Last Monday, the Scarborough Planning Board gave another review of “Scarborough Gallery,” a proposal originally pitched by Kerry Anderson for over 400,000 square feet of retail development off Spring Street. Soon, they will be asked to give a final approval for this project; but, before they do, I’d like to see a few of its aspects be subjected to a lot more scrutiny.

One of my major concerns has to do with the enormous scale of the concept. It rivals the size of the Maine Mall, yet no official is calling for an economic impact analysis. Why is that? With over 5 million square feet of other retail space already in the pipeline for this region for 2005-2006, shouldn’t somebody be asking if Scarborough can absorb that much more retail development at this time? Where is Sue Foley-Ferguson when we need her?

And since Wal-Mart is the driving force behind this, can’t anyone ask about their long-range plans? I remember when they first came to town. Nearly everybody, myself included, welcomed them with open arms. But, imagine how differently we would have considered that venture had we known beforehand that they’d be looking to vacate the existing building a few years later in order to expand just a bit further down the road.

Imagine if they had revealed to us then that they carry an inventory, not just of low-cost clothing, but of hundreds of similar abandoned stores throughout the country. Would the approvals of that initial project have breezed through knowing that such a large “box” may well be sitting empty and boarded up once a better offer comes along?

When they first came to town, they promised jobs. But, nobody questioned the value of those jobs or how many other jobs would be sacrificed in order to create the Wal-Mart jobs. They promised tax relief; but no one looked behind the figures to see how much the increased drain upon town resources offset those gains.

And what’s the talk of “jobs” and “taxes” all about? This is being portrayed as a “win-win” situation, good for the town and for the developer. But studies show that big box stores eliminate as many jobs at existing retailers as they create. Where’s the benefit in that? Also, a recent report from Massachusetts found that Wal-Mart, Home Depot and Target have 4,500 employees and dependents enrolled in Medicaid and other taxpayer-funded health insurance programs at a cost of $4.5 million a year to that state.

Shouldn’t we here at least inquire as to how many of Wal-Mart’s local employees still need to receive further assistance form town or state resources in order to make ends meet? I note further that studies in Ohio, and again in Massachusetts, found that big-box stores cost more in public services like road maintenance and police than they generate in tax revenue. How does this benefit a host town?

It might also be smart to inquire about the environmental cost of such a development. It probably will require about 1.5 million square feet of asphalt paving in addition to the water-tight surface created by the buildings themselves. It seems to me that this is one of the worst, most toxic, land uses possible for these 86 acres in terms of its impact on the watershed there. Don’t we need to at least ask if this is the highest and best use of that land?

Fred Kilfoil

Scarborough

Copy the Story Link