Atascadero, CA. One Candidate Supports Limit on Superstore Size On November Ballot
The Presidential election will be the preoccupation of millions of American voters on November 4th, but residents in one small California community will be focusing on a local vote with big impacts as well. One month from now, voters in Atascadero, California will go to the polls to decide whether or not to place a cap on the size of retail buildings. To prevent the initiative from passing, Wal-Mart is spending money on voter identification, TV ads, and other local organizing. They’ve got a super-size budget to spend on the Atascadero election.
Dozens of communities across California and the nation have used a size cap to limit the scale of new development in order to preserve character and quality of life, and to mitigate the adverse effects of traffic and environmental impacts. On December 18, 2007 local residents in Atascadero filed an initiative petition entitled “Taxpayers’ Initiative Ordinance To Reduce Costly Effects Of High Intensity Urban Development By Preserving Atascadero’s Unique Small Town Character.” Measure D-08, called the Atascadero “Shield Initiative”, prohibits commercial buildings in excess of 150,000 s.f., and prevents any store in excess of 90,000 s.f. from having more than 5% of its gross floor area dedicated to nontaxable goods, such as groceries. On the same day that voters take up this ballot question, they will also elect three new members to the Atascadero City Council. On July 7, 2006, Sprawl-Busters reported that the Rottman Group, a developer based in San Luis Obispo, California, announced that it had “concluded negotiations with Wal-Mart to partner in the development” of a project known as The Annex. Rottman said Wal-Mart has purchased 26 acres of land in the project area on the southeast parcel of The Annex. The Rottman Group called Wal-Mart “a strong anchor for the proposed project.”
Rottman said at the time, “We recognize that there are many issues surrounding the possible location of a Wal-Mart in Atascadero. We are not ignoring public comment, but are asking residents to give Wal-Mart a chance to introduce itself, correct misconceptions and make a case for why it will benefit Atascadero.” The Rottman Group claimed that The Annex would “bring people to Atascadero – including its downtown.” “We see our proposal as a win-win situation for Atascadero,” the developer said, “ providing shopping choices and significant new retail sales tax to help the city.” To try and fit into the city’s zoning code, Rottman scaled back its store, and on February 4, 2008, Sprawl-Busters reported that Wal-Mart had returned with plans for a 146,507-s.f. store on Del Rio Road---a cut of about 25% in building size.
Read the rest of this story ...
Posted by Al Norman on Monday, October 06 | 0 comments | Permalink
CALIFORNIA SITE FIGHT: EVERYONE HAS THEIR REASONS
Letters: Special interests oppose Wal-Mart with phony reasons [Daily Triplicate (Calif.)]
The unionized special interests continue to bring up the most ridiculous, phony and self-serving excuses to delay Wal-Mart expansion when they know it will be approved anyway.
This isn’t Russia. Anyone can build anything with normal approvals. No one complained about other store moves, expansions and construction. A noisy few cannot control the needs and wishes of the rest of the area population.
The nearby creek is not an issue. Condo construction 300 feet upstream of that “ditch” has already bulldozed the creek in several places and will dump tons of silt into the stream when rains come. No complaints about that because Wal-Mart doesn’t own it.
Old-fashioned competition is the issue. Compete or fail. Law of the jungle. A huge hardware store did not put a highly competitive and well stocked store nearby out of business. A new drug store will not put another close-by store out of business. New coffee stands don’t put others out of business. A new casino wont put others, or close-by motels and restaurants, out of business.
With soaring grocery prices, competition is the best thing that could happen to us. Price and choices are the key to success. Earn more or spend less. Special interest groups accomplish nothing but delays in progress, all over the county. If you don’t like it here, go somewhere else.
Bob Douglas
Smith River
Posted by Luke West on Thursday, October 02 | 0 comments | Permalink
CALIFORNIA SITE FIGHT: ATASCADERO CHAMBER CLEARED OF WRONGDOING IN BOGUS WAL-MART SURVEY
Atascadero chamber is cleared in Wal-Mart survey [San Luis Obispo Tribune (Calif.)]
The Atascadero Chamber of Commerce did not violate the state’s Political Reform Act as alleged by anti-Wal-Mart activist Tom Comar and the Yes on Measure D-08 Committee, according to the Fair Political Practices Commission.
Comar filed the complaint in mid-September, alleging that the chamber violated its nonprofit status by paying for a survey of local business owners asking whether they want a Wal-Mart Supercenter in town.
Comar also alleged that the chamber erred in advocating for residents to vote against Measure D-08, the so-called Atascadero Shield Initiative, which will be on the ballot in November.
In a response letter issued Monday, FPPC Executive Director Roman Porter said the commission did not find a violation of the act and the file on Comar’s complaint was closed.
Read the rest of this story ...
Posted by Luke West on Thursday, October 02 | 0 comments | Permalink
CALIFORNIA SITE FIGHT: NO SHORTAGE OF OPINION IN MERCED
Letter: Support Wal-Mart [Merced Sun-Star (Calif.)]
Editor: I have been a member of the Merced business community for more than 27 years and I am writing this letter in support of the Wal-Mart distribution center.
Wal-Mart is simply asking to come to our city and provide much-needed jobs, which in turn will produce much needed revenue to the community.
I believe the Wal-Mart distribution center will benefit the Merced community, and it is my hope that the Merced City Council will support this endeavor.
LARRY S. THOMPSON
Merced
Posted by Luke West on Tuesday, September 30 | 0 comments | Permalink
IDAHO SITE FIGHT: SUPERCENTER ONE STEP CLOSER IN CLARKSTON
Super Wal-Mart construction one step closer [KLEW-TV (Idaho)]
CLARKSTON - The grounding breaking for the Clarkston Super Wal-Mart may be just weeks away.
According to City of Clarkston Building Inspector Jim Braddock, plans for the box store have been reviewed and accepted and all the permits with the city are in place. They city has also received a check from Wal-Mart covering all the permit fees.
Braddock says the company has met all criteria and local code.
The building will be 187,000 square feet with a tire and lube center, a pharmacy, garden center, nail salon and Subway. There will also be three lots of about an acre that will be sublet.
Braddock says the city is hoping for restaurants in these locations but it’s up to Wal-Mart to make that decision.
Posted by Luke West on Tuesday, September 30 | 0 comments | Permalink
WASHINGTON SITE FIGHT: WAL-MART MOVING FORWARD IN TUMWATER
Tumwater Wal-Mart clears another hurdle [The Olympian (Wash.)]
TUMWATER—A Thurston County judge Monday denied a community group and union’s appeal of Wal-Mart’s plans to build an 187,000-square-foot Supercenter at 5900 Littlerock Road S.W., clearing another hurdle for the retail giant.
Superior Court Judge Christine Pomeroy said the proposed project was in line with city regulations and that its environmental review was adequate. The proposal has been under dispute since 2004.
“We’re very pleased,” Wal-Mart spokeswoman Jennifer Spall said. “We’ve had great support from the city and staff all along.”
Spall said Wal-Mart had not been surprised by the appeal, but “we expected this outcome.”
The appellants, the citizens group Tumwater Liveable Community and United Food and Commercial Workers Union Local 367, have 30 days to decide whether to continue to the state Court of Appeals.
Seattle attorney Claudia Newman, representing the appellants, could not be reached for comment.
Wal-Mart has other Thurston County stores in Yelm and Lacey.
Wal-Mart wins in court [The Olympian (Wash.)]
Thurson County Superior Court Judge Christine Pomeroy denied an appeal by citizen group Tumwater Liveable Community and United Food and Commercial Workers Union Local 367 and upheld prior approvals by the city hearings examiner and the City Council.
“This court finds the environmental impact statement is adequate,” Pomeroy said in the four-page opinion. “The court finds the project is consistent with the Littlerock Road Subarea Plan and the general commercial zone.”
Also see: Tumwater, WA. After Four Years, Wal-Mart Gets Court Nod [Battle-Mart Blog]
Posted by Luke West on Tuesday, September 30 | 0 comments | Permalink
Tumwater, WA. After Four Years, Wal-Mart Gets Court Nod
On December 21, 2007, Sprawl-Busters reported that what began in a great rush by Wal-Mart, had turned into a costly waiting game for the retailer.
Almost four years ago, on December 8, 2004, Wal-Mart had rushed a zoning proposal to the city offices in Tumwater, Washington just three hours before the City Council voted to put into place a moratorium on large scale retail developments. There are already two Wal-Mart stores in Thurston County, in Yelm and Lacey. Tumwater Council members approved the ordinance, which prohibits permits for retail stores larger than 125,000 square feet. The Olympian newspaper described city officials as “stunned” by the Wal-Mart proposal. The retailer wanted to build a 207,000 s.f supercenter and a gas station on 21 acres between a Costco and Home Depot on Littlerock Road. All of this in the shadow of beautiful Mount Rainier.
One Council member said Wal-Mart “must have scrambled pretty darn hard to get their application in,” given the short notice time. Then, in late June, 2007, the city council issued a site plan approval for a superstore that was slightly reduced at 187,054 s.f. (but has a 19,700 s.f. garden center as well) and deleted the gas station. The scaled-down site plan was approved with conditions and changes. The city said it would approve two versions of the smaller store, with some roadway conditions changed. “This is an allowed use for that zoning district,” the city’s development services director told the newspaper. “We don’t regulate the size of the building, but we do regulate tree preservation and minimums and maximums for parking spaces.”
Read the rest of this story ...
Posted by Al Norman on Tuesday, September 30 | 0 comments | Permalink
Redding, CA. City Oks Wal-Mart Expansion After 5 Year Citizen Delay
Anti-Wal-Mart activists have cost Wal-Mart hundreds of millions of dollars in lost sales at their store in Redding, California. On June 29, 2004, Sprawl-Busters reported that Wal-Mart had suffered a setback in their plans to build a 220,700 s.f. superstore in Redding, California. A Shasta County Superior Court judge overturned a 2003 city permit letting Wal-Mart nearly double the size of its store, converting it from a discount store into a supercenter.
The court ruled that the city must draft an environmental impact report (EIR)dealing with the noise and traffic that will be caused by the significantly larger facility. The EIR also must include a study showing whether Redding can absorb another large discount grocer without losing nearby supermarkets and other businesses. The proposed supercenter, according to the Record Searchlight, would add 92,700 s.f. to the existing Wal-Mart on Dana Drive. Residents complained that the store expansion would push the building’s loading docks to within 25 feet of existing duplex homes in the area. Redding residents took Wal-Mart to court in , 2004 to order more environmental review for the Supercenter, which won narrow City Council approval.
Opponents “have presented substantial evidence ... that the Wal-Mart Supercenter may cause economic blight in the city,” Superior Court Judge James Ruggiero wrote in his June, 2004 order. The plaintiffs claim that judges in five other counties have ordered similar economic impact studies to be conducted, including Kern and Fresno counties. “The rule of thumb seems to be, when a Wal-Mart Supercenter opens, two supermarkets and other stores close,” the resident’s attorney told the newspaper. The judge denied opponents’ claims that the Wal-Mart approval violated the city’s general plan or the county’s air quality requirements. The court ruling threw off Wal-Mart’s timetable for approval, and requires the city to conduct further studies.
Read the rest of this story ...
Posted by Al Norman on Monday, September 29 | 0 comments | Permalink
View Wal-Mart Watch's videos on YouTube