Austin, TX. Wal-Mart Offers To Shrink Store

The last time Sprawl-Busters clocked-in on Austin, Texas was on February 11, 2007 when we reported that an estimated crowd of 2,500 Wal-Mart opponents had formed a human chain to protest the proposal for a Wal-Mart chain store. As Sprawl-Busters had reported in December and January, Wal-Mart is trying to force neighbors to accept a 225,000 s.f. superstore. But even in Texas, some things can be too big. All that human pressure exerted on one spot of land in Austin has forced the developer to come back in with a “smaller” plan---but not quite small enough to please opponents. The Austin Statesmen reports this week that Wal-Mart wants to cut the store by 15%---from 219,000 s.f. to 186,500 s.f. (This does not count the 5,500 s.f. garden center add-on). The developer, Lincoln Property Co. wants to redevelop the Northcross Mall into a Wal-Mart Supercenter. Wal-Mart has agreed to the “smaller” 186,500 s.f. store—which is still the size of four football fields under one roof. instead of a 219,000-square-foot one--plus garden center. According to The Statesman, Wal-Mart may have had another motive in mind. By reducing the size, Wal-Mart avoids a threshold that would have required it to use higher estimates to predict traffic created by the store. The more traffic the store creates, the more road improvements the developer would be required to pay for. Traffic counts at other Central Texas Wal-Marts showed that those stores draw as many as 28,277 car trips a day — almost three times the amount Lincoln has predicted for Northcross. The newspaper cites a 2006 article from the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) which says that discount stores bigger than 200,000 s.f. generate more traffic than previously thought. The developer is working on a new traffic impact analysis for June. City officials told Wal-Mart that a 200,000 s.f. store would have to use higher estimates. Wal-Mart’s lawyer claims that a 186,000 s.f. Wal-Mart would be the “smallest” in Central Texas. The citizen’s group formed against this project, Responsible Growth for Northcross (RG4N), noted that a 192,000-s.f. store will create essentially the same traffic problems as a 219,000-s.f. store would. The group wants the developer to build a vertical, mixed-use development that would distribute traffic better. “Wal-Mart keeps coming back with a repackaged version of the same project: a supercenter,” a group member told the Statesman.

Read the rest of this story ...

Posted by Al Norman on Monday, May 14 | 0 comments | Permalink

Hernando County, FL. County Slam Dunks 4th Wal-Mart Supercenter

Sprawl-Busters has posted stories about the Hernando County, Florida area for at least six years. The area has been flooded with Wal-Mart stores, beyond any reasonable consumer need. But this week, Wal-Mart ran into a Wal of opposition in Brooksville. The Hernando County Commission voted unanimously May 9th to turn down Wal-Mart’s proposal for a 4th supercenter in Hernando on Barclay Avenue. The Commissioners also rejected the recommendation of their Planning and Zoning Commission. “We’re here to analyze things subjectively as well as objectively, “ Commissioner David Russell was quoted as saying by the St. Petersburg Times. “We’re here to make subjective decisions based on the facts we heard today.” The Commissioners ruled that the site plan was too close to nearby residential subdivisions, and only 1,500 feet from a Middle School. Opponents of the project jammed the hearing room, and presented a petition with 2,100 signatures against Wal-Mart. One Commissioner went out of her way to say her decision would have been the same no matte what the logo on the building said. “It doesn’t have anything to do with the W-word, “ Commissioner Diane Rowden said. “It has to do with the health, safety and welfare of our residents.” Wal-Mart’s lawyer tried to argue that the Commissioners did not have the legal basis on which to turn down the project. “This is not a debate about whether Wal-Mart is good or bad,” Wal-Mart’s lawyer said. “This is a discussion about a vested development of regional impact that has zoning in place.” Wal-Mart argued that the county’s comprehensive plan does not apply to the site, because the land was approved as part of a development of regional impact in 1983, two years before the passage of the state law that mandated local comprehensive plans. One opponent of the plan showed a video of students walking along Barclay Avenue, and said the nearly 10,000 new car trips would endanger children and clog her street. “Barclay is like a major highway and the traffic and noise…is deplorable, “ she said. “Can you imagine what it will be like when the road opens to Wal-Mart?” After the meeting, Wal-Mart would not indicate if the retailer will go to court, but opponents are gearing up for that eventuality.

Read the rest of this story ...

Posted by Al Norman on Monday, May 14 | 0 comments | Permalink

Kansas Site Fight: Commissioner Not Sorry For Wal-Mart E-mails

Commissioner Not Sorry For Wal-Mart E-mails [Lawrence Journal-World]

Outgoing Lawrence-Douglas County Planning Commissioner David Burress is not apologizing for organizing opposition to a proposed Wal-Mart store, even though some elected leaders said his actions damaged the Planning Commission’s reputation.

Burress last week sent out an e-mail providing tips and strategy on how neighborhood leaders could lobby city commissioners to oppose plans for a Wal-Mart store at Sixth Street and Wakarusa Drive. The e-mail — which was distributed to the Lawrence Association of Neighborhood’s e-mail list — was sent just before the City Commission’s discussion of Wal-Mart on May 1.

Burress specifically urged people to oppose the project. Mayor Sue Hack said she was disappointed that a planning commissioner would actively organize opposition to a land-use item that ultimately would go before the Planning Commission for a hearing.

Read the rest of this story ...

Posted by Corey Himrod on Saturday, May 12 | 0 comments | Permalink

Bangor, ME. “Anti-Wal-Mart” Bill Gains Support

Big box retailers like Wal-Mart, Target, Lowe’s and Home Depot don’t want local officials to understand the real economic impact of their huge proposals on the local economy. Most communities have nothing in their zoning code to require an economic cost/benefit analysis, despite the fact that some states—like Vermont—have been examining the economic consequences of zoning decisions as part of the land use process itself. When economic studies are required at all, they are done by consultants hired by the developer, and, not surprisingly, always show that the big box store will enhance the local economy, not impair it. But too many local officials in too many towns have seen the devastation with their own eyes. This week in Maine, state officials are considering legislation that would require developers of stores greater than 75,000 s.f. to pay $40,000 up front for an independent study on the economic and environmental effects of their project on the local area. “I’ve heard from Maine Street in Bath, from Topsham and Brunswick - people not even in my district,” said Sen. Paula Benoit, R-Sagadahoc County, who owns a small business owner, told the Maine State House News. “They’re begging me to take action.” Rep. Chris Barstow, D-Gorham, the main sponsor of the bill, said his proposal will help the community to understand the implications of their land use decisions. The economic impact study would be conducted by independent reviewers. And reviewed by the state’s Planning Office. The studies would look at net impacts on property taxes, municipal budgets, local retail jobs and wages. These studies could be used by the local planning boards or permit granting authorities to determine if the project had an “undue adverse impact” on the local economy, which would be the criteria for denying a project. The bill would require all cities and towns in Maine to conduct such studies—but the developers would foot the bill. Not surprisingly, the legislation has run into opposition from real estate brokers, developers and business groups, including the Portland Regional Chamber of Commerce, the Maine State Chamber and Maine Merchants Association. These groups tried to convince lawmakers to make the bill a local option, so each community would have to vote to adopt it. “The truth is, you’d rather not have it at all,” said Sen. Elizabeth Schneider, D-Penobscot County. “I don’t understand the complete pushback from your organizations. This is not ant-business. I think it is pro-business,” because it helps people understand what effect big retailers will have on their community. Schneider said the former mayor in Bangor sent her a letter in support of the bill, because he has seen “the long-time stores that have closed in our region.” The bill was amended during discussion to have the state develop a list of qualified entities to conduct such studies, and a stipulation that the studies would be done in three months, not six, as originally proposed.

Read the rest of this story ...

Posted by Al Norman on Thursday, May 10 | 0 comments | Permalink

North Aurora, IL. Wal-Mart Annexation Get Dumped

Wal-Mart got the message loud and clear this week in North Aurora, Illinois, when village officials turned down an annexation plan on a 5-1 vote, and pulled the legs out from under Wal-Mart’s plan for a huge tax subsidy. Sprawl-Busters reported on March 30, 2007 that residents in North Aurora were gathering signatures to oppose a Wal-Mart supercenter proposal. Now, just six weeks later, the retailer’s plans are in ruins. The Village Board held a four hour public hearing, and late in the evening of May 7th, voted not to annex land and rezone it for a 24 hour Wal-Mart superstore. “We’re very pleased,” one opponent told the Beacon News. “The residents spoke and were heard. That’s refreshing.” The vote was a solid victory for the citizens group, North Aurora Together, which fought the retailer as soon as its proposal was filed. The 203,819 s.f. store would have had the homes of hundreds of residents as abutters. Wal-Mart proposed to build a 13-foot-high berm with a fence and trees to buffer the residents. But the neighbors did not want to be walled in. “We want something unique,” said Valerie Shoger, one of the leaders of NAT.

Wal-Mart made a two hour presentation, reviewing all the details of the project, but failed to convince the Village Trustees to ignore their constituents. “Is this the best fit?” Trustee Mark Gaffino asked. “Not just in tax dollars, but in residential use? Is it something I’d be proud of for years to come, or am I just settling? I cannot support Wal-Mart at this time.” “I’m not surprised by the vote,” one opponent told the News. “People feel really strongly about this.” One insidious detail of the Wal-Mart plan was their proposal to take advantage of a $2.3 million “rebate” of sales taxes over a 10 year period. Wal-Mart, which just announced $344 billion in net sales for 2007, had its hand out for corporate welfare in North Aurora---but local officials were not feeling magnanimous in this case. “I think they (incentives) are becoming more difficult,” Village Administrator Sue McLaughlin said Tuesday. “Historically, incentives should be for extraordinary costs, such as infrastructure, etc. A lot of infrastructure already is in place, and the board feels they need to have a hardship to even have that discussion. Trustee Dale Berman said he was against waiving or reducing sewer, traffic impact and permit fees to the extent Wal-Mart wanted. “I don’t think this particular project on that particular site deserves that incentive,” Berman was quoted as saying by The Daily Herald. Another Trustee said this prime real estate did not need a tax incentive---even though the town has given Target and a regional chain, Woodman’s, similar corporate subsidies.

Read the rest of this story ...

Posted by Al Norman on Thursday, May 10 | 0 comments | Permalink

Bentonville, AR. Wal-Mart Faces 11 Hostile Resolutions At Its Annual Meeting

Everything will be carefully choreographed at Bud Walton Arena at the University of Arkansas Fayetteville campus on June 1, when Wal-Mart holds its Annual Meeting. But under the surface, the company is struggling with its financial performance, and is facing a growing number of critics both inside and outside Walton Arena. Wal-Mart’s Annual Report for the fiscal year ended January 31, 2007 is just reaching shareholders this week, and the company’s financial results may give some investors pause. The most impressive gains went to company President and CEO, H. Lee Scott, Jr. who earned $29.67 million, roughly half of it in stock awards. Scott earned the equivalent of what 2,164 Wal-Mart entry-level workers make in a year. But outside of Scott, the company’s financial performance was not much to write home about. The company’s net sales of $345 billion was an increase of nearly 12% over the previous year, but if you go back to the late 1980s, you find net sales increases of 34% annually—three times that amount. More importantly, Wal-Mart’s “comparable store sales increase” in U.S. stores was only 2% this past year, which is only one-quarter of the 8% same stores sales increase in 2000, and only a fraction of the double-digit same store sales increases that the company enjoyed in the 1980s. Net income (profit) in 2007 was $11.28 billion, or less than one-half of 1% growth, compared to 9% the year before. So Wal-Mart had perhaps its worst year ever in terms of increased net income, and the lowest same store sales increase in its 45 year history. To keep up its image, Wal-Mart spent $1.9 billion on advertising, or $5.2 million a day. At their annual meeting, Wal-Mart stockholders will face their usual array of resolutions. This year, as in the past, the company is recommending against all 11 shareholder resolutions relating to: charitable contributions, executive compensation, board of director voting rules, universal health care, compensation disparity, political contributions reports, qualifications for board members, tying executive pay to performance, a social responsibility report, and a social and reputation impact report. One of the resolutions, number 10, charges that Wal-Mart contributes “undisclosed and unknown” amounts to the Retail Industry Leaders Association (RILA) which oppose the aggressive screening of incoming cargo containers for homeland security purposes. “We believe our company,” the shareholders say, “(is) in the perverse position of hindering national security improvements, putting our shipments at risk and U.S. citizens’ well-being in jeopardy.” In response Wal-Mart says this charge is “false and misleading” because the company supports voluntary cargo security programs. Wal-Mart says it is committed to the “highest standard of safety and security throughout its supply chain,” yet opposes the use of “smart containers” and “electronic seals,” the shareholders say.

Read the rest of this story ...

Posted by Al Norman on Wednesday, May 09 | 0 comments | Permalink

Maine Considers Big Box Bill

Anti-Wal-Mart bill strikes a chord in Augusta [Maine Current]

A bill that would deny big-box developers the right to build if studies show their stores would hurt the local economy won the support of a majority of the State and Local Government Committee Monday.

Dubbed the anti-Wal-Mart bill, the proposal hit a chord with both Democrats and Republicans, who say their downtown businesses have been hurt by mega-retailers.

“I’ve heard from Maine Street in Bath, from Topsham and Brunswick - people not even in my district,” said Sen. Paula Benoit, R-Sagadahoc County, who serves on the State and Local Government Committee and is also a small business owner. “They’re begging me to take action.”

Rep. Chris Barstow, D-Gorham, House chairman of the State and Local Government Committee and the main sponsor of the bill, said the proposal supports business and community.

The bill, written on behalf of the national Institute for Local Self-Reliance, would require developers of stores greater than 75,000 square feet to pay $40,000 up front for an independent study on the economic and environmental effects of their project on the local area.

Read the rest of this story ...

Posted by Alex Goldschmidt on Wednesday, May 09 | 17 comments | Permalink

Tigard, OR. Citizen’s Group Publishes Own Big Box Traffic Study

The standard procedure in zoning cases across America is that the developer trots out his hired traffic engineer, who proceeds to explain how adding 12,000 new car trips per day for a Wal-Mart or a Home Depot is actually going to improve vehicle circulation and traffic flow---through the magic of turning lanes, signalization, and other traffic sleight-of-hand. Citizens groups often find themselves driven off the road by a developer’s traffic consultant, who causes Planning Boards to glaze over with incomprehensible impact studies the size of the Manhattan yellow pages. To take the offense, a citizens’ group in Tigard, Oregon has produced its own traffic projections to illustrate what could happen to their community if all the land zoned for big boxes were built out. Tigard First has produced a short new study based on the list of available parcels in their community, and the Institute for Traffic Engineer’s (ITE) Manual. The group says that Tigard could see 100,000 cars per day added to Highway 99. The so-called Tigard Triangle is already choking with the city’s worst traffic congestion, and continued development, starting with a proposed Wal-Mart superstore, could create a traffic nightmare, the group says. The study by the Tigard First determined that if 85% of the Triangle’s available sites are developed, the existing congestion would worsen by up to 100,000 car trips a day—that’s an added volume of 50,000 new cars. Tigard First is asking Mayor Craig Dirksen, the City Council and Planning Commission to address the traffic problems now, before plans for a proposed 220,000-sq.ft. Wal-Mart superstore at 72nd Street and Dartmouth in the Triangle are formally submitted. The group contends that the superstore will bring super traffic to a part of the city that just can’t take any more. According to the group’s website, “We now have a chance to improve Highway 99’s problems. We can reduce the volume of traffic in the Tigard Triangle through a mixed use commercial rezone. This would keep traffic under control, and still encourage business development.” Traffic is the top concern for Tigard’s residents, according to the City’s first Community Attitudes Survey released in June 2006, which sparked the Highway 99 Corridor Improvement Study. That survey determined that Highway 99’s traffic and congestion problems were seen by voters as the most important issues as Tigard plans for the next 20 years. Under existing conditions, there is significant roadway congestion near the Highway 99W/Highway 217 interchange. “Free-standing discount superstores have increased in popularity because of their convenience,” the group says, “combining general retail merchandise, full-service grocery departments and other specialty shops, at discount rates. Due to this increase, many localities are growing concerned over the impact of these stores on their communities and infrastructure system.”