advertisement
Forums

 

AAPL stock: Click Here

You are currently viewing the 'Friendly' Political Ranting forum
WalMart loses another battle
Posted by: RgrF
Date: January 17, 2006 10:32PM
Its not just small towns fighting national chains [forums.macresource.com] ,the San Fernando Valley just chased the latest WalMart venture out of town.

from the LATimes (in ite entirety; its a registration site)

[tinyurl.com]

From the Los Angeles Times
Wal-Mart Pulls the Plug on Valley Site
By Steve Hymon
Times Staff Writer

January 17, 2006

Retail behemoth Wal-Mart has dropped its plans to open a store in Northridge after deciding it did not want to conduct a lengthy environmental impact report demanded by neighbors and city officials.

Arkansas-based Wal-Mart Stores Inc. has been trying for a year to open a store in an existing building at Nordhoff Street and Tampa Avenue. Officials said that an environmental study for the more than 150,000-square-foot store in the San Fernando Valley would have been too costly and would have delayed the project by at least several months.

"The time it took to do the environmental impact report added to the time it would take to start construction and the economics of maintaining the land while going through this process was a factor," said Kevin McCall, spokesman for Wal-Mart in Southern California.

Two other Wal-Mart stores, in West Hills and Porter Ranch, are within several miles of the site. McCall said the purpose of the new store was to alleviate long lines at those two locations.

But the plan met with strong resistance from nearby residents and Los Angeles City Councilman Greig Smith, whose 12th District includes Northridge.

Wal-Mart "explained to me through their intermediary that as they analyzed this further, it wasn't worth it for them to go forward," Smith said. "It was surprising. I thought it was a foregone conclusion."

Residents and activists, who sometimes sparred with Smith over his commitment to opposing the project, applauded the retailer's decision.

"I'm not surprised that we won, I'm just surprised that Wal-Mart went this fast," said Jim Alger, president of the Northridge West Neighborhood Council. "This is what I think it came down to: The environment impact report had to include alternative uses for the property that have a less significant impact on the community."

Wal-Mart has had its share of success in Southern California, operating five stores in Los Angeles. But increasingly it has run into opposition from communities whose concerns about the company include its salary and benefit plans for employees and its effect on local businesses.

The Northridge project was unusual because Wal-Mart was moving into an existing building already zoned for large retail purposes. Also, Wal-Mart was not proposing to turn the store into a so-called supercenter, which sells groceries.

But the new store would have been surrounded by other businesses. Northridge Fashion Center is across the street and restaurants and retail strip centers abound.

That, combined with the store's location at an already busy intersection, was apparently the tipping point.

"I'm very pro-business, but for me, it was the wrong business in the wrong place" because of traffic, Smith said.

One city report suggested that a Wal-Mart store would have put an extra 5,000 cars on nearby streets each day.

McCall, the Wal-Mart spokesman, said his company would continue to seek potential sites in Los Angeles.

"We are always looking on how to best serve the community," he said. "We believe the Valley is a wonderful opportunity for retail, and we're always looking."







Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/17/2006 11:23PM by RgrF.
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: WalMart loses another battle
Posted by: Guitarman
Date: January 17, 2006 10:34PM
NYC chased Walmart away too by insisting that they unionize.



Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: WalMart loses another battle
Posted by: cbelt3
Date: January 17, 2006 10:54PM
Environmental Impact.. yeh.
"we pave paradise for our parking lot. But the REAL damage is done in China where our crap gets made !"
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: WalMart loses another battle
Posted by: Al Baby
Date: January 17, 2006 11:45PM

I have to run out to Walmart to grab a few things, I'll read this when I get back
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: WalMart loses another battle
Posted by: Mobygrape
Date: January 18, 2006 09:38AM
For years, liberal professionals have pushed concentrating
people in locations where all their shopping and residential
needs can be handled without a lot of travel. Now Walmart
has made it possible for people to do the bulk of their
shopping at one location so that they don't have to travel
to multiple locations to meet their needs. And the liberals
don't like the results of what they've asked for. It just
shows their short-sightedness and their lack in ability
of forward thinking.

Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: WalMart loses another battle
Posted by: Guitarman
Date: January 18, 2006 09:41AM
Yet another shakeman sockpuppet. will it ever end?



Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: WalMart loses another battle
Posted by: hwystar
Date: January 18, 2006 11:18AM
Guitarman Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Yet another shakeman sockpuppet. will it ever end?

My running count is up to 12 now, with 32 IP #s, and that is not including permutations of 'fil's handle. That is an awful lot of proxying up and registering to do for someone whose overt racist and homophobic posts make him instantly identifiable anyway.

You know what the psychologists say regarding homophobes being insecure about their own sexuality, and that is why they act out the way they do, it is all about shame over their own suppressed homosexual tendencies.

hwystar
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: WalMart loses another battle
Posted by: Greg the dogsitter
Date: January 18, 2006 12:43PM
A sincere congrats, RgrF.
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: WalMart loses another battle
Posted by: Guitarman
Date: January 18, 2006 01:06PM
hwystar Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Guitarman Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Yet another shakeman sockpuppet. will it ever
> end?
>
> My running count is up to 12 now, with 32 IP #s,
> and that is not including permutations of 'fil's
> handle. That is an awful lot of proxying up and
> registering to do for someone whose overt racist
> and homophobic posts make him instantly
> identifiable anyway.
>
> You know what the psychologists say regarding
> homophobes being insecure about their own
> sexuality, and that is why they act out the way
> they do, it is all about shame over their own
> suppressed homosexual tendencies.
>
> hwystar

I'm a little more worried about what the psychologists say about someone who has 12 different sockpuppets and uses 32 different IPs and proxies just to post to a webforum.




Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: WalMart loses another battle
Posted by: -jeffB
Date: January 18, 2006 03:05PM
Wow. It must be so strange to have a city council that actually considers traffic impact when making these decisions.

On the other hand, it also seems strange to hear Wal-Mart talking about moving into an existing building. Around here, the normal mode of operation is to bulldoze a few hundred acres for a new "supercenter" and parking, use it for ten years or so, then shutter it and bulldoze a few hundred more acres down the street for a NEW, IMPROVED "supercenter", which also happens to be across the street from a competing "supercenter".
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: WalMart loses another battle
Posted by: Marcos Malo
Date: January 18, 2006 05:13PM
-jeffB Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Wow. It must be so strange to have a city council
> that actually considers traffic impact when making
> these decisions.
>
> On the other hand, it also seems strange to hear
> Wal-Mart talking about moving into an existing
> building. Around here, the normal mode of
> operation is to bulldoze a few hundred acres for a
> new "supercenter" and parking, use it for ten
> years or so, then shutter it and bulldoze a few
> hundred more acres down the street for a NEW,
> IMPROVED "supercenter", which also happens to be
> across the street from a competing "supercenter".

Traffic is a huge problem in Los Angeles. Maybe insurmountable. And while there have been and continue to be improvements to public transportation, it is too little and too late.

Furthermore, real estate is real expensive in L.A. Walmart probably decided that it's not worth it to go the bulldozer route for the return the store could give them.






_____________________________________________
I think….
there….
4a.m.
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: WalMart loses another battle
Posted by: lafinfil
Date: January 18, 2006 05:41PM
Hey Brian - I have some of his first non-masked ips if you want them for your collection



Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: WalMart loses another battle
Posted by: Racer X
Date: January 18, 2006 07:07PM
"Two other Wal-Mart stores, in West Hills and Porter Ranch, are within several miles of the site. McCall said the purpose of the new store was to alleviate long lines at those two locations."

The very few times I have been forced to shop at a walmart (usually while on biusiness travel, and had essentially no option) I noticed that they had maybe up to several dozen registers. Maybe if they had more than 4 checkers working, and their combined IQ broke 200, the lines would be faster, and you wouldn't need the 3rd effing store!



********************************************
The police have no duty to respond. See Castle Rock v. Gonzales, 545 U.S. 748 (2005) or Warren v. District of Columbia[1] (444 A.2d. 1, D.C. Ct. of Ap. 1981)
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: WalMart loses another battle
Posted by: incognegro
Date: January 19, 2006 03:11PM



Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: WalMart loses another battle
Posted by: Macaficionado
Date: January 19, 2006 07:57PM
Unions:

"Walmart won't buy our shakedown"
Options:  Reply • Quote
Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.

Click here to login

Online Users

Guests: 158
Record Number of Users: 186 on February 20, 2020
Record Number of Guests: 5122 on October 03, 2020