Here’s a typical planning issue featured in today’s Star.
Wal-Mart wants to locate one of its stores in Port Elgin, a small town close to Owen Sound on the coast of Lake Huron. It is part of a recently merged muncipality named Saugeen Shores and holds a population of about 7,000 people.
As with any new Walmart development noadays, there is massive protest from residents. While the big box development is being approved by council, it is being appealed by the citizen’s group, Friends of Saugeen Shores, at the Ontario Municipal Board.
The municipal planner in Saugeen Shores believes that a big new Wal-Mart on the edge of town would be good for the community, and the town council believes that it will bring needed money and jobs to the area. Each OMB case involving big-box developments always use the rationale of increased employment as a way to support such plans, but does it actually hold true?
I suppose these rural Ontario towns may be desperate for any sort of development, given that the “[l]ocal industry has dwindled” and that the “locals [are] anxious for something to bring prosperity back so their children won’t have to leave.” But at the same time, I am seriously curious if anyone has done any reserach whether a big-box development, like Wal-Mart, acutally yields a net increase in employment growth to a region.
Anyway, according to the article, the impacts this big-box development has on areas like the downtown are not considered planning issues— which I was seriously not aware of. So the opponents have taken up safety as a planning concern, with an emphasis on women’s safety.
I guess that’s kind of creative. I’d really like to learn more about the case, but don’t you think it’s a little too creative? So creative that it smells of desperation?
Is this issue seriously going push the Board or Wal-Mart to oppose the development? The case cited a recent U.S. study as evidence that police respond to almost 1 million incidents at Wal-Marts across the U.S. a year, and that an American court judge declared that Wal-Marts are “a virtual magnet for crime.”
I think these statistics are bogus, especially they’re not given any context. What kind of crimes are being reported? How do these “1 million” incidents compare to other retailers? Why is Wal-Mart targetted specifically?
Then there are other questions. Aren’t parking for office complexes, for exmaple, just as unsafe? They too can have poor natural surveillance, and they too faciliate one type of land use. Would there be opposition if say an office complex was built rather than a big box?
Also, as much as I loathe surface parking, I find them to be much safer than other urban or suburban settings— at least you can see far in the distance in the sea of asphalt. Seriously, the argument is weak, and I don’t think it is a tipping point issue to halt the development.
My planning conscience tells me this development is poor planning, but my logic is telling me that the points to oppose the development seem unwarranted.
I guess my conscience is illogical. What do you guys think?
Wal-Mart foes are playing it safe - [thestar.com]
i think your conscience is right--the definition of "good planning" that we're taught at school isn't comprehensive enough to address more complex issues.
While there are tons of reasons to hate big box retailers, there are also the tendancies for small town planners really wanting wal mart in their town., at least that's what I was told from several anonymous planners at several unnamed towns.
My sense is that being a planner in an urban area is very different from one in the rural setting. A planner in rural area is often also responsible the town's stragetic development (read: employment and economic). A wal-mart is a simple solution - usually planted right next to the highway (very anti growth plan) in order to "lure" motorists into their semi-dying town. the hope is that these big box retailers would provide some revitalization, albeit not the most attractive kind. How do you build a business district when the population itself is reducing (due to dying and migration of younger people). If you look at schedule 3 of the growth plan, you will see that a lot of regions in the "outer ring" have very little population growth projection. Some of these towns are actually saying that these growht are unrealistic and that their own projections suggest decline, rather than increase.
http://www.pir.gov.on.ca/english/growth/gghdocs/FPLAN-ENG-WEB-SCHED3.pdf
So what is good planning in light of compromises with practical reality? I think there is well grounded fear shared by some residents and town officials that a wal-mart is better than no wal mart at all. are mom and pops stores closing up because of walmart? or is walmart opening up because the mom and pops stores can't manage to keep the business open?
I don't like to think that walmart is the perfect solution to rural economic problems. But perhaps it can be a starting point for future economic development. I don't like it and I don't shop there.
but walmart sure knows where there's demand and that's probably why they're doing so well. banning walmart won't eliminate the demand and need for something that walmart provides (whatever that may be)