Fairfax County "Big Box" Limits

By: Lowell
Published On: 5/22/2007 7:51:50 AM

I haven't read exactly what the Fairfax County Board of Supervisors decided yesterday with regard to "big box" stores, but I sure hope the measure included all of the following:

Environmentalists and smart-growth advocates asked that the restrictions be strengthened to encourage bike facilities and environmentally friendly construction. A union representative for grocery workers urged passage of the bill specifically to keep more Wal-Marts out of the county, arguing that the retail giant has a history of putting grocers out of business.

The question is, what's the main issue here?  Is it the aesthetics of "big box" stores, or is it the goal of getting "big box" companies to make their buildings as "green" as possible, to provide workers with health care and living wages, to stop discouraging union organizing, etc?  Or is it something else entirely, for instance looking like you're doing something politically while really not accomplishing a heck of a lot?  If it's the latter, I'm against it.  If it's really intended at helping workers and the environment, I'm for it - although in that case the regulations shouldn't just apply to "big box" stores but to ALL stores.

I look forward to reading the entire decision by the Fairfax County Board of Supervisors.  By the way, why isn't it up on the Fairfax County Board website, or am I missing something here?

Comments



Accomplishing (HerbE - 5/22/2007 12:46:23 PM)
This is just another way Connolly (and district superivors) can hold developers feet to the fire to get campaign contributions. This has very little to do with good planning. Why are supervisors worried now about traffic when they have completely ignored citizens concerns on such impacts in the granting of rezonings in the last 6 years? Communities know that traffic impact studies and their answers are purchased by developers. Big box stores will do the same. I just dare the supervisors to say that they don't believe a traffic study. Hasn't happened to date. Spreading more money around takes care of these "concerns".


18 months... (Eric - 5/22/2007 12:59:25 PM)
Supervisors did, however, agree to revisit the size in 18 months to see whether predictions of a chilling effect on retail development come true.

So the door isn't permanently shut on Big Boxes.  I wonder why? 

Why does this need to be revisited since there's nothing here that says big boxes can not be built at all?

Under the ordinance, supervisors could reject a store deemed too large for its neighborhood or the surrounding road network. They would be able to demand, in exchange for approval, less sprawling designs, multistory buildings, parking garages and pedestrian and transit access.

Seems like a fairly straightforward way to force big boxes to  make sure the well being of the community is taken into account.