Opposition to a proposed increase in the maximum size of buildings in Freeland and Clinton has county planners thinking twice about the idea.  If commissioners approve of the rule change, bigger buildings — up to 50,000 square feet — could be constructed in parts of Clinton and Freeland.

The county planning commission may make a recommendation on the new regulations at their meeting in late July, and has been gathering public comment on the idea.  The proposal would permit buildings three times the size of the largest building that’s now in Clinton, and nearly double the size of the largest existing building in Freeland.

Development rules currently prohibit buildings in Clinton from exceeding 14,000 square feet. Freeland buildings can’t be built larger than 27,000 square feet.  According to a review of comments that have been submitted on the new rules, few people support the change for bigger buildings in Clinton or Freeland, however.

Some people are worried bigger buildings in Clinton and Freeland will hurt the rural character of the area. And others have said they need more time to offer input on the proposal.  Residents’ concerns have county officials rethinking the idea.

“My inclination is that we back off,” said Phil Bakke, Island County planning director.  More research may be necessary before the planning commission makes its recommendations, he said.  If the county commissioners eventually approve the new size limits, the change would be limited to commercially-zoned areas in Freeland and Clinton.  Both areas fall under a Rural Area of Intense Development designation, or RAID.  RAIDs set strict regulations for urban growth within non-urban boundaries.

Both communities were labeled RAIDs several years ago to comply with the county’s comprehensive plan, the 20-year plan guiding growth in Island County.  Some residents say the restrictions now in place prevent buildings from being built too close together. Having large buildings stacked virtually on top of each other would disrupt the rural character of South Whidbey, they say.  Most residents support the rules now in place, according to emails and letters to the county reviewed by the Record.

“The current county code limitations on building size in Freeland and Clinton RAIDs are there for a reason,” Lou and Emyle Malzone of Freeland.

The RAID prevents South Whidbey from resembling communities along Highway 99, they said.  One resident said county officials need to find out from the public firsthand what the community wants.  The county officials should leave Coupeville and come to the communities, said Jack Lynch of Clinton.

Tate said requests from people, especially developers, led to the planning department asking for the review in February.  The review also gives the county an opportunity to write a clearer definition of building restrictions. That will mean less confusion in the future about what’s allowed, he said.

Rick Almberg of Oak Harbor RDA and Associates, a development company, and Jeff Lien, owner of Payless Foods, have pressed for the change in size limits for new buildings.

Since the 27,000-square-foot Payless Foods is the largest building in Freeland, Lien could not expand without a change in the rules.  Alberg’s company owns property next to Maple Ridge in Freeland, where it wants to build an assisted living facility. If the rule changes are passed, the company could clear a large hurdle to construction.

Beyond the rural character issue, some Island County residents have raised other concerns about the building size rules.  Locals want to block big-box stores such as Wal-Mart and other businesses from coming to the area. People have also said they’re worried about drainage and parking problems.

According to the proposed rule change, developers could build larger buildings for “essential services not fully being met.”

But people also want to know how “essential services” will be defined, according to comments submitted to the county.  If the planning commission decides to examine the size limitations further, Freeland may still someday allow 50,000-square-foot buildings.  Once the county approves Freeland’s subarea plan proposal, Freeland would become a non-municipal area of urban growth, or NMUGA.

The NMUGA designation would permit denser housing developments and possibly larger buildings.

BIG BOX ECONOMIC IMPACT STUDIES:
http://www.newrules.org/retail/econimpact.html
 

Below are summaries and links to key studies that examine the impact of
Wal-Mart and other large retail chains and, in some cases, the benefits of
locally owned businesses.  For ease of use, we've organized these studies
into the following categories (though they do not all fit neatly into one
category):

City Costs
These studies compare the municipal tax benefits of big-box development with
the cost of providing these stores with city services, such as road
maintenance, police and fire—finding that cities do not always come out
ahead.

State Costs
Because many of their employees do not earn enough to make ends meet, states
are reporting high costs associated with providing healthcare (Medicaid) and
other public assistance to big-box employees. Economic Impact of Local
Businesses vs. Chains
Studies have found that locally owned stores generate much greater benefits
for the local economy than national chains.

Existing Businesses & Jobs
These studies look at how the arrival of a big-box retailer displaces sales
at existing businesses, which must then downsize or close. This results in
job losses and declining tax revenue, which some of these studies quantify.

Wages & Benefits
Studies have found that big-box retailers, particularly Wal-Mart, are
depressing wages and benefits for retail employees.

Poverty Rates
Counties that have gained Wal-Mart stores have fared worse in terms of
family poverty rates, according to this study.

Subsidies
This study documents more than $1 billion in local and state development
subsidies that have flowed to Wal-Mart.

Consumers
Are chains better for consumers?
Do you have other studies to add to this list? Please let us know by sending
an email to Stacy Mitchell.
 

---------------------------------

1.  CITY COSTS
These studies compare the municipal tax benefits of big-box development with
the cost of providing these stores with city services, such as road
maintenance, police and fire—finding that cities do not always come out
ahead.

In addition to these studies, see "As Police Costs Rise, Towns Reconsider
Big Boxes,"  and "Big Box Sprawl Causes Sharp Rise in Police Costs."

Understanding the Fiscal Impacts of Land Use in Ohio [PDF]
by Randall Gross, Development Economics, August 2004

This report reviews and summarizes the findings of fiscal impact studies
conducted in eight central Ohio communities between 1997 and 2003. In seven
of the eight communities, retail development created a drain on municipal
budgets (i.e., it required more in public services, such as road maintenance
and police, than it generated in tax revenue). On average, retail buildings
produced a net annual loss of $0.44 per square foot. "The concept that
growth is always good for a community does not seem to correlate with the
findings from various fiscal analyses conducted throughout central Ohio,"
the report concludes. It cautions cities not to be taken in by the promise
of high tax revenue from a new development without also considering the
additional costs of providing services. Unlike retail, office and industrial
development, as well as some types of residential, produced a net tax
benefit.

Fiscal Impact Analysis of Residential and Nonresidential Land Use Prototypes
[PDF]
by Tischler & Associates, July 2002.
 

Big box retail, shopping centers, and fast-food restaurants cost taxpayers
in Barnstable, Massachusetts, more than they produce in revenue, according
to this analysis.  The study compares the tax revenue generated by different
kinds of residential and commercial development with the actual cost of
providing public services for each land use. The study found that big box
retail generates a net annual deficit of $468 per 1,000 square feet.
Shopping centers likewise produce an annual drain of $314 per 1,000 square
feet. By far the most costly are fast-food restaurants, which have a net
annual cost of $5,168 per 1,000 square feet.  In contrast, the study found
that specialty retail, a category that includes small-scale Main Street
businesses, has a positive impact on pubic revenue (i.e., it generates more
tax revenue than it costs to service). Specialty retail produces a net
annual return of $326 per 1,000 square feet. Other commercial land uses that
are revenue winners include business parks, offices, and hotels. The two
main factors behind the higher costs for big box stores, shopping centers,
and fast-food outlets, compared to specialty retail shops, are higher road
maintenance costs (due to a much greater number of car trips per 1,000
square feet) and greater demand for public safety services.

Understanding the Tax Base Consequences of Local Economic Development
Programs [PDF]
by RKG Associates, 2001
 

The city of Concord, New Hampshire provides an example of what can happen
when a community allows massive commercial growth while failing to protect
its existing economic assets. Over the last 12 years, Concord added 2.8
million square feet of new commercial and industrial development. Yet tax
revenue has actually declined by 19 percent. To make up for lost revenue,
the town now has one of the highest property tax rates in the state. This
study by RKG Associates, an independent economic consulting firm, found that
there were several reasons for the declining tax base. One was that new
retail development, primarily big box stores, had harmed local businesses.
Property values, and subsequently tax revenue, in the older shopping areas
had declined sharply. Another factor was that the new development had eroded
the value of residential property, probably due in part to increased traffic
and noise. The end result was that the city actually experienced a declining
tax base despite all of the new growth.

Impacts of Development on DuPage County Property Taxes
Prepared by DuPage County Development Department for the County Regional
Planning Commission, Illinois, October 1991.

This study demonstrated that the costs of encouraging new commercial
development---extending highways and utilities, expanding municipal services
like police and fire protection, and providing development financing and
incentives---exceeded the new property and sales tax revenues the new
development generated. The study concluded "... there is a significant
statistical relationship between new development (both residential and
nonresidential) and increases in personal property taxes."

2.  STATE COSTS
Because many of their employees do not earn enough to make ends meet, states
are reporting high costs associated with providing healthcare (Medicaid) and
other public assistance to big-box employees.

In addition to the following studies, see Good Jobs First's web page
detailing states that have disclosed how much they are spending on providing
health insurance (mainly Medicaid) for employees of Wal-Mart, Home Depot,
Target, and other big-box retailers.

Hidden Cost of Wal-Mart Jobs
by UC Berkeley's Institute for Industrial Relations, August 2004

California taxpayers are spending $86 million a year providing healthcare
and other public assistance to the state's 44,000 Wal-Mart employees,
according to this study. The average Wal-Mart worker requires $730 in
taxpayer-funded healthcare and $1,222 in other forms of assistance, such as
food stamps and subsidized housing.  Even compared to other retailers,
Wal-Mart imposes an especially large burden on taxpayers. Wal-Mart workers
earn 31 percent less than the average for workers at large retail companies
and require 39 percent more in public assistance. The study estimates that
if competing supermarkets and other large retailers adopt Wal-Mart's wage
and benefit levels, it will cost California's taxpayers an additional $410
million a year in public assistance.

Everyday Low Wages: The Hidden Price We All Pay for Wal-Mart
by the Democratic Staff of the House Committee on Education and the
Workforce, February 2004

Although this study uses different methodology than the one above, it
arrives at the same conclusion:  Wal-Mart's low wages and meager benefits
are costing taxpayers. The average Wal-Mart employee requires $2,100 per
year in public assistance, including Section 8 housing vouchers,
reduced-cost lunches for dependent children, health care programs, and tax
credits for the working poor.

3.  ECONOMIC IMPACT OF LOCAL BUSINESSES VS. CHAINS
The following studies have found that locally owned stores generate much
greater benefits for the local economy than national chains.

The Andersonville Study of Retail Economics
By Civic Economics, October 2004

This compelling study, commissioned by the Andersonville Development
Corporation, finds that locally owned businesses generate 70 percent more
local economic impact per square foot than chain stores. The study's
authors, Dan Houston and Matt Cunningham of Civic Economics, analyzed ten
locally owned restaurants, retail stores, and service providers in the
Andersonville neighborhood on Chicago's north side and compared them with
ten national chains competing in the same categories. They found that
spending $100 at one of the neighborhood's independent businesses creates
$68 in additional local economic activity, while spending $100 at a chain
produces only $43 worth of local impact. They also found that the local
businesses generated slightly more sales per square foot compared to the
chains ($263 versus $243). Because chains funnel more of this revenue out of
the local economy, the study concluded that, for every square foot of space
occupied by a chain, the local economic impact is $105, compared to $179 for
every square foot occupied by an independent business.

The Economic Impact of Locally Owned Businesses vs. Chains: A Case Study in
Midcoast Maine [PDF]
by the Institute for Local Self-Reliance and Friends of Midcoast Maine,
September 2003.

Three times as much money stays in the local economy when you buy goods and
services from locally owned businesses instead of large chain stores,
according to this analysis, which tracked the revenue and expenditures of
eight locally owned businesses in Midcoast Maine. The survey found that the
businesses, with had combined sales of $5.7 million in 2002, spent 44.6
percent of their revenue within the surrounding two counties. Another 8.7
percent was spent elsewhere in the state of Maine. The four largest
components of this local spending were: wages and benefits paid to local
employees; goods and services purchased from other local businesses; profits
that accrued to local owners; and taxes paid to local and state government.
Using a variety of sources, the analysis estimates that a national big box
retailer operating in Midcoast Maine returns just 14.1 percent of its
revenue to the local economy, mostly in the form of payroll. The rest leaves
the state, flowing to out-of-state suppliers or back to corporate
headquarters. The survey also found that the local businesses contributed
more to charity than national chains.

Economic Impact Analysis: A Case Study [PDF]
by Civic Economics, December 2002.
 

This study examines the local economic impact of two locally owned
businesses in Austin, Texas---Waterloo Records and Book People---and
compares this with the economic return the community would receive from a
Borders Books store. The study finds that spending $100 at Borders creates
$13 worth of local economic activity, while spending $100 at the local
stores generates $45 in local economic activity. The difference is
attributed to three factors: a higher local payroll at the independent
stores (because, unlike Borders, none of their operations are carried out a
an out-of-town headquarters office); the local stores purchased more goods
and services locally; and the local stores retained a much larger share of
their profits within the local economy.

4.  EXISTING BUSINESSES AND JOBS
These studies look at how the arrival of a big-box retailer displaces sales
at existing businesses, which must then downsize or close. This results in
job losses and declining tax revenue, which some of these studies quantify.

Job Creation or Destruction? Labor-Market Effects of Wal-Mart Expansion
By Emek Basker, University of Missouri, Review of Economics & Statistics,
February 2005

Often cited and typically misrepresented by Wal-Mart supporters, this study
examines the impact of the arrival of a Wal-Mart store on retail and
wholesale employment. It looks at 1,749 counties that added a Wal-Mart
between 1977 and 1998. It finds that Wal-Mart's arrival boosts retail
employment by 100 jobs in the first year—far less than the 200-400 jobs the
company says its stores create, because its arrival causes existing
retailers to downsize and lay-off employees. Over the next four years, there
is a loss of 40-60 additional retail jobs as more competing retailers
downsize and close. The study also finds that Wal-Mart's arrival leads to a
decline of approximately 20 local wholesale jobs in the first five years,
and an additional 10 wholesale jobs over the long run (six or more years
after Wal-Mart's arrival). (Wal-Mart handles its own distribution and does
not rely on wholesalers). This works out to a net gain of just 10-30 retail
and wholesale jobs, and the study does not examine whether these jobs are
part-time or whether they pay more or less than the jobs eliminated by
Wal-Mart. The study also found that, within five years of Wal-Mart's
arrival, the counties had lost an average of four small retail businesses,
one mid-sized store, and one large store. It does not estimate declines in
revenue to retailers that survive. Basker looked at the effect of Wal-Mart
on retail employment in neighboring communities, but found that the
confidence intervals were too large (meaning the results showed wide
variation) to draw any conclusion about Wal-Mart's impact. (Her initial
working paper, published in 2002, reported an average decline of 30 retail
jobs in surrounding communities, but, after correcting an error, she
determined the confidence intervals were too large to produce a precise
result.)

Final Report on Research for Big Box Retail/Superstore Ordinance
prepared for the Los Angeles City Council by Rodino Associates, October
2003.

This study concludes that big box stores would harm low-income neighborhoods
in Los Angeles by reducing competition, creating blight, lowering wages, and
forcing new costs onto taxpayers. By pricing groceries as "loss leaders" and
using higher margin non-grocery items to make up the difference,
supercenters often force existing supermarkets out of business. Because
grocery stores anchor many neighborhood business districts and shopping
centers, their closure would harm other retailers and lead to vacancies in
areas that are only now beginning to recover from years of economic decline.
The report also finds that supercenters would negatively impact job
opportunities by replacing union-wage supermarket jobs with a smaller number
of lower-paying jobs. Fewer workers would have health care benefits, further
burdening public hospitals and health care programs.

The Fiscal and Economic Impact of a Proposed Shopping Center Project on the
City of Leominster
by Dr. Thomas Muller, August 2003.

This study examines the likely impact of a proposed 510,000-square-foot
shopping center, which would include a Wal-Mart supercenter, a Lowe's, a
department store such as Kohl's, and four chain restaurants. The study finds
that the city already has more retail than residents can support. The
proposed shopping center would dramatically worsen the situation. Its
projected annual revenue of $185 million is equivalent to 77 percent of the
local market's current sales in building materials, groceries, and general
merchandise. Since neither population nor incomes are growing, sales at the
new shopping center would come entirely at the expense of existing
businesses. Competing stores within a 5-6 mile radius would lose $104
million in revenue. Those 5-6 miles further out would lose $72 million.
Because of the impact on existing businesses, the 869 jobs created by the
center will be offset by about the same number of job losses. After
accounting for the cost of providing city services to the new development
and declining property tax revenue from existing businesses, the study
concludes that the project would produce only $51,000 in additional revenue,
about $3 annually for each of Leominster's 17,000 households.

The Impact of 'Big-Box' Building Materials Stores on Host Towns and
Surrounding Counties in a Midwestern State [PDF]
by Economics Professor Kenneth E. Stone and Extension Program Specialist
Georgeanne M. Artz, Iowa State University, 2001.
 

This study examines several Iowa communities where big box building supply
stores, such as Menards and Home Depot, have opened in the last decade.
Sales of hardware and building supplies in the host community and
surrounding counties are tracked over several years to test what the authors
call the "zero-sum-game theory," namely that the retail sales gains
generated by big box stores are offset by sales losses at existing, often
locally owned, retail stores. The results confirm the theory, finding that
sales of hardware and building supplies grow in the host communities, but at
the expense of sales in smaller towns nearby. Moreover, after a few years,
many of the host communities experienced a reversal of fortune: sales of
hardware and building supplies declined sharply, often dropping below their
initial levels, as more big box stores opened in the surrounding region and
saturated the market.

What Happened When Wal-Mart Came to Town? A Report on Three Iowa Communities
with a Statistical Analysis of Seven Iowa Counties
by Thomas Muller and Elizabeth Humstone, National Trust For Historic
Preservation, 1996.

This study examined the impact of Wal-Mart on several Iowa communities. It
found that 84 percent of all sales at the new Wal-Mart stores came at the
expense of existing businesses within the same county. Only 16 percent of
sales came from outside the county---a finding which refutes the notion that
Wal-Mart can act as a magnet drawing customers from a wide area and
benefiting other businesses in town. "Although some suggest that the
presence of Wal-Mart outside of, but near to, the downtown area results in
additional activity downtown, both sales data and traffic data do not show
this gain," the study concludes. "None of the nine case studies was
experiencing a high enough level of population and income growth to absorb
the Wal-Mart store without losses to other businesses." The study documents
losses in downtown stores after Wal-Mart opened. "General merchandise stores
were most affected," the study notes. "Other types of stores that closed
include: automotive stores, hardware stores, drug stores, apparel stores,
and sporting goods stores." The supposed tax benefits of Wal-Mart did not
materialize either: "Although the local tax base added about $2 million with
each Wal-Mart, the decline in retail stores following the opening had a
depressing effect on property values in downtowns and on shopping strips,
offsetting gains from the Wal-Mart property."

Competing with the Discount Mass Merchandisers
By Dr. Kenneth Stone, Iowa State University, 1995

The basic premise of this study and others by Ken Stone is that the retail
"pie" is relatively fixed in size (it grows only incrementally as population
and incomes grow).  Consequently, when a company like Wal-Mart opens a giant
store, it invariably captures a substantial slice of the retail pie, leaving
smaller portions for existing businesses, which are then forced to downsize
or close.  This  study of Wal-Mart's impact on Iowa towns found that the
average superstore cost other merchants in the host town about $12 million a
year in sales (as of 1995), while stores in smaller towns nearby also
suffered substantial revenue losses.  These sales losses resulted in the
closure of 7,326 Iowa businesses between 1983 and 1993, including 555
grocery stores, 291 apparel stores, and 298 hardware stores. While towns
that gained a Wal-Mart store initially experienced a rise in overall retail
sales, after the first two or three years, retail sales began to decline.
About one in four towns ending up with a lower level of retail activity than
they had prior to Wal-Mart's arrival. Stone attributes this to Wal-Mart's
strategy of saturating regions with multiple stores.

St. Albans, Vermont State Environmental Board Act 250 Decision, 1994

A cost/benefit analysis of a proposed Wal-Mart store in St. Albans, Vermont,
found that the store would cause dozens of existing businesses to close,
leading to a net loss of 110,000 square feet of retail space. The 214 jobs
created by the new superstore would be offset by the loss of 381 jobs at
other businesses. The analysis also found that the overall tax losses
expected from the small business failures would be greater than the tax
revenue generated by the new Wal-Mart. Moreover, the city would incur a
variety of new costs to provide roads, sewers, police, and fire protection
to service the sprawling new development. The analysis concluded that for
every dollar in tax benefit created by the superstore, there would be 2.5
dollars in tax losses and public costs.

5. WAGES & BENEFITS
These studies examine the effect of big-box chains, particularly Wal-Mart,
on wages and benefits for retail employees.

Wal-Mart: An Example of Why Workers Remain Uninsured and Underinsured [PDF]
By the AFL-CIO, October 2003

Unaffordable premiums, overly strict eligibility requirements, and major
gaps in coverage characterize Wal-Mart's health insurance plan, according to
this report.  The annual premium a full-time Wal-Mart employee must pay for
coverage for her and her spouse is $2,672 (with a $350 deductible), which
amounts to about 19 percent of her pre-tax earnings. Part-time employees
(under 34 hours per week) are only eligible to enroll after two years on the
job and even then, coverage is available only for themselves, not their
families. Full-time workers are eligible for family coverage after six
months.  Costly premiums and strict eligibility requirements result in only
two in five Wal-Mart employees being covered by the company's health care
plan, compared to a national average of 66 percent at large firms. Moreover,
unlike nearly all other corporate health insurance plans, Wal-Mart's plan
does not cover most basic services, including regular check-ups for adults
and children, childhood immunizations, and routine screenings such as
prostate exams.

The Impact of Big Box Grocers on Southern California: Jobs, Wages, and
Municipal Finances [PDF]
Prepared for the Orange County Business Council by Dr. Marlon Boarnet of the
University of California at Irvine and Dr. Randall Crane of the University
of California at Los Angeles, 1999.
 

The most useful parts of this study deal with Wal-Mart's impact on wages.
The study concluded that, as Wal-Mart builds supercenters in southern
California, the company will absorb up to 20 percent of the region's grocery
market and cut grocery workers' income by up to $1.4 billion annually.
Unionized supermarket workers in southern California make the equivalent of
$18.25 an hour in wages and benefits, according to the study, while Wal-Mart
employees earn just $9.63 per hour. As Wal-Mart expands in the region, it
will replace high-wage jobs with low-wage jobs. It will probably also force
unionized supermarket workers to accept substantial wage and benefit cuts to
keep their employers competitive. The combined losses are estimated in the
range of $500 million to $1.4 billion. The study also compares health
insurance benefits at unionized supermarkets and Wal-Mart, and examines the
tax and revenue implications of supercenter development.

6.  POVERTY RATES
Counties that have gained Wal-Mart stores have fared worse in terms of
family poverty rates, according to this study.

Wal-Mart and County-Wide Poverty
by Stephan Goetz and Hema Swaminathan, Penn State University, October 2004

The presence of a Wal-Mart store hinders a community's ability to move
families out of poverty, according to this study. After controlling for
other factors that influence poverty rates, the researchers found that those
U.S. counties in which new Wal-Mart stores were built between 1987 and 1998
experienced a significantly smaller reduction in their poverty rates than
those counties that did not add new Wal-Mart stores. Overall, the portion of
families living in poverty nationwide fell from 13.1 to 10.7 percent between
1989 and 1999.  Counties that gained one Wal-Mart store showed an 8 percent
smaller reduction in the poverty rate compared to the national average,
while those that gained two Wal-Mart stores experienced a 16 percent smaller
reduction in poverty. The researchers offer several explanations for their
findings.

7.  SUBSIDIES
Shopping for Subsidies: How Wal-Mart Uses Taxpayer Money to Finance Its
Never-Ending Growth [PDF]
by Good Jobs First, August 2004

This study identifies 244 Wal-Mart stores and distribution centers in 35
states that have received state and local development subsidies totaling
just over $1 billion.  The subsidies took many forms, including property tax
rebates, free or reduced-priced land, and funding of site preparation and
on-site infrastructure. Tax increment financing (TIF) ranked as one of the
most common mechanisms used by local governments to underwrite Wal-Mart's
growth. The total value of public giveaways to Wal-Mart is undoubtedly much
higher than the $1 billion documented by the report.  Obtaining complete
data on subsidies is virtually impossible.  In most states, local
governments and state agencies are not required to report subsidies, and
there is no centralized record or database. Good Jobs First relied primarily
on the online archives of local newspapers to assemble the list of subsidy
deals, the details of which were confirmed by interviews with local
officials.

8.  CONSUMERS
Time to Switch Drugstores? - Consumer Reports, October 2003.

"If you're among the 47 percent of Americans who get medicine from drugstore
giants such as CVS, Eckerd, and Rite Aid, here's a prescription: Try
shopping somewhere else. The best place to start looking is one of the
25,000 independent pharmacies that are making a comeback throughout the
U.S." opens this article, which presents the results of a year-long survey
of more than 32,000 readers about their drugstore experiences. The survey
found that, by "an eye-popping margin," independent drugstores outranked all
other pharmacies----including drugstore chains, supermarkets, mass
merchandisers (e.g., Wal-Mart), and internet companies---in terms of
providing personal attention, offering health services such as in-store
screenings, filling prescriptions quickly, supplying hard-to-find drugs, and
obtaining out-of-stock medications within 24 hours. Prices at independent
pharmacies were lower than at chain pharmacies, but higher than at mass
merchandisers and internet companies.
 

Copyright 1999-2005 - Institute for Local Self-Reliance

The New Rules Project - http://www.newrules.org/

LOCAL POLICIES:
Community Impact Review
Comprehensive Plans
Development Moratoria
Formula Business Restrictions
Local Purchasing Preferences
Neighborhood-Serving Zones
Store Size Caps
REGIONAL POLICIES:
Regional Impact Review
Tax-Base Sharing

STATE POLICIES:
Big Box Tax
Corporate Income Tax Reform
Curbing Corporate Welfare
Internet Sales Tax Fairness
Limiting Vertical Integration
Local Purchasing Preferences
Mandatory Impact Review
Pharmacy Equity Laws
Protecting Franchisees

NATIONAL POLICIES:
Antitrust: Price Discrimination
Internet Sales Tax Fairness