Pickerington Area Taxpayers Alliance

2006-03-12
Monument, CO. Mayor Says Wal-Mart ?“Selfish?” Over Road Fee Dispute

The Mayor of Monument, Colorado thinks Wal-Mart is holding a grudge against the town, and is acting in a selfish way. He?’s referring to Wal-Mart?’s decision this week not to participate in a ?“public improvement fee?” needed to reconstruct an interchange that will carry traffic to and from its store along Baptist Road. A report in the Colorado Springs Gazette indicated that Wal-Mart derailed plans by the Baptist Road Rural Transportation Authority's financing plan for road improvements. BRRTA now has to consider going to voters to approve a 1% sales tax. Wal-Mart?’s Monument store won?’t participate in a proposed public improvement fee to pay for reconstruction of the Baptist Road and Interstate 25 interchange. BRRTA proposed a 0.5 to 1 percent public improvement fee, which would be paid for by shoppers at Monument Marketplace, which includes the Wal-Mart. BRRTA was going to use the money to issue bonds for the $16 million roadwork project. Wal-Mart told officials that it considered the fee a tax. ?“As a company, we do not have the power to change, approve or deny tax rates,?” Wal-Mart Realty wrote to Monument Mayor Byron Glenn. ?“We believe this (fee), even though it is voluntary for retailers to join, is a tax and the voters, our customers, should have a voice.?” The Mayor shot back, ?“I?’m extremely disappointed at this decision. It just kills us. At worst, their decision will jeopardize a life. At best, it will delay this project 12, 18 months.?” A Wal-Mart spokesman told The Gazette that his company had already paid about $800,000 in traffic impact fees and other road improvements. The retailer said the new fee would cost them hundreds of thousands of dollars, even though the fee would be paid by shoppers, not Wal-Mart. The company pleaded ignorance when asked by the newspaper to respond to the fee idea.?“It was real conceptual,?” the spokesman said of the fee. ?“It was never structured (regarding) time, or the terms. We weren?’t even told what the increase was.?” Mayor Glenn says the roadway is dangerous, and when Wal-Mart opens in the fall of 2006, it?’s going to get worse. But in some measure the town of Monument has to lie in the bed it made. They approved a Home Depot in 2004, and recently added a Kohl?’s to the same marketplace with Wal-Mart. The Mayor believes that Wal-Mart?’s decision not to participate in the voluntary fee on shoppers is just sour grapes, because the retailer tried to get the town to annex land for them in 1999, and the town refused. Then, in 2004, the county rejected a Wal-Mart supercenter too. ?“I think Wal-Mart is still holding a grudge over being denied the south Baptist Road site,?” Glenn told The Gazette. ?“I just think there?’s bad blood. I think it?’s very unneighborly of Wal-Mart to not participate in this, because it is a community need. To flat out say ?‘no,?’ I think, is very, very selfish.?” Wal-Mart scoffs at that notion. ?“If there was any bad blood, we certainly wouldn?’t have gone forward with a plan for the store,?” a spokesman said. Now that Wal-Mart has opted out, the town will have to focus on a sales tax instead, or simply let the traffic in front of Wal-Mart deteriorate and threaten the public?’s safety.



What you can do: Wal-Mart says the roadway in front of their store will be adequate, but town officials disagree strongly. Even though Wal-Mart?’s refusal to support the traffic fee plan threw the town off track, the real problem here is why the town approved this much big box sprawl in the first place. Some Wal-Mart traffic engineer told them that the traffic would flow better after a Wal-Mart arrives?—that?’s what they always say. But why did Monument officials approve so much new development, leaving themselves between Wal-Mart and a hard place? Bad planning and an uncooperative Wal-Mart has put them in a corner they might not easily get out of. You might call this ?“Monumental?” bad planning.

thanks for the heads up

Since the Township seems to want to try to approve this with two pieces of paper explaining the project and a lot of supposed promises that are not in writing, I am sure this will happen here too.

Reynoldsburg/Pickerington mirror

2006-03-01
Great Falls, MT. Residents Revolt Against Two Supercenters 4 Miles Apart

There isn?’t one good reason to have two Wal-Mart supercenters four miles apart, and the residents of Great Falls, Montana understand that. Residents in Great Falls reported this week to Sprawl-busters the following update: ?“Local citizens prevailed and convinced Great Falls City Planning Board NOT to approve zoning annexation for a Wal-Mart supercenter, but we've only won a skirmish, and the board now sends its recommendation to City Council for the next review. I'm sure the Wal-Mart Big Shots will be there again. They offered fancy traffic and transportation analysis, but NOTHING (and city didn't either) regarding the economic impact, 'Cost Benefit' analysis...citizens of ALL ages and backgrounds exhibited courage and spoke against yet another Wal-Mart in our town, where we have a Sam's Club and Supercenter already in a town of 60,000.?” According to the Great Falls Tribune, Wal-Mart is asking the city to annex almost 50 acres into the city limits. Wal-Mart plans to build a 203,000-square-foot Supercenter. The annexation vote was defeated on a 4-4 tie vote. Wal-Mart was given two hours to drone on about the benefits of having two supercenters within spitting distance of each other. City Planners recommended the annexation, supporting the sprawling of city infrastructure outside of the city as a catalyst for more development. One resident stood up and told the crowd of about 75 people, without embarrassment, ''I shop at Wal-Mart all the time and I'd like to be able to that without driving across town.?” One former pharmacist who worked for Wal-Mart told the Planning Board, ?“Wal-Mart is a predatory corporation that will hurt local companies that pay working wages with real insurance benefits. More people will be on Medicaid if a second Wal-Mart opens here.'' The stumbling block for Wal-Mart, however, was a provision in the city?’s zoning code that requires any retail store larger than 60,000 s.f. to get a conditional use permit. Part of the CUP review process requires the Planning Board to support the statement that ''The diverse retail economy is desirable in that it provides consumer choice and fosters competition.'' The tie vote means the City Council gets a negative recommendation from the Planning Board.


What you can do: Great Falls residents will have to keep the heat on, because City Councils show no hesitation to reject the recommendation of their own Planning Board, unless citizens keep their feet to the fire. Annexation cannot be arbitrary or capricious. It has to be done to further the health, safety and welfare of the city?’s residents. In this case, over development will hurt the existing tax base, by forcing more local stores to go under. The city removed an economic impact study requirement from its zoning code, but the impact of saturating stores this closely should be clear. ?“We became our own competition,?” Sam Walton explained in his autobiography. Once that happens, everyday low prices don?’t have to be low anymore. If a second superstore comes, the City Council should change the name of the city to Wal-Mart Falls. Wal-Mart is not the beginning of competition in your hometown, it is the beginning of the end of competition.

Sprawl Busters - we made it!

2006-02-11
Etna, OH. Wal-Mart Called An Economic & Safety Disaster

Ohio is being aerial bombed with proposed Wal-Marts, and opposition is following the giant retailer everywhere they try to drop a store. The following message is typical of the emails Sprawl-Busters receives: ?“I would appreciate any help you can offer to help stop 2 Wal-Mart stores and 1 Home Depot. These are proposed to be on 2 sites in rural areas. One site is 2 miles from my home in Pickerington, Ohio. The other site is 3 miles from my home in Pataskala, Ohio. I presently have two Wal-Mart stores within 6 miles of my home. They are literally within 2 and 3 minutes from my house on undeveloped rural highways. Right now I can get to Wal-Mart within 8 minutes. How many Wal-Marts do we need??” Apparently that same thought occurred to public officials in the area. Plans for a Wal-Mart in Etna, Ohio have spurred officials from Etna, Pataskala, Licking County, the Mid-Ohio Regional Planning Commission (MORPC) and the Ohio Department of Transportation to convene next month to discuss the large tracts of land along Route 310 that are zoned for general business. Wal-Mart?’s saturation of the area has finally triggered a public reaction on possibly limiting the development that could occur there. ''There has been a consensus that this is something we need to do,'' the director of the Licking County Planning Commission told Columbus This Week newspaper. The MORPC?’s traffic specialist added, ?“They (Wal-Mart) brought back the thinking among some of the local governments that maybe it would be wise to do some kind of a use plan for the corridor. But nothing has been committed. They are just planning to get together to talk about it.'' To build its 204,000 s.f. superstore in Etna, Wal-Mart has to get road access permits from Licking county, and one counth spokesman said it would be difficult for Wal-Mart?’s traffic access plan to meet county guidelines. ''We have been very successful working with many of the communities where we have built stores,'' a Wal-Mart spokeman told This Week. ''This particular project would be no different. We always welcome input.'' But the giant retailer might not like the input from one Etna trustee, who said Wal-Mart would be harmful to his town, and an ''economic and safety disaster'' Trustee Gary Burkholder added, ''That business going in there will not work. I feel strongly that I have a duty to protect the quality of life of our residents.''


What you can do: Can Wal-Mart work with that kind of ?‘input.?’ It?’s refreshing to hear a public official lay it out clearly. Wal-Mart is an economic and safety disaster for many communities, but by the time public officials respond, its too late. In this case, if the regional leaders rezone route 310 to neighborhood commercial, or cap the size of buildings, they can still save themselves from disaster. If not, they?’ll have wall to wall Wal-Marts every 5 miles.