Rohnert Park should be wary of protectionist planning

Every time a business opens in a community, someone benefits and someone suffers.

Those who benefit are usually consumers who enjoy the products, prices and/or services provided by that start-up. Those who suffer are those businesses, and associated employees, who are already providing that service. The resulting loss in sales can lead to a reduction in workforce and, possibly, even closure.

One of the primary questions facing the Rohnert Park City Council tonight concerns how much of a role, if any, a city should take in determining who the winners and losers are in this scenario — and whether control of this situation is really an option or just an illusion.

The focal point of this debate is a proposal by Wal-Mart to expand its existing store next to Home Depot by 32,000 square feet, about a 25 percent increase in space. With the addition, it plans to sell groceries and more general merchandise, creating what is known as a supercenter.

The city's Planning Commission rejected the expansion in April, and Wal-mart is appealing that decision to the City Council.

Because of its size and reputation for paying low wages, Wal-Mart is a lightening rod for controversy, which has made it hard to track all the arguments against this plan.

Some contend the expansion should be denied because it would cut into the business of Pacific Market, located 1? miles away, on the east side of Highway 101, and could possibly lead to the closure of that locally owned, and therefore more favored, grocery.

Some argue it should be denied because the store does not pay its employees enough while others contend the expansion will, in the end, result in more job losses than job gains. (Wal-Mart says it will create 85 new full-time jobs. Opponents cite a Sonoma State University study that says the area would lose 105 to 210 jobs due to Wal-Mart's competition.)

Other arguments include that the expansion would be a threat to transit-oriented development, that it would create decay from all the stores that would close and that it would contribute to global warming.

There are legitimate concerns to be found among these arguments. But few fit with the city's primary planning role, which is determining whether the proposal abides by the zoning code and general plan and whether its impacts are acceptable and/or can be mitigated to acceptable levels.

Given Wal-Mart's location, in the center of a large shopping complex, it's no surprise that the proposal meets zoning rules. As for traffic, the draft environmental impact report concludes that the circulation in that area would be at unacceptable levels. But the EIR also notes that traffic patterns will be at unacceptable levels whether this expansion is approved or not, and it's likely that with Wal-Mart's improvements the problem will get no worse.

The issue then comes down to the general plan. The Planning Commission rejected the expansion essentially because commissioners believed it violated two general plan goals. One calls for promoting "a diverse range of jobs within the city." The other calls for encouraging supermarkets to be located "close to where people live."

It's debatable to what extent this proposal violates these standards — or could alter this blueprint by its impact on other businesses. Overall, we understand the desire to keep neighborhoods walkable and grocery stores accessible. But no city should be under the illusion that it can control consumer habits. Contemporary shoppers have shown a willingness to travel great distances to save money — illusionary or not — at big-box stores, which is why those venues are so popular.

In the end, Rohnert Park has little cause to reject this expansion, which is located near freeway access, provides ample parking and is in a commercial complex intended for big-box stores.

Moreover, the city should be wary about denying the application of one business to protect another. If Rohnert Park goes down this route, many businesses will expect similar protectionist planning when competitors come knocking. In addition, there's no guarantee that if the city rejects this proposal that Pacific Market will survive or won't be bought out by a chain or some other owner who will cut wages and benefits.

However it decides on this issue, Rohnert Park should focus on planning not protectionism.