The Informed Growth Act was passed by the Maine Legislature and signed by Gov. Baldacci in 2007 in an effort to uniformly assist communities in Maine with the challenges of big retail development: think Walmart, Home Depot, Target or Lowe’s. Any retail business proposing more than 75,000 square feet of space in a community is subject to this law unless the municipality has an equally rigorous ordinance on its books.

This law allows communities extraordinary latitude to reject large-scale retail development in the name of preserving the character and diversity reflected on Main Streets and at crossroads throughout the state. Though many hail the law as fostering community and preserving uniqueness, others see it as flying in the face of the natural economic order.

First, the law requires that a developer proposing a large store must pay $40,000 to the State Planning Office. The government will then make disbursements to consultants it has determined have the credentials to conduct an independent, comprehensive economic impact study on behalf of the community and all abutting communities.

These factors are required to be evaluated:

• Effects of the large-scale retail development on existing retail operations.

• Supply of and demand for retail space.

• Number and location of existing retail establishments where there is overlap of goods and services offered.

• Employment, including projected net job creation and loss.

• Retail wages and benefits.

• Captured share of existing retail sales.

• Sales revenue retained and reinvested in the comprehensive economic impact area.

• Municipal revenue generated.

• Municipal capital, service and maintenance costs caused by the development’s construction and operation, including costs of roads and police, fire, rescue and sewer services.

• The amount of public subsidies, including tax increment financing.

• Public water utility, sewage disposal and solid waste disposal capacity.

In essence, state government has set rules by which a town must decide its appetite for retail development, rules that are heavily weighted toward stopping such development; rules that, in essence, allow government to manage competition.

Some would like to repeal the law as they believe it is anti-business and anti-consumer, that it interferes with the benefits of market competition. On the other hand, there are strong arguments for protecting the status quo and high hopes that such limitations will somehow attract or retain retailers in century-old business districts.

Nowhere does the law require data gathering about consumer prices and product selection. It does not consider the cost of living for residents of a poor rural state who are trying to feed, clothe and house a family.

Here’s how information in the report must be used, according to the statute:

“The municipal reviewing authority (e.g. planning board) shall evaluate the impacts of the proposed large-scale retail development based on the comprehensive economic impact study; other materials submitted to the municipal reviewing authority by any person, including the applicant, state agencies, nonprofit organizations and members of the public; and testimony received during the public hearing to issue a finding of undue adverse impact or no undue adverse impact. The municipality may issue a land use permit for a large-scale retail development only if it determines that there is likely to be no undue adverse impact.

“Undue adverse impact means that, within the comprehensive economic impact area, the estimated overall negative effects on the factors listed outweigh the estimated overall positive effects on those factors and that the estimated negative effects of at least two of the factors outweigh the positive effects on those factors.”

In simple English, the law allows anyone from anywhere on the planet to weigh in on large retail development in a community. Furthermore, a local planning board must reject the development if, in its judgment, there is undue adverse impact.

I shop at big box stores for value and selection but I also patronize locally owned Renys, Marden’s and Maine Hardware. It’s called “consumer choice,” and it speaks to the value of competition. Legislating rules in which government picks winners and losers is another word for protectionism. It stifles innovation and progress, which is anti-consumer.

A more appropriate approach that towns can use is adopting a comprehensive plan that lays out retail, residential and commercial areas. Once this is established, the marketplace can determine who wins and who loses, not the government.

The president of the Federal Reserve Bank of Boston once came to Portland and asked a gathering what was getting in the way of economic growth. The first response was this: “Any five people can stop a project dead in its tracks.” It seems that situation is now the law in Maine. It ought to be changed.

What do you think, and what are you going to do about it? 

Tony Payne is a lifelong Maine resident active in business, civic and political affairs. He can be reached at:

tpayne@maine.rr.com