Preserving Small Towns

The End of an Era

May 1, 2008 · 3 Comments

With the exception of a seven-year period beginning in 1979, the inflation-adjusted price of a gallon of gas was never higher than $1.60 from 1950 to 2003. As recently as 1998, a gallon of gas cost $1.10, the lowest inflation adjusted price recorded at least since World War II, perhaps ever. In 2004, gas went to $1.94 a gallon, then to $2.34, $2.65, and $2.79, in successive years. This year’s average price will certainly end over $3.00, marking a near doubling in five years and a nearly 300% increase in ten years.

With gas prices averaging a bit less than $1.50 during most of the “automobile era,” a family of four consuming 2,000 gallons of gas would spend $3,000 a year. This means that for much of the automobile era, gas prices have pretty much represented a fixed cost of approximately 7% of average family income. Consumers could happily motor certain in the knowledge that the cost of gas would be mostly incidental to the cost of driving and the cost of living.

Under these circumstances, people made certain decisions – such as the type of car to drive, how far to live from work, where and how often to go shopping, how many cars to own, and whether or not to use public transportation – based on certain expectations about the cost of gas, expectations that have been reasonable throughout much of the automobile era.

Likewise for businesses. The proximity of businesses to employees and customers and to public transportation lines is shaped by fuel costs. So are decisions about how and how far to ship goods. So, I would submit, are decisions about the scale or size of the business.

And these are just direct, at the pump fuel costs. Since energy is involved in almost everything we do, increased energy costs are a major source of inflation, showing up in increased shipping, heating, and cooling costs. In our petrochemical economy, oil also represents a major input in paints, plastics, food, and fertilizers.

My point is that our landscape of lawned suburbs, retail sprawl, and campus-like office complexes connected by a dense thicket of roads is the product of an era of cheap fuel, an era that has just ended. With oil production declining in Mexico, the North Sea, Russia, and Norway, with demand growing far faster than supply, and with even Saudi Arabia showing signs of fatigue, there is little evidence to support the hope that recent price increases are temporary.

In its last phase, fueled by well below average gas prices and well below average interest rates from the mid-1990s to 2003, we experienced a historic surge in residential and commercial sprawl. Retail square footage per capita more than doubled in what was already the world’s leader in retail space. Wal-Mart became the world’s largest company. Lowe’s quadrupled its number of stores. Now we are left with a huge hangover and a doozie of a recession to get over it.

Returning to our average family of four, fuel costs are now approximately $7,000 a year, or 16% of income. That’s equivalent to $585 a month, comparable to the mortgage on a modest home. This doesn’t include the inflationary effects of higher fuel prices on food, heating, cooling, and everything else. Using the methods used to measure inflation back in the 1970s, before the federal government changed the formula to show less inflation, today’s inflation rate is almost 12%. (See article here for details).

It will take a while for the new reality of gas prices to be felt. Many households and businesses will carry out plans made in a previous era, believing that era isn’t really over. Schemes to suspend gas taxes, send checks to taxpayers, and draw fuel from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve will be tried.

In the end, though, we will need to accommodate to an era of permanently higher fuel costs. Even as a dedicated opponent of sprawl, I enter this new era with real concern.

→ 3 CommentsCategories: Uncategorized

Never Mind

April 24, 2008 · No Comments

Back in the day, when Newman was new to town, energy levels were higher, and it was still possible to believe that it wasn’t a done deal, the Town Planning Board set a pretty high bar for the review of Newman’s Big Box plans. That bar took the form of a requirement that Newman complete an Environmental Impact Statement analyzing “potentially significant adverse impacts” associated with its proposal.

Among the potential impacts Newman was required to analyze was the precedent this project would set for future development in the area. Quoting directly from the Environmental Assessment Form (EAF) and Scope endorsed by a majority of the Board, concern was expressed that “large-scale development tends to occur in clusters” and that “approving Newman’s proposal would “establish a precedent that will encourage high density retail development and possibly additional Big Box retailers along NYS Rt. 20A and within the Gateway Overlay District.”

Demonstrating that these were not abstract concerns, it was noted that “we have already seen this in our community with the building of Wegmans and Wal-Mart’s Plazas” and that Newman itself had originally submitted “plans to develop 14 acres to the east of the proposed project now in question.”

To evaluate the likelihood and magnitude of these impacts, the Scope endorsed by the Board required that Newman and, ultimately, the Town Planning Board itself, complete a “Precedent Analysis” to determine “the precedent [Newman’s proposal] may establish for future similar development in the Gateway Overlay District, as well as other nearby zoning districts.”

As recently as January of this year, after reviewing the environmental impact materials Newman had submitted and finding them deficient, the Town reiterated that it was still waiting for an analysis of “the impacts of additional similar development within the Gateway Overlay District … including the potential traffic impacts of same.”

So, now that the Town Planning Board has accepted Newman’s Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) as complete, what have we learned about the precedent effects of Newman’s project?

Nothing. Nada. Not a damn thing, except that Newman apparently did not want to answer this question and the Town Planning Board got tired of asking. As I write, the two volumes and 600 pages of Newman’s FEIS sit next to me, silent on what for me has long been the central question of this entire project.

Remember PDDG’s much talked about slogan: “Geneseo Yes, Genrietta No”? That’s a concern about precedent in bumper sticker form.

Volume I of the FEIS contains Newman’s (and the Town’s) responses to the many questions posed by the public. This is the heart of the FEIS. In response to concerns expressed about precedent, we are told that the Gateway “may” become “more desirable” to retailers, but that the Town retains the right to say no to future developers.

We are also told that Newman answered these questions last year, in its Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS), submitted well before the Town told them it still hadn’t completed the required Precedent Analysis.

What Newman had done, and what it apparently thinks counts as a Precedent Analysis, was to complete an Economic Impact Analysis of its proposal way back in early 2006. Nowhere in that analysis, or in the independent evaluation of that analysis completed a year later, is there any information that might be construed as a precedent analysis.

The closest we get is an analysis of the effects of Big Boxes on Main Streets. This is useful and interesting information, but go back to the EAF and Scope quoted earlier and see that the concern driving the Precedent Analysis was the effect Newman’s proposal would have on “similar” or “Big Box” development in Geneseo.

Once upon a time, the Town Planning Board obligated Newman to tell us and obligated itself to make them, whether Wal-Mart and Lowe’s get together and give birth to Target or Best Buy or Dick’s or whether we had sprawled as far as we were going to sprawl. These aren’t impossible questions to answer. Lord knows there are plenty of other communities to look to for answers.

In response to those concerns, all we get are bland assurances that we control our own destiny and that future sprawl will be limited by the amount of available land. Those answers don’t inspire much confidence and they certainly don’t constitute a Precedent Analysis.

→ No CommentsCategories: Big Boxes · Geneseo