A Douglas County District Court judge has ruled that a full-blown trial is needed to determine whether developers should be allowed to build a Wal-Mart at Sixth Street and Wakarusa Drive.
In a ruling made public this morning, Judge Michael Malone refused to rule in the city's favor on a motion that would have ended the case without a trial. Developers also had asked Malone to issue a "summary judgment" in the case, which would have allowed them to pull a building permit for the project without a trial. He refused to do that also.
Instead, Malone said that there were enough questions in the case that it should be decided at trial. No trial date has been set yet.
"We're looking forward to going to trial," said Bill Newsome, a partner in the property's ownership group, 6Wak Land Investments.
City officials said they also were looking forward to the additional proceedings. That's in part because Malone ruled in favor of the city on one issue. Wal-Mart and 6Wak attorneys had argued that the city's Board of Zoning Appeals had denied developers their due process when the Board of Zoning Appeals upheld a previous city decision to deny a building permit for the store. Malone said that argument was not supported by previous case law and dismissed it.
A date for the trial has not yet been set, and it was not immediately clear whether the trial would be decided by a jury or a judge.
Wal-Mart
More about Wal-Mart at 6th and Wakarusa
- Documents
- Joint statment about Wal-Mart lawsuit
- Stories
- Wal-Mart back, with bigger request (10-28-06)
- Wal-Mart question up for city approval (10-23-06)
- Wal-Mart proposal hits another roadblock (09-01-06)
- Planning Commission split on proposed Wal-Mart (08-31-06)
- City gateway taking shape (08-19-06)
- Wal-Mart reveals design for Sixth Street location (08-15-06)
- More stories in our Wal-Mart on Wakarusa section »
Comments
LJWorld.com doesn’t necessarily condone the comments here, nor does it review every post. Read our full policy. Also, read about banned accounts and harassing comments.
chic (anonymous) says…
Yay!!! I hope they win. There is nothing even remotely resembling a discount or department store over on this side of town. I hate having to drive clear across town to Walmart, Target, etc. There should be something over on this side!!!!
merrill (anonymous) says…
Wal-Mart on the brain. Hey bring on COSTCO cuz they pay employees good wages and benefits. That means the rest of us would not need to pick up the cost of their medical needs. It also means COSTCO employees would spend more money thus creating new revenue for our community. I say put a COSTCO in SE Lawrence off K-10. YES!
princess (anonymous) says…
Why on earth would you want to ruin Lawrence with giant box stores and other bland urban sprawl?
mandark (anonymous) says…
Does Lawrence really need another Wally World? Isn't one enough? The inconvenience of driving across town is NOT a very compelling argument in support of another sprawling store. The people of Lawrence should welcome companies with a reputation of building good working environments for their employees, a livable wage with proper benefits, appropriate overtime compensation, and last but not least, a company that doesn't steer their employees away from unions. I agree with Malone's decision. If you want to learn a thing or two about the Wal-Mart corporation, read "Nickel and Dimed" by Barbara Ehrenreich.
lunacydetector (anonymous) says…
i think Target would fair better with the people of nw lawrence. however, there needs to be some sort of discounter on the nw part of town, walmart or whoever. just imagine the savings to the environment by preventing pollution if there was one on the nw part of town. also, the rich folk who live over there will shop there. that is why they are rich. have you ever met a rich person who wasn't cheap? they're all tight with a dime. how else could they afford that $7,000 a month mortgage payment?
princess (anonymous) says…
Why have another Taget either? Lawrence isn't big enough to need two of them imho.
Keep Lawrence the way that it is. You give up the fight and let Walmart in with a super store and it is a snowball effect. Don't let them win. Lawrence is an rare gem. Polish it and protect it baby!
kuhusker (anonymous) says…
There's room for a second Wal-Mart; the issue is where it is being built. It should NOT go at 6th and Wakarusa because that area is not zoned for it. They should build it at 6th and K-10, about a mile west, which (I think) is zoned properly.
mandark (anonymous) says…
Just because there is space for a superstore does not justify building it, and whether or not it is properly zoned, is beside the point. During the last 20 years, Wal-Mart has moved into communities and destroyed them, wiping out stores, slashing the tax base, and turning downtown areas into ghost towns. This is accomplished through Wal-Mart's policy of paying workers below subsistence wages, and importing goods that have been produced under slave-labor conditions overseas. Sometimes communities will even give Wal-Mart tax incentives. Many stores, which unlike Wal-Mart, did not get tax breaks, are now closed. Do the residents of Lawrence really need another one-stop-shop superstore?
princess (anonymous) says…
Wait a minute....they are already expanding the current store remember?
http://www2.ljworld.com/news/2005/feb...
Now you will be REALLY hard pressed to convince me that another one is needed. No freakin' way!
I mean good grief, there is convenience and then there is ...well what you are proposing.
Sorry don't buy it.
Also on the B&J's ice cream tip. Boycott.
Support local business!!
gccs14r (anonymous) says…
Wal-Mart should lose its Federal Tax ID and have to liquidate its U.S. operations. The Waltons have already done irreparable harm to this country.
lunacydetector (anonymous) says…
one thing that everyone seems to forget, walmart as well as any other retailer that wants to come to town has done extensive market research that supports their decision to make a move or expansion in lawrence. they are held accountable to their stockholders, so they need the evidence to back up their decisions.
like it or not, walmart or some other discounter will be coming to lawrence on the northwest part of town. it WILL happen eventually. someone wrote that walmart didn't have proper zoning - i believe this to be incorrect information. the big buggaboo they ran into is they wanted to build a store much larger than what they originally intended. why is that? because their market research said a larger store was justified and most likely profitable (you think?).
the city defines variety store and department store totally different than the acceptable standards that every other community in the united states recognizes. walmart will win the lawsuit. the city and the taxpayers will take it on the chin. the thing i don't like is the taxpayers will be taking it on the chin, because a few people (relatively speaking) gathered enough support to get their anti-corporate america candidates elected. all under the guise of being progressive.
perhaps a study should be done on how being anti-growth hurts a community. just to be fair and impartial. you think that would ever happen with our city commissioners? forget about it - that would be a study they would never approve.
Wilbur_Nether (anonymous) says…
The issue here is not whether Lawrence "needs" or should/shouldn't have another Wal-Mart. The question the decided in the trial will be which is more important in our fair State: the property rights of the owners to do as they wish with their property vs. the municipal interest in managing its growth.
merrill (anonymous) says…
Wal- Mart as has been said before is not a good company which is why I refuse to shop there. Living without Wal-Mart will not take you to bankruptcy. Not only that I discovered that sometimes their low prices might only be a nickle or half dollar difference. Not enough for me to drive to the other side of down. Anything they have can be found elsewhere and I prefer to support locally owned business who keep their money in local financial institutions.
The fact that they screw their suppliers is really bad.
Taxpayers should have something to say about growth since our tax dollars are involved. We don't need companies who offer undesirable pay packages as that is not in the best interest of the community. Some people who become wealthy expect rules to be broken so they can do whatever they damn well please. That also is not in the best interest of the community. People who make more money spend more money which is good for local revenue to keep taxes in check. Wal-Mart sweat shops we can live better without.
Wal-Mart does not support public schools...why shop there?
Wilbur_Nether (anonymous) says…
Merrill, the city should consider retaining you to advise their counsel on argumentation.
The reverse argument will be over the right of property owners to use their property in the way they see best. They will ask that the court determine that the city is unreasonably infringing on their property rights. They will argue that the city infringed on those property rights by zoning Wal-Mart out AFTER it became obvious that Wal-Mart was interested--thus restricting Wal-Mart's ability to trade and, again, devaluing the property and interfering with the owners' ability to profit from their investment.
TruthSeeker (anonymous) says…
Wilbur, if property owners use their property in the way they see best then how are we to regulate someone storing garbage in their front yard for all to see? Wal-Mart is offensive to look at if it is near where you have to live or travel. Offensive in its giant heat engine parking lots. Offensive in what it represents as a giant corporation that mistreats its employees. Offensive because of the traffic-overburden generated on the poorly built 6th street remodel.
I am a taxpayer and I have to pay for the installation of the roads, water supply lines, sewage hookup of this development so that the property owners can get a nice profit for themselves.
The propery owners do have to answer to the city because we the city have to foot the bill on the impact it will have on the community.
To this I say NO to Wal-Mart and we should reserve this site for a corporation that will care about its employees and its IMPACT on us the community.
Wilbur_Nether (anonymous) says…
Please understand, I'm not taking sides. I'm just trying to figure out the issues: in our city government, which is more important to us--the property rights or the city's responsibility to manage its growth. Both are valid positions. As TruthSeeker points out, there is some regulation allowed and accepted for the public good. (As a general rule, the "eyesore" statutes have less to do with whether we can see the owner's garbage than the public health hazards such as attracting vermin and with the effect...once again...on the property values of the surrounding property owners.)