Last night I was reading Wired.com, a personal favorite web destination, and come upon one of the scariest things I'd ever imagined.

Wired has been asking readers what they think the world will look like in 10, 20, even 100 years, asking them to submit images of aspects of future life. The image that they have up this month is a very scary vision of the future of medical billing.

Electronic medical records and records have been a big item of discussion within the medical field, in government , and by privacy advocates. For this edition, Wired was looking at the future of medical billing, and the results were surprising.

It isn't that the records are electronic. Or that the patient was a ninety-year old mountain biker. Or that they are on a tablet/iPad type device. Even the additional bills are disconcerting (recreational injury tax?), but the really worrying thing is the service provider: Walmart Surgical Clinic.

In the future, are people going to be willing to hand over their medical coverage to Walmart? The prevention of "Bottom Basement Discount Medical Care" is what we just had a huge political battle over during the Health Care Reform. I know, Walmart hasn't proposed anything like this and it is some individual's idea of what something might hypothetically look like, but that this could even be imaged in frightening.

Rapid City, South Dakota hosts more than 2 million visitors each year who come to see Mt. Rushmore and Crazy Horse, the Badlands and the Black Hills National Forest. But when they get to Rapid City, what they will see on the landscape is suburban sprawl, Wal-Mart style.

On March 5, 2008, Sprawl-Busters reported that Wal-Mart had suddenly withdrawn its plans to build a second supercenter in Rapid City. Their withdrawal followed a couple of weeks on the heels of a rejection by the Planning Commission in Rapid City. The Commission acted rapidly to turn down Wal-Mart's request to have a small piece of land rezoned for their project.

The Planning Commission voted 6-2 to keep the land zoned park forest, instead of general commercial. Wal-Mart needed this little piece of land to make its 79 acre shopping center a reality.

The Rapid City Council was going to get the final say on the rezoning at its March 3rd meeting. This process to permit the second Wal-Mart has been going on since October of 2006---so after almost three and a half years, the rapid response Wal-Mart wanted has long since faded away.

Wal-Mart started off with this project five years ago, at a different location along Highway 16. The original site was taken to the voters of Rapid City, who voted in a referendum to approve the second supercenter.

But Wal-Mart had to withdraw its plans in July of 2006, because one abutting property owner, an orthopedic center, refused to grant the store a small easement for a road behind the store. Without the easement, the project died.

But the developer bounced back with a second site in December of 2006. The developer called this new asphalt and concrete sprawl the Dakota Canyon Market Place. The shopping center would actually sit on a hill, overlooking land set aside as the "Dakota Canyon Nature Preserve." Neighbors to this out-of-scale project in the Enchanted Hills subdivision testified that the project would generate too much traffic, harm property values, and disrupt their residential quality of life. Homeowners in Enchanted Hills did not want to live beside a store almost the size of 4 football fields, which would be lit up and open all night long.

In March of 2008, neighbors rejoiced when they found out that they might not have to put up with this project at all. The Rapid City Journal reported that two Wal-Mart planning and zoning items were removed from the city council's agenda at Wal-Mart's request for "unknown reasons." When one Enchanted Hills neighbor heard that Wal-Mart had pulled it plans, he replied, "I'm not going to come tonight. I think it would be a three-hour meeting for no reason. I think, for the time being, we'll just wait until we hear something more. I'd be just as happy if they stuck a Kohl's up there, and this went away."

But Wal-Mart didn't go away. This week, the Rapid City Journal reports that the City Council has voted unanimously to support the Planning Commission approval for a Wal-Mart development in yet another location near Fifth Street. But as a courtesy to the 4 new members of the City Council who are about to take office, the city will allow any of the new members to raise objections to the plan at the Council's July 6th meeting. Such a challenge in unlikely, since the new Council members ran on a pro-Wal-Mart position.

The newspaper estimated that about 25 concerned residents showed up for this week's Council meeting, reiterating their concerns over traffic, lighting, noise, and aesthetics.

The developer, THF Realty, of St. Louis, Missouri, is one of the largest Wal-Mart developers in the nation, and is owned by E. Stanley Kroenke, who married into the family of Bud Walton, Sam Walton's brother. Kroenke is one of the richest people in America.

Kroenke's team made some minor concessions to neighbors on such items as landscaping, but the project will have an adverse impact on the residential value of nearby homes. "We have a vision for what this project could be," a spokesman for the developer said. "We'd like to see the South Robbinsdale community grow. We'd like to see this be the finest development in Rapid City."

As a selling point, some neighbors spoke in favor of Wal-Mart, telling officials the "neighborhood could do a lot worse than Wal-Mart." "Something commercial is going to be built along that strip" said one resident. "We know what Wal-Mart is. We'll take the Wal-Mart."

What you can do: But do supporters really 'know what Wal-Mart is?" One resident fighting the project was able to see through the landscaping ruse. "The majority of the homes in our neighborhood are elevated and will be subjected to all the sights and sounds of Wal-Mart," she said.

Residents also insisted that Wal-Mart should not be allowed to stay open for 24 hours, given that other communities have prevented that from happening.

Another resident testified, "I just don't feel that it is right that they would be placing a Supercenter in any residential area because of the traffic and the other issues they are talking about."

But unless this decision is challenged, THF Realty will have two years to submit their plans for Planning Commission approval. If they get a green light, Wal-Mart's neighbors in Rapid City are going to see a rapid deterioration in their quality of life.

Back in 2008, the developer left high and dry was Whittinham & Lestrange. Because of Stanley Kroenke's family ties to Wal-Mart, the retailer would never back out of a THF project.

People in Rapid City today have no more than a one or two mile drive to the existing Wal-Mart supercenter. A second superstore adds no value to the city. In fact, the second store will merely compete with the first, and have a negative impact on other area grocery stores.

According to Rapid City Mayor Alan Hanks, "Rapid City is a vibrant and growing community of 60,000 progressive citizens." It's the Gateway to the Black Hills and Mount Rushmore. It's only a matter of time before someone in the city suggests that Sam Walton's face be added to Mount Rushmore.

Readers are urged to email the Mayor at: mayor@rcgov.org with the following message: "Mayor Hanks and Council, Wal-Mart has had several false starts in Rapid City, but the fact is, you don't need more suburban sprawl. Another supercenter will simply compete with the first, and force more existing grocery stores to close. You have more than 4,300 people employed in retail trade, about 15% of your workforce. Adding more big box stores will not create new jobs---just shift sales from existing cash registers.

Its up to your new Council members to ask for reconsideration, but it appears that economic illiteracy in Rapid City is a bigger problem than Wal-Mart.

Hopefully residents will challenge this vote in court, and prevent the Gateway to the Black Hills from becoming the Gateway to Wal-Mart Sprawl."

This week Wake Up Walmart participated in the U.S. Social Forum, a movement building event that brought together more than 10,000 divierse people and groups working on issues from immigration to economic justice to food sovereignty. We brought a delegation of Walmart workers, union members, local activists, and local union staff members with us to spread the word about the work we're doing to change Walmart for the better, and create opportunities to work with other organizations.

Yesterday we held an incredible workshop called "Walmart: Short term choices versus long term realities." We discussed Walmart's impact on our jobs, communities, and environment, and our strategies for creating positive change. We had a panel of three Walmart workers who spoke about their experiences working at the giant retailer and why they believe they need to come together and support eachother. They spoke of the lack of respect, the lack of adequate wages and benefits, and how Walmart has affected their communities. We also had a speaker from the Retail Action Project, a New York City retail store employee who helped his fellow workers win a union at his chain. About fifty Social Forum participants came to our workshop to hear about our work and discuss winning strategies for changing Walmart.

The Walmart workers on our delegation also added their perspective at a workshop run by the Retail Action Project about organizing retail and low wage workers, and our staff was part of a panel on corporate control of our food systems run by our allies at the National Family Farm Coalition and Food and Water Watch. We've also attended countless meetings, workshops, conversations, and more!

Another city has been jilted by Wal-Mart--but it only hurts for a little while.

In November of 2008, Wal-Mart announced that it wanted to build a 162,797 s.f. superstore in Livingston, California. Livingston describes itself as "a City on the move," and emphasizes that it is undergoing "a period of transition and transformation due to new residential and commercial development." This is usually code language for rapid sprawl development.

The city is located along one of California's major freeway arteries and is just two hours from San Francisco. Livingston is part of the Merced County Enterprise Zone, one of 23 such Zones in the State of California. The EZ program "targets economically distressed areas using special state and local incentives to promote business investment and job creation. By encouraging entrepreneurship and employer growth, the program strives to create and sustain economic expansion in California communities."

But instead of sustainable economic expansion, Livingston got a Wal-Mart application.

From the beginning, Livingston officials couldn't stop bragging about their anticipated Wal-Mart. Located on 34 acres at the Hammatt Interchange on Highway 99, the development, called Blueberry Crossing, was slated to have a Wal-Mart, plus a motel, restaurants and other retail commercial establishments. This land had to be annexed into the City and by January of 2009, the site plan and environmental review process had begun.

Approximately 21% of the floor area was to be devoted to grocery sales. The Livingston Wal-Mart Supercenter was proposed to operate 24 hours per day, seven days a week. "It will bring approximately 450 jobs to Livingston," according to the city. "The average California Wal-Mart associate makes $11.41 per hour."

City officials basically cut and pasted Wal-Mart's press release, and put it on their website. In January of 2009, the City Council voted unanimously to hire a consultant to complete an environmental impact study for the project.

Local officials were totally sold on the project. There were a few residents with mixed emotions, like Brandon Friesen, the former Mayor of Livingston, and the owner of a True Value hardware store. "I don't mind them coming in as long as they pay their way," Friesen told the media in 2008. Many cities fight against Wal-Mart, he said, but Livingston doesn't have many retail stores, so Wal-Mart would address a need.

Things were looking pretty upbeat for the project---until this week. According to the Merced County Examiner, Wal-Mart suddenly pulled their Blueberry Crossing project out of the oven. The Examiner noted that the withdrawal came just a few days after Wal-Mart told Mayor Daniel Varela that the project was moving ahead.

The newspaper printed excerpts from a letter written to the Mayor by one of Wal-Mart's PR operatives. "Thank for you interest in visiting with me to discuss the proposed Livingston Wal-Mart project," the Wal-Mart spokesman wrote to the Mayor on June 14th. "I certainly benefited from your perspective on the project and how Wal-Mart can best serve your community. In addition to the project's design and features, I am confident that the project will provide Wal-Mart customers the convenience of a full grocery department and even greater selection. In addition to increasing customer satisfaction, the project will provide your community the added benefit of new jobs, more tax revenue, and a reliable source of funding for local civic organizations and charities that are so important to your community's way of life. I am confident that working together we can develop a project that benefits your community for years to come. Thank you again for visiting with me. If I can be of further assistance, please do not hesitate to contact me."

That letter hardly sounds like a kiss-off, but several days later, Wal-Mart was gone.

The city was notified of the abrupt change in an email. "We regret to inform you that Wal-Mart has decided to not move forward with this project," the retailers' attorney wrote. "Please stop all work on the project as of today.... Thank you so much for your support and effort on this project. We have enjoyed working with you."

What you can do: "They completely surprised us with their announcement," City Manager Richard Warne told the Examiner. The newspaper then quoted Al Norman from a column on The Huffington Post in March of 2008. "According to a list released this week," Norman said, "Wal-Mart Stores has abandoned a record-shattering 45 proposed projects over the past 10 months -- often leaving local officials dejected and confused. These store withdrawals usually come with little advance notice, and even less explanation."

Readers are urged to email Livingston Mayor Daniel Varela at Dvarela@livingstoncity.com with the following message: "It has been said, Mr. Mayor, that Wal-Mart changes stores as casually and you and I change shoes. I know it must be quite a blow for the city to lose its prized Wal-Mart superstore, but think of the opportunities that open up for smaller, locally-owned businesses that don't pull up roots suddenly. Wal-Mart arrives in a community with its bags already packed. The key is to realize that you just dodged a bullet.

I know you were excited to get the first Wal-Mart superstore in the area---and maybe you were even hoping that your store would cause the Wal-Mart discount store 12 miles away in Turlock to close. The reality is that Wal-Mart wants to convert all the discount stores in your area into superstores, or else shut them down. I'm sure your local grocery stores will be pleased not to lose all that market share, and your residents who are addicted to cheap Chinese merchandise can just drive the 12 miles to Turlock if they can't stand to shop locally.

So condolences on your loss of the Wal-Mart project--but congratulations are in order too."

The City of Aberdeen, Washington is located in Grays Harbor County on the southern edge of the Olympic Peninsula at the convergence of the Wishkah and Chehalis Rivers. The logging and fishing industries are not the job generators they once were, so the town has turned to tourism to boost the local economy, with Aberdeen as the largest retail center in the area.

"Aberdeen is proud to offer a wide variety of big-city services and attractions," say Mayor Bill Simpson, "with a small-town atmosphere." The city wants to maintain an informal, casual atmosphere, encouraging tourists to "come as you are!

One of the "big-city services" that decided to "come as you are" to Aberdeen was Wal-Mart. But now the giant retailer wants to get a lot bigger than they are. Wal-Mart store #2037 is on East Wishkah, but the company has recently been involved in a "secret" land deal that has some residents unpleasantly surprised.

The history of this area has been driven by the logging and fishing industries, although in the last few years there has been a concerted effort to replace these with an emphasis on tourism and designating Aberdeen as the largest retail center on the Washington Coast.

According to the Grays Harbor Daily World newspaper, land owned by the Port of Grays Harbor was quietly sold to Wal-Mart several days ago. This sale concerned the head of Grays Harbor Historical Seaport, which describes itself as "a leading provider of training opportunities in tall ship handling, heritage learning experiences for K-12 students, and cultural experiences for individuals and families."

Captain Les Bolton, Executive Director of the Seaport, is concerned that Wal-Mart expansion plans may put a crimp in Seaport's operations. Tall ships and Big Box buildings are not exactly compatible land uses.

Bolton told the Daily World that he was caught by surprise by the Harbor's plans to sell the acreage known as Aberdeen Landing to a big box retailer. Seaport used part of Aberdeen Landing.

Apparently the Harbor failed to warn Aberdeen City Hall about the land deal either. Port commissioners voted to sell the land during a special meeting on the morning of June 18th, catching the rest of the community off-guard.

One of the groups with the most reasons to be unhappy is Our Aberdeen, which has been spearheading an effort to work on zoning issues in this city of only 16,000 people. In fact, Aberdeen's population has fallen 3.5% from its 1990 population of 16,565. Our Aberdeen did not learn of the sale until after the ink was dry.

The head of the Port says the group put a notice in the newspaper twice about the surplus 5 acres. But Wal-Mart's name was not evident in any of the notices---apparently at the request of the giant retailer. But a spokesman for Our Aberdeen says the secret sale was just a "deliberate obfuscation to fool the public." Our Aberdeen challenged the Port about what the legal notice meant and nobody gave him answers until they had sold the property.

The $7 million secret deal sells Wal-Mart the existing five acres where the store's footprint now exists---plus gives them another two acres of land that will allow the store to add 36,000 s.f. for a full grocery department, so the retailer can take market share away from existing grocers. Wal-Mart was required to allow access to the existing waterfront walkway.

The Seaport uses a dock and a piece of land adjacent to Wal-Mart for moorage of two of its Tall Ships. "I'm certain it will impact us in that it'll change access and our ability to move things in the upland area," said Captain Bolton. He told The Daily World that Seaport could lose access to a parking area near the dock for people wanting to board the ships.

Wal-Mart has been coy about calling this expansion a "superstore," describing it instead as a "full-service store." But inside it will have a "full range" of food and fresh produce, according to press release to the local newspaper. Wal-Mart claims that the expansion will create 50 "additional" jobs. The company did not specify how many existing jobs it would kill.

Aberdeen's Mayor Bill Simpson said he only found out about the sale the morning before the Commissioners' vote. The Mayor said he believes the expansion will be good news, but he added he would go tell the store managers at TOP Foods and Safeway about the project, because "This could impact their business."

What you can do: Despite this downside to the project, the Mayor was in front of the line to welcome Wal-Mart's growth. "One of the best things about this project is not only will Wal-Mart be able to expand but we are putting some under-utilized land to good use without impacting the public uses of Aberdeen's waterfront. Aberdeen has a number of strong retailers who have developed their niche markets and I don't believe this expansion will negatively affect their markets."

The Mayor pointed out that Wal-Mart is one of the largest producers of sales tax in the city. "We need that tax base and that tax base will now stay right here," the Mayor added. "That's the best thing about this."

Port officials justified the sale by arguing that selling the land to Wal-Mart would ensure the city that "Wal-Mart is going to stay where it's at."

But in a small "city" that is losing population year after year, the addition of a major new grocer is likely to simply displace existing jobs at the grocers already doing business in Aberdeen. The land deal also begs the question of why Wal-Mart is located on the waterfront to begin with. The public's enjoyment and access to waterfront land is not helped by converting more and more land to big box retail. This Wal-Mart store should never have been placed near the water to begin with, and expanding it is a larger mistake. Ocean access and big box retail are not compatible land uses.

Readers are urged to email Mayor Simpson at Mayor@aberdeeninfo.com with the following message: "Dear Mayor Simpson, You don't seriously believe that Wal-Mart's expansion into groceries means 50 'additional' jobs, do you? Wal-Mart depends on local officials being economically illiterate about the retail business. But your small city is losing shoppers---and when you divide up a shrinking retail pie among more and more players, some stores are going to close their doors, and leave you with empty buildings. Tops and Safeway are not 'niche' stores. They compete head-to-head with Wal-Mart.

There is no need for this expansion. Wal-Mart is building smaller superstores these days--as small as 78,000 s.f. They are also remodeling existing discount stores into supercenters, doing what's called an 'inbox conversion' that requires no expansion at all.

You just wasted 5 acres of valuable ocean-side land---and for a big box store that has no business being located in such a prime tourist location. If you want to boost tourism, the last move to make is putting retail boxes near the water. They ruin the view, they increase traffic congestion, and even kick up crime statistics.
This is an overall bad move, and its no wonder that the Port waited until the last minute to tell you about it. You should use your office as Mayor to block the expansion, and then you won't have to spend time trying to fill the empty Tops or Safeway buildings."

The National Labor Committee is calling on supporters to sign a letter to Walmart CEO Mike Duke asking for him to support factory workers in Bangladesh in their quest for a 43 cent per hour minimum wage.

According to the testimonial of one Bengali garment worker, the lives of workers are being ruined by below-poverty level wages of 11 1/2 cents an hour. With a raise in the minimum wage, she says

If the minimum wage is raised to 6,200 taka ($89.21) [per month] my wage would be higher, including overtime, and as a result we could eat fish once or twice a week and meat once a week.

Click here to see picture of how these garment workers live.

Many of the clothing items sold at Walmart are produced in Bangladesh. While Walmart certainly isn't the only company that does business there (I'm wearing a shirt that was made there right now), they are one of the largest garment importers from the country. Walmart's support for these workers could make a profound impact upon their lives.

We're beginning to wonder over here at Wake Up Walmart if there is a secret manager training course taught at Walmart about discrimination. Not about how to avoid it, but how to perpetrate.

The Advocate has an article up about Fernando Gallardo, who as a temporary worker at a Walmart store in Nevada was singled out, shunned, and discriminated against because of his sexual orientation. In violation of Nevada state law and stated Walmart policy (which they clearly in this case did not enforce), a manager directly questioned Gallardo about his sexual orientation, to which he replied that he was gay. That is when the discrimination started.

In a complaint to the Nevada Equal Right Commission, Gallardo wrote

"I had nothing to do all day but wander around the store wearing a yellow vest no one else had to wear, much like Jews had to wear a yellow star of David in Hitler's Germany."

Such behavior is, unfortunately, not a surprise coming from Walmart, where they have a history of discriminating against women and minorities.

Until Walmart is forced to listen to the concerns of its employees, we'll continue to see such unfair practices.

Sprawl-Busters took a trip to Moon, Pennsylvania in June of 2008. A group of residents in this Pittsburg suburb were organizing to block a proposed Wal-Mart superstore at one of the busiest intersections in the small community. Two years later, Wal-Mart is still trying to hit the Moon.

The retailer's plans for Moon, Pennsylvania have been knocked off course during public hearings. On July 12, 2008, Sprawl-Busters reported that Supervisors in Moon township had taken one giant step for mankind---by voting against a preliminary plan for a Wal-Mart superstore---but one week later, under fear of litigation from Wal-Mart, they reversed their decision and voted in favor of the superstore.

The supervisors voted 3-2 against a Wal-Mart preliminary plan for a superstore on July 3rd. But seven days later, at a hastily called meeting on July 10, 2008, they reversed their vote to 4-1 in favor of the plan. Two of the supervisors who voted against the plan said they had "misgivings about the legality of their vote." The town's lawyer advised officials that if they voted against Wal-Mart, the giant retailer might sue them. The officials apparently were not concerned that if they voted for Wal-Mart that their own taxpayers would sue them. All Wal-Mart had to do in Moon was threaten to throw its legal weight around, and the supervisors backed down.

Wal-Mart has applied to build a 148,561 s.f. superstore on the site of an abandoned 1960s-era mall known as the West Hills Shopping Center, located on one of the community's major intersections, University Boulevard and Brodhead road. There are also two major housing developments abutting the project on its western side.

Wal-Mart has 15 stores within 25 miles of Moon, including a Wal-Mart three miles away from this site. The proposed Wal-Mart is incompatible with all the planning the township has done over the past 7 years regarding the special overlay district where this site is located. The township created the University Boulevard Overlay district as a tool to implement their strategic plan for the area. Then Wal-Mart entered the picture, and the strategic plan went out the window.

In January of 2007, the public learned that the West Hills Shopping Center had been sold to Wal-Mart for $4.7 million. During their review of Wal-Mart's preliminary plan, the Supervisors quickly became concerned over the potential traffic congestion at the already difficult intersection. Board Chairman Tim McLaughlin told Wal-Mart representatives that he didn't want to go to his grave knowing that his board was responsible for creating a traffic gridlock. "We have a quality of life that is outstanding," McLaughlin said. "We want to protect our resident's quality of life. We don't want the center of our township to become a gridlock."

The objective of the University Boulevard overlay district was to create a district for "regional scale mixed use development," not suburban sprawl. The overlay district flatly states: "Buildings which exhibit long, flat facades and continuous linear strip development are prohibited." The parking lot does not conform to the design guidelines, so Wal-Mart had asked the township to make the overlay district fit the retailer's needs---rather than the district's requirements.

On August 20, 2008, Sprawl-Busters reported that Moon residents gave the supervisors and Wal-Mart a little legal advice of their own. The citizen's group Moon First had filed an appeal against the Moon Supervisors and Wal-Mart in the Allegheny County Common Pleas Court. The residents' appeal charged that the supervisors' decision was "arbitrary, capricious and discriminatory." The appeal sought to overturn the conditional use modification that allowed Wal-Mart to reduce the side setback of its development from 40 feet to 10 feet from the abutting apartment and condo complex on Brodhead Road.

"That's my biggest concern," one of the plaintiffs, Edwin Nelson, told the Pittsburg Tribune Review. Nelson is a former Moon supervisor. "If they could build a smaller store, satisfy our traffic concerns and return to the 40-foot buffer, I would not necessarily be opposed to them," he said.

By not respecting local zoning provisions, Wal-Mart's superstore turned into another lawsuit for the shareholders to pay for. On November 12, 2008, Wal-Mart came back to the Supervisors for another vote. For the second time, the Supervisors voted to approve the retailer's plans on a 3-2 vote. On October 10, 2009, The Pittsburg Tribune-Review reported that Wal-Mart had amended its traffic plan for the proposal Moon superstore. Plans for a shared road with the Colony West apartment complex next door had fallen apart. Wal-Mart also proposed a new traffic signal on Brodhead Road. This new plan will have to be approved by PennDOT first.

Part of Moon First's lawsuit charged that the shared road would have left only a 10-foot buffer between the development and apartment complex, which does not meet code. Wal-Mart's revised plan gives the retailer its own access road. A Wal-Mart spokesman told the newspaper that the new road will "provide greater distance between the access for our store and the residents of Colony West. The new plan retains the (Colony West) residents' current access drive so they don't have to share with our customers." However, the new road will now be closer to Moon's busiest intersection at University Boulevard, and that has some supervisors worried.

This week, the Tribune-Review reports that Wal-Mart is planning to tear down all the existing buildings in the West Hills mall---except a Sherwin-Williams store. The paint store has a lease until 2012, but staff at the store say Sherwin-Williams wants to get out of West Hills and find a new location.

Moon officials told the newspaper that Wal-Mart will be going before the Planning Commission on June 29th, and then to the Board of Supervisors on July 7th. The Wal-Mart plan coming in for review gives Wal-Mart its own entrance, and drops the joint driveway with the abutting apartment complex.

Town officials also noted that Wal-Mart's plan is now showing the required 40 foot buffer yard between the store's property, and the residential building next door.

The town also says that Wal-Mart submitted a demolition plan for the existing shopping center, and, in the words of the town's planner, "Demolition could happen at any time." This provides some insight into the thinking of the Board of Supervisors. The town has given Wal-Mart a green light to begin demolition at the site before the latest plans even have been before the Planning Commission.
What you can do: There have been a lot of bumps on their trip to the Moon for Wal-Mart. The company could be responsive to the community, and scale down the size of the store, and adhere to the district's requirements--but it attempted to blast away the opposition instead.

The township abandoned its own overlay district plans. Instead of protecting the health, safety and welfare of the residents of Moon, supervisors were voting to protect themselves.

The supervisors had plenty of legal reasons to deny this plan---all of them based on their zoning code--not on whether or not they liked the store. The township could have written up findings of fact that demonstrated that a 100% retail project is an inappropriate use in an overlay zone designed for 'regional scale mixed use development.' Instead of focusing on the variances requested, the Supervisors lost sight of the overlay district goals and purpose.

They could also have raised concerns over the fact that this project will be injurious to the use and enjoyment of other properties in the immediate vicinity. Local opponents had little option but to pursue their legal rights to litigate themselves---using the same blunt instrument that Wal-Mart used to get the Board to reverse its vote.

Readers are urged to email Supervisor Chairman Tim McLaughlin at tmclaughlin@moontwp.com with the following message: "Mr. Chairman, I was amazed to hear that Moon has given Wal-Mart approval to start demolition at West Hills before the plan has been considered by your Planning Commission. What if the Commission objects to the plan? What if Moon First prevails in court?

The plan submitted by Wal-Mart is still too big, and inharmonious with the overlay district it is in. Wal-Mart could solve many of their problems by proactively shrinking the store, and on their own volition adhere to the setback and design provisions the township painstakingly put into place. This company has the financial capacity to meet all the standards in the district.

Supervisors should never have approved a final plan on this site without an independent traffic impact study, a slope stabilization study, a fiscal impact study, a noise study, a lighting/glare study, and an assessment of their impact on abutting residential properties.

You had the right under your zoning code to deny this project, and use incompatibility with the overlay district and traffic congestion as just two reasons. Most of the objections to this plan are scale-related.

If the township backs down every time a developer threatens litigation, then you really have no Overlay District, and you have no zoning left at all. It's time to enforce your code, and make Wal-Mart fit Moon--not the reverse.

The latest traffic plan by Wal-Mart pushes the congestion problem closer to University Boulevard, and does not resolve traffic concerns. The problem is very simple: the store--and the traffic it will produce-- is just too intense for the site.

Chairman McLaughlin, you said last year that you didn't want to go to your grave having created traffic gridlock in Moon. This latest plan is very grave--and creates the very gridlock you were deathly afraid of."

On January 17, 2010, Sprawl-Busters reported that government bail outs were alive and well in Missouri---the 'show me' the money state. One of the Walton family members on the Forbes Magazine Wealthiest Americans list was asking Missouri taxpayers to help him build a bigger Wal-Mart with nearly $8 million of taxpayer subsidy.

E. Stanley Kroenke, who inherited a fortune in Wal-Mart stock when he married the daughter of Sam Walton's brother, now needs public welfare to carry out his development plans.

Kroenke, who owns the Denver Nuggets basketball team, hockey's Colorado Avalanche, is part owner of the St. Louis Rams and the English soccer team Arsenal, has asked for a Tax Increment Financing (TIF) deal to build a Wal-Mart supercenter in the tiny community of Bridgeton, Missouri.

Kroenke is 117th richest American, with an estimated worth of $2.7 billion in 2009. The use of state tax subsidies by billionaires is emblematic of the 'public bail out' mentality now gripping the nation.

On August 22, 2009, Sprawl-Busters noted that there are 19 Wal-Marts within 25 miles of Bridgeton, including a Wal-Mart right on the border of Bridgeton and St. Ann, and 7 miles away in St. Charles, Missouri.

Bridgeton is a city that has been losing population. Compared to 1990, the population in Bridgeton has dropped 15%. The St. Louis Business Journal reported in 2009 that the city was going to issue a request for redevelopment proposals 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, Kroneke-owned THF Realty, fronted by an affiliate, proposed a Wal-Mart supercenter on the 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."

Stan Kroenke is the Chairman of THF. Building Wal-Marts is a family affair for Kroenke. His wife, 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 places like St. Peters, Columbia, High Ridge, Maplewood, and North St. Louis County, Missouri, as well as Glen Carbon, Illinois, Wheeling, West Virginia, and Buffalo, Minnesota.

Last January, Kroenke's group presented to Bridgeton a proposal to receive as much as $8 million in TIF benefits to build a Wal-Mart superstore. According to Kroenke, the Wal-Mart project will generate roughly $7 million in sales and property taxes, based on projected sales at the Wal-Mart of $82.5 million per year.

But the welfare deal was not without its detractors. Officials in neighboring St. Ann, where part of an existing Wal-Mart would likely be shut down, are not pleased with the project. The "older" Wal-Mart discount store actually sits on the border of St. Ann and Bridgeton---so it is a partial source of sales tax revenue for St. Ann. The "old" Wal-Mart initially was entirely within Bridgeton---but when Wal-Mart sought to expand it, the store's footprint expanded into St. Ann.

Tax Increment Financing has been used by Missouri officials for years to try to lure developers away from other communities. In 2007, the power to grant a TIF was changed by the state legislature to require cities to use a countywide approach to TIFs, rather than a town-level process only. Since the TIF changes were adopted, the use of this financing "gift" to developers has dropped dramatically. Kroenke's request for a subsidy is only the second in St. Louis county since the law became effective in January of 2008.

Bridgeton Mayor Conrad Bowers has been promoting Kroenke's scheme for months. "The store is going be larger, and have many more products, and the sales will be higher," the Mayor told the St. Louis Dispatch. The proposed supercenter would be 159,000 s.f.---only 40,000 s.f. larger than the existing Wal-Mart store just minutes away from the new site on Harmony Lane.

THF says the supercenter will employ around 300 workers---but most of these workers are already employed at the "old" store. Despite the fact that local officials have watched Wal-Mart shut down several 'old' discount stores and Sam's Clubs in the Bridgeton area---Wal-Mart told the Dispatch that it has no formal policy of closing older stores and building larger stores nearby. But this process of replacing discount stores with more profitable, larger supercenters, has been going on for more than 15 years.

A Wal-Mart spokesman said a supercenter in Bridgeton would "add full retail-grocery service and make it a modern Wal-Mart. That's the crux of it. There's a real need for it in the Bridgeton-St. Ann area and it's a way of better servicing our customers." He added that the 'old' store would not be demolished---but Wal-Mart Realty would try to sell or lease it---just like the 200 other 'ghost boxes' that Wal-Mart has up for sale nationwide. "We have a very good track record of marketing our buildings," the retailer's spokesman said.

Mayor Bowers appears to be the project's biggest cheer leader. "In my judgment, I think that it (the supercenter) will happen because I really believe it's good for the area, it's good for the county. It's not like we're stealing this from another area; the store is in Bridgeton." The Mayor said the supercenter cannot happen without TIF money in part because of the demolition costs---which the city failed to get from the former property owners---so now they want the state taxpayers to pay for it. The $8 million in sales and property taxes that will be given back to the billionaire developer in the form of site infrastructure costs, is money the taxpayers will never get to help pay for the on-going police and fire protection that this new superstore will demand.

"The point is Wal-Mart is going to build a Supercenter and I'm pleased they want to be in Bridgeton and at a site that needs to be redeveloped," the Mayor said in defense of this give away. "As far as I'm concerned it's the correct use of a TIF."

The TIF Commission recently voted 6-6 on the TIF plan--with all six St. Louis County appointees on the commission voting against the bailout. A tie vote rejected the TIF. But the City Council has the final say, and must pass the TIF with a "super majority" vote of 6 out of the 8 members. If 3 council members vote No, the TIF is dead, and the billionaire loses his bail out.

This controversial project was in the media again this week. Mayor Bowers told a local radio station that the reason he supports Wal-Mart is because he's afraid Wal-Mart will leave if it doesn't get what it wants. "What people forget," the Mayor said, "this Wal-Mart that they're going to replace, this one that they're going to close is in Bridgeton. Why not relocate the new one in Bridgeton?"

But the City Council reports this week that members are being deluged with "programmed phone calls and extreme lobbying pressure" against the TIF vote. The flurry of calls against the TIF are being orchestrated by a private marketing firm, some Councilors told the Post Dispatch.

One City Council member complained that she also had received "several postcards" against the tax increment financing that do not identify who is paying for them. The Councilor also complained that a website was created by a group called Citizens for a Better Bridgeton, but it is not clear who is funding it. Another Councilor said she felt the Wal-Mart opponents were running a "clandestine" phone campaign. "It's one thing when people are against something but I don't appreciate when they do it secretively. It's a big empty ugly place now. And is anybody else standing in line to redevelop it?"

Mayor Conrad Bowers continues to insist that the Wal-Mart project and its billionaire developer cannot make the project happen without public welfare. But Charles Dooley, a St. Louis County Executive say the Mayor and council should "stand together and protect the public from these strong-arm tactics" by Wal-Mart. One radio stations said Wal-Mart had "bullied" the Mayor into supporting the welfare subsidy for THF.

One Bridgeton city councilor told the newspaper, "I can't say I'm in love with this company, but I don't want us to have two big holes where one Wal-Mart was and another could have been."

On the other hand, officials from St. Ann warn that their city will lose a major sales tax source if the 'old' Wal-Mart shuts down. St. Ann gets a 10% slice of the sales tax revenue generated by the current Wal-Mart.

The United Food and Commercial Workers (UFCW) Local 655 has testified against the new Wal-Mart and the welfare deal for Kroenke. "We have numerous concerned members here who live in Bridgeton," a UFCW official told the Post Dispatch. "Giving $7.2 million in tax dollars to the richest corporation in America.....It doesn't make sense we rezone and bow down" to Wal-Mart.

What you can do: There are six dead Wal-Marts in Missouri today. The company had to demolish its store in Blue Springs, Missouri. But stores in House Springs, Kansas City, Maryville, Raytown, and Town & Country, are all still up for sale. The dead store in Town & Country, at 154,453 s.f., is almost as big as the proposed supercenter in Bridgeton.

Even though Mayor Bowers thinks this TIF deal is "a correct use," the readers of the Dispatch saw through the ruse. "If building the supercenter will be such a good deal for Wal-Mart, why don't they finance the project instead of begging the customers to build it? TIF has become the de facto standard for construction retail projects in the St. Louis area. It doesn't create tax base, it shifts it around, postponing its effectiveness for a decade or more."

Another reader wrote: "Does Bridgeton realize that tax revenue from Schnucks, Target, Kmart and Best Buy will drop when Wal-Mart moves in? There won't be this huge net gain."

A third reader noted: "How could this possibly help stores that compete against Wal-Mart, that don't get the benefit of TIF? This shows exactly how TIFs are being used in ridiculous ways. Stores pit one city vs. another--opening one store to close another. The net result in taxes on a regional scale is minimal as the new stores simply cannibalize others in the area--but individual cities are hurt by the loss of stores and/or the reduced taxes they bring in as the money is diverted to developers."

Another commenter said: "Many people for TIF's say it's a long term benefit for an area and helps create jobs, construction, etc. These TIF's help to eliminate competition as I got a special deal where you didn't, so I can charge lower prices and still make a profit and you can't---putting you out of business. It's not fair competition unless all similar businesses also get a TIF, which is why I'm against all TIF's in the first place. If taxpayers get to keep their own money instead of it going to private projects, that's a long term gain and will also result in created jobs and businesses as now people have more money to spend and it will be a more free market and efficient use of funds. Eliminating TIF's would mean these funds are spread out over all taxpayers rather than just benefiting one corporation. Therefore, TIF's should be eliminated as they are, once again, legal robbery of the taxpayer."

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 store.

Rather than create new jobs and new revenues, a Wal-Mart superstore will simply transfer sales from stores already in business. Many of your constituents realize that THF has the financial wherewithal to build this project without a government bailout.

If Wal-Mart cannot use an existing store at 120,000 s.f. to reformat into a supercenter, make them use their own money for this new project, and don't rob the taxpayers of $8 million to pay a billionaire's bill.

This is a welfare bailout, pure and simple, and as Mayor, you should want no part of it. The public is fed up with bail outs for billionaires. All your need is three people with the guts to say no to corporate welfare. As Mayor, you should lead the way and be one of those three dissenting votes."

The largest grocer in North America, Wal-Mart, is being sued by the number 4 grocery chain, Supervalu, in what amounts to a nasty chain store food fight.

The epicenter is St. Paul, Minnesota, where a Cub grocery store is located in the same mall as a Wal-Mart discount store. The two stores have co-existed uneasily in the Midway Marketplace---but now open hostilies have broken out-- because Wal-Mart has remodeled its store to create more room for an expanded food department.

The Cub chain has been around since 1968--founded six years after Wal-Mart. There are currently 78 stores branded as Cub Foods in Minnesota, Wisconsin, Illinois & Iowa. Three quarters of the Cub stores are located in the Minneapolis/St. Paul metro area. Cub, which stands for "Consumers United for Buying," became part of the Supervalu chain in 1980. Other Supervalu grocery logos include Albertsons, Jewel-Osco, Lucky, Save-A-Lot, Shaw's/Star Markets, Shop 'N Save, Farm Fresh and Hornbacher's. According to Supermarket News, the Minnesota-based Supervalu ranked 4th in 2010 in food and nonfood merchandise sales in North America, with 2,450 stores and sales of $41.3 billion. By comparison, Wal-Mart is ranked #1 in food and nonfood merchandise, with 4,624 stores in North America and sales of $262 billion---more than six times the sales of Supervalu.

A Cub Foods store is suing the Wal-Mart store at the Midway Marketplace, charging that the giant retailer is violating its lease agreement, which requires that the retailer in Wal-Mart's space not use more than 7,500 s.f. for groceries. Wal-Mart responds by saying that it is not in violation of the lease because it only devotes 7,150 s.f. to groceries.

A Wal-Mart spokesman says when the company renovated its store in May, it did not change the square footage for groceries. But an independent analyst has indicated that the Wal-Mart groceries occupy far more space than Wal-Mart is admitting.

According to a story in the Pioneer Press newspaper, the analyst claims that Wal-Mart's food selling space is closer to 27,000 s.f. Several months ago, Supervalu insisted that Wal-Mart reduce the size of its grocery deparment---but no changes were made.

Last month, the mall owner joined Supervalu in asking Wal-Mart to shrink its grocery section by dropping fresh baked goods, frozen meat, chicken, milk, ice cream, and other products that ate into the Cub merchandise offerings. It will do the mall owner no good to see Cub Foods go out of business.

Several days ago, Supervalu filed a lawsuit in Ramsey County District Court. Wal-Mart told the Pioneer Press, "We obviously believe we're operating within the terms of our lease." Although Wal-Mart says the size of its grocery section has remained the same, Wal-Mart put out a press release on May 3, 2010 when the remodeled store opened, which said: "According to store manager Greg Bauer, shoppers are most excited about the expanded grocery department, offering customers a wider selection of dairy and frozen foods. The store also added dedicated shelf space for an expanded variety of Hispanic, Asian and Somalian food products to meet the needs of the diverse community." Barely one month later, a Wal-Mart spokesman told the Pioneer press, "The size of the store hasn't changed, and the section of the store devoted to grocery hasn't changed."

What you can do: The legal sparks between Supervalu and Wal-Mart are not new. The Pioneer Press notes that in Coon Rapids, Minnesota, Wal-Mart sued Cub Food for trying to block construction of a Wal-Mart supercenter, and Cub Foods then countersued Wal-Mart.

"I would expect to see more grocers challenging these big-box stores in the future," grocery analyst David Livingston told the newspaper. "I'm just surprised it hasn't happened more often." But grocery chains across the country have openly opposed Wal-Mart, sometimes in court, sometimes behind the scenes.

The Midway trade area in St. Paul is now flooded with grocery stores, including a SuperTarget, Cub Foods, Wal-Mart, and the German chain Aldi. Such saturation will lead to dead stores and lost jobs.

Readers are urged to call the manager of the Wal-Mart store on University Boulevard, Greg Bauer, at (651) 644-0020 with the following message: "Mr. Bauer, it looks like you got caught in a little square footage fudging recently. When Wal-Mart celebrated your store's remodeling, your press release referred to an "expanded grocery department" with a "wider selection" of goods. Now your company is recanting that statement and denying the grocery department has expanded. Wal-Mart should stop playing numbers games and live by the limits of your lease. Even your landlord is unhappy with your defiance of the lease agreement.

Wal-Mart knew what the rules were when it first leased this space in the mall. Instead of spending money on lawyers to defend your contradictory statements, Wal-Mart should spend that money on remodeling your store to shrink your food section back to what its supposed to be. This kind of deceit does not engender trust in your customers, or goodwill in the community.

Either your press release was a lie, or the company is lying now. Either way, the longer this case drags out, the more credibility your company loses."

On December 2, 2008, Sprawl-Busters reported that Wal-Mart had Big Plans for Big Sky country.

The Big Retailer is shutting down its "old" stores in Montana, and replacing them with supercenters. That was the Wal-Mart plan for Kalispell, Montana.

Situated nearly 3,000 feet above sea level on the west slope of the Rocky Mountains, Kalispell and the surrounding Flathead Valley enjoy a relatively mild and pleasant climate year round. That's what the guidebooks say. But Kalispell also gets an average of 62.2 inches of snow fall every year.

Yet something keeps attracting people to Kalispell, because the population in 2007 of 20,300 people is nearly double what it was in 1990.

Even with this growth, Kalispell today is still a small town. The largest employer in Kalispell is the Regional Medical Center. The city also has Wal-Mart discount store #2259 on East Idaho Street. But that store is going to close soon.

The next nearest Wal-Mart is in Polson, Montana roughly 36 miles away. In December of 2008, the Flathead Beacon reported that the developer of the Hutton Ranch Plaza had sold off 18 of his acres for Wal-Mart to build a supercenter. The "Ranch" is no ranch at all--just another retail mall.

After roughly a year and a half of negotiations, Wal-Mart closed on the deal. A Wal-Mart spokesman told the Beacon at the time that the company hoped to get a building permit by January, 2009 and be starting construction by late spring. The huge store was slated to open by early 2010.

This is how it is done in Montana: no mess, no fuss. Kalispell has a one page cover sheet for commercial applications. The city has a zoning code, but its as bare as Old Mother Hubbard's cupboard.

Kalispell has several commercial zones that permit retail stores--with minimum lot coverage and height restrictions---but no limit at all on the scale of stores.

Sprawl-Busters noted a year and a half ago, that the new Wal-Mart superstore would shut down the "old" Wal-Mart Discount store #2259, leaving the city with a dead store, and a bunch of old jobs transferred to a larger building. "We've always kind of known that there was a greater demand for a larger store that sold more products in Kalispell," a Wal-Mart spokesman explained. "This just seemed like the right spot."

Wal-Mart only leases its "old" store in Kalispell, and has indicated that it will try to sublease its existing store. The Wal-Mart discount store, which is 129,521 s.f., is listed as "coming soon" by Wal-Mart Realty. This store sits on 18 acres and was only built in 1995---making the store only 15 years old.

The move to a larger store means that Kalispell will see little or no job or revenue growth from this superstore. Most of the 'new' jobs will be carried over from the dead store. "We'll move a lot of those employees over and then probably have to staff up a little more," a company spokesman told the Beacon. Then you have to subtract the jobs that will be lost at Albertson's, or the other grocery stores in the city. The net job impact will be negligible. "We're really looking forward to moving this project forward," the Wal-Mart official said. "We're really happy with how this has all worked out with the city of Kalispell."

This week the Flathead Beacon newspaper announced that the new superstore will open on the morning of June 16th. The newspaper repeats the Wal-Mart claim that the superstore will result in "another 175 new employees." At 188,028 s.f., the store's total workforce will be around 400, Wal-Mart says. The retailer says the superstore will have a grocery department with a bakery, produce section and deli serving fresh food; a beer and wine department; a drive-through lawn and garden center; an expanded electronics department; a pharmacy; a digital photo processing center; a Subway; more than 30 merchandise departments including apparel; and a cell phone center. That gives you a sense of where jobs will be lost elseswhere in the community.

The store will also feature Wal-Mart's "wide aisles, improved layout, directional signage, more energy-efficient technology, skylights that provide more daylight and better department alignment."

Wal-Mart's goal is a store that's "fast, friendly and clean." The new store manager told the newspaper, "The layout of the store is easy to navigate, which will save our customers time as they shop for everyday necessities," The company says it is making "one-stop shopping even easier."

What you can do: Meanwhile, a empty store on 18 acres of land will soon grown dark, just minutes away from the new store. To make that pain a little easier, the Wal-Mart Foundation will give away $60,000 at the ribbon cutting ceremony. They will make that back in profit in the first couple of days.

Kalispell already had a Wal-Mart---but that store did not save them from rough financial times. In 2008, when this project was unveiled, the city was dealing with a budget shortfall, and considering staff cuts to the police and fire department. The Beacon claimed that the new Wal-Mart "is likely to be a big boost to the city's property tax base, though it will take years before that revenue becomes available to the city." Yet no study was ever done of the net fiscal impact of this store on the local trade area. Local officials might not be too pleased with the results.

The newspaper reports that a Wal-Mart Super Center in Bozeman, Montana paid $66,000 in property taxes in 2009. That's not much of a boon to a city that will have to increase its police staff just to handle the increased police incidents at the new Wal-Mart superstore.

Readers are urged to contact Kalispell Mayor Tammi Fisher at: citycouncil@kalispell.com, with the following message: "Dear Mayor Fisher, One Wal-Mart in Kalispell is one more than enough. Given the fact that a new Wal-Mart supercenter means a dead Wal-Mart discount store, you might want to get busy drafting up a developer's agreement with Wal-Mart that requires them to put demolition money into escrow, in case they can't find a tenant to lease their space after 12 months of marketing their dead store.

The owner of the existing mall site is clearly one of the biggest losers in the trade area. Wal-Mart already has more than 200 dead stores on the market nationwide. Kalispell now joins the dubious list of cities where Wal-Mart left an old store behind, just to move to bigger quarters minutes away. The old Wal-Mart stores become eyesores.

The number of 'new' jobs created by this project you'll be able to count on one hand---because for every job at the new store---another job will be lost at the nearby grocery store competitors.

Kalispell should also consider putting a cap on the size of new retail businesses. Before you know it, Big Sky Country can be come Big Box Country if you don't limit the sprawl that's coming your way."

The longest running battle against a Wal-Mart on one site has just gotten longer. On June 1, 2010, opponents of a Wal-Mart proposed for the town of St. Albans, Vermont filed legal paperwork challenging an Environmental Court decision that approved the construction of a new Wal-Mart store in the town of St Albans. The fight over this one piece of land goes back to roughly 1993.

On February 26, 2010, Sprawl-Busters reported that the Vermont Natural Resources Council (VNRC), which is representing plaintiffs opposing the construction of a Wal-Mart in St. Albans, Vermont, filed a "Motion to Alter" a decision issued by the state's Environmental Court (EC) roughly a month earlier.

The Environmental Court had issued a decision affirming the developer's right to proceed in St. Albans---but with a lot of financial strings attached. The EC required Wal-Mart to make payments to the city of St. Albans--which is adjacent to the Town of the same name where the building site is located---to compensate for economic harm that will befall the city's core downtown area.

The proposed Wal-Mart would be the largest in Vermont at 146,755 s.f., or about the size of three football fields. It is proposed for Route 7 near exit 20 off I-89. Depending on when construction starts, developer Jeff Davis will be required to pay up to $400,000 to the city. The developer also will be required to buy and renovate at least 4 properties in the city's downtown, spending at least $1.5 million to buy the properties, plus at least $1 million more to renovate them. Davis must agree to be a major development partner in the city's downtown core project, and contribute $50,000 to that effort. In addition, the EC required that the Wal-Mart must not have more than 10,000 s.f. of retail floor space devoted to food items. If Wal-Mart wants to exceed that figure, it must file an application for an amendment to its Act 250 permit.

The developer also must follow through on his promise to pay the town of St. Albans for any municipal costs that exceed the amount of taxes being paid by the project. Davis has agreed to pay for 8 major roadway improvements.

Because the project will negatively impact 58 acres of prime agricultural land, Davis agreed to an "agricultural mitigation agreement" that requires him to pay $167,622.50 to the Vermont Housing and Conservation Board to help conserve farmland.

The limit on food sales was a controversial issue during the hearings. Davis told the Board that his Wal-Mart would not be a superstore, and would not carry groceries or have a gas station. But Wal-Mart is no longer building discount stores--a fact the EC seems to have missed. In a story from the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette dated October 22, 2009, it was reported that "in addition to supercenters, Wal-Mart operates general merchandise discount stores, a format it is no longer adding to its store base."
In late February, 2010, the VNRC told the media that the court had made some factual errors, such as stating that the abutting Hudak farm, which will be affected by the huge development, is not in the town of St.Albans---when in fact the Hudaks pay property taxes to the town of St. Albans.

Developer Davis told the Burlington Free Press that this legal delay will end up costing the city of St. Albans money---because under his agreement with the city, he will pay more than $1 million to the city over 3 years, but if legal appeals drag on beyond December 31, 2010, the agreement calls for his payment to the city to drop by $100,000. The city has received roughly one-third of the $1 million due from the developer. So the financial "sweeteners" added to this project are already flowing--even though the project's opponents have not exhausted their legal remedies.

Davis said he was ready to begin construction this spring, but now will be delayed because of the Motion To Alter. Davis, who took over this project 10 years into the process, has now been trying to discredit opponents for six years. He is also the developer of the largest Wal-Mart in Vermont, located roughly 25 minutes south of St. Albans in Williston, Vermont.

The VNRC, which has shouldered the legal weight of this case, was joined in its appeal by the Northwest Citizens for Responsible Growth (NWCRG) and farmers Marie Frey and Richard Hudak. The appeal charges that the Town of St. Albans Subdivision Bylaws requires that an applicant prove that a project is compatible with adjacent uses - especially agriculture. The developer failed to analyze the compatibility of the proposed Wal-Mart with the adjacent Hudak Farm. "The Court has overlooked the obligation of the applicant to demonstrate that it will not jeopardize the existence of well-established local farm operations," according to VNRC's Deputy Director Steve Holmes.

The appeal also contends that conflicts of interest in the permit process have contaminated the proceedings to such an extent that a fair review on the merits of the project is impossible. There are also several other areas in the decision, such as impact on agricultural soils, secondary growth, character of the area, and public investment, in which the Court's conclusions were not supported by the findings. VNRC also says that "legal doctrine precludes the building of the Wal-Mart in the same location at the size proposed." A smaller Wal-Mart store of 100,000 sq ft was proposed for the same site in the 1990s and was denied in part because of impacts on surrounding communities. So a larger store in the same site should also be rejected.

"If Wal-Mart had decided to build a 75,000 s.f. store in the city, folks could have been shopping there for several years," said Holmes. "It makes economic sense, both from the consumer's and the retailer's perspective, to centrally locate future stores where more people can get to them without having to get in their cars."

The Mayor of the adjoining city of St. Albans, Marty Manahan, told the St. Albans Messenger newspaper that he was "disappointed, but not surprised." The Mayor was the key negotiator who worked out the revenue deal with developer Davis, in which the city gets a compensatory payment from the developer---but the payment drops if the project is delayed. In effect, Jeff Davis bought the Mayor's support by promising the city cash. The payments are contingent on 'substantial construction' taking place. The Mayor has been placed in the position of being a cheerleader for a project that will financially ruin some of the businesses now located in downtown St. Albans city.

"The longer this goes, the less money the city gets for its downtown," Mayor Manahan told the newspaper. "It really begs the question: Is the VNRC really concerned about our downtown? I find it all so ironic. They're not concerned with our downtown, or worried about protecting it. They're more concerned by the fact that it's Wal-Mart coming in." The Mayor predicted VNRC will lose at the Vermont Supreme Court, and added, "They haven't received the answer they want. They are trying to represent our downtown, but they're not trying to represent our downtown." Critics say the Mayor rushed through the cash-for-construction deal without public input.

What you can do: The local retail trade area stands to lose a lot more than developer Davis will kick into the city's coffers.

The Environmental Court dismissed the notion that Davis wants to build a supercenter, not a discount store, thus ignoring the dramatic impact that this superstore will have on nearby grocery stores like Hannaford's and Price Chopper. The owner of the nearby Highgate Commons mall, which includes the Hannaford's, said sales at a shopping center he owns in North Carolina dropped 16% following the opening of a Wal-Mart nearby.

As a precaution, the Environmental Court required Wal-Mart to amend its permit if it wants to use more than 10,000 s.f. for food, "so that operation of the proposed Wal-Mart does not morph into a store...that provides direct competition with area grocery stores or supermarkets." This is exactly what will happen, since Wal-Mart has no interest in building discount stores.

Davis made the unusual pledge to pay more taxes if the cost of his development to the town exceeded his property tax payments.

The citizens group, Northwest Citizens for Responsible Growth, says on its website, "Here in Franklin County, we are struggling against efforts to convert some of the largest concentrations of prime-agricultural soils in the state to large-scale retail and residential development. Successful organic farms on the perimeters of these soils will be threatened. We cannot allow this to happen, as high quality Vermont farm products and the countryside in which they are grown represent the two most promising industries for Franklin County, as we embark on the twenty-first century. Vermonters need to be especially careful not to overload their winding roads and covered bridges, not to ruin their green rolling landscapes and not to empty out their small historic downtowns. More than a quarter of the state's income comes from tourism, and nobody's going to mail home a postcard of Wal-Mart."

There are currently only 4 Wal-Mart stores in Vermont--the smallest number in any state. Wal-Mart has been trying for years to expand its store in Bennington, Vermont in the southern end of the state. The Green Mountain state has not proven to be very hospitable soil for Wal-Marts. Because of citizen opposition, the developer of this project has been forced to pay an abutting city for potential damages to its downtown, and to become a partner in the development of downtown properties. This is an unusual agreement---one that would never have happened without pressure from citizen activists. The developer now is trying to use the lure of his payments to the city as a way to pressure opponents to drop their appeal. This is about as likely to happen as Wal-Mart sourcing its products from American suppliers.

Readers are urged to email city Mayor Marty Manahan at martin@handypontiac.com with the following message: "Dear Mayor Manahan, I'm sure you believe that you have cut the best deal you could with developer Jeff Davis, but the 'contributions' you will get for the city will be weighed against the loss of jobs and business that will occur over the next decade if Wal-Mart and secondary growth occurs on the edge of your city. You may not be concerned by what happens to Price Chopper of Hanaford's, or Highgate Commons in general---but the town and the city are really one trade area, and bringing in more national chain stores will only raise your traffic and crime. You will see little jobs or revenue from this plan. The residents of the city and town who have fought this store since the early 90s are using their First Amendment right to speak out against a project that will dominate your economic landscape for a period of time, and then be gone. These constituents deserve the same respect that the Mayor's office apparently has for cash payments."

Walmart has gotten a lot of press the last few days about their new partnership with American Public University, an online university that is going to be offering course credit to Walmart Associates such things as taking Walmart ethics trainings and doing their everyday jobs.

First, some overall facts:

• American Public University isn't "public." It is a private institution, part of the American Public University System.
• APUS is mostly American Military University, an online university that focuses on serving members of the armed forces and is designed to be flexible to meet the demands of deployed troops.
• Undergraduate tuition at APU is $250 per credit hour ($750 per 3 credit course). I called the community college near where I grew up, Edison Community College in Southwest Florida, and found out that instate tuition there was $89.88 per credit hour. They would have to be giving a more than 60% discount to Walmart Associates to make up that difference.
• APUS is accredited by the Higher Learning Commission, North Central Association and Accrediting Commission of the Distance Education and Training Council. Students may have difficulty transferring credits.
• 100% of APUS classes are online. Studies have shown that students do best in what is known as a blended model of higher education, meaning that there is a mix of online and face-to-face content provided, but that online education has the potential to be more effective than simple face-to-face education.

The blog Confessions of a Community College Dean picks up on a lot of really good points and gives much greater insight than I might in this matter, but one thing he says that was particular interesting was this:

The real eyebrow-raiser for me was the offer of academic credits for Wal-Mart work experience. Apparently, the ethics training Wal-Mart provides its employees will form the basis for some academic credits. I'll repeat that for emphasis. The ethics training conducted by Wal-Mart will be given academic credit. Just let that one sink in for a few minutes.

He also goes on to note that Walmart might play both sides of the financial aid game on this, and ponders why retail workers need the same flexibility as deployed soldiers in a war zone.

As Walmart was holding the 2010 Shareholder Meeting activists were talking directly to Walmart shoppers, letting them know about Walmart's discriminatory practices.

More pictures to come as they get sent in to us!

Walmart is holding their Annual Shareholder Meeting today, and we will be providing running commentary and updates on the facts of what is going on at the retail giant's meeting. We will be trying as best as possible to be responding to comments in a quick fashion and to keep you informed throughout the day about what is going on and what it might mean for Walmart Associates.

Please note that all times on this blog are Eastern, though the event is taking place in Central time in Arkansas.

11:28 AM: Shareholder meeting is over. We will be adding comments as the day goes on. If you would like to help change Walmart for the better, join us today at one of our activists events (click here for a full list) or take our online action.

11:20 AM: Walmart shareholders have rejected a shareholder resolution calling for shareholders having a say on executive pay. Executives currently have no accountablility. Please join us in writing to the board and Mike Duke to allow a say in pay so that executives will be held accountable for their gender discrimination practices.

11:15 AM: Walmart's culture, that Mike Duke loves so much via internal documents.

11:11 AM: Duke says that no one questions Walmart's credibility on environmental issues. We take issue with that, especially when things like this story from just last month continue to come to light: Wal-Mart to pay $27.6M in California dumping case.

11:06 AM: As Duke is speaking about the importance of women to Walmart in Bentonville, Wake Up Walmart activists are engaging customers in Mansfield, New Jersey and Columbus, Ohio calling on Duke to back up his, in our opinion hollow, words with facts. More actions are happening across the country, find one near you!

11:02 AM: Duke just mentioned being #1 of Fortune 500. Reminds me of Chris Ware's rejected cover for the magazine.

10:53 AM: Mike Duke is on stage. His first statement is wrong: Walmart brings down the standard of living for Americans.

10:41 AM: Jamie Foxx just gave a shout out to "Independent Women," which is ironic considering the Dukes v Walmart lawsuit and the fact that Walmart knew about its issues of gender disparity and didn't do anything about it.

10:40 AM: Walmart is talking about its returns to the community, but here are some REAL facts about Walmart's impact on communities.

10:30 AM: It sounds like there are a lot of Sam's Club folks in the audience. I wonder if that has anything to do with the 10,000 employees they laid off earlier this year.

10:12 AM: Representative of the United Food and Commercial Workers got polite applause, but shareholders are booing a right-wing anti-worker wing-nut.

10:01 AM: Dan Schlademan of the United Food and Commercial Workers: Walmart told associates not to vote for President Obama. Here's the complete statement.

10:00 AM Shareholder resolutions are being presented right now. Support the shareholder resolution now being read by Amalgamated Bank!

9:50 AM: In 1995 Walmart got a memo saying that they were discriminating against women. They denied it. In 2001 Dukes v. Walmart was filed. They have never admitted any wrongdoing. Right now they are patting themselves on the back for how they treat women and have never admitted any practice of gender discrimination. Why should any reasonable person believe it?

9:43 AM: A lot of good talk about empowering women. These statements seems especially empty in light of the story on the cover of the Business section of the New York Times today.

9:31 AM: Lesie Dach, Greenwasher in Chief. But what does green mean for Walmart? A larger GHG footprint than last year.

9:18 AM: Rob Walton is introducing the Board of Directors. We have an action going on asking you to write to the board asking them to put an end to massive executive bonuses until those execs prove that there is no more gender discrimination.

9:09 AM: Rob Walton on the stage. Holding yourselves to a higher standard and your culture is wonderful? The standards at Walmart are pushing standards for working families down across America. Your workers and their families deserve better.

8:50 AM: Edwardo Castro-Wright talks about community giving. But we say don't just give to charity, decrease the need for it in the first place. The irony of their giving is that the company chooses to give it to charity-instead of investing in their own workforce and creating stable, career jobs with middle class wages and affordable health care.

8:47 AM: Walmart flashed their "73% of managers started as associates" talking point. But what about the real facts of what wages and income is like for average associates who don't get into management?

8:34 AM: Sam's Club focus right now, they keep lowing standards for workers across the country, like when they laid off 10,000 associates in January.

8:20 AM: Jamie Foxx, your discrimination joke. Yeah, get better writers. Walmart has a long history of discrimination, even if they do still carry your bad movies along with your good ones.

8:10 AM: International recognition going on. Good thing for Walmart, since their international profits made up for a slow domestic sales this year.

8:02 AM: International showcase begins with dancing reminiscent of India, a country where Walmart will be asking the federal government of the US to help them get into.

7:52 AM: Shareholder meeting has started with some entertainment.

7:49 AM: We will be watching the live web cast beginning in a few minutes. For Walmart, today is starting under a cloud, since a story on the cover of today's New York Times Business section outlines that Walmart knew about gender discrimination prior to the historic Dukes v. Walmart case being filed in 2001.

It is clear as day that Walmart had every reason to know that it was practicing gender discrimination at the time the Dukes v. Wal-Mart class action lawsuit was filed, according to an article just released by The New York Times.

In 1995 Walmart hired the law firm of Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld to do an audit and see if the company was at risk of just such a suit. No surprise to us, the firm found that

men were five and a half times as likely as women to be promoted into salaried, management positions.

In a press statement released this evening by Wake Up Walmart we say

Today's news is a smoking gun that Walmart leadership was aware of the financial risk facing the company for six years before women took legal action against its policies that systematically paid female workers less than their male counterparts and prevented women from winning promotions.

According to The New York Times article, Walmart had criticized the report that they themselves commissioned by saying that the analysis in it was modeled on the kind of analysis that lawyers filing a class action lawsuit would use.

And then the largest class action lawsuit in the history of the United States was filed against them.

That is why we are calling on you to join us in calling for an end to such discrimination. Send a letter to Walmart's Board of Directors telling them that Walmart executives should not be getting massive bonuses until they prove that gender discrimination is no longer part of how Walmart does business!

Wake Up Walmart activists will be gathering across the country on Friday carrying just that message. See if there is an event near you and join us in calling for an end to these horrible business practices.

Last November, Vanity Fair and 60 Minutes published a telephone poll which surveyed a random sample of 1,097 Americans. When given a choice of 5 companies, and asked to pick which company "best symbolizes America today," 48% chose Wal-Mart---more than 3 times those who selected Google. (Microsoft, the N.F.L. and Goldman Sachs were the other also-rans.)

The results of that survey could be construed to mean that post-bailout America is truly 'best symbolized' by a power-sotted corporation that exploits its workers, drains our manufacturing base, hammers our trade deficit, and floods our markets with cheap sweatshop products from China. Yes, Wal-Mart 'best symbolizes' what corporate excess has done to America.

This week we have another survey--this one from Consumer Reports magazine---which surveyed 30,666 of its readers over a year's time, asking them to rank experiences and products at 11 retailers, including Wal-Mart. Consumer Reports issued this brief disclaimer: "Results might not reflect experiences of the U.S. population."
Wal-Mart will not be reprinting the Consumer Report survey on its website. The results are not very flattering--and they're not very different from a similar survey the magazine published eight years ago.

For openers: "Last year shoppers spent $405 billion at Wal-Mart, the world's largest retailer. But according to a new study by the Consumer Reports National Research Center, they might be better off if they switch stores."

Consumers shop at Wal-Mart for one reason only: presumed low prices. But CR readers said prices at the 10 other retailers (which included JCPenney, Sears, and Target) were "at least as good."
Almost 75% of Wal-Mart shoppers found at least one problem to complain about, and half had two or more complaints. In terms of overall store rating, Wal-Mart finished 10th out of 11 stores, barely nosing out Kmart at dead last.

"Wal-Mart was near the bottom of the Ratings," CR concludes. "The number of complaints about Wal-Mart's lines and narrow aisles was above average. About 44% of its shoppers had a problem with the staff if they sought help. Quality of apparel, jewelry, kitchenware, and electronics was rated below average."

Ouch!

This is not the message Wal-Mart spent $2.4 billion in advertising this past year to cultivate. Wal-Mart boasts that it serves customers more than 200 million times per week The retailer has a bloated store base spread out over 603 billion square feet of selling space in America alone. The mantra at Wal-Mart is "fast, friendly and clean." Or as Wal-Mart puts it: "Busy moms expect a clean and efficient store layout."

But the Consumer Report survey suggests a company whose presentation is slow and unfriendly. According to CR readers, Wal-Mart and Kmart had the least knowledgeable staffers, and Wal-Mart's cavernous supercenters were cited as "stores that were too big to navigate easily." The 2010 CR survey notes that Wal-Mart shoppers were "particularly peeved" at the cumbersome merchandise return process at the giant retailer. 20% of the returns took more time than expected, readers said. Worst of all, checkout lines were worst at Wal-Mart, cited by 46% of readers who had shopped there.

Wal-Mart is stung by such criticism, because the company is obsessed with its sleek and tidy image. "As I walked through one of our stores," writes company CEO Mike Duke in Wal-Mart's current annual report, "the engineer in me loved seeing the efficiency and smoothness of how our operations executed and performed."

On the one hand, Wal-Mart tells its shareholders that it "achieved record customer experience scores for the year, reflecting increased traffic, and higher 'fast, friendly, clean,' scores." Apparently Wal-Mart didn't cross tab any customer satisfaction surveys with Consumer Reports readers.

The "engineers" at Wal-Mart may seek comfort in the fact that Consumer Reports is only seen by an estimated 7.3 million readers---while Wal-Mart has 200 million customers every week. But Vanity Fair has only 1.2 million readers, so maybe Wal-Mart needs to do some more focus groups with those "Busy Moms" who drive their bottom line.

Wal-Mart's self-serving hyperbole about efficiency and seamless shopping has become a mainstay of its culture, and is taken for granted by the media. But this week, Consumer Reports readers kicked some dirt on that shiny exterior.

This is a video of Walmart flack Jane Coleman. Just take a minute and fast-forward to about 1:30.

She says "The Miley Cyrus and Max Azria line is not for children. It is sold in our lady's apparel section and was designed for and marketed to older audiences. However it is possible that a few younger customers may seek it out in the store."

This, ladies and gents, is a classic example peeing on your leg and telling you it is raining. Because Hannah Montana is marketed at "older audiences"? Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think Ms. Cyrus's show is on the television lineup after Grey's Anatomy.

Classic example of Walmart telling it like it isn't.

Wal-Mart has eight stores located within Tucson, Arizona, including 4 of its smaller Neighborhood Markets, two discount stores, plus a superststore on North Valencia Road and a second superstore on LaCholla Boulevard. The city is saturated with sprawling big boxes--but the company has been fixated on one location it wants for more than a decade.

For 11 years now, Wal-Mart has been trying to squeeze its way into the El Con Mall in Tucson. On June 28, 1999, Sprawl-Busters reported from Tucson that Wal-Mart wanted to build a superstore, along with a Home Depot and a 20 screen theater complex. Neighbors in the abutting El Encanto neighborhood---which is on the national historic registry---forcefully opposed the over-sized plan.

Within two months of Wal-Mart's appearance, the Tucson City Council voted unanimously to ask the City Manager to write an ordinance banning the construction of big box retail stores of 100,000 s.f. or more, and to limit outdoor activities at retail stores. One city councilman said at the time the new ordinance was aimed at making sure that the city didn't lose its sense of "community identity and sense of place."

On September 15, 1999, Wal-Mart saw the writing on Tucson's WAL, and pulled out of the project. Within two weeks of Wal-Mart's withdrawal, Tucson had passed its new ordinance, which took effect October 27, 1999. The ordinance required developers of stores over 100,000 s.f. to file plans with the city addressing standards for such commonplace zoning issues as noise, traffic, lights and hours of operation. The new law also required a public hearing before a zoning examiner, with the final decision resting with the Mayor and City Council. The Tucson ordinance also limited non-taxable grocery items to no more than 10% of a superstore's floor space.

Home Depot stayed in the fray throughout, and today there is a Home Depot store---and a Target---in the El Con mall where Wal-Mart now wants to build.

Despite its departure in 1999, Wal-Mart did not give up on locating in the El Con. In 2003, the giant retailer tried--and failed---to get the courts in Arizona to overturn the "big box" law in Tucson, Arizona. Sprawl-Busters reported on September 28, 2003, that a judge in the Pima County, Arizona Superior Court had tossed out a lawsuit filed by Wal-Mart against Tucson's big box law.

Ten years after its El Con defeat, Wal-Mart reappeared in an article by the Arizona Daily Star. The newspaper revealed that Wal-Mart was turning its attention to smaller superstores as a way to come in below the size cap in Tucson. The giant retailer had proposed a 91,000 s.f. store at the corner of Golf Links and Houghton Roads. "It's a grocery store," a Wal-Mart spokesperson said. "General merchandise and grocery to provide that value and convenience to our Tucson customers." Apparently Wal-Mart was reluctant to use the term "supercenter" for this new format, and instead described the smaller version as "more of a really localized neighborhood kind of shopping experience."

Wal-Mart told the Daily Star that several other sites in Tucson were also still on the company's radar: the corner of Valencia and Alvernon and El Con Mall. "There is a lot of speculation about El Con. We would be interested in serving that community."

This past week, roughly 7 months after the El Con rumors had hit the media, Wal-Mart officially announced that it wanted to build a 102,000 s.f. superstore in the west end of the El Con Mall, building a new store about the same size as the closed three-story Macy's store at the mall. One of the provisions in the 1999 Tucson big box law specifically dealt with El Con. It allows a new store to be built if it fits into an existing footprint.

Wal-Mart hopes to have the project open for business by the middle of 2012. "El Con Mall is an area that's been looking to revitalize and we have a chance now to make that happen," a Wal-Mart spokesperson told the Arizona Daily Star.

The city's Planning Administrator has already told the media that if the store fits into the Macy's footprint, it will not require approval by the city council---despite the fact that the Wal-Mart will generate significantly higher traffic and crime than Macy's ever did.

The current president of El Encanto Estates Homeowners Association had mostly positive comments to make about the existing big box stores like Target and The Home Depot, and the City Councilor who represents the El Encanto neighborhood,Steve Kozachik, even suggested that the store will lower neighbor's anxiety about empty stores attracting crime. The same Councilor said Wal-Mart would attract local businesses to the El Con mall.

Apparently Councilor Kozachik has not read Wal-Mart's rap sheet: it eats local businesses for lunch, and attracts a high level of crime to its parking lots across the nation.

Wal-Mart has promised the city that their new store will 'create' 250 new jobs. "It's big news for Tucson," the Wal-Mart spokesman told Inside Tucon Business. "We'll be bringing jobs and sales tax revenue that the city sorely needs. A number of our customers are currently driving from mid-town to our stores outside the city limits," the retailer said.

Such misleading statements are classic "Wal-Math." In Wal-Mart's arithmetic, one job created at Wal-Mart, minus one job destroyed at a local retailer, equals one job gained. Wal-Mart has no minus pad on their calculator. Any local official who thinks that Wal-Mart creates a significant net gain in jobs or revenue simply is suffering from economic illiteracy. As the researcher Retail Forward wrote seven years ago, for every one Wal-Mart superstore that is created, two existing grocery stores will close.

The Macy's building is 22 years old. It was built around the same time as Richard Nixon was elected President. As retail buildings go, the Macy's building still has plenty of life remaining in it, and its has the advantage of being three stories, which means more square footage of selling space than a one-story Wal-Mart. The Macy's building is more appropriate for an urban area, while a one-store big box is more of a suburban model. The El Con is being transformed into a land-consumptive big box power center, surrounded by several historic neighborhoods. This is simply bad land use planning.

What you can do: Wal-Mart's latest plan to shrink their store to get into Tucson is a major victory for citizen activists who fought to get the size cap ordinance passed in the first place. But Wal-Mart has built and abandoned some stores after less than ten years---so what they build today in Tucson could be dark within a decade, and the fact remains that this new project will be very dissimilar to Macy's. The world's largest retail discounter will bring increased traffic and crime that will leave city planner's flat-footed unless they plan now for the true impact of this store.

Readers are urged to email Tucson Mayor Bob Walkup at: mayor1@tucsonaz.gov and Ward 6 Councilor Steve Kozachik at: ward6@tucsonaz.gov with the following message: "Dear Mayor Walkup and Councilor Kozachik, I was taken aback by Councilor Kozachik's enthusiastic support for the Wal-Mart superstore project in El Con. Yes, it is a victory for neighbors that this store will come in at 102,000 s.f. But are you both prepared for the increase in crime and traffic that this addition will bring to El Con?

In terms of design, it would be better to urge Wal-Mart to build a two story building with 50,000 s.f. per floor, and to incorporate many of the historic building elements found in the El Encanto neighborhood and other historic neighborhoods abutting this mall. What Tucson has done is create a suburban big box power center in the middle of historic city neighborhoods. Retail areas should have thematic connectivity to the homes that surround them.

You might also insist on operating hours that require this store to close by 11 pm, and not open before 8 am, with no overnight deliveries. Wal-Mart should also be required to sign a demolition bond, so that if they abandon this store and leave it empty for 12 consecutive months, they have to tear it down at their expense.

I certainly hope you will not repeat the voodoo economics from Wal-Mart that somehow this store will create 250 new jobs. In fact, this project adds no value to the mid-town economy, since most of its sales will come from existing merchants---including some already located at El Con. You will gain some 'dark stores' from this oversaturation of big box retail.

This kind of suburban, big box power center is so out of character with the surrounding land uses, that one has to wonder when will Tucson grasp that the quality of life and character of a neighborhood is more important than access to cheap Chinese products?

Wal-Mart knows the price of everything, and the value of nothing. This seems to be the reining philosophy at the Tucson City Council as well.