Battle-Mart: Blog | Wal-Mart Watch | Fighting for Wal-Mart Workers | Employee Free Choice Act

walmartwatch.com walmartspeakout.com waltoninfluence.com walmartstoremap.com waldemartwatch.com

Join Wal-Mart Watch

EMAIL

ZIP
✔
Please send me the Wal-Mart
Watch Daily Clips

Take Action Blog Issues Publications Research Networks Press Battle-Mart About Us Español

Rohnert Park, CA. Newspaper Poll

Shows Public Opposes Big Box
Expansions
1 2 3 4 Is the American public reaching its saturation point with big box stores?
A new opinion poll published by the Santa Rosa, California Press Democrat
newspaper suggests that most people don’t want more, or bigger,
LATEST HEADLINES superstores. The newspaper reports this week that its readers “are
generally opposed to many of the pending big-box plans in Sonoma County,
Wal-Mart To Lay Off 300 At including a proposed Lowe’s in Santa Rosa and a Wal-Mart expansion in
Bentonville Headquarters - Rohnert Park.” Readers tended to favor locally-owned stores instead of the
02.17.10 | Arkansas Business national chains. For example, an overwhelming 80% of those who responded
to the newspaper survey said that if they had to make a choice between a SEARCH BATTLE-MART
Walmart, others make money locally-owned home improvement store, or a Lowe’s chain store, the Enter your search terms below:
on Oregon’s energy tax locally-owned store was preferred. “As a community, we absolutely need to
credits -02.17.10 | The support our locally owned businesses” wrote a couple in Santa Rosa. Some
Oregonian
readers said they actually drive across town to shop at local stores,
In the two sections below,
going past the big box chains, like Home Depot. 63% of those who responded
you can find specific
Former Avon Wal-Mart to the two day survey said they oppose plans by Lowe’s to build a 155,000 examples, original documents
employees claim s.f. in Santa Rosa. That project is coming before the Santa Rosa City
discrimination -02.17.10 | and links to other websites
Council this coming week. “Another huge store on Santa Rosa Avenue is organized by the type of
Associated Press
unnecessary,” said one resident. “That area is over-saturated as it is.” tactic or issue.
More News 54% of readers oppose a plan by Wal-Mart to expand its Rohnert Park,
California store by 35,000 s.f., and another 12% were unsure. Only 34%
TACTICS
supported Wal-Mart’s expansion plans. “Please, we do not need an expanded
Wal-Mart in Rohnert Park,” wrote a Rohnert Park resident. “I never go to Legislation
FACT SHEETS that store.” 68% of those who took the survey said they were be willing to
Comprehensive Plans
pay more for an item if they knew they were supporting a locally owned
The Employee Free
business. 56% said they “frequently” or “always” made their shopping Experts
Choice Act
decisions based on whether the store is locally owned. “We’ve found that
Legislation that will Organizing
when we make big purchases, often the local dealer can come pretty close
truly make a
(in price.) And we would much rather do business with locally owned Zoning Regulations
difference for Wal-
store,” wrote one resident of Petaluma, California. “For every dollar
Mart workers Ballot Measures
spent, only 15 cents are recirculated locally when a purchase is made at a
national chain,” wrote a resident of Windsor, California. “Forty-five Lawsuits
Wage & Hour cents are recirculated when that same dollar is spent at a locally owned Media Tips
Issues Read how chain. National chains rob us of economic sustainability.”
Fundraising
Wal-Mart continually
fails to pay every Read the rest of this story ...
worker for every hour ISSUES
Topics:
worked
Environment
Posted by Al Norman on Monday, May 11, 2009 | Permalink
Health Care Wal- Economic (Small Business)
Mart's still insures Workers Rights & Wages
barely over half its
employees on the
Wawarsing, NY. Shop Rite & Crime & Safety

Citizens Sue Town Over Wal-Mart Community Impact

Approval Traffic/Sprawl

On July 15, 2008, Sprawl-Busters reported that residents in Wawarsing, New Battle-Mart is a joint project
York, and the village of Ellenville, New York were fighting a ‘secret’ of Wal-Mart Watch and Al
Norman and Steve Alves.
Wal-Mart. Ellenville describes itself as “cute” and “one of the most

http://walmartwatch.com/battlemart/blog/P240/[7/15/2010 11:38:23 AM]

Battle-Mart: Blog | Wal-Mart Watch | Fighting for Wal-Mart Workers | Employee Free Choice Act

beautiful, up and coming communities in the area.” This little community

in the Catskills has six very big Wal-Mart supercenters within 30 miles, ABOUT AL NORMAN
in Monticello, Middletown, Kingston, Fishkill, Newburgh, and Milford PA.
Al Norman stopped Wal-Mart
The census count in Ellenville in 2006 was only 3,926---a loss of 317
from locating in his hometown
people since 1990. It’s doubtful that those 317 people left the village of
of Greenfield, Massachusetts
Ellenville to move closer to a Wal-Mart---but for the people who remain,
om 1993 and his fight
their “cute” village and surrounding town of Wawarsing is going to be
continues today.
turned on its head by a proposed Wal-Mart supercenter, located two miles
north of Ellenville in the hamlet of Napanoch. According to the Times
Named "enemy no. 1" by
Herald-Record, Wal-Mart has signed a contract to buy an existing shopping
Fortune Magazine, Al runs
center called the Napanoch Valley Mall. The potential sale of the 20-acre
Sprawl-Busters, and has
property was announced by the village Mayor, Jeff Kaplan---who also
traveled throughout the U.S.
happens to be the lawyer for the owner of the mall. Wal-Mart has put up
helping dozens of local
$250,000 in an escrow account to hold the $5.5 million property.
coalitions.
“Everybody knows who it is, but you don’t really know,” Wawarsing
Supervisor Edward Jennings told the media back in July of 2008.. It is the > Learn More About Al
town of Wawarsing which will permit the project, not the village. In late
July, 2008, lawyers, architects, and engineers from Wal-Mart met with
selected town officials in Town Hall. In order to keep the press and
public out--at Wal-Mart’s “request”--no more than two town councilmen were
present at any one time, to circumvent open-meeting law requirements.
Preliminary plans for a 140,000 s.f. supercenter were unveiled. The
Mayor/Lawyer, who clearly has known about the project for months, if not
years, said, “This has been a lengthy process, but there is clearly more
activity as of late than there was previously. We anticipate that it will
be fast-tracked in the near future.” The Napanoch Mall lost its steam when
its two main anchors, Ames and Grand Union, succumbed to competition from
the Wal-Mart fleet of stores in the area. Several small businesses remain
at the Mall, but it will be ironic for Wal-Mart to build in the mall that
it helped to kill in the first place. On November 28, 2008, Sprawl-Busters
noted that Wal-Mart was before the Wawarsing Planning Board. The Times
Herald-Record said the Planning Board had to relocate its public hearing
on the store’s site plan in order to fit all the attendees in the room.
Wawarsing Supervisor Jennings told the newspaper that people in town will
remain loyal to small businesses. On March 27, 2009, Sprawl-Busters noted
that the Warwarsing Planning Board had given Wal-Mart a big short-cut to
success. The Board issued a “negative declaration” under the New York
SEQRA law (State Environmental Quality Review Act). Competing grocery
chain ShopRite had an attorney at the hearing. Shoprite’s lawyer asked how
the Board could vote on a negative declaration if the public hearing
process had not yet been closed. The towns’ lawyer explained that the
public hearings for the past several months were not part of the SEQRA
process at all—just a way for the Planning Board to gather public
comments. The Planning Board proceeded to rule that the Wal-Mart
supercenter would not have any significant impact on water, drainage,
plants or wildlife, nor on the view or aesthetic character of the
community. The Board concluded that there might be a “small to moderate”
impact on traffic pattern due to the expansion of the mall’s footprint.
State law also requires the Board to rule on economic impacts, and the
Planning Board said that the superstore would have a large positive impact
on the area’s economy because of an estimated 200 jobs that would be
created—although they had no evidence of this job impact other than
Wal-Mart’s own statement. The Board noted that the Ellenville Village
Board of Trustees had voted the night before to support the project. The
Ulster County Planning Board had recommended that Wawarsing’s Planning
Board should issue a positive declaration---but Wawarsing ignored that
recommendation. This week, the Times Herald-Record reported that Shop Rite
and a local citizen’s group have sued Wawarsing to try and kill the
project. The lawsuit was filed on April 23, 2009 by the
Wawarsing-Ellengive for Responsible Development (WERD) and Shop Rite. The
latter is a grocery chain which employs more than 50,000 people throughout
New Jersey, New York, Connecticut, Pennsylvania, Delaware and Maryland.
The lawsuit says the town’s Planning Board unjustly bypassed the full
environmental review that this huge retail project should have received.
This is the largest retail building in the history of Wawarsing. The
Planning Board’s vote to short-cut the state environmental review happened
in March. The board said that because the site Wal-Mart wants is part of
the existing Napanoch Valley Mall, and has been used for retail and
grocery sales when Ames and Grand Union were the anchors, that a positive
declaration of environmental impact was not necessary. ShopRite and WERD
charge that the town missed the 20-day deadline to skip the long review
after declaring they’d be lead agency for the project. Wawarsing
Supervisor Jennings described the lawsuit as “absolutely ridiculous.”
Jennings said he expects Wal-Mart to move forward despite the litigation.
“As far as I’m concerned, it’s a go,” Jennings told the newspaper.
According to the Times Herald-Record, Shop Rite has been very aggressive
about litigating against projects that “threaten its market share.” The
newspaper says Shop Rite sued in the town of New Windsor, New York to stop

http://walmartwatch.com/battlemart/blog/P240/[7/15/2010 11:38:23 AM]

Battle-Mart: Blog | Wal-Mart Watch | Fighting for Wal-Mart Workers | Employee Free Choice Act

a Price Chopper, in Thompson, New York to oppose another Wal-Mart, and in

Thompson to delay a Hannaford’s grocery. According to the newspaper, none
of the Shop Rite appeals stopped the projects—but they did delaly them.
“We spent a lot of time and a lot of dollars in court because of
ShopRite,” the supervisor in Thompson, New York told the newspaper.

Read the rest of this story ...

Topics:

Posted by Al Norman on Monday, May 11, 2009 | Permalink

Valley Stream, NY. D.A. Lets Wal-

Mart Buy Its Way Out of Criminal
Charges In Trampling Death
On January 3, 2009, Sprawl-Busters reported that the police in Nassau
County, New York had released a new plan designed to prevent the
recurrence of a trampling death that took place at a Valley Stream, Long
Island Wal-Mart. According to Newsday, which says the plan was released
December 31st, the new report will require Wal-Mart to be much better
prepared than it was when bargain hunters took the life of a temporary
worker at the retailer’s Valley Stream store. Nassau County Police want
Wal-Mart to plan thoroughly, arrange for efficient crowd control and
engage in clear communication, to prevent another tragedy. Wal-Mart
responded by saying, “We look forward to continuing to work with law
enforcement to make our safety measures even stronger in the future.” The
new report was the result of private discussions that took place in mid
December at police headquarters, attended by 75 representatives from area
department stores and malls. The retailers and the police were under
pressure to demonstrate that some reforms would be made in the wake of the
death November 28, 2008 of Jdimytai Damour of Queens, who was called “a
seasonal worker” by Newsday. Wal-Mart officials were at the closed-door
meeting at the Nassau police station. In their report, Nassau police said
they will respond and assist when needed, “but the responsibility for the
security and control of these sales events rests with the store. Store
administrators should never market a sales event without having a plan,
and the proper resources to manage it.” The police report also notes,
“history has shown that large-scale events can turn from an orderly
gathering to chaos as the doors open. Ultimately the goal is to provide a
safe and comfortable shopping experience for patrons.” This requires
“cooperation from the business owners, mall security, contract security
employees and law enforcement. These special sales pose unique challenges
to the business owner, mall owner and those who are charged with providing
security for the event.” The Nassau County police recommended that
retailers should: 1) begin planning months before the sales event 2) make
sure enough trained employees are present 3) request an “intensive patrol”
from the local police, and alert officers of large or unruly crowds 4)
communicate with waiting customers with signs and announcements 5) set up
barricades or rope lines that reduce the risk of a crowd surge or stampede
6) hand out wristbands or numbered tickets as customers arrive 7) allow
customers to enter in small groups 8) have automated external
defibrillators, and trained staff, on hand. Just before Christmas, there
was a rally held in front of the Valley Stream Wal-Mart. A group called
the Committee for Occupational Safety and Health, told the media: “This
wasn’t the crowd’s fault. Wal-Mart should have had a plan in place to deal
with this difficult situation.” The demonstrators held candles and signs,
and wore pins with Damour’s face that read “Black Friday kills.” A
spokesman for the group The Workplace Project, said Wal-Mart’s Black
Friday failings were just part of a larger issues with its workforce. “I
hope that [shoppers] don’t go into Wal-Mart,” a spokesman told Newsday.
“If they do go into Wal-Mart, they should think about how they’re walking
where someone’s blood was spilled.” This week the press widely reported
that Wal-Mart had bought itself out of this trampling death with roughly
$2 million in corporate funds. The retailer agreed to improve safety at
its New York state stores as part of a deal that will avoid all criminal
charges against the company. Nassau County District Attorney Kathleen Rice
said that if she had brought criminal charges against the retailer in the
worker’s death, the company would have been subject to only a $10,000 fine
if convicted. Instead, the D.A.’s office worked out a deal in which
Wal-Mart agrees to improved crowd-management plans for post-Thanksgiving
Day sales, and creates a $400,000 victims’ compensation and remuneration
fund. As another face-saving payoff, Wal-Mart will give $1.5 million to
Nassau County social services programs and nonprofit groups. D.A. Rice
called this agreement “historic.” The D.A. deal allowing Wal-Mart to buy

http://walmartwatch.com/battlemart/blog/P240/[7/15/2010 11:38:23 AM]

Battle-Mart: Blog | Wal-Mart Watch | Fighting for Wal-Mart Workers | Employee Free Choice Act

itself out of criminal prosecution, did not sit well with the victim’s
family. “It’s like if they were driving a car and they hit someone, killed
him and then just walked away,” said Ogera Charles, the father of Jdimytai
Damour. The father of the victim noted that the deal leaves him in the
dark as to what the investigation of the incident actually found. “It is
the epitome of corporate arrogance that Wal-Mart can reach an agreement
without admitting their responsibility, and walk away,” Attorney Andrew
Libo, who is representing the family, told Newsday. The D.A.’s office
defended the Wal-Mart buyout, saying the victim’s family has access to
everything the prosecutors found.

Read the rest of this story ...

Topics:

Posted by Al Norman on Monday, May 11, 2009 | Permalink

Cave Creek, AZ. Neighbors Push

Back Against Wal-Mart Rezoning
On April 7, 2009 Sprawl-Busters reported that Cave Creek, Arizona has 10
Wal-Marts within 20 miles, half of which are superstores. There are two
giant superstores just 12 and 13 miles away in Phoenix. The tiny town of
Cave Creek had a 2007 population of 5,120---about one-tenth of what it
takes to keep a Wal-Mart supercenter alive. But according to the Arizona
Republic, Wal-Mart has not finished saturating this area with stores. The
retailer set up neighborhood meetings in Cave Creek in May to let
residents know of its plans for their proposed store,
located—ironically—on Carefree Highway. Already there are opponents to the
project, who charge that the superstore will make traffic congestion at
the busy intersection even worse, and take away from the town’s rural
character. Cave Creek promotes itself as “the True Arizona” experience,
with its “eclectic shopping, art galleries and the unrivaled beauty of the
Sonoran Desert.” The town is trying to attract tourist dollars with its
“rodeos, country and western dancing, museums, parks and nature preserves,
hiking and biking and old mining tours.” But there is nothing very
eclectic or beautiful about another big box Wal-Mart. The retailer must
first get the zoning on its 20 acre property changed from residential to
commercial. The Cave Creek Town Council is slated to take that vote at its
June 15th meeting. To create a supportive political climate, Wal-Mart has
to soften up the voters with a few neighborhood meetings, the first of
which took place on May 6th. “The meetings are to inform the community
about what we’ve submitted,” a Wal-Mart spokesman explained. “We will
answer specific questions.” The Arizona Republic newspaper admitted that
Wal-Mart’s proposal is “expected to be met with opposition.” Wal-Mart
seems to have a good lock on town officials, who have already expressed
support for the superstore, and the sales tax revenue they believe the
town will gain. Wal-Mart claims their supercenter will generate between
300 and 350 jobs. At 115,000 s.f., the project is smaller than the average
footprint of a superstore. “We have supercenters that are 100,000 s.f.,”
the Wal-Mart spokesman said, “and we have supercenters that are 220,000
s.f.” Wal-Mart has described the store’s architecture as “modernist,” and
will paint the skin of the store with a “desert color palette,” according
to The Republic. The town’s manager is already in Wal-Mart’s pocket too.
He said Wal-Mart’s plan meets the town’s ordinances---even before the
project has been before any town boards. “The store looks like it’s not a
typical Wal-Mart store,” the Manager explained. “It’s going to be
responsive to the Cave Creek environment and the Cave Creek lifestyle.”
But at the May 6th hearing, some very unhappy residents of Cave Creek
expressed their opposition to placing this store in their residential
neighborhood. The land, after all, is residentially zoned. Cave Creek’s
Town Council has to vote on rezoning the land, or the project is dead.
Several dozen neighbors came to the Wal-Mart dog and pony show, and from
their reaction, all they saw was the dog. “The store is basically in front
of my house,” one neighbor was quoted as saying by the Arizona Republic .
“The day the 24-hour superstore opens, my house is worthless.” This
project has kicked up dust since Wal-Mart first tried to get the town’s
General Plan amended in 2007. That proposal was later withdrawn by
Wal-Mart as their growth plans changed. Then, in 2008, Wal-Mart bought the
20 acre property for a reported $8 million. Residents opposed to the
project have openly asked why Wal-Mart is trying to rezone residential
land, which was clearly not meant for commercial use, when there are
parcels nearby already commercially zoned. “This type of rezoning is so
anti Cave Creek values,” Councilwoman Grace Meeth told The Republic.
“What’s the big deal about leasing land when there is commercially zoned
land (nearby)?”

http://walmartwatch.com/battlemart/blog/P240/[7/15/2010 11:38:23 AM]

Battle-Mart: Blog | Wal-Mart Watch | Fighting for Wal-Mart Workers | Employee Free Choice Act

Read the rest of this story ...

Topics:

Posted by Al Norman on Friday, May 08, 2009 | Permalink

Carroll, PA. After 4 Years,

Developer Still Pushing Wal-Mart
Superstore
The township of Carroll, Pennsylvania has already lost one battle to local
opponents of a Wal-Mart store. Now the town could be heading towards its
second appeal. On April 24, 2005---four years ago, Sprawl-Busters reported
that Supervisors in Carroll Township, Pennsylvania had voted to reject
plans for a 250 acre retail center, anchored by a Wal-Mart supercenter.
The developer, Lobar Associates, was expected to come back with another
plan. And he did---this time with township blessing. The original plan
included a Wal-Mart supercenter, and a Lowe’s, as well as several
restaurants and a gas station. The project came under fire for its
potential impact on stormwater runoff, and negative economic impacts on
the area. According to the Associated Press, the township’s engineer came
back with 200 issues with the project as proposed. This week, Lobar
Properties continued its four year epic confrontation with local
residents, still pushing a project known as the South Mountain commons,
located off of Route 15 in Dillsburg. The township has given the developer
until June to come up with a revised plan that addresses the stormwater
issues that have dogged the project since 2005. According to the Carroll
County Citizens for Sensible Growth (CCSG), the South Mountain Commons
Project comprises 131 acres of land, with a 203,819 s.f. Wal-Mart
superstore, a gas station, 3 restaurants, a 6,000 s.f. Shopping Center, a
drive in bank, 175 townhouses, and a second 15,000 s.f. shopping center.
In April of 2007, the Board of Supervisors conditionally approved the
project. The following month, CCSG appealed the township’s decision,
arguing that the preliminary subdivision plans failed to comply with the
requirements set forth in the Township’s subdivision and land development
ordinance. The appeal was brought by a family whose property abutted the
huge development. By the end of August, 2007 oral Arguments were being
heard in the Court of Common Pleas of York County, Pennsylvania. In
September of 2008, CCSG won its appeal of the Board of Supervisors’
Decision to approve preliminary plans for the South Mountain Commons
Project. The court ruled that the plans included stormwater basins inside
the required 75 foot landscape buffer zone, and that the township “abused
its discretion” when it approved these structures within the setback zone.
The court also found that one of the access drives was improperly placed.
The developer, Lobar, then filed for extensions of time to revise its
proposal and address the issues raised in the court’s ruling. In March of
2008, the township gave the developer a second extension until June 8,
2009. The CCSG continues to speak out against the extensions, but the
township Supervisors continue to give the developer all the time he wants.

Read the rest of this story ...

Topics:

Posted by Al Norman on Wednesday, May 06, 2009 | Permalink

Wilderness Part II: Grizzled Robert

Duvall Graciously Leading
Wilderness Charge
He’s grizzled. He’s mentored Cole Trickle and
knows that on the track, rubbin’ is racin’.
He’s fought Yankees in the Civil War, to the
delight of Red Sox fans everywhere. He’s
Robert Duvall...and he’s now Wal-Mart’s
worst enemy.

Joined by two congressmen whose

states suffered heavy losses in the
Battle of the Wilderness, Duvall--who
lives in Virginia’s horse country--
pledged to do “anything we can” to

http://walmartwatch.com/battlemart/blog/P240/[7/15/2010 11:38:23 AM]

Battle-Mart: Blog | Wal-Mart Watch | Fighting for Wal-Mart Workers | Employee Free Choice Act

support the fight against the Wal-Mart

store. The proposed construction has
drawn opposition from 250 historians,
including David McCullough and James
McPherson, and filmmaker Ken Burns.

Duvall toured the grounds with Rep. Peter

Welch, D-Vt., and Rep. Ted Poe, R-Texas.
Welch, for his part, comes from a state in Vermont that has already made some
noise concerning the Wilderness site. Earlier this year the Vermont Legislature
passed a joint resolution asking property owners and elected officials in Orange
County, Virginia, to protect the historic battlefield - many Vermonters died
fighting there during the Civil War.

Welch and Duvall both spoke out not only on the importance of the site, but of
Wal-Mart’s ability to take the high road:

“The impact of the Wal-Mart is that it will totally change the context
of that battle site,” Welch said. “With the immense increase in
traffic and congestion and additional development, you’re going to
get very large-scale commercial activity.”

“The Wal-Mart Corporation has it within its power to be a savior of

the Wilderness Battlefield,” Duvall said in a statement released by
Welch’s office. “Simply by moving to an alternate location slightly
further from the battlefield, they have the ability to protect this
critical piece of American history for generations to come.”

Already, hundreds of historians have signed on in opposition to the

development.

Actor Duvall enters battle to save Va. battlefield [AP via the Daily Press]

Read the rest of this story ...

Topics: | | legislation | Organizing | | | | | | | | Community Impact |

Environment |

Posted by Corey Himrod on Tuesday, May 05, 2009 | Permalink

Wilderness Part I: Battlefield

Debate Goes National
The Battle of the Wilderness was among
the most significant engagements of the
Civil War. The number of voices who argue
that Wal-Mart should find somewhere else
to build are steadily increasing. And now a
national audience is getting the story of
the most recent battle to be fought there.

Both the Washington Post and prominent

blog The Daily Kos posted stories on the
Wilderness struggle on Sunday, and both are great reads. The Post entry was
written by James McPherson, the George Henry Davis ‘86 Professor of History at
Princeton University and a past president of the American Historical Association.
McPherson won the 1989 Pulitzer Prize for “Battle Cry of Freedom” and is a
two-time winner of the Lincoln Prize.

A snippet from the Post:

Preservationists are not opposed to Wal-Mart opening a superstore

in the region. A coalition of national and local conservation groups
has merely asked Wal-Mart to choose a different location...The
Wilderness is an indelible part of our history, its very ground

http://walmartwatch.com/battlemart/blog/P240/[7/15/2010 11:38:23 AM]

Battle-Mart: Blog | Wal-Mart Watch | Fighting for Wal-Mart Workers | Employee Free Choice Act

hallowed by the American blood spilled there, and it cannot be

moved. Surely Wal-Mart can identify a site that would meet its
needs without changing the very character of the battlefield.

And from Daily Kos:

Development has spread out in all directions from Washington DC,

devouring landscape and culture. McPherson notes that only 21%
of the actual site of the Battle of the Wilderness are in the national
park, that many key areas are “privately held and vulnerable to
development”...We perhaps cannot preserve every place of possible
historical importance, but in our shortsightedness we have already
lost much. Too many historic buildings are now gone, and sacred
spaces are increasingly threatened as our cities spread out.

Again, both are really good reads, and the post on The Daily Kos has already
inspired 150 comments, so head on over and join the discussion!

Wal-Mart vs. the Wilderness [Washington Post]

Wal-Mart vs. the Wilderness [Daily Kos] [And yes, they have the same title...]

Topics: | | Community Impact | Environment | Traffic/Sprawl | | | | | |

Posted by Corey Himrod on Tuesday, May 05, 2009 | Permalink

Old Bridge, NJ. Wal-Mart Playing

Games About Closing Old Store
Until officials in Old Bridge, New Jersey approve a new Wal-Mart
supercenter, the retailer is saying little about the fate of the ‘old’
Wal-Mart in Old Bridge. On January 15, 2009, Sprawl-Busters reported that
residents in Old Bridge were fighting off a 150,000 s.f. Wal-Mart
supercenter. Old Bridge is located 36 miles from downtown Manhattan. The
community has just over 66,000 people. It already has a Wal-Mart discount
store on Route 9. In fact, there are 14 Wal-Marts within 20 miles of Old
Bridge—none of them superstores. Wal-Mart is working hard in New Jersey to
either expand this “nest” of discount stores into supercenters, or shut
them down and build new supercenters, leaving the old discount stores
empty. The Old Bridge Planning Board has now finished taking testimony on
a Wal-Mart supercenter project submitted by developer Greg Matzel. The
proposed site is roughly a 7 minute drive from the existing Wal-Mart. One
Planning board member was quoted by the Sayreville Suburban newspaper as
saying, “I like the project, I just don’t want it coming into our
neighborhoods.” The site Wal-Mart wants is a part of a 500 acre
“Crossroads” redevelopment project that is the focal point of development
in this township. Currently the Wal-Mart site is a 53 acre golf center, on
land not owned by the township. So far, the project has drawn vocal
criticism from local residents, and what the paper described as “union
workers from around the state.” At the mid-January Planning Board meeting,
much of the discussion revolved around whether one or two entrances were
needed into the site. “I don’t want to turn it into a main drag, so to
speak,” the Planning Board Chairman said. “The existing Wal-Mart is one of
the biggest parking lots in town.” The Board is clearly concerned over the
impact of the increased traffic volume the new store would bring, and
complained that the developer should have done an analysis of traffic at
the existing Wal-Mart to get a sense of what could happen at the proposed
project. The township and this developer already have a confrontational
history. In 2006, Matzel sued the township after they rejected his
proposal to build 450 residential units. As part of a legal settlement,
the township agreed to change the parcel’s zoning to commercial, which
allows a big box development. So out of this lawsuit, the developer
settled for the possibility of a very lucrative sale to Wal-Mart. “I think
the one thing [board members and residents] are forgetting is that this is
a settlement between us and the township,” Matzel said. “There are always
going to be a handful of residents who are opposed to the project.” The
land in question is also riddled with wetlands, but the developer said he
can destroy up to an acre of wetlands under New Jersey law. Local
residents have protested the project by speaking out against what they
called the “Wal-Monster.” “That’s our message to Wal-Mart — you’re not
welcome here,” said a representative of the United Food and Commercial
Workers Union. One resident who lives near the site told the Suburban, “We
have plenty of Wal-Marts. We do not need another.” On March 8, 2009,
Sprawl-Busters reported that a vote on this project was imminent. “We got
everything done,” the townships Planning Board Chairman said. “All the
testimony and all the public input have been completed. We’re waiting for

http://walmartwatch.com/battlemart/blog/P240/[7/15/2010 11:38:23 AM]

Battle-Mart: Blog | Wal-Mart Watch | Fighting for Wal-Mart Workers | Employee Free Choice Act

the developer to come back with a revised drawing. If everything matches

up, we should be ready for a vote next month.” In addition to the
Wal-Mart, the project has a retail building of 18,400 s.f. , 15,500 s.f.
for two restaurants, and a 29,190 s.f. office building. The plan puts a
weight limit on trucks to keep Wal-Mart’s tractor trailers out of nearby
neighborhoods. One regional manager for Wal-Mart told the Planning Board
that the retailer’s existing Wal-Mart discount store minutes away would be
“temporarily closed.” But the Wal-Mart spokesman then added that we was
“not sure if the store would be reopened,” according to My Central New
Jersey. The Old Bridge Planning Board Chairman questioned Wal-Mart whether
another store was really needed. The answer was bizarre: “Wal-Mart sees it
as serving two different markets and this is a supercenter.” This week,
the Old Bridge Planning Board is expected to green light the proposal on
May 5th. “There is only one step left, and that’s looking at these
plans,’’ the Planning Board Chairman told the media. “If they match up to
what they’ve testified to, then we’re done. They agreed to comply with
everything asked for, and it’s permitted in the zone. They are giving us
the sidewalks and traffic lights. As long as all of that is on the plans,
I don’t see any grounds to turn them down.’’ But opponents are planning a
demonstration against the project. “We don’t need another Wal-Mart,’’ said
Old Bridge resident “There are three existing Wal-Marts and or Sam’s
Clubs, which is owned by Wal-Mart, within a 10-minute ride from the
proposed site. Wal-Mart is bad for America. It’s a greedy, gigantic
outfit, and we don’t need them here. There is a lot better use for that
land. It’s also a quality-of-life issue. This is a nice, quiet area in a
rural setting, and they are going to build this monstrosity that will be
open 24 hours a day…I know Wal-Mart is a big corporation, but they
shouldn’t push residents around like this.’’ Both opponents and the
Planning Board admit that Wal-Mart has been cagey over the issue of the
future of their existing store. “As much as I don’t like them being
open-ended on the fate of the store on Route 9,” the Planning Board
chairman told My Central New Jersey, “as long as they are paying taxes on
that store, they can do whatever they want. I may not like it, but it’s
still not grounds for turning them down on another location.’’

Read the rest of this story ...

Topics:

Posted by Al Norman on Tuesday, May 05, 2009 | Permalink

Page 31 of 266 pages « First < 29 30 31 32 33 > Last »

© 2009 | Privacy Policy | Contact Us |

http://walmartwatch.com/battlemart/blog/P240/[7/15/2010 11:38:23 AM]