“Activists who opposed the measure — which would have allowed Wal-Mart to skirt zoning, traffic and environmental reviews — said it would hurt the community by inviting the Supercenter to drive out small business and encourage sprawl.”
So, the vote was only about whether Wal-Mart would be allowed to not run zoning, traffic, and environmental reviews prior to building, right? And, therefore, Wal-Mart has the option, and right, to run the zoning, traffic, and environmental reviews - and if the reviews pass the local regulations, they would be allowed to build, correct?
Do Wal-Mart execs feel the regulations are so stringent that the studies have no chance of passing local laws, and bypassing the review process is their only option?
NOTE: This is not meant to be a debate on regulations and how tough (or easy or fair or unfair) they should be.
My understanding was that if the zoning variations were not granted, it would not be profitable enough for Walmart to locate there. Jumping through hoops is expensive, not something commonly found in the Walmart business plan.
Although Wal-Mart now has the right to attend those reviews and continue building, they have already spent more than $1 million on its campaign to build there, so is moving on. From this article:
Here in the great flyover, where Wal-Mart got its start, they regularly build stores just outside the city limits.
Sometimes it’s because that’s where two highways intersect, or because that’s the only place they could put together a site big enough for what they need.
But other times, it’s because by building in an unincorporated spot, they can avoid pesky zoning regulations, and neighbors who show up at city council meetings concerned about noise, traffic, etc. And should the city later try to annex the land, Wal-Mart goes to work on neighbors who would also be annexed, trying to convince them to vote against it.
OP: from the article quoted by Dooku, it seems that Wal-Mart had already been denied the zoning permit by the city authorities. Wouldn’t surprise me if that meant the particular project they sought to build required some sort of variance or exemption from the existing zoning regs to begin with.
In my county, WalMart has left a trail of abandoned boxes all over the landscape. And when the WalMart in a strip mall pulls out, the whole thing goes down.
So when WalMart wanted to build a SprawlMart recently, the county denied it. So WalMart got the town next door to annex it and approve it. (Campaign contributions in a small town does wonders.) So the county is very POed now. Since they will want to build a dozen more in the county in the next decade, oops.
Basically WalMart has entered its “arrogant” phase. They are just clueless as to how many people and governments they are angering. They simply have a “We’re WalMart and we’ll do as we please” attitude.