Many communities across the country are eschewing these large-acreage, big-box type development sites to instead develop or revitalize downtown-type areas. Much evidence exists that suggests the presence of big-box stores in a community can have a negative effect on the tax base, on already established independently-owned businesses, and on employment rates, as many recent studies demonstrate. For example, the impact on a tax base is demonstrated in a 2001 study of Concord, NH conducted by RKG Associates that showed despite 2.8million square feet of new property developed within 12 years, the tax revenue declined by 19% and property tax soared as a result. An August 2004 study of eight communities in central Ohio by four different consultants found that retail development, in particular big-box stores and shopping centers, generated a net fiscal loss to each community on an average of $0.44 per sq.ft. The declining tax base can be related in part to the increased demand in public services, decreased property values due to traffic, noise and light pollution, and the dissolution of local businesses. This dissolution has a broad-reaching negative effect as these local businesses use more local labor, support other local businesses, and contribute to local charities and churches. As these businesses decline, other local support businesses begin to suffer as well, such as local banks, attorneys, accountants, printers, web designers, suppliers, etc. All of these businesses, on average, keep a greater portion of their profits within the community (54% re-spent in state as opposed to 14% by large chains, the majority of which is payroll) as well as generating greater revenue for local governments; a 2002 study in Massachusetts by Tischler and Associates found that, for a local community, big box retailers generated a net annual deficit of $468/1000sq.ft. shopping centers generated a net annual deficit of $314/1000sq.ft., whereas independent Main Street-type businesses generated a net annual return of $326/1000sq.ft.. With respect to employment, other studies show that the creation of jobs tends to be a promise unfulfilled. A 2006 study by Neumark, Zhang, and Ciccarella found that for every new retail job created by Wal-Mart, 1.5 jobs were lost. I believe this study can be applied to other big-box retailers as similar labor practices are used. The jobs they do generate tend to have lower wages and lower benefits, if the taxpayers in terms of government-funded social services inevitably make up any, and this gap. Researchers at Penn State University in October 2004, after controlling for other factors, found that counties that gained a Wal-Mart in the 1990’s had a higher poverty rate than those that did not.
As a response to these negative impacts, many communities are now creating size caps for new developments (in terms of square footage per store) to prevent or counteract some of the fiscal nightmares that have developed across the country; for example, many big box stores can range from 130,000sq.ft.to over 200,000sq.ft. size caps may limit stores to 35,000 or 45,000 sq.ft.. Many consultants as well suggest greater mix-use of land, such as smaller retail development mixed with income generating office and residential uses. This is an approach that seems to be consistent with the existing Murrysville Comprehensive Plan, which repeatedly refers to a desire to increase office and mixed-use space.
In addition to fiscal matters, the Manor Development Group II assured the Murrysville council members and citizens that with the completion of Route 22, including an additional light at Hume Road, and vague proposed improvements to Berlin Farm Road, traffic will not cause undue problems. Although Route 22 will undoubtedly be able to carry a greater traffic burden, the traffic generated by a 68-acre retail development site must be put into perspective. The Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation Manual estimates approximately 4,000-7,000 weekday vehicle trips for a home improvement store and approximately 7,000-13,000 weekday vehicle trips for a general merchandise store such as Target. This totals 11,000-20,000 weekday vehicle trips alone for these two stores. This does not take into account the increased Saturday traffic or the other stores or businesses located in the development. In addition, an August 2006 study by G.M. Vivian found that the ITE Trip Generation Manual might underestimate the traffic by up to 42% depending on the store’s square footage. Even with some sort of improvement to Berlin Farm Road, traffic still would, and should, remain a concern. The effects on Berlin Farm Road, Old William Penn Highway, and Harrison City-Export Road all need to be assessed as well as the overall traffic impact on the surrounding area.
Since the Route 22 improvements and other small developments have occurred, stresses on the Turtle Creek Watershed area have become apparent, as residents and business owners can attest to. Runoff from close to 68 acres of concrete, regardless of release rates, must be vast and will, without a doubt, have a deleterious effect on the watershed. As Tom Schueler of the Center for Watershed Protection has been quoted as saying, “Simply put, there is no other kind of surface in a watershed that produces more runoff and delivers it faster than a parking lot.” In addition to flood concerns, there is the issue of increased pollutants introduced into the watershed area. The natural filtration, and flood-resistance, of permeable soil is lost and compounded by the pollutants left behind on paved surfaces by cars (hydrocarbons and heavy metals) and other sources (nitrogen, phosphorous, road salt, pesticides and herbicides). A 12-acre parking lot will produce nine times as many pollutants as a 12-acre field. Obviously, the impact the proposed development will have on the Turtle Creek watershed area, its residents, and businesses will require much study before any rezoning could be contemplated.
Beyond facts and figures, the development, by many community members’ estimation, just does not preserve the character and flavor of Murrysville, a commodity difficult to quantify but essential none-the-less. It is that uniqueness that has brought so many people to and kept so many others here in Murrysville. It is what the Comprehensive Plan was designed to help preserve, as stated on page 1-40, “Murrysville’s future is an exciting one that boasts of a sustainable continuation of many of the Municipality’s current strengths, such as attractive neighborhoods, a strong school system, a responsive public government, and its rural character.” Whether the land will remain as zoned R-2 or rezoned in some other fashion that will preserve the individuality and character of Murrysville and allow for economic expansion as well, a development of this scope and size containing two large big box chain stores, no matter how well done, is not in keeping with what Murrysville is today and what it could be in the future.