There will be a very marginal increase in sales tax collections with whatever retail goes in at that intersection. But the question that needs to be asked, and this commission shows no inclination to do so, is whether those few tax dollars justify the traffic headaches that such development will undoubtedly create.

I agree with Sigmund-- let this go to trial. It might very well end up with Wal-Mart being allowed to put in a 200,000 sq. ft. supercenter, but the disaster that that would make out of NW Lawrence may be just the cautionary tale voters need so that commissioners who ignore zoning and planning documents as favors to their developer buddies (and political funders) don't get elected in the future.

I already decided to put my house in NW Lawrence on the market because of this. I'm looking, hard, for a new one, as far away from this end of town as I can get.

Disgusted with this city's government, so easily purchased by the half-dozen moneyed families who control this town.

There is another reason this needs to go to trial, even though I think WM would end up with the biggest store ever that way.

There is no way to avoid the appearance of impropriety if Sue Hack and Mike Dever vote on this issue - because of their business and financial relationships with Doug Compton, the landowner.

If there is a vote, Hack and Dever should refrain from voting. The development cabal still has the votes 2:1, so the outcome would be the same, but it would allow us citizens to believe there is no corruption in our city commission.

I'm looking forward to Liberal showing up, in hopes that he might finally answer my question which I've posed to him twice before. It's an important hypothetical question, and since I have to suck it up and accept the ruin of my neighborhood, his answer could make me feel better about the whole thing.

peppermint (Anonymous) says:

Liberal: Can you guarantee no party to any land use proposal would put any kind of pressure on any city commissioner that would affect that commissioner's pocketbook one way or another? I'm not talking about exercizing their right as a constituent to express a view and ask for the commissioner's support which is legal and ethical. I'm talking about adding money to the mix, one way or another. Can you guarantee that a commissioner would refrain from voting on an issue if such pressure or such a conflict of interest existed?

b3: Bingo!!

At this rate it would almost cost less to rebuild the High School elsewhere and let a business with good Lawrence potential purchase it. But that is a costly alternative nonetheless.

Gloom and Doom - The Sky is Falling - I guess I just have to move away. What a bunch of "whatever".

Depending on where your house is in NW Lawrence you should have known before you built or bought that corner was zoned for BIG commercial developement. (Maybe WM wasn't mentioned, but the zoning was there.)

I see even the Neighborhood President has a grasp of realiity, by admitting that area IS going to be developed with something. If the neighbors are truely concerned with traffic and safety the best way to deal with that is WORK WITH the developers and planners. Maybe they would have some say on traffic patterens. By stonewalling EVERYTHING they will have something forced down their throats by the courts.

We didn't sue Walmart, they sued us and being the largest retailer in the world it isn't surprising they would have the most legal cases pending. Following the law and allowing development isn't against Lawrence's broader interests, big business isn't defacto bad business, no one is forced to work for Walmart, and this isn't just about "jobs" as you simplistically suggest.

It's about allowing land owners to legitimately use their property in a lawful way. It's about capturing sales tax revenues being lost to the daily commuters who now shop in Topeka and KC because they don't want to waste the extra time and gas to get to south Iowa and then back home once they reach Lawrence. It's about increasing the value of the property and the amount of property taxes paid by the owner. Oh, yeah, and its about increasing the number of jobs and paychecks.

Don't you people ever tire of setting up simplistic straw men and then knocking them over? That is why this back and forth between the City and Newsome should cease immediately. Go to Court and have it decided one way or another. The things the opponents are asking of the Commission are beyond their legal authority or even capacity to deal with. Walmart either has the right to build based upon the law and zoning regulations or they don't.

In the next batch of zoning ordinances you can ask the city to include stuff like "only moral corporations shall be allowed to build" or "only businesses who don't cheat their employees shall be granted a permit." Good luck passing or enforcing that.

DaReekku - I cannot fault your statements about WalMart not being a good employer and the lawsuits againxt them. AND, I personnally do not shop there so I am not a supporter.

BUT - they were legally authorized and then the city tried to change the rules - they win. ALSO - you make a point about people in this town need jobs. I agree.

What I don't agree with is the idea that "shouldn't we strive for more?" That seems to be the problem for the last several years (not just the past commission) in that we want to be "classy" and pick what jobs come to town. We don't want "blue collar" jobs, we want "executive" jobs. That is exactly why Lawrence has lost out on several big companies moving here. Eagle Outfitter is the first to come to mind, but I know there have been others. When will this city realize that executive level jobs aren't neccessarily needed - those people have work. It is the people who can actually fill the positions the blue collar employers are looking for that NEED the jobs. Did anyone think that if we let some of these employers in town, it might actually draw the other "higher end" jobs too.???

They might actually see that the answer in not automatically NO.

shorttrees (Anonymous) says: "The question I would like to see answeres is "Why WalMart?" Why are Newsome and Compton so darn set on a WalMart?"

It's obvious that Newsome and Compton are planning to build Weapons of Mass Destruction secretly hidden within the shell of the proposed "Walmart". I can't believe Bush hasn't allocated troops to stop them. Or perhaps he too is on Newsome and Compton's side. We are indeed doomed. I'm moving to Iraq so I can get some sleep.

CAclarks (Anonymous) says: Did anyone notice that Walmart announced that it is going to cut back on expansion and devote more energy same-store sales?

How could they possibly accomplish this? Answer: Killl off even more of their competition.

There goes the neighborhood.

dthroat: BUT - they were legally authorized and then the city tried to change the rules - they win.

Not true. Much misinformation about this. Let a court decide.

FACTS - does anyone know (admit) them, or is this totally a situation where it is a big policy or opinion fight?

There may never be a solution that will please all sides - there rarely is any more. However, I think a lot of the vitriolic rhetoric being thrown around these days (on this issue and others) points to a grown lack of civility. Being passionate and involved is a good thing. Being mean-spirited, constanstly anger, and hurtful towards others with whom you disagree are signs of a sick society. We wonder why the world seems so full of hate and wars - and then act as if anyone (everyone) who doesn't agree with us 100% is sub-human. If this lack of civility continues to esculate, fights over whether to allow Walmarts in our neighborhood will seem silly in a few years; we'll be trying to scrounge up enough water or or food to stay alive!

Build a 200,000 foot store, now. No reason to sneak it in by enlarging the store every year. People won't believe it will be awful, & the traffic terrible, until they see it. The lazy voters who let this happen - who let an election be decided by a small part of the community, the realtors, developers and commuters - deserve this.

Governments become corrupt because people allow it.

justthefacts says "FACTS - does anyone know (admit) them, or is this totally a situation where it is a big policy or opinion fight?"

It is an opinion fight over whether the city acted legally in denying Walmart where a Home Depot was once approved, and whether Walmart is a department store. I don't see how it can be determined except in court.

This paper has not done a good job of informing the public. Today, for example, they don't bother to provide the facts on how the corner is currently zoned.

nformed (Anonymous) says:

Build the Wal-Mart! It will increase the sales tax revenue in town. How do I know? Because I shop out of town, where I work

You want them to build another walmart, even though you don't go to the one here but go to something out of town where you work. Planning to change jobs. point?

Blackwalnut - I totally agree this should be decided in court. As Sigmund said earlier there is no solution that everyone will like.

I have said repeatedly that this needs to be decided in court. I have followed this entire process fairly closely and truely believe that the city did screw this up and will lose, but I could be wrong. I would accept either decision, but I would like it to come from the court at this point.

Again, I am not a WM shopper or supporter, but believe they got "screwed" by city politics. I would love nothing more than to see Wildgen and Finger and Torres under oath about this. I might actually take off work so I can hear it first hand instead of relying on the JLW reporting.

dthroat: "I have said repeatedly that this needs to be decided in court. "

I agree and then both sides could more easily accept the outcome.

The city screwed up when they ever considered exceeding the 200,000 sf limit at the corner near the schools.

dthroat (Anonymous) says: Depending on where your house is in NW Lawrence you should have known before you built or bought that corner was zoned for BIG commercial developement.

Depending on WHEN you bought your house, you mean! The entire 4 corners was limited to 200,000 square ft.

Well, if nothing else, kudos to the propagandists at LJW for the picture that accompanied the article. The tight, colorful shot of the entrance to the 31rst Street Walmart, taken during the several minutes of sunshine in the last several weeks, sure conveys an uplifting image of the Wally World shopping experience, doesn't it? My experiences at the place usually involve several fun-filled minutes in the congested parking lot waiting behind the a quorum of the town's mentally deficient drivers as they practice their traffic calming exercise of trolling for that elusive parking space that will involve the least amount of walking for their cigarette-addled bodies. And I don't think I have ever seen the property without 10 or 20 plastic bags swirling around in the air. And, where's the surly 19 year old Topeka gangster wannabe and his obese 13 year old girlfriend hanging around the entrance? I don't think I have ever seen the entrance absent so much of the normal human waste. Yep, I have to hand it to the staff on this one, they actually make it look like a clean, upstanding place to shop, rather than the dingy, soul-damaging reality many of us know it to be.

So, let's even the score a bit with a little leftist propaganda from years past, that for some reason runs through my head every time I have to venture to the big W (what's up with so many bad connotations with W in the last 5-6 years?):

"Dear miners, they will slave you Until you can't work no more And what will you get for your labor But a dollar in the company store A tumbledown shack to live in Snow and rain pouring through the top And you have to pay the company rent And your payments never stop"

Walmart is nothing like the old company store, I am sure, many will howl. The edges, it is true, may be smoother, but go stand in any Walmart, open your eyes to see clearly and you can see how easily and quickly we could all be right back in that same old lot if the Walmarts of the world are given the free reign so many fools wish to give it.

EmJones : The "new" plan is for 100,000 s.f. The zoning states no single store can be more than 80,000 s.f. The zoning states no department store."

Unfortunately, the city classified Wal-mart as a "variety store" and May10 of 2003 the city stated;"Thus, officials reasoned, Wal-Mart is exempt from the prohibition."

I shop at Wal-Mart. I will continue to shop at Wal-Mart. However, I can't help but be put off by the fact that these developers just won't go away! Why do we even need another Wal-Mart in this town. What population is not being served by the present Wal-Mart. If you live on the eastside, southside or the westside, you can pretty much get to the Wal-Mart within 10 mins give or take.

I'm with Shorttrees on this one. I have never heard one legitimately sound reason as to why we need to build that Wal-Mart there? Why do we even need another Wal-Mart. The one we have is good enough. The parking stinks sometimes but that is because people don't want to walk a minute or two extra so everyone tries to park the closest to the store. There is plenty of parking space just no one uses it all.

I think the Lawrence community has been very vocal in its opposition to this store and the developers should really just go away or find another type of store. Yes, I know that is not going to happen but really I am getting a little sick of them trying to force this store down our throats.

Dena:0)

"Dena, I am sure that any other business that might have had an inkling to open a store at 6th & Wak has long since moved on to a community that is more friendly to retail."

or, to put it more accurately, to a community where a handful of 4 or 5 real estate developers does not control all deals in town and where they might just get a fair shake.

badbrainstorm (Anonymous) says: I think the city is trying to gain one of those "green" Walmarts. It would fit right in with the hippies down the road.

If you were well-informed you would know the WM at 31st and Iowa is a "green" Wal-Mart which means, apprently, some energy efficiency in the building (but ignores how un-green it is to ship materials to China and finished goods back again).

Do you breathe the same air the "hippies" breathe, and live in the same world?

You should be glad because

scott3460 said: "or, to put it more accurately, to a community where a handful of 4 or 5 real estate developers does not control all deals in town and where they might just get a fair shake."

Well put, Scott.

Liberal (Anonymous) says: Coneflower, can you guarantee that your past commissioners never took money under the table to squash Wal-Mart despite the fact WM followed all of Lawrences rules?

Of course not. How could I prove a negative? If you know something, cough it up. The public has a right to know.

(I'm trying to imagine who would have deeper pockets than Wal-Mart to give money under the table.)

Something Cool!!! Here's you something cool!!

I just hope and pray that the new Walmart plan will take into account the burgeoning community support for a Hooters as the in-store restaurant.

altarego,

I sure hope you get your Hooters! You seem like a nice person and you sure want it bad!!!

Blackwalnut!!! I knew you'd come around!!! Please to sign the petition when it comes your way.

Brugeoning, I say! BURGEONING!!!

altarego:

Have you written Hooters to ask them to bring a store here?

Honestly, I've never been to one, but I think with 30,000 college students it would make millions for its owners.

Wal-Mart doesn't want litigation?

Please...Wal-Mart loves litigation...because they know they have endless pockets for attorneys and court fees, and most of the people or communities that they're fighting don't.

They just don't like to be told no.

The new plan? That comes with a threat? Approve this one, or you'll be sorry?

Informed...you shop out of town now, where you work? Then you would probably continue to shop out of town, where you work, even if they build a new Wal-Mart. And what's the problem? You can't find the Wal-Mart that's already in Lawrence?