Replies

One small sticking point here too......Just who is the city supposed to represent? She, the woman resident who actively participates in her community or Costco, a national retailer of consumer goods?

A pre-emptive suggestion to you folks out there....Attend every single zoning hearing in your community. This stuff can be spotted in the bud before problems show up on the branch. When was this woman's land zoned commercial? Retail Commercial? Mixed Use? Was her land zoned that way when she bought it? If so, she's an idiot.

A pre-emptive suggestion to you folks out there....Attend every single zoning hearing in your community. This stuff can be spotted in the bud before problems show up on the branch.

Yep, but that's just "too much trouble" for some people.

When was this woman's land zoned commercial? Retail Commercial? Mixed Use? Was her land zoned that way when she bought it? If so, she's an idiot.

Good questions. I don't know the specific law in Alabama, but typically zoning changes are only done at the request of the property owner. I can't go request to have somebody's zoning changed without their knowledge. The city may, depending on the local laws, re-zone entire areas for more intensive use, because that rasies value(they typically can't "down-zone" property in most cases). Or, in this case, the town may have very loose zoning, as it is that way in small communities.

Blackdog, good points. The local government should be looking out for the woman resident, and not let another tyrannize her. . . The zoning thought is a salient consideration that is critical as well.

However, even without doing much digging around on Costco, I can tell you just within my own Los Angeles County (and neighboring counties) two tales paralleling this story. Locally, the original site of the Lancaster (California) Costco tried to take over the neighboring 99 cents store a few years ago. (Costco wanted to expand the store's size) That turned out to be a long fight, with the 99 cents store - a retail chain of some size itself - winning. Costco then shopped around for a new site, and found its current location next to Lancaster City Park. Not without yet another legal brouhaha about trees being uprooted from the park to allow Costco to have its desired land imprint next to the park (which lost a sliver of land in the settlement). In the end, the trees were transplanted to other city property (thanks to citizen input and the legal system), and of course, Costco got the land it wanted. Oh, Costco got its current land from the City of Lancaster for el cheapo.

Also, I believe it was in Hawaiian Gardens (or somewhere near there in the vicinity of Seal Beach) where Costco wanted to take over land that a church owned. The church was running out of space in its current location and was in the process of planning new buildings when this debacle from Costco happened. A happy enough ending for this one: the church and Costco swapped parcels - close by each other - and both got what they wanted. Not without legal tussles, though.

Score on these tales: 99 cents store 1, Costco 0

Costco 1, Lancaster (city and residents) 1

church 1, Costco 1

As you can see, Costco hates to lose. When lawyers have to be in the middle of far too many real estate transactions - due to ill will - what does that tell you about the protagonist here, Costco? (To be fair, other corporations could be named here besides. . .)

Want to know more? Do a little research on Sol Price of Costco fame. His political sensibilities are more those of DU than FR. And whatever happened to good ol' FedMart, Sol? (I know the answer, just remembering the good ol' days)

When was this woman's land zoned commercial? Retail Commercial? Mixed Use? Was her land zoned that way when she bought it? If so, she's an idiot.

The current zoning is irrelevant. After the local gov't takes ownership by condemnation, they change the zoning and turn the property over to the developer. The zoning change is part of the deal, the developer will not buy the property without the zoning change.