STOUGHTON, WI
All or Nothing
Wal-Mart forces a small town to approve a new Supercenter or risk losing it all
IN MAY 2003, Wal-Mart proposed a new Supercenter for Stoughton, Wisconsin, a small Madison suburb of about 12,000 people. With a traditional Wal-Mart discount store already in the community, the Stoughton City Council considered a “big-box” ordinance to prevent the project from moving forward.1
To counter their opposition on the City Council, Wal-Mart benefited from the group Recapture Stoughton which pushed Wal-Mart’s agenda. (Recapture Stoughton was renamed Alliance 53589 in March of 2005, a reference to Stoughton’s zip code.)2
Wal-Mart threatened to close the existing store in Stoughton if the new Supercenter was not approved. Nevertheless, the Stoughton City Council voted for a big box ordinance in November 2003 that capped large commercial buildings at 110,000 square-feet.3 This ordinance destroyed Wal-Mart’s original plan for an 184,000 square-foot Supercenter. Wal-Mart spokesman John Bisio reinforced the company’s threat and said it would close their current store and move operations elsewhere.4
After a fight over big-box cap sizes, City Council members were left with no choice but to submit to Wal-Mart’s demands. Many members spoke out about the difficult decision forced upon them by Wal-Mart’s hardball politics.
Alderwoman Kathleen Kelly felt Wal-Mart’s actions were unfair and voted for the cap increase as a compromise. “This amounts to bullying by the largest corporation in the world…They have hijacked the planning process. It makes me sick to do this.”5
Alderman Eric Swenson did not like the fact that members of certain opposition groups, allied with Wal-Mart, did not live within city limits. “It’s corporate terrorism,” Swenson said. “They’re pushing our backs to the wall and making us do this.”6
During the subsequent City Council election cycle, Recapture Stoughton sponsored four candidates in an attempt to mold the council into supporting Wal-Mart’s policies and raising the new big-box cap. As a result of the April 2004 elections, all candidates sponsored by Recapture Stoughton won seats on the council. The City Council was now split 6-6 with the pro-Wal-Mart mayor casting the deciding vote.7 Just three weeks after the election, the City Council was voted to raise the size of the big-box limit.8
Wal-Mart bullied the town into submission, and council members who opposed the Supercenter felt threatened. Several city council members learned how contentious a battle with Wal-Mart can be.
Eric Swenson, a Stoughton City Council member who opposed Wal-Mart, described how his vote endangered his livelihood. “I had been thinking of resigning since March when someone called my employer anonymously to say that I was in Stoughton during business hours and, therefore, was not doing my job,” said Swenson. “There was no truth to the allegation, but I take threats to my livelihood, and therefore my family, seriously.”9
Swenson describes another disturbing example of retribution by the pro-Wal-Mart forces against another City Council member named Pat Schneider. In an attempt to prevent Schneider from teaching their children at a local high school, a member of the City Council talked about organizing people to petition the principal.10
Alderman Swenson told the Capital Times, “Smart growth, if not dead, is on life support…If there is a problem, Wal-Mart will threaten to leave town, and most of your leaders will give them whatever they may need. All this will be decided and accomplished out of the public view. Sure, there will be a public hearing so you can vent, but it will be disingenuous, just like the last hearing where the ‘fix was already in’ as they say in Chicago politics.”11
