In 2011, at the request of a commercial real estate developer, three of the Queen Anne’s County (QAC) commissioners voted to eliminate the county’s 65,000 sq. ft. cap on building size in county areas zoned “suburban commercial.” The size cap is also known as the anti-big box store restriction. This action was taken despite the fact that the restriction is part of the county’s Comprehensive Plan – the official county roadmap to guide development and preserve the open space and small town character of QAC. This small town character is one of the key reasons county homeowners consider when deciding to live here.
Many citizens were irate about the potential for encroachment by Big Boxes. The commissioners’ decision clearly opened the door for stores of “unlimited” size to locate here. To demonstrate their opposition thousands of county voters signed a petition to have the Maryland Election Commission put this issue on the November 2012 ballot allowing citizens to have their voices heard. That petition drive was successful and froze the commissioners’ action.
The November 6 election is the final act on this matter. To keep “unlimited” size Big Box stores out of the county citizens must vote AGAINST on Question B. Winning this will return us to the previous and reasonable 65,000 sq. ft. limit.
18 Reasons to Vote AGAINST Question B on the ballot (i.e. to oppose Big Box stores in QAC):
1. Proponents of Big Box stores provided no compelling economic rationale to the commissioners during the push to open up our countryside to large stores other than fleeting references to job and tax revenue needs. Contrary to the “more jobs” misinformation from Business Queen Anne’s, studies show that Big Box stores often result in a net loss of local jobs due to fewer employees per sq. ft. of retail space among other reasons.
2. About as many jobs are lost as are gained when a Big Box store comes to town. Small stores cannot compete and they close. The shift is to lower paying jobs at the Big Box. This is common knowledge easily researched and verified on the internet. Direct and indirect income subsidies are at times then required by workers under low pay conditions for basic transportation, health and housing aid—burdens thrown onto the local community.
3. Our county job situation is sound. The 2010 census shows that 85 percent of county workers travel to high-paying jobs in Annapolis, Washington/Baltimore suburbs, NASA Goddard Space Flight Center, Andrews AFB, Ft. Meade and aviation jobs at BWI Airport, etc. In August 2012 our unemployment rate was 6.3 percent, well below Maryland (6.9 percent) and national (7.8 percent) numbers. We have the lowest unemployment rate on the Eastern Shore.
4. Business Queen Anne’s, the real estate proponents of Big Box stores, boast about the $140,000 in taxes that Talbot County collects from Target, Lowe’s, and Wal-Mart together in Easton. That is a drop in the bucket compared to the tens of millions that QAC collects annually in income tax and property tax from our relatively affluent population. The taxes from retired people alone who come here for our tranquil setting dwarf those that would be collected from a Big Box in QAC. Satisfying that retired group, incidentally, is doubly important from a tax revenue/expenditure viewpoint. Their kids have finished high school and are long gone.Yet, retirees still pay property taxes while making no demands on our school budget.
5. It was revealed last month that the county enjoyed a budget surplus of over $7.2 million in fiscal year 2012 owing to revenues $5.4 million above and expenditures $1.2 million below budget. A break-even situation had been anticipated. The county is currently in excellent fiscal shape. So much for the “fiscal crisis” that fuels Big Box advocate reasoning.
6. Big Box stores do not generate additional sales, real estate or income tax revenue at the county or state level. The relatively fixed amount of money in circulation is simply shifted around.
7. Big Box stores concentrate traffic and precipitate traffic lights, additional traffic lanes and gridlock. Infrastructure costs go up and taxpayers, not the developers, get stuck with the bill. Our county roads are not designed to handle Big Box stores either on Kent Island or up-county at the intersection of Routes 213 and 544. Witness the traffic congestion on route Route 2 in Severna Park/Glen Burnie and on 301 in Waldorf/Bowie.
8. Many county citizens with either solid Western Shore management positions or substantial retirement incomes moved here to escape the hustle and bustle of the Western Shore.
9. When they are built, Big Box stores often overpower existing small businesses. State studies document the negative consequences of Big Box stores in Maryland towns like Cambridge and Reisterstown. We don’t want boarded up store fronts.
10. Given our population, QAC already has a surplus of commercial and retail space. The former Safeway store in Kent Towne shopping center sat vacant for more than two years after Safeway opened its new site in April 2010. Heaven only knows what will happen to the ACME building once it closes its door. A Big Box store will add to the number of shuttered store fronts in QAC.
11. A 180,000 sq. ft. Big Box (Safeway on Kent Island is at 65,000) with its vast sales capacity creates its own growth momentum. The push then is for more population and housing, then more Big Boxes and so on. Commercial expansion at moderate levels would be a thing of the past. Once the gates open the leap frog effect will obliterate our rural, small town setting in no time. Witness the overnight change to Middletown, Delaware.
12. People often ask “What makes Queen Anne’s County special?” One person captured the answer by summarizing that in addition to modest traffic, a great shoreline and beautiful vistas “It’s not what we have that makes the region so special, it’s what we don’t have”.
13. Small neighborhood businesses are locally owned and we know each other- customers get personal attention and better service compared to shopping in large, impersonal Big Box stores.
14. People shop near where they work, less so near where they live and, again, 85% of the QAC labor force works outside the county. Out-of-county shopping patterns and habits have long been established. The horse is out of the barn. That is the reality.
15. The Big Box stores in Easton are often cited by proponents of unrestrained growth as a model to replicate. Since the construction of the shopping center containing Target, however, town leaders are now changing course and maintaining a 65,000 sq. ft. cap. No plans are afoot for additional Big Boxes in Talbot County.
16. Big Box stores immediately send receipts out of state to home offices. They are not partners in local economies. In contrast, small local businesses support local banks and industry and re-circulate store earnings in the community
17. We in Queen Anne’s county have a responsibility to continue to provide an island of tranquility, varied water and wildlife recreational activities and that intangible Eastern shore “difference” to stressed out visitors from the Western shore who travel only a short distance to get here. A good part of our economy and culture has evolved to satisfy that experience for both visitors and residents alike. Support what the Bay, the inlets and land have made available to us for centuries, not jarring and needless change.
18. Who would largely profit in the end at a local level from Big Boxes? A few developers. Do we really want to give them the power to radically alter our special place? Vote “against” on Question B.
Robert W. Fox
Kingstown
Nicholas Stoer
Chester
Leonard Hoyt says
More telling us what we should do and not do. Sounds like the Obama big Government. It is on the ballot so let us decide how to vote.
Keith Thompson says
18 Responses…
1. Fewer employees per square foot of retail is a meaningless statistic if you have many employers just as a high employee per square foot of retail space statistic is meaningless if you only have a few employers.
2. Initially as many jobs could be lost as gained, however if a big box is successful it creates an economic draw that other businesses will feed off of. Also, low paying jobs are better than no jobs. If available low paying jobs gets people off the unemployment rolls or collecting charity, it also takes eases the burdens of the local community.
3. And having a commuting workforce is a double-edged sword as it puts a greater burden on county residents who do not have high-paying jobs on the Western Shore. The lack of jobs in QAC adds to the income inequality in the county.
4. Again, as the county increases its reliance on income and property taxes, it creates an income inequality as it makes it harder for the less affluent to live in the county. You create a scenario where you either have people who can afford to live in QAC or can’t afford to move. Also, the fact that retirees pay property taxes while making no demands on the school budget is the strongest reason to reduce the county’s APFO in Question A.
5. And the county’s excellent fiscal shape is largely due to the drastic budget cuts that the current commissioners were forced to make as a result of decreased property tax revenues. How much of the budget surplus will go into reinstating some of the necessary services that were cut?
6. This assumes that the amount of money in circulation is always fixed. Increase the number of working people in a community and you increase the amount of money in circulation.
7. This is one of your better arguments as yes, an increase in retail means an increase in infrastructure needs and an increase in congestion. And while the tax revenues from one big box store (as well as the developer that built it) may not pay for the infrastructure, the increase in business that piggybacks off of it will. If you try to limit the amount of growth that is necessary around the big boxes, then yes you do burden the taxpayers.
8. The county citizens that moved to QAC from the Western Shore to escape the hustle and bustle add a little bit of the hustle and bustle simply by moving to QAC. If you get enough people moving from the Western Shore to QAC, they begin to re-create what they are escaping from.
9. It’s a bit hard to argue that big boxes overpower existing small business when you have a lack of existing small businesses. A current boarded up storefront isn’t going to compete against anyone.
10. The problem is that much of the surplus commercial and retail space in QAC isn’t located in high traffic areas where commercial and retail business wants to be. QAC’s comp plan wants to push large retail development into the municipalities but most of the potential retail traffic bypasses the municipalities.
11. True, but oddly enough this is a pro big box argument as the idea is precisely to create growth momentum. Again, a successful big box creates an economic engine that other business is able to piggyback on. If you don’t want to obliterate the rural, small-town setting then you don’t want an influx of people moving in from the Western Shore.
12. This is your best argument because the modest traffic, great shoreline, and beautiful vistas is a quality of life issue and quality of life has an economic cost attached to it. If what the county doesn’t have is important, then economic arguments against development are a moot point.
13. Small neighborhood stores that give personal attention and service provide the key to competing against big box stores because they outwork the competition. It’s the small neighborhood store who has historically been protected from competition and has developed a lazy and entitled attitude that the big box will put out of business.
14. The fact that people shop where they work and that 85% of the QAC labor force works outside the county means that the county has a profound lack of jobs. This is not arguing from a position of strength.
15. There are likely no plans for additional big boxes in Talbot County because the market is likely saturated there. This opens up the market in QAC.
16. While corporate profits from big boxes goes to the home offices, the paychecks of their employees are deposited in local banks and their income is spent in the community. If you argue that people shop where they work, the people who work for a big box store are spending their money in the community.
17. Again, one of your stronger arguments in that QAC offers a unique economic opportunity due to its water and wildlife recreational activities. How do you maximize the economic development options around the county’s economic strengths? If you figure out how to maximize these resources to get people coming to QAC to spend money, you eliminate the need to bring in large retail.
18. If you don’t want developers profiting from investing in the community, then you need to have QAC residents profiting from investing in the community.
John L. Seidel says
Well done! This piece is right on the money. Leonard, this is an effort to get facts in front of the electorate (yes, this means you too). That’s what we do in a democracy. Informed and responsible citizens want facts and dialog. I’m sure you don’t mean to suggest that everyone should just clam up and vote on a whim or in ignorance.
Keith, I know you want what’s best for the area, but it’s hard not to argue with much of your rebuttal, even though you have some good points:
1. The salient point is net loss of jobs when big boxes come to town.
2. Those jobs that shift from existing positions to big box positions typically are lower paying. The spin-off economic to which you refer MAY sometimes occur, but that certainly has not been the experience elsewhere.
3. You are absolutely right, Keith. We need to work on getting an array of jobs at different pay scales into the county, but big boxes are very clearly not the answer. Thinking they’ll solve the problem is a pipe dream.
4. See #3
5. Big box development never results in a NET revenue increase (or more to the point, reduced taxes) to a jurisdiction. Neither does expanded residential development, with its need for more taxes to support increased infrastructure, so this whole discussion is moot.
6. See 1 and 2
7. Looks like we all agree that we don’t have the infrastructure; so developers would want that “fixed.” And given the experience elsewhere, the business generation argument in support of big boxes doesn’t wash. Existing residents subsidize big boxes and large housing complexes through higher taxes.
8. I agree with Keith that it shouldn’t just be about retirees and transplants. We do need jobs for those who grew up here and for younger folks, if we want to have a healthy community. But big boxes aren’t the solution and their impacts degrade many aspects of what makes this place special. That degradation also threatens tourism, a growing and important part of the economy.
9. I don’t think it’s at all fair to say we have a lack of small businesses and point to our closed store-fronts. There certainly are too many closed businesses, but what about all of those small business owners who have scrapped and scraped and survived, as well as those waiting to jump in when the economy improves? What about those existing hardware store and shoe store owners, opticians, pharmacies, nurseries, etc. who will be threatened by a big box? If the BB comes to town, what we’ll end up with is, in fact, even more empty store fronts.
10. This issue of location takes us back to the debate of smart growth vs. sprawl. That issue has been decided at the state level and, through the comp plan, at the county level. By the way, how about the negative impact of big boxes on those residents who have invested in commercial properties? How will the hit they take from closing small businesses factor into the overall fiscal climate?
11. What Fox and Stoer point out is that the growth genesis after a big box, if there is any, initially derives from housing! Only after that – and the loss of small businesses and the expansion of infrastructure needs and increased taxes – might the so-called spin-off business growth occur. This puts in place a never-ending cycle where we chase our tails trying to bring in more growth to pay for the preceding foolish decisions. This has been experienced up and down the Eastern seaboard and is what many of us are trying to avoid here.
12. I’m not sure I understand the rejoinder on this one, but I think what we’d all like to see is a healthy economy, good jobs and growth on a scale that does not threaten the quality of life here. I just don’t see how the proposed amendment does anything but threaten that quality of life.
13. Sounds like we all agree that local stores with good customer service are something we want to keep. I’d say that the “lazy and entitled” ones are in a real minority and won’t survive anyway.
14. See #8. We need to all work on this – and the commissioners should do the hard work of finding real solutions that are compatible with our area – and the comp plan – rather than ignoring all of the thought and effort behind the comp plan in pursuit of an easy and almost certainly ineffective silver bullet.
15. The rejoinder misses the Talbot Co. point, and the larger point, that one heck of a lot of jurisdictions who swallowed the snake oil of big box and residential growth as their salvation now wish they could go back and do it differently.
16. The point is that trading an equal number of lower paying jobs, with none of the corporate profits staying in town (big box solution), is a loss compared to better jobs in local businesses that keep their profits here.
17. Agreed – our landscapes, environment and quality of life can be a real economic advantage, and we need to all work on finding ways to do this – that includes the commissioners, who should help lead. A four county, state-recognized heritage area was established a number of years ago to stimulate heritage tourism, and it needs to be supported as one part of the solution.
18. A lot of QAC residents have invested in the county through their small businesses, and this is part of what is at risk when we allow outside developers to come in, slam up their cookie cutter developments and malls, take home the profits, and stick us with a huge part of the bill.
I’ll add one more thought to this, speaking of local investment. Citizens in QA and Kent invest in their communities every day, both on the job and through civic duty such as serving on a variety of local associations, boards and committees. One of these is the QAC Planning Commission. And we also should not forget the thousands of hours that our citizens put into the democratic process of preparing the comprehensive plan, a map for our future that is built on consensus. When County Commissioners over-ride a commission’s recommendations, as they did in this case, it makes it much more difficult to persuade people to make the necessary investments of time and effort and serve. And when the County Commissioners over-ride the comp plan, put together by so many people, they undercut the entire process. They should only do so under very exceptional circumstances, in cases that were not contemplated in the planning process. That is not the case here. QAC commissioners, the three of you who voted to ignore the comprehensive plan have done an enormous disservice to your constituents. The amendment would open a door that we would all regret down the road, but you also have done real damage to the system through your arbitrary and unthoughtful approach to these issues.