STEELYARD COMMONS HYSTERIA... OR, ARE YOU EXPENDABLE?

My ZIP code, 44109 -- which includes my neighborhood of Brooklyn Centre, the Clark-Fulton neighborhood to the north, and a piece of Old Brooklyn to the south -- has more than 300 residents who are members of UFCW Local 880, the retail workers union, or BCTGM Local 19, the bakery workers union. Most of them earn their union wages and benefits at supermarkets (Tops, Giant Eagle, Dave's) or drugstores (CVS, RiteAid). All of them live within a mile or two of the proposed Steelyard Commons shopping mall, where the Plain Dealer and Channel 19 seem hysterically eager to see a new Wal-Mart put many of them out of work.

Is this too strong a characterization? Not on your life. The Plain Dealer's editorial yesterday, attacking as "appalling" the proposed ordinance to limit sales of food and other nontaxables in new big box stores in the city, makes clear that any attempt to mitigate the impact of Wal-Mart or Target on existing jobs and businesses -- or on traffic, for that matter -- will be denounced in the shrillest possible terms. 19 Action News took a short break last evening from its coverage of nude journalism and suburban sex to join the attack. Both outlets personally attacked Ward 13 Councilman Joe Cimperman, the ordinance's sponsor, who represents the Steelyard Commons site and the adjacent Tremont neighborhood.

When the PD editorial board and Channel 19 agree about an issue, sane citizens can usually just assume the other side is right, and move on. Unfortunately, both editorials are echoes of recent statements by Mayor Campbell, who should know better.

Here's the proposed ordinance, as introduced by Councilman Cimperman. It doesn't prevent the development of Steelyard Commons. It doesn't prevent the location of a Wal-Mart in Steelyard Commons or anywhere else in the city. It only creates a special category in the zoning code for big box stores ("large-scale retail"), and prohibits the use of more than 5% of such a store's interior sales area for selling nontaxable products.

Now here's a news flash: This ordinance wouldn't make it impossible for Wal-Mart or Target to open stores with grocery departments in the city. It would simply make big box grocery sales a non-conforming use, requiring a variance from the Board of Zoning Appeals. A variance request would entail the submission of detailed plans, public notice, public hearings, the airing of all relevant issues including job and neighborhood impacts, a showing by the developer that harm can be mitigated, etc.

In other words, Cimperman's ordinance creates a tool for regulatory review of proposed big box supercenters that the City now lacks -- especially in a case like Steelyard Commons, where "anything goes" zoning has made normal City review of issues like traffic impact, design, etc. just about worthless. (Did you know that Steelyard Commons will be open for a year before the developer completes any new road connections, so that shoppers will have to use Tremont streets to get to it? No, I bet you didn't.)

Why design this tool to deal specifically with grocery sales? Because food and pharmacy retail really is a special case. The studies constantly cited to show retail dollars "leaking" from the city don't mention it, but there are modern supermarkets and pharmacies in many city neighborhoods. Tops, Giant Eagle, and especially Dave's have all opened inner city stores in the last ten years, and there's getting to be a CVS, Rite Aid or Walgreen's on every corner. All these supermarkets and many of the drugstores pay union wages and benefits, and the majority of their employees are city residents. (UFCW Local 880 has nearly three thousand working members who live in the city.)

So unlike most of the retail sector, food and drug store chains are in the city, providing living wage jobs for city residents. In many cases (the Daves's stores at Arbor Park and Ohio City come to mind) they're the anchor stores for new neighborhood retail districts. Why would the city want to accommodate a development strategy like Wal-Mart's, which is specifically designed to attack their market shares and displace their workforces?

But that's exactly what the Campbell Administration and the PD are doing with their uncritical support for Steelyard Commons and attacks on the Cimperman ordinance. Since the ordinance would only affect big box grocery sales, its opponents' hysterical responses can only mean one thing: Wal-Mart intends to sell groceries at Steelyard Commons and won't locate there otherwise... and the City and PD want Wal-Mart there, no matter what.

And this, in turn, "sends a signal" (in the PD's words) that they consider Cleveland's existing grocery stores and pharmacies expendable, along with the thousands of Cleveland residents who work for them... including my three hundred neighbors.

Now that, to borrow some more shrillness from the Plain Dealer, is truly appalling.