July 3, 2007
Maine Signs Big Box Law
By Tom Ryan
Last week, Maine became the first state to sign a law requiring developers of big box retailers to prove that their properties won’t be hazardous to local communities.
The measure, the Informed Growth Act, requires developers of stores exceeding 75,000 square feet to deposit $40,000 for use by the governing city or town to fund a study of the project’s impact on municipal services, traffic, local employment and nearby bodies of water, among other things. According to the Wall Street Journal, the proposed store can’t be approved if the study finds it will likely cause a quantifiable “undue adverse impact” in at least two cases and is expected to have a harmful effect on the community overall.
The Maine legislation is the first state law of its kind in the U.S., although similar measures have been proposed in six other states in the past two years. A bill made it through the California State Legislature but was vetoed by Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger. Another measure is under review in New Jersey.
As in similar cases, proponents of Maine’s new law argued that locally-owned businesses generate a bigger “economic multiplier” by keeping taxes in state and typically using other local merchants. Big boxes also may create traffic congestion and ruin “the Maine way of life.” Opponents argued that the law creates hurdles for businesses trying to locate in Maine and that big box chains ultimately benefit lower-income households with their lower prices.
Maine business groups will again push to modify the bill to allow cities and towns to opt out of the requirements during Maine’s next legislative session, which begins in January. “We have felt that some of the groups supporting the legislation probably will not end here and probably will go after even smaller development in the future,” Jim McGregor, executive vice president of the Maine Merchants Association, told the Journal.
The Retail Industry Leaders Association, a trade group of large national retailers, described the law as “fundamentally anticompetitive, anti-consumer legislation.”
But the Maine legislation and other similar bills show that lawmakers remain leery of large-format retailers.
Chain proliferation “really is changing the dynamic of the face of the country in a sense, with employment practices and buying habits at both the individual and [corporate level],” New Jersey Assemblyman Jeff Van Drew, a Democratic co-sponsor of an impact-study bill in that state, told the Journal. “Part of that is the effect these stores have not only in your community but on neighboring communities.”
Discussion Questions: Statewide efforts to curb big-box expansion have rarely been successful. Do you think the passing of Maine’s big box law shows that anti-development forces are becoming a more serious threat to retailers? Is there anything else retailers can be doing to curry favor rather than resentment in local communities?
BrainTrust
Recent Discussions
Discussion Questions
Poll
Of course the introduction of a new, large retail location brings with it a cascade of impacts–economic, competitive, cultural, environmental and aesthetic. But when it comes to big box stores, strident discord over yea or nay seems to drown out more thoughtful voices who may in fact stand ready to weigh those impacts in the context of community plans, values and long-term goals.
Large retailers carry a mandate to behave as responsible cultural ecologists. In my view, it’s fine for states and municipalities to require chains to justify their expansion in terms that reflect careful study of total community impact. In some instances, it may be appropriate to require that bonds be posted as insurance against unintended consequences. This is not extremist, it is in fact conservative–a foundation hole once dug is not easily undug.
Large chains are gradually realizing that the concentration and centralization of their business models has become a limitation on their success. Homogenization is not optimization. Local is making a fierce comeback. Chains that can show communities how it it in their mutual interest to build locally-responsive stores deserve fair hearing–in Maine or anywhere else.
What an interesting blend of zoning laws and environmental impact studies. Too bad this type of legislation wasn’t in effect to protect small farmers from the incursion of huge, corporate, monoculture agricultural operations. Their orthodoxy was “cheapest and most plentiful supply of corn.” That turned out to be not such a great thing. The big box orthodoxy is “lower prices benefit all,” which has been bent and twisted to justify almost anything. And by the time it’s discovered that some means are not justified by the ends, the damage has been done.
Major retailers, as is their chauvinistic wont, believe they know what’s best for communities because all communities are basically alike, right? This ivory-tower assumption has come back to nibble on WM’s derriere. Will they recognize that some communities like chocolate chip cookies while others prefer oatmeal, thus obviating cookie-cutter retail applications? Somewhere along the line WM’s objective became the construction of lots of identical stores. Perhaps it’s time to rethink that objective.
“Several years ago, in a book called ‘The Cultural Contradictions of Capitalism,’ sociologist Daniel Bell called attention to the tendency of capitalism, in its single-minded pursuit of profit, to erode the various cultural underpinnings that steady a society but often impede the march of commercialization.” (from Pollan’s “The Omnivore’s Dilemma”)
Let me point out the obvious and say that in general, we appear to have very little skill in our society in solving disagreements. Here is another case where we line up behind our camp’s lawyers and advocacy groups, call each other names, make claims based on faulty information, and try to pressure legislators in various ways to get what we want. Our studies show, for example, that big box prices are not as low as we think they are.
Obviously, big box retailers are seeking ends that harm others. In my view, there are no ends that justify harming others; there are other ways for big-box to get what they are after, but they don’t know it. I suspect that as a society we believe that there are simply two solutions to a disagreement: party A wins and party B loses, or party A loses and party B wins (or some variation on this theme that includes so-called “compromises”). This is a primitive concept and is ignorant of more advanced problem-solving models. I find it ironic that we possess so much technological sophistication and at the same time, so little human-interaction sophistication.
Whether local merchants like it or not, big-box retailers often have the positive benefits of more competitive pricing, higher employment and other economic development in tow (restaurants, movie theatres, etc.). If Maine’s legislation is intended to manage the environmental, traffic and other infrastructure effects of new big-box development, fair enough. But if it’s intended merely to protect local retailers at the expense of larger, more efficient ones, Maine’s citizens are being done a disservice.
Maine’s statewide big box law reflects a rare small victory for the anti-development forces, however, there is still barely even a minimal threat to big box retailers. Retailers do not have to worry too much about similar laws being passed in the larger more populated states, but they do need to continue to concern themselves with reducing the resentment in local communities, not so much for laws but more so for public relations.
A few general best practices might include:
1. A great deal of thought and consideration should be exerted by the retailer for design, traffic, and flow, and these items should be communicated honestly, respectfully, and diligently by experts that are trusted by the public.
2. The architecture of the buildings should blend in or conform to the general style and design of the neighborhoods they build on.
3. Research should be made in advance about businesses already in existence, wages, and culture, and plans should be made accordingly to fit the frame of the community in as much as possible.
The fact of life is that in as much as communities resist and complain, once the super center opens for business they usually do quite well. Still, no one should be taken for granted.
A box is a box is a box in the minds of its beholders…and beholders have varying opinions about boxes. What Maine is doing might be considered akin to using a guillotine to cure dandruff. Not every beholder cares or worries about dandruff even if it appears to some to harm others.
Maine’s Informed Growth Act helps existing retailers, big and small. Fewer new locations = better profits. Retail square footage per American keeps rising, which depresses retail profits. Retailers under profit pressure can’t afford to pay their staff decently, can’t afford medical benefits, and can’t afford good customer service, either.
It all depends on who needs who. In Wisconsin a local community recently paid Cabelas $4 million to build a huge complex. In Maine they want big box stores to pay $40,000 for an impact study. I think in Maine the anti-big box extremists are more concentrated and will have a louder voice. It’s more of a regional preference rather than a growing movement.
I grew up in Maine, and I’m with David on this one….
More Discussions
Has Same-Day Delivery Become an Expectation Across Retail?
Are expectations around retail delivery speed in flux?OpenAI Names the Infrastructure Standard for Agentic Commerce
Will OpenAI or Google (or another entity) set the gold standard for agentic commerce?Is Five Below Poised For Even Greater Growth?
Five Below is hitting serious growth numbers. Can this trend continue?
Of course the introduction of a new, large retail location brings with it a cascade of impacts–economic, competitive, cultural, environmental and aesthetic. But when it comes to big box stores, strident discord over yea or nay seems to drown out more thoughtful voices who may in fact stand ready to weigh those impacts in the context of community plans, values and long-term goals.
Large retailers carry a mandate to behave as responsible cultural ecologists. In my view, it’s fine for states and municipalities to require chains to justify their expansion in terms that reflect careful study of total community impact. In some instances, it may be appropriate to require that bonds be posted as insurance against unintended consequences. This is not extremist, it is in fact conservative–a foundation hole once dug is not easily undug.
Large chains are gradually realizing that the concentration and centralization of their business models has become a limitation on their success. Homogenization is not optimization. Local is making a fierce comeback. Chains that can show communities how it it in their mutual interest to build locally-responsive stores deserve fair hearing–in Maine or anywhere else.
What an interesting blend of zoning laws and environmental impact studies. Too bad this type of legislation wasn’t in effect to protect small farmers from the incursion of huge, corporate, monoculture agricultural operations. Their orthodoxy was “cheapest and most plentiful supply of corn.” That turned out to be not such a great thing. The big box orthodoxy is “lower prices benefit all,” which has been bent and twisted to justify almost anything. And by the time it’s discovered that some means are not justified by the ends, the damage has been done.
Major retailers, as is their chauvinistic wont, believe they know what’s best for communities because all communities are basically alike, right? This ivory-tower assumption has come back to nibble on WM’s derriere. Will they recognize that some communities like chocolate chip cookies while others prefer oatmeal, thus obviating cookie-cutter retail applications? Somewhere along the line WM’s objective became the construction of lots of identical stores. Perhaps it’s time to rethink that objective.
“Several years ago, in a book called ‘The Cultural Contradictions of Capitalism,’ sociologist Daniel Bell called attention to the tendency of capitalism, in its single-minded pursuit of profit, to erode the various cultural underpinnings that steady a society but often impede the march of commercialization.” (from Pollan’s “The Omnivore’s Dilemma”)
Let me point out the obvious and say that in general, we appear to have very little skill in our society in solving disagreements. Here is another case where we line up behind our camp’s lawyers and advocacy groups, call each other names, make claims based on faulty information, and try to pressure legislators in various ways to get what we want. Our studies show, for example, that big box prices are not as low as we think they are.
Obviously, big box retailers are seeking ends that harm others. In my view, there are no ends that justify harming others; there are other ways for big-box to get what they are after, but they don’t know it. I suspect that as a society we believe that there are simply two solutions to a disagreement: party A wins and party B loses, or party A loses and party B wins (or some variation on this theme that includes so-called “compromises”). This is a primitive concept and is ignorant of more advanced problem-solving models. I find it ironic that we possess so much technological sophistication and at the same time, so little human-interaction sophistication.
Whether local merchants like it or not, big-box retailers often have the positive benefits of more competitive pricing, higher employment and other economic development in tow (restaurants, movie theatres, etc.). If Maine’s legislation is intended to manage the environmental, traffic and other infrastructure effects of new big-box development, fair enough. But if it’s intended merely to protect local retailers at the expense of larger, more efficient ones, Maine’s citizens are being done a disservice.
Maine’s statewide big box law reflects a rare small victory for the anti-development forces, however, there is still barely even a minimal threat to big box retailers. Retailers do not have to worry too much about similar laws being passed in the larger more populated states, but they do need to continue to concern themselves with reducing the resentment in local communities, not so much for laws but more so for public relations.
A few general best practices might include:
1. A great deal of thought and consideration should be exerted by the retailer for design, traffic, and flow, and these items should be communicated honestly, respectfully, and diligently by experts that are trusted by the public.
2. The architecture of the buildings should blend in or conform to the general style and design of the neighborhoods they build on.
3. Research should be made in advance about businesses already in existence, wages, and culture, and plans should be made accordingly to fit the frame of the community in as much as possible.
The fact of life is that in as much as communities resist and complain, once the super center opens for business they usually do quite well. Still, no one should be taken for granted.
A box is a box is a box in the minds of its beholders…and beholders have varying opinions about boxes. What Maine is doing might be considered akin to using a guillotine to cure dandruff. Not every beholder cares or worries about dandruff even if it appears to some to harm others.
Maine’s Informed Growth Act helps existing retailers, big and small. Fewer new locations = better profits. Retail square footage per American keeps rising, which depresses retail profits. Retailers under profit pressure can’t afford to pay their staff decently, can’t afford medical benefits, and can’t afford good customer service, either.
It all depends on who needs who. In Wisconsin a local community recently paid Cabelas $4 million to build a huge complex. In Maine they want big box stores to pay $40,000 for an impact study. I think in Maine the anti-big box extremists are more concentrated and will have a louder voice. It’s more of a regional preference rather than a growing movement.
I grew up in Maine, and I’m with David on this one….