Wilderness Battlefield In Court

Back in September the National Trust for Historic Preservation, Friends of Wilderness Battlefield, and six nearby residents filed a lawsuit in the Circuit Court of Orange County. They alleged that the country “supervisors failed to comply with the county’s comprehensive plan. The suit also claims the county’s zoning ordinance is invalid because it fails to comply with state laws requiring such ordinances to protect historic sites, and there were procedural defects in the approval process.”

Today, the court heard the first arguments of the case.

Here’s a quick excerpt from the National Trust for Historic Preservation’s press release outlining their central arguments (it was emailed to me, so I don’t have a link):

“The County has an affirmative responsibility to protect those historic resources under Virginia law and under the County’s own Comprehensive Plan for development. Yet, the Board ignored the concerns, objections and offers of assistance from the Governor and the Speaker of the House of Delegates of the Commonwealth of Virginia, the National Park Service, the Virginia Department of Historic Resources, 250 Civil War experts, and others.

The Battle of the Wilderness, where 26,000 men were killed or wounded in May of 1864, may not be as well known as Gettysburg or Antietam, but it marked a milestone in the Civil War. It was the first time generals Robert E. Lee and Ulysses S. Grant met in battle. The site of the proposed 140,000-square-foot Wal-Mart superstore, along with 100,000 square feet of additional big box commercial development, stands on unprotected land within the historic boundaries of this battlefield.  It is also immediately adjacent to the Fredericksburg & Spotsylvania National Military Park, which was established by Congress in 1927. In a split vote, the Orange County Board of Supervisors voted to approve a special use permit allowing the 240,000-square-foot project to proceed on August 25, 2009. This project poses a considerable risk of destruction and increased commercialization of a nationally significant and highly vulnerable historic site.”

We’ll certainly keep our eyes on the case. In the mean time, you can check out the National Trust for Historic Preservation’s website here and read more about the case here.

Topics: | | | Community Impact | Environment | Traffic/Sprawl | Comprehensive Plans | Lawsuits | legislation | Organizing | Zoning Regulations | | | | |

Posted by Media Team on Wednesday, February 03, 2010 | Permalink

Manchester, NJ. Wal-Mart Trying To Keep Out The Snakes

For five years, Wal-Mart has been battling local residents in Toms River and Manchester, New Jersey. Not only are they fighting with people in these two Ocean County, New Jersey townships---but they’ve got reptiles against them too.

On December 3, 2006, Sprawl-Busters reported that the northern pine snake had crossed Wal-Mart’s path. The presence of pine snakes delayed Wal-Mart when the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) refused to grant the retailer a Coastal Area Facility Review Act permit because of this endangered reptile on their property. Plans for a 228,000-s.f. supercenter in Toms River along Route 37 West were stopped by this reptile.

The northern pine snake that hibernates on the 43-acre site held up the Toms River/Manchester supercenter. The project already had a green light from the planning board in Manchester. The state Department of Environmental Protection denied a Coastal Area Facilities Review Act (CAFRA) permit because a male northern pine snake had spent the winter in a den on the property. “This story is just hard to believe,” said Toms River Mayor Paul Brush, “that one snake is holding up the development of this retail center, that whole Route 37 corridor, and potentially, the Ciba-Geigy site. I’m just so frustrated with the position of the DEP on this.”

Toms River officials were concerned that the northern pine snake was also living on the 1,350-acre Ciba-Geigy Corp. superfund site, which officials view as crucial to the township’s economic well-being. The property owners claim to have spent hundreds of thousands of dollars on environmental studies of the Wal-Mart site, including paying $26,000 to have a veterinarian from Rutgers University implant transmitters in two northern pine snakes found on the property in the fall. One of the snakes left the property in the fall and hibernated for the winter in a paint can. But the second snake hibernated on the Wal-Mart site. State officials say there are many snake dens on the property. The New Jersey DEP told the landowner that no form of mitigation would be allowed, and that the CAFRA permit would be denied. The landowner then appealed the DEP’s decision to the Office of Administrative Law, and gathered 7,000 signatures on petitions from residents who want another Wal-Mart.

This week, four years later---there still is no Wal-Mart in Manchester. There are 8 Wal-Marts within 20 miles of Manchester, including a Wal-Mart discount store also on Route 37 in Toms River less than 8 miles away. Developer Jay Grunin has been battling snakes for 5 years, and is still at it. Over time, he’s also piled up a long list of human opponents, including Michael Perlmutter, the CEO of the ShopRite grocery chain, and the United Food and Commercial Workers Union (UFCW). The proposed “smaller” 193,000 s.f. superstore is located on the border between Manchester and Toms River, so officials in both townships are excited by the presumed property taxes they will share. Township officials actually approached New Jersey Governor Chris Christie looking for state help in getting an environmental permit for the project.

The two towns will share the burden of providing the store with police and fire protection based on an “interlocal” agreement the communities have negotiated. If this superstore opens, the other Wal-Mart on Route 37 in Toms River will close, leaving the community with another ‘ghost box’ to fill. But first Wal-Mart has to outsmart the snakes. According to the Asbury Park Press, Wal-Mart’s engineers have come up with inspiration from their suppliers in the Orient. Wal-Mart has proposed building a 3,700 foot long Great Wall, 4 feet high, to keep the reptiles out of the company’s parking lot.

Of the total 43 acres of land involved, 17 are in Tom’s River, and 26 in Manchester. Ironically, the parking lot will have to have two different size parking spaces, because Manchester’s zoning code requires larger parking spaces than Toms River. To get to the store, shoppers will have to drive around the pine snake’s den site. Opponents of the project are asking this existential question: If Wal-Mart builds this wall, will it be to keep the snakes out, or to keep the Wal-Mart snakes in? The next Wal-Mart hearing is March 1st, and if the Planning Board ultimately approves the plan, this project is expected to snake its way into a courtroom, not a ribbon-cutting.

What you can do: Wal-Mart is not pleased that ShopRite is intervening against them. During most site fight battles, Wal-Mart relies on being able to out-spend its opponents. The giant retailer spends a fortune on legal, environmental, traffic, and site engineers, while citizen’s groups hold bake sales to raise money to fend off the project. In this Toms River/Manchester battle, Wal-Mart is facing off against another retailer and the grocery worker’s union. Wal-Mart’s lawyer has tried to get Michael Perlmutter removed as an objector. “Mr. Perlmutter is a classic example—that will be direct and open competition,’’ Wal-Mart’s lawyer was quoted as saying in The Asbury Park Press. “The mere threat that they will have increased business competition’’ does not give Perlmutter standing to object before the township Planning Board, Wal-Mart’s lawyer said. But in 2005, when the first, larger Wal-Mart plan was heard, the townships gave Perlmutter standing to make his case. In the end, the Manchester Planning Board ruled that Perlmutter could stay on the case.

The project came before the Planning Board on February 1st. Wal-Mart told town officials that its new store in Lanoka Harbor created 450 new jobs. That’s somewhat exaggerated from his company’s own press release. On October 7, 2009, Wal-Mart said the Lanoka Harbor store “will employ approximately 375 associates, according to store manager George W. Smith Jr.” The fact is, when you factor out the jobs that will be lost at other retailers and grocers in the trade area when a Wal-Mart supercenter opens, the project will be lucky to see any net job growth.

Readers are urged to email Mayor Mike Fressola at with the following message: “Dear Mayor Fressola, It must be hard for your constituents to drive all the way over to Toms River to shop at Wal-Mart, but it sure beats having an empty store on Route 37. If a Wal-Mart superstore ever is permitted, the ‘old’ Wal-Mart in Tom’s River is history. And then there’s that nasty problem with the snakes. Maybe Wal-Mart could enclose their den in glass in the middle of the deli section, and turn the shopping experience into an environmental lesson on the importance of preserving natural habitat. Please don’t expect to see this 5 year battle over a superstore result in new jobs. The Wal-Mart people overstated the new jobs in Lanoka Harbor by 20%, and the net new jobs, after stores like ShopRite close, will be next to nothing. So more than forty acres, including some sensitive environmental habitat, gets destroyed just to give Wal-Mart more market share. There’s clearly nothing in this for Toms River---unless they like the idea of an empty store on their roadway. I urge you to let the Planning Board know that this project makes no environmental or economic sense, and that the only folks who will ‘live better’ from this project are the people from Bentonville. You won’t have to deal with a 3,700 foot wall either.”

Topics: | | Community Impact | Economic/Small Business | Environment | Hiring an Expert | Lawsuits | Organizing | | |

Posted by Al Norman on Tuesday, February 02, 2010 | Permalink

Lockport and Riverhead, NY. Legal Detail Ties Two Anti-Wal-Mart Battles Together

Two communities on the opposite ends of New York state have been linked together by a legal detail that could topple the largest retailer in the world.

Sprawl-Busters reported on June 8, 2009 that citizens fighting a 185,000 s.f. Wal-Mart superstore in Lockport, New York had suffered a setback when the Appellate Division of the New York Supreme Court ruled against opponents of the store. A group called Lockport Citizens for Smart Growth have held up the world’s largest retailer for six years.

On April 16, 2008, Sprawl-Busters noted that citizens in Lockport who were fighting to prevent a Wal-Mart supercenter in their backyards had lost their court appeal. The State Supreme Court dismissed the citizen’s lawsuit, which sought a permanent injunction, filed by Lockport Smart Growth and five individual homeowners. The residents sued the town’s zoning and planning board for granting “extreme difficulty” variances for the project. Their lawsuit charged that the zoning board “rewrote the zoning code” and exceeded its authority. Daniel Spitzer, Smart Growth’s lawyer, argued that the “extreme difficulty” waivers granted by the planning board were improper, and should have been zoning variances instead. When the court ruling came out, Spitzer told the media, “Clearly they looked at all of the issues we raised, but there’s no elaboration by the panel. They ruled (the town met) legal standards but they didn’t say why. The question is not answered: If a zoning variance and an extreme difficulty waiver (give) the same relief, how can there be different standards for each?”

Six months later, it was Wal-Mart that felt the legal impact of a court ruling on Long Island. Sprawl-Busters reported that Wal-Mart’s plan to build a 169,548 s.f. superstore in Riverhead, New York was tripped up in court. Despite approval by the Riverhead Town Board, local residents refused to take ‘yes’ for an answer, and threw the case into court. On October 6, 2008, the Suffolk County Supreme Court tossed out the Town Board’s approval. A judge ruled that Wal-Mart’s site plan violated the town’s zoning code, and the town’s comprehensive plan. According to the court, the Town Board did not have the discretion to give Wal-Mart variances from the zoning restrictions. “The Town Board, in its role as site plan administrator, cannot approve site plan applications that run counter to the Town Law, its Comprehensive Plan, and its own zoning code,” the judge wrote. “One of the most cherished principles of our democracy is the respect and deference accorded our governing laws by our citizenry. Town Boards are not exempt from that fundamental ideal.”

In the Riverhead case, the Town Board gave Wal-Mart variances for zoning laws around landscaping, parking and building standards. The board also approved the superstore site plan in a zoning district that does not permit single, freestanding stores. The judge “rejected the town board’s attempt to take jurisdiction from its zoning board and transfer it to itself,” a land use attorney told Newsday. “This case stands as a guide post to other towns and villages looking to take power from their zoning boards.”

This week the Riverhead and Lockport cases became joined at the hip. Long Island lawyer James Matthews, who helped turn back Wal-Mart in Riverhead, filed papers to become an intervenor in the Lockport case against Wal-Mart. Matthews told The Buffalo News that the Riverhead and Lockport cases are very similar, and that the court should allow him to file an “amicus” brief in support of Lockport Citizens for Smart Growth. As expected, Lockport town officials were not pleased. The town’s lawyer described the Riverhead ruling as “not a very important case from our perspective.”

But Spitzer, the lawyer for Smart Growth, is hoping the courts will resolve the discrepancy between the two cases. Smart Growth says that the approvals granted by the Lockport Planning Board were really variances, which should have been the province of the Zoning Board of Appeals in Lockport—not the Planning Board. But town officials charge that the Lockport decision just granted waivers from the terms of the town’s Commercial Corridor Overlay District. The lawyer from Riverhead insists that the two cases are really about the same issues. In fact, Wal-Mart has already tried to use the similarities in the cases to get the Riverhead decision overturned.

Wal-Mart appealed the court’s decision in the Riverhead case, and cited the Lockport ruling as part of its argument against the Riverhead ruling. Attorney Matthews, who won the Riverhead case, told The Buffalo News that these two cases might end up being merged into one review by the Court of Appeals. “I think it’s conceivable that when there’s a ruling in our case, depending on what the ruling is, someone might move to consolidate,” he said.

What you can do: Riverhead is a community with roughly 34,000 people. The town already has a Wal-Mart discount store, and somehow has managed to persevere without a larger superstore. There are 5 existing Wal-Marts within 25 miles of Riverhead. The fact is, this Wal-Mart proposal would not have created new jobs and revenues, but simply taken sales from stores like Waldbaum’s and Stop & Shop. This was a game of retail musical chairs—and had it not been for the intervention by the United Food and Commercial Workers union, the Riverhead case would not have been challenged in court.

In Lockport, Wal-Mart first brought its plans for a supercenter in 2004. Throughout this entire six year process, the neighbors have resisted this store. The Lockport ZBA gave Wal-Mart 14 area waivers to allow the corporation to build at the Lockport Mall. The “extreme difficulty” that Wal-Mart encountered with the town’s zoning code was neither extreme, nor difficult. There is a requirement, for example, in the overlay district that 25% of a storefront be windows. But Wal-Mart said it couldn’t have more than 17% windows because of the way the interior of the store is arranged. Another overlay requirement is for one curb cut, but because of the huge scale of Wal-Mart, town officials felt two curb cuts were needed to prevent traffic bottlenecks. The Lockport site is not appropriate for a large store because of the nearby homes abutting the property. If the Wal-Mart had been proposed at the same size as the existing Bon Ton, neighborhood opposition probably would have been scaled down as well. “The ZBA effectively rewrote the zoning code by treating the project site as one property and by rendering decisions based on street lines instead of lot lines,” the original lawsuit said. “The variances granted are so substantial in scope that the ZBA effectively rewrote the zoning code.”

If the Lockport superstore is ever built, the Wal-Mart discount store down the road on South Transit Road will shut down. Most of the “new” sales at Wal-Mart will come from sales at the “old” Wal-Mart store. In addition to the legal quirks that drew these two Wal-Mart proposals together, they have another common bond: neither store was needed in the first place, because both areas are saturated with Wal-Mart stores already.

Topics: | | Community Impact | Economic/Small Business | Comprehensive Plans | Lawsuits | Organizing | Zoning Regulations | | |

Posted by Al Norman on Monday, February 01, 2010 | Permalink

Austin, TX. Wal-Mart Finally Ready to Build Smaller Superstore

Wal-Mart already has six supercenters in Austin, Texas, a city with more than 758,000 people. But when the giant retailer proposed to build a 7th supercenter in Austin, the neighbors thought is was too weird—even for the ‘keep Austin weird’ crowd. But Wal-Mart had to completely revamp its project.

Resistance to Wal-Mart in Austin is not new. In 2003, residents beat back a Wal-Mart superstore in Austin, and on December 10, 2006, Sprawl-Busters reported that Austin neighbors had organized a group to fight a proposed 219,000 s.f. Wal-Mart at the Northcross Mall.

On June 24, 2008, we reported that citizen pressure and legal delays had prodded Wal-Mart to cut a proposed supercenter by more than half. The retailer’s plan attracted not one, but two lawsuits. Public pressure against the superstore forced the developer to come back in with a “smaller” plan---but not quite small enough to please opponents.

Wal-Mart offered at first to cut the store in the Northcross Mall by 15%---from 219,000 s.f. to 186,500 s.f. But the city approved Wal-Mart’s plan, settling on a 198,000 s.f. footprint. The citizens group that had been fighting this project, vowed to take their case to court. Responsible Growth For Northcross (RG4N) filed their lawsuit in district court to stop the North Austin Wal-Mart proposal. A second lawsuit was also filed by a group called the Allendale Neighborhood Association (ANA).

The two citizen’s groups forced Wal-Mart to accept several compromises they would not have otherwise made. The company initially shrunk its store size to 198,000 s.f. They also were forced to abandon a 24-hour store format, and they agreed not to allow delivery trucks to run along residential streets. The city of Austin also adopted a Big Box ordinance limiting development---a law that will impact all future superstore developments.

“We are opposed to the Lincoln Property Company plan to build a giant, two-story Wal-Mart Supercenter and three-story parking garage in the middle of our vibrant Austin neighborhoods, RG4N said. “The developer’s traffic study shows how their project will bring streets to the brink of failure. The developer’s plan is another example of ugly, suburban sprawl in a place where it doesn’t belong. Our city deserves better and we have city ordinances in place to promote better development.”

In December of 2007, a judge ruled against the RG4N lawsuit. But the case was far from over. In June of 2008, Wal-Mart slashed its superstore to 97,000 s.f. The proposed two story project will have one story--not two---and the 3 story parking garage has been reduced to a parking lot. The garden center and the auto repair shop have been eliminated. A Wal-Mart spokesman explained, “As part of a nationwide effort and changing business model, Wal-Mart has been re-evaluating store sizes throughout the country.” She said Wal-Mart “intends to reduce the size of its already approved Northcross store.”

That was one year and seven months ago. This week, neighbors of the Northcross Mall report that “Wal-Mart is finally moving dirt and scheduled to open by Oct 2010. It has been scaled back from 219,000 sq ft to 97,000. There will be no garden center. They will close from 1-5 AM.” According to the RG4N: On September 25, 2009, the group signed a settlement agreement with the City of Austin and Lincoln Property Company. The developer agreed not seek repayment of its legal fees from RG4N. “And we will not contest the new, currently approved site plan, since the new plan addresses most of the objections of our lawsuit…while the (court) ruling did not come out in our favor, our claims were legitimate and are being addressed by the improved site plan.

RG4N met with Wal-Mart officials months ago, and the group says “we have been waiting to get firm details about the downsized store and new artistic renderings of the store. We’re still waiting for those details. Here’s what was discussed at that meeting: The store is planned to be 97,915 sq. ft. (Much smaller than 225,000 sq. ft.). It won’t be 24 hours, except during special seasons, like before…The designs we saw were different than before and reflected the smaller size, but we don’t have anything to show you…The date set for construction or opening is unclear.”

What you can do: Our local source notes: “The Wal-Mart still remains an explosive and divisive issue in ours and all the surrounding neighborhoods. Many of us feel this store is doomed because of the increased traffic it will cause on already burdened streets and also the crime. That mall could have had a great sustainable pedestrian-friendly development that the entire neighborhood could have enjoyed. What a loss.”

When the 200th Judicial District Court of Travis County issued its ruling on the RG4N lawsuit, the group said it was disappointed with the outcome. “But we are not done fighting,” the group said. “We are merely back where we were one year ago, when neighbors resoundingly said, ‘No!’ to this irresponsible development. And in the court of public opinion, Wal-Mart, Lincoln and the City of Austin have been losing since Day One.”

RG4N held up this Wal-Mart project for roughly three years. Attorney Doug Young, who worked on the RG4N lawsuit, told the Austin Statesman newspaper last year that a smaller store was “an extremely good development in resolving this whole issue. This is more like what ought to have been considered in the first place.” According to Young, RG4N was preparing to continue its appeal through the courts. That pressure likely played a significant role in shrinking the size of the project.

As it turns out, this smaller store was just a forerunner of many of the Wal-Mart superstores now being proposed. Wal-Mart’s U.S. Division has clearly chosen to shrink the size of its stores. There are two advantages of this for the company: 1) the smaller store format is more efficient and as profitable as the larger footprints; 2) the smaller stores generate less community opposition.

In an October 22, 2009 story in the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette, Wal-Mart made clear where the company is heading in the American market. “The writing is on the wall, we are going to smaller stores,” said Eduardo Castro-Wright, Wal-Mart’s vice chairman in charge of U.S. stores. Local activists who are fighting superstore projects over 100,000 s.f. in size should turn up the heat on local officials to read the writing on the wall, and demand from Wal-Mart that they shrink their plans below 100,000 s.f. Smaller superstores are no longer just a demand from neighbors—they have become a corporate reality for the big box companies. For more background on the Austin story, go to http://www.rg4n.org.

Topics: | | | Community Impact | Comprehensive Plans | Lawsuits | Organizing | |

Posted by Al Norman on Sunday, January 31, 2010 | Permalink

Angola, NY. Wal-Mart Abruptly Cancels Superstore Project

Suddenly, without any advance notice, Wal-Mart has pulled out of a planned superstore project in the town of Evans, New York, which is located in southern Erie County, bordering on Lake Erie. The town includes the Village of Angola with a combined population of approximately 20,000 people. Wal-Mart’s overnight departure has left Evans officials embarrassed and disappointed. But for area residents opposed to the superstore, Wal-Mart’s farewell is a happy ending to a very bad movie.

Three years ago, activists in Angola wrote to Sprawl-Busters: “In September, 2006, we formed a group called ‘Friends of the Grandview’ to work on preserving and renovating the 1952 Grandview Drive-in movie theater. This facility is one of a kind. At nearly 120 feet wide, it’s one of the largest screens in the USA! It’s the only one in the USA to have retail space under the screen tower (maybe the world). It was the first in New York to have Radio Sound. First in USA to show a movie in stereo sound in the 60’s.

“None of us question the need for a general department store to replace the long lost Ames store in Derby, New York. The key question is: where would one fit without loss of existing stores and businesses and damage to our community? Would it not make more sense to build on vacant land, rather than destroy a viable and operating landmark drive-in that the community clearly wants preserved and renovated? And let’s not forget our Jubilee grocery Store. If Wal-Mart builds there, it’s history! Considering it’s the only one between Orchard Park and Gowanda, we would not want to loose the choice of shopping there.”

“We have collected around 1,500 signatures from people upset the Grandview did not open this season, and demanding it be renovated and reopened next year…Repeated attempts at contacting the owners and even having an attorney contact the owners brought no response. Wal-Mart made an appearance at the town board meeting and has expressed interest in tearing down our Drive-in and building a 130,000 s.f. supercenter! The Jubilee Foods Store is right on the Property. We doubt Wal-Mart would actually be dumb enough to purchase a property before they knew they would even be allowed to build anyway! The property is located at the corner of Route 5 and Lake Street in Angola, it is surrounded by homes on the south, to the east is a new Church with senior housing behind it, to the north east is a school and athletic field, and north of it borders a creek, and just beyond a nice new home in what they thought was a secluded area, now to be located next to a Wal-Mart loading dock, as well as another home and the VFW hall.”

Since 2005, local officials in Evans have done everything Wal-Mart wanted. A year ago, the Evans Planning Board issued findings under the State Environmental Quality Review that approved the Wal-Mart project. After evaluating the environmental, economic and social impacts of the proposed Wal-Mart supercenter project, the Planning Board concluded that it was “adopting the feasible, prudent and practicable alternative…that allows for mitigation of all environmental impacts to the greatest extent reasonable and practicable.” The Board admitted that the character of the site would change “in that a vacant drive-in theater will be replaced with a large retail use.” The Board also found that “the surrounding area will be impacted by an increase in traffic,” and that “adjacent residences to the north and south may experience a noticeable increase in noise and light from the project if not properly mitigated.”

The Board negotiated with Wal-Mart to get a unique looking store. “The building shall represent a design unique to the Town of Evans, and not a typical corporate big box design.” To protect the homes located on the northern edge of this project, town officials said Wal-Mart would construct a berm and a ten foot high fence---proof that the project is incompatible with surrounding residences. Compatible uses don’t require fences and berms.

When The Sun newspaper announced several days ago that Wal-Mart was abandoning the Drive-In site, local officials were caught off-guard. “This was totally unexpected,” said the Chair of the Town of Evans Planning Board. “The planning board has spent the better part of the last three years doing its due diligence to review all the aspects of the Wal-Mart application and plans. We wanted to make sure that if built, this would be the best possible project, would enhance the character of the town and would have minimal environmental impacts to the surrounding area. We had been working with them, which is why this just caught us completely off guard.”

The Town’s supervisor told the newspaper that “Sam Walton’s grandson” had made the decision to shut down the project. “Do I think the economy had something to do with this?” the supervisor asked. “Of course. I also would not be surprised if the opening of the new Wal-Mart in Hamburg (N.Y.) didn’t have an impact on this.” Now the town is left with a Drive-In movie that has been demolished, and 17 acres of land with no buyer in sight. The town’s five years of work with Wal-Mart has turned into something of a Horror Show for local officials. “We appealed to Wal-Mart to not do this,” one local official said.

What you can do: After the announcement of the death of this project, Wal-Mart issued one of its standard disclaimers to the media. “We thank the residents and the town planning department, supervisor and the town board for their collective efforts throughout this process. We remain committed to growing our business in Western New York and will continue to look for opportunities to provide good jobs that give our associates the chance to build careers.”

Sprawl-Busters has written about several earlier examples of Wal-Mart going after former Drive-In theaters. The landowners of these properties stand to make millions off the sale of their land, but residents are usually outraged that these properties are being destroyed. In this case, there are surrounding homes, and some obvious environmental issues to consider. A lawsuit had been filed to stop this superstore, but not that lawsuit is moot. The Jubilee grocery store in Angola, which reportedly has spent money to renovate, would likely have closed if a Wal-Mart supercenter had been built next door. The Friends of the Grandview lost their movie screen---but the Wal-Mart sequel will not be showing at a theater near Angola any time soon.

Readers are urged to email Evans Supervisor Francis Pordum at: with the following message: “Dear Supervisor Pordum, Your Wal-Movie has a happy ending. The town of Evans, and the Village of Angola narrowly dodged an economic bullet that would have damaged the local economy and the character of your small communities. You are fortunate that Wal-Mart ended the film—rather than letting it continue. You now know the time and money the town spent on a corporation that makes decisions from Arkansas without your input. I hope this bad movie leaves you with a better understanding of why community-based economic development is preferable to chasing national chain stores. Wal-Mart never was a jobs and taxes project, because its sales largely would have come from existing businesses. But the final scene has been changed, and the ending is more upbeat than expected. Be thankful for that.”

Topics: | | | | Community Impact | Economic/Small Business | Environment | Traffic/Sprawl | Organizing | |

Posted by Al Norman on Saturday, January 30, 2010 | Permalink

Walmart Caught Astroturfing…Again

Walmart has a pretty spotty record when it comes to grassroots support groups. They can’t seem to resist the temptation to simply let PR firms make things up for them. There was the fake blog “Walmarting Across America” which, it was revealed, was actually organized by Walmart’s PR firm. The vehicle the “bloggers” used as well as their meals, expenses and gas, were all provided for them. There was the fake “community group” Working Families for Walmart, which was also run by a PR firm Walmart hired.

And now it seems that Walmart is doing the same thing in Chicago, where they’re struggling to get a foothold for their potential second store within city limits. Chicagoist, a prominent local blog, received some suspiciously pro-Walmart comments on their blog and decided to investigate. They found what seems to be theChicagoland Chamber of Commerce and Serafin & Associates are both working to push Walmart’s agenda in Chicago, and posing as a local community group.

The Chicagoland admitted to launching the site Our Community, Our Choice which proclaims, “Everyone else but Chatham and the South Side are making the decisions – It’s OUR CHOICE, NOT THEIRS.”

You should read the full article from Chicagoist, but the following section is particularly interesting:

Mike Mini told me that Wal-Mart is indeed a member of the Chicagoland Chamber of Commerce, that they have “a representative on the Government Affairs Committee,” and that “our process is kind of open. Any member that expresses an interest can come to meetings and work on issues that are important to them.” Is the Chamber working on behalf of Wal-Mart in the city? “We’re working on behalf of policies that we feel further business and commerce in the city.” Because I got to Mr. Mini through Our Community, Our Choice, I asked what his involvement in the site was. “It’s part of our advocacy effort to gain support,” and that “we set that up as a way to communicate with people. We were expecting this to come up for a vote before the council sooner, but obviously it’s been stalled.” I asked him if he was familiar with Serafin and Associates. “Yes, we have worked with them in our strategy sessions. We’ve worked with [Thomas] Serafin and his team.” When I told him that our site had gotten comments from the email address that led me to him and asked if he knew that it was being used to comment on blogs, he said “no, not that I’m aware of.” Are you surprised that an IP address from Serafin was being used that way? “No, not in particular.” Why not? “I really can’t comment without looking into it further.”

Topics: | | | Community Impact | Economic/Small Business | | | | |

Posted by Media Team on Thursday, January 28, 2010 | Permalink

Warrenton, OR. Anti-Wal-Mart Group Rises Up To Battle Superstore

In September of 2009, residents of the small communities of Warrenton and Astoria, Oregon got a big surprise.

The Warrenton community of roughly 4,500 people found out that a huge Wal-Mart superstore had been proposed for a 17 acre piece of land on Highway 101. The 153,000 s.f. store would rank by far as the largest retailer in the city’s history. The project will need to go through the Warrenton Planning Commission to get approval.

But the project has stirred up controversy from the start, in part because of the small town historic character of the area. The city describes itself as being located in Clatsop County, “on the beautiful northwestern tip of Oregon…bordered by the Pacific Ocean on the west and the mighty Columbia River on the north.” Warrenton, and the neighboring city of Astoria (pop. 9,900), comprise an historic region at the western end of the Lewis & Clark Trail.

Astoria is the oldest American settlement west of the Rockies. A suburban Wal-Mart big box does not fit into this North Coast community. Area residents are also concerned that this enormous store will devastate the existing retail businesses in the cities. According to The Daily Astorian newspaper, some local residents have warned officials that inviting Wal-Mart to town is like inviting the cannibals to dinner. “It doesn’t just affect Warrenton,” one long-time businesswoman told the newspaper. “It goes throughout the county and across the river. If you lower the hours somebody works and you lower the pay that they get and you require them to do your bidding at all times, you take away the spendable time somebody has to volunteer and contribute to the community.”

Two months ago, a group called the Clatsop Economic Development Resources put on a business seminar called “Weathering Wal-Mart.” These seminars teach smaller businesses basically how to dodge a bullet by finding a retail niche to hide in. “The idea is to create an environment where businesses are not going head to head on price,” one of the seminar sponsors said. ”They’re not going to make it that way. If they can find a way to deliver something unique, whether it’s service or product, they can find a way to survive in a big box world.” Like selling goldfish. But another resident thought the idea of the seminar was a charade. “Wal-Mart will within 18 months put out of business Astoria stores---any stores that sell the same kind of merchandise. It will probably hurt Fred Meyer, and all of Warrenton’s small stores. These two towns will become ghost towns.”

Some residents say the project will only benefit the Nygaard family that owns the property. The nearest Wal-Mart is about 35 miles to the east of Astoria just over the border in Longview, Washington. The city of Warrenton is already engaged in an Urban Renewal Plan to “encourage infill, rehabilitation and redevelopment,” according to the city. But a huge Wal-Mart superstore would only create more empty buildings and loss of foot traffic downtown. “It would be a sad scene to see our little town die,” one resident told The Astorian, “but you will have a lot of parking.”

This week, the anti-Wal-Mart group held its first public meeting. Roughly 20 people came to the meeting of the group Clatsop Residents Against Wal-Mart (CRAW). The group has been fund-raising since November, and will soon distribute nearly 2,500 copies of the film “Wal-Mart: The High Cost of Low Prices” CRAW members—quoting Sprawl-Busters---say the Wal-Mart superstore is “not a done deal,” but it is a “dumb deal.”

What you can do: A number of Warrenton/Astoria small businesses have come out publicly against Wal-Mart and in support of CRAW. One leader of the group, James Pottschmidt, told the Astorian: “Traffic is going to be a nightmare, unless ODOT wants to pay for a new bridge.” CRAW is opposing Wal-Mart’s effort to get a highway access permit from the state. The Warrenton Planning Commission also has to approve the site design. Before anyone knew what the landowner was doing, he applied for permits to fill wetlands on his site. The application stirred up little attention, because residents had no idea that the land changes being proposed were for a future Wal-Mart.

Readers are urged to email Warrenton Mayor Gilbert Gramson at with the following message: “Dear Mayor Gramson, Small cities can make big mistakes, and letting Wal-Mart build on Highway 101 will go down as one of the biggest misjudgements of your Administration. In the end, you will get neiher jobs nor increased revenues, because Wal-Mart will get most of its sales from existing cash registers. The scale of this store is inappropriate for the Warrenton/Astoria region. I can imagine the ghosts of Lewis & Clark warning you that this is the wrong path for your city. You can’t buy small town quality of life at any Wal-Mart. But once they take it from you, they can’t sell it back to you at any price.”

Topics: | | | | Community Impact | Economic/Small Business | Environment | Traffic/Sprawl | Organizing | |

Posted by Al Norman on Thursday, January 28, 2010 | Permalink

St. Albans, VT. Environmental Court Oks Wal-Mart—With Strings

One of the longest running Wal-Mart battles in America made headlines again this week. A Vermont developer is shelling out millions in road upgrades and impact fees in order to buy his way into the town of St. Albans, Vermont.

On June 23, 2009, Sprawl-Busters last updated the epic 16 year war that’s been going on between Wal-Mart and its opponents in St. Albans. Wal-Mart has been trying to convert a cornfield in this small, northern Vermont town into an asphalt field of dreams. Although the retailer was rejected by the Vermont Supreme Court in 1995, another developer has returned to the same parcel in the town of St. Albans to have a second bite of the apple. In the process, the developer, Jeff Davis, who also built a Wal-Mart in nearby Taft Corners, Vermont, has held rallies in support of his store, and enlisted the aid of no less than Vermont’s Governor Jim Douglas as his cheerleader.

The cornfield is located on Route 7 across from the St. Albans Drive-In, just off Route 89, a few miles south of the Canadian border. In this second try, town officials have again given the store its blessing, as well as the regional commission set up under Vermont’s Act 250 land use control law. But the Vermont Natural Resources Council (VNRC) and local residents filed the legal paperwork to ask the District 6 Commission to reverse its position and rescind the granting of an Act 250 permit that would allow the Wal-Mart superstore. In addition to the VNRC, the citizen’s group, the Northwest Citizens for Responsible Growth (NWCRG) and neighboring farmers Marie Frey and Richard Hudak, appealed. The appeal charged that the Act 250 District 6 commission, which is the local panel that hears Act 250 cases in the St. Albans area, ignored its own findings when it granted the permit. Opponents have charged that the superstore would pollute a nearby brook, increase traffic congestion, cost as many as 200-297 jobs, and result in the closure of over 40 businesses in the abutting city of St. Albans. The District 6 Commission also was warned that the project would pave over prime agricultural land, and that the developer had not compensated for the loss of those soils. The deputy director of the VNRC said the conclusion of the Commission was not supported by its findings.

An economic impact study done by Wal-Mart’s consultant said the project would only result in 40 lost jobs and 12 businesses closing in the city of St. Albans. A similar economic impact study for the same site in 1994 performed by the late Tom Mueller, and Beth Humstone, concluded that a Wal-Mart would result in a net loss of 500 jobs five years after opening. The St. Albans Wal-Mart would be the largest of its kind in Vermont---at 146,755 s.f.---larger than the proposal introduced in 1993 that measured 100,000 s.f. Today that impact will be even worse, because a large Price Chopper grocery store is now located less than a mile away, as well as a Hannaford’s grocery store in another neighboring mall.

In August of 2008, the owner of the nearby mall urged that Wal-Mart be forced to drop any plans for a grocery store as part of the deal. Highgate Commons, which is located roughly half a mile from the proposed Wal-Mart site, has a Hannafords and a Peebles department store that would take a hit financially if the Wal-Mart is built. The owners of Highgate Commons insisted that the permit have language in it that would exclude the possibility of a grocery store. The owner of a nearby gas station also appealed in the case---concerned that Wal-Mart often opens gas stations in his parking lots.

In June of 2009, Sprawl-Busters reported that the Environmental Court had held three days of hearings on the Wal-Mart project. Judge Thomas Durkin listened to testimony that focused on economic impacts and traffic. Developer Davis introduced a new economic assessment, conducted by Northern Economic Associates (NEA), which said that Wal-Mart would bring 240 jobs to Franklin County---225 at Wal-Mart and another 15 elsewhere. According to the new study, only 11 jobs would be lost at other “general merchandisers.” “There’s no one to drive out of business,” the study’s author said, since there are no general merchandisers in the area. “There isn’t anyone of significance to push out.”

On January 20, 2010, six months after the court hearings concluded, the Environmental Court issued a 55 page decision affirming the developer’s right to proceed in St. Albans---but with a lot of financial strings attached. Judge Durkin is requiring Wal-Mart to make payments to the city of St. Albans—which is adjacent to the Town of the same name---to compensate for economic harm that will befall the city’s core downtown area. Depending on when construction starts, Jeff Davis will be required to pay up to $400,000 to the city. The developer also will be required to buy and renovate at least 4 properties in the city’s downtown, spending at least $1.5 million to buy the properties, plus at least $1 million more to renovate them. Davis must agree to be a major development partner in the city’s downtown core project, and contribute $50,000 to that effort.

In addition, Judge Durkin is requiring that the Wal-Mart cannot have more than 10,000 s.f. of retail floor space devoted to food items. If Wal-Mart wants to exceed that figure, it must file an application for an amendment to its Act 250 permit. Davis also must follow through on his promise to pay the town of St. Albans for any municipal costs that exceed the amount of taxes being paid by the project. Davis also agreed to pay for 8 major roadway improvements. Because the project will negatively impact 58 acres of prime agricultural land, Davis agreed to an “agricultural mitigation agreement” that requires him to pay $167,622.50 to the Vermont Housing and Conservation Board to help conserve farmland.

The limit on food sales was a controversial issue during the hearings. Davis told the Board that his Wal-Mart would not be a superstore, and would not carry groceries or have a gas station. Judge Durkin wrote, “There is no evidence in the record…that would allow for the operation of a Wal-Mart expanded beyond its conventional discount store theme.” But Wal-Mart is no longer building discount stores—a fact the Judge seems to have missed. In a story from the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette dated October 22, 2009, it was reported that “in addition to supercenters, Wal-Mart operates general merchandise discount stores, a format it is no longer adding to its store base.”

In reviewing the economic impacts of the Wal-Mart superstore, the Judge concluded that “none of the factors that led to the denial of the Wal-Mart developed in 1993 are likely to exist…some 15 years later.” The Judge reasoned that all the discount stores in the area, like Ames, Woolworths and Ben Franklin “closed without competition from Wal-Mart.” But Durkin adds: “Some might suggest that the demise of these competing discount stores was assisted by the national prominence of Wal-Mart and the presence of a Wal-Mart in Williston a number of miles away.” The court opined that “the proposed Wal-Mart will fill a void that now exists in the local discount retail market.” “To say that the proposed Wal-Mart is out of scale and exceeds the regions commercial needs,” the Judge added, “is to ignore the credible evidence presented of the expansion of commercial activities in this area, all the while experiencing a steep decline in retail sales that remain in the region, given that the 3 prior discount stores have decided to remove themselves from this market.”

Less than a mile from the site is a Peebles department store, which replaced the empty Ames store. Davis’ economic consultant claimed the new Wal-Mart would not create any secondary growth, because the author visited eight other Wal-Marts---half of them in Vermont. Much of the secondary growth has already arrived, the consultant said, such as fast food restaurants. But the VNRC attorney established that consultant’s impact study failed to consider the available land right around the Wal-Mart site. Opponents entered the testimony of an economist who challenged the model used by Davis’ consultant to predict economic impacts, and the testimony of the owner of Highgate Commons, who said his center alone will lose at least seven stores. The owner of Highgate Commons said sales at a shopping center he owns in North Carolina dropped 16% following the opening of a Wal-Mart nearby. The ruling from the Environmental Court is not likely to sit well with opponents, who are expected to announce their next steps in the near future.

What you can do: Because Judge Durkin dismissed the notion that Davis wants to build a supercenter, he ignored the dramatic impact that this superstore will have on nearby grocery stores like Hannaford’s and Price Chopper. But as a precaution, the Judge required Wal-Mart to amend its permit if it wants to use more than 10,000 s.f. for food, “so that operation of the proposed Wal-Mart does not morph into a store…that provides direct competition with area grocery stores or supermarkets.” This is exactly what will happen, since Wal-Mart has no interest in building discount stores. Since Davis pledged to pay more taxes if the cost of his development to the town exceeded his property tax payments, Durkin concluded, “we find no basis for concluding that the proposed development is likely to cause unreasonable impacts upon the ability of local governments to provide municipal and governmental services.”

Last June, during the court hearings, Durkin told the media: “This isn’t easy stuff, if it was we wouldn’t be here.” Local opponents of the St. Alban’s project had assumed all along that the town board would approve the Act 250 permit. That’s what happened in 1995, and that’s what was expected in 2008. The citizens group, Northwest Citizens for Responsible Growth, says on its website, “Here in Franklin County, we are struggling against efforts to convert some of the largest concentrations of prime-agricultural soils in the state to large-scale retail and residential development. Successful organic farms on the perimeters of these soils will be threatened. We cannot allow this to happen, as high quality Vermont farm products and the countryside in which they are grown represent the two most promising industries for Franklin County, as we embark on the twenty-first century. Vermonters need to be especially careful not to overload their winding roads and covered bridges, not to ruin their green rolling landscapes and not to empty out their small historic downtowns. More than a quarter of the state’s income comes from tourism, and nobody’s going to mail home a postcard of Wal-Mart.”

There are currently only 4 Wal-Mart stores in Vermont—the smallest number in any state. The Green Mountain state has not proven to be very hospitable soil for Wal-Marts. Readers are urged to email the NWCRG at: to find out how you can donate funds to their legal defense of the town and city of St. Albans. If opponents that are parties to this case decide to appeal the Environmental Court decision, this marathon battle in Vermont could run on for many more months.

Topics: | | | Community Impact | Economic/Small Business | Lawsuits | Organizing | | |

Posted by Al Norman on Sunday, January 24, 2010 | Permalink

Page 1 of 259 pages  1 2 3 >  Last »