Wal-Mart uses new tactic to dodge town law
Retailer building two outlets right next to each other
The Associated Press
Updated: 12:39 p.m. ET March 12, 2005

BENTONVILLE, Ark. - Wal-Mart, the world's largest retailer, is employing a new tactic to get around a Maryland town ordinance that limits store sizes — build two outlets right next to each other.

advertisement
Signaling what could be a new approach to getting around such restrictions, Wal-Mart will build adjacent stores in Dunkirk, Md. with one outlet being constructed so that it will be just under the 75,000 square-foot limit that is allowed by a Calvert County ordinance.

It is the first time Wal-Mart has considered such a measure, said Mia Masten, a Wal-Mart Stores Inc. spokeswoman.

"As these big-box bills come up, all retailers will just have to be flexible," Masten said. "In this case, we developed a model that allowed us to reach our customers."

Masten said Wal-Mart could use the strategy in other locations.

Calvert County passed an ordinance in August limiting the size of commercial retail buildings to 75,000 square feet. Wal-Mart usually builds stores that range from at least 100,000 square feet to more than 200,000 square feet for Supercenters.

Wal-Mart proposed a 74,998-square-foot store in Dunkirk that will be next to a 22,689-square-foot garden center. The two stores would have their own entrances, utilities, bathrooms and cash registers.

Wal-Mart has faced backlash for trying to expand in certain areas, and local jurisdictions have passed measures like the one in Calvert County that limit the size of retail stores. Total square-footage of the store would exceed the limit by 30 percent.

Greg Bowen, who heads the county planning office, said his office will consider the proposal.

"It's not on hold indefinitely," he said. "The county commission has asked the planning commission to defer action until they have a chance to look into (the proposal)."
© 2005 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7161611/

Haha, clever.

Consume, Conform, Obey!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!







peace

Wal-Mart shut down a store in Quebec because they tried to organize a union.

But that's not cool. I think the two stores is cool.

It's like a giant, corporate 5 year-old.

Dunkirk, MD: Don't touch me.
Wal-Mart (with fingers poking the air): I'm not touching you!

As someone who deals with planning commissions all the time, I can assure you that if the city wants to kill this project, they have a large arsenal at their disposal, the most potent weapon in which is DELAY, DELAY, DELAY.

I'm actually working on a big case right now that involves a certain "big box" retailer who wants to open a store and some neighbors who are tring to stop the store from being built. In this case, the city is trying to push it through (because it means major tax revenue), and the neighbors are trying to stop it. All the neighbors need to do is figure out some way to stall the process for a few months until the retailer decides that it would be more fruitfull to follow their "plan B" and build in another nearby town.

It's a dirty, dirty game on both sides of the ball, let me assure you.

--PunkDavid

Interesting...

Why don't they just find build it in a place where the residents are all too impoverished and busy scraping together enough food too feed their their families to care about disputing the development. Then give them all jobs and refuse them any kind of benefits whatsoever and keep your prices low by forcing small buisness owners out of buisness so everybody has to buy from you. Then let's all move into this big monster, we work and shop there anyway, and plug ourselves into the machine and power it with our fucking souls.

I have thought about working there and doing completely half-assed job while boycotting the place completely and advising every customer I see to run away from the store.

It would be fun.

Because, eventually, they might think about unionizing ... then they'll have to eliminate an entire department and fire them.

BTW, the case I mentioned above is taking place in one of the most affluent cities in the United States. Weird stuff.

It makes sense. The affluent people are the ones who can afford to devote some of their time to protesting developments that they see as being deprimental to their neighbourhood. Their needs in terms of food and safety etc are pretty well covered so they can devote themselves to seemingly less important things like these stores they don't want opened. It all comes down to the different value systems of the people who are being affected by the development. I bet if the store was being opened in an area of lower socio-economic status there'd be less of a fuss made. But of course I could never make a reccomendation like that of benefit to big business. I haven't sold my soul just yet!

BTW (part 2), if this had been a Wal-Mart in my case, there is no way on God's green earth that the city would have allowed it. In fact, I bet this particular city would take a neighboring city to court to stop a Wal-Mart from building if it meant that "undesirables" would be driving through their town to get to the Wal-Mart. Seriously.

Perhaps they are just snobs, then. Usually the simplest answer is the correct one! I don't like it when rich elitists are right though It makes me question my beliefs

Did anyone see Simpsons last week?

Sprawl-Mart
Not A Satirical Spoof of Wal-Mart

We'll get it spring 2015.
God I love that show.

Hmm. Rich people. Big box store. I'm gonna go with Home Depot.

Nah, Home Depot draws in people who are working to improve their homes and gardens. I'll go Super Target or Costco.

As someone who has worked for the big boxes as an engineer and who has sat at a many planning commission and council meetings, if the planning commission delays (although planning commissions have no authority meaning they can't approve or disapprove a project, they can only recommend to the council) for other reasons other than non-compliance with zoning or the planning regs than the PC & council puts themselves at risk. At risk of being sued by the developer and also at risk of misinforming the community. Although the big boxes haven't gone the route of sueing individual members of boards, I've seen other developers apply this tactic. The biggest mistake a planning commission or council can do is to misinform the public.

Sometimes a city council would rather get sued and be able to delay the process for a few months than to follow all their own rules. In my case for example, all the neighbors would have to do would be to state a claim that would survive a motion to dismiss and they have just bought about six months of delay, which may be enough to discourage the retailer from building. It's even easier for a municipality to drag something out against a suit from someone challenging their decision because summary judgment against a defendant is rare.

--PunkDavid