Unlike producing companies, retail does not generate new economic activity. Building a new store cannot increase retail spending (there are only so many people in the market area and they have only so much income to spend). All a new store will do is move the spending around. That's why studies have found that big box stores tend to lead to a net loss of retail jobs: they fulfill the same amount of consumer spending demand with somewhat fewer people than the stores they cause to downsize or close. Then there are the secondary losses to the local economy that occur when the local businesses that bought services, such as banking and accounting, from other local business are replaced by a chain that has very little need for local goods and services. Upwards of 84 cents of every dollar spent at a big box store like Target leave the region and do nothing to support local jobs and enterprises.

There's also no question that compact, mixed use, commercial districts with small and medium sized stores are far more efficient users of public services than large single-story retail outlets . Several studies have demonstrated that these stores require larger public expenditures per 1,000 square feet. Notably in New England the Tischler study in Barnstable. Some of this added cost is in public works (road maintenance, snow removal, etc.) because of the impact these stores and the thousands of car trips they generate have on roads. Some of the added cost has to do with large numbers of police calls. The police calls are mostly for crimes like check fraud and shoplifting. Barnes & Noble does not attract nearly the same degree of people trying to steal or pass a bad a check, because the kinds of items these folks are after are not books. The police impacts of superstores have been well documented in towns across the country.

Lastly did you see the latest study we posted on our web site about the traffic impacts of big box stores that have grocery departments? It's here, under traffic.