Report on the Closure of Ted’s Fried Clams in Sanford, Maine

A Case Study in Local Economic and Social Sustainability Challenges

The impending closure of the restaurant Ted’s Fried Clams in Sanford, Maine, presents a significant case study on the intersection of local economic viability and pressing social challenges. The proprietor’s decision, driven by public safety and sanitation concerns, underscores the difficulties in achieving key United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) at the community level.

Analysis of Business Closure and Its Relation to Sustainable Development Goals

The closure, scheduled to coincide with the expiration of the business’s lease, is not a result of market failure but rather a consequence of a deteriorating social environment that directly impacts business operations, public health, and community safety. This situation highlights a critical failure to uphold several SDGs.

Impact on Decent Work and Economic Growth (SDG 8)

The shutdown of a local enterprise represents a direct setback to SDG 8 (Decent Work and Economic Growth). The restaurant’s closure results in the loss of local employment and diminishes the economic vitality of the Main Street Marketplace. The proprietor, Jason Cole, cited an untenable operating environment as the primary reason for non-renewal of the lease, demonstrating how social instability can directly impede economic progress and the sustainability of local businesses.

Challenges to Public Health, Safety, and Sanitation (SDGs 3, 6, 11, 16)

The specific incidents reported by the business owner reveal profound challenges to fundamental public welfare and sustainability targets. These issues create an environment that is hostile to residents, customers, and business operators alike.

• SDG 3 (Good Health and Well-being) & SDG 11 (Sustainable Cities and Communities): The presence of discarded drug paraphernalia, such as meth pipes and open needles, points to severe public health risks and undermines the goal of creating safe and healthy community spaces.
• SDG 6 (Clean Water and Sanitation): Reports of individuals urinating and defecating on the building exterior represent a serious breach of public sanitation and hygiene standards.
• SDG 16 (Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions): Incidents requiring police intervention, including physical altercations and harassment of customers, signal a breakdown in public order and safety, hindering the creation of a peaceful and inclusive society.

Broader Implications for Sustainable Community Development (SDG 11)

The situation at Main Street Marketplace illustrates the complex dynamic between urban revitalization efforts and persistent social issues. While the city of Sanford has made concerted efforts to improve its downtown area, these initiatives are being actively undermined by criminal and anti-social behavior.

Urban Revitalization Efforts

In line with the objectives of SDG 11 (Sustainable Cities and Communities), local officials and community groups have undertaken numerous projects to enhance the downtown area, including:

1. Renaming and rebranding the Mid-Town Mall to Main Street Marketplace.
2. Installing new signage, lighting, and reconfiguring architecture for improved safety.
3. Replacing key infrastructure, such as the mall staircase.
4. Developing public spaces like Gateway Park.
5. Restoring the Sanford Mill for mixed-use residential and commercial purposes.
6. Engaging community organizations in beautification projects, such as planting flowers and painting murals.

Persistent Barriers to Sustainability

Despite these positive developments, the area continues to face significant challenges that threaten long-term sustainability. The criminal behaviors—including drug use, violence, and vandalism—counteract revitalization efforts and deter the very economic activity needed for the community to prosper. The closure of Ted’s Fried Clams is a tangible consequence of this conflict, demonstrating that physical infrastructure improvements alone are insufficient to guarantee a sustainable and thriving community without addressing underlying social and safety issues.

Future Outlook

The future of the original Ted’s Fried Clams property in Shapleigh, which is currently for sale, offers a potential for renewed economic activity, aligning with SDG 8. However, the closure of the Sanford location serves as a critical reminder that for economic development to be sustainable, it must be supported by a safe, healthy, and just environment as envisioned by the comprehensive framework of the Sustainable Development Goals.

1. Which SDGs are addressed or connected to the issues highlighted in the article?

• SDG 3: Good Health and Well-being

  The article highlights significant public health and safety issues, such as drug use, evidenced by “meth pipes and open needles,” and violence, including “fist fights.” These issues directly threaten the health and well-being of the community members, customers, and business staff.

• SDG 6: Clean Water and Sanitation

  The problem of “people urinating and defecating on the side of the building” points to a lack of access to basic sanitation facilities for certain individuals in the community, which is a core concern of SDG 6.

• SDG 8: Decent Work and Economic Growth

  The closure of a local business, Ted’s Fried Clams, due to safety and sanitation concerns is a direct blow to local economic growth. It represents a loss of jobs and undermines the town’s efforts to achieve “economic development and prosperity” through revitalization projects.

• SDG 11: Sustainable Cities and Communities

  The article revolves around the challenges of maintaining a safe, inclusive, and sustainable urban space. Issues like crime, drug use, violence, and harassment in a public area like Main Street Marketplace directly contradict the goal of creating safe communities. The city’s efforts to revitalize the downtown, such as creating parks and restoring buildings, are attempts to achieve this SDG, but they are being counteracted by the described anti-social behaviors.

• SDG 16: Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions

  This goal is relevant due to the presence of violence, crime, and a breakdown of public order. The article mentions “fist fights,” “customers harassed,” and other “criminal behavior” that requires police involvement. This indicates a struggle to maintain peace and safety within the community.

2. What specific targets under those SDGs can be identified based on the article’s content?

• Target 3.5: Strengthen the prevention and treatment of substance abuse.

  The discovery of “meth pipes and open needles” left on the restaurant’s outdoor tables is a clear indication of substance abuse occurring in the public space, making this target highly relevant.

• Target 6.2: Achieve access to adequate and equitable sanitation and hygiene for all and end open defecation.

  The statement that the business owner had to “involve the police for people urinating and defecating on the side of the building multiple times” directly relates to the issue of open defecation and the lack of access to sanitation facilities.

• Target 8.3: Promote development-oriented policies that support productive activities, decent job creation, entrepreneurship, creativity and innovation, and encourage the formalization and growth of micro-, small- and medium-sized enterprises.

  The closure of Ted’s Fried Clams, a small business, because of the unsafe environment demonstrates a failure to protect and support such enterprises, which are crucial for local economic growth.

• Target 11.7: Provide universal access to safe, inclusive and accessible, green and public spaces.

  The situation at Main Street Marketplace, where customers are harassed, fights break out, and drug paraphernalia is found, shows that this public space is not safe or inclusive, directly challenging the aim of this target.

• Target 16.1: Significantly reduce all forms of violence and related death rates everywhere.

  The mention of “fist fights” breaking out in front of the restaurant and spilling into the dining room is a direct example of the kind of violence this target aims to reduce.

3. Are there any indicators mentioned or implied in the article that can be used to measure progress towards the identified targets?

• Indicator for Target 3.5:

  The prevalence of substance abuse is implied by the physical evidence found. An indicator would be the “number of incidents involving the discovery of drug paraphernalia (meth pipes, open needles) in public spaces.” A decrease in such findings would signal progress.

• Indicator for Target 6.2:

  The article provides a direct, albeit qualitative, measure of open defecation. A quantifiable indicator would be the “number of reported incidents of public urination and defecation.” Progress would be marked by the elimination of these incidents.

• Indicator for Target 8.3:

  The closure of Ted’s Fried Clams is a data point. A relevant indicator would be the “rate of small business closures due to crime and public disorder.” A lower rate would indicate a healthier business environment.

• Indicator for Target 11.7:

  The article implies a lack of safety. An indicator could be the “number of reported crimes (e.g., harassment, assault, violence) in public commercial areas.” The number of police calls to the Main Street Marketplace for such behavior serves as a direct proxy indicator.

• Indicator for Target 16.1:

  The article explicitly mentions violence. A direct indicator from the text is the “number of physical altercations (‘fist fights’) reported in public areas.” A reduction in these events would show progress toward a more peaceful community.

4. SDGs, Targets, and Indicators Analysis

Source: seacoastonline.com