Preserve Portsmouth gears up

By John McDaid | Monday, 30 April 2007

Preserve Portsmouth meetingMore than 50 residents traded suggestions, e-mail addresses, and an occasional tirade against the planned Target development at a meeting of the local group, Preserve Portsmouth, this evening at the Green Valley Country club.

One of the guest speakers was Gail Greenwood, a leader of the anti-sprawl group Middletown First, and she brought along a killer visual aid, a photo taken by David Hansen of the Newport Daily News, showing signage along a stretch of West Main Road we're probably all too familiar with.

Middletown"The last thing Aquidneck Island needs," said Greenwood, "Is another Middletown."

Committees were formed to deal with fundraising, research, and communications, and tentative plans were laid out for a "Yard Sale on Steroids," to build awareness in late June. Also — expect bumper stickers soon. Yay.

There will be a PO box, but in the meantime, check out the Preserve Portsmouth site for information on where to send donations.

Tags: 
Localblogging, 02871

Comments

Rhody5

Wed, 05/02/2007 - 11:10am

I agree that the photo is frightening, but I just don't understand how allowing one Target into Portsmouth is going to automatically make the West Main stretch of road in Portsmouth look like Middletown's West Main. It appears to be more scare tactics than anything. And to be quite honest, in it's current form, West Main Road in Portsmouth isn't all that appealing. I think that given the current commercial zoning of the lot as well as if Target comes up with a plan similar to what's in going in at Kings Grant, what's the harm?? People in this town should welcome a new source of tax revenue.

John McDaid

Wed, 05/02/2007 - 12:18pm

Hi, Rhody5...
I'm not a die-hard anti-Target person. I'm willing to judge the proposal they come back with on the merits, and if it looks more like Kings Grant, and has a solutions to the other design review objections, Target should be lauded for their efforts.

However, the economic picture is far from a slam dunk. The total tax revenue for the town is estimated at around 100K. Just in terms of additional expenses -- wear and tear on the roads (90K/mile to resurface) and Police/Fire overtime to handle increased incidents (both person and traffic related) we would pretty quickly burn through that number.

And that does not take into account the hidden, long-term costs of lost business for local merchants, each dollar of which is multipled as it moves through our town economy. Take a couple of hundred dollars a day from Clements, and that's some part-time kids without jobs, who don't spend money at other local stores. Each dollar we lose locally subtracts a whole stream of potential transactions.

Even further down the road, we have to factor in decreased property values and tax revenues, and intangibles like wildlife dislocation and stormwater runoff, whose economic impacts may be delayed, but are no less real.

As a primary rationale for allowing Target in, I don't find the tax revenue argument particularly compelling.

Cheers.
-j

Lije

Wed, 05/02/2007 - 1:32pm

You're spot on, John.

It's even worse. That $100,000 of "new" property tax revenue counts toward our cap on the levy. So not only will the 100,000 be eaten up to cover all the cost to the town of police, fire/rescue, DPW, but that $100,000 of new money represents about 17% of the total amount of new money allowable under the levy cap increase.

Put another way, to fully understand this, if six Target-sized projects moved into Portsmouth in one year it would generate $600,000 in new money, which is roughly what the tax cap law allows. Even if that $600,000 fully paid for the increased costs to the town in police, rescue, etc, it would leave zero new money for anything else, such as the increased cost of goods and salaries due to inflation. In order to pay for those things, we'd have to exceed the cap which would invite another PCC-launched "taxpayer's revolt".

Of course, we're not getting six Targets in one year. But, the principle is the same. Only, instead of feeling 100% of the six-target effect on the Town, it is pared down to 17%. It still hurts.

Rhody5

Wed, 05/02/2007 - 1:34pm

I never said the economic impact would be a slame dunk, but rather that we should welcome a new source of tax revenue for Portsmouth. Quick question before I get started, though: Where is the 100K in tax revenue figure derived from? Also, I assume that it's annual revenue, correct?

Firstly, we're not paving the same stretch of roads every year, so the 90K should be amortized over a longer period. Maybe 6-7 years, perhaps?

As to the police and fire argument: Let's assume that instead of a Target, a local store goes in goes in at the corner of West Main and Union. Call me a cynic, but something tells me that the town would forgo putting up a stop light to control traffic, taking the assumption that there wouldn't be a need for one. Now you're running the risk of a major accident every day as opposed to a Target coming in and definitely putting up a light.

Secondly, I'm a little unsure of how a grocery store (Clement's) would compete directly with a retail store like Target? While I could very well be wrong, they seem to be selling different products altogether. I find it extremely difficult to believe that Clement's would suffer from a Target being in town.

I think you and I would both agree that the other intangibles you mention are extremely hard to quantify with the exception of a potential for a slight decrease on some property values. However, no matter what decisions we make, there will always be unintended consequences. It's just a matter of minimizing those effects.

John McDaid

Wed, 05/02/2007 - 4:59pm

Hi, Rhody5...
Source of the quote is Portsmouth Town Admin Bob Driscoll, in the Sakonnet Times:

As far as bolstering revenue for the town, it's "not an advantageous use of the property," Mr. Driscoll said. The only revenue the town would receive would be in property taxes, he said, and buildings such as Target stores are not generally assessed a high value because of their design.

Mr. Driscoll estimates the building might be assessed as worth ten million, which would net the town about $100,000 in property tax revenues per year. If the company could produce about $40 million in retail sales, the state would receive somewhere around $1.4 million in sales taxes.

"The state will get significant revenues in sales tax," Mr. Driscoll said. "While the town (who hosts the company) will get the droppings."

I'm not saying we have to repave the same street, what I'm saying is that increased traffic will shorten the life of ALL major streets. I don't have the expertise to quantify that, but I'm making a back of envelope assumption that it would add a bunch of patching at the least, and perhaps a spot of repaving here and there. How much would that cost? Probably in the tens of thousands of dollars, as a guess.

The Target design is definitely planned to include a pharmacy, and my assumption is that would include convenience items as well, which was the source of my low-hundred dollar cannibalism of Clements' sales. Not to mention other retailers.

I take your point about the streetlight. But arguing that Target is a good thing because they ameliorate risk that the store's presence creates at best makes this a neutral, rather than a positive. A low-traffic office building at that location might even have an entrance on Union.

I agree completely that any decision will have unintended consequences. But as Lije pointed out upthread, the forseeable consequence of tax cap pressure is also something to be weighed.

I have nothing against Target. I'm not inherently anti-Target, or anti-Big-Store. I am pro-business and pro-growth, but I am also very militantly pro-Portsmouth. If we could find a way to work with them that didn't have forseeable issues, I'd be much more supportive.

Best,
-j