Monday, May 4, 2009
It’s become a cliché that the most notable American business that is doing well in the recession is the biggest one of all, which also happens to be the haven of the penny-pinched American: Walmart (and here’s a note to all journalists and writers out there: the company no longer uses a hyphen in the name). And so the Walmart wars continue, as local governments debate whether to allow the big retailer into their communities.
Here are two current stories. First, according to the Charlotte Observer, city advocates are trying to encourage Walmart to build along Independence Boulevard, the big thoroughfare that leads southeast out of the great banking and trade city that in part symbolizes the recent financial boom (and bust, in part); the route today holds too many empty storefronts. A big complication – ironically, for opponents who charge that Walmart is the embodiment of sprawl – is that the city’s zoning rules limit construction near the highway, in order to allow for possible future expansion of the route as sprawl continues outward in the future. Will expectations of sprawl stop this Walmart?
A more traditional battle is playing out in Orange County, Va., where the retailer would like to build a store near the locations of the famous battles of the Wilderness (it’s not really wilderness anymore, but it is still largely rural) and Chancellorsville. A number of county supervisors appear to favor the plan as a way of stimulating economic development, while a number of groups, including the Civil War Preservation Trust, oppose it. Recently, both the wealthy landowning King family and famous nearby resident Robert Duvall (who has often been associated with Republican causes) have expressed skepticism of a quick decision to approve the store plan. But they, of course, do not need to shop at Walmart …
[Comments must be approved and thus take some time to appear online.]
This blog is an Amazon affiliate. Help support Land Use Prof Blog by making purchases through Amazon links on this site at no cost to you.
- Stephen Miller on New Arkansas law requires local governments to pay for a "takings" where certain "regulatory programs" reduce FMV by at least 20 percent
- Josh Galperin on New Arkansas law requires local governments to pay for a "takings" where certain "regulatory programs" reduce FMV by at least 20 percent
- Jesse Richardson on New Arkansas law requires local governments to pay for a "takings" where certain "regulatory programs" reduce FMV by at least 20 percent
- Jamie Baker Roskie on Uber Goes to the State House Seeking Preemption of Local Government Control
- Stephen R. Miller on Why are building inspectors so often on the take?
- Touro Law hosts First Annual Conference of the Land Use & Sustainable Development Law Institute
- Abstracts for 6th Annual Colloquium on Environmental Scholarship due May 1
- Space and the City - Special edition of The Economist
- Land Value Tax Redux
- USDOJ HUD housing enforcement attorney position