Posted on 05/05/2006 6:23:11 AM PDT by RGSpincich
HERCULES: Critics of plan to take land say store would bring much-needed sales tax revenue By Tom Lochner CONTRA COSTA TIMES The Hercules City Council will consider a formal move to acquire a parcel owned by Wal-Mart through eminent domain, City Manager Mike Sakamoto said Thursday.
The city informed Wal-Mart in a letter Wednesday that the council will consider a "resolution of necessity" on May 23, Sakamoto said.
A resolution of necessity is a preliminary step in an eminent domain proceeding.
Wal-Mart owns the 17-acre future Bayside Marketplace off John Muir Parkway about halfway between San Pablo Avenue and San Pablo Bay.
Wal-Mart once planned to build a 142,000-square-foot store on the site but withdrew its application after a city staff report said it clashed with a 2003 development agreement for a neighborhood shopping center with no store larger than 64,000 square feet.
In March, the city made Wal-Mart an undisclosed offer to buy the property. Wal-Mart came back in April with a scaled-down plan for a 99,000-square-foot store with a full-service grocery.
Wal-Mart spokesman Kevin Loscotoff said many Hercules residents are "frustrated" by the city's stance.
"We're disappointed that the city of Hercules is playing politics with the future of Hercules rather than looking at the big picture," Loscotoff said Thursday. "Many residents are anxious for this much-needed retail project to move forward."
A Wal-Mart store would generate sales taxes that would pay for police, fire protection and infrastructure improvements, and create jobs for residents, Loscotoff said.
A well-organized coalition of opponents, headed by Friends of Hercules, has vowed to resist Wal-Mart. They argue, among other things, that the sales taxes its stores throw off are offset by the drain on social services by underpaid workers and the loss of sales taxes from stores forced out of business. They also say a Wal-Mart store would generate a lot of traffic.
Sakamoto could not say what plans the city has for the property.
Share with Mr. Sakamoto what you think about land grabs.
mike.sakamoto@ci.hercules.ca.us
If it were someone other than Wal-Mart I would be upset. However Wal-Mart has used compliant city councils to use eminent domain to get land for its stores.
MORON!!!!!! Are we to believe that these people DON'T receive social services UNTIL they are employed at Wal-Mart?
Faced with this level of official opposition in other cities, Wal-Mart has sometimes gone the route of using a ballot initiative. Sounds like that's what they should do here.
Are you blaming Wal-Mart or the local governments for that?
Walmart ASSISTS their low wage earners and illegals they hire to APPLY for welfare and medicaid I know that as fact we have a relative who worked for Walmart.
Aaaaaaahhhhhhh! Can't ahve anyone making money and employing people. Where are the victims? We need victims!
Yea, and I have a relative that works for Wal-Mart who says this never happens.
Yeah, I'm sure Wal-Mart is just sooo concerned with this city. I'm sure there is a huge demand for cheap Chinese-made junk to go along with low wages and poor working conditions in this community.
As for "playing politics," Wal-Mart knows that the community has planned for retail of no more than 64,000 sq. ft. Instead of complying with the plan, Wal-Mart is screwing around, proposing grossly non-compliant development. Good for the city for not getting pushed around by these bastards.
Not exactly. 64,000 sf plus 18,000 sf plus "other stores" could easily equal what Walmart has proposed. In addition, no grocery chain was interested in entering the complex, Walmart will now offer grocery items.
It's equal in total square footage, but that's irrelevant. The plan precludes any one store from being more than 64,000 square feet. Neither of Wal-Mart's proposals met that criteria, as they both envisioned Wal-Mart's store as being approximately 35,000 to 80,000 sq. feet bigger. So long as Wal-Mart is insisting on making its store larger than the plan, then it -- and not the town -- is holding up this development (which Wal-Mart itself said is necessary.)
It appears the process goes something like this. A real estate developer finds an area they think would be a good location for a big retail store like Wal-mart. They look at buying up the properties, they put together a business plan, and they start selling the idea to Wal-mart and to the city.
They negotiate property tax breaks with the city to help attract Wal-mart to their area since they will bring in large sums of money in the form of sales taxes and income taxes from the company and it's employees.
However, they end up with some people who don't want to sell, or who are leasing some of the property and won't allow their lease to be bought out so the property owner can't sell the property so that it can be used for the store.
Therefore the developer works with the city to make those people leave or sell.
While Wal-mart may not be directly involved in this process they are at least passively approving it. Even when they've been notified by others they have not declined to build a store in such an area if the developer attains the property through eminent domain. If Walmart were to refuse to build the store if the property were attained in that way, the city would have no reason to use eminent domain, unless another retailer is also interested in building there.
The city, the developer, and Wal-mart all deserve a share in the blame.
It may be true that if Walmart refuses to build there another retailer may do so instead. That may mitigate Walmart's blame to some extent in some people's opinions.
You should have started your comment with this statement. It would have saved you some keystrokes. As a business, Wal-Mart will and should work within the laws that exist. Wal-Mart is not to blame at all for eminent domain actions. If they went out of business, eminent domain would still occur. And I personally would much rather see a pay-to-play Wal-Mart than some community center that requires public tax dollars to operate.
I agree that Wal-mart is fulfilling it's legal responsibilities, and that's by doing so it is working on a level playing field with it's competitors.
The laws are also passed by local governments elected by local residents, and are being applied by those local governments.
Wal-mart, as the largest and most successful retailer, does still have influence. That influence is limited by the particulars of the situation, and in reality any large business venture is going to help some people in some way and hurt other people in some way. Their first responsibility is to work within the law. Their next responsibility it to be profitable. Unless they make the mistake of seeking short term gains at the expense of long term profitability that also means treating their employees and customers well.
If people believe that Wal-Mart should take a stand against using eminent domain to take property for economic development, then they should contact Wal-Mart.
It may have an effect of having Wal-Mart influence communities to work harder to resolve such issues without resorting to eminent domain. I doubt it will end the use of eminent domain.
Why? Because I've lived in urban areas for the last couple decades that have gone through economic good times and bad times.
Having area of retail stores lose a large anchor store can be devastating to the local economy, and the quality of life for those in the area. Having a large and profitable anchor store move into such an area has a definite positive effect on the local economy, and you can see those effects produce benefits in the surrounding community as well.
So if your on the council of a city government that has fallen on rough times and has more empty retail property than full property, a developer pitching the idea of Wal-Mart building a store in your community might seem like a gift from God.
So you do what you can can to reasonably encourage the deal. But what happens if one or two small retailers or homeowners are unwilling to sell to make way for the new store?
I don't mean they are just holding out to negotiate a high price for their property, which I personally feel is reasonable, I mean their emotional attachment to their property is so high that they are unwilling to sell even for much, much more than what might be considered reasonable monetary compensation.
In such a situation, what is the correct thing to do for an honest person who was elected to represent the interests of their community?
Having just said all that you might think I support giving local governments wide discretion in using eminent domain.
I don't. While I can imagine situations where it may be justified, strong personal property rights are critical to restricting the government and protecting the freedoms of the people.
Only fools give their government such broad powers without severely restricting their use, and placing a heavy burden on justifying their use.
I would suggest that the local government have to seek the direct approval of the people for each and every instance in which they wish to use eminent domain. Preferably, they would need to have super-majority of votes form a majority of eligible voters. ie. Low voter turnout would prevent approval.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.