This is it, so don’t get scared now.

The Orange County Board of Supervisors is set to make a decision once and for all on the fate of the Wilderness Wal-Mart - a public hearing has been scheduled for July 27th, which will be the last time the public (and Robert Duvall) will be able to make their opinions known before the board takes the matter for good. Note: As a Civil War vet, Robert Duvall can actually comment all he’d like.

What will they decide? Will Wal-Mart be allowed to desecrate a piece of American history? Will they be denied, and an alternate site be recommended?

There seems to be a divide between the County Planning Commission and Orange County residents - the Commission voted 5-4 last week to approve development on the Battlefield site, yet at previous public hearings, the majority of Orange County residents were against the project (by an estimated 2-1 margin). This public outcry, combined with the history of the land at stake, would make it seem appropriate that Wal-Mart would be eager for a compromise that would still allow them to develop in the area, if one were presented...but to this point, no dice. Which is why County Administrator Bill Rolfe believes it’s now up to the supervisors to make the “win-win” a reality.

“The question that begs to be asked is, ‘Why isn’t the county trying to broker a deal that keeps Wal-Mart in the county and moves it further away from the congressionally approved boundary line of the Wilderness Battlefield?’ Both would be in our best interest,” Rolfe wrote the Board of Supervisors in a June 15 e-mail...He noted two goals--that Orange enlarge and diversify its tax base, and not do anything that would “detract from the [Wilderness] battlefield as a tourism destination for our community.”

Rolfe went on to point out that the coalition of historic preservation groups currently fighting the Wilderness plan would appear to be amenable to a development located farther from the battlefield park. And it just so happens that just such a piece of land could be made available next to a nearby 51-acre retail development. The question is, will County Supervisors go for it, or will they doom the Wilderness Battlefield to witnessing another brutal defeat?

Seeking win-win in store debate [Fredericksburg Free Lance-Star]

Read the rest of this story ...

Yesterday, we told you that hundreds of people were expected to show up at hearing at a public hearing last night regarding the ‘Wilderness Wal-Mart’—which would make it the most heavily attended public meeting in the history of the county.

Channel 19 News in Charlottesville, Virginia, had the story. We now graciously share that story with you.

We’ve written often on Wal-Mart’s plan to build a 141,000 sq. ft. Superstore next to the Wilderness and Chancellorsville Battlefields in Virginia. The site is undoubtedly one dripping with historical significance:

The Battle of the Wilderness was among the most significant engagements of the Civil War. It marked the first time legendary generals Robert E. Lee and Ulysses S. Grant faced off against one another on the field of battle. During two days of desperate conflict in a harsh, unforgiving landscape tangled with underbrush, 4,000 Americans lost their lives and nearly 20,000 were wounded.

That very fact has caused opponents from across the country to converge on Virginia - the Civil War Preservation Trust is leading the fight, Mr. Holland and his Opus have tagged along too, blogs have been dedicated to the issue, letters to the editor have been written (some even making excellent points):

To those who argue that the Wilderness Wal-Mart issue should not be influenced by outsiders, would you like to see a big-box retailer next to the Washington Monument or the Vietnam Veterans Memorial, should zoning be permitted, even though you do not live there?

Heck, even the Vermont Legislature has threatened to get itself involved, and they don’t even live in Virginia (I think).

Anyway, I’m getting off point, since two former Civil War Generals can very well sum up the conflict nicely themselves. The point is that in an act of good faith, one group, the Wilderness Battlefield Coalition, has offered to provide funds for a study that would evaluate the effects of development in the Wilderness and surrounding areas. The only negative (for Wal-Mart, at least) is that the study would push back the planning and permitting process by six months, something that one would think should hardly be a deal breaker in terms of timing. Still, the County Supervisors voted to reject the offer, and go ahead with a public hearing scheduled for May 21. At least one supervisor, however, was not pleased with the vote.

District 4 Supervisor Teri Pace said the coalition’s request was important and worth county officials’ consideration. “I think it’s really short-sighted for this board not to accept an asset at no cost to the county,“ Pace said. “All they’re asking is to hold back six months.“

We will, of course, continue to follow the Wilderness Battlefield battle.

Read the rest of this story ...

At 5 p.m. this afternoon, Eastern Standard Time, Wal-Mart will try for a third time to halt the Dukes v. Wal-Mart sex discrimination lawsuit, as a panel of 11 judges from the federal Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals will hear Wal-Mart’s latest attempt to stop this case from moving forward as a class action.

On initial review, the Ninth Circuit voted 2-1 to allow the case to proceed to trial as a class action. Wal-Mart appealed, however, and just about a month ago the federal court agreed to rehear the case en banc - that is, a hearing where all judges of a court will hear the case, rather than just a panel of three. In this Marketplace story, attorney on each side give their opinions as to why the case should (or should not) proceed:

Ted Boutros (Wal-Mart): We have a tradition in this country that individuals get their day in court. Class actions are an exception to that that need to be used carefully so as not to defeat people’s rights.

Debra Smith (Equal Rights Advocates): It’s exactly the type of case that the federal judiciary envisioned being a class action. It’s David versus Goliath, you know, it’s classic.

As of right now you can check out the en banc status page of the Ninth Circuit for updates. A California Legal blog, the UCL Practitioner, is providing updates as well, and has provided this nice tip:

This morning’s Daily Journal reports on the upcoming argument and provides the names of the eleven judges on the en banc panel...According to the article, seven were appointed by Democratic presidents.

So there you go, seven out of eleven judges on the panel appointed by Democrats...take that for what you may. And we’ve already learned which side the EEOC and the Obama Administration are pulling for. We’ll keep you updated as we find out more on the hearing.