open an expanded store at 4824 Baltimore Avenue that will be five times the size of the current location. “Just the opening of the expanded Mariposa Food Co-op will dramatically improve access to healthy food in our West Philadelphia neighborhood,” said Peter Collopy, Mariposa’s convener. “This is one more way we’re working to make sure there are no barriers to joining and taking advantage of Co-op membership.”

Mariposa is much like any other grocery store, offering a full range of food and household products. There is one big difference, however. Mariposa is owned and operated by its members, the people who shop there. There are no annual membership fees or dues. Instead, Mariposa requires a one-time, refundable capital investment of $200 per member called “member equity.” The Co-op currently has 1100 members but expects to exceed 2000 members by the end of the first year in the new space. Mariposa aims to raise $20,000, or enough to cover 100 subsidized memberships, before beginning administration of the fund.

While Mariposa’s new location will allow non-members to shop, members will receive sizable discounts on all Co-op purchases. Members can also place special orders through the Co-op’s suppliers, take advantage of in-store promotions, and actively participate in the operations and governance of the Co-op.

“The $200 member investment, even though it’s fully refundable and we offer payment plans, is still a financial barrier for many potential members,” said Chakka Reeves, Mariposa’s Marketing and Outreach Coordinator, and the store’s newest hire. “We don’t want money to ever be a barrier to joining.”

Mariposa Food Co-op will use the Revolving Equity Fund to subsidize all or part of a member’s equity for the duration of a membership. When an individual ends their membership in the Co-op the equity designated to them would not leave with them, but rather go back into the fund to be assigned to a new qualifying member.

6. Canadian Geographic Magazine has a story, COMMUNITY GARDENS, Cultivating communities: How community gardens are growing on Toronto's public housing projects" about community gardens at public housing projects.

While it's not the same thing exactly, years ago a public housing dweller in DC grew crops on land at his housing project and sold the items he grew. He was charged with a crime, misuse of public resources.

But there is no reason that community gardens, orchards, and other urban agriculture initiatives shouldn't be part of public housing projects and other civic assets, even with the possibility of income generation for the participants.

Happy anniversary, zoning!

From Zoning at 85 by Ed McMahon, in Urban Land Magazine:

This year marks the 85th anniversary of the landmark United States Supreme Court case Euclid v Ambler Realty, which upheld the basic constitutionality of local zoning. Given the current debate between liberals and conservatives about the appropriate role of regulation in shaping our economy and our communities, it seems timely to ask the question: do we still need zoning?

Some anti-government activists argue that we don’t need zoning and that land use planning is somehow akin to socialism. In fact, planning is the multi-faceted process that communities use to prepare for change. It is an activity as old as humankind itself. In most realms of endeavor, failing to plan, simply means planning to fail. Try to imagine a corporation without a business plan. It would have a hard time attracting investment. The same is true of communities. In America, land use planning is primarily the responsibility of local government. Zoning is considered the quintessential tool of plan implementation.

A zoning ordinance divides a local government’s jurisdiction into districts or zones. For each district or zone, the zoning ordinance regulates the type of land uses allowed, intensity or density of development, height, bulk and placement of structures, amount and design of parking, and a number of other aspects of land-use and development activity. ...

Despite criticism from some academics and property rights advocates, zoning has stood the test of time.

Does this mean that every zoning decision made by a local planning commission is a good one or that zoning has produced the beautiful, high quality living and working environments that we all care about? No – zoning has not always lived up to its promise and it has sometimes been misused. For example, in some places zoning has been used to exclude low-income families or to keep out minorities. In other places, zoning has been used to give every landowner exactly what they want regardless of the cost to the community or the impact on neighboring landowners. Want to build a shopping center in a flood plain or a racetrack next to a residential area? No problem – we’ll just rezone the property.

Zoning is merely a tool. It is a means to an end. It can be used constructively as a positive force for community good or it can be misused. Zoning is what you make of it. It works best when it is based on a community vision and closely tied to a comprehensive plan. At its best, zoning can provide the marketplace with predictability and certainty. It can protect critical natural resources and it can raise property values. However, by itself, conventional zoning will rarely create a memorable community.

This is because conventional zoning is a limited tool. It is good for protecting what is already there and for preventing nuisances. It is not as good for shaping the future or for improving the quality of new development. This is because most zoning codes are proscriptive in nature. They try to prevent bad things from happening without laying out a vision of how things should be.

Successful communities think beyond conventional zoning. They use education, incentives and voluntary initiatives, not just regulation. They also use design standards, form-based codes, density bonuses, transfer of development rights and other innovative techniques that foster walkable, mixed use neighborhoods.

Page from the New York City Zoning Handbook.

Lessons from Walmart's foray into Washington, DC

Store window display in the Brookland neighborhood, 12th Street NE, Washington, DC.

I wish I had more time to write my definitive take on the Walmart issue in DC.

As part of the ANC4B review of the application to build a Walmart on Georgia Avenue, at the intersection with Missouri Avenue, on a block that used to be the home of Curtis Chevrolet, and is ringed on the perimeter by small apartment buildings, co-ops, and duplexes, I was the lead author of a review document (ANC4B Large Tract Review Report on Walmart, 5/2011; ANC4B Large Tract Review Report on Walmart, Summary Recommendations), which made a variety of points about the review process, the need to do economic impact analysis, and to provide for mitigation.

A big point I made in the document is that the animus about Walmart makes it very easy for Walmart and developers to use that anguish about Walmart, ranging from their anti-union stance to wage discrimination complaints and how execution of their business model tends to come at the expense of locally owned businesses and traditional shopping districts, to create noise that ends up constraining "the discourse" on issues that people can address, such as whether or not the building is designed right, if it's part of a mixed use project (this matters in cities), and the creation of a mitigation program to deal with the negative impact of Walmart store entry on independent businesses and business districts.

This point undergirds my take on events from the past week.

So yesterday's announcement, "Wal-Mart, D.C. strike community benefits deal" in the Washington Business Journal, and today's article, "Wal-Mart package for DC includes job-training program, $21 million in donations" in the Post, that Walmart is signing a community benefits agreement that was negotiated not with the Respect DC coalition, but with the Mayor's office, is interesting, and follows last week's announcement ("Wal-Mart plans to open six stores in the District" from the Post) that Walmart will now build 6 stores, not 4, in the city.

The new locations are at Fort Totten Square--this location is only 1.7 miles from the proposed Georgia Avenue Walmart location, so I wonder if it will actually be a grocery only operation, a Walmart Neighborhood Market--and at the Skyland Center, a polyglot collection of stores in Ward 7 that DC had marked for urban renewal type operations years ago, but still hasn't pulled the plan significantly forward.

Top photo: rendering, Fort Totten Square. Middle photo: Rendering, Proposed Walmart, Georgia Avenue Northwest, Washington, DC. Bottom photo: Walmart Neighborhood Market in Downtown Chicago.

In the summer when Mayor Gray "threatened" Walmart, stating he wouldn't approve their entry into the DC market if they didn't open a store in Skyland, I wrote ("Misplaced priorities: threatening Walmart if they don't open another store") that this was likely a kind of con job, that probably Walmart had already agreed to open a store at Skyland, either internally within the company or with the DC Government, but held back a public announcement as a bargaining chip, so that the Mayor would be in a position of being able to announce a victory later, like they did last week.

The location of a store at Fort Totten isn't surprising, since JBG bought into that center earlier in the year, and JBG already has agreements with Walmart for urban style stores in the NoMA District in DC and in Tysons Corner at the old Moore Cadillac dealership site, and for a store in an urbanizing area, Rockville Pike in Montgomery County, although it's not clear if the development is intended to be mixed use ("Wal-Mart plans to open store on Rockville Pike" from the Washington Post).

What interests me most is what are the lessons, for planners, elected officials, and citizens?

1. Walmart isn't driven by ethics, the decisions they make are business-based.

When people criticized Walmart's involvement in a healthy foods initiative involving First Lady Michelle Obama ("With praise from Michelle Obama, Wal-Mart announces healthy food campaign" from the Post), saying why would Walmart keep to the agreement, since they seem to pay women less than men and they are anti-union, etc.

I replied that people were missing the point, that the same decision making calculus that led Walmart to discriminate against women, unions, etc.--so that they could make more money and reduced costs--was in play with the healthy food initiative--they could make more money.

2. Walmart wants to be in the city, in "urban" markets, but they are agnostic about building and project form. If the site they want is what they want, they just want to be there, they won't push the developer to do an urban-appropriate or better project.

In DC, 2 of the 6 proposed Walmart projects are being done by JBG, a real estate developer known for its comfort and success with mixed use projects; 2 of the projects are being done by traditional shopping center developers having limited experience with mixed use projects; one is being done by a developer with mixed use experience, but limited exposure and concern about operating in DC (the Georgia Avenue store); and the other is being done by a nonprofit developer with a limited portfolio of experience.

So only 2 of the 6 stores will be truly "urban." The other four will be "suburban" for all intents, oriented to automobile-based consumers, but in the city.

3. Communities are in position to get their clocks cleaned, unless they have the right ordinances in place before Walmart comes knocking, and has already lined up support behind closed doors long before it's reported in the media.

This was definitely the case in DC, which doesn't have a "big box review ordinance" for large site retail. Such ordinances assess economic impact and provide procedures for mitigating negative effect or disapproval. DC's "Large Tract Review" procedure is pretty limited, and focused on coordination, not mitigation.

Walmart's real estate department learns from every engagement and they apply the total array of knowledge-learning from previous stores to each new store proposal.

Don't you think Walmart was very strategic, and chose locations where the zoning already allowed them to open a store, with very limited provisions, if any, for public review?

A typical community is like a deer in headlights by comparison, as the Walmart team brings the experience of 3000+ store openings and thousands of contentious interactions to the table, and by comparison, community representatives--be they elected officials, government employees in planning and transportation departments, or citizens--don't have near the knowledge base. It's a classic case of imperfect information.

The lesson for other communities is to get your ordinances in order, and have them in place before Walmart comes knocking...

-- Big-Box Ordinance and Conditional Use Permit (CUP) Tool-Kit, Midwest Environmental Advocates

4. The Respect DC Coalition acts as if they lost, but they really won, sort of..., as Walmart negotiated a community benefits agreement in DC, just that Respect DC wasn't part of the negotiation.

-- Walmart DC Community Partnership Agreement

Respect DC can and should be disappointed, but they also deserve credit because Walmart did do a kind of community benefits agreement, even though only 2 of the 6 locations may have triggered extranormal requirements for negotiation.

Little in the law forced Walmart to come to the table and they already had the support of key elected officials, even though they already locked up key lobbyists like David Wilmot, and in a town where trades unions representing semi-skilled workers are pretty weak (see "Selling of Walmart" from the Washington City Paper).

I have to believe that the Respect DC effort was essential to the creation of the agreement and they should take some credit for it.

From the Mike DeBonis District of DeBonis Washington Post blog:

Here are some of the big “gets” for the city:

— An effort to work with local small and minority-owned businesses to do construction work;

— a citywide workforce development program aimed at “low-income families, minorities, veterans, at-risk youth and formerly incarcerated residents”

— the “expectation of filling a majority of available positions” with city residents;

— $21 million worth of “charitable partnerships”over the next seven years;

— a commitment not to sell guns or ammunition in its D.C. stores and to attempt to provide space for locally sourced products;

— and an embrace of “transportation demand management measures,” including Capital Bikeshare stations, bus shelters, and electric car charging stations.

And here is what’s not in the agreement:

— Specific wage commitments;

— any wage or benefit concession that goes beyond what Wal-Mart would otherwise provide or what District law already requires;

— enforceable goals for the hiring of District residents.

Moreover, the agreement, signed by a Wal-Mart senior vice president, is “subject and contingent upon business conditions.”

And this was in DC, after Walmart played total hardball and beat the crap out of the City of San Diego City Council, so that after the Council passed a really great big box review ordinance, and maintained it after a Mayoral veto, Walmart organized a referendum campaign (it can't be proven that Walmart organized it but they likely did) to overturn the ordinance, and rather than go through with it, the Council backed down and voted to rescind the ordinance. See "Wal-mart buys San Diego" from Huffington Post. From the article:

Wal-Mart needed only 8 weeks and maybe thirty thousand dollars to scare the daylights out of the City Council in San Diego. One local official in San Diego, California called it a "dark day for democracy."

In December of 2010, the City Council voted to override a veto by the Mayor of a zoning ordinance that requires certain big box stores over 90,000 square feet to study their impact on the local economy, on wages, and on traffic. It was a watered down ordinance at best -- but there was one "citizen" who didn't appreciate the City Council vote. Wal-Mart began portraying the ordinance as an outright ban on superstores, and the corporation hired professional signature collectors to put the issue on the San Diego ballot. Wal-Mart knew that San Diego could not financially afford to hold a referendum, so all the folks in Bentonville had to do was throw a head fake. It worked.

Cash-strapped San Diego would have to swallow hard to come up with the $3.4 million cost of a referendum. Wal-Mart put the City Council neatly in a box. The City Council voted 7-1 to rescind the ordinance -- not because they had a change of heart -- but because fighting Wal-Mart was not worth millions of dollars to the Council.

4. A big lesson is that advocates should focus. If you don't, your opponents set the agenda.

When your demands include everything (also known as "all kinds of s***"), all kinds of stuff, and a lot of it not business related, and a bunch of stuff that they have to do anyway (under DC law new construction has to be environmentally sustainable), it makes it impossible to focus, and to get action on the most important concerns. You'll get some of what you want, but mostly not what you want, but Walmart (or other company's) can say they responded to the community.

From today's Post article:

The announcement did little, however, to temper the concerns of grass-roots organizations and unions that opposed Wal-Mart’s entry into the District without an enforceable set of requirements, as the document is not legally binding and does not contain any penalties if Wal-Mart fails to fulfill its promises. ...

But Respect D.C., a coalition of activists that collected 3,000 signatures requesting that the store sign a binding agreement, called the Wal-Mart deal a “sham benefits agreement” and a “backroom deal.”

Mackenzie Baris, lead organizer for the not-for-profit DC Jobs With Justice, which has coordinated protests of Wal-Mart’s plans, said the coalition considered the document more of “a statement from Wal-Mart about their intentions.”

“It is in writing and it is signed, but it is not a binding document of any kind,” Baris said.

Victor L. Hoskins, deputy mayor for planning and economic development, said that Wal-Mart had already begun to meet its commitments and that he believed the city could hold the company to its promises without a legal document.

Hoskins is right, there is no reason to believe that Walmart won't follow the agreement. Respect DC is missing the point. Walmart made a business decision to make this agreement.

5. Setting the agenda for negotiation is key and it should be focused on the long term best interest of the city and impacted neighborhoods, not anything else.

I don't give a damn that Walmart is going to pay out $21 million to charities.

a. What matters to me is the research that says for every job that Walmart creates, 1.5 jobs is lost.

So is it the case that Walmart will create 1,800 jobs at the cost of 2,400 jobs, for a net loss of 600 retail sector jobs?

Is it the case that businesses will close?

-- note that there is some disagreement about this, at least in an urban market in Chicago, Wal-mart funded research claims that more businesses opened than were closed. I think this might be true, but the research did not address fundamental changes in the mix of businesses between locally owned and chain establishments. Chains spend less money in a community and therefore the economic impact of new business can be muted. In any case, sales tax receipts did not increase in the Austin neighborhood, despite the opening of the new Walmart store.

Is it the case that vacancies in our traditional commercial districts will increase?

-- note that with the exception of store proposed for Georgia Avenue, most of the Walmart stores will be located in areas in the city where local retail options are quite limited, and so it is possible that there won't be significant negative impact, except in Wards 1 and 4, proximate to the Georgia Avenue and Fort Totten locations.

Plus, while not relevant to DC, the shopping center at Eastern Avenue and Riggs Road, just across the border in Prince George's County is probably gonna get its clocked cleaned and eventually close, although it then becomes a good candidate for redevelopment and transit proximate redevelopment.

Instead of monies paid out to charities, mitigation of the potential negative impact of Walmart on independent businesses and commercial districts should have been the foremost priority of any financial "contributions" by Walmart.

The charitable contributions allow Walmart to buy support, but it doesn't mitigate the potential negative impact of their entry, and is therefore a misuse of funds and a derailing of the community benefits process, which is supposed to be focused on mitigating negative impacts, not enriching some groups and stakeholders.

b. The other thing that matters to me is whether or not the stores will support urbanism and appropriate urban design.

The Georgia Avenue store could have been a mixed use project, like the JBG projects at New Jersey Avenue NW and in Fort Totten.

But JBG isn't doing the Georgia Avenue site, Foulger-Pratt is, and Foulger-Pratt doesn't care about urbanism in DC (in fact the better they do development in DC comes at the expense of the success of their considerable investment in Silver Spring, Maryland, just across the DC-Maryland border), just maximizing the present value of the property while minimizing costs.

If the elected officials had pushed Walmart on this, Walmart could have pushed the developer, and a better project could have resulted

But by focusing on jobs issues, and money for charities, substantive urban-related issues end up getting completely ignored.

Since the impact of these projects will last for generations, getting it right from the outset is essential. Getting it wrong dooms communities to 20-40 years of lost opportunity. So Fort Totten benefits, because the Walmart project there is being done by an enlightened developer, while the Georgia Avenue community will languish, because of an unenlightened developer.

AND THAT'S MY LAMENT ABOUT THE PROCESS.

-------

I am agnostic about Wal-mart. I don't have to shop there. People who want to can. And plenty of DC residents go out to the suburbs to shop at Walmart.

Walmart's entry will likely lead to a competitive response by other retailers like Safeway and Giant to lower their prices and that can be advantageous to consumers whether or not they shop at Walmart. Plus, people want lower prices. (Although note Walmart tends to rank lower on customer service based on national surveys.)

And Walmart's entry into certain submarkets in the city will help catalyze and drive forward new projects and improvements in those areas, and in most of those areas (New York Avenue, Skyland, East Capitol, Georgia Avenue, Fort Totten) the communities have languished for years, even while the core of the city is improving.

But the negative impacts should be mitigated, and for all intents and purposes, mitigation of Walmart's negative impact on Washington's urbanism, independent businesses, and traditional commercial districts has been completely ignored by DC's elected officials.

That's a failure that should not be covered up, in the hype and hysteria over a community benefits agreement and $21 million of loot for charities.

Bank of America's disconnection from understanding small business...

This ad is ironic because the firm featured, Vida Fitness, was not the original developer of the building, which was Results Gym.

Results Gym is now a small chain of fitness facilities in the city, but it started at the facility on the 1600 block of U Street NW. Their financier was David Von Storch, and he owns the building. Von Storch liked the Results business so much he went on to start his own company, Vida Fitness (and he owns other ventures, such as Capitol City Brewery). When the time came to renew the lease, the landlord----refused, and he opened a new fitness facility in its place.

So what Bank of America lauds in the ad--the revitalization efforts on upper U Street NW, sparked in part by a fitness facility--was actually done by Results Gym.

See "Results vs Vida: A "Gym Wars" Update" from the Borderstan blog and "The Story of 1612 U Street, and a Bit Beyond: Four developers and businessmen flow in a tangled orbit around David von Storch’s starter building" from theWashington City Paper.

Not blockbusting but a similar technique

Blockbusting was how, post-integration, realtors would rile up a community to get white homeowners to sell once a black family moved in the neighborhood, and in turn would sell the houses to other black family, accelerating outmigration from the center city. (Blockbusting in Chicago, from the Encyclopedia of Chicago History; White flight, from Wikipedia)

This "notice" I found on my door the other week is likely a more modern version of the same kind of bottom feeding by real estate interests.