Better late than never. The state of California has discovered a new tool in its anti-sprawl arsenal — and only three decades behind those farmers in New England. The California General Assembly has passed legislation that would prevent local officials from approving certain kinds of big box projects without first studying the economic impact upon taxpayers. “I just see it as good government,” said state Sen. Richard Alarc??n, a Sun Valley Democrat who wrote the bill. “I believe that an economic impact statement will do everybody good.” On Monday of this week, the General Assembly passed SB 1056 by a vote of 43-31. SB 1056 applies to supercenters over 130,000 square feet, which stock more than 20,000 items and get at least 10% of their sales from food or other nontaxable items. That leaves out, for example, all home improvement stores. Under SB 1056, cities or counties would have to complete an extensive economic impact report, paid for by the applicant. The state-mandated report would assess a supercenter’s impact on other local stores, wages and benefits, demand for retail space, public revenues, provision of public services, traffic circulation and other issues. One lawmaker referred to Wal-Mart as a “superpredator”, and said the company offers “deep discounts to consumers. But they’re also creating a larger and larger income gap.” Wal-Mart testified against SB 1056, complaining that the bill was tilted toward finding negative impacts, rather than assessing job growth or economic development created by supercenters. “By placing a prejudicial burden on a single retail format, the legislation will cause customer choice to be limited,” the Wal-Mart statement noted. The measure has to go back to the State Senate for a vote on the latest amendments, and would then have to win the approval of the Governor’s office — not a likely prospect.
Several years ago, Governor Gray Davis vetoed legislation that would have banned superstores throughout California over a certain size, whose interior contents were more than 10% grocery items. Davis said at the time, the measure was anti-consumer. Companies like Costco and Wal-Mart lobbied heavily against that measure, and it never became law. Similarly, it is doubtful that Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger would ever sign this bill into law, so it will have to be by override if the measure is adopted, and every Republican in the Assembly voted against the version that was approved this week. Other states are way ahead on California on this issue. In Vermont, for example Act 250 requires economic impact statements, and was adopted in 1973. For other stories about California city and county laws limiting sprawl, search this database by the name of the state.
