Business Leaders Speak Against Community Benefits Agreement Bill
Four chambers of commerce said they opposed the bill at a November 1 public hearing in Rockville.
Photos
A bill meant to force giant retailers to help the neighborhoods where they are located is facing strong opposition within the business community.
Montgomery County residents, developers, business owners and leaders of unions and civic associations filled a public hearing room in Rockville on November 1 to give testimony and listen to others express support of and opposition to Bill 33-11.
The bill, sponsored by County Council President Valerie Ervin (D-Dist. 5), would require large retail stores in the county to sign a community benefits agreement with three or more recognized civic organizations--or demonstrate that they had made a good faith effort toward this goal.
A community benefits agreement, which would be a legally binding document, could require the business to do the following, according to Bill 33-11:
- engage in hiring practices and training programs that favor Montgomery County residents,
- mitigate traffic, security, noise, lighting and environmental impacts on the surrounding area,
- assist community organizations
- take action on “any other issue that is relevant to the operation of a large retail store of the community near that store.”
But what does “recognized” mean? And what about “good faith”? A common refrain heard at the public hearing was that however well-intentioned the bill, the vague language presents a big problem.
Representatives from four chambers of commerce--Montgomery County, Bethesda-Chevy Chase, Greater Silver Spring and Gaithersburg/Germantown--strongly opposed the bill, saying that it would add to the county’s anti-business reputation.
The Wheaton and Kensington Chamber of Commerce did not send a representative and has not taken a position on the bill, said Vicky Surles, the chamber’s administrator.
Opposition to the bill also came from developers such as JBG Rosenfeld of Chevy Chase, which owns the Rockville Pike Center site under consideration by Wal-Mart, and Minkoff Development Corporation, which is moving forward with a Wegmans Food Market in Germantown.
These developers said that the bill makes a time-consuming, complicated and expensive development process even more so by adding the “arbitrary and discriminating” hurdle of a community benefits agreement for stores with a footprint of at least 75,000 square feet.
Bruce Lee of Lee Development Group, which owns the Aspen Hill site under consideration by Wal-Mart, did not speak at the hearing, but said afterward that he appreciated "the outpouring of the business community" making it clear that this community benefits agreement bill "is not good for business."
Thomas Hardman, who has lived in Aspen Hill for 48 years, said he would not object to a big-box store moving there, but that something must be done about the "vacant eyesore" that sits there now.
Although mandatory community benefits agreements would benefit civic associations, which would gain bargaining power over big-box stores, Daniel Hoffman, speaking for the Randolph Civic Association, opposed the bill.
Hoffman said that he was neither for nor against Wal-Mart, but that the bill “crossed a line” and would have a “chilling effect on any business considering moving to Montgomery County.”
Several high-profile figures supported the bill, including Rockville's mayor, Phyllis Marcuccio, and Maryland Delegate Susan Lee (D-Dist. 16), who said that the bill would help protect small businesses.
"These small businesses provide services and products that are basically irreplaceable," Lee said. "They are the lifeblood and bedrock of our county."
Bill 33-11 does not mention any businesses by name, but for attendees carrying anti-Wal-Mart signs, opposing the international discount chain means supporting the bill--or at least the principles behind it.
“We are here to support the bill not to bring Wal-Mart to Pike Center,” said RJ Ajmani of Rockville. “It’s going to crush a lot of small businesses.”
No Wal-Mart spokesperson addressed the council.
The council’s Planning, Housing and Economic Development Committee will meet for a work session on the bill November 7.
Members of the Kensington Heights Civic Association and a representative from Westfield also gave testimony.
Thomas Hardman
4:09 pm on Wednesday, November 2, 2011
Testimony at the County Council hearing was mostly various Chambers of Commerce in extremely vehement opposition to the bill, either citing it as yet-another deadening regulatory hurdle in the process of trying to open a large footprint business, or as being exceptionally vague about "community groups" scope, scale, mission, history, goals; or both. Almost all who supported the CBA bill were concerned mostly with their opposition specifically to Walmart. Some people also came out to complain about Costco. Westfield, if I recall correctly, mentioned possible litigation over the imposition of yet-another regulatory hurdle to be cleared, after it had already complied with all requirements which were law at the time. This law, if enacted and imposed on Costco or Westfield, would in fact be an ex-post-facto law and in violation of the US Constitution.
It should be noted that the issue was made clear that only the Federal government has the authority to impose mandates on hiring practices.
Theresa Defino
4:39 pm on Wednesday, November 2, 2011
This is a very unbalanced article. Why is so much space given to those who are against the bill, when more speakers were for it? Three sentences reflect supporters' statements.
More than 20 people spoke in favor of the bill, and they far out-weighed the number of "business leaders" who predictably spoke against this bill. Those who own businesses on Rockville Pike that would be affected should Wal-Mart come in--including the owner of Bagel City and Mattress Warehouse -- spoke for it. I was the only Rockville resident, I believe, who signed up in time to speak, partly because most people had no clue about the hearing.
In my testimony I pointed out that if Wal-Mart could be trusted to do right by its workers and the community, we wouldn't need a bill like this. Many others noted (such as Casa de Maryland and Interfaith Works), as I did, that historically low pay and skimpy-to-non-existent benefits means these workers will end up on the Medicaid roles and needing help from social services agencies.
I also said this was outside the Rockville city limits, likely by design.
At least four individuals representing labor unions also spoke strongly in favor of the bill.
The bill isn't perfect, but it's a start.
You can see all the meeting here:
http://montgomerycountymd.granicus.com/MediaPlayer.php?view_id=6&clip_id=2006
Will
6:13 pm on Wednesday, November 2, 2011
I do not really want to see Walmart on Rockville pike but this bill is wrong. We can not keep chasing businesses away.