If you read the news about Wal-Mart regularly, you've probably noticed that the gargantuan company is constantly coming out with new schemes for its national and international expansion. Build lots and lots of stores all at once, build fewer stores this year, expand in areas where there are already stores, super-size existing stores, build in the suburbs, build in the city...the list goes on. Wal-Mart's tried tons of strategies. One strategy has been failing, however, and that's their attempt to become an "urban pioneer" (a phrase Lee Scott used). Wal-Mart has long been relegated to suburban strips and out-of-the-way rural shopping destinations, and it looks like it's going to stay that way. Wal-Mart's test for urban stores was in Chicago and it's just been announced that they won't build any more there, at least not for years to come.

The Chicago Tribune has the story of a major victory for those who think Wal-Mart needs to change its ways before it expands:

A closeout for Wal-Mart

Wal-Mart Stores Inc.'s hard-fought battle to turn Chicago into a beachhead for urban expansion across the country has come to a quiet end, at least for the foreseeable future, as big-city politics held sway over low prices.

Now the world's largest retailer is turning its attention to a backup plan of opening stores just outside city limits, banking that thousands of low-to-middle-income city dwellers will travel to collar suburbs to shop at the discount store. Among the suburbs Wal-Mart is looking at are Calumet Park, Cicero and McCook, according to people familiar with Wal-Mart's plans.

Wal-Mart got the word from city officials last month that Mayor Richard Daley doesn't want to risk a messy showdown with unions over Wal-Mart—like the big-box store battle of 2006—while Chicago is still in the running as a host city for the 2016 Olympics, according to people familiar with the matter. The International Olympic Committee is slated to make that decision in October 2009.

"That's the end of the story, at least for the next two to three years," said John Melaniphy, a Chicago-based retail real estate consultant. "I think in the long run they'll end up in the city one way or another, but it's going to take them a long time."

Goldman Sachs Group Inc.'s development arm, Archon Group LP, isn't waiting. The Chicago-based developer of Chatham Market on the South Side, where Wal-Mart had hoped to open its second city store, put a "For Sale" sign on the property last week.

Lowe's Cos. has already opened a 117,000-square-foot anchor in the shopping center at 83rd Street and Stewart Avenue. Wal-Mart was slated to be the second anchor and Archon had counted on the discount chain to attract other retail tenants. The developer has not been able to find another anchor to replace Wal-Mart.

"We're doing this to see what options present themselves," said Bill Moston, director of retail investments for Archon in Chicago. "We have a responsibility to pursue all available options and to evaluate what they are."

That could mean the empty land would go for other uses such as office space or storage or housing.

Not long ago Wal-Mart had ambitions of operating as many as 20 stores in the city. It opened a 142,000-square-foot discount store in the Austin neighborhood on the West Side in September 2006.

Wal-Mart wanted to open supercenters in the rest of the city, roughly 180,000-square-foot stores that also sell groceries.

But the retailer, which has a non-union workforce, ran into opposition from unions that have been trying to stop the Bentonville, Ark.-based company's expansion into northern cities.

Both Wal-Mart and the unions say they help everyday working families. Wal-Mart points to its affordable merchandise, willingness to blaze a trail into the food deserts of inner cities, and the hundreds of workers each store employs. Unions point to their campaign to persuade Wal-Mart to pay higher wages and health benefits to workers.

"We are a store that wants to come in and invest in that community," said Roderick Scott, head of public affairs for Wal-Mart in Chicago.

Dennis Gannon, president of the Chicago Federation of Labor and a leader in the unions' battle against Wal-Mart, declined to comment on the turn of events.

The mayor's press office and Pete Scales, spokesman for the Department of Planning, declined to comment on its talks with Wal-Mart.

Chicago Planning Commissioner Arnold Randall notified Archon on March 14 that he would not let Wal-Mart open at Chatham Market as proposed because of a letter from the previous developer that pledged to keep the retailer out.

Wal-Mart and Archon met with the commissioner last month to look for a way to make the project work.

"We always want additional retailers in Chicago," Scales said. "Hopefully [the potential sale] will open it up to other retailers other than Wal-Mart."

Daley, siding with business, took a political bruising in the summer of 2006 when he overturned, in his first veto, a big-box ordinance passed by the City Council. The ordinance, aimed at Wal-Mart, would have set minimum pay and benefit levels for any major retailer with a store 90,000 square feet or larger.

In the wake of the veto, unions poured millions into the City Council elections in a successful bid to support candidates who, among other things, were likely to oppose Wal-Mart's city expansion.

Wal-Mart Chief Executive H. Lee Scott first announced his intention to position Wal-Mart as an "urban pioneer" in an April 2006 speech in Chicago, saying the company "has never been afraid to invest in communities that are overlooked by other retailers."

But in the two years since, Wal-Mart has made little headway in expanding into Northern cities. It has yet to crack Boston, Detroit or New York.

And international markets such as Brazil are whetting the giant retailer's appetite, making it unclear how much longer the company will continue to focus on America's inner cities.

Ald. Howard Brookins (21st), who tried and failed to bring Wal-Mart to his South Side ward, said he's not happy with the decision.

He said he plans to woo retailers at the shopping industry's annual trade show in Las Vegas this month, hoping to find a replacement for Wal-Mart.

"We're not guaranteed the Olympics," said Brookins, "but we're guaranteed to get [sales] tax revenue from Wal-Mart."

As always, we take heart when a community stands up for itself. We'd like to offer a big congratulations to Duluth. Here's another great article from the Atlanta Journal Constitution:

With Wal-Mart fight over, participants reflect on battle

It was a bruising fight.

But now that Wal-Mart has scratched plans to build a 176,000-square-foot supercenter at the corner of Peachtree Industrial Boulevard and Sugarloaf Parkway in Duluth after almost a year of trying, the various participants are reflecting on what happened.

For the citizen group Smart Growth Gwinnett, born out of residents' opposition to a big-box development so close to their neighborhoods, it feels like a victory for the little guy —- proof that you can take on a Goliath and even occasionally win.

"I think that this shows that citizens getting involved in their government can have a positive impact," said Ed Wilson, president of Smart Growth, which represents residents from 11 neighborhoods. "I heard from numerous people that it was quite enlightening to get involved and observe how the city works."

It was also instructive, and gratifying, he said, to be involved in the creation of the city's comprehensive ordinance that governs all aspects of buildings over 75,000 square feet.

Hammered out by the city, local developers and citizens and adopted in December, the new guidelines reflect the community's consensus of what the Duluth of the future ought to look like.

For the retailer, there's the sense that procedural victories notwithstanding —- Wal-Mart finally won three of its four requests to vary from city building codes —- in the end, putting the supercenter on that site was not going to be worth it. "We had to take into consideration the increased cost," spokesman Glen Wilkins said, "which in our business, typically trickles down to customers as well."

The city's six-month moratorium on large-scale buildings, enacted last summer, when Duluth decided it needed time to create a comprehensive plan, made it hard for the company to move forward, Wilkins said, as did the city's "changing the rules in the middle" of the process.

"I think it is unfortunate to a certain extent," Wilkins said, "with gas prices what they are, that customers won't have an opportunity to shop closer to where they live."

For city staffers, there's a sense that the whole protracted struggle yielded valuable lessons —- despite the fact that Duluth is still facing two lawsuits from landowner Jack Bandy, which are pending in Gwinnett Superior Court. (Neither Bandy nor his attorney returned calls for comment.)

It was an up-close education in the intricacies of the zoning process, planning director Cliff Cross said. His tenure started in the middle of the Wal-Mart debate, with having to defend his predecessor's executive approval of Wal-Mart's plans. The Zoning Board of Appeals ruled the previous planner had overstepped her bounds, and forced the store to reapply for permission to vary from city building codes.

"I think one of the biggest benefits was the development of our large-scale building ordinance," Cross said. "And I think it showed that the process works. That was the whole point of going in front of the ZBA. That's what it's for. The director doesn't have complete control."

City administrator Phil McLemore said he's proud of the way the City Council and staffers handled what has been a stressful chapter.

"I think they were fair to everybody," McLemore said. "I don't think they went way off and took sides. [Wal-Mart] made a business decision not to go ahead with the construction. It obviously had to do with the economy. I can see where the citizens would be glad, and [Bandy], who had hoped Wal-Mart would go forward, would not be. For the city, our efforts to be as fair as possible to both sides was done in a correct manner."

From Eileen Drennen at the Atlanta Journal- Constitution.

Wal-Mart announced late Thursday night that it would not build a 176,000-square-foot Supercenter at the corner of Peachtree Industrial Boulevard and Sugarloaf Parkway in Duluth.

While every step of the stores rollout was greeted by crowds of protesters wearing red T-shirts and carrying "Stop Wal-Mart" signs, there was no indication that pressure from neighborhood group Smart Growth Gwinnett had an effect on the decision.

Instead, company spokesman Glen Wilkins said in a press release, the decision was "related to Wal-Mart's announcement in June 2007 to more strategically prioritize development of Supercenters."

There are already two Wal-Mart stores within six miles of the proposed location, in Duluth and neighboring Suwanee.

"While this decision is certainly an appropriate one from a business standpoint," Wilkins said in the release, "it takes nothing away from the fact that Duluth is an excellent community and a great place to do business."

Smart Growth's Marline Santiago-Cook, who lives directly across Peachtree Industrial near the proposed Supercenter, said the group was not just excited about Wal-mart's decision, but the larger changes that resulted from their lengthy fight. As part of the larger citywide debate about managing development, the city of Duluth adopted a large-scale building ordinance last December that governs all facets of projects over 75,000 square feet.

"Not only did we achieve our goals of stopping this particular project," Santiago-Cook said, "but we got a bigger win by the implementation of the new ordinance, which will address any future project at this particular site as well as in the entire city of Duluth."

The two lawsuits filed against the city of Duluth by landowner Jack Bandy – who wanted to sell his 30-acre site to Wal-Mart – are still pending in Gwinnett Superior Court. The first, alleging that the city violated the open records act by approving a moratorium on large-scale buildings without first advertising it on an agenda, has a trial date set for Sept. 15.

Check out this article from Central New York News

Wal-Mart calls it quits on Liverpool site

Wal-Mart is withdrawing plans to build a Supercenter in the town of Salina near the Liverpool Thruway exit on Route 57.

It attributed the move to budgetary reasons.

While the giant retail chain generally had the support of the town of
Salina, it ran into resistance from the village of Liverpool via protracted court actions.

The retailer has been working at locating a store on the Salina site for about five years.

Area residents have been split over the proposed giant box store. Some
welcomed the retail variety nearby, while others worried about the traffic congestion and gutting of the village business community as potential negative fallout from such a store being located just north of Liverpool.

Wal-Mart did not refer to such a conflict in its news release today.

"The decision is related to our continued plans to moderate growth of U.S. Supercenters," the release says. "After re-evaluating the anticipated budget, a determination was made not to move forward with this project."

A new piece by Al Norman over at the Huffington Post reveals that Wal-Mart has canceled 45 supercenters and community groups have blocked another 19 in the last 10 months. This huge number is in part due to Wal-Mart's new growth plan, which attempts to limit the number of new stores, and in part due to local anti-Wal-mart sentiment. Check out the article below, and notice in particular how Wal-Mart treated the towns it left.

According to a list released this week, Wal-Mart Stores has abandoned a record-shattering 45 proposed projects over the past 10 months -- often leaving local officials dejected and confused. Another 19 Wal-Mart projects have been killed by local citizen's groups. In total, the world's largest retailer has suffered an historic loss of 64 projects.

The list of store cancellations was compiled by Sprawl-Busters, which has maintained a database on Wal-Mart battles for more than a decade. Since June, 2007, the Arkansas-based retailer has delayed or killed its own stores in the following communities:

Aledo, IL; Arlington, WA; Belfast, ME; Bonita Springs, FL; Brooksville, FL; Chico, CA; Concord, CA; Crowley, TX; Derry, NH; Elyria, OH; Fircrest, WA; Garden Grove, CA; Gilbert, AZ; Glen Carbon, IL; Hadley, MA; Hemet, CA; Hilo, HI; Isle of Wight, VA; Knightdale, NC; Lake County, FL; Lakeland, FL; Lawrence, NJ; Lewiston, ME; Liberty, OH; Pennfield, MI; Hillsborough, NH; Kilbuck, PA; La Puenta, CA; Marietta, GA; Marysville, WA; Memphis, TN; Morganton, NC; Neptune Beach, FL; Oakley, CA; Oxford, NC; Portland, OR; Raleigh, NC; Ravalli County, MT; Rutland Charter, MI; Spooner, WI; St. Peters, MO; Sioux Falls, SD; Stoughton, WI; Sunrise, FL; Waukesha, WI.

These store withdrawals usually come with little advance notice, and even less explanation. In September, 2007, for example, when Wal-Mart suddenly folded its tent in Lancaster, Massachusetts -- 3 miles from the construction site of another Wal-Mart superstore -- the company issued a terse, four paragraph press release which stated, "The decision is related to Wal-Mart's recently announced plans to moderate growth of U.S. supercenters as part of leveraging capital resources through a strategy designed to improve returns and sales within U.S. stores." Such dense statements left local officials scratching their heads in disbelief -- sometimes following months, even years, of lobbying by the retailer to get a project approved.

Up until 10 months ago, Wal-Mart was planning to open a new store in America every 26.5 hours. But all of that changed on the morning of June 1, 2007. On that Friday morning, Wal-Mart stunned 18,000 stockholders assembled in the Bud Walton Arena on the campus of the University of Arkansas in Fayetteville. The retailer announced its growth plan for 2008 -- in what the New York Times described the next day as a "turning point" for the company.

In their laps, stockholders held Wal-Mart's 2007 Annual report, which said, under the heading "Future Expansion," that the company's "planned expenditures will include the construction of...265 to 270 new supercenters..." But in the weeks between sending their Annual Report to the printer, and their stockholder's meeting -- Wal-Mart popped its own growth bubble.

For several years, Wall Street's reaction to the retailer's overly-aggressive U.S. construction forecast had been less than encouraging. In 2005, for example, Bernstein Research Call issued a 13-page report warning stockholders of the downside of Wal-Mart's superstore plans. The analysts noted that Wal-Mart's growth "is under siege in several regions of the country from growing opposition by local communities...Local opposition has successfully squashed numerous plans among big box players in different parts of the country." Bernstein noted that "heightened resistance could negatively impact these retailers by slowing their square footage growth rates." Even modestly slower long-term square footage growth could have both an earnings per share and valuation impact, researchers said.

Because of grassroots anti-Wal-Mart groups, Bernstein warned, "it is clear that (discount retailers) will need to pursue a substantially larger number of permits going forward to hit their internal square footage targets given the likelihood of many opportunities failing."

Not only had Wal-Mart suddenly slammed on the brakes for 2008, but the company said it would open "only" 170 superstores per year for the next three years, and 80 supercenter would be deferred into 2009. In its 2007 Annual Report, the company explained, "We are focused on prioritizing capital spending to the projects that produce the highest returns. We want to improve our Company's return on investment, or ROI, improve our comparable store sales and improve our working capital productivity. The outcome is a focus on the most capital efficient opportunities."

In part due to the company's pale 1.9% growth in same store sales in 2007, John Menzer, Wal-Mart's Chief Administrative Officer, admitted, "We also have been focused this year on reducing cannibalization of existing stores via our more strategic selection of U.S. real estate projects." Same store sales indicates the performance of existing stores by measuring the growth in sales for such stores during a particular period, over the corresponding period in the prior year. Wal-Mart's same store sales have been dropping for 20 years, but this past year was the worst. The 1.9% growth rate in 2007 compares to 5% in 1997, and 13% in 1987.

Every store site that Wal-Mart proposes is reviewed by its executive-level Real Estate Committee, which looks at a number of benchmarks to see if each unit meets the retailer's Growth Model: the state of the economy, the local trade area, competition in the area, local demographics, real estate and construction costs, and: "potential impacts on neighboring Wal-Mart stores." This last metric -- the cannibalization factor -- has had a major impact on the deep-sixing of many superstore projects this year.

"As we continue to add new stores in the United States," the company told shareholders, "we do so with an understanding that additional stores may take sales away from existing units. We estimate that comparable store sales in fiscal 2007, 2006 and 2005 were negatively impacted by the opening of new stores by approximately 1% in fiscal years 2007, 2006 and 2005. We expect that this effect of opening new stores on comparable store sales will continue during fiscal 2008 at a similar rate."

To measure Wal-Mart's retrenchment another way, the corporation added 42,000,000 square feet of store space in 2007, compared to 39,000,000 square feet in 2006. It's current growth plan cuts new square footage to 20,000,000 for 2008. As projects get cancelled, square footage growth drops, sales growth slows, all of which can impact earnings and company valuation. The last thing Wal-Mart wants is for investors to see the company for what it really is: a middle-aged corporation choking on its own domestic appetite for growth. If it weren't for China and India, Wal-Mart's growth prospects would be problematic. Yet Wal-Mart's future as a colonial retail empire is far from certain, if places like Indonesia, Germany and Japan are the yardstick.

Sam Walton explained that his growth strategy was "to saturate a market area by spreading out, then filling in...We became our own competition." He once boasted that Springfield, Missouri, for example, had 40 Wal-Marts within 100 miles. But Wal-Mart has paid a price for competing with itself. Today, the saturation card has been overplayed, and the retailer has been forced to go on a superstore crash diet. While hundreds of sling-shot coalitions have been hurling rocks at this retail Goliath for years, ironically, it is now the giant itself which is reeling from its own self-inflicted excesses.

This has created a wonderful 10 months for anti-Wal-Mart groups in 21 states, who have woken up in their small towns to read that another proposed Wal-Mart superstore has dissolved, as suddenly as the morning mist.

We have all heard the stories of Wal-Mart ruining local businesses when they come to town, but in Burkburnett, TX, the opposite has happened: Wal-Mart left, and their local stores picked up. It is an encouraging story, and it shows that folks can live without Wal-Mart! Here's the story from the Times Record News

Burkburnett stores are reporting an uptick in business since Wal-Mart closed its location just off I-44 in October.

The local Dollar Store has extended its hours, and other stores are reporting a 10 to 15 percent increase in sales, said Burkburnett Development Corporation Executive Director Kelly Bolen.

“Everyone is doing their shopping locally,” she said. “Local businesses are stepping up to meet the need.”

Bolen heard that for the month of December, for instance, the city had only experienced a 4 percent drop in sales tax receipts.

“If you think in the grand scheme of things, four percent is not bad after losing Wal-Mart,” she said.

The cause for the increase in local sales may be a backlash against the retail giant.

Local resident Debra Pugliesi said she was mad at Wal-Mart for first coming into town and taking money away from local businesses. And now, she said, the store had abandoned the town altogether.

“We’re boycotting Wal-Mart after what they did to us,” Pugliesi said.

As she browsed the racks at Hayes General Store in downtown Burkburnett recently, Pugliesi said she was traveling around to Burkburnett stores to take a look at what retailers had to offer.

“We’re trying to figure out where to go. We came in here to see what all he’s got. We just came from the Dollar Store,” she said.

The high cost of fuel might also be contributing to more people shopping in Burkburnett, she said.

“Gas is too high to be running around looking for stuff,” she said. “Three dollars a gallon? That’s six bucks to go to Wichita Falls and back.”

Becky Linker, manager at Hometown Hardware, said she’s noticed more foot traffic over the past few months in the store. That’s translated into more sales.

“We’re really busy,” she said. “People just keep saying that they’re glad we’re here. They’re glad they don’t have to go to Wichita.”

Jerry Hayes with Hayes General Store said he’s also seen a noticeable increase in both traffic and sales.

“We’ve seen more faces in the store. We’ve seen an increase in sales,” he said. “The traffic inside the store, there’s definitely been more.”

Hayes said he and other business owners are working together to make sure that customers are able to find what they want in Burkburnett.

Stores regularly call each other searching for items. If he doesn’t have what a customer is looking for, maybe another business does, Hayes said.

The end result is a strong local economy with local businesses ready to fill the void left by Wal-Mart, he said.

“We were here before Wal-Mart and we plan on being here a long time after Wal-Mart,” he said. “As long as our customers continue to come in, we’ll continue to serve them. That’s our plan.”

The Ventura County Reporter, a local paper in California has backed an effort by citizens to block Wal-Mart and other large stores from setting up shop in Ventura. Recently there have been tons of great stories about local communities rejecting the poor jobs, tax evasion, discrimination, poor treatment of workers, and environmental problems that come with new Wal-Mart Supercenters. This newspaper joins a growing group that refuses to let Wal-Mart take over their community. Here's the editorial:

In today’s age of paid political signature gatherers, we are leery about ballot initiatives. However, the campaign to stop Wal-Mart and other large retailers with non-taxable inventory from setting up shop in Ventura is an effort we can put our support behind.

That effort, which would prevent any retailer larger than 90,000 square feet with 3 percent or more of its space devoted to selling non-taxable items (groceries, etc. — meaning an Ikea or large electronics store wouldn’t be stopped by the measure) from opening within the city of Ventura, is a far better researched and reasoned measure than other recent initiative efforts. By addressing very serious worries, such as concerns about eminent domain or the impact concerns about Wal-Mart could have on other large retailers that may offer a major sales tax boon to the city, initiative organizers have blunted some of the major concerns of their potential opponents.

The best argument for supporting this initiative is that doing so would bolster other efforts to strengthen Ventura’s own identity and local business offerings, followed closely by the fact that resisting a Wal-Mart at the Kmart plaza means resisting the massive outlay of municipal resources that would be necessary to support it.

A retailer known for leveraging its worldwide clout to undercut competitors, Wal-Mart’s interest in building a Superstore offering groceries at the Kmart site is worrisome. It would threaten the ability of Trader Joe’s, Ralphs, Vons and other major grocery chains to do business. A common argument to this line of thinking is that those stores do not appeal to the same customers that would shop at Wal-Mart, and opposing the store on those grounds is simply arrogant hypocrisy. In reality, though, the major supermarket chains still employ a unionized (although weakening) workforce and Trader Joe’s offers very affordable quality groceries without scrimping on support for its employees.

Ventura is also dotted with smaller independent food retailers already straining from the presence of major grocery stores. They include Midtown’s Green Market (itself a replacement of the historic Jue’s Market), Sam’s Central Market and the Red Barn on the Avenue and specialty retailer’s such as Shamsi’s Deli and the La Mantia Italian grocery. Such establishments strengthen neighborhood identity.

All of these retailers have something to be concerned about in Wal-Mart’s shadow. So does the city. Whatever reservations one has about a Vons or a Ralphs or an Albertsons, the additional strain of a Wal-Mart could mean added pressure at their locations in Ventura.

A key argument in support of Wal-Mart is the blight of the Wal-Mart site, the idea that anything is better there than nothing. However, a Wal-Mart meeting the 3 percent grocery threshold could mean the closure of other grocery stores throughout the city, in turn increasing the possibility of blighted properties throughout town.

Of course, that threat doesn’t stop with grocery stores. It could mean more empty storefronts throughout town, rather down the street at the iconic Salzer’s complex, itself already facing the challenges of an increasingly digital marketplace, or across the 101 in Downtown and Midtown, where small, locally owned retailers still struggle with high rent and increased competition from large retailers.

Yes, it is already worrisome that Target has just opened its second store so close to its first in Ventura. It would have been nice to see a unique retailer at the Pacific View Mall. Target, at least, has opened through cooperation with the city and its neighbors and at a site capable of supporting its impact. With mostly taxable merchandise, it remains a contributor to our local economy.

Overall, the lesson remains that this community must both support its local businesses and look deeper at the impact of those wishing to set up shop in our city.

Susan Slattery's story is encouraging. She got in to public life as an opponent to a Wal-Mart Supercenter, helping found Friends of the Anclote River to block a store from being built in town. She then ran for City Commissioner of her hometown, Tarpon Springs, FL, and won! We here at Wake Up Wal-Mart think it's great that a community activist who took it upon herself to fight for her city gained such respect as to win a pubic office. Congratulations to Susan Slattery and Tarpon Springs!

Here's an exerpt from the St. Petersburg Times about Susan Slattery:

Susan Slattery wears her red and white campaign button everywhere.

Whether checking out at the grocery store or in line at the bank, the first-time City Commission candidate says her political accessory is a great way to get the word out about her campaign...

The Tarpon High School graduate and longtime resident says much of the city's infrastructure is in disrepair. Roads are crumbling and about 30 percent of residents use septic systems, she said.

Revitalizing the city and trying to attract some big name stores downtown could boost the city's economy, she said. Slattery would not, however, want one of those stores to be the proposed Wal-Mart Supercenter on the Anclote River. She was a founding member of Friends of the Anclote, the group opposing the project.

"Putting a Wal-Mart Supercenter on our river is not going to improve the quality of life," she said.

I found this letter from a Mayor to his town about some allegations Wal-Mart has lobbed at him as they try to strong-arm their way in to his town. It is an interesting look in to how Wal-Mart deals with cities and towns that we don't normally see. It was published in the Inland Valley Daily Bulletin:

So I read in a recent newspaper article that I refused to meet with representatives of Wal-Mart to discuss the Promenade project in Fontana. I'm a pretty unreasonable person. Pigheaded, some might even say. But what John Mendez, the latest spokesperson for Wal-Mart, failed to share was that I informed him I don't meet with companies threatening litigation against the city. And, if I'm not mistaken, Mendez has been quoted in local newspapers as saying the company will enforce its property rights.

Your company's representative at all City Council meetings was not an architect or a professional planner, it was your attorney. So forgive me if my litigation detector isn't pegged with Wal-Mart not getting its way in the Promenade.

What you also failed to mention in the newspaper article (or to any of the paid employees who attended our City Council meeting) was that I have met with Wal-Mart or its representatives no fewer than five times over the past several years, imploring your company to work with our community and council to develop where it makes sense to our community and to Wal-Mart. You purchased the Promenade property after we had already initiated the Specific Plan process and after we had already begun talking about a walkable, mixed-use development. Come to think of it, you also purchased your site in south Fontana against the advice and opinions of city officials, after a Specific Plan for the area had already been completed.

Am I seeing a trend here? Does the $200 billion gorilla simply march into every jungle and get its way?

But I digress

When your company asked for a continuance two months ago, you stated that you had a dramatic proposal that would fit in with the vision of the City Council that would fit the mold of a pedestrian friendly shopping, theater, and restaurant experience at the gateway to Fontana off the 210 Freeway. An experience that wasn't going to be a sea of parking, that would promote the lifestyle center development trends that have proven so successful in many communities. And after granting the continuance, you bring forth a proposal that is twice the size of the maximum building size allowed in the specific plan, with a sea of 1,200-plus parking spaces in front of your "downsized" super-duper, almost-larger-than-a-middle-school Super Wal-Mart. You then have the audacity to "present" 5,000 signed cards from residents stating that they want to save $2,500 on their groceries duh! I want to save $2,500 on my groceries. But I'm not willing to sell the vision of this community down the road simply because Wal-Mart isn't willing to move to another viable site.

But here's where it gets really offensive: There are representatives of Wal-Mart implying that if the city accepts the store in the south Fontana location, then the company will move the store in the north.

Sounds a lot like extortion to me, and I'm not willing to sacrifice the quality of life of my residents in the southern end of town to realize the vision in the north.

So here's my advice: You want to know what I want? Read the Specific Plans for the Promenade and the Empire Center projects.

Take a gorilla-size Q-tip from aisle 55, clean out your ears, and re-watch the numerous council meetings and State of the City addresses where the vision for Fontana has been presented.

And please stop the push-polling and threatening of political activism. Clearly, you didn't do your homework when you decided to land in this jungle. We've dealt with beasts far more menacing than you in the past.

Mark Nuaimi is the mayor of Fontana.

In a long string of community victories recently, Lawrence Township, New Jersey won a three and a half year battle with Wal-Mart. Let's Stop Wal-Mart lead a valiant fight against the retail giant, and with community members out in force, prevented the store from being built. Here's the story from The Times:

Reading the newspaper recently, one might conclude that Wal-Mart walked away from building a store on Spruce Street in Lawrence Township due to a change in strategy following the economic downturn (The Times, "Wal-Mart drops store plan -- Retail giant says Lawrence site no longer fits marketing strategy," Feb. 14). The Wal-Mart spin machine has indeed peddled this interpretation. The truth lies elsewhere.

After a protracted 3 1/2-year battle to prevent the construction of a Wal-Mart on Spruce Street, the public triumphed. Goliath was run out of town. How was Let's Stop Wal-Mart, a volunteer group of regular citizens, able to succeed against the largest corporation in the world? Many people in the community got involved in ral lies and hearings. They leafleted, petitioned and held meetings. Young people, college students, trade unionists, environmentalists and senior citizens let their voices be heard and helped in many capacities, such as by writing letters to the editor of newspapers, contacting other organizations, calling friends, making signs and calling the press.

In battling one skirmish after another, we discovered that for all its paid experts, Wal-Mart came up short on adequate answers to seri ous problems.

The Spruce Street site is contiguous to the Shabakunk Creek, an area prone to recurrent flooding. The creek is part of the Delaware River watershed and eventually becomes part of the river from which we take our drinking water. Non- point source pollution from thou sands of cars and toxic chemicals from store products would have further compromised the Shaba kunk.

Hoping to gain a big tax ratable, our elected township officials and planning board missed the fact that deteriorating property values caused by the presence of a Wal- Mart store in the area could result in a net loss of tax dollars while raising the cost of municipal services.

Local residents repeatedly expressed legitimate fears about traffic and cited the numerous acci dents that already occur in that busy corridor, yet Lawrence officials let Wal-Mart's interest trump public safety.

One must also call into question the legal advice paid for by Lawrence taxpayers. According to the planning board attorney's professional website, he "concentrates in the areas of real estate acquisition and development" as well as "representing planning and zoning boards." His company's big client is the New Jersey Builders Association. Lawrence Township's planning consultant's company has profited from megabuck projects at taxpayer expense such as Waterfront Park, the Roebling Complex, the $40 million Capitol Center Redevelopment Project, and the $1.2 billion Asbury Park Waterfront Redevelopment pork barrel.

Do such "experts" represent the public interest or the corporate interest? Why do so many municipalities pay them handsomely for their less-than-balanced viewpoint? Is it possible that so much overdevelopment has occurred despite the public's disapproval because local government experts are so often the same people representing developer interests? The attorney general should launch a statewide investigation into potential conflicts of interest among attorneys, planners and traffic consultants hired by municipalities and the developers.

As our fight to stop Wal-Mart continued, residents launched a "Living Wage" initiative to prevent "big box" stores from paying substandard wages without health benefits. The response to the "Living Wage" campaign was overwhelmingly positive. Approximately 1,200 signatures of registered Lawrence voters, more than the 10 percent required to put the initiative on the ballot for the November 2006 election, were col lected and certified by the township clerk. In a rather blatant case of the public interest being usurped by corporate interests, Lawrence rushed its attorney into court to prevent the referendum from appearing on the ballot. He then turned the case over to the Retail Merchants Association lawyer to argue. Lawrence voters were never able to vote on the ballot initiative.

The people repeatedly raised concerns about improper zoning for Wal-Mart. The area along Spruce street is zoned highway commercial (HC), not regional commercial (RC). Clearly, Wal- Mart is a destination regional one- stop shopping outlet and as such should be located only in an RC zone. The only such zone in Lawrence is out by the Quaker Bridge Mall. Even the stores located there do not rival Wal-Mart as a one-stop shopping destination. Why was this ignored by our township's professional advisors? Were they acting on behalf of the public's interest? Wal-Mart should have been in front of the zoning board, not the planning board.

It is a sad commentary on the state of our local government that it took a suit filed by Lawrence residents against Wal-Mart and the planning board to frighten away the "Beast of Bentonville." Clearly, Wal-Mart understood that Lawrence residents had a strong case. The counts against the Wal-Mart plan listed in the lawsuit drew on the very arguments made repeatedly to the planning board and town council to no avail. These included improper zoning, inadequate stormwater management, inadequate traffic studies, and the unwarranted granting of variances. Once the suit was filed in Superior Court, Wal-Mart realized that if it did not pull out, it would face more years of delay, with huge legal and consultant expenditures, and probably not succeed, as indeed a desti nation store is not permitted in an HC zone.

We now have a unique opportunity. With Wal-Mart gone, we must press our local and county governments to take appropriate measures to clean up the site, rip up the asphalt, revegetate the area around the creek and its flood plain and improve the watershed. If necessary, the government can use eminent domain to take control of the area around the creek, as it is important for the health and safety of the public to prevent future flooding and contamination. Just imagine a park-like setting around the Shabakunk with recreational facilities, perhaps a neighborhood movie house/arts center, a coffeehouse or restaurant, and a refurbished Farmer's Market.

We stopped Wal-Mart, and together we can create a plan to en hance the quality of life in south Lawrence and improve the watershed.

Wal-Mart is looking to expand its May Landing store in New Jersey and make it a supercenter. But local residents and union activists who showed up at the hearing won't let that happen without their say so. It is truly encouraging to see folks take control of their own communities. Here's the full article from the Press of Atlantic City:

Facing a pro-union audience of about 100 people, Wal-Mart presented plans to expand its Mays Landing store into a supercenter during a Planning Board meeting Thursday. The board had not decided whether to grant Wal-Mart final site-plan approval before The Press' deadline and was likely to continue the hearing to a future meeting.

Member Patrick Childs said they aren't necessarily against expansion of the store.

"What we support is for the Wal-Mart to hire local workers," he said. "Union workers."
The expansion would increase Wal-Mart's 129,670 square-foot store on the Black Horse Pike by more than 66,600 square feet.

The addition is needed to build out the food aisles and create a full-service supermarket with fresh produce and meats, said Jennifer Hoehn, senior manager of public affairs for the company's New Jersey unit. The store would also feature new signs and parking.

The expanded supermarket "offers another level of convenience to our customers," Hoehn said.

The store currently employs about 325 people, and could see as many as 125 new hires because of the expansion, Hoehn added.

The UFCW says that while Wal-Mart is one of the state's largest employers, almost half of its workers receive health care that is subsidized by the state - a drain on taxpayers.

"It's a drag on the economy," Chudoff said, adding that organizing Wal-Mart employees doesn't make sense since "the average worker stays less than a year."

Hoehn said that more than 60 percent of Wal-Mart employees are full-time with benefits. The average full-time Wal-Mart employee in New Jersey makes $11.44 per hour.

"We have over a million employees (nationwide), and that sort of speaks for itself," Hoehn said.

Wal-Mart announced this week that it will open 80 supercenters in the first quarter of 2008. The Bentonville, Ark.-based company opened 195 supercenters last fiscal year and plans to open about 170 this year, including one on Landis Avenue in Vineland.

Here's some local news coverage about how Hadley, Mass beat Wal-Mart. Personally, I think the fact that this new Wal-Mart was going in across the street from another was reason enough to block the store.

It is hardly the type of town you might expect to win a fight against Wal-Mart. There were no "liberal activists" (the stereotype of those involved in Anti Wal-Mart campaigns), but there were a lot of concerned citizens in Ramapo. A small, traditional community, made up primarily of orthodox Jewish citizens, fought to keep Wal-Mart out of their town, and they won. It just goes to show that there are a lot of communities out there who don't want a Wal-Mart. Here's the story from the New York Times:

It was Friday afternoon when the developer who had been intent on building a 215,000-square-foot Wal-Mart in this hamlet sent word to the town offices in Ramapo. The fax was terse, but its message clear: “We will not continue to proceed with the development.”

The news that the developer, and potentially Wal-Mart, had scrapped plans it had so diligently worked on gave observant Jews, who make up the bulk of the population here, reason to rejoice.

They had waged a modest yet unyielding campaign against the proposed store, which they feared would force too many outside influences into their insular world of Orthodox Judaism.

It also represented a political vindication of sorts for Christopher P. St. Lawrence, town supervisor of Ramapo, which encompasses Monsey, in the heart of Rockland County. He hung much of his re-election on a promise to keep the Wal-Mart out of Monsey. During his campaign, he mailed a flier to every home in Monsey, saying, “Supervisor St. Lawrence opposes the Monsey Wal-Mart.” Mr. St. Lawrence was elected to a fourth term in November.

“Wal-Mart doesn’t vote for the supervisor,” said Rabbi Jacob Horowitz, one of Monsey’s most respected religious leaders. “The people vote for the supervisor.

“We work very hard to raise our families the right way,” Rabbi Horowitz said. “And the supervisor understood that preserving our lifestyle is something that’s very important to us.”

There were other issues that Mr. St. Lawrence said had prompted him to stand up against putting a Wal-Mart on Route 59, like the flood of traffic such a big store could bring to a two-lane highway that is already clogged much of the time, and its impact on the revitalized downtown section of Spring Valley, a village northeast of Monsey.

“We’re very pro-business here,” Mr. St. Lawrence said. “But it has to be the right business.”

Wal-Mart says it has not yet formally given up on the project.

Philip H. Serghini, a spokesman for Wal-Mart, said that the company had placed the plan “under review,” weighing the costs of pushing it forward against its potential benefits.

To build here, Wal-Mart would have to overcome at least two obstacles: finding another developer and preparing a new environmental impact study. The town Planning Board rejected the one it received last June on the ground that the proposal to ease traffic on Route 59 with a combination of turning lanes and more traffic lights was inadequate.

Jerrold Bermingham, managing director of the National Realty and Development Corporation, which was to have built the store, did not respond to e-mail messages or phone calls left with him and his lawyer.

With about 28,000 residents and almost 200 synagogues squeezed into 2.2 square miles, Monsey feels at once crowded and neighborly, the type of place that seems immune to the modernity that surrounds it.

Many of the women do not drive, and their children attend the dozens of yeshivas, or private religious schools here. Among the most observant families, home computers are strictly forbidden.

“These are not people who were schooled in the tactics of public protesting, or who even felt comfortable doing it,” said Richard Lipsky, a spokesman for the Neighborhood Retail Alliance, a coalition of small-business groups that helped residents here wage their battle against Wal-Mart. “They never imagined they could beat a giant like Wal-Mart.”

The retailer made numerous attempts to woo the Jewish community. Company representatives met with rabbis and agreed to conceal the covers of celebrity magazines featuring photographs of scantly clad movie and television stars to avoid offending Jewish patrons. Wal-Mart also hired a firm to send mailings in Yiddish to local homes, asking residents to suggest ways the company could improve the area.

“A lot of us sent the mailing back to them with the words, ‘No, thanks,’ written at the top,” said a 36-year-old Hasidic man who has lived here for 18 years and who requested anonymity to keep with his religious tradition of modesty.

Then, the community hit back. Residents joined union workers for a rally in December 2006, and circulated petitions and ran ads in Yiddish and English every week for 32 weeks in a local newsletter, Community Connections. The ads warned of the additional traffic the store would attract and how it would expose their children to such unwelcome sights as bikinis and lingerie.

“Very little money was collected or spent” in the effort, said Jacob Guttman, 33, who is Hasidic. “It was just a well-organized and carefully planned grass-roots campaign.”

The rabbis, for their part, encouraged the faithful to speak up. When Wal-Mart offered to repair Monsey’s heavily used sidewalks and build others, the rabbis asked residents to write to local officials, saying they did not need new sidewalks.

“We were determined to make Wal-Mart uncomfortable because by making them uncomfortable, we thought they would eventually leave,” said Rabbi Horowitz, who is also the executive director of a social services agency here, the Community Outreach Center.

“We’re very strong believers that everything comes from the Almighty,” he added. “I think the Almighty realized that for our children to grow up in a beautiful community, for our traditions to be preserved, we couldn’t have a Wal-Mart.”

A Massachusetts community stopped a Wal-Mart Supercenter after a battle that centered around environmental standards, and a rail-to-trail path. Congratulations to Hadley Neighbors for Sensible Development, the main group fighting this battle, on their win! You can read about their victory on the group's blog. Here's the press release from the group:

WAL-MART DROPS HADLEY SUPERCENTER PLANS; DEVELOPER VOWS TO FIND NEW TENANTS

Wal-Mart has dropped its plans to build a supercenter in Hadley, Massachusetts.

The company’s decision ends three years of efforts to build a 212,000-square foot store at the Hampshire Mall.

Representatives for the Pyramid Companies, which is developing the site on which the supercenter was to be built, have notified residents and local officials that Wal-Mart is no longer a prospective tenant. However, Pyramid says it will continue to develop the site and seek new tenants to take Wal-Mart’s place. Wal-Mart continues to operate a regular-sized discount store at the Mountain Farms Mall less than 300 yards away.

Wal-Mart’s decision to abandon the supercenter plan means that a smaller scale development could be built that protects the nearby Norwottuck Rail Trail and surrounding wetlands. The supercenter would have been the largest single structure in Hadley, with loading docks within 250-300 feet of the Rail Trail.

In 2007, Wal-Mart announced it was cutting back by about one-third the number of some 270 new supercenter openings nationwide this year. Pyramid representatives said the current economic downturn was a factor in Wal-Mart’s decision, as well as the fact that the Hadley location had become a “difficult” site on which to build a supercenter.

Wal-Mart and its developer first filed plans to build the supercenter and 13-acre parking lot in March 2005. As planned, the supercenter would have wiped out several acres of wetlands. In November 2005, Hadley residents presented a 91-page report that detailed the wetlands impacts that Wal-Mart refused to admit. In early 2006, the Hadley Conservation Commission and Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection ruled that indeed Wal-Mart had not reported all the wetlands and required that new plans be filed if the project was to move ahead. However, for the past two years, the developer
has refused to produce plans that comply with wetlands laws and has instead continued to Hadley Neighbors for Sensible Development appeal these rulings through the state Division of Administrative Law Appeals process.

These appeals remain active and a ruling is expected in the coming weeks.

In April 2007, Wal-Mart’s environmental impact report was rejected by the Massachusetts Secretary of Environmental Affairs for failing to show all wetlands and stormwater impacts, as well as for failing to provide adequate traffic management. The rejection came after some 380 area residents, agency officials and business owners wrote
comments to the state expressing concerns about the supercenter project. But in May 2007, Wal-Mart held an “open house” at the Hadley American Legion Hall to assure residents and local officials that the supercenter would be built.

The new store would have drawn more than 6,500 new vehicle trips per day, adding to the 22,000 trips already on Route 9. The supercenter would have increased traffic nearly five-fold where the Rail Trail crosses South Maple Street. The Planning Board and Mass. Department of Conservation and Recreation asked for a bridge or tunnel crossing to protect bicyclists and pedestrians, but Wal-Mart would only agree to a yellow flashing light. The supercenter would have been the third major “big box” project in Hadley in recent years. Construction is under way on a 230,000-square foot mall at Route 9 and North Maple Street that will include a Home Depot and five other stores; and the state recently approved a 180,000-square foot development for a Lowe’s home improvement store at the Long Hollow Bison Farm one-half mile to the west near Mill Valley Road.

Many residents were frustrated that Wal-Mart refused to discuss compensation for the loss of more than 20 acres of farmland. In contrast, residents negotiated an agreement with the developer of the Lowe’s store to pay the Town of Hadley $410,000 to mitigate the loss of 13 acres farmland. Similarly, the Home Depot project includes approximately $125,000 in payments to help protect some 60 acres of Hadley farmland.

It is not clear how large another store on the site could be. In May 2006, Hadley Town Meeting voted overwhelmingly to restrict the size of future retail stores in town to 75,000 square feet or less. Wal-Mart’s developer, Pyramid, filed subdivision plans just prior to that vote to lock in a temporary “grandfathering” exemption from the retail size-limit for most of the site, but the subdivision approval process for the entire site is not yet complete.

Members of Hadley Neighbors have asked the Planning Board to deny the subdivision because it violates several zoning and subdivision regulations and the Board is therefore under no obligation to grant the variances necessary for approval. By not voting on the pending application, the Planning Board is unnecessarily extending Pyramid’s ability to evade the 75,000-square foot retail store size limit. The size limit was enacted as one of the first steps in Hadley’s new Master Plan, adopted unanimously by Town Meeting in October 2005.

A North Carolina community has been fighting against a Wal-Mart supercenter, and their efforts have paid off. Here's a press release from the community group C.A.R.E. (Citizens Against Residential Encroachment) who lead the fight against the new supercenter.

On March 3, 2008, the Knightdale Town Council announced the cancelation of the Village Park Commons development (including a new Super Wal-Mart), citing economic downturn as the reason. C.A.R.E. (Citizens Against Residential Encroachment) is very pleased with this decision and the victory it represents for so many town citizens. There are many reasons people from all over objected to the development. Some citizens were concerned with traffic, some with crime, some with the environmental impact, and some with the sheer size so near residential homes. Many people could not understand why a new Wal-Mart was needed with one 3.2 miles down the road, and a new one nearly finished in Zebulon—let alone the fact we already have a very successful Wal-Mart in Knightdale. The Town’s own LURB (Land Use Review Board) cited many of these very things before rejecting the proposal.

Some on the Town Council have already begun to blame us for revenue losses and other problems, but we strongly reject that notion. The Town’s flagrant disregard for so many concerned citizens’ wishes is what led us down this road. The people did not cause any loss in revenue, the Town did. It was their unwillingness to negotiate or compromise that forced this into the courts. No effort, in nearly two years, was made by the town or by the developer (Rick Rowe) to come to any kind of win-win type solution. With no good options ahead of us, town residents continued to fight in the only way they could. This effort was made to protect our property, our children, and our way of life—things every American would strongly fight for, just as we have.

We hope that, in the future, the Town will show a stronger willingness to hear the voice of its constituency without the need for legal action. We know the developer thought a few (hundreds, actually) angry voices would go quiet, but they did not.

After a six year battle over a proposed Wal-Mart, the giant retailer decided not to build. Wal-Mart says it was part of a national pull back of growth, but the residents of Union County say it was their opposition. Its another victory for folks who want to choose the future of their neighborhoods, and not let huge corporations take over that role. Here's the article from the Charlotte Observer:

We're not victims here in Union County. We don't just sit back and wait to see what form growth around us will take.

We can, and should, have a say.

Wal-Mart's decision last week to walk away from its plan to build a Supercenter in the Marvin area proves your voice can be heard.

Residents in that area didn't want the center. They made that point clear to everyone involved during the six-year legal battle.

Wal-Mart believed the fight was worth it because the site is between Weddington and Marvin, a good market with median household incomes of more than $97,000, according to the 2000 U.S. Census.

There's bound to be a few shoppers there.

But last week a Wal-Mart spokesman said the company won't build on the 28-acre site at Rea and Tom Short roads. They're trying to sell the property for $8 million. It's all part of a nationwide pullback, the spokesman said.

The people who lived in nearby subdivisions such as Somerset and Hunter Oaks were willing to persevere because they had a vision of what they wanted their neighborhood to look like.

About a year ago I applauded, and wrote about, a similar battle involving the people of Waxhaw.

They fought and held off a proposal for a 200,000-square-foot, 24-hour Supercenter at Jackson Station in Waxhaw. They also had a vision: maintain small-town charm with a safe place to walk, not threatened by dense shopper traffic.

These fights aren't easy to win. You've got to be willing to fight for a long time and spend money. Still, battles like these serve a purpose in this county. They show developers and elected officials that, if no one else is willing to say no, some homeowners will.

That doesn't necessarily mean anyone is wrong.

This county should work to bring in commercial development to keep the tax burden reasonable for homeowners. Business owners are simply being smart in our current economic climate when they try to build in areas where people have money to shop. Homeowners have every right to take action that protects their property values and ensures a safe environment.

Conflicts are inevitable. Still, this is how Union County will grow into whatever its future will be.

And there's plenty on the horizon to fuel more conflicts. Homes are still going up, roads and other infrastructure still must be built, new businesses will still come here. You've already heard about everything on this list.

So maybe it's time to stop framing these conflicts in terms of winners and losers. It's actually about finding the solution that works best for the most people involved.

The emphasis is on involvement -- speaking up.

We've all heard the cliche: "NIMBY (not in my back yard)." When you decide to take that position, you know it won't be easy. You also should know, you're being an involved citizen.

Involved citizens may not always win, but they do make better government, and ultimately a better county.

Here is an interesting story where Wal-Mart had a unique negative impact on a community. The town has lost several bus drivers who are seeking employment at the new store in town, and may lose more. I guess Wal-Mart doesn't just pull business from other stores in town. Here's the article from The Mountain View Telegraph:

A rush on jobs at Wal-Mart in Edgewood is affecting bus routes in the Moriarty-Edgewood School District.
As of Jan. 22, three bus drivers had already gone to Wal-Mart for employment, according to district transportation supervisor Ernie Sandoval. Up to five more drivers may be looking for jobs there as well, he said.
"Even before we started losing (bus drivers) to Wal-Mart, we were in trouble here," Sandoval said. "We're hurting right now, and if we lose any more (drivers) then we're really in trouble."
According to Wal-Mart officials, the store will open in early March. In preparation, Wal-Mart is taking applications for 400 or more positions. Construction is scheduled to be completed Monday, and that is when employees and management will begin to stock the 214,000-square-foot building.
Although Wal-Mart is going to be among the East Mountains and Estancia Valley areas' largest employers, the area's largest employer is still the Moriarty-Edgewood School District, according to Superintendent Karen Couch. That's why the district is seeing a change, Couch said.

"Any new employer in the area will affect us," Couch said. "Any loss to us is worthy of consideration and review." The recent loss of bus drivers to Wal-Mart has drivers hauling two loads of kids a day, according to Sandoval. For students, that means long hours traveling to school, and some wait 30 to 45 minutes after school for a bus. "When you consolidate (bus routes), somebody's got to get on earlier and somebody's got to get on later," he said. "We're looking at all of our (bus schedules) and saying, 'What the heck are we going to do?' '' He added that he doesn't fault people for doing what is best for them and their families, even if that means he is left with positions to fill. It isn't just district bus drivers who have made a move to Wal-Mart, according to district director of personnel Cindy Sims. "In nutritional services we've lost three employees so far," she said. She pointed out that the district was already trying to fill positions in that area. There are now a total of six open positions, according to Sims. Despite having open positions, the work still has to be done, Sims said. "It just means fewer hands trying to accomplish the same task," she said. "I've had to go and help serve meals ... principals help ... it's whatever you have to do to make sure that meals are prepared for the kiddos." There are a number of benefits of working at the school that both Couch and Sims pointed out. Medical dental and vision insurance come at reduced rates for lower-income employees, and most employees are eligible for health benefits, according to Sims. Employees also get summers off and working parents will likely have the same schedule as their children. "It's a very family-friendly schedule when you have young children," she said. "You're off when they're off." Sims added that starting wages at Wal-Mart and in nutritional service positions in the school district are similar, but take-home pay at Wal-Mart is greater. There are two big reasons for that. First, school district employees have a mandatory retirement contribution, and second, employees' pay is distributed evenly throughout the year; in other words, each year they get a portion of each paycheck later, during the 12 weeks when they aren't working during the summer.

Citizens of Canfield, Ohio recently made their case against a newly proposed Wal-Mart Super Center, citing concerns about Wal-Mart crowding out local businesses, and increasing traffic to unsafe levels. According to WYTV 33, Wal-Mart officials would not allow cameras in the meeting. We're not surprised, since the town of 7,500 turned out over two hundred people who "defiantly rejected the idea of a Wal-Mart coming into their community."

Still, Wal-Mart presses on, making us wonder what happened to the ideals of Wal-Mart Founder Sam Walton, who opposed building stores in communities that did not want them. As Wal-Mart real-estate manager Jeff Doss admitted, "Were that the case, we'd never build a store anywhere."

Here is the article from Channel 33 News, WYTV.

Wal-Mart officials made their way into Canfield, to make their case for a one hundred and seventy-six thousand square foot Wal-Mart Super center. The store would go right off route 224 next to route 11. But, so far, Wal-Mart has a lot of convincing to do.

In fact, Wal-Mart officials would not let us go inside the meeting with our camera, and it's no wonder, because the more than two hundred people inside defiantly rejecting the idea of a Wal-Mart coming to their community.

Residents like their "Mom and Pop" stores, and many are concerned about potential traffic and safety hazards.

"Those safety issue arise from an increase in traffic, currently we have twenty-nine thousand cars a day on Rt. 224 between Rt. 11 and Market street. They're going to add thirteen thousand more cars to that. I don't understand how that's going to work, your kids are on a bus, safety forces have to get to our house in a fire truck.", says concerned citizen, Tim Smith.

Still though, Wal-Mart isn't giving up.

"The reason you have law and the reason you have a process like this, is so that everyone gets treated or dealt with fairly, in the same way. So, therefore, this is a zone change request. We will present it to the county, as well as to the township, and we will let them

Wal-Mart's next step is to try to get the land it wants re-zoned for commercial use. Then the company will make an official presentation to Township Trustees.

It's unavoidable. At some point in our lives, we will all have a bad neighbor. You know, the kind that blasts heavy metal at 4 AM or throws raucous parties on Sunday nights.

Typically, you have options: You can walk next door to have a few words, talk to your landlord, or just resort to calling the police. It seems impossible that it would take hundreds of complaints to city officials before your neighbor gets the boot... unless your neighbor happens to be America's largest employer.

That's the situation in Carson City, where, instead of hosting all-night parties, Wal-Mart is operating heavy machinery at odd hours and keeping the surrounding community awake. After hundreds of complaints, and a brief period of rest, Wal-Mart is back to its old ways and citizens of Carson City want action. From the Nevada Appeal:

Wal-Mart says it's tried to keep quiet but residents near the Carson City store say it is too loud too early and the city should do something about it.

The city planning commission will look at the issue that has come out of complaints officials have received since January about noise from trucks and machines. The city has hosted four meetings between the store and residents during that time.

"Time after time the Wal-Mart delivery activities would function within the requirements, but then would fail due to one reason or another," according to a division report.

The division has received over 100 complaints about the noise, said Planning Director Walt Sullivan. He said he's looking to the commission to recommend what to do.

The store has a special city permit to operate, but that permit also limits what the store can do. Delivery and receiving hours at the loading dock, for instance, are restricted to 5:30 a.m. to 11 p.m. Trucks can't idle at the back of the building. Machines such as trash compactors can only run between 8 a.m. and 10 p.m. Trucks have to wait on the west side of the building for their shipments.

The commission could recommend several things, Sullivan said, such as modifying the store's special permit or holding a special hearing to look at the issue.

There has to be "give and take" between the store and residents, but "it would help a lot if they (Wal-Mart) just followed the guidelines."

As in Carson City, Wal-Mart has drawn fire from communities and neighbors all across the country. David McCartney, Wal-Mart's neighbor in Lebanon KY, complained that Wal-Mart cracked the foundation of his house by using explosives within a few feet of his yard. Across the nation, hundreds of communities have formed "site fight" groups, taking issue with Wal-Mart's affect on traffic, property values, wages, product safety, crime, and so on.

It just goes to show that you can't invite an irresponsible company like Wal-Mart into a community and maintain the quality of life Americans have come to expect.

Wal-Mart and its addiction to cheap, unsafe Chinese goods has been all over the news recently. This month, at least forty were sickened by the kind of tainted beef sold nationwide at Wal-Mart stores, prompting the second largest beef recall in history. Toxic chemicals like melamine have been found in Wal-Mart's pet food, and its shelves are stocked with lead-laced children's toys.

It sounds like a cheap horror novel but, unfortunately, it's all true. The situation is critical, and now is the perfect time of year to spread the word. So, in keeping with the spirit of Halloween, and Wal-Mart's terrifying product safety record, we've decided to host a feature called "Tales from the Big Box Boneyard."

Yes, the title is cheesy, but this is serious stuff. In the days leading up to Halloween, we are encouraging supporters to write us with their most disturbing Wal-Mart horror stories. After Halloween, we will feature five of the most ghastly tales, and their authors, on our website. To contribute, just add a comment to this post.

We're not looking for anything specific, but the more shocking, terrifying, and stomach turning the better. It is Halloween, after all, and we know there is no shortage of horror stories from the aisles of Wal-Mart. Just to give you a little inspiration, here are a few honorary Wal-Mart horror stories from recent headlines that are disturbing enough to get your skin crawling.

"Ratatouille"

Earlier this month, a Utah woman was preparing lunch for her children when she noticed something peculiar floating in the green beans she had bought from Wal-Mart. it was the severed head of a mouse.

No, it's not Stephen King's remake of the Pixar classic. It actually happened to Marianne Watson.

"I'm queasy just talking about it," she said, in an interview with the Salt Lake Tribune. "Thank goodness it ended up on the top and not the bottom, so I didn't serve it to [my family]."

Now, her refrigerator is a makeshift morgue where she keeps the frozen head of the offending mouse, as the matter could take up to two years to be fully resolved. When asked if she would consider returning to Wal-Mart, Watson said "Until I'm reassured that it's just an isolated incident, I won't."

Something tells us Wal-Mart won't be seeing Marianne Watson anytime soon.

"Flip Flop Horror"

Kerry Stiles bought "a cheap pair of flip flops" from her local Wal-Mart store. She wore the flip flops briefly,and only for a few minutes at a time, until she began to notice a tingling sensation on the parts of her feet where the straps touched her skin. The tingling quickly turned into a severe chemical burn that ate through her skin.

Like a responsible consumer, Kerry decided to bring the issue to the attention of local Wal-Mart management. There, she met with a Training manager, Jim, who literally turned his back on her as she tried to explain the problem with the dangerous flip flops. As if that wasn't insulting enough, Wal-Mart eventually gave her the number to a factory in CHINA, instructing her to direct her complaints overseas.

After hundreds of similar reports surfaced, Wal-Mart couldn't ignore the issue any longer. Thousands of the flip flops were pulled from Wal-Mart's shelves. Not much consolation for Kerry, who was left insulted and, literally, scarred for life.

Don't worry, your stories don't need to be this extreme. Though we expect some hair-raising tales, we're interested in any of your bad shopping experiences. So, get to writing!

Victory in Clark County! The activists at Wal-Mart Watchdogs and the people of Washington state have brought the construction of a new Wal-Mart in Clark County to a standstill. From the Columbian:

Clark County commissioners lined up to give frowny-faces to Wal-Mart on Wednesday, tossing out a developer's plans for a possible store site in Salmon Creek.

Each of the three commissioners found problems, which ranged from storm runoff to traffic safety to the proper certification by a traffic engineer.

Commissioner Betty Sue Morris said evidence surrounding the developer's plans to pipe stormwater through a neighboring set of condominiums had changed too drastically since the county's initial review.

As Morris, a Democrat who rarely opposes developments, said she would therefore vote to reject the plan, one audience member let out an audible gasp.

Morris added that she'd never seen a more dangerous truck exit than one planned to open onto Rockwell Road, southwest of the site.

Commissioner Steve Stuart echoed Morris' concerns and added that he was troubled by a development engineer's failure to put an official stamp on his traffic report.

"We put the submission criteria in there for a reason," he said. "It should never have been considered technically complete."

Bay Area residents have successfully kept Wal-Mart out of their communities. For more, check out this article from Bloggingstocks.com

Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. may not ever get any love in the San Francisco area. The world's largest retailer had its hopes for more store frontage in the San Francisco Bay Area dashed this week when the retailer's primary construction vendor pulled out from its prior application to build the big-box location. The vendor was controlled by a family that was apparently sympathetic to the plight of chasing off new Wal-Mart stores in the Bay Area, so it pulled its application for building a new Wal-Mart Supercenter as a result.

The new Wal-Mart location, which was to be built in the North Concord area, now has no firm to build it. North Concord residents and the City Council there had cited the Wal-Mart proposal as inadequate in addressing issues such as traffic, public safety, urban decay, water control, energy and parking. In other words, the usual suspects when a municipality wants to fend off a proposed Wal-Mart location.

Of course, Wal-Mart has a history of trying again and again to get locations built in areas that have significant shopper traffic and good demographics, and surely the retailer won't put its tail between its legs and leave town like Wal-Mart CEO Lee Scott indicated would happen in New York City recently. With only three Wal-Mart Supercenters approved in the Bay Area in the last four years, Wal-Mart has been beaten up pretty well in that area, although it continues the fight.

From Community Press

More than 225 people packed the Burlington Elementary gym on Aug. 1 for a Boone County Planning Commission public hearing regarding a proposed Wal-Mart Supercenter at the corner of U.S. 42 and Weaver Road.

Wal-Mart wants to build the 184,000-square-foot Supercenter on 35 acres of land. Accompanying the store would be two 8,000-square-foot "quality restaurants", a 3,000-square-foot fast-food restaurant, and a 10,000-square-foot retail center.

The land, currently zoned industrial, needs a commercial zoning change before the project can proceed.

Cindy Hodson, spokesperson for the Boone County Residents for Responsible Growth, was on hand with a group of people displaying anti-Wal-Mart signs. The group has collected 4,000 Boone County signatures opposing Wal-Mart since early June.

"We oppose the rezoning," Hodson said. "The zoning is not consistent with the 2005 Boone County Comprehensive Plan concerning traffic, economic development and fiscal responsibility."

Ronald Hendricks of Florence echoed Hodson's sentiments.

"There is already a traffic jam on that road everyday," Hendricks said. "This store would bring more cars and people. What are you going to do with them when you can't handle the situation you have already got?"

Robert Matko, a traffic engineer hired by Wal-Mart, was on hand to present traffic study findings.

"Wal-Mart is prepared to spend $1.5 million on roadway improvements to make sure they mitigate the impact of the development," Matko said. "These improvements will maintain or even improve existing road conditions."

Some road changes Wal-Mart would like to make include adding right-hand turn lanes, interconnecting traffic signals, and adding traffic signals on side streets.

A few residents even supported Wal-Mart's proposal.

"We've got pile of junk where the old warehouse was," Marvin Hennemann, of Florence, said. "The payroll taxes coming into the city will help keep our taxes down."

Henneman went on to say that the unified development would be appropriate for the land it sits on.

The Planning Commission's zone change committee will discuss the plan Aug. 15 at 5 p.m.

From the Raleigh News and Observer:

Empty Wal-Mart buildings plague communities across the nation. At any given time, about 350 former Wal-Marts lie vacant in America, according to Al Norman of Sprawl-Busters, an organization that opposes big-box stores. At least nine empty former Wal-Mart spaces -- the equivalent of 12 football fields in size -- occupied North Carolina as of February, Norman said.

The retailer's shift to massive supercenters, though, means more empty Wal-Marts in towns such as Hillsborough.

"It's just a giant hole in the community that can last for years," said Julia Christensen, a former university lecturer now writing a book on how communities reuse empty big box stores.

Read the full article.

From the San Francisco Chronicle:

The April 5 ruling by the Court of Appeal in Fresno upheld an ordinance enacted in 2004 by Turlock (Stanislaus County) that was backed by neighborhood supermarkets and labor unions. The court, setting a statewide precedent, said local governments can enact such restrictions to prevent the collapse of local businesses and resulting urban blight.

To read more about Turlock, click here.

From the New Jersey Times:

LAWRENCE -- "Would you like a Wal-Mart in your backyard?"

That was the question Gina Quinones asked members of the Lawrence Township Planning Board Screening Committee yesterday as she pointed a finger at each one of them and then turned her attention -- and her pointing finger -- to representatives of Wal-Mart.

She didn't get an answer.

A resident of Tiffany Woods, a housing development situated off Spruce Street near the 23.5-acre site proposed for a new Wal-Mart, Quinones was one of a very vocal group opposing the store for reasons that ranged from traffic to wage policies.

Dressed in a white T-shirt with the words "Wal-Mart Superstore" in an X-ed out circle, Quinones was applauded by about 50 residents who attended the informal meeting. Some were members of LET's Stop Wal-Mart, and about 40 of them demonstrated outside the township's senior center on East Darrah Lane before the meeting began.

Click here to read more.

From the Sunbeam:

PENNSVILLE TWP. -- The Pennsville Planning Board met again with Angeloni Development Monday night in the non-air conditioned auditorium at Pennsville Memorial High School to discuss the proposed Wal-Mart Super Center on Lighthouse Road and state highway 49.

The proposed development would include a Super Wal-Mart that would include a tire and lube service center, a garden center, a gas station along with an extra retail store to the north of the Wal-Mart. The project is proposed for a site just south of the current Wal-Mart.

About 60 residents were present to see the presentations on the proposal on Monday night. The number of residents in attendance dwindled from the meetings months before when the auditoriums in Pennsville Memorial High School and Central Park School were almost filled.

There was one group of residents present Monday who strongly opposed the super center by wearing anti Wal-Mart T-shirts. They met before the meeting in the parking lot to rally and show they are not in favor of the larger Wal-Mart.

Click here to read the full article.

From The Eagle (College Station, TX):

Residents turn out to protest rezoning proposal

More than 300 people attended a Thursday meeting of the College Station Planning and Zoning Commission at the College Station Conference Center.

Residents turned out to protest a proposal to rezone about 50 acres at the southeast corner of Texas 6 and Rock Prairie Road. The change would allow a Wal-Mart SuperCenter to be built at the site.

Also discussed was a land-use change for 35 acres near Sebesta Road.

From Press Enterprise:

Angry Corona homeowners put feelings onto banners

CORONA - A group of homeowners suing Wal-Mart and developer Fieldstone Communities plan to air their grievances today at a protest of sorts.

Residents of the Vista Grande Development, which overlooks the Wal-Mart on Ontario Avenue, said they are frustrated by stalled talks with the retail and construction companies and plan to voice their displeasure in the form of huge banners visible to shoppers and passersby.

The group is angry about water damage to their backyards and homes they say was caused by a poorly constructed retaining wall between Wal-Mart and the neighborhood above it.

After more than two years of imploring the companies to fix the damage, they are taking their message to the public.

Resident Mark Stahovich said the public display is a reaction to the lack of action on the part of Wal-Mart and Fieldstone, whom he said have been largely unresponsive.

"We've invested our life savings in these homes," he said. "Our American dream has turned into an American nightmare because our lives have been on hold."

John Simley, a Wal-Mart spokesman, confirmed the lawsuit but said it would be "disrespectful to the court" to talk about the case.

"The proper place for the arguments to be handled is in court and we prefer it that way," he said.

Fieldstone said in a statement that the company is "committed to working with its homeowners and to seeing a satisfactory resolution to this problem" but said residents should look to Wal-Mart for a fix.

"As Wal-Mart designed and built the wall and slope and as it still owns and maintains them, Fieldstone Communities, Inc. believes Wal-Mart has the responsibility and ability to repair the problem."

Stahovich said Wal-Mart may have built the wall but he believes that Fieldstone knew it was unstable before the homeowners went through escrow, an allegation the company's attorneys refuted in court documents.

Stahovich moved into his newly built 3,500-square-foot home on Radcliffe Circle in February 2002. In February 2003, the first heavy rains came and about two days later, residents noticed that their backyards were sliding down the slope, he said.

Fieldstone referred the homeowners to Wal-Mart, and the retailer didn't respond at all to the complaints, Stahovich said. Several residents then retained an attorney and filed suit against the two companies.

Fieldstone said even though it didn't create the problem, it installed slope- and groundwater-monitoring devices, covered backyards with plastic sheeting to keep water from further seeping into the soil and agreed to pay the cost to repair any damage to landscaping resulting from the plastic sheeting.

Wal-Mart is nearing completion on repairs to the retaining wall, Simley said.

For Stahovich, just fixing the wall does not repair the permanent damage done to his home and others.

"Wal-Mart has not been impacted by the damage they have caused nor has Fieldstone Homes," he said. "It is just us homeowners that are struggling with the added burden of big companies taking advantage of hardworking families..."

From The Times (NJ):

Dozens protest proposed Wal-Mart Residents challenge 3rd version of project

LAWRENCE -- "Would you like a Wal-Mart in your backyard?"

That was the question Gina Quinones asked members of the Lawrence Township Planning Board Screening Committee yesterday as she pointed a finger at each one of them and then turned her attention -- and her pointing finger -- to representatives of Wal-Mart.

She didn't get an answer.

A resident of Tiffany Woods, a housing development situated off Spruce Street near the 23.5-acre site proposed for a new Wal-Mart, Quinones was one of a very vocal group opposing the store for reasons that ranged from traffic to wage policies.

Dressed in a white T-shirt with the words "Wal-Mart Superstore" in an X-ed out circle, Quinones was applauded by about 50 residents who attended the informal meeting. Some were members of LET's Stop Wal-Mart, and about 40 of them demonstrated outside the township's senior center on East Darrah Lane before the meeting began.

At the informal meeting, Wal-Mart presented a third version of its proposed development along 1060-1100 Spruce St. near the borders of Lawrence, Ewing and Trenton, this one reducing the size of the store to 134,243 square feet and the number of parking spaces to 725. An 8,500-square-foot seasonal garden center also is proposed for the site.

Wal-Mart traffic engineer Ray DiPasquale called it "one of the smallest prototypes ever worked on for Wal-Mart."

The discount retailer's initial 2004 plans called for a 156,000-square-foot store and garden center, along with a tire and lube center, plus 633 parking spaces. When told they would have to go to the zoning board for a use variance in connection with the tire and lube center, Wal-Mart came back in February 2005 with a plan that reduced the store size to 134,579 square feet and dropped the tire and lube center. Parking spaces were increased to 761.

Their new proposal also calls for changing the four lanes of Spruce Street to three lanes with a middle turning lane.

Chris Altomari of the township's Environmental Committee pointedly asked the Wal-Mart representatives if their company had "ever placed a store of this size on a neighborhood street that has on-street parking."

DiPasquale said he thought there was another one in New Jersey but would have to research it.

Altomari then proposed that Lawrence pass an ordinance restricting big box stores to Route 1.

The Spruce Street property once housed Coleman Buick and Cahill Motors. There would be two entrances to the store along Spruce, one of which would extend Arctic Parkway at an existing traffic light.

Gina Quinones' husband, Ramon, complained that property values would diminish if the discount shopping giant were built.

"I don't have anything personal against Wal-Mart, but we have trouble getting in and out of our houses now. I live on the lower part of the hill, and cars speed down it now. I heard that on Sundays alone 100 trucks would be coming in an out of Wal-Mart."

A Spruce Street resident was one of a number of speakers applauded by the audience when she asked, "Would any of you like to buy my property right now?"

From The Gazette:

Wal-Mart has scrapped its plans to build a hotly contested Supercenter in a southeast Colorado Springs neighborhood, ending an 11-month battle with residents.

The company is searching for other sites in the same area, Wal-Mart spokesman Gray McGinnis said.

“We feel this area is prime for an additional Wal-Mart,” he said. “We look forward to continuing to work with (the community) to put together a project that works for everybody.”

The proposal faced opposition from many Soaring Eagles residents who complained the store would be too large, noisy and busy for a residential area and that they never expected a big-box store in their backyard.

“It shows what a community can do when they try to fight Wal-Mart,” said Keith Varney, a resident and member of the Soaring Eagles Community Coalition.

He said he won’t be pleased if the store opens somewhere else close by. “There are just too many places on the other side of Powers (Boulevard) where they can build and not impact homes and schools.”

The proposal also encountered obstacles from city planners, who said a big-box store wouldn’t fit with the character of the neighborhood of about 537 homes near the intersection of Powers and Hancock Expressway. Instead, planners said Wal-Mart should be required to break the store into a number of smaller buildings.

In the six months since, Wal-Mart officials had remained silent about their plans, saying only that they were reviewing their options.

“It was only by the skin of its teeth” that the neighborhood did not get a Wal-Mart, said Councilwoman Margaret Radford, who represents the area.

That’s because a city ordinance that gave the area commercial zoning in 1998 specified that “uses shall be restricted to those shown on the approved concept plan.”

That concept plan depicted several hotels, office buildings and restaurants — not big-box stores.

When Wal-Mart first submitted its application, city planning officials took the position that concept plans expired after four years and therefore, a big-box store was allowed. They later changed their position.

For the majority of Soaring Eagles residents, especially those whose homes bordered the proposed store site, “it’s welcome news,” said Jim Webber, president of the Soaring Eagles homeowners association.

“There also were some residents that wanted them to come,” he said.

Their neighborhood still borders an empty commercially zoned plot of land, Webber noted. “Now, we’re concerned and curious about who will be interested in that property,” he said.

Although Radford agreed that Wal-Mart didn’t belong in the neighborhood, she said the area does need more retail stores, particularly since two grocery stores recently closed.

“We have a huge challenge in getting larger storefronts reoccupied,” she said.

The store would have been the 10th Wal-Mart in the area.

Wal-Mart has five Supercenters in Colorado Springs and one in Fountain. Plans have also been approved for stores in Woodland Park, Monument and Falcon.

From the Star Bulletin:

Kapolei residents showed up in full force at a neighborhood board meeting Wednesday night to criticize a proposed Wal-Mart store in the area, prompting the board to vote to oppose the store's development.

"It was quite a night," said Maeda Timson, chairwoman of the Makakilo/Kapolei/Honokai Hale board. She estimated an audience of about 200 at the meeting. "It was very emotional. This meeting was originally intended to get information, not to take action."

Timson said she is drafting a letter this week to Wal-Mart Stores Inc., Honolulu councilmembers and Campbell Estate, asking the big-box store to look elsewhere.

"There were many questions," she said, "but there were at least 17 times when they said they didn't know. And these were basic questions."

Wal-Mart spokesman Kevin McCall said he could not answer many questions because the project is still in early stages of development. The developer is still in the due-diligence phase, he said, and no deal on the site at the mauka-Diamond Head corner of Makakilo Drive has been finalized yet.

"We were here more to listen," McCall said. "We believe that as more information becomes available, it will become more clear that this project is appropriate for that area."

He added that Wal-Mart is trying to be forthcoming with its plans.

"We've come forward that this is not a supercenter," he said. "We've come forward that traffic is our predominant issue of concern and it needs to be addressed."

The Wal-Mart planned for Kapolei will be similar in size to the one in Pearl City, which measures about 148,000 square feet.

A supercenter, McCall said, typically includes a grocery store and can measure up to 200,000 square feet.

Wal-Mart announced last week it plans to open only after scheduled traffic improvements are made in 2008.

"We think that the opportunity is there," McCall said. "It is zoned commercial, and we believe it is an appropriate place to be within the community after the improvements are done."

Theresia McMurdo, spokeswoman for the Campbell Estate, said she has received comments both for and against the Wal-Mart project.

When the deal is finalized, she said Wal-Mart's designs would need to be approved by the city's design review board.

But the core members of Kapolei First, which number about 50, are not about to stop their opposition to Wal-Mart, according to spokeswoman Carolyn Golojuch.

"This is not the end," said Golojuch, whose husband, Michael Golojuch, is vice chairman of the Kapolei neighborhood board. "It's not over until it's over. We need to continue to stand up for the welfare of the community."

She said the group would continue waving signs, knocking on doors and gathering signatures for its petition against Wal-Mart.

Some alternative uses for the site suggested by community members, she said, include a park, another school or parking for mass transit.

The issues brought before the neighborhood board were not apparently just over traffic and the size of the proposed Wal-Mart, but over the Bentonville, Ark.-based Wal-Mart's corporate practices, which have prompted class-action suits, critical books and a film.

Small-business owners at the meeting said the big-box store would put them out of business. Residents from Kapolei Knolls wanted a statement in writing, assuring them that the new Wal-Mart would not be a supercenter.

Neighborhood board member Brent Buckley, who made the lone dissenting vote, said he simply wanted more dialogue.

"I have concerns, as much of the community does, but I think we need to keep a door open to dialogue," he said. "By saying no, I'm afraid we already shut the door ... and I don't think we stopped Wal-Mart (Wednesday) night."

Buckley added that some community members in the audience did approach him afterward, saying they wanted to support Wal-Mart but were too intimidated to get up and speak.

Commentary went on for close to two hours, pushing other items on the agenda to next month's board meeting. No additional presentations by Wal-Mart were scheduled with the board.

Community groups across America continue to join together to keep Wal-Mart out of their neighborhood until the company changes its business model. Today, newspapers highlighted community activism in cities including Knightdale, North Carolina, Grand Haven, Michigan, and Lancaster, Michigan. These groups are educating their fellow citizens about the poverty-level wages, unaffordable health care, traffic, crime, pollution, and noise that Wal-Mart would bring into their communities.

From the News & Observer (NC):

Several residents have formed Citizens for the Cessation of the Knightdale Supercenter, a group that is trying to persuade officials to oppose the Wal-Mart. Last week, more than 30 people attended a meeting organized by the group.

The group's three founders --Sherri Schultheiss, Rita Rakestraw and Paula Gavasto --spent much of the meeting telling attendees why they believe the Supercenter would not be a good addition to the community. The meeting began with a 20-minute clip from "Wal-Mart: The High Cost of Low Prices," a documentary that vilifies the retailer for its business practices.

Gavasto, who lives on Mingocrest Drive in Timber Ridge, said she objects to the Supercenter because of the store's size and proximity to homes, and because it's a Wal-Mart. Gavasto said since learning a Supercenter might be built behind her house, she's tried to find out as much as possible about the company. She said she has problems with the way Wal-Mart treats its employees and worries about the environmental impact the store will have.

"I don't shop at Wal-Mart anymore," she said.