Quote: Councilman Tony Young, who joined the 5-3 majority, countered, “I have a vision for San Diego and that vision is about walkable, livable communities, not big, mega-structures that inhibit people’s lives.”
Great job Tony - sounds like San Diego’s on the right track.
Quote: “What the Council did tonight was social engineering, not good public policy,” Sainz said.
And what’s wrong with social engineering? We’ve engineered ourselves into mind numbing suburban sprawl. Cities large and small gleefully hand over cash and benefits to new Wal-Marts, allowing them to “engineer” competitors out of business and devastate the communities they’re in. Wretched wages and screwing the employees on overtime pay are just a few ways they’ve proven themselves as the white trash neighbor nobody wants around. Damn straight we “engineer” our communities back to a reasonable standard of shopping and living.
Article: San Diego to Ban Wal-Mart Supercenters
By ELLIOT SPAGAT
AP Business Writer
SAN DIEGO (AP) — The City Council here voted late Tuesday to ban certain giant retail stores, dealing a blow to Wal-Mart Stores Inc.’s potential to expand in the nation’s eighth-largest city.
The measure, approved on a 5-3 vote, prohibits stores of more than 90,000 square feet that use 10 percent of space to sell groceries and other merchandise that is not subject to sales tax. It takes aim at Wal-Mart Supercenter stores, which average 185,000 square feet and sell groceries.
Mayor Jerry Sanders will veto the ban if the Council reaffirms it on a second vote, which will likely happen in January, said mayoral spokesman Fred Sainz. The Council can override his veto with five votes.
“What the Council did tonight was social engineering, not good public policy,” Sainz said.
Supporters of the ban argued that Wal-Mart puts smaller competitors out of business, pays workers poorly, and contributes to traffic congestion and pollution. Opponents said the mega-retailer provides jobs and low prices and that a ban would limit consumer choice.
“Quite simply, I do not think it is the role of the San Diego City Council to dictate where families should buy their groceries,” said Councilman Kevin Faulconer, who opposed the ban.
Councilman Tony Young, who joined the 5-3 majority, countered, “I have a vision for San Diego and that vision is about walkable, livable communities, not big, mega-structures that inhibit people’s lives.”
Wal-Mart spokesman Kevin McCall said the Bentonville, Ark.-based company may consider a legal challenge or voter referendum if the measure becomes law.
“Certainly we’re disappointed but there’s still a number of steps left in this process,” he said. “We need to look at what our options are.”
The ban is modeled on a law in Turlock, a city of 70,000 people 85 miles southeast of San Francisco. Turlock prohibited big-box stores over 100,000 square feet that devote at least 5 percent of their space to groceries.
Wal-Mart recently dropped its challenge to the Turlock ordinance, which prevented it from building a planned 225,000-square-foot Supercenter store. In July, a federal judge in Fresno said Turlock’s zoning law did not infringe on the company’s constitutional rights. The state Supreme Court refused to hear the case.
Wal-Mart has about 2,000 Supercenter stores, including 21 in California, but none in the San Diego area. The retailer has 18 regular Wal-Mart stores in the San Diego area, including four within limits of the city of 1.3 million people.
Wal-Mart has not disclosed plans for a Supercenter store in San Diego area. Sainz, the mayoral spokesman, said the retailer probably wants to expand.
“It’s complete and total guesswork but I’m inclined they would,” Sainz said. “Everything I’ve seen and heard from them makes me think they would.”
San Diego’s move comes two months after the Chicago City Council failed to override Mayor Richard Daley’s veto of a so-called “living-wage” ordinance that would have required giant retailers to pay their workers higher wages.
Kudos to councilwoman Jeane Robbe for setting up this committee. However even though the scrape offs will continue, I DON’T see addressed issues regarding the NEW homes replacing the small bungalows: i.e. height of home and distance from property lines. These aspects tend to harm neighbors the most, when a brand new home is built too tall in relation to the other older homes, rather than low and flat.
Residents of the rural areas blasted the plan as a “land grab” and fought vigorously. Periodically following the story I witnessed one of the best examples of using the internet to harness local action, as residents along the 200 mile sparsely populated stretch came together making web pages, creating bulletin boards, organizing meetings, and frequently commuting to Denver in order to press lawmakers into opposing Colorado Bill HB1030, (which they did), preventing PRIVATE COMPANIES from steamrolling over the homes and property rights of these citizens. Search this story on the internet and you’ll find many homemade websites and blogs documenting individual’s correspondence with the developers and between each other. Seeing so many people from side a large geographical area come together and fight for a common cause is refreshing to see.
Here’s an excellent article by the Delaware News Journal about biking Denver. For a tourist sticking to the downtown sights and preferring to explore the outlying by area by trail rather than freeway this story shows it’s a great option.
Often a tiny house sitting on a large lot ISN’T in the best condition, and offers small and cramped living, (when families demand cavernous spaces). In that case I certainly feel there’s nothing wrong with constructing an appropriately sized house in relation to the scale of the others. However what I see every morning are large ranch homes in perfect condition simply leveled into pile of rubble. What calls for thought is the concept that our quest for huge interior living spaces has a higher value and priority on the actual community in which they stand.
I came across this “sidewalk marketing” story from 