Sprawl-Busters Newsflash Blog - Anti-Sprawl news since 1998.
Subscribe to Sprawl-Busters Blog Follow Sprawl Busters on Twitter
Occupy Walmart & Order Al's Books Movies Newsflash! The Case Against Sprawl Home Towns Not Home Depot Victories Your Battles About Us Contact Us  

recent news

List articles
by the month:

2018
JAN FEB MAR
APR MAY JUN
JUL AUG SEP
OCT NOV DEC

2017
JAN FEB MAR
APR MAY JUN
JUL AUG SEP
OCT NOV DEC

2016
JAN FEB MAR
APR MAY JUN
JUL AUG SEP
OCT NOV DEC

2015
JAN FEB MAR
APR MAY JUN
JUL AUG SEP
OCT NOV DEC

2014
JAN FEB MAR
APR MAY JUN
JUL AUG SEP
OCT NOV DEC

2013
JAN FEB MAR
APR MAY JUN
JUL AUG SEP
OCT NOV DEC

2012
JAN FEB MAR
APR MAY JUN
JUL AUG SEP
OCT NOV DEC

2011
JAN FEB MAR
APR MAY JUN
JUL AUG SEP
OCT NOV DEC

2010
JAN FEB MAR
APR MAY JUN
JUL AUG SEP
OCT NOV DEC

2009
JAN FEB MAR
APR MAY JUN
JUL AUG SEP
OCT NOV DEC

2008
JAN FEB MAR
APR MAY JUN
JUL AUG SEP
OCT NOV DEC

2007
JAN FEB MAR
APR MAY JUN
JUL AUG SEP
OCT NOV DEC

2006
JAN FEB MAR
APR MAY JUN
JUL AUG SEP
OCT NOV DEC

2005
JAN FEB MAR
APR MAY JUN
JUL AUG SEP
OCT NOV DEC

2004
JAN FEB MAR
APR MAY JUN
JUL AUG SEP
OCT NOV DEC

2003
JAN FEB MAR
APR MAY JUN
JUL AUG SEP
OCT NOV DEC

2002
JAN FEB MAR
APR MAY JUN
JUL AUG SEP
OCT NOV DEC

2001
JAN FEB MAR
APR MAY JUN
JUL AUG SEP
OCT NOV DEC

2000
JAN FEB MAR
APR MAY JUN
JUL AUG SEP
OCT NOV DEC

1999
JAN FEB MAR
APR MAY JUN
JUL AUG SEP
OCT NOV DEC

1998
JAN FEB MAR
APR MAY JUN
JUL AUG SEP
OCT NOV DEC


Search database by text:

2008-10-16
Lodi, CA. Planning Commission Says No, Wal-Mart Files Appeal

On October 8, 2008, Sprawl-Busters reported that Wal-Mart was getting desperate in Lodi, California. They have agreed not to leave their existing store empty if they get to build a new superstore, and are willing to pay a hefty fee to the city to help repair some of the damage their proposed superstore will do to other merchants in the downtown. But after six years, Wal-Mart has yet to begin work on its proposed supercenter. On February 16, 2007, a San Joaquin County judge overturned the city of Lodi's approval of a Wal-Mart Supercenter. The judge ruled that the company's environmental impact report (EIR) failed to take into account the impact of other Wal-Mart stores and energy consumption. In response to a lawsuit filed by Attorney Steve Herum and the group Lodi First in March, 2005, the judge ruled that the city's EIR left out how the new supercenter would affect Lodi, given the fact that there are already two other Wal-Mart supercenters nearby. This Wal-Mart project was originally proposed in September of 2002, but was not approved until February of 2005 on a 3-1 vote of the City Council. After the judge's ruling, Lodi officials decided to charge Wal-Mart and its developer, Darryl Browman, a 'big box' development fee, which would run $4.50 per square foot, to offset losses that downtown businesses could face if the 226,868 s.f. supercenter opens. The proposed Wal-Mart supercenter would be built right across the street from an existing Wal-Mart, which would close. The city's "downtown impact fee" at $4.50 per square foot, would generate just over $1 million. Officials said this money would be used for new business loans, employee training, and other programs to help downtown businesses. Wal-Mart would also be required to compensate for the loss of agricultural land. City planners have suggested a "one-for-one ag easement" plan, in which Wal-Mart would have to preserve one acre of agricultural land for one acre of land converted to commercial use. Wal-Mart's plan was supposed to be reviewed this past spring by the Lodi Planning Commission, but no vote was taken. Lodi continued to insist that Wal-Mart pay the city for damage to downtown businesses, and they want Wal-Mart to find a tenant for the store it will leave empty -- or to pay for its demolition. The city expects Wal-Mart to either fix up old buildings in Lodi's downtown, or ante up $680,000 in fees so the city can do the upgrades itself, or make loans to downtown landowners. City officials also want to be compensated for loss of farmland that will be destroyed by the new supercenter. At the end of July, a Lodi official acknowledged that the city had a draft version of a final environmental report -- but had no plans to release it to the public until Wal-Mart made clear its intentions to move forward with the plan. "We're waiting for Wal-Mart," the Lodi official told the News. Last week, Wal-Mart finally presented its plan to the Lodi Planning Commission -- but the Commission rejected the Environmental Impact Report. The Planning Commission voted 5-1 to deny the report, saying more information was needed regarding how the superstore would affect small businesses and grocers in the trade area. Less than a week later, on October 14th, two appeals were filed from the Planning Commission's decision -- one by Wal-Mart, the other by the landowner. The appeal letters state: "City staff and its team of expert consultants have worked on the EIR for over two and a half years. We believe that the EIR complies with the December 19, 2005, Superior Court ruling and that there is substantial evidence in the record to support a finding by the City that the EIR complies with the California Environmental Quality Act." The appeal now goes to the Lodi City Council on November 19th.

What you can do: The Lodi City Council could vote to approve Wal-Mart's EIR. If that happens, the project would go back to the Planning Commission for review of the land-use permit. The media reported last year that when Lodi started talking about fees, Wal-Mart began meeting individually with City Council members -- which is not ethical or legal. Wal-Mart got the green light in 2005, but because of the dogged effort of the citizens' group Lodi First, the store's plans were found "legally deficient." The city's proposed impact fee and agricultural preservation fee caught Wal-Mart by surprise. "Historically, Wal-Mart's policy is to avoid paying public costs of their projects," said Steve Herum, the attorney who brought Lodi First's case to court. City officials said the impact fee and agricultural preservation are measures they have already imposed on other commercial projects. "Everybody plays by the same rules," one Councilor said. After six years, the giant retailer has little to show for the time and money it has spent while stuck in Lodi. Readers are urged to email Lodi Mayor JoAnne Mounce at jmounce@lodi.gov with the following message: "Dear Mayor Mounce, the idea of building a Wal-Mart supercenter right across the street from an existing Wal-Mart store is pure folly. This kind of leap-frog sprawl may make sense to Wal-Mart, but it adds no value to the economy of Lodi. You open up a Wal-Mart superstore, and you cut sales and jobs at the Safeway or Food 4 Less. It's just a game of retail musical chairs, with market share shifting. Your insistence on impact fees makes sense -- but why not avoid the impact in the first place, and look for real economic development and better paying jobs instead? Wal-Mart admits that their current store on West Kettleman is doing fine -- so why create all these negative impacts? Now that the Lodi Planning Commission has rejected the EIR, the Lodi Council should support your Planning Commission, and insist that Wal-Mart and its developer go back and more fully scope out the negative impacts that this superstore will have on the economy of the city. Don't overrule your own review board. Make Wal-Mart do its homework."










 
 
"Norman has become the guru of the anti-Wal-Mart movement" ~ 60 Minutes

info@sprawl-busters.com
Strategic Planning ~ Field Operations
Voter Campaigns 
21 Grinnell St, Greenfield ~ MA 01301
(413) 772-6289