Oversights of the Walmart site

To the editor,
The proposed Wilderness Walmart has evoked a national response reminiscent of the Manassas-Disney controversy. The weight of many prominent individuals, organizations and politicians has made certain that the magnitude of this decision doesn’t go unnoticed. The residents of Orange should be honored that this nation has rallied against the proposal, not because of the retail behemoth but due to the inimitable character of Orange County which makes the proposal so glaringly converse. However, few have stepped back to assess some basic planning principles in question. It is my goal not to ignore the battlefield, proximity of other Walmart stores, or point towards Central Park but instead I seek to highlight other factors.
Proponents of the superstore have cited the 300 jobs and $500,000 in annual tax revenue as benefits of the project. Before rallying behind these numbers we must better understand by whom the jobs are needed and if this projected revenue will benefit the county or at least pay for the expenses incurred by its acceptance.
Wal-Mart superstores are infamous for their “rollback” pricing. The impact of their stores upon local economies is also familiar and requires no introduction. However, what does require an introduction are the existing jobs and businesses within the county which will be forced to compete with the global superpower. The Census Bureau’s County Business Patterns show just over one hundred businesses which deal in the same retail trades. This includes Orange’s automotive parts and repair stores, furniture shops, electronic, hardware, lawn and garden supply stores, food stores, pharmacies, etc. These 100 businesses employ over 900 people in these retail trades whose jobs will be in jeopardy once Walmart moves in. 
The number of jobs which will be provided by this store as well as other future pad sites need to be compared to the number of the county’s unemployed and its attributes. The US Census Bureau’s most recent survey estimates that 615 people are unemployed in the county. The census also reports that of eligible workers age 16 and up, 821 people commuted in other ways than personal automobile. Furthermore, there were 496 people without vehicles. There is a distinct correlation between the unemployed, availability of automobiles and distance between home and job which needs to be further evaluated by these public officials.
According to the current Orange County Comprehensive Plan there are commercial lots located adjacent to the towns of Orange and Gordonsville. These sites exist to service commercial uses as well as the residents. The existing infrastructure of these sites being within close proximity to larger populations would alleviate commuting concerns as well as extension of utilities and other forms of infrastructure which are inherent with the Wilderness site.
The Orange County Board of Supervisors prior to approval must consider the costs which will burden the residents of Orange. By utilizing statistics in the 2005 Orange County Comprehensive Plan, it can be seen that traffic from 1999 to 2004 for the intersection increased by over 6,100 trips. With increased trips, as well as future developments the county must prepare to improve and amend the current road system at the intersection.
The Virginia Department of Transportation’s latest estimate was that one mile of primary road cost $768,627. In addition, the miles driven between 2001 and 2003 by law enforcement officers increased by over 21,000. It is logically expected that increases in retail and parking space as well as in travel will demand more from these officers. It is obvious that with a larger intersection, road maintenance, increases in police power, and utilities extension will be inherent burdens which will far exceed the projected $500,000 increase in tax revenues.
Finally such a development is completely contradictory to the 2005 Comprehensive Plan, which was voted on and adopted by Orange County residents. A comprehensive plan is the physical manifestation of the goals and visions set forth by residents for the future of their community. This plan offered goals such as this which sought to, “Shield the rural character of the county from the undesirable effects of uncontrolled growth, thereby preserving the unique and distinguishing characteristics of Orange County.“ The local economy was also considered over numerous pages. The county adopted the plan which sought to, “Provide a variety of employment opportunities that are compatible with the environment and resources of the county that would be economically beneficial to both residents and the local economy.“ These vision statements were reinforced by a series of statistics and objectives that sought to maintain the social, economic and predominately agrarian nature of the county.
It is obvious to this student of regional planning and historic preservation that this proposal carries a large financial burden alongside a plethora of negative consequences. These figures and statistics are drawn from publicly available and unbiased sources of county and federal provenance. It took very little time to pull together these facts highlighting the poor nature of this proposal. It is obvious that these elected officials have not even minimally committed themselves prior to rendering a decision that will affect the county and its residents for perpetuity. 
Drew A. Gruber
Masters student, Urban and Regional Planning. VCU
Bachelors, Historic Preservation. UMW