6Wak files sixth Wal-Mart suit

Latest litigation challenges city charge for road improvements

Owners of land at Sixth Street and Wakarusa Drive have filed a sixth lawsuit challenging the city’s decision to reject a Wal-Mart there.

“The city has acted arbitrarily, capriciously, unreasonably, outside the scope of its authority, and in a manner so oppressive as to rise to the level of fraud,” wrote Roger Walter, attorney for 6Wak Land Investments, the partnership that owns the site.

The latest lawsuit was filed Friday afternoon in Douglas County District Court, but the case file wasn’t made public until Monday.

City officials did not comment Monday on the new challenge. But in court documents filed Friday on a related case, an attorney suggested 6Wak was filing so many lawsuits in the hope that just one will hit the mark.

The multiple lawsuits are “but an attempt by plaintiff to ‘hedge its bets’ that it will not succeed” with litigation, wrote Gordon Wells Jr., an attorney for Lathrop & Gage, the Overland Park law firm representing the city.

The new lawsuit only can add to the city’s costs in the Wal-Mart matter. City Hall disclosed Monday that its legal bills in the issue have climbed to $102,088 since court action started in May.

Wal-Mart and 6Wak — a partnership of Lawrence developers Bill Newsome and former City Commissioner Doug Compton — are both suing the city for its refusal to allow the proposed 132,000-square-foot store at the northwest corner of Sixth Street and Wakarusa Drive. The city argues that Wal-Mart is a department store prohibited by the site’s zoning. Wal-Mart and 6Wak say it is an allowable variety store.

video Judge: City officials must testify in lawsuits (1-24-04)text Wal-Mart pursuing officials’ testimony (1-20-04)text Wal-Mart bill nears $100,000 (1-7-04)text More about the Wal-Mart dispute

The latest lawsuit challenges the city’s decision to bill 6Wak $472,145 of the $1.04 million cost of improving Overland Drive, a road adjoining the 6Wak property. 6Wak officials say they shouldn’t have to pay the bill because the city hasn’t met its obligation under approved development plans to allow construction on the site.

The suit asks for a court order setting aside the bill until the city allows development at the site.

“It would be unconscionable, inequitable and unjust” if the city is allowed to bill 6Wak for the improvements, Walter wrote.

No hearing has been scheduled in the case.

Here’s a look at the six lawsuits filed against the city in the Wal-Mart matter:¢ 03C275, 6Wak v. City. In the first case, Judge Michael Malone ordered the city to provide a formal order rejecting building applications for Sixth Street and Wakarusa Drive. A hearing is scheduled for Feb. 19 on 6Wak’s request that the city pay $91,000 in legal fees for the case.¢ 03C339, 6Wak and Wal-Mart v. City. Challenges the city’s decision to reject building permits for Sixth Street and Wakarusa Drive. This case is pending; no hearings are scheduled.¢ 03C595, 6Wak and Wal-Mart v. Lawrence Board of Zoning Appeals. Challenges the board’s decision to uphold the city’s rejection of building permits for a Wal-Mart store. This case is pending; no hearings are scheduled.¢ 03C596, 6Wak v. Lawrence Board of Zoning Appeals. Challenges the board’s decision to uphold the city’s rejection of building permits for a restaurant with the Wal-Mart store. This case is pending; no hearings are scheduled.¢ 03C682, 6Wak v. City. Challenges city’s decision to bill 6Wak $421,622 for the costs of improving Congressional Drive, a road adjoining the 6Wak property. This case is pending; no hearings are scheduled.¢ 04C58, 6Wak v. City. Challenges the city’s decision to bill 6Wak $472,145 for the costs of improving Overland Drive, a road adjoining the 6Wak property. This case is pending; no hearings are scheduled.