Big-Box Ban in Alameda, CA?

City Council to consider “super store” ban [Contra Costa Times (Calif.)]

The proposal for a flat-out ban on having Kmart, Wal-Mart or other so-called “Super Stores” in Alameda now is set to go before the City Council after bouncing from the Planning Board to the Economic Development Commission.

The idea behind the ban would be to protect local merchants while sending a message to large retailers — which have come under fire for offering workers low wages and few benefits — that the city wants to promote good jobs.

“We don’t have any real prospect of dealing with a Wal-Mart or something like that,” Mayor Beverly Johnson said Thursday. “But I do think it’s good that we have something in place that will set out our policy.”

The proposal calls for amending the Alameda Municipal Code so that a retail store more than 90,000 square feet in size and with more than 10 percent of its floor dedicated to the sale of non-taxable items could not open here.

Oakland, Dublin, Martinez and other cities have similar bans.

The council is expected to consider the issue Aug. 19.

The Planning Board rejected the amendment when it looked at the proposal in June, maintaining the ban could send a message that the city frowns on business and saying officials should instead consider stores on a case-by-case basis.

The board voted unanimously to affirm a current policy that allows the city to nix any store larger than 30,000 square feet if officials think it would hurt the community.

The Economic Development Commission also rejected the ban earlier this month.

The proposal to prohibit “Super Stores” comes as the city wrestles with budget woes — the council approved more than $4 million in cuts in February, plus the city faces a projected $5 million shortfall during fiscal 2008-2009.

But the idea that the city could get a financial boost from the jobs and sales tax money generated by large retailers is not a reason to back away from considering the ban, City Councilmember Doug deHaan said.

“Big box stores are not locally owned,” deHaan said. “We’re basically sending our money off to Arkansas or some place else. That’s not something we necessarily want to do.”

Along with sometimes undercutting local merchants, large retailers can carry hidden costs to a city, such as for road maintenance through increased traffic, deHaan said.

“You want to have a diverse tax base,” he said, adding that city leaders need to look at how big box stores would affect merchants on Park Street or the revitalization of Webster Street.

Ironically, the ban would not apply to Alameda Landing — the former U.S. Navy property where a developer is now negotiating to bring in a Target store — or to Harbor Bay Isle because both sites are protected by a development agreement that limits the city’s ability to impose zoning regulations.

A developer of the former Del Monte warehouse on Buena Vista Avenue also could sidestep the ban because multiple tenants could occupy the 250,000-square-foot building, with none exceeding 90,000 square feet, but with each still offering more than 10 percent of merchandise that’s non-taxable, according to a report from Andrew Thomas, city planning services manager.

Johnson said she supports the amendment. But she also says the council must secure a retail balance within the city.

“Some ‘Mom and Pop’ stores are good, but many do not offer medical coverage to their employees, or paid vacations or even sick leave,” she said. “We need to have a mix of businesses.”

Posted by Tony Calero on Friday, July 25, 2008

Click Here for a Printer-Friendly Version