A Walmart in Your Backyard

Even wanted to know what it is like to live near a new Walmart store as it’s being developed? Well today is your lucky day! This blog, ENDURING THE NEW HURRICANE WALMART: A Daily Diary Of What It’s Like To Have A Massive Supercenter Built In A Formerly Quiet Neighborhood, from a local West Virginia news site is an ongoing first hand account of just that.

Here’s just a sample of what you would be in for if Walmart decided to move in to your backyard:

A beautiful tree-covered hill and a quiet Hurricane neighborhood have been destroyed in order to build the new Walmart and Hurricane Marketplace.

Neighbors, including me,
are being subjected to
loud noise that I can hear inside my home with the windows closed, bright lights shining in my bedroom window before sunrise, and several cases of our water being cut off.

Greedy city and county officials looking to grab more property and Business and Occupancy taxes are refusing to enforce city and state noise ordinances, and are also refusing to buy out the homeowners that are living next to the construction site.

Hurricane City Manager Benjamin Newhouse, and Cleveland Construction Supervisor David Koon have both demanded that homeowners move if we don’t like the noise. However neither is willing to cut a check for our homes.

The Putnam County Development Authority, which created this mess, refuses to buy us out and develop our land.

Has anyone else had an experience like this? Did Walmart bring excessive noise, traffic, crime, or pollution to your neighborhood, as they so often do?

Topics: |

Posted by Media Team on Thursday, March 04, 2010 | Permalink

Exeter, PA. Wal-Mart Superstore Suffers Setback By Silence

It appears that Wal-Mart is down for the count in a small Pennsylvania community, after local officials dealt them a silent blow to the head.

Almost a year ago, on March 26, 2009, Sprawl-Busters reported that the Planning Commission in Exeter, a small borough with roughly 6,000 people, had voted 2-1 to recommend to the Borough Council that land slated for a Wal-Mart supercenter be rezoned commercially.

Residents against the supercenter formed a group called “Exeter First” to prevent the industrially-zoned parcel from being rezoned to commercial. The rezoning was essential to pave the way for a 153,000 s.f. supercenter on the undeveloped 15.5 acre site.

The Borough Council chambers were packed with residents when the Planning Commission met, and the rezoning vote came “despite residents’ pleas to hold off on a decision,” according to the Times Leader newspaper. The land Wal-Mart wants is the site of a former mobile home park, and is zoned light industrial. Wal-Mart argued that rezoning the land was appropriate, because the site lies inside a corridor that already has many other commercial businesses---but none of them nearly the size of three football fields.

Opponents charged that the huge development would overwhelm the sewage system in the town. Wal-Mart’s engineers said the large impervious site would somehow reduce flooding in the area, because it will have an underground retention basin that will hold stormwater and release it slowly. Flooding is a major issue in Exeter, because part of this project lies in the Hicks Creek watershed, and the borough has had a moratorium on construction in the watershed because of past flooding problems. Increased traffic congestion was also raised by a number of area residents, as well as concerns over traffic cutting through side streets, and the impact the project would have overall on nearby residential property values.

Exeter Borough Council Chairman Richard Murawski appeared to be ready to approve the project before it even reached his desk. Murawski referred to the project as a “Home Town Wal-Mart” in the Pittston Dispatch, and admitted that Wal-Mart had a ‘work session’ with the Council in late February, 2009, at which Wal-Mart presented detailed plans to deal with stormwater runoff. Murawski told the Dispatch at that time that “everything is looking positive” for the project, and that he believed the superstore would “create 300 plus jobs, while increasing Exeter’s tax base, something that is truly beneficial in this economy.”

On June 2, 2009 the Borough Council voted to conduct an overall study of the impact of the rezoning of the Wyoming Avenue/Route 11 corridor parcel. According to the Citizen’s Voice newspaper, the study would examine the proposed store’s environmental, traffic, employment and tax base effects, and would be underwritten by the landowners.

This week, Wal-Mart received what The Citizen’s Voice called a “potential knockout blow” when the Borough Council failed to adopt any motion to rezone land for the Wal-Mart. There were two ordinances before the Council, but when one councilor made a motion to reject the rezoning, there was silence: no one seconded it, and it died. Of the two motions Wal-Mart wanted---neither one of them could get a second either, so the silence of Council members killed the rezoning---at least for now. Because there was no vote at all, technically Wal-Mart can return and try again. “It was a victory,” said Exeter First’s attorney. “The residents have been heard loud and clear.” But the borough’s attorney sounded a note of caution: “It was not defeated. So what can happen is it was basically tabled.”

What you can do: A disappointed Wal-Mart attorney tried to suggest that Wal-Mart would take its marbles and go elsewhere. When asked if other towns might want them, Wal-Mart’s Philadelphia lawyer said, “I guess we’ll start answering all the phone calls.” Chairman Murawski told The Citizen Voice after the vote the store must fit the community. Exeter First had argued that the borough needed to be in control of its future---not the developer. “Wal-Mart doesn’t get to zone the community, you do,” said the opponent’s lawyer. “If you want Wal-Mart for some reason, plan for it. … That gentleman (Wal-Mart’s attorney) is going back to Philadelphia, but these people are going to be here forever.”

One resident summed up opponents objections to the store: “A big-box store doesn’t belong in a small town. It will destroy what we have here.” At the first Council hearing in early June of 2009, one Exeter resident presented the Borough Council with a petition against the Wal-Mart bearing 300 signatures. One Council member, when presented with the petition, told the public, “My vote, when I do vote, pro or against, will be what the majority wants in this town … and believe me, if I have to go door to door, I will.”

The day before the March, 2009 hearing, the citizen’s group issued the following press release: “Exeter First, a group of Exeter and Wyoming Valley residents concerned about the proposed construction of a Wal-Mart Supercenter in Exeter, will attend the Exeter Borough Planning Commission Meeting…The group has questions and concerns about traffic safety, traffic congestion, and water runoff regarding the proposal by a developer to construct a Wal-Mart Supercenter on Wyoming Avenue in Exeter.” An engineering firm hired to work on rezoning the borough, suggested to the council that they should deny both ordinances until his firm presents its ideas for a big-box ordinance which will give the borough more control over developments.

Readers are urged to call Borough Chairman Richard Murkawski at (570) 654-3001 with this message: “Mr. Chairman, I am encouraged by the silence that greeted Wal-Mart’s zoning changes, and I urge you to do nothing on this project until the borough has put into place tighter controls over large-scale projects. In the meantime, you already have a nearby Wal-Mart in Pittston just minutes away, plus a superstore in Wilkes-Barre less than 7 miles away. More Wal-Marts are being built nearby. This project will add little or no economic value to your community, because it is already saturated with Wal-Marts. That means more market share taken from existing merchants--and no new jobs. The land in question has been light industrial since at least 1972, and you could attract better paying jobs by keeping the land industrially zoned, instead of ‘down-zoning’ it to commercial. There are serious traffic and environmental concerns that have not been fully explored. You can’t buy small town quality of life on any Wal-Mart shelf---but once they take it from you---you can’t buy it back at any price. A small community of 6,000 people has no need for a superstore the size of three football fields. Vote NO on the rezoning, and redo your zoning ordinance to make sure this kind of sprawl never comes before the Council again.”

Topics: | | | | | Community Impact | Economic/Small Business | Environment | Traffic/Sprawl | Comprehensive Plans | Organizing | Zoning Regulations | |

Posted by Al Norman on Thursday, March 04, 2010 | Permalink

Ventura, CA. Wal-Mart Returns With A 98,000 S.F. Superstore

On January 31, 2008, Sprawl-Busters reported that citizens in Ventura, California were trying to get their elected officials to clamp down on superstore development. To force the issue, they decided to take the issue directly to the voters to get what they wanted.

A coalition of citizen and labor groups announced that they were filing a ballot initiative to ban any grocery stores larger than 90,000 s.f. They held a press conference in front of an empty Kmart store that Wal-Mart wants to tear down and replace with a much larger supercenter. “It’s our city. It’s our choice,” a spokesman for Livable Ventura, one of the groups backing the initiative, told the Ventura County Star.

By filing the ballot question, the group blocked any superstore project because the ballot measure did not appear until November of 2009. To get on the ballot, the group had to collect more than 8,900 signatures. Livable Ventura relied on door to door volunteers. The initiative as drafted defined a “superstore” as any building in excess of 90,000 s.f. that devotes more than 3% of the sales floor to nontaxable grocery items. Wal-Mart superstores typically devote 40% or more of their floorspace to groceries.

“It doesn’t ban a Target, or a Best Buy or J.C. Penney,” a spokesman for the coalition of groups told the newspaper. Wal-Mart’s reaction to the announcement of a ballot initiative was not surprising. “We’re disappointed in their decision to pursue further ways to keep us out of the community.” On July 28, 2008, Sprawl-Busters updated the story to note that organizers had reached their signature goal.

In February of 2009, Wal-Mart submitted plans for a 130,000 s.f. superstore. Their proposal involved remodeling several adjacent vacant buildings on Victoria Avenue, including the empty Kmart, and tearing down some interior walls to join the buildings. On April 20, 2009, the Ventura City Council held a public meeting on the big box size cap. According to KABC TV, the City Council voted in support of a proposal to limit retail store size along the Victoria Avenue commercial corridor. The cap approved by the Council was 100,000 s.f. This made Wal-Mart’s plans for a 130,000 s.f. store in violation of city code.

But the Council also voted 5-2 to allow existing stores on Victoria Avenue to update their buildings by adding loading docks, new entrances, and other structural changes. This vote was seen as a way for the Council to allow Wal-Mart to move into the 84,000 s.f. Kmart store and make changes to the building. The following November, when the issue finally reached the ballot, 56% of the voters rejected the limit, leaving Wal-Mart free to propose a store up to 100,000 s.f.

This week, three months after the size cap was rejected at the ballot, the Ventura County Star reports that Wal-Mart has submitted new plans to open a store at the former Kmart site. The Wal-Mart, at 98,000 s.f., will come in just below the City Council’s cap of 100,000 s.f. Wal-Mart will reuse some of the old Kmart building, but change the interior walls, put up a new building façade, and have space available for a couple of small additional tenants. The new proposal will come before the city’s Design Review Committee. This is just a preliminary viewing of the plan, and according to The Star, no vote will be taken at this meeting.

What you can do: The last time Wal-Mart unveiled a building plan for this site, in October of 2009, opponents panned the design, charging that the suburban style store was incompatible with the rest of the existing mall, which includes a smaller Trader Joe’s. Residents and the Design Review Committee agreed that circulation in the parking lot was still a problem.

Ventura’s zoning rules for the Victoria Avenue Corridor Plan are part of a 20-year growth plan that was supposed to revitalize the area with pedestrian-friendly uses and office space to encourage high-wage jobs. Clearly not a good match with a Wal-Mart.

In January, 2008, Ventura’s City Manager wrote that the city council’s 6-1 vote to limit any single store to 100,000 total s.f. would apply to any retailer. “But it is the possibility that Wal-Mart might replace the K-Mart that evokes passion on both sides of the issue,” he admitted. “The city’s 2005 General Plan clearly called for eliminating ‘big box,’ mega block auto-oriented strip developed and the traffic patterns it generates,” the city manager wrote. “By breaking large parcels into blocks no bigger than 300’ by 300’, the proposed Victoria code already limits the coverage of a building, but the 100,000 s.f. cap seeks to keep out the ‘biggest’ of the ‘big boxes’ on an already congested street. Of course, Wal-Mart has the option of simply reoccupying the soon-to-be-vacant K-Mart building or conform to the new proposed rules on building design and overall size.”

Under the city’s zoning rules, if a retailer chooses to re-use an existing building, it could face added conditions if the project lowered wages, increased the pressure for affordable housing, added traffic, or negatively impacted other businesses. Opposition to the superstore has been very vocal in Ventura. One Ventura resident summed up the feeling of many city residents when she told the Ventura County Star, “If it’s between a vacant store and Wal-Mart, vacant is good with me. I don’t like Wal-Mart. I don’t like what they have done to other towns.” To help the work of the Stop Wal-Mart Coalition, contact CAUSE, 2021 Sperry #18, Ventura 93003, (805) 658-0810. More background can be found at http://www.stopwalmartventura.com.

Readers are urged to contact Ventura Mayor Bill Fulton at with this message: “Dear Mayor Fulton, In your recent state of the city address, you singled out the Ventura downtown as worthy of attention. ‘We established downtown as a regional attraction…There is nothing like our downtown scene, our art, culture, music, and restaurant scene anywhere along the coast between Santa Monica and Santa Barbara. And people are discovering it.’ Wal-Mart will not help your ‘retail draw’ as you describe it. People will discover that Ventura is like any other Wal-Mart town. You should continue to insist that Wal-Mart shrink this store size until it is compatible with the rest of the community, and does not lasting harm to your downtown. You also said you wanted to ‘encourage the growth of business opportunities that will provide our community with high-wage jobs, and encourage retail and visitor opportunities that are unique – that you can only find in Ventura – instead of those you can find anywhere.’ This is not what you get with the low wage jobs at Wal-Mart---a project that you literally can find anywhere. The best place for discount shopping and grocery stores is downtown—not along Victoria Avenue. I urge you to tell the Design Review Committee that you want a store that does not max out the city’s building cap, but fits in comfortably below it. A 49,000 s.f. Wal-Mart on two stories would cut the footprint in half and leave you with another acres of land for green space.”

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

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

Poway, CA. Candidates For Public Office Told Not To Discuss Wal-Mart Deal

A gag order has been put into effect in the community of Poway, California. Candidates running for public office have been warned by the city not to tell voters how they feel about a proposed Wal-Mart expansion, at the risk of a lawsuit by Wal-Mart over due process issues.

On April 6, 2008, Sprawl-Busters first reported that Wal-Mart wanted to expand its discount store in Poway. Wal-Mart purchased the former Plowboys Market, a farmers market-style retailer in September of 2007, located right behind an existing Wal-Mart, to make room for the expansion.

In December, 2007 the company submitted plans to add 49,177 s.f. to the existing Wal-Mart store, which has been in Poway since 1992. This city of roughly 51,000 people claims that life in Poway is “the way California was meant to be.” But many residents of Poway think that a larger Wal-Mart is not meant to be. “Poway will not be the same ever again if we let this happen,” said a spokesman for the South Poway Residents Association. Opponents charge that a superstore would worsen the traffic congestion in the area, force other supermarkets to close, and bring low-wage jobs to the area.

On July 6, 2008, Sprawl-Busters noted that Wal-Mart had actually filed its expansion plans. The trade area in Poway is already saturated with regional grocery stores near the existing Wal-Mart---Vons, Statler Brothers, and Henry’s. On September 11, 2009, Sprawl-Busters reported that Wal-Mart had shrunk the size of the store---but only by 9%. The comprehensive draft environmental impact report is being written by a private firm selected by the city, paid for by Wal-Mart, and is expected to be finished around April of 2010.

On January 2, 2010, Sprawl-Busters reported that a new citizen’s group has been formed, called NO WE, which stands for No Wal-Mart Expansion. One of the group’s leaders, David Grosch, told the newspaper, “We know we have an uphill fight here because it’s not a new Wal-Mart — it’s an expansion.” NO WE says the Wal-Mart store currently is five miles from the closest major freeway. “The real question is: Does a big-box store fit in the center of Poway?” Grosch told the newspaper. “I would just say enough is enough.”

Grosch is now running for City Council, and he has been told by the city’s attorney that he and all the other city councilors should refrain from expressing any opinion on the subject of Wal-Mart. “In order to safeguard the City Council’s ultimate decision in a controversial land use matter from due process challenges,” the city’s lawyer said in a memo, “it is recommended that City Councilmembers avoid meeting with interested parties prior to the public hearing, avoid committing to a decision prior to the public hearing, and provide all documents and other evidence that they receive to the City Clerk so that it can be made part of the record for the public hearing.” The lawyer went on to suggest that any candidate, like Grosch, “who take a strong public position regarding a particular land use matter are at risk for being disqualified from participating in that matter if elected to the City Council.”

Grosch is running as a replacement candidate if the voters recall current Councilor Betty Rexford in the June 8th election. Grosch protested the lawyer’s ruling. “The last I heard we live in a representative Democracy – that should mean that people who run for public office express their views on various subjects and you vote the person who best represents your opinion. It makes no sense to exclude an elected representative from any vote solely because he expressed his opinion on an issue when running for office.”

Another candidate, Howard Collins, has also expressed opposition to the expansion. According to the Poway News Chieftain, a third candidate, Roger Willoughby, has also stated that he opposes the Wal-Mart expansion. Once Wal-Mart’s environmental impact report is ready, there will be a public hearing in early May, and another hearing before the city council by mid July. “The Wal-Mart expansion decision is a quasi-judicial decision involving an applicant with due process rights, because it involves City Council approval of a revision to Wal-Mart’s existing Development Review,” the city’s attorney wrote. “It is best to avoid the appearance of bias and the risk of a challenge by remaining neutral regarding the matter until all of the evidence has been presented.”

Deputy Mayor Carl Kruse said the advice to city councilors and is “all about due process. You’ve got to give everyone fair treatment.” The likelihood is that Wal-Mart will litigate if they lose their expansion even if David Grosch says nothing further from this day on.

What you can do: A similar situation regarding a controversial Wal-Mart project came up in North Whitehall, Pennsylvania last month. At the North Whitehall Township Board of Supervisors meeting on Jan 19, 2010, newly-elected township supervisor Jerry Joseph was asked by Wal-Mart’s attorney to recuse himself from all voting matters involving Wal-Mart, including not just Board of Supervisor’s votes, but planning commission votes as well, since Joseph is the Supervisor’s representative to the planning commission.

Wal-Mart also charged that Jeffery Dimmich, the town’s newly elected auditor, who has been active in the same group against Wal-Mart, has a similar conflict. In response to Wal-Mart’s charges, Supervisor Joseph released a statement which was read into the record of the January 26th North Whitehall Planning Commission.

“First let me say that I didn’t take on the responsibility of township supervisor just to say no to Wal-Mart,” Joseph wrote. “If anyone thinks this is the case, then they are severely underestimating me. I’ve taken on this responsibility to help the township and its residents deal with the many concerns of the township including arsenic-tainted properties, heavy metals in drinking water, police coverage and security concerns, managing growing pains of the township, and general township operations. As township supervisor, I am tasked by the 15,000 plus residents of the township to use my good judgment and common sense in guiding the township through the maze of issues at hand and those we face in the future….”

“My concern isn’t the entity that is Wal-mart. My concern is that the megastore will bring traffic from all surrounding townships to a portion of RT 309 that is already heavily traveled and very congested. Our section of RT 309 is mostly residential as it has 300 properties along it, the majority of which are private residences housing over 500 people. Across the street from the Wal-Mart property is a private residence. What will their life be like with the Wal-Mart traffic and lights on all night for the 24/7 operation?…”

“I feel I can be very objective on this issue. On all issues before me, I must look at the facts and make informed decisions based on facts, not my feelings. If an applicant passes all phases of land development with no issues, then I would have a difficult time saying NO to them. The issue of recusal is a slippery slope. If I were to voluntarily recuse myself on issues where the land development applicants think I’m opposed, other applicants will be emboldened to ask me to recuse myself on their projects. I cannot let this happen. If I were to recuse myself on issues that seem difficult or when requested by land development applicants, I would be letting down not only the residents of the township who are counting on me to make the difficult decisions, but also would be letting myself down as I take extreme pride in the work I do and the decisions I make.”

“I am not here to take the easy way out. Recusing myself from Board of Supervisor responsibilities on this issue for me would be the easy way out. It would turn my vote basically into a NO vote as majority rule would still require 2 YES votes from the other supervisors. This would put undue pressure on my supervisor colleagues and I have too much respect for them to do this…I am disappointed that a company who claims to be a good neighbor would immediately come after a township official with no provocation based on actions in office, and only based on issues that the person has participated in as a private citizen. These actions by Wal-Mart only serve to embarrass and bully me with threats of legal action if I do not conform to the wishes of their legal counsel. It does worry me that in the future, township officials will continue to be bullied and lawsuits will follow any time Wal-Mart does not get their way.”

“I am not an unreasonable person. Even though the appeals that were filed on my behalf were directed at my own township and the opportunistic ways approvals were applied, and not directed at Wal-Mart, I will agree to make some concessions to show good faith…Each of the items for which discussions and decisions are made, which include conditional use, subdivision, and land development, are separate items and must be considered separately. Therefore, I too, will consider these items separately. I will voluntarily recuse myself on all matters in which I have participated in appeals which although were directed at my own township, included Wal-Mart. These matters include conditional use and subdivision and do not include land development in which I plan to participate not only on the Board of Supervisors, but also on the planning commission.”

After Joseph’s statement, the town’s lawyer repeated her opinion that Joseph had shown ‘bias’ against Wal-Mart, and that asking for his recusal made sense. The Planning Commission ultimately decided to proceed with the case, without forcing Joseph to recuse himself.

Readers are urged to email Poway Mayor Don Higginson at with the following message: “Mayor Higginson, The one Wal-Mart in Poway today is one more than enough. If you allow the existing store to expand, all you will get is other merchants shutting down. The retail pie will get sliced thinner. The supercenter is neither a revenue nor a jobs project-—it’s economic displacement. Given the fact that debate on this issue will begin before the June election, it is important that people running for office give voters some sense of how they stand on major development issues, including big box expansion. Voters need to know how every candidate addresses these issues. The expression of these opinions can be done in a general way that does not violate due process. I suggest that you ask a second attorney familiar with municipal law to give you an independent analysis of due process, and what is appropriate for candidates to say about future projects in general. To do anything short of that would be to gag public candidates from speaking out on the issues that are critical to your constituents.”

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

Posted by Al Norman on Sunday, February 28, 2010 | Permalink

St. Albans, VT. More Legal Papers Fly in Longest Wal-Mart Battle

In what has been billed as the longest continuing big box battle over one piece of land, the Wal-Mart fight in St. Albans, Vermont---which began in 1994---was back in the headlines this week.

The Vermont Natural Resources Council (VNRC), which is representing plaintiffs opposing the Wal-Mart, filed a “Motion to Alter” a decision issued by the Environmental Court (EC) on January 20, 2010 because factual errors. 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.

The EC required 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, developer 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, the EC required 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. But Wal-Mart is no longer building discount stores—a fact the EC 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.”

This week, the VNRC told the Burlington Free Press that the court made some factual errors, such as stating that the abutting Hudak farm, which will be affected by the huge development, is not in the town of St.Albans---when in fact the Hudaks pay property taxes to St. Albans. The VNRC said the court ruling also “seems to equate the fact that commercial uses exist in the area of Hukak Farm with a conclusion that the proposed Wal-Mart will be compatible with the Hudak Farm operation. This conclusion ignores the fact that while the applicant did address the compatibility of the project with many commercial uses (some farther from the project than Hudak Farm) the Applicant did not even mention Hudak Farm in its analysis….the Applicant (is required) to address the impacts of its project on farms, and the Applicant did not perform this analysis.”

Developer Davis told the Free Press that this legal delay will end up costing the city of St. Albans money---because under his agreement with the city, he will pay more than $1 million to the city over 3 years, but if legal appeals drag on beyond December 31, 2010, the agreement calls for his payment to the city to drop by $100,000. The city has received roughly one-third of the $1 million due from the developer. So the financial “sweeteners” added to this project are already flowing—even though the project’s opponents have not exhausted their legal remedies.

Davis said he was ready to begin construction this spring, but now will be delayed because of the Motion To Alter. Davis, who took over this project 10 years into the process, has now been trying to discredit opponents for six years. He is also the developer of the largest Wal-Mart in Vermont, located roughly 25 minutes south of St. Albans in Williston, Vermont.

What you can do: The Environmental Court dismissed the notion that Davis wants to build a supercenter, not a discount store, thus ignoring the dramatic impact that this superstore will have on nearby grocery stores like Hannaford’s and Price Chopper. The owner of the nearby Highgate Commons mall, which includes the Hannaford’s, said sales at a shopping center he owns in North Carolina dropped 16% following the opening of a Wal-Mart nearby.

As a precaution, the Environmental Court 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. Davis made the unusual pledge to pay more taxes if the cost of his development to the town exceeded his property tax payments.

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. Because of citizen opposition, the developer of this project has been forced to pay an abutting city for potential damages to its downtown, and to become a partner in the development of downtown properties. This is an unusual agreement---one that would never have happened without pressure from citizen activists.

The developer now is trying to use the lure of his payments to the city as a way to pressure opponents to drop their appeal. This is about as likely to happen as Wal-Mart sourcing its products from American suppliers. 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. This 16 year marathon battle is still in full stride.

Topics: | | | | Community Impact | Economic/Small Business | Environment | Traffic/Sprawl | Comprehensive Plans | legislation | Organizing | Zoning Regulations | | | | |

Posted by Al Norman on Friday, February 26, 2010 | Permalink

Baltimore, MD. Wal-Mart Plans Superstore On Top Of Lowe’s

The city of Baltimore, Maryland could be getting its second Wal-Mart---a 93,000 s.f. supercenter that will be located in a rather unusal place.

Known best for its enormous, single story stand-alone box building format, Wal-Mart is going to build on top of a 100,000 s.f. Lowe’s home improvement store at a project known as the 25th Street Station.

Eight years ago Wal-Mart opened up its first Baltimore store in the waterfront area. Wal-Mart is trying to promote this project as a ‘green’ building, because it will have a ‘green roof’ with vegetation to filter the storm water runoff from the roof. Wal-Mart is suggesting that the project, which will cost $65 million, will produce 750 permanent jobs---which is an absurdly high figure—even for a Wal-Mart. Much larger supercenters are usually credited with 350 to 400 jobs—but this project is a smaller superstore prototype.

Wal-Mart job figures never are adjusted for the jobs that are killed at other retailers. “The site will do so many things, and it’s so consistent with where Baltimore is headed as far as the green movement, and trying to generate jobs,” a Wal-Mart spokesman told the Daily Record newspaper. “This area has informed us that they want a Wal-Mart.”

A Montreal-based developer said Wal-Mart approached him, because the retailer had done an internal survey which showed that nearly 4 out of 10 shoppers in Baltimore leave the city to shop in suburban areas, and 7 out 10 people surveyed said they approved of the idea of a second Wal-Mart in Baltimore.

As is always the case, area residents near the 25th Street Station wanted to have nothing to do with the project. A group called the Remington Neighborhood Alliance has raised concerns over traffic and the unattractive design typical of big box stores. “We’re not going to be focused on who the tenants are,” one leader of the RNA told the Daily Record. “We’re going to be focused on the physical details of the project, and the impact on the neighborhood.”

The Wal-Mart store as designed will be right up against the street edge. The project also includes 50-60 housing units, and 16 small retail stores on the first floors of the rear of these houses.

Symbolically, this Wal-Mart represents the changing times in American cities: the site the retailer wants was a GM and Honda dealership for more than half a century, but with the implosion of the American auto industry, the dealership in Baltimore was notified by General Motors that the car maker would no longer be selling cars at the 25th Street Station area. As the auto industry shrinks, its land is being bought up by the one company that propers in a recession: Wal-Mart.

The project is not approved yet---but city officials are not likely to lose sleep over the concerns expressed by neighbors. Wal-Mart needs to get a Planned Unit Development from the Planning Board. The developer’s architectural plan will be reviewed by the city this week.

What you can do: It is ironic that Detroit’s meltdown, which robbed the GM dealership in Baltimore of his franchise, is paving the way for another Wal-Mart superstore. This is definitely ‘trading down’ jobs. Baltimore ends up getting a truck load full of low-wage jobs, most of which will displace other existing low wage jobs at other retailers.

Wal-Mart’s spokesman told the Baltimore Business Journal, “The store will deliver outstanding value to customers and create quality job opportunities for local residents.” These are not “quality jobs,” and offer little by way of opportunity.

Retailing in Baltimore the past few years has been like a game of musical chairs. When the music stops, someone is left without a chair to sit on. About a year ago, Filene’s Basement announced that it was closing down three stores in Baltimore. Other major retailers have shut down also. Regional retailer Boscov’s Department Stores shut down three stores, and discount retailer C-Mart closed a store last year as well. One of the Filene’s that closed was in the Towson Place Shopping Center. The store was only open for five years. It was located near a Wal-Mart and a Target in the same mall. The rash of store closings cost the city hundreds of jobs---which explains why Wal-Mart’s claim of “new” jobs are not a net bottom line figure. The big box national chains like Wal-Mart kill off the smaller regional chains like Filene’s, Boscov’s and C-Mart.

Readers are urged to email Baltimore Mayor Stephanie Rawlings-Blake at with the following message: “Dear Mayor Rawlings-Blake, In your State of the City speech, you referred more than once to the city’s historic $120 million deficit. You pledged to continue efforts to revitalize main streets and support small businesses. Do you do that by supporting more suburban sprawl like the proposed Wal-Mart at the 25th Street Station? If you talk to your small businesses, they will explain to you why Filene’s is gone, why Boscov’s left, why C-Mart shut down a store. When you let Wal-Mart build in your city, you are inviting the cannibals to dinner. There are no ‘new’ jobs being created by this project. Wal-Mart has been compared to the plague: it makes all businesses sick, and kills the weak. You should use your influence to reject the Planned Unit Development for this project, and try to bring in companies that make something---instead of companies that glut our markets with cheap Chinese products. When you make a mistake with Wal-Mart, it’s a big mistake. Please act now, before its too late.”

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

Posted by Al Norman on Wednesday, February 24, 2010 | Permalink

Ontario, CA. Wal-Mart Superstore Still Tied Up By Opponents

On September 11, 2007, Sprawl-Busters reported that citizens in Ontario, California were battling a Wal-Mart supercenter. There are 19 Wal-Marts within 20 miles of Ontario, including a supercenter 6 miles away in Chino.

Ontario calls itself the “gateway to Southern California.” The city is located 35 miles east of Los Angeles, and has a population of roughly 173,000 people. A Wal-Mart supercenter was proposed for Mountain Avenue and Fifth Street. The project was approved by the Ontario Planning Commission on August 30, 2007, but a group called the Ontario Mountain Village Association filed an appeal to overturn the Planning Board vote at the city council. The group was represented by Attorney Cory Briggs of San Diego.

Their appeal charged that Wal-Mart’s environmental impact report did not adequately describe the project and all of its environmental impacts, and was based on outdated or incorrect information and lacked sufficient evidence. The residents claimed that the city did not come up with sufficient “findings” to show that the positives outweigh the negatives of the project. The proposal was also inconsistent with the city’s General Plan for land use. The group challenged the development plan and the granting of a conditional use permit. The appeal also charged that the city had a financial interest in the project and the applicant, therefore any favorable decision would be a conflict of interest. “We think the severity of the traffic and air-quality impacts have been understated,” Briggs told the newspaper. “As bad as they were reported in the Environmental Impact Report, we think they’re even worse. They’re still trying to put lipstick on a pig.”

In November of 2007, the Ontario City Council kissed the pig, giving Wal-Mart a unanimous 4-to-0 vote of support. That vote led to a courtroom---not a ribbon-cutting. Residents appealed to Superior Court. This week, two a half years since our last report, there is still no supercenter in Ontario. The Ontario Mountain Village Association is still fighting it off. The Daily Bulletin reports that residents paid a visit to the City Council last week, asking for “better dialogue” on the project.

“You cut us off and refused to meet with us, you only have one side of the story,” said Association member Judy Briggs, who is the mother of the lawyer representing the group. The Association reminded the Council that last July, when their appeal went to court, the Superior Court Judge ruled that the environmental impact report was adequate---but he asked the city to come up with a supplemental traffic safety report---a study which has not been done. The Association urged the City Council to get that study done, and give the public 45 days to comment on it.

Neighbors also want the site cleaned up where Wal-Mart wants to locate. There are three empty retail stores there: a Target, Toys “R” Us and Food 4 Less-—all stores that have been hurt by the recession and competition from Wal-Mart. “We are looking for a better way of life and this is why we are fighting to keep the 24-hour Wal-Mart out of Mountain and Fifth Avenue,” one resident told the Bulletin.

One of the new city councilors who has not voted on the Wal-Mart project, told residents she was concerned about the health impacts of the store and the financial impacts on the local economy. Councilor Debra Dorst-Porada said the Wal-Mart Supercenter could end up causing the nearby Albertsons grocery store in the nearby Ontario Plaza to close. Ontario Mayor Paul Leon asked the city’s lawyer at one point in the discussion, “Have we passed the point of no return?”

What you can do: In fact, the City Council could changet its vote, since all the studies and facts are not in on this project. Over time, as elections have changed the composition of the Council, it appears that support for the superstore may be waning. One city councilor said last week that his supportive vote three years ago was based on what information he had at the time. “I would suggest at some point to consider the project,” he told the audience. Council Dorst-Porada, was quoted by The Bulletin as saying, “The Mountain Village Association graciously has said they would be fine with a Wal-Mart as long as it didn’t have a supermarket. They’re willing to compromise. I hope Wal-Mart takes it to heart. I hope Wal-Mart comes in and negotiates with residents and comes up with something we can all be proud of.”

Readers are urged to contact Ontario Mayor Paul Leon at (909) 395-2011. Tell the Mayor: “You have not passed the point of no return on the Wal-Mart project. What might have seemed like a good idea three years ago, can be rejected now. Once your traffic study is done, the Council can consider a motion to deny the project, or dramatically scale it back to lessen its impacts. The neighbors will continue to push back on this project, the Wal-Mart site is a mess, and the project is simply not compatible with surrounding residential uses. I urge you to return to this issue, and vote it down.”

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

Posted by Al Norman on Sunday, February 21, 2010 | Permalink

Sheboygan, WI. Wal-Mart Store Sits Empty—Thanks To Wal-Mart

Wal-Mart has 44 properties for sale in Wisconsin, including 9 buildings that are sitting empty. Of these 9 properties, 3 are over 100,000 s.f. The dead store in Sheboygan, Wisconsin is not even listed by Wal-Mart Realty. The company is trying to sell the one lot remaining at its new Superstore site on Vanguard Avenue in Sheboygan just a few miles away from its ‘old’ store---but it is the dead store Wal-Mart left behind that now has city officials worried.

According to Wal-Mart, Sheboygan has roughly 82,000 people within a 10 mile radius of their new supercenter. But in 1989, when Wal-Mart first opened a discount store in this city, local officials had no idea that 17 years later the retailer would shut the store down. But even worse---Wal-Mart put restrictions on the building when they sold it to a private developer, that effectively ties up the store for another 4 years.

According to the Sheboygan-Press, the ‘old’ store has been empty since 2006. It was the anchor store for a mall known as Taylor Heights. Wal-Mart sold its building to developers based in Milwaukee---but there were some serious strings attached to the sale of the 129,000 s.f. building. Wal-Mart walked away from this huge property insisting that any new owner could not use it for a grocery store, pharmacy, or discount department store larger than 30,000 s.f. These restrictions are in place until the year 2014---giving the new Wal-Mart supercenter plenty of time to establish its customer base—without nearby competition.

Such deed covenants have been standard operating procedure at Wal-Mart realty, which is why you don’t see many empty Wal-Marts filled by competitors. This store in Sheboygan is one of an estimated 250 ‘ghost boxes’ that Wal-Mart is trying to unload. A Wal-Mart spokesman told the Sheboygan-Press that his company would like to have its dead stores reoccupied---just not with direct competitors.
Wal-Mart openly admits that these kind of deed restrictions are commonplace at Wal-Mart. “We welcome competition in the marketplace, but what we can’t be doing is providing infrastructure for our competitors in the same market,” the Wal-Mart spokesman told the newspaper. But this has left the city of Sheboygan chafing at the lack of redevelopment at this prominent commercial site. “It is obviously very frustrating,” Mayor Bob Ryan told the Press. The Mayor admitted that Wal-Mart’s actions “will hold back development at that property for years. And without that building filled, that area does not redevelop.”

Wal-Mart says it wants to get rid of these buildings, but its restrictions say otherwise. “We want to ensure our former locations are converted back into a productive use as soon as possible,” Wal-Mart explained to the Sheboygan-Press. “It makes good sense for us financially, and also for the community.” But holding these properties becomes a defensive way for Wal-Mart to keep the trade area as much to itself as possible.

What you can do: The building owner, BR Companies, says there have been retailers interested in the site, some of which were eliminated from contention because of Wal-Mart’s restrictions. Lack of an anchor at Taylor Heights prevents smaller stores from wanting to commit until they see who is filling the big empty space left by Wal-Mart. The owner revealed that he has gone back to Wal-Mart to try to get their permission to lease to a grocer---but so far Wal-Mart, the largest grocer in the world---has not consented.

About ten years ago, Wall Street analysts began criticizing Wal-Mart for carrying on its books hundreds of empty, nonproductive properties. At one point in the late 1990s, Wal-Mart had as many as 350 empty stores in their portfolio---stores they liked to refer to as ‘dark stores.’ They were carrying the expense of these stores, one-third of which were over 100,000 s.f., and one-third of which had been on the market for three years or longer. Wal-Mart responded to this criticism by hiring a bunch of private real estate companies across the country to help dispose of its properties, and expanded its Wal-Mart Realty staff to at least 7 people disposing of buildings and land. In some cases, Wal-Mart even gave away stores that were not moving. Despite this increased spending on marketing their ‘dark stores,’ several hundred of them are still dark.

If you assume at least 20 acres per site, Wal-Mart is currently sitting on at least 5,000 acres of properties with buildings—not counting the hundreds of parcels of land that they also are trying to sell.

Not only is the Taylor Heights mall 90% empty---but the Press says that at the nearby Memorial Mall, retailers are feeling a drop in traffic since Wal-Mart moved away. This unpleasant experience with dead stores has taught city officials in Sheboygan that they need to be better prepared next time. The city’s planning and zoning manager told the Press that he favors the idea of having empty big box stores demolished by their owner after a set time period to prevent dark stores in the first place. “We need to ensure that we do our due diligence to make sure these buildings are demolished so the vacancies don’t lead to areas that aren’t doing as well as they could be.”

Readers are urged to email Wal-Mart’s Real Estate manager Mike Webb at with the following message: “Dear Mr. Webb, For four years now, city officials in Sheboygan, Wisconsin have been worrying over your ‘dark store’ in their city. The restrictive covenants you have placed on your property have guaranteed that the ‘old’ store will not be sold---and those restrictions are in place another 4 years. It’s time for Wal-Mart to stop sitting on this store, and to release its new owners from your anti-competitive covenants. Wal-Mart likes to talk about the competitive marketplace and consumer choice, yet you take overt action like this to prevent anyone from using stores that you have abandoned. Shoppers in Sheboygan are being harmed by your decision to tie up that property. It’s time for Wal-Mart to get out of the way, and let any willing tenant use the building.”

Topics: | | | Environment |

Posted by Al Norman on Sunday, February 21, 2010 | Permalink

Page 1 of 261 pages  1 2 3 >  Last »