Assembly Square, the Back Story
Part 13:  Ikea vs. the Activists vs. the State

A Commentary by William C. Shelton

(The views and opinions expressed in the commentaries of the Somerville News belong solely to the commentators themselves and do not neccessarily reflect the views and opinions of the Somerville News, its publishers or its staff.)

  Before Ikea‚Äôs arrival, Stoughton officials hailed it as a great new source of tax revenue.  Jordan‚Äôs furniture and other merchants in next-door Avon anticipated that they would see sharp sales increases from people visiting Ikea.

  This Spring, irate representatives from Home Depot, Costco, Christmas Tree Shop, and forty smaller stores stormed the Planning Board.  They complained of plummeting sales caused by their customers‚Äô inability to penetrate Ikea‚Äôs traffic.  Barry Tatelman, of Jordan‚Äôs famed Barry and Elliot duo, said, ‚ÄúThis is [Ikea‚Äôs] problem; they caused it, and they need to fix it.‚Äù  National Tire and Battery‚Äôs manager said that his customers waited 20-to-30 minutes to get out of his parking lot, and then another 45 minutes to get through Ikea‚Äôs traffic.
  Ikea offered no solutions.  However, its traffic engineer Ken Caputo told angry neighbors that opening a Somerville store might draw some customers away from Avon/Stoughton.
  City officials in communities hosting Ikea‚Äôs seldom appreciate the stores‚Äô impacts until it is too late.  Infrastructure costs that jurisdictions pay to relieve Ikea gridlock have run from $50 million in Emeryville to $200 million in Elizabeth.
  One reason why cities make these miscalculations is because Ikea grossly underestimates the vehicle trips it will generate.  Somerville‚Äôs permit approval was a textbook case.

  Ikea acknowledges that its traffic generation is far beyond that of other big-boxes.  So it projected its Somerville traffic by averaging trips from questionable traffic counts at four other Ikeas. It counted its Elizabeth, New Jersey store, for example, during the low point of its annual sales cycle, on a freezing day, with winds gusting to 35 mph.  It did not factor in trip reductions resulting from its shuttle buses that bring customers from Manhattan. 
  Ikea said its store would increase weekday trips on I-93 by 5,000, but it did not include these trips in its projections of pollution resulting from building its store.  It assumed that the 45% of cars and trucks traveling on I-93 during its eight peak hours average 45 miles per hour. But Central Transportation Planning Staff report that average peak hour speed is 11 miles per hour, producing four times as much pollution. 
  When analysts who administer the Massachusetts Environmental Protection Act (MEPA) challenged the traffic projections in Ikea‚Äôs Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR), the company increased weekday trip projections by 61%.  But it made no corresponding changes to its pollution projections. Based on these and other manipulations, Ikea understated its pollution projections by more than 100%.
  Its carbon monoxide projections, for example, came in at 7.9 parts per million.  The federally allowable standard is 8.0.  And we now know that fine particles are far more lethal and local in their impact than the highly regulated pollutants.
  The city administration‚Äôs approach was to demand that Ikea provide compensatory benefits.  Community activists said that no compensation would prevent gridlock on Route 28, a net loss in tax revenue, harm to public health, and preclusion of high job-and-tax-generating development nearby. They said Ikea should change its operating model in urban areas.
  Initially, MEPA officials agreed with the activists.  In response to Ikea‚Äôs Draft Environmental Impact Report, MEPA asked the company to reduce its parking spaces by 75%, charge for parking, operate shuttle bus service from Sullivan Square, and provide free or low-cost home delivery to encourage public transit use.
  Activists also wanted assurance of Ikea‚Äôs promise to eventually fill in its vast surface parking lot with office buildings.  They asked for more compact design and to put the Ikea entrance at the same grade level as the surrounding ‚Äúurban village.‚Äù
  Ultimately, Ikea refused to make the substantive traffic changes. MEPA rolled over and abandoned its earlier requirements. 
  Local activist Wig Zamore sent MEPA an analysis of Ikea‚Äôs fraudulent projections well before the agency issued its decision.  Outgoing MEPA head, Jay Wickersham, intercepted the analysis.  He wrote a note across it, directing staff to ignore the information because it was ‚Äúsubmitted too late.‚Äù  In fact, the law requires MEPA to consider any material evidence until the final decision is made.
  A group of Somerville citizens filed appeals of Ikea‚Äôs zoning, MEPA certificate, and Chapter 91 license.  They subsequently dropped the zoning appeal.
  Chapter 91 requires that the first floor of buildings set on Commonwealth tidelands be accessible to the public.  Ikea plans to build a private garage on its first floor and surround it with slanting earth berms.  The garage would project above the berms, 4 feet on one side and 10 on the other.  A summary judgment motion argues that Ikea‚Äôs ‚Äúunderground‚Äù parking lot is either a built structure or the first floor.  If the Judge agrees, the plaintiffs will win.  If she doesn‚Äôt, the case will proceed.
  The MEPA case, initially scheduled for this summer, will probably be postponed.  Ikea has not responded to discovery requests.
  Mystic View Task Force leaders have continually asked Ikea to mediate their differences.  On August 1, 2003, Mystic View was joined in this request by Mayor Gay and Commonwealth Development Chief Doug Foy. Ikea continues to refuse.