Pennsylvania Site Fight: Wal-Mart Eyes Lehigh
Wal-Mart has Lehigh Township in its sights [Morning Call (Pa.)]
A 127,000-square-foot Wal-Mart might soon pop up just south of Walnutport, according to plans being considered by Lehigh Township officials.
The proposed store, which might employ hundreds of people, would be built on a 35-acre site at Route 145 and Birch Drive. The spot is roughly 12 miles north of another Wal-Mart on Route 145 in Whitehall Township.
The proposal’s latest version still needs to go before Lehigh Township officials for approval, said Township Manager Alice Rehrig, so any construction work on the site is months away.
Similar projects in North Whitehall Township and elsewhere have drawn protests from residents who say Wal-Mart’s stores cause traffic problems and squeeze out local businesses.
The Lehigh Township site, which is now used for farming, is owned by developer LURRS Corp. The developer is also behind an unrelated proposal to build 245 modular homes on 103 acres near Route 145 and Birch Drive. Some Lehigh Township residents have been fighting that proposed development, known as Northwoods, for more than two years in and out of court.
Read the rest of this story ...
Posted by Alex Goldschmidt on Monday, March 17 | 0 comments | Permalink
Portrait Of A Victory: Lawrenceville, NJ
Attention all those fighting a Wal-Mart Store in your community: you can win, and here’s how.
In Today’s New Jersey Times, Robin Williams (no, not Patch Adams) penned a fascinating op-ed detailing how a community came together to defeat plans for a new Wal-Mart in Lawrenceville, NJ. Williams, leader of the local group Let’s Stop Wal-Mart, points out that while the local papers depicted Wal-Mart’s pullout as voluntary, area residents know the truth: that Wal-Mart abandoned its plans because the opposition was both widespread and relentless.
Williams describes how New Jerseyans of all walks - college students, senior citizens, union workers and environmentalists - all joined together to strengthen their coalition by canvassing neighborhoods, gathering signatures and writing letters to the editor of their local newspaper. All to preserve the “main street” culture that Lawrenceville celebrates, and to prevent the negative impact that new Wal-Mart would bring.
Why’d they fight so hard? Among other things, a new Wal-Mart would have:
- brought low-paying jobs with lousy benefits
- negatively impacted the surround environment with water runoff, increased energy use, and car and truck emissions
- created a traffic nightmare on an already dangerous road
- lowered the property values of surrounding homes, which would have dropped property tax revenues to a level that would have negated the sales tax revenue increase that the city so badly wanted
Congratulations, Lawrenceville: you put on a clinic for the rest of us.
Read the full article here:
Reading the newspaper re cently, one might conclude that Wal-Mart walked away from building a store on Spruce Street in Lawrence Township due to a change in strategy following the economic downturn (The Times, “Wal-Mart drops store plan—Retail giant says Lawrence site no longer fits marketing strategy,” Feb. 14). The Wal-Mart spin machine has indeed peddled this interpretation. The truth lies elsewhere.
Read the rest of this story ...
Posted by Eric Bull on Monday, March 17 | 5 comments | Permalink
Raynham, MA. Court Case Against Wal-Mart Reaches Closing Arguments
On January 14, 2008, Sprawl-Busters reported that Demoulas Super Markets Inc. of Tewksbury, Massachusetts, the parent company of Market Basket supermarkets, and owner of the Market Basket Plaza on Route 138 in Raynham, Massachusetts, had filed a lawsuit against a proposed Wal-Mart in Raynham. Demoulas filed their lawsuit in May of 2005, naming the Raynham Planning Board and Wal-Mart as defendants. Demoules challenged the legality of a Planning Board vote made on May 2, 2005 to grant Wal-Mart a special permit, paving the way for a 208,622-s.f. superstore at the former Par 3 golf course, located next to the Market Basket Plaza, close to the Taunton line. Demoulas says the Planning Board made its decision without full review of plans and without proper consideration of the impact of increased traffic on area roads.
Demoulas seeks to overturn a decision by the Planning Board to accept a subdivision and a site plan under one heading, after waiving a review of the subdivison plan. Demoulas says the board failed to fully consider evidence during the public hearings phase of the project. The Planning Board did not consider the negative impact of increased traffic and the impact of an offer by Wal-Mart to pay for new traffic lights along the Route 138 corridor, as well as a new traffic light at the entrance to their store. The superstore is projected to raise traffic by 40% near the site. Demoulas asserts that the proposed traffic light near the Wal-Mart entrance is too close to a traffic light located in front of their plaza. This will create traffic delays and gridlock along the two-lane Route 138 roadway.
This week, the closing arguments in the case were heard in Superior Court in Fall River, Massachusetts. The Demoulas lawsuit has cost Wal-Mart a three year delay. The trial, which is a non-jury trial, lasted about seven weeks. Superior Court judge Robert Cosgrove now has the final decision to make, and it could take months for him to make it. According to the Taunton Gazette, Attorney Julie Pruitt Barry, representing Demoulas, said that the Wal-Mart superstore would add roughly 11,000 added cars on Route 138, which would create “a potential and undisputed increase in traffic created by Wal-Mart.” She said Demoulas was not motivated by “a fear of competition,” because Market Basket customers are very loyal. “They go to Demoulas supermarkets because of the price and quality,” Barry explained. She charged that the Planning Board “exceeded its authority and abused its discretion,” by granting a sewer extension without first seeking approval from residents at a town meeting.
Read the rest of this story ...
Posted by Al Norman on Monday, March 17 | 0 comments | Permalink
Lehigh, PA. “Green” Wal-Mart Goes After Green Farmland
This week, at an economics conference in California, Wal-Mart CEO Lee Scott told a rapt audience, “We are not green.” When asked how his company would achieve its ‘sustainability’ goals of 100% renewable energy and zero waste, Scott replied: “I haven’t a clue.” The “green reality” of Wal-Mart can be found in small towns across America, like Lehigh township, Pennsylvania. Lehigh is a tiny community of roughly 10,700. People who came to settle in Lehigh to shop don’t have to travel far to find sprawl.
There are 5 Wal-Mart stores within 20 miles of Lehigh. But Wal-Mart, the “green” retailer, is coveting 35 acres of open land being used for farming, and wants to turn it asphalt- black. The company wants to build a 127,000 s.f. store on Route 145 and Birch Drive. According to the Morning Call newspaper, the site is just 12 miles north from Wal-Mart store # 2145 in Whitehall township, and not too much further from the Wal-Mart superstore in Allentown, Pennsylvania. The Lehigh store has not yet come before Lehigh township officials, according to Township Manager Alice Rehrig. But if experience in Lehigh is anything like that in nearby North Whitehall (Schnecksville), local citizens are not going to be pleased with this kind of suburban sprawl. The farmland that Wal-Mart will destroy is owned by a developer called the LURRS Corporation, which is also building 245 modular homes in the area. After all, modular homeowners need a Wal-Mart to go with their home purchase. Local residents are already battling LURRS over this residential project, euphemistically known as “Northwoods,” despite the absence of woods. LURRS told the newspaper that it has a sales agreement with Wal-Mart for the 35 acres of farmland.
Another developer, Hirschland Co, will actually build the store. This area of Pennsylvania has a rich history of Wal-Mart battles. Residents in Schnecksville are currently in court trying to gain access to Wal-Mart’s copyrighted site plans, and residents of a proposed 203,000 s.f. store in Mahoning, Pennsylvania, sued their township when supervisors there approved the superstore. That case was “settled” in December. Mahoning is a town of less than 5,000 people. Wal-Mart’s site plans for Lehigh have been reviewed by Township engineers, and officials say the plan will come up for review in April.
Read the rest of this story ...
Posted by Al Norman on Monday, March 17 | 0 comments | Permalink
Tonawanda, N.Y. Residents Take a Closer Look at Wal-Mart
North Tonawanda: Wal-Mart Plan B probed [Tonawanda News (N.Y.)]
The stickers made it easy to tell which North Tonawanda residents at Tuesday night’s public hearing supported Wal-Mart, and which residents did not.
About 100 residents packed the Grant Elementary School auditorium for a public hearing on Wal-Mart’s “Plan B” submission for its proposed North Tonawanda supercenter. Support and opposition on the store seemed split, though those who opposed the store were a bit more vocal.
North Tonawanda Planning Commission Chairman Gary Przewozny put out a disclaimer at the outset of the hearing.
“Basically, we are listening to all comments regarding the revised plan,” Przewozny said. “We’re looking for environmental concerns. Comments about pro and anti-Wal-Mart don’t concern this commission.”
Some of the residents followed the guidelines, others did not.
Read the rest of this story ...
Posted by Alex Goldschmidt on Wednesday, March 12 | 0 comments | Permalink
Wal-Mart Abandons Plans for Hadley, MA. Store
Another victory for local residents fighting Wal-Mart.
Posted by Alex Goldschmidt on Wednesday, March 12 | 35 comments | Permalink
Communities Fight Back - And Win - Against Wal-Mart
A story from today’s New York Times beautifully illustrates how a Wal-Mart “site fight” can impact a community. The story of Monsey, N.Y., is an interesting one: the town’s close-knit community of conservative Jews were able to effectively band together to keep Wal-Mart out. Rather than allowing Wal-Mart to co-opt community resources, Monsey used the fight to strengthen their existing community, and with their success came more commitment to the town.
Wal-Mart tried hard to break in to Monsey, even offering to repair the town’s sidewalks as an added bonus. But the town would have none of it, eventually rebuffing the company by sheer willpower. These kinds of fights are going on all over the country, as our Battle-Mart site chronicles, and Wal-Mart is having an increasingly difficult time convincing communities to allow the company to build. Check out our State and Local page to learn about site fights currently happening in your region.
A Stand Against Wal-Mart and, for Now, a Victory [New York Times]
It was Friday afternoon when the developer who had been intent on building a 215,000-square-foot Wal-Mart in this hamlet sent word to the town offices in Ramapo. The fax was terse, but its message clear: “We will not continue to proceed with the development.”
The news that the developer, and potentially Wal-Mart, had scrapped plans it had so diligently worked on gave observant Jews, who make up the bulk of the population here, reason to rejoice.
They had waged a modest yet unyielding campaign against the proposed store, which they feared would force too many outside influences into their insular world of Orthodox Judaism.
It also represented a political vindication of sorts for Christopher P. St. Lawrence, town supervisor of Ramapo, which encompasses Monsey, in the heart of Rockland County. He hung much of his re-election on a promise to keep the Wal-Mart out of Monsey. During his campaign, he mailed a flier to every home in Monsey, saying, “Supervisor St. Lawrence opposes the Monsey Wal-Mart.” Mr. St. Lawrence was elected to a fourth term in November.
Read the rest of this story ...
Posted by Alex Goldschmidt on Wednesday, March 12 | 3 comments | Permalink
Monsey, NY. Orthodox Jews Defeat Wal-Mart Superstore
On October 18, 2006, Sprawl-Busters reported that residents in Monsey, New York were organizing against a proposed 215,000 s.f. Super Wal-Mart. The store was to be located on the site of a former drive-in theater, and would include a gas station with a parking lot for almost 1,000 cars. A group called the Neighborhood Retail Alliance (NRA), along with county and neighboring Spring Valley, New York officials, held a Village Hall meeting. They met to talk strategy to stop the superstore, and focused on the effect the proposed store would have on traffic, safety, crime, the environment and the local economy. The NRA is a Manhattan-based organization that has been fighting for small businesses for 20 years. Richard Lipsky, director of the NRA, said at the time, “When people are told about the benefits that low prices bring, they are not told of the damages that can ensue.” The developer is National Realty & Development Corp. of Purchase, New York.
The town of Monsey asked the developer to produce an economic impact study. The developer was also asked to study air and ground pollutants, and to conduct an analysis of available water resources during droughts. “We’re very pleased with the results of the studies we’re doing,” a spokesman for the developer said. But a representative of the Jewish Business Counseling Center in Spring Valley, said the Wal-Mart would encourage more box stores to come to the area, eventually wiping out mom-and-pop stores. The site is near an existing Pathmark grocery store, and a variety of small merchants, which would all be hard hit.
This roadway already has some serious traffic problems, and the Jewish Business Counseling Center has told local officials that increasing traffic in the area is a mistake. “This influx will not only threaten pedestrian safety ... it will also disrupt the tranquility of religious observance,” the JBCC wrote. As for the traffic, he said, it would spread to side roads. Spring Valley’s village attorney said the most objectionable parts of the design---the loading docks, and air-conditioning units--- were facing senior-citizen apartments. “You put the stuff that’s bad next to those least able to fight it,” he said.
Read the rest of this story ...
Posted by Al Norman on Tuesday, March 11 | 0 comments | Permalink
View Wal-Mart Watch's videos on YouTube