The urban sprawl wars continue this week, as the Chicago, Illinois City Council approved the third Walmart for the windy city, and officials in Houston threw public welfare at a Walmart superstore in the Heights neighborhood of Houston.

In Chicago, the city council voted 41-4 to approve a third Walmart location: a 143,000 s.f. store in the Chatham neighborhood. On assurances that Walmart will pay its workers $8.75 an hour (25 cents above Chicago's minimum wage), the city council is now approving sprawl without even a debate.

Walmart is now scouting out as many as 20 additional locations---realizing that they better get their stores in the ground now that the political winds are behind their back, and before the windy city blows back against them.

Mayor Richard Daley, who has drunk deep the Walmart Kool-Aid, made the remarkable statement quoted in the Chicago Sun-Times this week that "No one questions Walmart in the suburban area." After all the battles and scars Walmart has suffered in suburban America, including small Illinois communities, Mayor Daley has missed the narrative, like someone who walks in at the end of Gone With the Wind and tries to recreate the plot line.

Meanwhile, Chicago city officials might learn something from their colleagues in Houston, Texas, where another Walmart superstore controversy is raging---and this one has little to do with the minimum wage.

Houston is a glimpse of what Chicago now only dreams to be: a mecca for Chinese imports. Houston has at least 15 stores within the city's limits, including six supercenters. But the latest proposal for the "Heights" neighborhood in Houston has the common folk rising up, and there is no organized labor to prod them on.

Houston Heights describes itself as a "diverse small-town community in the heart of Houston where neighbors and businesses thrive, children learn and play, and history lives." For the past 37 years, the community has had a Houston Heights Association, a nonprofit organization formed to encourage and promote the enhancement of the Houston Heights community. This group is going to have its hands full unless it plans to sit on the sidelines during the upcoming Walmart battle.

According to the Houston Chronicle. Walmart wants to build just outside of the Heights, in what the newspaper calls the retailer's "most urban location" in the Houston area. Walmart has indicated this year that it will focus its resources on breaking into urban areas like this one in Houston. "We are always looking for opportunities to serve our customers in Houston," a company spokesman told the Chronicle.

Walmart's site plan shows a 152,015 s,f store, but the company would not reveal more about its plans. These urban superstores, in Chicago and Houston, are scaled down somewhat from their suburban cousins, but are still far larger than the 80,000 s.f. superstores that the company has built in several other locations.

Part of the site Walmart wants was once an industrial plant. According to the Chronicle, the regional grocery chain H-E-B had made an offer for the site---but they were outbid by Walmart.

This week, the Houston Chronicle reports that Walmart Stores is under contract with a developer to purchase 16 acres of land. The announcement of the deal came only two days after neighbors of the store protested the plan before the Houston City Council.

The Council members apparently applauded the residents for "their proactive efforts and passion for their neighborhood," but then told residents that there was nothing the city can do. As one neighbor told Sprawl-Busters, "Houston has no zoning."

The company that owns the land, the Ainbinder Company, was even offered public welfare to build this project. According to the Chronicle, city officials are throwing tax breaks at the developer, despite the neighbor's opposition to the plan. It's one thing to tell residents you can't stop sprawl---but its quite another thing to pay for it with public monies. A specific subsidy level was not discussed, but staff to Houston Mayor Annise Parker told the newspaper that the city can use future revenue from the project to help the developer pay for the cost of widening local streets so they can bear more traffic generated by this huge project.
What you can do: To keep the residents of Houston calm, the Mayor has announced that she will set up a committee of residents and businesses to give neighbors a vehicle for blowing off steam.

The Mayor wanted to be clear that this community group's purpose would be "not to stop the project, but to make sure that whatever goes in there, that at least we attempt to negotiate mitigations to potential neighborhood impacts."

Meanwhile, a handful of neighbors who were willing to fight not only Walmart, but City Hall too, spoke out against the project this week, citing the increasd traffic, the increased crime, and the changes this project will wreak on this unique neighborhood.

A Walmart representative issued a statement which said that the superstore would use "low pollution lighting" and work with the local police on a security plan for the store.

A Houston blogger, ironically printed in the Chicago Sun-Times, pointed out that the superstore doesn't fit in with the area known in Houston as "Super Neighborhood 22." "It doesn't seem to fit in with their vision for the Washington corridor."

A "Stop Heights Walmart" page has been set up by neighbors on Facebook---but Facebook never stopped a Walmart.

Another blogger in Houston on Culture Maps warned Walmart that they are walking into a fight. "Well listen here, Walmart," wrote blogger Caroline Gallay, "you should heed the advice of Vizzini in The Princess Bride: 'Never fight a land war in Asia.' It would be a classic blunder. I know I'm not alone in my disdain for a company with a history of treating its workers horrendously, a cloying smiley-face mascot and products that aren't often anything to be proud of. Next to BP, Walmart may be the most hated company in America."

Gallay says she's lived in the Heights her entire life---except for a sabatical for college--"and in a neighborhood that values its independent coffee joints, unique boutiques and restaurants; fights hard for preservation; and has residents that sport bumper stickers like 'Friends don't let friends go to Starbucks,' I can tell you that Walmart's corporate icon isn't going to get a friendly welcome."

"I'd bet money that no one who lives [in the Heights] will make themselves a patron. Even if convenience did persuade us to abandon our principles, we've got a massive Target just over I-10 on Shearn Street, and my family has always driven to the Costco on Richmond Avenue for the groceries Target lacks (when we want to buy in bulk). Most days we just head over to Houston's largest Kroger on 11th Street and Shepherd."

"The way I see it, Gallay concluded, "Walmart's not offering a community that wouldn't be caught dead there anything they don't already have."

Readers are urged to email Houston Mayor Annise Parker at mayor@cityofhouston.net with the following message:

"Dear Mayor Parker, Can you see how incompatible a Walmart supercenter is with the character and land uses in The Heights?

Houston already has half a dozen Walmart superstores. It's not difficult to get cheap Chinese products from Houston-area Walmartsd already. Large single story superstores do not make sense in an urban area. The suburban stores that Walmart has built are bad enough---but bringing them into an urban market is even worse.

All this proposed superstore will do is cannibalize its own superstores already in Houston, and not really create new jobs or revenue for the city. One study by the consultant Retail Forward indicated that for every one Walmart superstore that is built, two area grocery stores will fail. Houston is already saturated with superstores.

This latest Walmart proposal should be denied for being incompatible with the surrounding land uses.

If the Ainbinder Company and Walmart cannot afford to pay for this project on their own, the city has no business offering tax breaks or public welfare of any kind. These are wealthy companies. We don't need to be giving more rich people public bail outs. Let the Walton family widen the roads, not the burdened taxpayers in Houston.

You are not giving tax breaks to the smaller merchants who will suffer as Walmart grabs more market share. As Mayor, you should be focused on expanding Houston's job base, not merely cannibalizing it to suit some large national chain store."

On September 28, 2007, Sprawl-Busters reported that the town of Wellsville, New York was up against a Wal-Mart.

Almost three years later, all is not well in Wellsville for Wal-Mart. Even though Wal-Mart has reduced the store size by 24%---it's still not ready to go.

Wellsville promotes itself as a lovely small town in the heart of the Allegany Hills. This town, and Wellsville Village is nestled in the foothills of the Appalachian Mountains, with the Genesee River flowing through it.

But the town is also looking for big malls, and says it has several properties in "Empire Zones," which allow it to give tax subsidies to developers. If a Wal-Mart ever happens in this town, it will be with public welfare subsidies.

On March 3, 2008, Sprawl-Busters noted that Wal-Mart held one of its dog and pony shows in Wellsville, but for many local residents, there were no ponies. It is common practice now for Wal-Mart to hold such public relations "open houses," where people mill around a series of posterboard displays about the proposed Wal-Mart, get to ask the engineers some informal questions, and most importantly, from Wal-Mart's perspective, sign a sheet supporting the plan. The retailer then uses that list to drum up support for public hearings on the plan later.

A citizen's group in Wellsville formed quickly to oppose construction of the new store. At the public event, the town's Supervisor told the newspaper he was concerned by what he saw. The Supervisor noted that traffic congestion would become a major consideration. But right from the beginning, the Supervisor telegraphed his support for the plan. "Traffic is always a concern," he was quoted as saying, "but if the DOT (state Department of Transportation) signs off on their plan there shouldn't be a problem."

This is the standard passive attitude adopted by many local officials. The Supervisor said that he wanted an additional traffic signal to ease congestion and that he was concerned that with the existing road and the additional stretch of road which must be built to tie the new store into the road system. "I think that with proper synchronization of the lights, there won't be a problem," the Supervisor said. "Oh, maybe some car will get caught at the light." Then the Daily Reporter quoted him as saying, "there is always room for compromise."

The citizen's group brought in a local environmental attorney to let the Board know that they have the ultimate say on this project. "You have the power, they don't, it is your town," said attorney Gary Abraham. "You tell them what you want in the State Environmental Quality Review through the scoping document. You make the final decision." Abraham told the town to file an Environmental Impact Statement to determine the scoping process of the SEQR.

Attorney Abraham said that an EIS can include such things as any added cost to social services or Medicare, the character of the community and the impact on the local economy. "It's just common sense that a project like this would dictate that kind of study," Abraham added. "It is the first form that gives the chance to identify any significant impacts." The attorney noted that an independent study be done, not one by the developer, and that the cost of such study could be charged off to the developer.

Under New York law, this project was required to conduct an analysis of reasonable alternatives to the site which do less environmental harm. But the key to SEQR is how local officials implement it, and most local officials are "in the tank" with big developers, and only stumble through their paces to try to avoid litigation by citizen's groups.

The closest Wal-Mart store to Wellsville is 21 miles away in Hornell. It's just a discount store, so Wal-Mart will either try to expand that store in Hornell, or shut it down. The closest supercenter is 36 miles away in Bradford, Pennsylvania. The retail trade area in Wellsville does not warrant its own supercenter. The town had a 2006 population of 7,460, a drop from 8,116 in 1990. The village of Wellsville had a 2006 population of only 4,898 people--a drop from 1990's base of 5,241 people. The town and village populations are losing people, and their census combined at 12,358 people does not warrant a supercenter project.

On January 17, 2009, Sprawl-Busters reported that Wal-Mart, to make its store more palatable locally, had reduced the store's footprint from 148,000 s.f. to about 112,000 s.f..

The New York State Department of Transportation had not yet finished its traffic analysis of the developer's traffic report. The DOT was studying two intersections near the site.

Wal-Mart organized an "astro-roots" group called Wellsville Wants Wal-Mart, to counter efforts being organized by the Wellsville Citizens for Responsible Development. WCRD said it wanted to know where the project stands now in the SEQRA process, because the water and sewer issues are just a small part of the larger impacts from the project.

This week the Wellsville Wal-Mart was back in the news, almost three years since its first appearance. When the local newspaper asked Town Supervisor Dar Fanton why there was no activity yet at the Wal-Mart site, the Supervisor said: "Do I have a crystal ball? I haven't heard anything since I last talked to them." The Supervisor said that Wal-Mart lawyers "still have work to do."

Issues over the State Environmental Quality Review have not been finished. Town officials are in the dark about the retailer's future plans, but Fanton said he was not aware of any change in Wal-Mart's plan to build in Wellsville.

The head of the local Wellsville Country Club told the Daily Reporter that his group has not had a conversation with Wal-Mart for three years. "We asked them if there was still the potential of a project coming to Wellsville," the country club spokesman said. "At that time, they said they were hoping to break ground by January 2009." Even if Wal-Mart began construction today, a new store would not be open until the summer of 2011.

What you can do: At one point, Wal-Mart was trying to make a land swap with the Country Club. The land Wal-Mart has targeted is near the town's old airport, and is near the country club golf course' fifth fairway.

As far back as 2006, the club's board of directors were shown plans for a Wal-Mart superstore. The idea was that the retailer would swap 16 acres of its land for 6 acres owned by the country club, which would eliminate holes No. 5 and 7. But that land swap was never consummated.

Then, Wal-Mart cut 36,000 s.f. from its footprint. The country club deal fell through, and the Wal-Mart by the old airport is still on hold, much to the delight of anti-Wal-Mart forces.

It was a positive sign that Wal-Mart reduced its store by 24%, but residents should insist that the original size be trimmed in half. A 75,000 s.f store is still far larger than the Save-A-Lot, Giant Food, Tops, and other grocery stores in Wellsville.

Readers are urged to call the town Supervisor, Darwin Fanton, after business hours at 585-593-1780 ext 203 and leave the following message: "Dear Supervisor Fanton, All will be well in Wellsville without a Wal-Mart. Small towns like yours don't need large chain stores. Protect your scenic vistas, and promote your locally-owned businesses---but don't count on corporations who sell you Chinese imports to float your economy.

Be careful how you promote your Empire Zones. There is no added value economically from this project, since it largely will take its sales from existing grocery stores like Tops, Giant, and Save-A-Lot. If you give one penny of public money to this project, you are merely subsidizing the wealthiest retailer in the world. Wal-Mart does not need public welfare.

Wellsville has been losing population, so if you add a huge new capacity for grocery sales, the slice of the pie for all stores is going to get thinner as entrants to the market are added.

At a minimum, you should insist that Wal-Mart shrink its store to 75,000 s.f. If you go with a bigger store, you will get bigger traffic counts and bigger crime statistics. But don't expect more revenues from such a project. Wal-Mart makes nothing, they're just another seller to Wellsville's shrinking consumer base."

Walmart is starting to put RFID tags on items such as blue jeans and underwear. Walmart claims that these tags, which the company uses already to track shipments and pallets, will help with inventory control. But there are many privacy and security issues surrounding RFID which must be addressed.

A little background: RFID stands for Radio-frequency Identification, and when used in this context refers specifically to RFID microchips. These chips send out a short, identifiable signal, similar to a computers IP address, when scanned by an RFID reader. This signal can be uniquely identified when scanned.

RFID tags can be very, very small. They can be washable for textiles and clothing like, well, underwear and blue jeans. They already are in many things you may have on you at this moment. Got a US Passport issued after 2006? If you use public transit and have a smart card, use a credit card with a swipe option, or use a touch badge at your place of employment, you are already using some of these chips without even knowing it.

If this freaks you out, check out how to disable RFID chips (not for those who are afraid of using blunt force).

Walmart was one of the industry leaders in using RFID along its distribution network, and many companies have followed Walmart's practices. So Walmart putting RFID tags in merchandise is setting a practice that we can expect other retailers to follow.

The Wall Street Journal's story on Walmart's use of RFID is the most in-depth, but there are privacy concerns that do need to be noted.

Marketers and sales experts may monitor people's clothing for RFID chips to gather consumer information.

Unscrupulous marketers can data-mine any public space that people carrying these chips go to find out what clothes people are wearing, even gathering information from other RFID chips to get demographic information about them. We live in a world where there is a constant stream of personal data about us being given away without our permission or even awareness. RFID is just another example of this phenomenon.

Removing tags.

Currently tags are removable, like a price tag would be. But RFID technology does not require that that always be the case.

To protect consumers, Walmart and other retailers should consider removing these tags at the point of sale, similar to how retailers have removed anti-theft tags for years. This would protect consumers unfamiliar with the technology.

Extremely unlikely but possible applications.

Using these tags, someone could, in theory, electronically "sniff" home trash bags to determine consumer habits in a neighborhood or individual's home. This seems unlikely, but marketers do crazy stuff all the time. Remember that bomb scare in Boston a few years ago? Marketers. And market researchers might be interested in your garbage.

As Walmart pursues expansion into major urban markets, Wake Up Walmart and the United Food and Commercial Workers have sought the opinion of local residents in DC, Philadelphia, and Baltimore to find out how they feel. The response to this poll, preformed by the respected polling firm Lake Research, was clear: Resident have clear standards and support a living wage for big box retailers.

Specifically, people want career jobs in their communities that pay a living wage and provide benefits - not low-wage jobs that cannot support a family.

Residents in these areas were read conditions a large supercenter retailer would have to meet and asked if they would support legislation making certain requirements of these retailers. Specifically the poll asked if residents agreed to the following statement:

The zoning and building for a new big box retail store would be approved only if the company agrees to:

• Pay a minimum wage of at least $12 an hour for entry-level employees and only pay less if they provide quality, affordable health care
• Designate at least 75% of jobs to full-time positions and commit to recruiting and hiring workers from the local community
• And reinvest a portion of any local tax breaks they receive into charities and community organizations in the surrounding neighborhoods.

In all three cities, residents supported a law that would impose these conditions very strongly.

Residents were then given a pitch similar to the one that Walmart gives when entering a community to see if their opinions changed. Even after hearing these messages support was very strong.

In DC, 74% of respondents supported these standards for large retailers, with 54% reporting that they strongly supported the idea (in darker blue).

In Philadelphia, 76% of respondents supported these standards for large retailers, with 54% reporting that they strongly supported the idea.

The same was true in Baltimore, where 76% of respondents supported these standards for large retailers, with 55% reporting that they strongly supported the idea.

One important part of this poll is that retailers may pay less than $12 per hour "only if they provide quality, affordable health care." Many employers, retail and otherwise, would be able to continue paying their current wage levels because of good health care packages that are part of their employment package (often as part of a union contract), making career growth opportunity and benefits a part of the definition of what is a "good job."

On April 15, 2009, Sprawl-Busters reported that a proposed Wal-Mart supercenter in Massachusetts had been thrown into a deep freeze.

A rival grocery chain store, the Demoulas Super Markets Inc. of Tewksbury, Massachusetts, the parent company of Market Basket supermarkets, had taken Wal-Mart to court over a proposal superstore in Raynham, Massachusetts. Demoulas is the owner of the Market Basket Plaza on Route 138 in Raynham, Massachusetts. Demoulas filed their lawsuit in May of 2005, naming the Raynham Planning Board and Wal-Mart as defendants.

Demoulas challenged the legality of a Planning Board vote made on May 2, 2005 to grant Wal-Mart a special permit, paving the way for a 208,622-s.f. superstore at the former Par 3 golf course, located next to the Market Basket Plaza, close to the Taunton, Massachusetts line. Demoulas charged that the Planning Board made its decision without full review of plans and without proper consideration of the impact of increased traffic on area roads.

Demoulas sought to overturn a decision by the Planning Board to accept a subdivision and a site plan under one heading, after waiving a review of the subdivision plan. Demoulas said the board failed to fully consider evidence during the public hearing phase of the project.

The Planning Board did not consider the negative impact of increased traffic and the impact of an offer by Wal-Mart to pay for new traffic lights along the Route 138 corridor, as well as a new traffic light at the entrance to their store. The superstore is projected to raise traffic by 40% near the site. Demoulas asserted that the proposed traffic light near the Wal-Mart entrance was too close to a traffic light located in front of their plaza. This would create traffic delays and gridlock along the two-lane Route 138 roadway.

Demoulas argued that the Raynham Planning Board failed to consider the benefits of a smaller store when members voted unanimously to approve project. But in his decision, Judge Robert Cosgrove stated that there was no precise method for determining the best store size. In a related case, a Superior Court judge also denied an appeal of the project by the City of Taunton, which was filed over concerns with traffic and sewer use from the new store.

On March 14, 2008, Sprawl-Busters reported that the closing arguments in the case were heard in Superior Court in Fall River, Massachusetts. The Demoulas lawsuit had delayed Wal-Mart for four years. The trial, which was a non-jury trial, lasted about seven weeks. Superior Court judge Robert Cosgrove had the final decision to make, and it took him almost exactly a year to make his ruling.

According to the Taunton Gazette, Attorney Julie Pruitt Barry, representing Demoulas, said that the Wal-Mart superstore would add roughly 11,000 cars on Route 138, which would create "a potential and undisputed increase in traffic created by Wal-Mart." She said Demoulas was not motivated by "a fear of competition," because Market Basket customers are very loyal. "They go to Demoulas supermarkets because of the price and quality," Barry explained. She charged that the Planning Board "exceeded its authority and abused its discretion," by granting a sewer extension without first seeking approval from residents at a town meeting.

Wal-Mart's lawyer said the real reason for the lawsuit was increased competition to Market Basket. "It's clearly the 500-pound gorilla that's been sitting in the corner during every day of the trial," Wal-Mart's lawyer said. "Let's talk about what really is at issue." Wal-Mart described Demoulas' case as "flimsy," and "threadbare," and urged the Judge not to consider issues over environmental and economic impacts that were ruled out in previous court decisions.

The two sides disagreed over the issue of sewer service to the site. Demoulas said that the city of Taunton believes that Wal-Mart has to get the city's approval to install a 2,000 foot extension of sewer pipe. Wal-Mart said it does not need Taunton's approval.

The Mayor of Taunton sdmitted in 2005 that "the construction of Wal-Mart on Route 138 will be devastating to Taunton. Taunton will get all the traffic while Raynham gets all the fees and tax revenues."

On March 16, 2009, the Raynham Selectmen were informed by the town's lawyer that Judge Cosgrove had affirmed the decision of the town's Planning Board from 2005. The Judge dismissed Demoulas' appeal. The chairman of the Raynham Selectman, Joe Pacheco, indicated that Wal-Mart was now free to start applying for permits.

But Demoulas had 3 months to appeal the ruling. The Demoulas store directly abuts the proposed supercenter. If this store is built, Wal-Mart will have two supercenters in Raynham. The 220,000 s.f. Supercenter #2021 is located on Paramount Drive in Raynham, a few minutes away. Wal-Mart has indicated that it will start with a 148,000 s.f. store, and later add the 60,000 s.f. As of 2007, there were only 13,641 people in Raynham, a town with two big superstores.

On April 14, 2009, Wal-Mart got the bad news: Demoulas Supermarkets had appealed the Superior court ruling, which put the project on hold for another year or more.

In June of 2010, a Massachusetts appeals court agreed with Judge Cosgrove, and this week, the Taunton Gazette reports that the Demoulas company is not finished with Wal-Mart.

The newspaper said Demoulas could still appeal the building permit when that is filed, and could seek review from the Supreme Judicial Court.

Wal-Mart, however, is ready to move ahead. "We intend to move forward with our new store as soon as the process allows so our Raynham-area customers can save money so they can live better," a Wal-Mart spokesman told the Raynham Call newspaper. The Taunton Gazette said there are actually two issues before the court: 1) whether the planning board was within its authority to approve Wal-Mart's definitive subdivision plan; 2) a challenge to the town's site plan approval of the project. Judge Cosgrove did not rule on the second issue, noting that until a building permit it issued, the court could not take up the matter of the site plan.

What you can do: The Taunton Gazette reports that the town of Rayhnam has been burdened by "Wal-Mart's massive two store commitment to their community." The Gazette says that the existing superstore in Raynham "places a heavy burden on local police and fire forces.

The newspaper says that in one recent year, Wal-Mart alone was responsible for 300 shoplifting calls to the store. "A second store across town would double the demand," the Gazette said.

Raynham Selectmen Chairwoman Marie Smith feels very unimpowered by the coming of the new store. "We can't stop it," the told the Gazette. "It's going to come whether we like it or not."

It's not often that you see one retailer take on another in court. In this case, Demoulas has deeper pockets than the usual opponent Wal-Mart faces. They has now held Wal-Mart off to 5 years, costing the company as much as half a billion dollars in sales.

Citizens groups have to struggle to raise the cash to go toe-to-toe with Wal-Mart. That was not a problem for Demoulas. Market Basket stores are a major discount competitor in Massachusetts, and the company has a reputation for low-cost groceries.

Demoulas is no doubt unhappy with the court decision, and could continue their legal challenge against the superstore, which is targeted at their neighboring store. It makes sense for Demoulas to spend its legal money now, to avoid larger losses later. Demoulas operates roughly 60 supermarkets in Massachusetts and New Hampshire.

Readers are urged to email Raynham Selectman Joseph Pacheco at Joe@JoePacheco.net with the following message: "Dear Selectman Pacheco, It's hard to believe that Raynham loves big box sprawl so much that it wants two huge Wal-Mart supercenters a few minutes apart.

Demoulas has been the only thing standing between you and an absurd over-saturation of a small community by national chain stores. You know that Raynham does not need two giant superstores. You know that this store will hurt Taunton, and undermine its focus on its historic downtown. Yet little Raynham, which was carved out of Taunton---is now greedily wasting its resources on a company that cannot keep from cannibalizing its own stores.

This second superstore will draw most of its sales from the existing Wal-Mart in Raynham, and will not net any new jobs, once you subtract out the jobs lost at other local grocers when they close.

If you lose your Market Basket, what gain will this last five years of legal wrangling brought you? How many more big box stores will you allow to sprawl all over your community. How much cheap Chinese imports can one small town buy?

You should have imposed a cap on the size of retail buildings years ago. Now your Chairwomen tells the newspaper that Raynham is stuck with Wal-Mart, 'whether we like it or not.' When is the Board of Selectmen going to take back control over growth? Raynham should consider changing its name to Sprawlham.

But before you do, change your zoning code to put a cap of 70,000 s.f. on the size of retail buildings, and stop this superstore madness once and for all."

Thanks to Baltimore City Councilwoman Mary Pat Clarke, Baltimore may soon have a new living wage law for major retailers.

On July 22, the Labor Subcommittee of the Baltimore City Council will vote on an ordinance that would require such large retailers to pay their hourly employees the Baltimore City living wage (currently $10.57). Large retailers could pay up to $2 less than the living wage if their employees receive benefits worth up to $2 per hour.

Walmart has one store in Baltimore already, and hopes to build another in the Remington neighborhood. Walmart has gone on the record as opposing this bill and at a community meeting on May 26, 2010 a representative from Walmart deflected questions from the community about what a starting wage at Walmart in Baltimore actually was.

BmoreLocal, a community group, has been working to promote smart development, good jobs and healthy neighborhoods in Baltimore.

If you live in Baltimore (and please, only if you live in the area), click here to send a email to Labor Subcommittee Chair Warren Branch asking for his support of this bill.

A story in today's Chicago Reader¹ reveals that at least one hundred pro-Walmart "supporters" in Chicago were paid $100 to come and protest on behalf of the retail giant building in their neighborhood in front of Chicago's City Council on Thursday, June 24.

In the run up to the City Council vote in Chicago over the proposed zoning, Walmart was involved in a lot of footwork in the South Side community. For example, they did push polling², they pushed a lot of money at charities³, and they created a fake community group⁴ (along with Walmart-paid comment spammers).

The Wall Street Journal⁵ said that even Obama could learn something from Walmart about community organizing.

But if Walmart or some other group was paying these South Side residents a C-note each to "protest," it demonstrates that this visible and media-friendly support for Walmart was manufactured.

Community groups and labor were able to extract some concessions⁶ from Walmart in the run up to the City Council vote, though Walmart said it was be reneging⁷ on those agreements.

Walmart continually claims that people want the company in their communities. When the agreement was reached and the City Council was about to vote, how many of those folks with signs⁸ that read things like "Benefits from Walmart better than AFDC [Aid to Families with Dependent Children]" and "Walmart is better than welfare 4 me" came out because they supported Walmart and how many came because there was a crisp hundred dollar bill in it for them?

Notes:

1. Brooks, Max. "You Can Buy Love" Chicago Reader. 15 July 2010. Web.


2. Robinson, Kevin. "Wal-Mart Push Polls Chicago, Claims 74% Support New Store - Chicagoist." Chicagoist: Chicago News, Food, Arts & Events. 29 July 2009. Web.


3. Hinz, Greg. "Wal-Mart Reaches Deal for 'dozens' of New Chicago Stores." Crain's Chicago Business. 21 June 2010. Web.


4. Robinson, Kevin. "Wal-Mart Using Fake Community Group to Manufacture Support." Chicagoist. 26 Jan. 2010. Web.


5. Mcgurn, William. "McGurn: Wal-Mart Does Saul Alinsky - WSJ.com." Business News & Financial News - The Wall Street Journal - WSJ.com. 6 July 2010. Web.


6. Statement from the Wake Up Walmart Campaign of the United Food and Commercial Workers International Union on the Agreement Between Worker Organizations and Walmart in Chicago.


7. Tice, Carol. "Walmart Gets Its Chicago Store, and Immediately Reneges on Its Wage Deal." Business Blogs BNET. 25 June 2010. Web.


8. Clifford, Stephanie. "Wal-Mart Gains in Its Wooing of Chicago." The New York Times. 24 June 2010. Web.

You would think by now that local officials would know not to bother reading impact studies that are paid for by big box consultants---but it's a slow learning curve.

On August 21, 2009, Sprawl-Busters reported that Wal-Mart's wanted to get into Powhatan County,Virginia--and the response from neighbors was predictable.

Powhatan County has almost doubled its population since 1990. As of 2008, the population hovered around 28,000 people.

But the county is in a period of painful change due to its rapid growth. "Slowly but surely, Powhatan is undergoing a transformation," the official county website admits. "No longer can workers count on lifetime jobs with mainstay manufacturers, and the former banking hub is now more like a financial byway."

In April of 2009, rumors began sweeping the county that Wal-Mart had its eye on Powhatan, and according to the newspaper Powhatan Today, the very shadow of a Wal-Mart "has sent an anxious hum" through the county. As far back as the fall of 2008 a traffic impact study along Route 60, west of Route 675 was being conducted for an unnamed, 170,000 s.f. retail center on nearly 54 acres of land. The land is not properly zoned, and has to be rezoned by the county to allow the project. A piece of the property is zoned Residential Commercial, but another portion of the site is zoned Light Industrial---and this piece will have to be changed.

On October 13, 2009, Sprawl-Busters noted that the group Powhatan Grow Smart held its first public meeting. Wal-Mart officially filed its plans for a zone change on October 1st. The retailer has asked the County to rezone 33.57 acres of a 53 acre lot in eastern Powhatan from residential commercial, commercial and light industrial to general commercial. If the County does not approve the rezoning, the project is dead.

Powhatan Grow Smart (PGS) pointed out that a suburban big box footprint is incompatible with the county's comprehensive land use plan. The group said Wal-Mart was inharmonious with the plan's goal to "retain existing business," and with its focus on businesses "that are compatible with the rural character and overall quality of life..." The comprehensive plan states that desirable businesses would be "small to medium size [and] have a moderate land-use intensity...We want growth without big box."

On January 19, 2010, the Wal-Mart project in Powhatan hit a speedbump. According to Powhatan Today, the board of supervisors voted to pay for a third-party review of Wal-Mart's traffic analysis. The county's transportation study group asked the supervisors for a "global study" looking at a broad area in eastern Powhatan where the proposed Wal-Mart would be built, including traffic impacts to the roads that feed Route 60. Instead of asking for Wal-Mart to underwrite the cost of such an independent study, the supervisors put the bill on county taxpayers, and narrowed the breadth of the impact study. One supervisor said, "Wal-Mart will have to get the roads in order. I'm not going to vote to allow tax money to be spent [on traffic consultants] so Wal-Mart can come to the county."

On June 1, 2010, the Powhatan Planning Commission voted 4-1 to recommend rezoning land for the county's first Wal-Mart. According to the local media, about 200 residents showed up for the hearing, and most of those who testified were against the plan. The county's planning staff supported the rezoning as well.

But when the project came before the Powhatan Board of Supervisors this week, local officials tabled the rezoning indefinitely. According to the Richmond Times-Dispatch, the delay was only because Wal-Mart was still submitting changes to the plan.

At the hearing, an economic impact study--paid for by Wal-Mart---was introduced to Supervisors. All studies paid for by Wal-Mart make the projects look like they were built in Lake Wobegon---where all the site plans are good-looking, and the traffic flow above average. Wal-Mart had their Richmond-based consultant write an op-ed in the local newspaper, extolling the project. The study used "standard computer simulation" to predict what would happen in Powhatan if Wal-Mart opened a superstore. Not surprisingly, Wal-Mart's consultant found "overall, the proposed new store would generate approximately $652,000 in annual county revenue, 367 new jobs, and $21.5 million in total economic activity."All gross numbers, not net.

The consultant, A. Fletcher Mangum wrote, "our study looked at sales tax revenue growth in six Virginia localities that are comparable to Powhatan and in which a new Wal-Mart was constructed between 1991 and 2003. That analysis showed that, on average, those localities experienced a net 14.3% increase in sales tax revenue after the Wal-Mart was constructed." But within that total, there were some retailers that gained, and some that lost big. The population in Powhatan has been growing three times faster than the rest of Virginia, so sales growth might have been even larger without a Wal-Mart, which capture many of its sales from existing merchants. The study did not look at sales growth in localities without a Wal-Mart.

A spokesman for Powhatan Grow Smart told the Supervisors, "Anyone who believes Wal-Mart will bail us out and be the county's savior is dreaming. I get the feeling that Powhatan's for sale and it's being sold to the highest bidder, and right now that happens to be Wal-Mart."
What you can do: Wal-Mart's lawyer pointed to nearby Ashland, where a bitter battle ended up with a Wal-Mart being built over strong community opposition. "Those fears [in Ashland] were not realized," Wal-Mart's lawyer claimed. "Local businesses actually compliment Wal-Mart as a good neighbor."

But one locally owned drug store that has been open for 35 years, spoke out against the plan. "If this rezoning is approved, there's a high probability we'll have to close one of our pharmacies. We'd like to be able to celebrate 40."

Sometime in the fall of 2009, Wal-Mart set up a website to promote its plan, at http://www.walmartinpowhatan.com/. The tax revenue benefits are misleading, because Wal-Mart fails to subtract the cost to the county of having a big box store. If one of the Food Lion grocery stores closes, and one of the pharmacies, the net job creation will be much lower. "The long-term impact of inviting one big-box retailer into Powhatan will surely open up Pandora's Big Box and we will never be able to close it again!" warns Powhatan Grow Smart.

Powhatan Grow Smart said last January that regardless of what happened to the Wal-Mart proposal, the group was going to push for a 50,000 s.f. limit on the size of retail buildings. "Whether or not we get [Wal-Mart], we are going to suggest a cap on store [sizes]" to the board of supervisors, the group said.

Readers are urged to email Robert Cosby, the Chairman of the Powhatan County, Virginia Board of Supervisors at District3@powhatanva.gov with the following message: "Dear Chairman Cosby, Now that Wal-Mart has applied for its massive rezoning plan, its time for the Supervisors to lead growth, instead of follow it. The parcel Wal-Mart wants is not properly zoned. You have the legal right to deny rezoning. There are also wetlands on the parcel that need to be protected.

The scale of this project is simply incompatible with the rest of the surrounding built environment on Route 60 and 675. This proposed superstore is nearly three times the size of a football field. You have six Wal-Mart superstores within 22 miles, and most of the sales at any new store will come from existing merchants. Don't rezone this parcel. Promote 'restoration and preservation' in the county instead. You have your county Comprehensive Plan to back you up.

This kind of suburban sprawl has no place in your small community. Wal-Mart's impact study was just what you expect to get from a consultant they buy. That study was flawed, and did not look at the municipal costs of bringing Wal-Mart in--the traffic, the crime, the added public safety costs. It also did not produce a net income and jobs figure that subtracted out the lost jobs that will occur at local grocery stores. Did Mangum tell you that the independent consultant Retail Forward said in 2003 that for every one Wal-Mart superstore that opens, two local grocery stores close. And do you really think Ashland is thriving because the small boutique stores are still downtown?

You have the right to reject a rezoning--it is not a right---and to avoid the biggest land use mistake your small town will ever make."

There's an empty parking lot in Manatee County, Florida that should have had a Wal-Mart superstore on it by now. But slow sales in the United States are putting a crimp in a number of Wal-Mart projects. In Manatee County, Wal-Mart is feeling the heat of a slowing economic outlook.

If there is one thing that anti-big box activists have learned over the years, its that Wal-Mart Realty is like a dog on a bone. Once they have chosen a community, they do not give up, even when they lose the first round or two in a fight. They will regroup, find another site, or make a second or third try at an existing site. They can be harder to get rid of than poison ivy, and much more damaging.

In Manatee County, Wal-Mart survived a defeat six years ago, and came back to get approved. On January 1, 2004, Sprawl-Busters reported that homeowners in Manatee County were celebrating a hard-fought year-long victory against Benderson Development. The Manatee County Commission voted unanimously against letting Wal-Mart build a 200,000 s.f store next to the University Park neighborhood. More than 400 residents exploded into cheers when he decision was announced.

Six years later, there is still no Wal-Mart superstore project in Manatee---but the retailer has not given up. Wal-Mart separated from Benderson, and went its own way. In 2008, the giant retailer spent $11.6 million to buy 41 acres on Route 70 E. But in 2009, Wal-Mart announced that construction of the new store was being delayed.

The news this week is that Wal-Mart now says that work on the 150,000 s.f. store will not start until early 2011, with a ribbon cutting in the spring of 2012. The Bradenton Herald says Wal-Mart's plans were iced due to the "flagging economy."

If you visit the Wal-Mart site today, there is a new parking lot, but no structure---just a popular hangout for the birds. The site is approved for construction, but the economy has done what local officials should have done: slowed down the project.

What you can do: Ironically, the same fate awaited the original Benderson Development University Town Center project at University Parkway. Benderson blamed "poor economic conditions" for lack of progress at the 276 acre megamall---which no longer has a Wal-Mart in it. Like Wal-Mart, Benderson said it would "await more favorable economic conditions" before putting the project back on line.

Readers are urged to email Donna Hayes, the Chairwoman of the Manatee County Board of Commissioners at: donna.hayes@mymanatee.org with the following message: "Dear Chairwoman Hayes, You surely remember the elation back in January of 2004 when Wal-Mart's plans for a superstore were dashed. Now, the slow economy has delayed work on the retailer's new site in Manatee County.

The proposed project on Route 70E will not bring added jobs and revenues to Manatee. What you will see increased is traffic and crime---but no real added economic value.

Sprawl development in Manatee County is more of a threat to tourism than the Horizon Oil Spill. Your county survives on tourism to Anna Maria Island, Holmes Beach and Longboat Key. But putting suburban sprawl-marts along your roadways detracts from the unique sense of place that you are trying to create.

Use this opportunity of a Wal-Mart delay to go back to the company and urge them to shrink their store to 80,000 s.f.--which is the size of superstores they are building elsewhere in Florida. You can lead growth, or follow it. If you let companies like Wal-Mart define your built landscape, they will lead you into a concrete and asphalt wasteland."

On July 7, 2010, one of the richest people in America was given millions in public welfare to build an unnecessary Wal-Mart. This "bailout for Billionaires" was the work of the Bridgeton, Missouri City Council, where economic illiteracy trumps common sense.

Developer Enos Stanley Kroenke, sports mogul, Walton family son-in-law, and sprawl-developer, was actually paid more than $7 million in public funds to bring low-wage jobs to this community which describes itself as the "strong and viable economic engine for the St. Louis metropolitan area."

As a result of public subsidy, Kroenke's development company, THF Realty (the "THF" stands for "To Have Fun") will build a new Wal-Mart roughly two miles away from an existing, smaller Wal-Mart on the same road. The smaller store will close---leaving another "dark store" by the roadside.

The Bridgeton City Council voted 6-1 to pay Kroenke to leave them with an empty Wal-Mart. Only one city councilor dissented, arguing that Wal-Mart should have to pay its own way, and not be subsidized. The development agreement with Kroenke also allows the city to use eminent domain powers if necessary to complete the project.

This tax bailout came over the objection of officials in St. Louis County. A state-mandated 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. The city was able to overturn the TIF Commission with a supermajority vote of its members.

The Mayor of Bridgeton, Conrad Bowers, warned that if Wal-Mart and Kroenke were not given what they asked for---Wal-Mart would leave Bridgeton entirely, dragging with it a million dollars in tax revenue from its "old" store just minutes down the road. "We got the best deal for the city we could get," the Mayor told the St. Louis Post-Dispatch.

But it is Kroenke who got the best deal. Kroenke inherited a fortune in Wal-Mart stock when he married the daughter of Sam Walton's deceased brother Bud. Kroenek's wife, Ann Walton Kroenke is one of the richest women in America, with an inheritance valued at $2.6 billion. Kroenke owns the Denver Nuggets basketball team, hockey's Colorado Avalanche, is part owner of the St. Louis Rams and the English soccer team Arsenal. He was the 117th richest American, with an estimated worth of $2.7 billion in 2009. He could have built a new Bridgeton Wal-Mart without one penny of Tax Increment Financing, but the money was there for the taking.

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 answer to the city's economic stagnation is not to build more retail stores that make nothing, and sell Chinese everythings.

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."

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.

Add officials in neighboring St. Ann, Missouri to that list. Part of the "older" Wal-Mart store 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. 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.

Mayor Bowers said the supercenter would not happen without TIF money because of the site's demolition costs---which the city failed to get from the former property owners. So now the Mayor wants taxpayers to pay for it. The $7.2 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.

But Charles Dooley, a St. Louis County Executive said 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.

The United Food and Commercial Workers (UFCW) Local 655 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.

Your vote this week was a welfare bailout, pure and simple, and the public if fed up with bail outs for billionaires."

A poll in today's Washington Post Express asks: "Would you support a Wal-Mart store coming to New York Avenue in D.C.?"

Why not let them know that the kind of practices that Walmart is famous for (awful health care, low wages, anti-worker policies) aren't welcome in the Nation's Capital?

Click here for the poll.

Wall Street investors like Steve Forbes often refer to the 'creative destructionism" of capitalism. By that they mean that new retail projects often kill off older retail projects, and so progress inevitably means destruction of some jobs and revenues.

Wal-Mart often boasts of the gross job growth its stores will create, but never the net job impact after "creative destructionism" has taken place.

Consultants hired by the city of Tehachapi, California have warned the city that if a 165,000 sf. Wal-Mart superstore is built, there will be a downside to the retail sector.

According to the Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR), which is almost 600 pages long, a new Wal-Mart will kill of one of the city's two existing grocery stores, and likely force the existing Kmart to go out of business.

As the Tehachapi News reported this week, a new Wal-Mart "will bring economic hardship upon some existing stores." The proposed store has 34,293 s.f. of grocery space, and this could have a severe impact on either the existing Albertson's or Save Mart. "The Wal-Mart grocery component will potentially cause one of the existing supermarkets in Tehachapi to close," the consultants concluded.

The news was not much better for Kmart. "The existing Tehachapi Kmart store is likely to be vulnerable to new competition," the report noted.

Tehachapi's current square footage devoted to groceries is 93,566 square feet. Adding a Wal-Mart grocery section at 34,293 represents a sudden increase in capacity of 37%.

"Given the relatively modest growth in citywide grocery demand over the next several years," the DEIR says, "only a small portion of Wal-Mart's grocery sales would be supported by incremental demand. The vast majority of Wal-Mart's grocery sales would be diverted from existing supermarkets in the City...the proposed project could potentially cause one of the existing supermarkets in Tehachapi to close, given that the combined sales volumes of the two existing supermarkets would fall 35 percent from the existing level with the entry of the Walmart store in 2011."

Wal-Mart took exception with these conclusions. "We disagree with the finding of the EIR when it comes to store closures," a Wal-Mart spokesman said. "Studies have shown that the presence of Wal-Mart provides positive economic benefits to the cities, the local economy and to neighboring businesses."

Wal-Mart continued to maintain that their store would actually "create 300 new jobs, the majority of them full-time." This is Wal-Math, which is not taught in Tehachapi schools: One job 'created' by Wal-Mart, minus one job lost at Kmart of Albertson's, equals one job.

"We are excited to be able to bring new jobs, tax revenue and one-stop shopping to Tehachapi," the company blithely told the News.

Kmart shrugged off the bad news. "Retailing is a competitive business," said a spokesman for Sears Holding Company, which owns Kmart. "We are always in proximity to each other."

But the countryside is littered with dead Kmarts, many of which have been filled by other competitors--including Wal-Mart.

The spokesman at Save Mart was a litte more realistic. She told The News, "A Supercenter Walmart is a significant competitor. We will continue to do the things we do best, serving the Tehachapi community. We are hopeful they will continue to support our business." But 'hope' will not be enough to save Save Mart.

The DEIR says that the "Tehachapi Kmart store is vulnerable to closure, due to the chain's internal challenges combined with increased competition introduced by the proposed project. The existing Kmart store is approximately 91,500 square feet, and the larger of the two existing supermarkets (Albertsons) is approximately 49,500 square feet. Thus, in the worst-case scenario of these two stores closing, the existing amount of vacant square feet in the trade area would increase by approximately 141,000 s.f." That's 85% of the new Wal-Mart superstore's square footage.

Smaller players in the Tehachapi trade area were more outspoken in their assessment. The owner of Radio Shack described Wal-Mart's potential impact as "drastic," and added, "You'll see a lot of empty buildings. It will have a big impact on business in this town. Radio Shacks have survived Wal-Mart but they really put a dent in business. They ran the one in Ridgecrest (CA) out."

The News quoted the owner of Southern Shooters Supply as saying, "Yeah, it's going to kill us, like a lot of businesses in town. We're still trying to decide what we're going to do. Wal-Mart is the kiss of death for any small business in a small community. Look at the drug stores, the grocery stores, Radio Shack. They're (Wal-Mart) going to undercut us all."

What you can do: The DEIR noted that "cumulative mobile source noise impacts would occur primarily as a result of increased traffic on local roadways due to the proposed project and related projects within the study area." The noise impacts cannot be mitigated.

A fiscal impact report noted that the "Police Department indicates that additional police services may be required for the site....The cumulative increase of police service would require additional officers to maintain the existing ratios of officers to civilians...the combination of the related projects and the proposed projects may require additional staffing to the extent that an expanded police station may be required...the proposed project when combined with the related projects could result in a significant impact." Yet the fiscal study did not estimate the added revenue cost of more police for Tehachapi.

The impact on this huge store on traffic has not been resolved. According to the DEIR, "Nine of the 19 key study intersections will be significantly impacted with the addition of project traffic...three impacted intersections...would continue to operate at a less than acceptable Level of Service, therefore the cumulative traffic impacts would be significant and unavoidable..."

The DEIR also says that the Wal-Mart project will create nearly 8,100 tons of carbon dioxide emissions per year without any project design features, of which 6,700 is from cars. With mitigation features, greenhouse gas emissions could be cut by 7% to 7.6 metric tons.

The DEIR also looked at a "reduced intensity alternative" to the larger store---and analyzed the impact of cutting the store size to 123,750 s.f.

But the 'reduced intensity' store--a 25% smaller footprint--did not make much difference to the environmental impacts. "The building would be rectangular shaped and would be constructed out of the same type of materials, such as concrete masonry block, stucco and metal with decorative elements on the main store frontage with arches and architectural accents and canopies as well as a clay tile roof," the report said.

"Similar to the proposed project, this alternative could potentially cause one of the existing supermarkets and the Kmart in Tehachapi to close...There would be a similar increase in fire and police protection services as a result of operational activities...

"New project-related vehicle trips would still occur, but it is assumed the number of trips would be reduced due to the reduction in square footage and therefore, smaller amount of merchandise available to purchase at the reduced Wal-Mart...is assumed that trip generation from the project would be reduced...However, this alternative would still likely contribute to significant and unavoidable cumulative impacts at the three identified intersections, as the identified
mitigation measures for those intersections are not feasible..."

"Therefore, similar to the proposed project, the Reduced Intensity Alternative would still result in significant and unavoidable impacts with respect to operational cumulative noise, and cumulative traffic impacts at three intersections. All other less than significant impacts would be either less or similar to the proposed project."

Readers are urged to email the Mayor of Tehachapi, Linda Vernon, at: mayorvernon@gmail.com with this message: "Dear Mayor Vernon, You do not need a Wal-Mart superstore in Tehachapi, especially one that is 165,000 s.f. As your own DEIR demonstrates, you will also lose almost as much square footage of retail as you will gain, and the net impact of jobs will be almost negligible. Instead, you will be expanding the suburban sprawl model of a single story box with a massive parking apron around it. This does not fit the character of Tehachapi, and will only draw foot traffic away from your historic downtown.

There is enough information in the DEIR to reject this project. It will increase your crime, and leave you with several intersections with unacceptable traffic congestion. This is all you will get from a Wal-Mart---along with more empty retail buildings that will be very hard to fill."

Why is Walmart spending millions to fight a $7,000 fine?

The fine comes from the 2008 trampling death Jdimytai Damour, who had been working at the Walmart in Long Island. On Black Friday, the day after Thanksgiving, of that year a crowd of 2,000 people had been lined up for hours near a hand-written sign that read "Blitz Line Starts Here." Shoppers busted through the line shortly before the store was scheduled to open, crushing Damour as he tried to protect a pregnant woman from being trampled.

We have called on Walmart have higher safety standards, now it seems that the company doesn't want to even recognize that it did anything wrong.

According to The New York Times, Walmart is fighting a $7,000 fine from OSHA. But it is difficult to understand why Walmart is doing so. They reached an agreement with the Nassau County NY district attorney to create a $400,000 fund for victims of the stampede, they've spread around $1.5 million to charities and community groups in the community around the Walmart store in question, and they have announced "crowd policy" changes, though how effective they are is open to interpretation, based upon five articles from this season.

From the Times:

In May 2009, OSHA accused Wal-Mart of failing to provide a place of employment that was "free from recognized hazards." Specifically, the agency said the company violated its "general duty" to employees by failing to take adequate steps to protect them from a situation that was "likely to cause death or serious physical harm" because of "crowd surge or crowd trampling."

Wal-Mart, the world's largest retailer, says that regulators are trying to enforce a vague standard of protection when there was no previous OSHA or retail industry guidance on how to prevent what it views as an "unforeseeable incident."

Walmart is essentially trying to drown OSHA in paperwork and spend millions of dollars in order to avoid paying a $7,000 fine, taking up almost a fifth of the time of lawyers at OSHA's New York office. This is like hiring Johnnie Cochran to get out of a speeding ticket.

Walmart admitted no liability when it settled with the Nassau D.A. But if it paid the OSHA fine, it would in a sense be admitting that it had committed some wrongdoing in not preventing the trampling death. If they admitted wrongdoing, they might be held accountable to government.

And Walmart refuses to be held accountable by anyone but themselves.

Joseph Casias started working at a Wal-Mart in Battle Creek, Michigan in 2004 where he took a job as an entry-level grocery stocker and later moved his way up to inventory control manager. In 2008 he was named Employee of the year. A year later he was fired for testing positive for marijuana even though he was a licensed medical marijuana patient and is protected under the Michigan Medical Marihuana Act (sic) passed in 2008.

Because of this injustice, the American Civil Liberties Union filed a lawsuit against Walmart and the manager of its Battle Creek store this week. ACLU staff attorney Scott Michelman said:

"Medical marijuana has had a life-changing positive effect for Joseph, but Wal-Mart made him pay a stiff and unfair price for his medicine...No patient should be forced to choose between adequate pain relief and gainful employment, and no employer should be allowed to intrude upon private medical choices made by employees in consultation with their doctors."

This is yet another lawsuit being brought against Walmart for unfair treatment of its employees. This is on top of the largest class action gender discrimination lawsuit in history, and other countless lawsuits for wage and hour violations facing Wal-Mart.

Wal-Mart needs to get their act together and start treating their employers with respect and dignity or else the list of lawsuits being brought against them will continue to grow.

For more information on other lawsuits facing Wal-Mart check out: http://www.wal-martlitigation.com/

Wake Up Walmart intern Yeni contributed to this post.

Houston, Texas has at least 15 stores within the city's limits, including six supercenters. But since they love to do it up big in Texas, who will notice yet another superstore in Houston, time in the Houston Heights area? But this particular neighborhood could become a problem for Wal-Mart.

Houston Heights describes itself as a "diverse small-town community in the heart of Houston where neighbors and businesses thrive, children learn and play, and history lives." For the past 37 years, the community has had a Houston Heights Association, a nonprofit organization formed to encourage and promote the enhancement of the Houston Heights community. This group is going to have its hands full unless it plans to sit on the sidelines during the upcoming Wal-Mart battle.

According to the Houston Chronicle. Wal-Mart wants to build just outside of the Heights, in what the newspaper calls the retailers; "most urban location" in the Houston area. The urban move comes days after Wal-Mart was finally approved by the Chicago City Council to build a second store in Chicago. Wal-Mart has indicated this year that it will focus its resources on breaking into urban areas like this one in Houston.

"We are always looking for opportunities to serve our customers in Houston," a company spokesman told the Chronicle. Wal-Mart's site plan shows a 152,015 s,f store, but the company would not reveal more about its plans.

Part of the site Wal-Mart wants was once an industrial plant. According to the Chronicle, the regional grocery chain H-E-B had made an offer for the site---but they were outbid by Wal-Mart.

The next move is up to the residents of The Heights. If they want to protect their "small town community," they're going to have mount a big campaign to keep the superstore out.

What you can do: One area blogger in Houston on Culture Maps warned Wal-Mart that they are walking into a fight.

"Well listen here, Wal-Mart," wrote blogger Caroline Gallay, "you should heed the advice of Vizzini in The Princess Bride: 'Never fight a land war in Asia.' It would be a classic blunder.

"I know I'm not alone in my disdain for a company with a history of treating its workers horrendously, a cloying smiley-face mascot and products that aren't often anything to be proud of. Next to BP, Wal-Mart may be the most hated company in America."

Gallay says she's lived in the Heights her entire life---except for a sabatical for college--"and in a neighborhood that values its independent coffee joints, unique boutiques and restaurants; fights hard for preservation; and has residents that sport bumper stickers like 'Friends don't let friends go to Starbucks,' I can tell you that Wal-Mart's corporate icon isn't going to get a friendly welcome."

"I'd bet money that no one who lives [in the Heights] will make themselves a patron. Even if convenience did persuade us to abandon our principles, we've got a massive Target just over I-10 on Shearn Street, and my family has always driven to the Costco on Richmond Avenue for the groceries Target lacks (when we want to buy in bulk). Most days we just head over to Houston's largest Kroger on 11th Street and Shepherd.

The way I see it, Gallay concluded, "Wal-Mart's not offering a community that wouldn't be caught dead there anything they don't already have."

Readers are urged to email Houston Mayor Annise Parker at mayor@cityofhouston.net with the following message:

"Dear Mayor Parker, Can you see how incompatible a Wal-Mart supercenter is with the character and land uses in The Heights?

Houston already has half a dozen Wal-Mart superstores. It's not like its difficult to get cheap Chinese products from Houston-area Wal-Marts. Large single story superstores do not make sense in an urban area. The suburban stores that Wal-Mart has built are bad enough---but bringing them into an urban market is even worse.

All this proposed superstore will do is cannibalize its own superstores already in Houston, and not really create new jobs or revenue for the city. One study by the consultant Retail Forward indicated that for every one Wal-Mart superstore that is built, two area grocery stores will fail.

Houston is already saturated with superstores. This latest Wal-Mart proposal should be denied for being incompatible with the surrounding land uses."

The Home Loans blog has an infographic about Walmart up on their web site.

The Walton's have a secret bunker under their house? Who knew? We did know about the lawsuits, the pay, the environmental impact, the importing from China, etc...

Via: Home Loans

Wal-Mart came to a public hearing this week in Moon, Pennsylvania with an unusual weapon: a court stenographer.

It seems the giant retailer knows that a lawsuit will follow its proposal for this small township, so it wants to make sure it gets the record straight. But as it turns out, the legal intimidation of bringing a stenographer may have backfired.

Sprawl-Busters first travelled 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 originally applied to build a 148,561 s.f. superstore on the site of a former 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.

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."

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 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.

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 June 13, 2010, Sprawl-Busters reported that Wal-Mart had submitted a demolition plan for the existing shopping center, and, in the words of the town's planner, "Demolition could happen at any time." The town had given Wal-Mart a green light to begin demolition at the site before the latest plans even have been before the Planning Commission.

This week, the Moon Township Planning Commission voted 3-2 to recommend approval of the West Hills Wal-Mart---which has now grown to 151,000 s.f.

The plan will now to go the township supervisors on July 7th. Commission member Joseph D'Andrea, who voted against the plan, said Wal-Mart did not follow the township's comprehensive plan, which calls for village-like development in its Carnot overlay district.

Kenneth Behrend, the lawyer for the citizen's group Moon First, charged that the developers' traffic impact study was wrong, and said that neighbors still had concerns about the lighting, noise and "unsafe areas" in the parking lot.

The day after the narrow approval by the Planning Commission, the township's supervisors met. One of the town officials, Marvin Eichler took issue with the small army of consultants that Wal-Mart brought to the Commission hearing. "Wal-Mart walks in with two attorneys and a court stenographer," Eicher was quoted as saying by the Beaver County Times. "That makes me suspicious -- just what is going on here?"

Wal-Mart has told the township that it also will bring its own court reporter to the supervisor's hearing on July 7th. "We are looking at an issue that could potentially go to court," Eicher told his colleagues. "That's why I want to know -- what will be the official record if we go to court?"

One of the Planning Commissioners came to the supervisors' meeting and told them they should ask Wal-Mart to change its plans to build a mixed-use plan instead -- one that would be more like the town center concept that was recommended ten years ago for this land.
What you can do: This aligns with the proposal the group Moon First has suggested for the past two years.

The citizens' group is sending out a flier to residents this week which says: "Ten years ago, the township spent $300,000, and with resident input in the form of focus groups, established a strategy for future development in our community. This strategy was called the Carnot Overlay District. The Overlay District included a 'town center' concept in the heart of our community...A town center would incorporate a mixed-use development with smaller shops and offices with a down-scaled Wal-Mart that could resemble an Aldi's-type store."

Moon First asks: "Why can't our elected supervisors and their appointed planning commissioners, abide by the very vision that was established by its community residents 10 years ago?"

The group says Wal-Mart had read the comprehensive plan, and knew what that planned called for. "Instead of designing a store that meets our community's long held vision, they have forced their own store concept upon our officials. They have been intimidating and manipulative by asserting their corporate power upon our community. Their goals appear to be that of a corporate goliath who makes their own rules to force their will upon small communities, unless the residents stand firm and protect the quality of life in their community."

Moon First says the supervisors have "every right to tell Wal-Mart to come back with a plan that fits our overlay district. Tell Wal-Mart that we want a plan that not only meets their needs, but meets our needs with a mixed-use town center development."

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, The latest plan submitted by Wal-Mart has grown even bigger, and more 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 creating a mixed use plan. Instead, they show up with a small army of lawyers and a court stenographer to try and intimidate you.

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 have 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 hires a court stenographer, 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.

Chairman McLaughlin, you have said you 'want to protect our resident's quality of life. We don't want the center of our township to become a gridlock.' You are running out of time to protect that commitment."