A huge red flag should be waving about the impartiality of a retail-impact study reporting that Walmart plans to build a store as part of the Sandown commercial site in North Saanich.
The Walmart rumour is false, says Bill Randall, whose family owns the Sandown site. He says misinformation is being spread about the Sandown project in an effort to advance another project, presumed to be the Gateway Shopping Centre proposed for airport property at the west edge of Sidney.
The Gateway proposal has raised concerns among Sidney business owners, who fear the project will draw shoppers away from the downtown business district. The town council asked for an independent study on the local retail impact of the proposed shopping centre.
The study, done by consulting firm Urbanics, was commissioned and paid for by Omicron, developer of the Gateway project. It concluded that the new shopping centre would have a net benefit for the town and “would not adversely affect the economic health of existing retailers in the Town of Sidney.”
The report says the new project would compete with Sidney retailers “to some degree,” but warns that if the Gateway project doesn’t go ahead, benefits will flow elsewhere — to a nearby proposed shopping centre in North Saanich that would include a Walmart.
“Not building the Gateway centre would serve to provide additional incentives for the competing centre in North Saanich to be built,” says the report. “The net result of this scenario would see the same or greater transfer in retail sales away from Sidney retailers, while forcing the town to forgo the municipal tax advantages and potential benefits of an increased retail draw.”
It says the 160,000-square-foot Sandown Commons project “is proposed to be anchored by a grocery store and a small-format Walmart.”
Walmart is a frightening prospect to local retailers — the arrival of the department-store giant can have a substantial effect on an area’s economy and has driven out mom-and-pop businesses in many areas.
But the Randalls and Walmart say it’s not true, that no Walmart has been planned for Sandown. Urbanics says that information was provided by Omicron.
And that is why such studies should be independent and impartial. When Costco proposed to build a store in Sidney in the mid-1990s, it created huge controversy. The town commissioned and paid for an impact study. Public sentiment resulted in rejection of the project, and Costco eventually built in Langford.
Richard Talbot, a member of Support Our Sidney, residents opposed to the Gateway project, says the town should at least commission a peer review of the Urbanics study.
“It isn’t unusual for a developer to produce an impact study,” Talbot said. “It can be wishful thinking, what the developer wants everyone to believe.
“If that happens, the standard procedure is for the municipality to commission a third-party retail consultant to conduct what is known as a peer review.”
(Talbot runs a retail-development consulting business, but says most of his work is international and he is not in competition with Urbanics.)
The third-party consultant would be “paid for by the town, reports to the town and provides a professional overview of the developer’s report.”
That’s an economical way to go, he said. An impact study can cost $100,000, while a peer review would cost about $10,000.
The Urbanics report has gathered much useful information, but Sidney should have it closely reviewed by a qualified, neutral third party.
The value of any impact study is in its impartiality. Regardless of its veracity and good intentions, a study commissioned by a developer will always be suspect.
