Hanford, CA. State Supreme Court Upholds Limits On Size and Location of Superstores
A decision by the California Supreme Court two days ago in a 4 year old case has reinforced the right of cities and towns to regulate the size and location of big box stores—as long as they have defined a clear public purpose in doing so. Even though a small merchant appears to have lost in this case---small merchants everywhere have won. Here are the basic facts in the case, Hernandez v City of Hanford: In 1989, the city of Hanford, California created a new commercial district of several hundred acres of land called the “Planned Commercial” district---designed for large, big box stores. City officials wanted to create a zone that would allow big stores, but not have a negative impact on the downtown commercial district. Specifically, the city did not want to allow the big box zone to have uses that were already prominent in the downtown, because they wanted those uses to remain downtown—such as furniture stores, banks, car dealers, and professional offices. The new PC district allowed department stores to sell furniture---but did not extend that right to furniture stores. The city allowed “home furnishings” accessories to be sold in retail stores in the PC district, but furniture stores could not sell furniture. Stores like Wal-Mart, Home Depot and Sears, which came to the PC district, were selling furniture. In 2002, a downtown furniture merchant tried to open up a furniture store in the big box district. When the new store opened, a city inspector instructed the merchant to remove all furniture from the store, and the owner complained that the zoning code was being enforced in a discriminatory fashion, because department stores in the PC district were being allowed to sell furniture, but he could not---in the same district. After conducting a series of study sessions, the city decided to change its code in 2003 to allow department stores over 50,000 s.f. to sell furniture only in one location within the store, and no larger than 2,500 s.f. of floor area. The PC zone was rewritten to state, “the sale of furniture is prohibited in the PC district except by department stores.” The merchant who had opened a furniture store in the PC district then sued the city, arguing that the ordinance regulated economic competition, and violated the equal protection clause of the federal and state Constitutions. The lower court ruled against the plaintiff, noting that the purpose of the ordinance was not to limit competition, but to preserve the vitality of the Hanford downtown district. The court said that treating large stores differently than smaller stores was not a violation of equal protection, because the city was trying to lure big stores to the PC district. The merchant appealed this ruling, and the Court of Appeals sided with the merchant, saying that limiting furniture sales to stores in excess of 50,000 s.f. in the PC zone was arbitrary, and “a rational relationship between the size classification and the goal of protecting downtown simply does not exist.”
Read the rest of this story ...
Posted by Al Norman on Monday, June 11 | 0 comments | Permalink
Community Impact Assessment Legislation Nears Passage in Maine
Last week, the Maine House of Representatives passed LD 1810, the Informed Growth Act, by a vote of 82-49. This legislation would highlight the true costs of big box development and provide communities with the tools and information to create and sustain vibrant, just, and sustainable local economies.
The legislation has been championed by the Maine Fair Trade Campaign, with the goal of providing cities and towns better tools with which to evaluate the full range of benefits and costs associated with large-scale retail development. It would allow retail development decisions to be made using objective information on how the development would impact things such as existing small business, employment and the cost of public services.
The Maine Senate is expected to vote on the legislation this week.
Read the rest of this story ...
Posted by Corey Himrod on Monday, June 11 | 10 comments | Permalink
CALIFORNIA SITE FIGHT: OFFICIALS COLLECT COMMENTS
Clovis collecting Wal-Mart comments [Fresno (Calif.) Bee]
Clovis officials are collecting letters from residents and others interested in commenting about a draft environmental impact report for a Wal-Mart Supercenter. The deadline to submit a written comment is Monday.
The supercenter, proposed to go on Herndon Avenue between Clovis and Sunnyside avenues, is the anchor of a 500,000-square-foot shopping center that will include Kohl’s, Petco, Ross and Old Navy.
A supercenter includes a Wal-Mart supermarket.
Read the rest of this story ...
Posted by Beth Gostanian on Monday, June 11 | 0 comments | Permalink
San Diego, CA. City Council Takes Final Vote To Cap Size of Superstores
Sprawl-Busters reported on November 30, 2006 that the San Diego, California city council had taken the first major step towards imposing a cap on the size of retail buildings when it voted 5-3 on November 28th to ban retail stores of more than 90,000 s.f. that use 10% of their interior space to sell groceries or other merchandise that is not subject to sales tax. This ordinance is modeled on similar ordinances in California, most notably Turlock, where Wal-Mart has failed repeatedly to challenge the law in the courts. The Mayor of San Diego told reporters at the time that he would veto the new cap if it went through its required second vote in January. Councilman Tony Young, who voted for the cap, told the Associated Press, “I have a vision for San Diego and that vision is about walkable, livable communities, not big, mega-structures that inhibit people’s lives.” That vision came closer to reality yesterday, when the City Council voted to approve the big box ordinance. As adopted, the measure would limit the size of superstores, like the ones that Wal-Mart has been trying to build. The second reading of the ordinance was delayed from the original January date, so that the public could have time to comment. San Diego’s act is pre-emptive, since the city currently has no Wal-Mart supercenter, but local sources indicate that Wal-Mart wants to add several supercenters in San Diego. As with November’s vote, the new ordinance was adopted on a 5-3 vote. Mayor Jerry Sanders, who also opposed the ordinance, warns he will veto it, but 5 votes on the Council is enough to override the Mayor’s veto. Wal-Mart is now busy preparing to hire people to gather signatures to put the measure on the ballot in the form of a referendum. This would not appear before voters until February, 2008—another nine month delay for Wal-Mart. The mayor has 10 days to veto the ordinance. The City Council will then have a month to vote to override his veto.
Read the rest of this story ...
Posted by Al Norman on Tuesday, June 05 | 0 comments | Permalink
CALIFORNIA SITE FIGHT: CITY COUNCIL TO DECIDE FATE OF SUPER STORES
City Council To Decide Fate Of Super Stores [10 News San Diego]
SAN DIEGO—The city council will consider Monday final passage of an ordinance that would prohibit the construction of so-called big-box retail stores within city limits.
The measure to limit construction of superstores such as those that Wal-Mart has been trying to erect was approved 5-3 by the city council in November last year, but the second reading was delayed so that more public input could be generated.
Read the rest of this story ...
Posted by Jason Korta on Monday, June 04 | 0 comments | Permalink
Gresham, OR. Wal-Mart Loses---Again
Citizens are celebrating--again--in Gresham, Oregon today. Sprawl-Busters reported on December 10, 2006 that Wal-Mart had decided to appeal the 57-page decision of Hearing Officer Joe Turner, rejecting a proposed supercenter. Turner’s decision said that the developer, PacLand, “failed to sustain the burden of proof that the car trip distribution estimates for vehicles leaving the site are accurate…” A combination of the developer’s insubstantial traffic impact data, and the citizen group, Gresham First’s, expert traffic analysis, left the Hearing Officer without solid evidence that the impact on this intersection would meet the city’s traffic standards. Many other issues were raised, but as the Hearing Officer noted, “Opponents of the proposed development raised a number of other issues including, but not limited to, potential environmental impacts, increased crime, visual impacts, tree removal and impacts on the locally economy and businesses. Those issues were not raised in the Notice Of Appeal and therefore are beyond the scope of the appeal.” Wal-Mart appealed the Hearing Officer’s decision to the Oregon Land Use Board of Appeals, stating, “We do not agree with the hearings examiner’s decision on traffic.We feel that, if traffic is viewed under normal conditions, our traffic study and plans are a good fit for the area.” But the LUBA only sent the case back to the Hearing Officer, who today rejected Wal-Mart’s plans a second time. Turner said that Wal-Mart still failed to “sustain the burden of proof” about their assumptions on traffic. He said specifically, Wal-Mart failed to demonstrate that traffic from the development wouldn’t exceed minimum levels under city code. Here is the report from the frontlines sent to Sprawl-Busters by Gresham First: “Wal-Mart’s proposal to build a Super-Center is southwest Gresham was denied today by Hearings Officer Joe Turner.
Read the rest of this story ...
Posted by Al Norman on Friday, June 01 | 0 comments | Permalink
CALIFORNIA SITE FIGHT: SAN DIEGO BIG BOX BAN PENDING
Superstore Debate [XETV-TV (San Diego)]
Five members of the San Diego City Council are bracing to draft a ban on Wal-Mart supercenters in San Diego.
As they get ready to discuss the issue at the next city council meeting, the debate is picking up steam around the city. Supporters say it would give them the chance to have one-stop shopping and would save them money. Those opposed to the idea say it squashes local business and is bad for the economy and the environment.
Read the rest of this story ...
Posted by Jason Korta on Wednesday, May 30 | 0 comments | Permalink
Pajaro, CA. After Losing Once, Is Wal-Mart Back Again?
On April 20, 2006, Sprawl- Busters reported that citizens in Pajaro,California were celebrating the announcement by Wal-Mart that they won’t be building a proposed superstore in Pajaro. The opposition group, called Pajaro Primero (Pajaro First) had vowed to fight the store to the bitter end. A Wal-Mart spokesman told a gathering at the Rotary Club that the giant retailer was folding its tent. Wal-Mart said they planned to build a store in nearby Marina and said “we have no plans for this area.”
The spokesman said Wal-Mart prefers to establish “regional stores,” and that Pajaro was off the map now. That was a little over a year ago. But this week, the citizen’s group has contacted Sprawl-Busters. “Pajaro Primero is getting organized again,” they write. “Wal-Mart and the property owners (The Miller Family Trust) are going forward on an Environmental Impact Report for a 178,000 s.f. retail site on San Juan Road in Pajaro. We will be again reaching out to the community to try to stop this supercenter from coming in and destroying our local businesses.”
According to the Santa Cruz Sentinel, Wal-Mart is denying any interest in Pajaro. “We do not have an application for a project there. We do not have a contract for land use,” a Wal-Mart spokesman said. “We’re always looking for the best way to serve our customers, but we don’t have any pending project.” Wal-Mart’s denial is pretty much standard operating protocol---but the owners of the land have admitted to the newspaper that they have a project on the front burner. Karen and Clint Miller and Monterey County officials are working on an environmental review for a proposed 178,000 s.f. store on 17 acres along San Juan Road. “The Millers keep saying Wal-Mart isn’t in the picture, but they won’t disclose the tenant,” said John Rowe, president of Pajaro Primero! One developer working with the Millers said the couple wants to get its project approved before looking for tenants. Translation: they don’t want to use the “W”
word and get the community up in arms again. The developer implied that announcing a Wal-Mart would be “politically incorrect.” When the first Wal-Mart project reared its head on a larger, 90 acre parcel, Monterey County supervisors would not allow building past the town’s existing redevelopment boundary, which meant most of the acreage was off limits, and the project had to be reduced, which forced Wal-Mart to move on.
Read the rest of this story ...
Posted by Al Norman on Friday, May 25 | 0 comments | Permalink
View Wal-Mart Watch's videos on YouTube