OMB strikes 1 Sprucewood Big Box argument
http://www.windsorstar.com/LaSalle+argue+market+competition+fight/1929073/story.html
Question, if competition cannot be used as a criteria, then how do we protect our Mainstreets?
“Francis said municipal planners should not decide who competes with whom.”
Why not? If we have 7 BIA’s, if we have the highest commercial vacancy rate in Canada, why can we not say no more?
Isn’t this is about zoning more space to commercial? Why can’t we say there’s too much commercial in our region already?
The city is using the defense that because this collector road services the raceway that it can service this shopping center. Ahhhhh…the old “two wrongs make a right” or is that just simply ignore the fact that the Raceway is also serviced mainly by the Expressway and not Sprucewood.
I wish Lasalle good luck in this fight.
“The dispute between Windsor and LaSalle on the proposed big-box development highlights the need for a regional planning body, Francis said.
“I think if we had regional planning in place we would not have these types of issues,” he said.”
I don’t understand this statement, is he saying that Windsor will continue to ignore the region unless there’s a regional planning department? If so, Is pissing off our neighbors the best way to realize that goal?
Wouldn’t the best way to encourage regional planning is to lead by the example of having good comprehensive planning policies within Windsor’s particular portion of the region? How would adding commercial space to a city that has the highest amount of commercial vacancies in Canada be a policy that shows leadership? Leadership that would make other parts of the region want to join with Windsor. Why would the county talk to us about regional planning when we can’t plan our own part of the region properly?
Just let mainstreets succumb to new competition while ignoring residential intensification promises and theft of the moneys allocated to the bicycle BUMP Plan. (Yeah, I think the word theft is appropriate because the $250,000 of money was taken from that program that belonged to it)
I’d really like to see how councillors plan to formulate their positions on these issues. It should make for some interesting question periods
Tags: bicycle, big box, big box retail, Lasalle, OMB, planning
Post Feedback
I wonder why is it always the city (windsor or lasalle) that is the sole target of these problems. Remember, there are 2 other proponents that need just as much pressure: the developer, and the retail owners.
Pressure should be put on Coco to let them know that the public DOES NOT WANT more sprawl developments. In addition, WalMart (the community killer) needs to know too. Besides, with the nice Windsor funded EC Row there, you can get to the Dougall WalMart in < 5 minutes!
I’m sure that the developers do not want a public outcry campaign on them, neither will the bog-box owners.
Pressure should remain on city council too. Are they doing this in desperation for some tax revenue? London has a ban on any new developments until vacant retail in the core is filled. We should adapt their policy on this one, because London’s downtown is not sinking.
The problem with the Dougal location is that it cannot be converted to a Super Centre like the east end store recently was. So, new location, new super-sized store and then close the Dougal store. Simple.
As you say, it’s only 5 minutes down the E.C. Row
What is WalMart’s exit strategy for the Dougall Location? As much as I would love to see WalMart disappear, it would leave a big empty hole in that plaza.
Just open the big-box playbook. See Home Depot.
JP, can you point me to the source about the “ban on any new developments until vacant retail in the core is filled” in London? I ask because the OMB is very strict when it comes to municipalities limiting competition or cueing as it is more commonly called. I saw nothing in the City of London Official Plan that limits development to the downtown.
The act of designating land for commercial land uses implies that the land is ready to meet long-term needs. If a municipality places a condition that the land cannot be developed until other designated lands are developed, then, by definition, the land cannot be necessary for long-term needs and should have never been designated in the first place. The OMB does not look kindly at that practise.
London uses a hierarchical system for designating commercial uses that directs certain types of developments to certain parts of the City. That is not a ban per se. Perhaps that is what you are talking about?
The retail anchors simply don’t get it. Y’know “frog and the scorpion”
it’s simply their nature. Once the developer gets the anchors the parasitic surrounding stores follow and if they don’t the developer will be willing to speculate.
The developers solely see $ signs and they rationalize with the sole beneift of job creation ignoring that there us a net job gain of ZERO since those jobs will simply be transferred from somewhere else
building crap we dint need is simply not a good economic model. Building crap no one wants to live next to is just plain stupid
Net job creation is actually less than zero when BigBox supplants Main Street. How’s that? The percentage of payroll, profits and community investment invested into the local community with Main Street is significantly higher than BigBox. I forget the exact number, but is somewhere near 80% of spending at a Main Street business is returned to the community and 32% for Sprawlmarts. Investing in BigBox stores is the equivalent of so many 80s hair bands — One-shot wonders.
I’ve said it before, and I will say it again, I am astounded that any business person would be considering another shopping lagoon when they look around them. What’s the average commercial vacancy rate in the US? How many malls, megaplexes, and sprawl communities are failed/failing? The last thing Windsor needs is another batch of closed storefronts advertising the economic woes of the City.
Apparently Jenny Coco and crew don’t care what face Windsor puts on, as long as they wear it while shopping at WalMart.
You snuck-in on me;-) I got called away mid-comment and had to come back to finish my comment while you posted yours.
Now I look-like an ass
I would hazard that the net job gain would be less than zero if you count all the jobs included in the small retail networks that crush under the weight of Wal-Mart. Distributors and suppliers, trades like plumbers, carpenters and electricians that keep all those storefront businesses going. They are all disappeared by the big boxes since they are sourced from central distribution centres and maintained by large property maintenance companies that manage hundreds of properties with traveling crews of maintenance workers.
Here’s a fun fact that I read on another blog somewhere. Who is the largest private employer in the United States?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wal-Mart
you could argue the net job gain would be Negative but you’re not considering the temporary construction jobs which should count for somethng
How about all the jobs created for demolishion companies when they tear down all the commercial space in the core?
I would call this development “The house that council built”. How do they look themselves in the mirror when knowing they created big box blight I do not understand. How many ghost boxes do they need to see before they get it.
I hope this becomes an election issue
Just another reason why this city always does things backwards or half-assed. I can tell you one thing, traffic in that area would be a complete nightmare during holiday shopping season. I would venture to say it would be worse than the Walker Road/Division/Provincial development that the city allowed to happen.
… then guess who has to pay for road upgrades? Not WalMart or Coco.
If any of you bothered to read the PAC report, both Sprucewood and Matchette must be upgraded before any development can be approve. All improvements are at the cost of the developer less any credit via development charges. For example, Coco contributed toward future traffic lights at Sprucewood and Matchette as part of the residential component of the Ambassador Golf development.
Key Studies on Wal-Mart and Big-Box Retail
Download a formatted PDF of this document for copying and distribution.
http://www.newrules.org/retail/key-studies-walmart-and-bigbox-retail
Below are summaries and links to key studies that examine the impact of Wal-Mart and other large retail chains and, in some cases, the benefits of locally owned businesses. For ease of use, we’ve organized these studies into the following categories, although they do not all fit neatly into one category. (Also see the Research section of the News Archive for more detailed stories on some of these studies).
Economic Impact of Local Businesses vs. Chains
Studies have found that locally owned stores generate much greater benefits for the local economy than national chains.
Retail Employment
These studies examine whether the arrival of a superstore increases or decreases the number of retail jobs in the region.
Wages & Benefits
Studies have found that big-box retailers, particularly Wal-Mart, are depressing wages and benefits for retail employees.
Existing Businesses
These studies look at how the arrival of a big-box retailer displaces sales at existing businesses, which must then downsize or close. This results in job losses and declining tax revenue, which some of these studies quantify.
Poverty Rates
Counties that have gained Wal-Mart stores have fared worse in terms of family poverty rates, according to this study.
Social and Civic Well-Being
This study found that Wal-Mart reduces a community’s level of social capital, as measured by voter turnout and the number of active community organizations.
City Costs
These studies compare the municipal tax benefits of big-box development with the cost of providing these stores with city services, such as road maintenance, police and fire—finding that cities do not always come out ahead.
State Costs
Because many of their employees do not earn enough to make ends meet, states are reporting high costs associated with providing healthcare (Medicaid) and other public assistance to big-box employees.
Subsidies
The expansion of big-box retailers has been financed in part by massive development subsidies and tax advantages provided by local and state governments. These studies document those subsidies and their failure to produce real economic benefits for communities.
Consumers & Prices
Are chains better for consumers?
Traffic
How do vehicle miles traveled and trips increase as a result of big box developments?
1. ECONOMIC IMPACT OF LOCAL BUSINESSES VS. CHAINS
The following studies have found that locally owned stores generate much greater benefits for the local economy than national chains.
Local Works: Examining the Impact of Local Business on the West Michigan Economy - by Civic Economics, September 2008
This study concludes that if residents of Grand Rapids and surrounding Kent County, Michigan, were to redirect 10 percent of their total spending from chains to locally owned businesses, the result would be $140 million in new economic activity for the region, including 1,600 new jobs and $53 million in additional payroll. The study calculates the market share of independent businesses in four categories: pharmacy (41%), grocery (52%), restaurants (50%), and banks (6%). It analyzes how much of the money spent at these businesses stays in the area compared to national chains. Local restaurants, for example, return more than 56% of their revenue to the local economy in the form of wages, goods and services purchased locally, profits, and donations. Chain restaurants return only 37%. Measuring the total economic impact of this difference, including indirect and induced activity, the study estimates that $1 million spent at chain restaurants produces about $600,000 in additional local economic activity and supports 10 jobs. Spending $1 million at local restaurants, meanwhile, generates over $900,000 in added local economic activity and supports 15 jobs. The study also analyzes the economic impact of independent vs. chain businesses on a square footage basis, noting, “In a largely built-out city like Grand Rapids, policy dictates seeking the highest and best use of available properties, and this analysis strongly supports the idea that local firms should be the preferred tenants for city sites.”
The above is a huge page with tonnes of information on why not to expand or build big boxer developments. Both Windsor and LaSalle governments should read this page.
If the result is a net decrease in wages, shouldn’t CAW and CUPE also be pushing against this? Or do they promote this because it “creates jobs” in the neighborhoods that the members live in?
CUPE environmental division did a deal with the devil to prevent homes from being built which would be harder on the environment according to them.
The almighty temporary construction jobs are being prioritized over non union jobs of independant retailers and other independant hospitality and others in our city.
Mark, I’ve already demonstrated here http://lineosight.blogspot.com/2009/07/eton-ford-test-track.html
that Eddie does not provide leadership in any of its 10 components. No he doesn’t lead by example, or was that a rhetorical question?
BTW the fact that our environmental groups in this city supported this big box site rezoning shows whats wrong with the environmental movement. They care about protecting plant species over humans. Responsible development and environmentalism would have protected both.
“I wish Lasalle good luck in this fight.”
Don’t be so quick to conclude that LaSalle is the ‘good guy’ in this fight.
The same year the Coco raceway lands were approved by City Council, LaSalle approved the redesignation and rezoning of 25 acres of land at Sandwich W Parkway and Heritage Drive (west of Windsor Crossing) from residential to commercial in order to attract large-format retail including a grocery store to LaSalle.
It was a simple four page staff report that made no mention of protecting Windsor’s downtown or even the LaSalle’s Malden Town Centre. But now LaSalle is playing the part of saviour? Get real.
“If any of you bothered to read the PAC report, both Sprucewood and Matchette must be upgraded before any development can be approve. All improvements are at the cost of the developer less any credit via development charges. For example, Coco contributed toward future traffic lights at Sprucewood and Matchette as part of the residential component of the Ambassador Golf development.”
So that makes ugly development sans design guidelines alright??????
I never accused Coco of not paying but they’re not paying nearly as much as any other developer of “lifestyle centers” are required to in the U.S.. As much as it’s also deficient, at least the U.S. has far more requirements from New Big box developments. We sell out windsor as a cheap crack whore to the U.S. savvy call girls. What’dya think, Walmart will bypass our city if we make them pay a bit more? Give me an example of a city in North America that Walmart voluntarily bypassed because they asked too much
What are we gonna have? Councillor Valentinis asking for another 2 trees in the parking lagoon to make it good like he did for the Walmart by lauzon????
As for your Lasalle ain’t innocent argument, I’ll file that under the “Two wrongs make a right” defense file. I usually put that one under “G”
Are you saying that you support this type of development for our city
“So that makes ugly development sans design guidelines alright??????”
Again, if you bothered to read the PAC report, you would have noted that an Urban Design Study is a requirement before any development can happen. Site Plan control is a requirement before any development can happen. Discussions with ERCA, EPAC and MNR are required before anything can happen. With an OMB hearing, who knows what will happen. The Board could add it’s own requirements.
“What’dya think, Walmart will bypass our city if we make them pay a bit more? Give me an example of a city in North America that Walmart voluntarily bypassed because they asked too much”
Woah, slow down boy. Mark, you really have to stop putting words into a person’s mouth. You forget that PAC approved a watered down version of the staff recommendation. Staff were not impressed and wrote a report to counter PAC’s decision. That is how serious staff took this development. But alas, staff only recommends. Council approves.
As to “far more requirements”, that is a hit and miss in the US. I’ve been in municipalities that have stringent requirements. And I’ve been in municipalities that have hardly any requirements. Same applies to Canada.
I’ve seen the design guidelines that are followed throughout the rest of Windsor. I’ve seen the site plans throughout Windsor.
“Staff recommends, council approves.” Which is exactly what will happen to the sight plan and design guidelines above, staff will recommend the minimum and council will go below that..
I wasn’t putting words in your mouth, it was meant in general and it was a posed as a rhetorical question. I believe Windsor Prostitutes itself out to Developers and Big Box as to many other communities. I beleive we play the “crack Whore” to some other Community’s “High class call girls”. I think its absurd that councilors think that Big box might pass us by if we hold them to a higher standard. Many of these big box outlets have urban designs to them and we could force them to use those options by having better design guidelines.
There are no attractive big box developments in Windsor. Lasalle made an attempt to force Rexall to at least build up to the sidewalk with the parking in back as a half a**ed attempt to make it slightly more walkable. That is far more than Windsor does.
Vince I truly believe our city’s approach to Big Box developments are indefensible and our council and mayor should truly be ashamed of not reading all of the evidence (posted on this forum) about what they are doing to our city.
They ignore the fact that we are over retailed. They ignore their own residential intensification promises, they ignore design guidelines, tax incentives and community improvement plans.
I only wish Windsorites would hold them accountable for the reports they adopt. Say what you do, do what you say.