http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.c ... e=politics

Hercules uses eminent domain to keep out Wal-Mart

By JUSTIN M. NORTON, Associated Press Writer

HERCULES, Calif. (AP) --

A San Francisco suburb voted Tuesday night to use the power of eminent domain to keep Wal-Mart Stores Inc. off a piece of city land after hearing from dozens of residents who accused the big-box retailer of engaging in scare tactics to force its way into the bedroom community.

The overflow crowd that packed into the tiny Hercules City Hall cheered after the five-person City Council voted unanimously to use the unusual tactic to seize the 17 acres where Wal-Mart intended to build a shopping complex.

"The citizens have spoken. No to Wal-Mart," said Kofi Mensah, who has lived in Hercules for more than two decades and said he values the city's authentic feel.

Attorneys from Wal-Mart told the council that the retailer had spent close to $1 million to redesign the property to the community's liking. They said the council couldn't claim it was legally necessary to take the land and that the decision set a bad precedent.

"Today it may be Wal-Mart but the question is where does it end," Wal-Mart attorney Edward G. Burg said.

City officials countered that buying the land was acceptable to ensure it was developed to the community's liking and fit in with overall plans for the city.

Opponents worried that Wal-Mart would drive local retailers out of business, tie up traffic and wreck the small-town flavor of this city of 24,000.

Wal-Mart spokesman Kevin Loscotoff said after the hearing that the company had not decided how to proceed with its plans in light of the decision.

Wal-Mart's initial proposal for a 142,000-square foot store near Hercules' San Pablo Bay waterfront was rejected by the City Council. So the company submitted a scaled-down plan that included a pedestrian plaza, two outdoor eating areas and other small shops, including a pharmacy.

Hercules said no again, and opponents began raising the possibility of eminent domain, a legal tactic where government agencies can take land from its owners for the public good.

Cities sometimes use eminent domain to build roads or redevelop properties, but the owners must be paid fair market value for their land.

The U.S. Supreme Court ruled last year that such seizures are allowable if the construction raises the tax base and benefits the entire community.

Some residents and Hercules city officials say the land, which is currently open space, would be better suited for upscale stores that attract affluent shoppers and give the suburb a classy touch.

Officials say using eminent domain is a new tactic in a fight that's occurred elsewhere. Communities across the country have kept Wal-Mart out by imposing size caps for businesses and laws that set high minimum pay rates.

Jeri Wilgus, 47, said she was proud of the council for standing up to Wal-Mart and said the town could show others how to fight back against big corporations.

"We are setting an example for the rest of the country," she said.

A handful of residents said Wal-Mart could provide a much-needed place to purchase inexpensive goods, particularly for residents who can't drive out of town.

"I know I can go there and get a fair price for a good product," said Glenna Phillips, who has lived in Hercules for 26 years.

Wow, this is fucked up. If you want to deny Wal-Mart from building somewhere because it doesn't comply with the zoning ordinances, wonderful. But you can't take their land just because you don't like what they want to do there. You have to have a legitimate public use for the land.

I think it's a great example of a town showing that it values its local merchants.

From what I've seen, I'm generally of the opinion that the government's use of eminent domain has absolutely been an abuse of power in certain scenarios.

I'm not sure how I feel about this one, mostly because the article doesn't explain what they plan to do with the land, and because I don't know how much, if anything, they're compensating Walmart.

The example being the practical theft of property? Are you sure the ends justify the means here?

I pretty much agree with this sentiment, but isn't he essentially admitting that his client is the fucking devil?

i think walmart likes having that as its image. who can resist the devil?

The headline of the article made me laugh out loud.

A town can determine where it does and does not want adult entertainment or the sale of alcohol, why can't it determine where it wants big box stores? Not every effect of a Wal-Mart is negative, but it ALWAYS has a profound impact upon the communities it moves into. I think cities should start looking at those impacts and determining if having a Wal-Mart wouldn't be detrimental to their community. This one obviously did.

By the way, this woman ...



... is delusional!

This isn't the point. I actually agree with a lot of the above paragraph--I already said I don't mind restrictive zoning to discourage certain types of development. This is about seizing land with no clear public purpose.

An analogy would help, but for some reason I'm not developing a real good one.

I see what you mean. You're right. Towns should be making their decisions about Wal-Marts (and Targets, K-Marts, etc) now, and putting those ordinances in place.

How about for an analogy: when the big bully in the yard gets a sucker punch for the squirrely nerd, does anyone really care?

Heh, I bet they build right outside the town limits on a major road. They always find a way in.

While I agree with sentiment about keeping Wal Mart out, but I'm not sure, in light of Nick's point, that the ends justify the means. The use of eminent domain for this is a little creepy.


That being said, yes, Wal Mart is fucking homo.

Hey walmart has been using it in towns where developers run the show all over the country using their large tax profit for the city as a reason to justiy use of eminent domain (see Alabaster, Alabama), it's about time they got the banana in the tailpipe.

Congrats.



Interestingly enough, the citizens of the town could simply choose NOT to shop at wal-mart.

Yes, and stooping to their level, no matter how abusive or ethically questionable it is a great idea!!!


change the zoning. dont provide ANY infrastructure. Make all the roads one way gravel roads that make turning into their parking lot awful. Make up new health codes that they cant attain. Crack down on all labor laws. Build a manure scuplture park across the street....
taking their land through and abuse of the law is not a good sign. Id rather have a wal mart on every corner than to have a governmental body abusing the constitution like this.

If you do any of these things, Wal-Mart could sue you for inverse condemnation.

Wal-Mart is to Consumer Interests as to what Microsft is to Computers. It's a bullshit monopoly that cripples, belittles and wipes small business out and uses every means possible to do so. Wal-Mart fucks over it;s own employees by not paying over-time and following up with benefits for those who have rights to them and it also Lobbies many anti-union groups for protection to keep unions from forming against it.

In all fairness, Bill Gates' charitable donations make the Waltons look like dickless wonders.

Yes, we know all this, but what about the city's use of eminent domain?

Okay, I'm about 18 hours past tired here, but I thought this meant that after the town said no, the opponents, as in WalMart, tried to use eminent domain. Like, the town didn't want them there, so WalMart tried to get the government to force them. In that case, Yeay town.

Lately, all of the WalMarts I've been in are dirty, smelly and ill kept. I'll pay the extra $0.12 and go to Target.

I'm confused.