First, let me clarify that as long as we have Proposition 2 ½ in place, we need new development, which is the only allowable way for the city to increase the base on which this proposition is tied. At a time when our fixed expenses are skyrocketing, we need as much help as we can get. To illustrate this dilemma, I would point out that last year health care costs to the city rose over 10% and it is expected that they will rise another 20% this coming year. We recently had to lay off 12 school employees to stay within our budget. We need new development.

Having said this, I want to stress that there is growth and there is smart growth.

Over two years ago, there was some public concern over scuttlebutt that the city was facing an invasion from several large scale retail chains. Wal-Mart was planning to move into the old Caldor’s space; Home Depot was eyeing a stretch of land that straddled Hatfield and Northampton, and we kept hearing rumors that Borders Books, Staples, Dress Barn and Pier One were all headed for the Hill and Dale Mall.

There are legitimate reasons why some might welcome such businesses. Like any new development, they raise the tax base. They also provide low-cost shopping and create jobs. At the same time, they can devastate locally-owned shops which cannot compete with the discounts big boxes can offer. After a few years, the gains a city receives from these chains often end up being a wash because they significantly impact municipal services, intensify traffic problems and the city loses the taxes and jobs that the smaller stores provided. Also, locally owned businesses tend to bank locally, hire local contractors, when possible restock from area vendors, advertise in local papers and support local events. Large chains generally do not.

Worried about the economic, social and political fall-out from such possibilities, Councilors Bill Dwight, Alex Ghiselin and I quickly submitted an ordinance calling for economic impact statements before such large retail concerns could be approved.

The Planning Board rejected that ordinance, saying it was too vague and, along with members of the Chamber of Commerce and the Gazette editorial board, blasted us for " trying to protect locally owned businesses", as if this were something shameful. For the record, it was not local businesses we were trying to protect, but rather the integrity of our city.

We agreed to withdraw that ordinance, acknowledging that it had been a knee-jerk reaction to a situation. We knew that by doing so, we were leaving King Street vulnerable to the very development that worried us. As expected, and with lightning speed, a local lawyer (and one of our biggest critics) filed for a subdivision on behalf of (rumors told us) Staples, Borders Books, Pier I, and Dress Barn, in order to lock in the existing, less-restrictive zoning. Still, we felt that if we were going to put forth such important zoning changes, it was imperative that we do so correctly.

During that summer, we met weekly for three or four months. We invited people to participate whom we knew disagreed with our goals. We wanted to understand what they found disagreeable and we hoped to fashion measures that would appeal to or at least not offend, a broad range of interests.

We read books on sprawl, we studied how other communities dealt with such problems (and what happened if they did not) and we exchanged ideas with anyone who would talk with us. Eventually we held a public hearing at which three outside experts spoke. One of those experts told us to keep big box development out at all cost if we wanted to preserve the charm of our small town. The other two suggested that it was much better to stress what we wanted rather than what we didn’t want.

As a result of this hearing, we altered our approach to this issue. We studied Vision 20/20, The Mayor’s Task Force, and later the results of the Transportation Plan hearings and we noticed that what the citizens consistently stressed was their desire for an attractive, pedestrian- and bicycle-friendly city. And so that’s what we decided to push for.

It is our belief that Big Box development is not the most desirable form of commerce for our city for several reasons:

--They boost traffic congestion since they draw from surrounding communities for both customers and employees

--They make heavy demands municipal services;

--They devastate smaller, regionally-owned business with whom they compete.

--While they hire numerous employees, they are, for the most part, low-paid jobs with few benefits and no job security and often this increase is offset by the jobs lost when locally-owned businesses close.

--Large-scale retail companies saturate areas until they are simply competing with themselves. Consider a Staples in West Springfield, Northampton and Hadley. Once the competition vanishes, these companies often start closing their own stores. When this happens, communities are left with a huge, empty, ugly building which is virtually impossible to refill with anything other than another enormous chain; and

--Because traditionally these concerns construct huge, one-story structures with parking in front and on the sides, they dis-courage pedestrian and bicycle traffic since it is necessary to negotiate a busy parking lot to gain admittance to the store.

Nine of these 10 ordinances in no way prohibit large retail development on King Street. Rather, they set in place incentives which encourage these establishments to develop in such a way as to alleviate some of their negative impacts. We are proposing that:

• If a large retail establishment agrees to build a two-or more- story building close to the sidewalk, with parking on the sides and in the back, they will receive the following incentives:
• they will only be required to reserve 5% of the development for open spaces, as opposed to the 25% currently required.
• they will only be required to obtain a Site Plan Review as opposed to the additional, more expensive, more time-consuming, Special Permit now required.
• they will receive a 20% reduction in parking requirements for shared parking.
• If a large retail establishment prefers to build a one story building, but agrees to have parking on the side and the rear only, they will be required to conform to the following:
• Make a one time payment in lieu of for retail mitigation. This money will be placed in an account and used to support small business and other economic development activities. It will be expended at the discretion of the Mayor, with the approval of the City Council.
• meet standard highway business zoning density/dimensions (already required)
• preserve 15% open space (25% is now required)
• obtain a Special Permit (already required)
• Meet Large retail design standards (already required) and
• might be required to remove abandoned large retail boxes
• If the large scale retail establishment prefers to build a one-story building with parking in the front, it will be required to meet all of the above requirements, except that it will have to set aside 30% for open space rather than the 25% now required.

Existing King Street retail businesses will receive a one time exemption from these requirements. For example, if the Coffee Gallery wanted to expand, it could do so with no penalties as long as it remained the Coffee Gallery. If it suddenly became KB Toys, it would have to comply with the appropriate above-mentioned requirement.

The ninth ordinance establishes a mandatory set back of 50 feet. This would allow one row of parking, a sidewalk and greenspace in front of the business, but would simply prohibit the vast parking lot in front of the store.

To reiterate this, nine of these 10 ordinances restrict no retail business from entering the city. They merely state that if these chains want to come in, they need to conform to what the citizens have repeatedly said they would like to see. All a company has to do, regardless of its size, is build up to the street, add a second story (which can be rented out as office space or apartments) and put the parking in the rear and on the sides. Not only are such businesses not penalized, the are rewarded. They have less red tape to deal with than they now do and the city will reduce the amount of open space they are currently required to preserve. Only if a business insists on ignoring the expressed wishes of the citizens, do they run into any penalties. I honestly do not see this as such a profound deterrence to a company who wants to do business here. This is our town, not theirs.

The tenth ordinance, which stands alone and which is an alternative to the other nine states that no retail development over 20,000 square feet will be permitted on King Street.

In fact, I am personally not all that happy with these ordinances because if someone does comply, they are not required to pay any mitigating fees to the city for the increased services they will require or for the political fall out that will occur when local stores start closing.

But this is a compromise on our part. A huge compromise, in fact.

Northampton has very little developable space. I do not believe that we want to squander the majority of that space on any kind of retail. I would like to see King Street development include more high tech, higher paying jobs than retail markets can produce. I should point out that the Mayor and city officials are slaving away to make this a reality.

How tragic would it be if, after all these efforts on the part of the Mayor and the Economic Development Coordinator, King Street morphed into just another, same as all the other, strip mall for large-scale, low-paying retail stores. Of course, everyone says, those more desirable businesses can locate at the State Hospital. We hope that is true. However, the State Hospital has been processing for decades. Telling a business they can become operational there in a year or two is like going to the East Side Grill and being told you’ll be seated in an hour. One exciting outcome of these ordinances – the provision of a second story – could provide the much needed, less expensive space for promising start up businesses.

We have a plethora of low paying jobs in this community. Why on earth do we want to use up all of our land to continue this trend when reasonable alternatives exist?