We've all watched the 800-pound gorilla sit where ever it wants to. People may complain about it, but nobody's going to make it move. Until now- a small (but rich) city is preparing to vote on whether to begin eminent domain proceedings against Wal*Mart, because, frankly, they don't want the "big-box store" around...
According to the San Francisco Chronicle:
Hercules Raises Stakes in Wal-Mart Standoff -
City may try eminent domain to take land
It's an interesting article, biased against both sides in its own unique way. Still I find it hard not to cheer for the inhabitants of Hercules despite quotes like:
"I don't want to have anything ghetto around me and my family," said Monique Howell, 25, who 18 months ago paid $652,000 for a two-story Craftsman-style home where she lives with her husband and infant son.
They definately have some evidence on their side-
Already, Wal-Mart's proposal has caused potential investors to wait before committing to building the waterfront area, because if the store is built it would reduce the amount of space for commercial and other tenants, said John Baucke, project director for developer Oso Trabuco LLC of Kern County, which owns the waterfront district.
This whole article does raise some interesting issues; first and foremost about
eminent domain. Remember a year ago, when the Federal ruling came down allowing governments to seize property for business developments? It was a big deal then-
people were certain it would be abused by retailers such as Wal*Mart and Target.
"On the West Coast, land availability takes a back seat to labor union issues and that's why Wal-Mart has consistently run into problems in California," Johnson said. "On the East Coast, because of population density it's very hard to get big open space and the zoning is more restrictive," Johnson said.
Industry consultant George Whalin said that's one reason that Target, the No. 2 retailer behind Wal-Mart, has resorted to using eminent domain to set up shop in a few East Coast markets.
Target and Wal-Mart could not immediately be reached for comment.
"Wal-Mart and Target have both been criticized for their eminent domain use," said Burt Flickinger, a consultant with the Strategic Resources Group.
Thus a sort of delicious irony- eminent domain may be the very tool used to deprive Wal*Mart of its land.
And yet, does a city have a right to decide exactly who can build something within its boundaries? Wal*Mart claims they're trying to work with Hercules-
Wal-Mart contends that such dire predictions are unjustified, that it has been able to coexist with high-end stores in other communities that have higher median incomes. The company says it has scaled down its proposal to comply with plans that the city approved in 2003 for a neighborhood shopping center at the site, which is at the intersection of John Muir Parkway and Alfred Nobel Drive.
Judy Davidoff, an attorney representing Wal-Mart, said in an interview that the city has virtually no choice but to grant approval for Wal-Mart's plan. "It fits what the community said it wanted,'' she said.
Of course, you can also argue that one single monolithic Wal*Mart store does not a shopping center make.
However, it would also seem that this is a sort of corporate prejudice- although the city's arguments are logical, reading between the lines seems to indicate they've carefully tailored their case to fit their unspoken bias: Hercules doesn't want a Wal*Mart for the very reason that it's a Wal*Mart. I have a hunch Hercules would welcome a Cosco.
So the sides line up to do battle. On one side, the 800-pound gorilla known as Wal*Mart. On the other side, the selfish rich little city- Hercules is fighting purely for itself, not the common man. Still, they may be the only ones rich enough and determined enough to step up to that 800-pound gorilla with a rolled up newspaper, and swat them on the nose. At least it's the first blow, right? It may embolden other communities to ask their 800-pound gorillas to leave the room.