| Newton MA News and Politics BlogI too am sorry to see Peet’s go. However, I am troubled by some of the comments in the blog here and how familiar they sound. We have been having this same conversation now for well over 10-15 years: How to keep a retail mix that works for residents, instead of having villages full of banks and nail salons.

Part of the answer is to have more foot traffic in the village centers so that there’s a retail base that can support a wider range of businesses. Bringing more housing to the village centers is intended to help address that problem (in addition to meeting local housing needs).

But we also need to remember that the stores we have are a factor of three things: the economics of those businesses, the landlords’ expectations for rent, and our regulatory environment.

It’s also worth noting that there’s been a lot of discussion about the regulatory environment for years, but with very little change. There was a vacancy about ten years ago in Newton Centre and the property manager – a local person – wanted to bring Panera to the space. This represented more food service in the Centre and a space that could also work as a gathering location (a role which the space has fulfilled). However – as opposed to banks – restaurants and food service spaces almost always require special permit approval from City Council, usually for parking requirements. And in the case of Panera, there was organized opposition to the restaurant, forcing the property manager to spend tens of thousands of dollars just to get through the politicized permitting process.

Banks don’t face this opposition. Salons rarely face this opposition. We get what our regulatory environment says that we want and will accept.

When I was chair of the Economic Development Commission, we attempted to drive the change in regulation by proposing a moratorium (Docket item #162-12) on the establishment of banking facilities in village centers until parking regulations could be addressed. In the June 25, 2012 meeting, the Zoning and Planning Committee of the City Council (Board of Aldermen at that time) recognized the need for better regulations and promised to address the situation in the imminent zoning reform.

The City Council, with the city’s Planning Department, can address this by better understanding what our retail market can support and then developing the regulatory environment that welcomes these stores. This will then also provide guidance to both the City Economic Development Director (Kathryn Ellis) and commercial brokers, not to mention landlords. Retail purchasing statistics can help define the retail market as it exists but – again – that may be artificially impacted by our current permitting environment. There are other ways of gauging the desire for other uses, ranging from the lo-tech concept of using post-it notes on empty storefront windows in an “I Wish This Was…” exercise up through higher tech tools like Potloc.com.

Changing the regulatory process has to be a part of this. The field needs to be leveled between passive uses (banks) and other uses. And rather than making it harder for banks, we need to make it easier for the other, active uses we say we crave.  Banks play a vital role in the market, but so do the wide variety of other uses, and highly active uses (restaurants) actively bring people into the centers. Each should face the same transparent, relatively predictable regulatory and permitting process. Failing to do so will predictably result in a collection of businesses who can not only afford the rent, but can either avoid or afford the professional fees to get through the heavy regulatory burden.