There have been several opinions expressed about the fast food development in Pahoa’s Woodland Center. Some people are staunchly against it, while others welcome it. Speaking on behalf of Protect Pahoa, I’d like to explain our opposition to these corporate franchises (Burger King, Kentucky Fried Chicken and Long’s Drugs) coming into our village. Many believe that these chain restaurants and retail stores will help our economy by creating new jobs. A handful of new jobs will be created, but ultimately the economic drain on the community will vastly outweigh any short term benefits. Any new businesses in our community will create the same jobs but the important difference with corporate franchises is that they siphon our money to large mainland corporations. When we spend dollars in locally owned restaurants, shops and farmers markets, the money stays with local business owners and benefits their families and the local community.
We oppose these corporate chains moving into our town for many reasons including the negative impact they will have on: traffic congestion, safety, community health, crime, pollution, aesthetics, road-side rubbish, tourist dollars, noise, smell, and cultural integrity. We are most concerned about the long term negative economic impact they will have on the community.
We would like to see Pahoa retain it’s unique and historic village character where businesses are locally owned and operated.
Sincerely,
June 14th, 2009 at 8:22 am
Tiffany–
Ms. Wilt raises questions that deserve answers.
How many jobs will be created by the three new ventures?
How much money will they “siphon to large mainland corporations”?
Who will own the stores? Are the Burger King and KFC stores going to be corporate outlets or will they be owned by local franchisees?
How much will these businesses and the center contribute in property taxes?
A little journalism is needed.
aloha,
mike
June 14th, 2009 at 8:34 am
Sadly, the appropriate time to protest this development was during the planning phase. Now that permits have been approved, there are certain landowner rights that deserve protection. We all have an interest in preserving property rights with our county.
This development should serve as a wake up call to the importance of an effective CDP. Let’s hope that your protests will at least energise the community to becoming involved in their CDP.
June 14th, 2009 at 8:56 am
Please read “Fast Food Nation”. It gives an excellent explanation why these businesses should not be supported. The fundamental way food is produced is causing us harm economically, health wise and morally.
June 14th, 2009 at 9:51 am
Mainstreet Pahoa Association is the best lead group to create a “design district” legally for Pahoa Village. The villages of Honokaa, Waimea and Kona have already done this and it give the residents a measure of control over the look and feel of incoming businesses.
It sets design standards.
Perhaps many in Pahoa felt this was not needed and do not appreciate anyone, a local community committee for example, telling anyone what they can and cannot do – development wise.
Ignore this opportunity to form a design district and you will simply have to live with whatever shows up.
June 14th, 2009 at 10:55 am
Mike,
Indeed, a little journalism is required. It’s going to take some objectivity to get key questions answered, including those you raised:
“How many jobs will be created by the three new ventures?
How much money will they ’siphon to large mainland corporations’?
Who will own the stores? Are the Burger King and KFC stores going to be corporate outlets or will they be owned by local franchisees?
How much will these businesses and the center contribute in property taxes?”
I would love to talk with project management consultant Jon McElvaney or the property owner, Paul Ogasawara. I need to stop by the construction site. I’ve been looking for Paul at his gas stations, but I need to formally make an appointment with him. The thing is, it’s a little difficult to meet with someone and write an objective story when you feel like wringing their neck. (This if figuratively and should not be considered a threat to anyone in particular.)
Every time I turn right into Pahoa Village Road from Highway 130 and look at Paul Ogasawara’s lot, I notice the butt-end of his new gas station and I imagine the butt-end of Long’s Drugs, Burger King and Kentucky Fried Chicken. Who knows, maybe they’ll surprise me and make the development attractive. I can’t imagine the lot looking prettier than it did when there was a field of ohia there. I used to bemoan all the campaign posters and the for lease advertisement. I would give anything to have those signs now as I drive by daily. This is the kind of b.s. that kills historic towns and villages, strip mall development.
Yes, people, there is Pahoa Marketplace. But now there is Woodland Center, too. At least erect a sign that says, “Historic village this way.” At least plant a couple of palm trees next to the Colonel Sanders and his buddy, BK.
Jon McElvaney and Paul Ogasawara, I will feign objectivity and sit with you for an interview. Or, if you prefer, I will publish your opinion piece.
Please don’t make me see the butt-end of your development when I turn onto Pahoa Village Road everyday. Blah. Ick. Nastiness.
http://www.hawaiitribune-herald.com/articles/2009/05/29/local_news/local03.txt
Rob, Mainstreet Pahoa Association can come up with a wonderful design district for Pahoa Village, but it is only as good as the County Council member that introduces the legislation to establish the design district.
I’ve mentioned the need for this design district to both Emily Naeole and her legislative assistant, RJ Hampton.
The impetus is on them.
Now, I have offered to help with the legislation, which is essentially leading the horse to water… Our council member hasn’t taken me up on it…
So, sure, we can hand our leaders the legislation and hope that they drink the water, i.e., introduce and vote for the legislation, and save what remains of historic Pahoa village, and the other Hawaii Island towns and villages where Old Hawaii is alive and well, where the adventurous tourists are willing and prefer to be, eating their bento and a plate lunch rather than a BK or a bucket of chicken.
Imagine, if you will, the Golden Arches in Honomu? Or in Honoka’a, next to Cafe Du Monde? (Excellent restaurant. You should go there if you haven’t already.) Imagine a BK in Hakalau, next to Akiko’s Buddhist Bed and Breakfast?
Come on, people, wake up, don’t be ridiculous. You will destroy those historic places, you must see that. You might as well get the hell out of here if you think that, because your affirmation that fast-food restaurants need to be situated in these places that I have mentioned tells me you have no regard for Old Hawaii.
Educate yourself. Study up on the McDonaldization of Society, because you have been warped into thinking killing a culture is okay. Pardon my crassness, I was raised to voice my objections.
I am willing to help my elected representative out with legislation for a design district and to meet with these fellas who I believe are taking steps toward eroding the unique and eclectic culture of historic Pahoa Village that appeals to local residents and tourists alike. I can prove to you that I’m willing to make things pono. The fact is, there is a lot that is beyond my control, and the powers-at-be have very different ideas about culture and diet, and live a completely different lifestyle than I do.
I’ve thought about this a lot, and there are people who think of a BK, KFC and Long’s as “progressive,” and transforming Hawaii into being more American is a good thing. There are people here who think this kind of stuff improves our quality of life.
This is a fundamental difference that may be like trying to convince someone that Jesus Christ was Buddha. You’re just not going to be able to do that with these people who think a Big Mac is a nutritious meal. You have to have acceptance and try to be willing to let go of the tension that is created when you have an ideological difference with someone who thinks seeing the butt-end of a building situated at the entrance to a historic town is perfectly fine.
June 14th, 2009 at 11:26 am
Tiffany,
I believe that, since the design district status is already within the CoH code, the process does not really involve a council member to propose it.
The DD proposal can be presented to the Planning Department and reviewed and tweeked as needed and then the Planning Department would put it forth to council for approval.
That is my understanding.
Let me know how I can help.
We need a clarification from the planning director. Just sent an email. — tceh
June 14th, 2009 at 12:57 pm
Tiff,
My economist curiosity is stirred. Thus far, have located this as a good place to get an economic impact perspective.
http://www.newrules.org/retail/key-studies-walmart-and-bigbox-retail
June 14th, 2009 at 1:02 pm
…and here
http://www.localfirstvermont.org/resources/document.2006-08-29.5052203224
June 14th, 2009 at 1:49 pm
The studies cited above do a great job of presenting the views of those opposed to WalMart and other outsiders. What they don’t do is tell us how the people who shop at the new stores feel about them.
As I recall there was considerable opposition to the WalMart center in Hilo, but judging by the parking lot there are a lot of people happy to have it.
As for how the new center is going to look, I wonder if there isn’t a plot plan on file with the county that shows how the buildings will be situated on the lot and what the landscaping will look like.
June 14th, 2009 at 4:58 pm
Mike,
The “studies cited above” do NOT present “views”, rather they present evidence.
June 14th, 2009 at 4:59 pm
Here is a report of more research, this with evidence regarding obesity and fast food restaurants:
http://in.reuters.com/article/lifestyleMolt/idINN0960433420080110?pageNumber=1&virtualBrandChannel=0&sp=true
June 14th, 2009 at 6:11 pm
James–
The obesity study, done by the medical school has all the earmarks of an unbiased survey.
Few of the others are, having been done by organizations with “a dog in the hunt,” so to speak. They are viewpoints, not conclusions supported by evidence, for the most part.
There’s a big difference between statements by advocacy groups and disinterested observers.
aloha,
mike
June 14th, 2009 at 7:09 pm
For example, from ‘The Economic Impact of Locally Owned Businesses vs. Chains – A Case Study in Midcoast Maine’, Institute for Local Self-Reliance
September 2003
“When residents of the Midcoast region spend $100 at a big box retailer, their purchase generates $14 in local spending by the retailer. That same $100 spent at a locally owned business generates $45 in local spending, or three times as much. Dollars spent at a local retailer support not only that store, but a variety of other local businesses, including local
banks, accountants, printers, and internet service providers.”
This was for a “big box retailer” — a national chain with the same kind of non-local supply chain and distant corporate headquarters as KFC or Burger King.
June 14th, 2009 at 8:20 pm
Disagree, Mike.
They are not merely “statement” — the research is presented.
While ISLR, for example, may have a “dog in the hunt”, their research is still clear and valid — in the study region of 145,000 people, national chains did not put as much money in the local economy as did locally owned non-franchise businesses.
June 14th, 2009 at 8:54 pm
“Learn about our accomplishments in three sectors of targeted focus:
1. Hometown Advantage – expanding, developing and protecting locally owned retail businesses
2. Democratic Energy – dispersed energy generation and local ownership
3. Telecommunications As Commons – building strong, publicly owned telecommunications networks.”
This is what the Institute for Local Self-Reliance says about itself.
This is an organization with a viewpoint. It is hardly a disinterested research organization. Its conclusions may or may not be more reliable than those of the organizations which support unfettered capitalism.
Where is the data to support their conclusions?
June 15th, 2009 at 5:33 am
In the article, on their site, they report results, for example, “When residents of the Midcoast region spend $100 at a big box retailer, their purchase generates $14 in local spending by the retailer. That same $100 spent at a locally owned business generates $45 in local spending…”
Now, if you want to see the raw data for purposes of validation and/or replication elsewhere, then that is a legitimate means of checking the research.
You ask them for the raw data.
Sure, ILSR has goals and uses research (among other overt activities) to promote its goals.
That alone does not mean they lieing — having goals mean anyone is lieing or not.”
ILSR has put its credibility on the line by providing the results of research and have been doing this for many years while being widely recognized as a reputable organization.
Meantime, the data is what it is and can only legitimately be challenged for what it is and not where it came from.
June 15th, 2009 at 5:34 am
errata above :
“having goals does not mean they are lieing”
June 15th, 2009 at 6:08 am
Too bad one of those local companies wasn’t intrested in coming to Woodland center.
I wonder how L & L is doing in Pahoa?
Kim
June 15th, 2009 at 9:04 am
I don’t suggest that the ILSR is lying. Only that it could be cherry-picking numbers that support its point of view.
I’m a cynic when it comes to such things.
June 15th, 2009 at 11:50 am
It is most important to do the “real math” on the traffic. There is a currently inactive fire station, Malama market, and soon to be chain restaurants, with or without drive up windows. How much does it cost to put in a stop light? Upwards if a million dollars.s And how does Pahoa pay for that? Another lane might be nice. And sidewalks?, why not while were spending imaginary money, right? Is this how our town wants to spend it’s next 30 years for a simple keystroke miscalculation? The math doesn’t add up.
June 15th, 2009 at 12:11 pm
Your cynicism is healthy, Mike.
I understand that organizations with a motive deserve a stronger level of scrutiny.
Nevertheless, other research (of whatever kind) does not appear to counter the basic point of the ISLR paper: local businesses keep more money in the community than do chains.
June 15th, 2009 at 5:45 pm
Me thinks it best not to let this lie down and die
+++
Two, of very many, issues raised have been (1) the impact on local government-funded and provided services; and
(2) the impact on the local economy.
The Institute for Local Self Reliance (newrules.org), has looked at these and other issues. The focus of the research is on ‘BIG BOX STORES’, however, ‘fast-food’ retail is also caught up in the analysis.
First, a comparison of the local government tax benefits of retail development with the cost of providing these stores with city services, such as road maintenance, police and fire. Does the local government always come out ahead?
In the example below, the two main factors behind higher costs for big box stores, shopping centers, and fast-food outlets, compared to specialty retail shops, are higher road maintenance costs (due to a much greater number of car trips per 1,000 square feet) and greater demand for public safety services.
Tischler and Associates, Inc, (TA), under contract with the Town of Barnstable, Massachusetts, conducted “a prototype land use fiscal impact analysis for new residential and nonresidential development. In a prototype analysis, a ‘snapshot’ approach is used that determines the revenues and costs for various land use prototypes in order to understand the impacts each land use has independently on the Town’s budget. In other words, what type of land use generates net revenues and net deficits to the Town.”
“The nonresidential results are discussed in terms of per 1,000 square feet. Therefore, a 10,000 square foot building would have ten times the result. The specialty retail prototype generates the best fiscal results among the nonresidential prototypes at $326 per 1,000 square feet annually.
The next best annual results are generated by the business park prototype at $112 per 1,000 square feet. The office prototype generates a positive $66 per 1,000 square feet annually. While the hotel prototype generates the smallest annual surplus at $35 per room. The shopping center prototype generates the lowest annual deficit of -$314 per 1,000 square feet. The big box retail prototype generates an annual deficit of -$486 per 1,000 square feet. The worst nonresidential fiscal results are generated by the restaurant and fast food restaurant prototypes with annual net deficits of -$1,100 and -$5,168 per square feet, respectively.”
“The results for the nonresidential prototypes should not be viewed entirely negatively.
Employment in these sectors can provide residents with employment that affords them the ability to live within the Town.
It is important to acknowledge that fiscal issues are only one concern when evaluating land uses.
Non-fiscal issues such as the environment, housing affordability, jobs/housing balance and quality of life must also be considered. The emphasis should be on achieving an appropriate mix of land uses.”
Next, is an example of research into the local economic impact of Wal-Mart in particular and mega-stores in general.
A new and widely publicized study, “Has Wal-Mart Buried Mom and Pop?”, claims that there is no evidence that Wal-Mart has had an overall negative impact on the small business sector. A close inspection of the study by the Institute for Local Self-Reliance, however, found major flaws. The authors failed to use the correct U.S. Census data when attempting to show that “mom and pop” businesses have not experienced a net decline over the past two decades. When the correct data set is used, it is clear that the small business sector is much less robust now than it once was, with the number of retail businesses with fewer than 10 employees declining by one-fifth from 1982-2002. This decrease is even more drastic when measured relative to the population. During the 20-year period, the number of retail firms with 1-4 employees per 1 million people fell by 38% and retail firms with 5-9 employees per 1 million people declined by 30%.
The authors of “Has Wal-Mart Buried Mom and Pop?”, are Dr. Russell Sobel, chair of Entrepreneurial Studies at West Virginia University, and Andrea Dean, a Kendrick Fellow in WVU’s Economics Department.
Below is the conclusion from “Major Flaws Uncovered in Study Claiming Wal-Mart Has Not Harmed Small Business by Stacy Mitchell, a senior researcher with the New Rules Project, a program of the nonprofit Institute for Local Self-Reliance that helps policy-makers design rules as if community matters.
“None of the data presented here is causal: the fact that independent retail businesses declined in numbers and market share at the same time that Wal-Mart and other large-format retailers grew does not prove that one caused the other.
But it does make clear that the small business sector is not as robust as it was 20 years ago. Sobel and Dean’s sweeping conclusion that “there is no evidence that Wal-Mart has had a significant impact on the overall size, growth, or profitability of the U.S. small business sector” is unfounded.
In the last few years, more communities have been carefully weighing both the benefits and costs of a new
Wal-Mart store or other large-scale retail development before approving these projects. Their discussions are informed by a growing body of empirical research showing that these stores have significant economic impacts and the impacts are not necessarily positive.
Poorly constructed and misleading studies like this one may make for eye-catching headlines, but they only frustrate and impede the ability of citizens to make informed decisions about development in their communities.”
June 16th, 2009 at 7:03 am
All of this begs the real question:
If local businesses are so much better, why don’t more people shop at them so they can succeed?
Why are WalMart, Target, Costco, McDonalds, Longs, etc. so successful?
Could it be it’s because they offer things more people want at good prices?
Isn’t that what Free Enterprise is all about?
June 16th, 2009 at 10:06 am
[...] is the Protect Pahoa protest going on today against the soon-to-be Long’s Drugs, Kentucky Fried Chicken and Burger [...]
June 16th, 2009 at 1:04 pm
Sobel and Dean’s sweeping conclusion that “there is no evidence that Wal-Mart has had a significant impact on the overall size, growth, or profitability of the U.S. small business sector” is unfounded.
HA!! Someone get them a copy of The Walmart Effect by Charles Fishman. Walmart and similar megastores have shifted the entire playing field. While we’ve been figuring out who dropped the ball, Walmart moved the game! Walmart may as well own their suppliers – they make or break them – and now we love to buy crap as long as it is cheap. The notion of monetary value, and our values quite literally, is diminishing with each container that arrives from China. The insatiable consumer addiction to cheap shit has taken priority over our health, our education, our recreation. We may as well shop til we drop.
June 16th, 2009 at 1:31 pm
Rather than comment on this very worthwhile discussion, I sat down and wrote a post inspired by it. Check it out if you get a chance. Better yet, drop a comment! Mahalo.
http://islandnotes.wordpress.com/2009/06/16/commie-radio-coming-soon/
June 16th, 2009 at 1:33 pm
[...] radio, consumerism, fast food, use-values by IslandNotes This post sort of began as a comment to Big Island Chronicle and a discussion concerning fast food businesses coming to the entry of Pahoa, … what has been a truly.. unique village. A fellow, Mike Middlesworth, writes this comment at the [...]
June 16th, 2009 at 8:35 pm
Mike asks why Wal Mart is so successful and is that free enterprise?
Because free enterprise is exactly not what WalMart is about.
The monopolistic powers they exert are antithetical to free enterprise and that is why they kill local stores.
And, there are issues about subsidies, about which I will shortly return here with research citations.
June 17th, 2009 at 12:00 pm
for example…
This from walmartsubsidywatch.org, a service of goodjobsfirst.org, where more than $1 billion of subsidies to Wal Mart have been identified as the minimum subsidies received:
“Subsidies received by Wal-Mart
Good Jobs First found no instances of economic development subsidies in this state [Hawaii], but given the absence of centralized data, it is still possible that deals have quietly occurred.
“Hidden taxpayer costs
Many Wal-Mart workers are ineligible for health coverage from their employer or choose not to purchase what is available, because it is too expensive or too limited in scope. These workers often turn to taxpayer-funded health programs such as Medicaid. Hawaii is among those states that have not disclosed data on the employers with the most workers or their dependents enrolled in such programs.”
There are several references included with the above report.
‘Free enterprise’ an explanation for Wal Mart’s dominance of retail? It just doesn’t compute.
This blog item is about fast-food chains — while the above about Wal Mart may or may not apply in every aspect, in general the basic business model is close enough to justify a look, that is: national/international firm; distant and long supply chain of hi-volume, low-value products and services not purchased in the local community; low-compensation labor being the principle economic benefit to the local economy; and most of the revenue stream goes from the community into the front door and out the back door to someone else somewhere else no in the community.
June 22nd, 2009 at 11:08 pm
[...] to my convictions. I have been saying as long as I have been blogging (see here , here, and here for examples) that I do not believe this mainland corporate development with two fast-food [...]