[Needtoknow] Agawam Letter

[Owen Broadhurst]

To be published in this Thursday's edition of the Agawam Advertiser News:

[Note: emphases in the letter have not been included in this post.
"Article IX" refers to business class zoning regulations from the Code
of the Town of Agawam. - OB]

=======

To the editor:
To the City Council of Agawam:

Very recently, some have begun to question facts and figures cited in
opposition to the proposed shopping complex on Tennis Rd. The most
concise and comprehensive of statements circulated questioning Agawam
CARD's facts and figures as noted on its website ( www.agawamcard.com
) is found on-line at the website for Citizens in Favor of Retail at
http://www.citizensinfavorofretail.com/FACTS.html

The first figure questioned pertains to traffic generated on average
by shopping outlets comparable in size to those proposed. The
statement at the website for Citizens in Favor of Retail (hereafter,
"CFR") questions the figures cited by project
opponents, but offers no competing estimates. Indeed, the studies
cited by project opponents are not in any way debunked (and, in fact,
have never been debunked) – but are rather dismissed in a statement
expressing amazement at the size of the traffic estimate. It is,
however, precisely because all traffic estimates have been of such
amazing size that traffic is such a concern. CFR doubts that traffic
of such magnitude is possible. In fact, it is common.

Where CFR would have one believe that average rate cited could equate
to double that rate one week, and zero the next; and where CFR would
have one believe that Agawam's proximity to shopping centers elsewhere
could dramatically lessen traffic impact; it should be noted that CFR
cites no studies itself to bolster their
conjecture. CFR has in fact chosen, in its on-line statement, to pay
not one shred of attention to how the study that project opponents
have pointed to does indeed include a low end to range of rates. CFR
finds that cited average rate of 76,232 too huge to take seriously,
but the low end of 42,236 seems sufficient in itself to prove the
point of project opponents and is not itself a figure that any known
discount superstore throughout the nation has undercut.

Where some suggest that CARD estimates even 80,000 per DAY, they have
plainly not been accurately reading CARD materials. What CARD has
noted is that 76,232 remains a nationwide average for traffic at any
one "big box", per WEEK.  42,236 remains the minimum observed at ANY
such facility per week – and no one to date has noted a single
material condition peculiar to the Town of Agawam that would result in
LESS traffic generated for "big box" buildings of "anchor store" size.

No project opponent has ever claimed that the 76,232 figure would
itself apply to conditions in Agawam. Project opponents merely note
how this a very real risk that no one in Agawam can discount without
hard figures from our very own traffic impact study. Without any such
a traffic impact study having been conducted as of
yet, project proponents have no grounds – particularly not in light of
clear historical patterns- to claim Agawam's situation immune somehow
from the fact that (as noted in the "Big Box Retail and Austin" review
prepared for Austin Independent Business Alliance in October of last
year) "Big box development generates increased traffic and congestion
costs, street and road maintenance costs
(especially due to increased truck traffic on access roads), water and
sewer costs, street and access improvement costs" [emphasis mine].

In fact, the study that Agawam CARD cites on its website is
surprisingly conservative. The text "Aesthetics, Community Character,
and the Law" points out that a 110,000 square foot shopping center can
generate as many as 946 car trips per hour and 9,710 trips per day,
while a home improvement store can generate 35
tractor-trailer trips per day. Given that Agawam is so very close to
several major highways, it seems very likely that high end estimates
would most closely parallel our situation- and this would be most
particularly likely should the proposed amendment to Section 180-48 of
Article IX pass.

Before we move forward entertaining either the zoning change, or the
zoning amendment, I believe the City Council and Mayor should
commission a traffic impact study based on appropriate methodology.
The Town of Agawam itself should commission the study, while the
National Realty Development Corporation should pay costs associated
with the study. The Town of Agawam also should commission a fiscal
impact study, with similar stipulations, employing methodology
similar to the Barnstable report. I should not expect a City Council
vote until and unless every City Councilor has in his or her
possession the full details of all such reports and studies.

CFR claims that the National Realty Development Corporation
(hereafter, "NRDC") has failed to commission any traffic impact study
because NRDC does not yet have title to the land. However, the NRDC
has refused land options before where requested changes in zoning have
been denied them. We have no reason to believe NRDC shall purchase
this property without the requested zoning change.
To wait for traffic impact studies until AFTER the requested zoning
change is put to vote puts the cart before the horse.

There have also been several questions raised about what CARD has
observed regarding the Riverdale Shops in West Springfield. CFR claims
the Riverdale Shops are sited on 109 acres of land, and are home to 59
stores. In fact, the Riverdale Shops proper – as noted by Town of West
Springfield Assessor's Office itself – is sited on a 33.7 acre parcel
and is home to 5 stores. The Riverdale Shops are NOT located at 895
Riverdale, but are located at 935 Riverdale. The property located at
895 Riverdale is very simply not the site that CARD compares the
Tennis Rd. proposal with, as CFR should know. CARD is merely pointing
out how the Riverdale Shops at 935 Riverdale is itself of less size
than the proposed Tennis Rd. project, and yet is truly regional
shopping (as opposed to "community shopping") in every sense of that
phrase. CFR missed the point.

CFR has also questioned, against all evidence to the contrary, the
fact that big box shopping development has an adverse effect on the
property values of surrounding properties. Again, CFR has offered not
one shred of evidence to contradict this claim, while the New Rules
Project has ample evidence from a great many studies to bolster claims
that Agawam CARD has made. Economic impact studies available through
the New Rules Project may be found here:
http://www.newrules.org/retail/econimpact.html

RKG Associates noted in the year 2001 of Concord, New Hampshire, that 
"[p]roperty values, and subsequently tax revenue" declined sharply
with such new retail development. A study of three Iowa towns in 1996
noted of a Wal-Mart that "the decline in retail stores following the
opening had a depressing effect on property values in downtowns and on
shopping strips, offsetting gains from the Wal-Mart property." Rather
than being anomalous, such accounts of property depreciation are
common to big box development, which clearly generates noise, traffic
and aesthetic concerns. CFR has not yet ever cited one single instance
to the contrary. My guess is no such instance exists.

Where some suggest that NRDC's estimate of $900,000 in tax revenue
shall benefit our town, it must be noted that we have only the NRDC
making this estimate. It should also be noted that, whatever revenue
the project may generate, it shall also generate costs. These costs
include road repairs, traffic lights, police staffing, environmental
costs associated with construction and traffic, health costs
associated with continued and growing air pollution, salting and
sanding again yielding additional environmental costs, property
depreciation in surrounding parcels, and actual loss of revenue via
"category killer" fiscal impact on local enterprise and external
economies. To suggest that "business attracts business"
ignores how local enterprise generates local external economies, while
larger chains and big box outlets meet their needs elsewhere.

Project proponents also persist, of course, in pretending that this
shopping center proposal is intended for "community shopping" only, to
cater primarily to residents in Agawam. In fact, NRDC's own website
indicates that surrounding shopping centers provide "competition" for
those outlets that may be located here. The
Riverdale Shops alone, by which project opponents refer to 5 stores
located on one 33.7 acre parcel, is a much smaller complex that is
quite clearly patronized by people from all over Western Mass. The
International Council of Shopping Centers (ICSC) describes "community
shopping" as between 100,000 to 350,000 square feet on from 10 to 40
acres. The proposed Tennis Rd. project will have 563,265 square feet
on 86 acres, a scale that ICSC describes as being of precisely the
scope of a truly regional shopping center. The square footage alone is
over 250% the size of those estimated to generate no less than 40,000
car trips a week.

Project proponents also belittle environmental concerns, failing to
note how specifically these concerns involve (among other things)
emissions from being idle in traffic jams, and toxic runoff from the
mass of automobiles parking. As much as it might amaze some to learn
that driving longer distances results in far more reduced spewing of
emissions than idling in traffic, it is a fact. It is a fact,
furthermore, that truly community based shopping centers – of the sort
that could indeed meet all of our shopping needs – can easily be sited
on far smaller parcels with significantly reduced square footage, and
can be designed with access to pedestrians and mass transit. Those
concerned with the pollution they generate
while shopping out of town should consider reducing automobile
dependence period rather than importing even more pollution into this
town.

The "Big Lie" remains, of course, the claim that we have no local
enterprise of the sort that would be decimated by the siting of eleven
major shopping centers. The fact is that any big box with a grocery
will be directly competing against Geissler's, Goodies, the Public
Market, and even the several delis on Main St. Any Barnes & Noble will
contain a Starbuck's directly competing against our growing collection
of coffee shops. Most major "big box" outlets shall also contain
bakeries competing with Giovanni's and Nissen's.

It seems that many project proponents truly do not understand the
shopping opportunities that indeed exist in Agawam, opportunities that
could easily disappear should this proposed shopping center be
constructed. We have tailors on Springfield St.; we have woodworking
on Elm St.; we have arts and crafts supplies on Springfield St.; we
have a newsstand and bookstore located on
Southwick St.; we have no fewer than eight convenience stores
independent of gas stations; we have the Dollar Day department store
located on Suffield St.; we have three florists that any big box could
undercut severely; we have stores for formal wear; we have a Hallmark
outlet and several gift shops; we have at least three jewelers; we
have the Kid's Footware Outlet on Springfield St.; we have four stores
devoted to party supplies; we have Agawam Shoe Repair located on
Walnut St. Ext.; we have a television and electronics repair shop on
Southwick St.; we have Darts Plus on Springfield St.; and we even have
an outlet for medical supplies.

No one is suggesting that we should not have expanded shopping
opportunities in Agawam. On the contrary, what most Tennis Rd. project
opponents want is for shopping needs to be met in smaller community
shopping centers through stores that are community driven and in
keeping with small town character. We can accomplish this well through
pedestrian and mass transit friendly projects
consuming far fewer resources, and placing fewer demands on city
services. The zoning reform that we need is substantial, with the
zoning change and amendments NRDC seeks being obvious examples of how
to head in the WRONG direction. We need sustainable development.

I trust this helps answer most questions posed to Tennis Rd. project opponents.

Sincerely yours,

Owen R. Broadhurst
96 Elbert Rd.
Agawam, MA  01001-3202
413.786.1508