Chico, CA - Wal-Mart Plans Have Slowed, But Store Still In Works
Wal-Mart plans still in the works [Chico Enterprise Record]
Those wanting to weigh in on two proposed Wal-Mart supercenters will need to wait a few more months.
Senior city planner Zach Thomas said the planning processes for both proposed Wal-Marts are not quite at the same point. The supercenter proposed for north Chico is further behind in the process than the Wal-Mart expansion proposed in south Chico, he said.
The current estimate sees the south Wal-Mart going before the Chico Planning Commission at the earliest in November. The north Wal-Mart is estimated to go before the commission at the earliest in December.
Thomas stressed both time estimates are not firm.
Wal-Mart proposes to expand its Forest Avenue store from 125,889 square feet to 223,445 square feet. It also hopes to build a new supercenter at Highway 99 and Garner Lane with retail, grocery and a garden center.
Read the rest of this story ...
Posted by Corey Himrod on Tuesday, September 25 | 0 comments | Permalink
Ontario, Calif. Council Meets on Wal-Mart Issue
Wal-Mart issue tops council agenda [Daily Bulletin (Calif.)]
A special meeting has been called tonight for the City Council to vote on a Planning Commission approval of a proposed Wal-Mart Supercenter.
It will take place at 6 p.m. at the Ontario Convention Center’s Ballrooms A and B located 2000 Convention Center Way.
The meeting was called because the decision made by the Planning Commission in August was appealed, said Ontario Councilman Jason Anderson. The City Council will make the final decision concerning the Wal-Mart.
Tonight’s meeting will review the decision made by the Planning Commission. It will also review the subsequent environmental impact report and all of the records in and around that, including staff reports and input by the citizens, Anderson said.
Read the rest of this story ...
Posted by Alex Goldschmidt on Tuesday, September 25 | 0 comments | Permalink
Ontario, Calif. “Panel Ignores Opponents”
Panel ignores opponents of Wal-Mart [Daily Bulletin (Calif.)]
The Ontario Planning Commission ignored the concerns of hundreds of residents who opposed approval of the Wal-Mart Supercenter at Fifth Street and Mountain Avenue, and I am very worried that our City Council members have already made up their minds to ignore us, too.
Some of the issues raised at the Planning Commission meeting were:1. My wife and both asked the city to define general merchandise in order to find out if Wal-Mart planned to sell weapons, ammunition and alcohol directly across the street from a park. Apparently the planning commissioners didn’t care about this, because we never had a response. However, they have a concern about the number of video games Wal-Mart will have and whether or not they will placed in the doorway.
Didn’t they think access to guns was a legitimate concern?
2. A school board member presented a resolution unanimously approved by the Ontario-Monclair School District opposing a project of this magnitude due to the Supplemental Environmental Impact Report findings related to health and safety issues. No one even acknowledged or responded to them at all.
Read the rest of this story ...
Posted by Alex Goldschmidt on Tuesday, September 25 | 0 comments | Permalink
Combined Reports For Everyone!
You’d think, of all companies, one that bills itself as “the place for one stop shopping” would champion the merits of placing everything under one roof.
Yet, when word of “combined reporting” makes its way down to a Bentonville boardroom, its enough to make a Wal-Mart executive reach for a $4 generic vicadin. Combined reporting is a tax policy that treats parent companies and its subsidiaries as one corporation for state income tax purposes - profits are combined, and then a share of that income is taxed by a state based on a formula calculating the corporation’s level of activity within that state.
Lawmakers in Wisconsin and Maryland are the latest to jump on the combined reporting bandwagon. Apparently in Wisconsin, $90 million is on the table should the state decide to reform its tax law and adopt combined reporting. Its a tough question for a state strapped for cash, and whose revenue department has already gone after WalMartopia for more than $17.7 million in back corporate income taxes, interest and penalties for 1998, 1999 and 2000.
According to the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel:
Ninety million dollars is how much officials estimate could gush into state coffers annually if Wisconsin institutes combined reporting on corporate income tax returns. That’s about a 10% increase in corporate tax collections - a tempting prospect for some legislators at a time when Madison is striving for every nickel.
Maryland Governor Martin O’Malley had proposed the measure in his state as well, according to the Baltimore Sun:
The O’Malley administration estimates that by moving to “combined reporting,” the state would receive an additional $25 million per year in revenue, with three-fourths available for operating expenses and the remainder reserved for the Transportation Trust Fund. Some legislators believe that the annual fiscal impact could be much greater, perhaps $100 million or more.
Opponents of the measure counter that it will stifle growth, and that businesses facing higher taxes will simply shift jobs and investment to other states. Personally, I can’t wait to watch business after business pack their bags and flee the evilness that is combined reporting in California, New York, Texas and Illinois...the sound of them flocking to Mississippi, Alabama and South Carolina will be deafening. The number of combined reporting states is growing so fast - five states proposed the measure this year alone - it is this expert’s opinion that by 2010, every single corporation will be located in Oklahoma. Go Sooners.
Read the rest of this story ...
Posted by Corey Himrod on Monday, September 24 | 1 comments | Permalink
Bakersfield, CA. Half-Built Pair of Wal-Mart Supercenters Finally Restarted
Wal-Mart’s long, twisted journey in Bakersfield, California may soon be over. It wasn’t the way Wal-Mart wanted, and they have lost as much as one billion in sales and legal costs already---but the city of Bakersfield appears ready to approve not one—but two---new Wal-Mart supercenters. On June 12, 2005, Sprawl-Busters reported that a deal approved in court had left a Wal-Mart supercenter in Bakersfield half-built. The developer, Lee Jamieson, and the citizen’s group, Bakersfield Citizens for Local Control, agreed that nothing would happen on the site until June 1, 2006. The city approved the project back in February of 2003, but citizens challenged the way the process was conducted, took their case to the California 5th District Court of Appeals, and the court overturned the first city approval, saying the city had done a poor job of figuring out if building the project would harm the environment. At the same time, the court also overturned approval for a second Wal-Mart Supercenter project in Bakersfield, this one proposed by Castle & Cooke. For more than a year, these projects have lurked half-built on the site. But this week, two years after the court stalemate, the stores received the support of the City Planning Commission after a four-hour meeting. One of the supercenters is located at Panama Lane and Highway 99, and the other at Pacheco and Gosford roads. One Bakersfield City Planning Commissioner couldn’t contain his exuberanace over the prospect of two new supercenters. “You just mix together people with jobs with income buying up the real estate. I don’t think there’s a finer example of the American dream going on,” he was quoted as saying. But the “jobs” coming from two Wal-Mart supercenters are going to be drawn from existing, unionized grocery stores in Bakersfield, which translates into a loss of buying power, because the Wal-Mart pay less. The American Dream is, in fact, unraveling in Bakersfield. The City Council will meet on November 21st to consider the recommendations of the Planning Commission.
Read the rest of this story ...
Posted by Al Norman on Monday, September 24 | 0 comments | Permalink
Clovis, CA. Residents Say Wal-Mart Will Destroy Way Of Life
On August 3, 2003, Sprawl-Busters reported that City planning commissioners in Clovis, California had voted 3-1 for preliminary approval to a zoning change that would require conditional use permits to open super stores that are larger than 15,000 s.f. The zoning change was suggested by area merchants in response to plans for a 200,000 s.f. Wal-Mart supercenter. That was four years ago. Unfortunately, requiring a conditional use permit is helpful, but not a foolproof way to stop big box stores. This week, more than 200 people crowed into a City Council meeting room in Clovis for a public hearing on a proposed Wal-Mart supercenter that lasted six hours until 1:30 am, according to the Clovis Independent newspaper. The City Council voted to postpone a decision on the project’s environmental impact report. Small-business owners warned of losing shoppers to the Wal-Mart shopping center, which is planned for Clovis and Herndon avenues. Neighbors complained about increased traffic and pollution, and the Clovis police officers warned of an increase in crime. Testimony was also heard regarding the impact of the superstore on Old Town Clovis, the existing core commercial area. “When you build that super Wal-Mart, you’re going to destroy downtown Clovis,” one resident said. “You’re going to destroy the Clovis way of life.”
Council members in the end voted to take up the environmental impact report on Oct. 15th. The project would sprawl over 50-acres, and would include 10 major retailers, including a Wal-Mart Supercenter, Kohl’s, Bed Bath & Beyond, Petco, Old Navy and Ross Dress for Less. The Wal-Mart Supercenter would be 228,754 s.f. and would be open 24 hours a day. Wal-Mart already has a discount store in Clovis only 3 miles away, which would close. The developer told city officials that the Clovis’ population could handle two Wal-Marts.
Read the rest of this story ...
Posted by Al Norman on Monday, September 24 | 0 comments | Permalink
Medford, OR. Procedural Hoops & Hurdles Drag On For Wal-Mart
Four years and counting. That’s the sad story for a Wal-Mart supercenter proposal in the city of Medford, Oregon. The city council eventually approved the project---but the legal persistence of local residents has prevented any work from proceeding on the store. On May 22, 2004, Sprawl-Busters reported that the Medford City Council had overturned an advisory commission’s recommendation, and rejected a proposal to build a 207,000 s.f. Wal-Mart Supercenter in the south end of the city. The Medford Council voted 5-1 to reverse the Site Plan and Architectural Commission’s April 2 decision to approve the Wal-Mart. That was nearly three and a half years ago, but Wal-Mart is still in the mix in Medford.
Since Wal-Mart first submitted an application in 2003, residents and business owners have raised concerns including the impact on existing traffic problems, compatibility with adjacent buildings and effects on local business. Medford Citizens for Responsible Development (MCRD) is a grassroots organization working to ensure public involvement in local development decisions, and has organized formidable opposition to the Wal-Mart development for four years now. Residents have been concerned that City leaders have historically allowed development at all costs, regardless of impacts to taxpayers, traffic congestion, or local community desires. Appeals have been raised to the State Land Use Board of Appeals twice throughout the course of the application, and LUBA ruled against the City of Medford, citing procedural errors in avoiding the full traffic study. The “procedural error” that took place in November of 2005, was when the City council denied MCRD the chance to testify on the comprehensive traffic study. The LUBA ruled September 14th that the city had erred, and this week, in response, the City Council has said it will not to appeal LUBA’s decision. “I think the land use process is a complicated process, a bunch of hoops and hurdles you have to jump through. Its set up to give all the protections in the world to protect both the property owners and the neighboring property owners and do things right,” Medford city councilman, Jason Anderson, told KTVL television. “The reason the city didn’t allow [residents] to speak [was] based on city attorneys advice they weren’t the ones who appealed a previous hearing---they lacked standing.” The City Council now has to schedule more public hearings on the project. Wal-Mart, however, has a week from today to decide whether or not they will appeal LUBA’s decision.
Read the rest of this story ...
Posted by Al Norman on Friday, September 21 | 0 comments | Permalink
Galt, CA. Planning Commission Discusses Ordinance
Wal-Mart eyes Galt site [Sacramento Bee (Calif.)]
Wal--Mart Stores Inc. wants to build a 132,000-square-foot superstore, including a garden center and grocery department, in the city of Galt.
Community Development Director Curt Campion told The Bee that the application filed Sept. 6 is for a Wal-Mart project on the south side of Twin Cities Road, east of Fermoy Way. That’s a short drive west of Highway 99.
The city Planning Commission already has been discussing a proposed ordinance to govern the establishment of superstores. The topic will be addressed at its next meeting later this month, Campion said.
Andrew Meredith, Galt’s vice mayor, said Tuesday that he is glad the superstore ordinance is being pursued.
The ordinance would ban superstores over 140,000 square feet that devote more than 10 percent of their floor space to groceries.
Read the rest of this story ...
Posted by Alex Goldschmidt on Thursday, September 20 | 0 comments | Permalink
View Wal-Mart Watch's videos on YouTube