As we've often discussed, there are a number of reasons a town might not want Walmart to move in. There is the added traffic, the simple change of feel to a small town, the businesses Walmart may force out, and the tax credits and other incentives Walmart often demands from towns and cities. Another frequent concern is crime. Walmart has been a hotbed for crime for a long time. In particular, Walmart's parking lots, where criminals know there won't be a security guard on patrol, are often crime scenes.

A local Pennsylvania town is concerned about exactly that crime, among other issues. Check out this article from The Morning Call about a recent planning commission meeting for the town of North Whitehall:

"A state trooper fielded questions Tuesday from the North Whitehall Planning Commission and the public about current police coverage in the township and the potential impact of a large commercial center, including a 24-hour Wal-Mart.

Land development plans for the big-box retailer and four smaller sites at the North Whitehall Commercial Center -- proposed to be built in Schnecksville -- are currently under review by the Planning Commission.

Commissioner John Barto III asked if a big-box retailer would affect police service in the township.

...Resident Nancy Bramer said she obtained crime statistic figures for North Whitehall that show incidents increased from 1,701 in 2006 to 2,354 in 2007. Bramer said she also obtained figures for the Trexlertown Wal-Mart that showed 102 incidents in 2006 and 68 incidents in 2007. She asked Mahady if that amount of incidents would have a significant impact on state police coverage in North Whitehall.

"Absolutely, that is significant," Mahady said.

Attorney Erich Schock, who represents Wal-Mart, asked if two calls came in -- one for a home burglary and the other for a retail shoplifting -- would a determination be made.

Mahady said calls are prioritized all the time and it would depend on the circumstances of each situation, for example, whether a suspect was on premises at the home burglary or in custody of retail security."

Yesterday we told you that there was going to be a public hearing about the proposed Walmart that could seriously degrade an important Civil War battlefield. As it turns out, the Orange County Board of Supervisors voted to recommend that the store be approved. The final decision will go to the City Council, and in the mean time, groups that have been pushing hard against Walmart building so close to the battlefield say they will keep fighting.

In a press statement, James Lighthizer, president of the Civil War Preservation Trust says,

"I am deeply disappointed by today�s vote. The Orange County Board of Supervisors had an opportunity to protect the battlefield by embracing a reasonable compromise approach to the Wal-Mart superstore proposal. Instead, they ignored rational voices on the national, state and local level encouraging them to work with the preservation community and local landowners to find a more suitable alternative location.

...The Civil War Preservation Trust and the other member groups of the Wilderness Battlefield Coalition will now carefully weigh options for continued opposition of this misguided proposal. This battle is not over yet."

They need your help, though, and they need it now more than ever. Go to the Civil War Preservation Trust's action page to learn more, speak out, and get involved. This isn't just a local issue, this is a matter of protecting important historical sites, indeed protecting our national identity.

In his autobiography, Sam Walton wrote: "We saturated Missouri...In the Springfield, Missouri area, we had 40 stores within 100 miles...we just started repeating what worked, stamping out stores cookie-cutter style." The Wal-Mart cookie-cutter in Missouri is still going strong.

The latest saturation is in Bridgeton, Missouri. The 15,000 residents of Bridgeton are swimming in Wal-Marts. There are 19 Wal-Marts within 25 miles of Bridgeton, including a Wal-Mart less than 3 miles away in St. Ann, and 7 miles away in St. Charles, Missouri. But Wal-Mart--and a developer who married into the family--wants to squeeze in another one.

Bridgeton is the oldest community in St. Louis County, and one of the oldest in the state of Missouri. It's also a city that has been losing population. Compared to 1990, the population in Bridgeton has dropped 15%. But Bridgeton Mayor Conrad Bowers says the city is on the way up. "Bridgeton is growing!" says the city's website. "New commercial and residential developments are underway and more are following, particularly as the '370' corridor blossoms."

According to the St. Louis Business Journal this week, the city is going to issue a request for redevelopment proposals within the next two weeks for some vacant properties formerly occupied by the retailer, Value City, which went out of business, and other tenants along St. Charles Rock Road.

One of the most prolific Wal-Mart developers in the country, THF Realty has proposed a Wal-Mart supercenter on the Value City property. THF has already contracted to buy a portion of the property that is included in the redevelopment request. THF also spent $32 million in 2006 to develop a Lowe's adjacent to the former Value City property.

THF Realty of St. Louis, was founded in 1991. It owns 100 properties comprising more than 20 million square feet of leaseable area in 23 states. A concentration of THF properties exists in Missouri, Illinois, Pennsylvania and West Virginia. The company says its mission is to be the "best private developer in America." The Chairman of THF is Stan Kroenke, a co-owner of the St. Louis Rams, and owner of the Denver Nuggets and the Denver Avalanche. Kroenke's net worth is around $3 billion--double what it was in 2003.

Building Wal-Marts is a family affair for Kroenke. He married into the Walton family. His wife Ann is the daughter of Sam Walton's brother Bud, who died in 1995. Ann Walton Kroenke is one of the richest women in America, with an inheritance valued at $2.6 billion.

Over the years, Kroenke and THF have been at the center of many controversial Wal-Mart developments in St. Peters, Columbia, High Ridge, Maplewood, and North St. Louis County, Missouri, as well as Glen Carbon, Illinois, Wheeling, West Virginia, and Buffalo, Minnesota.

Mayor Bowers is thrilled to let another big box store 'blossom' in his tiny city, because he thinks he knows a good economic deal when he sees one.

What you can do:

THF Realty owns 18 malls in Missouri alone. One of the most controversial Kroenke projects was Mapplewood Commons, a 439,550 s.f. mall located just 10 minutes South of St. Louis along Interstate 64. The center is anchored by a Wal-Mart, a Sam's Club and a Lowe's. When this project was finalized, Maplewood's Mayor at the time, Mark Langston, said he was "really pleased" that a Wal-Mart and Sam's club were given the green light by voters in Maplewood, Missouri.

What happened after the THF approval was unbelievable. THF began bulldozing an entire neighborhood of 150 homes!

The Mayor's cavalier response in the St. Louis Post Dispatch was: "We hate to lose these folks, but they're getting a good price for their homes." On top of that, TFH announced that it planned to expand its footprint beyond just the Wal-Mart and Sam's Club, to open a Lowe's home improvement store. This required the razing of another 52 homes in a residential area, bringing the total homes destroyed up to more than 200. All these families were uprooted from their homes, so Stan Kroenke could add another mall to his list of "assets."

But the story was even more bizarre: This very deep pocketed developer then asked Missouri taxpayers to give THF corporate welfare to tear down the homes, in the form of Tax Incremental Financing (TIF). This is the company that boasts that "in our first 10 years we built more than 15 million square feet of retail and office space."

Readers are urged to contact Bridgeton Mayor Conrad Bowers by emailing the city's Administrator at: cityadmin@bridgetonmo.com with the following message:

Dear Mayor Bowers, Your small city, with its declining population, already has 19 Wal-Marts within 25 miles of your city hall office. Your residents have plenty of discount stores to get their cheap Chinese products. The merchants who will be most affected by this superstore will be grocers like Schnuck's or Royal Food.

THF may have convinced you this is an economic development project---but its not. It's just about shifting market share from existing merchants---including Wal-Mart's own discount stores. Rather than create new jobs and new revenues, a Wal-Mart superstore will simply transfer sales from stores already in business.

Sam Walton boasted that Wal-Mart had become 'our own competition' in Missouri. Wal-Mart and THF are counting on your economic illiteracy to promote this project as a 'new jobs' project. But there's a reason why you're now trying to fill the empty space where Value City used to be. THF brings no added value to Bridgeton, and if you don't reject their bid, Bridgeton will find itself no better off financially after the superstore opens.

It's time to stop sprawling Bridgeton, and lead growth, instead of follow it. As one Mayor once said, �It's not how big you grow that matters. It's how you grow big.'

Soon we'll know if Walmart will be allowed to desecrate an historically important battlefield in Orange County, Virginia. There is a public meeting scheduled tonight about whether to allow Walmart to build a supercenter less than a quarter mile away from the Wilderness Battlefield and there will likely be a vote after the meeting.

The site, as you might imagine, is controversial and everyone from celebrities to elected officials to historians to locals have come out against Walmart building their store where it can negatively impact the battlefield.

Of course Walmart could easily move their planned site. There was an offer to purchase a comparable site, for the same price just a little farther away from the battlefield, but Walamrt stubbornly said no.

You can learn more and speak out about the proposed store over at the Civil War Preservation Trust's action page.

Here's the article from the AP via The Arkansas Democrat Gazette:

Decision nears on Wal-Mart near Va. battlefield

ORANGE, Va. � Wal-Mart should know this week if it can build a Supercenter near a Civil War battlefield in Virginia.

Orange County officials will hold a public hearing Monday evening that will likely be followed by a vote on a special use permit by the Board of Supervisors. The world�s largest retailer needs the permit to build near the Wilderness Battlefield site.

Historians and Civil War buffs have rallied against the location less than a mile from where Robert E. Lee and Ulysses S. Grant first met in battle. They contend the store will draw more commerce and traffic

Bentonville, Ark.-based Wal-Mart Stores Inc. counters that the property is already zoned for commercial use. It says the store will not be within sight of the battlefield�s 2,700 protected acres.

As if to highlight Walmart's connection to China discussed in the Al Norman article we just posted, we just received the news that Walmart is recalling one and a half million Chinese made DVD players because of a risk of the product overheating and starting a fire.

Of course the connection to China isn't the only issue here. The real issue is that Walmart pressures its suppliers to produce goods for the lowest possible price. This DVD player, for instance, retailed for $29. There's nothing wrong with cheap goods, per se, who doesn't want a $29 DVD player. The problem is that Walmart, at least implicitly, encourages their suppliers to cut corners on things like safety. In this case, it lead to a DVD player that could burn your house down.

Check out the latest piece from Al Norman via the Huffington Post:

While many American retailers are just one lackluster back-to-school season away from disaster, the malingering recession has been very good to some retail manufacturers -- especially in China.

American shoppers at Wal-Mart have made investors in Hong Kong very wealthy. By one estimate, in 2006 every Wal-Mart store in the United States caused the loss of about 77 American jobs due to Wal-Mart's trade deficit with China. Without knowing it, millions of American consumers have been shopping at Fung-Mart.

A Chinese global conglomerate little known in this county has been 'living better' off of Wal-Mart's sales. Li & Fung is not a household word in Kansas or Arizona -- but it's one of the main beneficiaries behind the Wal-Mart sales numbers. Described as the biggest supplier of clothes and toys to companies like Wal-Mart, Target and Kohl's, Li & Fung has been one of the fireworks of the Hang Seng Index, and its stock has more than doubled this year.

Li & Fung describes itself as "one of the premier global consumer products export trading companies managing the supply chain for high-volume, time-sensitive consumer goods including garments, fashion accessories, toys, sporting goods, promotional merchandise, handicrafts, shoes, travel goods and household items." Its products are sourced through a network of offices in nearly 40 countries for customers in the US, Europe, Asia and the Southern Hemisphere."

Li & Fung is actually a multinational group of companies. The Group has three core businesses: export sourcing through Li & Fung Limited; distribution through Integrated Distribution Services Group Limited (IDS), and retailing through Convenience Retail Asia Limited (CRA). The Li & Fung Group employs more than 35,000 workers worldwide.. Li & Fung Ltd, which is privately held, is the controlling shareholder of the Li & Fung Group.

It's retailing arm operates fashion retailing businesses Trinity and Branded Lifestyle, toys and children product specialty chain store Toys"R"Us, operated by Toys LiFung (Asia) Limited. Li & Fung sits in the emperor's seat for foreign imports to America and Europe, as well as domestic sales in China.

As the company describes it: "With the opening up of China's manufacturing, distribution and retail sectors to foreign participation, China's economy has reached a critical mass for explosive growth and fundamental changes. In the future, China will not only represent a sourcing hub for Li & Fung but also a huge consumer market to tap into."

In recent years, Li & Fung has been poking its head into the U.S. business world through a variety of partnerships and franchises:

-In 1999, Li & Fung Retailing became a franchisee of Toys "R" Us and acquired 100% ownership of the business in Hong Kong, Taiwan, Singapore and Malaysia; with exclusive access to new markets in mainland China. Ten years later, Toys LiFung operates 106 stores across China and South East Asia.

-In 2002, the Coca Cola company appointed Li & Fung as its international supply chain partner for promotional merchandise.
In 2004, U.S. based subsidiary, Li&Fung USA reached its second licensing agreement with Levi Strauss, in which Li & Fung designs, manufactures and markets certain Levi Premium trademarks. In essence, Li & Fung become the 'brand manager' for this iconic American company.

-In 2007, Li & Fung acquired the global sourcing operations of Tommy Hilfiger.

-This past week, retailer Talbots Inc. announced a deal making Li & Fung Ltd. its exclusive global apparel sourcing agent for almost all of Talbots' apparel.

By 2007, Li & Fung USA had reached sales of $1 billion in U.S. sales, selling private label and licensed products to American retailers. The company hopes to hit $4 billion in U.S. sales by 2010. The leadership of this powerful group of Hong Kong-based companies all have American pedigrees. Dr. Victor K. Fung, the Group Chairman of the Li & Fung group of companies, holds a B.A. and Master Degree in Electrical Engineering from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, and a Doctorate in Business Economics from Harvard University. The Group's Managing Director, Dr. William K Fung graduated from Princeton University with a Bachelor of Science degree in Engineering and holds an MBA degree from the Harvard Graduate School of Business.

Li & Fung markets itself as "the complete service chain." "We take care of all vital aspects of the supply chain so that our customers -- leading retailers and brands -- can focus on their customers." The Group also manages LF Investments (LFI) its investment arm, which provides equity capital and offers what it calls "strategic guidance on global marketing, distribution, retailing, outsourcing, supply-chain management, and capital markets." Unlike Wal-Mart, Li& Fung can do it all, from sourcing raw material, to production, to marketing: vertical integration in its most complete form.

Although its been a rough recession for the majority of domestic retailers, because of Wal-Mart shoppers, everything's coming up Hong Kong in the supply chain. Sam Walton may have enthralled Wall Street for decades, but Americans may someday be reading in their economics books about Fung Pak-liu and Li To-ming, the founders of Li & Fung, who began trading in porcelain and silk in Guangzhou, in the deep water port of Hong Kong, but ended up in the heartland of America.

Last week, one Li & Fung Executive told Bloomberg news that his company was on the lookout for more acquisitions. "We're sitting with about $1 billion of firepower," the official said. "I see this as a huge window of opportunities, like a kid in a candy store and you want to eat everything."

Compare Li & Fung's manufacturing prowess to the statement by former Wal-Mart Vice Chairman Tom Coughlin, who once told his employees, "At Wal-Mart we make dust. Our competitors eat dust."

Wal-Mart, which makes nothing, depends on Li & Fung to make its imports. In the not too distant future, it could be Wal-Mart that's eating Chinese dust.

Move over, Wally World. Welcome to Fung-Mart!

Congratulations!

Last week, we learned that Walmart was sponsoring Glenn Beck's program by advertising on it. We immediately called on Walmart to pull its substantial advertising dollars from the Glen Beck because of his extreme and hateful rhetoric. We also asked you to write letters to Walmart's corporate headquarters demanding that they pull their ad dollars from Glenn Beck's show right now.

It is now being reported that Walmart has pulled its advertisements from Glenn Beck's show! It seems that Walmart heard your concerns and has done the right thing. Thank you to all of those that wrote a letter to Walmart.

Here is some of the coverage of Walmart pulling its ads:

Eight more companies -- including Wal-Mart -- reportedly pull Glenn Beck ads [Media Matters]

More companies pull Beck ads: Wal-Mart, CVS, Best Buy [Politico]

Walmart, CVS, Best Buy Ditch Glenn Beck (Plus Five More Companies) [Huffington Post]

Yesterday, Governor Mike Huckabee wrote a piece called "Maybe We Should Let Walmart Run Health Care" on Fox New's Closing Thoughts. In it, he argues that while Washington was dragging their heels after Hurricane Katrina, Walmart was delivering aid, and therefore, why not let Walmart run health care. He goes on to make his actual point, "I love Walmart and they are headquartered in my home state, but I'm not really suggesting that they ought to run the entire health care industry. But if it were between Walmart and Washington, I'd pick Walmart."

While I think we can all agree that the government seriously bungled the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, it's not a terribly apt comparison. I would suggest looking at a better example: health care.

Sure, Walmart's got great prices, as Governor Huckabee pointed out, but how are they doing at actually providing health coverage to their employees (a far more accurate measure of how Walmart might administer health care to an entire nation)? Not so great, as it turns out. While most large companies cover more than 65% of their employees, Walmart covers just under 52%of their employees. That means Walmart fails to cover over 48% of its employees or 675,000 individuals, and who knows how many more children of employees. That is because, while their prices are low, so is their pay, but the cost of their health insurance? Not so much. Many workers are therefore forced rely on state-sponsored plans like Medicaid or the State Children�s Health Insurance Program (SCHIP). Walmart relies on taxpayers to foot the bill for their negligence.

And how about the government? They certainly failed in their response to Katrina, but how have they done at actually providing health care? One has to look no further than Medicare, Medicaid, and the elaborate health care system for our troops, all of which run pretty smoothly. No one seems to be clambering for the government to stop running those programs and have Walmart (or the health insurance companies) take them over.

No, I don't think Governor Huckabee would be very happy with Walmart's health care coverage.

You can read Governor Huckabee's full article here.

Barack Obama "has exposed himself as a guy... who has a deep seated hatred for white people or the white culture." "This guy, I believe, is a racist."

This is the kind of drivel Glenn Beck has been spewing lately. We know. We know. Not much that comes out of the Fox News host's mouth surprises you anymore, but guess what: Glenn Beck's hate speech is being sponsored by, you got it, Walmart.

Other major advertisers (i.e. Geico, Proctor and Gamble, and Lexis Nexis) are pulling their ads from Glenn Beck's show in response to his disgraceful rhetoric. Not Walmart.

It's time for that to change.

Join the fight to end Walmart's financial support of Glenn Beck's televised hate. Tell Bentonville that you demand Walmart pull its ad dollars from Glenn Beck's show right now.

Send a letter to Walmart executives denouncing their financial support of hate speech

Walmart has inserted itself into the public discourse on everything from health care to the environment. Because of Walmart's size, its messages reach many. But, with great power comes great responsibility.

It is imperative that Walmart takes a stand against hateful and extreme rhetoric, and they can start by pulling their financial support of it. Other major advertisers have already taken the lead: it's time for Walmart to step up and do the right thing.

Write Walmart today: help kick racism and hate speech off the airwaves

Thanks for all you do,

The Team,
WakeUpWalMart.com

For Immediate Release
August 13, 2009

WAKEUPWALMART.COM LAUNCHES NEW CAMPAIGN TO DEMAND HEALTH INSURANCE REFORM

Press conferences across the country highlight Walmart�s poor record on health coverage; call on elected officials to support quality, affordable coverage for all

Washington, DC � WakeUpWalMart.com, America�s campaign to change Wal-Mart, with more than 450,000 members nationally, this week launched a new campaign to demand health insurance reform. Walmart workers, community leaders, and members of Walmart Workers for Change, Health Care for America NOW and WakeUpWalMart.com will join together in front of district congressional offices to demand quality, affordable health coverage for all Walmart associates and all workers.

President Obama has made health insurance reform his number one priority, and people all across the country are coming out to show their support for this important issue. While Walmart has attempted to use this opportunity to gain good PR, they remain one of the worst offenders. Walmart recently released an ad claiming that 94 percent of their associates have some type of healthcare, but what they don�t say is that only 52 percent get it through the company. Walmart insures far fewer employees than most large companies, who, on average, cover 65 percent of their employees

Walmart�s coverage is also far too costly. If an average full time Walmart Associate faces a serious family health issue, they have to pay the entire out-of-pocket maximum for the least expensive health plan, which adds up to 53% of their income.

"Yes, Walmart offers us options for health care,� said Mark Moore, a Walmart associate in Dallas, Texas, �but it doesn't cover what we really need. If Walmart was more responsible, they could stop making us decide between health coverage and paying our bills."

This unacceptably high price forces many Walmart employees on to public programs like Medicaid and SCHIP. Between Medicaid and SCHIP, taxpayers are paying over a billion a year to provide healthcare for Walmart's employees.

As part of the campaign, local Walmart associates will speak out about their experience with Walmart and health care. They will urge the public, and elected officials to support comprehensive health insurance reform. Other speakers will include local community leaders, Health Care for America NOW activists, and others.

The campaign will also feature a petition drive, asking community members and Walmart customers to support real health insurance reform. Workers, community leaders and local WakeUpWalmart.com activists will distribute 50,000 petition cards that read �I think Walmart should stop forcing taxpayers to cover its workers� health care. With $13 billion in profits just last year, Walmart can afford to provide all its workers with affordable health care. As the largest retailer in America, it�s time for Walmart to do right by its workers.� The petition card drives home the message that, when it comes to health care, Walmart is �all talk and no action.�

###

IMMEDIATE RELEASE
August 12, 2009

WAKEUPWALMART.COM CALLS ON WALMART TO PULL ADS, STOP SUPPORTING HATE SPEECH

Other companies pull ads from Glen Beck�s show, Walmart continues its support

Washington, DC � Today WakeUpWalmart.com, America�s campaign to change Walmart with more than 450,000 members, is calling on Walmart to pull its substantial advertising dollars from the Glen Beck Show on Fox News. Recently many groups have called for a withdrawal of advertising support from Beck�s show because of his extreme and hateful rhetoric. Several companies, including Geico, have pulled all their ads from the show, but Walmart continues to support Beck�s hate speech.

�Walmart must stop supporting Glen Beck�s show with its advertising,� said Meghan Scott, Director of WakeUpWalMart.com. �Money talks, and it is simply unacceptable for the country�s largest retailer to endorse this hate speech.

�Walmart is a major player, both in terms of advertising and in terms of the discussion on major issues facing our country. Walmart has inserted itself into the public discourse on everything from health care to the environment. Because of their size, their messages reach many -- and with great power comes great responsibility. Walmart has a responsibility to stand up against this kind of hateful and extreme rhetoric, and they can do their part by pulling their advertisements.�

###

If you were to go to a store and steal something (not that I am suggesting you should) you might expect to be stopped, detained, maybe arrested and charged with a crime. What you probably wouldn't expect is physical harm. Well, leave it to Walmart to break expectations. A man is suing Walmart for excessive force after four employees wrestled him to the ground for which he suffered a dislocated shoulder.OF course the man was shoplifting, which is illegal, but doesn't four employees smashing you to the ground sound a little extreme when simply stopping the man probably would have sufficed?

The worst part of this story, though, is that this is hardly new. Walmart has a history of using brutal methods to stop shoplifters, or those they think are shoplifting. The result has been some pretty serious injuries and even, in a few cases, death.

Here is a piece of the article from the local TV station:

A Port Arthur man is suing Wal-Mart for injuries he received after he was caught shoplifting. It happened March 13th at the Wal-Mart on Twin City Highway in Port Arthur and it was all caught on tape. Jessica Holloway reports, attorneys say the shoplifter is suing because store employees went too far.

Surveillance video was taken from inside Wal-Mart in Port Arthur. It appears that four employees wrestle Michael Harris to the ground. Harris is suing Wal-mart and two employees for dislocating his shoulder. It's what happened before, caught on tape, that led up to this point.

On July 26, 2009, Sprawl-Busters reported that a proposed Wal-Mart superstore in tiny Brooklyn, Connecticut had attracted two lawsuits. Wal-Mart's application for the 162,000 s.f. store was approved on March 19, 2009 by the Brooklyn Inland/Wetlands.

The I/W Commission voted that the huge superstore would not create a "significant activity" that would have a major impact on wetlands. They also ruled that the project would not cause unreasonable pollution or impairment the wetlands on the site. The Commission attached 14 insignificant conditions to their approval, including requiring Wal-Mart to use a biodegradable de-icing product on the parking lot.

Immediately after the vote, a citizen's group vowed to challenge the I/W Commission decision. The Battle of Brooklyn was in the news again on June 24, 2009 when another town board, the Planning & Zoning Commission, voted 7-1 to approve the application, with members again attaching their own list of 18 minor conditions to the plan. The commission will require Wal-Mart to increase its buffer area, do a daily litter clean up, conduct a noise and lighting test, and post a bond to ensure proper erosion control and landscaping on the site if the project is not finished. Only one member of the P&Z voted against the plan, noting that its huge size was not "in harmony with the town, does not have a New England architectural style and would hurt neighboring property values," according to the Norwich Bulletin.

Lisa Arends, a spokesperson for the group Brooklyn for Sensible Growth, told the newspaper, "I'm disappointed, but not surprised. "It is what it is, and we go from here." The second appeal in this case was formally filed in Putnam Superior Court on July 6th. The "Brooklyn Dozen," including residents Jeff Haines, Demetrios and Maria Pasiakos, Kerry and Elaine Lambert and Dan Litke filed as abutters to the project. The lawsuit charges that the P&Z vote for Wal-Mart was "illegal, arbitrary, capricious and in abuse of its discretion."

The residents say that town officials failed to follow town regulations and state statutes in making their decision. The plaintiffs and their experts testified during the hearings that the huge store--the building itself is almost three times the size of a football field--did not conform with other retail businesses in the area, or with the surrounding built environment.

Four acres including in the plan are zoned residential-agricultural, and not planned commercial. The lawsuit charges that town "staff participation during deliberations was in the nature of advocacy... and rendered the proceedings fundamentally unfair." The first appeal of the Inland Wetlands case will come up for a pretrial conference on September 23rd, and the actual court hearing date will be March 22, 2010. This means that citizens have effectively delayed any action on Wal-Mart's approval from Inland/Wetlands by one year from the vote of approval by that body. The P&Z appeal will delay the project further. Wal-Mart has indicated that nothing will happen with this project until the appeals are processed. With this litigation as a backdrop, it is not surprising that town officials do not want to cooperate with the efforts by local residents to prevent this kind of a big box fiasco from happening again in their community.

This week, the same Brooklyn Planning & Zoning Commission that approved the Wal-Mart voted to 'study' a zoning regulation change that would have created a size cap of 50,000 s.f. on all retail businesses. Such limitations on the bulk of stores have become commonplace in communities across the country as a bright line to limit big box sprawl. As a token to citizens who pushed for the new regulation, the P&Z did agree to form a subcommittee to "study," the issue to decide if a cap is desirable, and at what size it would be set. The "study" gives local officials more time to organize sentiment against the idea.

The subcommittee will have members of the town's Economic Development, Conservation, and Planning and Zoning commissions, as well as some residents. The size cap is Brooklyn's best avenue for protecting its small town character, and prevent the secondary sprawl growth that is attracted to big box projects like the Wal-Mart superstore. But on the advice of the town's lawyer, the Commission's review of the idea tabled without a vote, and the idea of a study was presented instead.

What you can do:

The size cap regulation as written would only have relevance to the planned commercial zone, because existing zoning regulations in every other zone already would rule out big box stores. Jeff Arends, who opposed the Wal-Mart and who helped propose the size cap, said the regulation change was written to apply to all zones in Brooklyn in cased new ones were added later. But under questioning by the P&Z members, Arends said he would be willing to see just the commercial zone targeted for the new cap. This size cap was submitted to the town last December--before any votes were taken on the Wal-Mart project--which will not be affected by the cap if it subsequently passed.

In the two hour hearing on the size cap, most of the testimony submitted to officials was in favor of the regulation, according to the Bulletin. "A 50,000 s.f. cap would not be the death of Brooklyn," one resident told the Commission. "Brooklyn deserves protection from the devastation and irreparable damage of urban sprawl which is knocking on our door," Lisa Arends told the Commission. Attorney Marjorie Shansky, who is representing the citizens in their appeals against the Wal-Mart decision, also spoke in favor of the plan.

During the Wal-Mart appeal, residents voiced concerns that land further along Route 6 would attract more big box sprawl and national chain restaurants if the Wal-Mart is built. The Brooklyn retail trade area already has a Wal-Mart 10 miles away in Putnam, Connecticut, plus a supercenter 14 miles away in North Windham, and another supercenter 14 miles away in Lisbon. "This store will not affect our stores in neighboring communities," Wal-Mart told its critics. "Having multiple stores in a region is a way to ensure we provide savings and convenience to as many as possible." Wal-Mart tried to use the economy's weakened condition as another reason to want a superstore. "With the economy in fragile condition, a Brooklyn store brings hundreds of new jobs and hundreds of thousands of dollars in tax revenue."

The reality is that there will be little or no �new' jobs at Wal-Mart, because the superstore in Brooklyn will cannibalize other Wal-Mart's nearby, and cause local stores---including grocery stores---to fail.

Readers are urged to email Planning & Zoning Commission Chairman Thomas Doherty with the following message:

"Dear Chairman Doherty,

I hope the Wal-Mart battle in Brooklyn has convinced you that big box superstores are a point of deep division in your small town, and that putting a limit on the bulk of buildings is as appropriate as placing a limit on the height of buildings.

This has become a mainstream zoning idea in communities across the country, going back more than a decade. This is a legitimate zoning tool to help Brooklyn guide future growth, instead of following the lead of national chain store developers. The cap will not affect Wal-Mart, so your 'study' of the issue should not be clouded by that.

As one Mayor has said, 'It's not how big you grow---but how you grow big, that matters.' Brooklyn will not get many chances to determine how it will grow. The size cap allows developers to fit into your vision of the future, rather than the reverse.

If you are going to tell people on your website, 'Take a minute and enjoy the view'---then you'd better protect the view in Brooklyn before it gets crowded out by big box sprawl."

For years, Wal-Mart has tried to drape itself in environmental correctness, promoting its image as a "green" developer. Despite its environmentally wasteful habit of building stores that consume far more land than necessary, and its inefficient habit of shutting down hundreds of stores--only to build bigger ones across the street--Wal-Mart has spent millions of dollars in advertising boosting itself as environmentally sensitive.

Frequently the company tells local officials that its use of features like skylights, and its insistence that its vendors reduce redundant product packaging, is proof of its sustainability. The company has been producing annual 'sustainability" reports that reinforce the notion that Wal-Mart is shrinking its carbon footprint---while it continues to propagate one of the world's most convoluted supply chains, stretching from China to the United States. But, from time to time, prominent court cases remind the public that Wal-Mart is not a green company at all.

This past week, the San Bernardino County, California Superior Court handed down two decisions in one case that has Wal-Mart seeing red, not green. Judge Donald R. Alvarez rejected the city of Rialto's approval of a huge, 284,000 s.f. Wal-Mart supercenter on the grounds that the city did not sufficiently study the project's impact on the environment.

This case would never have turned this way had it not been for a lawsuit filed by a citizen's group, and a related suit filed by officials in the neighboring city of Colton, California. The Judge ruled that Rialto's approval did not meet the requirements of California's Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). On May 15, 2009, Sprawl-Busters reported that another San Bernardino County Superior Court Judge rejected the town of Yucca Valley's approval of a Wal-Mart supercenter. Judge Barry Plotkin found the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) written by Wal-Mart failed to adequately address the store's impact on greenhouse gas, and faulted the EIR for failing to discuss all feasible air quality mitigation measures. In the Rialto case, the judge faulted the EIR for failing to include a discussion of a "green" Wal-Mart supercenter alternative, for failing to use solar panels in the design, and for failing to make the necessary findings to reject the EIR's environmentally superior alternative.

Judge Alvarez also ruled that the project was not consistent with the city's general plan and a specific plan. The Yucca Valley and Rialto cases are embarrassing to the giant retailer, which recently unveiled a plan to require many products carried in its stores to display a "sustainability index." But when it comes to building the stores which will house such products, Wal-Mart has run into its own set of eco-problems. These California court cases are upsetting Wal-Mart's green image, and show the growing importance of considerations like greenhouse gas emissions when reviewing such huge, automobile dependent projects.

What you can do: The Rialto lawsuit was brought by the group Rialto Citizens for Responsible Growth, who were represented by Attorney Cory Briggs, who has also represented citizen's groups in Ontario, Vista, Barstow, Victorville, Hesperia, and other California towns. "Wal-Mart argued that global warming science doesn't yet allow it to reduce its carbon emissions," Briggs said of the Rialto case. He told the Los Angeles Times that two years ago Wal-Mart said it was going to deploy solar projects in 22 of its stores in California and Hawaii. The court's decision also indicated that Wal-Mart's EIR had failed to "analyze and mitigate" potential impacts on five special-status plant species, including Plummer's mariposa lily, and on the San Bernardino and Stephens' kangaroo rats and the Western burrowing owl.

This week's court ruling is not the end of the Rialto Wal-Mart. In these cases, the court's ruling can mean a one or two year setback. But the case will go back to Rialto, a new EIR will be written---by Wal-Mart--and the project will begin to move again.

There are 17 Wal-Mart stores within 25 miles of Rialto, including a Wal-Mart discount store on South Riverside Avenue in Rialto, which will close down when the superstore opens. Of the 17 Wal-Marts near Rialto, only two of them are superstores, including a superstore 16 miles away in Moreno Valley, Calfornia.

Wal-Mart's future growth in this area is dependent on converting these discount stores into superstores---or building new superstores, as in Rialto---and shutting down the existing discount store. The Rialto trade area is clearly saturated with Wal-Mart stores, and this new superstore will get most of its sales from "captured" sales at other stores. This project does not translate into jobs and revenues for Rialto. It only means one or two more "dead stores" to contend with---including Wal-Mart's own store on South Riverside Avenue.

Readers are urged to email Rialto Mayor Grace Vargas at vargas@rialtoca.gov with this message:

"Dear Mayor Vargas, You know what it's like to work at hard jobs for very low pay. You also know that the proposed Wal-Mart supercenter will cause the existing Wal-Mart discount store to close. You say you want "the best for people and their families," but encouraging more Wal-Mart jobs is not the future for Rialto.

Wal-Mart kills off as many jobs as it creates. Other merchants will suffer. Now that your own citizens, through their lawsuit, have shown that the Environmental Impact Report for the superstore was inadquate, the city should insist that Wal-Mart give the city the funds needed to conduct an independent EIR---not one produced by Wal-Mart's consultants. Let the city hire an independent contractor to take a look at the environmental effects of this project.

In the meantime, you should ask Wal-Mart to put funds into escrow to pay for the demolition of its South Riverside Avenue store---because if you ever finally approve this superstore, you are going to have an empty Wal-Mart on your hands---and they are not easy to dispose of.

This project is not the "best for people and their families," and you should take a hard look this time at whether or not it makes any economic or environmental sense.

The courts have done you a great favor: given you the chance to say No to this project the second time around.

Usually, when Walmart is looking in to a new product for their generic brand, it's not really big news, but I heard about Walmart's "Great Value" cookies this morning on NPR before I even got to work. It turns out that Walmart is developing generic versions of two very popular flavors of Girl Scout cookies. Soon, you may be able to buy Walmart's take on Thin Mints and Tagalongs. Why is this such big news? Well it turns out that this blog entry set off quite a stir.

And we think the author, CV Harquail, is right. Walmart often likes to brag about how much good it does for the communities its stores are in, (without mentioning, of course, the independent businesses it shuttered, the added traffic, the poor wages and benefits, and the wages it depresses in nearby stores) but actions like this throw its true colors in to question. This blog post hits the nail right on the head, "Wal-mart can sell all the hunting equipment, cheap plastic gizmos and clothes made in sweatshops that it wants to sell. But why must they encroach upon the market of a non-profit? Why do they have to go after the Girl Scouts?"

Perhaps the most important paragraph of the blog post, though it is the real meat of piece, didn't make the news,

When it comes to assessing whether an organization is authentic, whether it is trying to grow into something more or better, it is important to look at the organization�s actions in that area. We should be looking at Wal-mart�s sustainability efforts and encourage them when these efforts seem to demonstrate that Wal-mart is keeping its promises. But also, we should look at the organization�s behavior around the fringes, because it is this behavior that clues us in to whether the change effort is real, or whether the change effort is fake.