... Wherein I Side With Wal-Mart
What happens when my instincts as a community planner clash with my instincts as a libertarian? In this case, the libertarian wins out.
The long and short of it is this: Wal-Mart has purchased (and now owns) 17-plus acres in the City of Hercules, California. It wants to convert the land - formerly blighted - into a "village concept" retail center, with a Wal-Mart as the anchor.
The city, however, historically had different ideas for the property, namely ideas more in keeping with the municipality's high-end "New Urbanist" image. Using this as a basis, the city council has voted to use eminent domain to take Wal-Mart's land. Presumably they will then hand over the land to a developer more suited to their wishes.
I am no fan of Wal-Mart, but this is nothing short of blackmail. Thanks to the absurd Kelo ruling, municipalities now feel empowered to claim private land simply because its use doesn't please them. In Hercules, the distinction is even smaller: they want to remove the legitimate private owner of the property because they fear what private ownership could mean. And that's horrible.
posted by Joshua @ 10:09 PM
6 Comments:
You've got to be kidding, Wal-Mart is nothing but the Evil Empire. Eminent domain is to keep value to a community, Wal-Mart would destroy the community.
To my anonymous friend,
As I said above, I am not a fan of Wal-Mart. In fact, I can count on one hand the times I have bought anything from them. So trust me, there's no love lost there.
But what Hercules is doing is wrong, regardless. I would have supported them if they had passed a planning ordinance banning all "big box" development, even those stores that use the village concept.
That's not what they did, is it? They had planning rules that stated development had to be of a certain sort. So Wal-Mart legally purchased the land and tailored their development to those rules. Hercules then decided that the very presence of a Wal-Mart would attract the 'wrong sort of people,' so it moved to take the land... so it could put the exact same concept in place without the Wal-Mart name.
I take strenuous issue with your idea that "eminent domain is to keep value to a community," as well. Eminent domain is for public use only, not mere beautification for upper middle-class taste. Justice Clarence Thomas, in commenting on the use of eminent domain in the inner cities, remarked "Urban Renewal is Negro Removal." That is, given the power to 'beautify' a community by simply taking the land of the poor or disenfranchised (or the land of their discount retail centers), the well-heeled will not hesitate.
This is why we have (had?) things like the Bill of Rights and we hold (held?) everyone to the same standard by them. If the law is bent for one group, even in the best motives, a better-organized group will quickly learn to profit by the bending to a far greater degree. We're now seeing it with Wal-Mart. What next? Which well-organized group of elites will seek to dispossess whom and on what basis? Either private property is a right for everyone - horrible Wal-Mart included - or it's a right for no one.
I have to agree here. While I am no fan of wal-mart I do believe that basically Hercules is, to use the obvious pun, strong-arming them. The only appropriate response I can come up with is that they take a moment to imagine their response in the face of tribes of Native Americans saying: "Hey, you know, we decided, we think you attract the wrong sort of people. So, uh, it's been nice, but we want the land back."
I've got to applaud the intent of Hercules, but not the way in which they carried it out. Targeted legislation is an earmark of tyranny, and while I doubt Hercules has any likelihood of producing nlocal warlords, there's a reason we don't allow that sort of thing in a free country.
That said, I still understand why they did what they did. They attempted to keep Walmart out with vague, untargeted resolutions, only to find that Walmart worked their way around them. So sure, you can say that Walmart beat the system, but the community still didn't want them there. So while the misapplication of Emminent Domain was beautifully equal-and-oppostie to New London's misapplication, and was indeed legally sketchy, it was in the community's interest. Still, I agree with Tac that if they didn't want big box stores they should have just specified so. Crested Butte, CO, for instance, has some of the strictest land-use regulations in the U.S. Not only could Walmart never set foot there, but neither could McDonalds, no matter how tastefully done. In fact, the rules are a spiderweb of specifics keeping any Corporation or franchise-chain from owning land in the town proper, and it's worked. If that's what Hercules wants, then they should make a point to make it legal.
My favorite example of stringent zoning is Montpelier, Vt, where there are no franchise-chains allowed in the city limits.
Next-door Barre, however, does allow them. So if you're driving Route 2 West into town, you see a very small sign that says "McDonald's, Route 302, Barre." The sign is so (purposefully) small that it's like a secret code to knowing people. As in, "Psssst... kid! McDonald's is that way... yeah, that's right." I chuckle every time!
Hercules is trying to use eminent domain to get away from its sloppy land-use planning. It didn't ban all 'big-box' development, so here it comes! Wal-Mart even tailored their plans to the community's design standards so the store looks aesthetically in-place, but that's not enough for the Herucleans.
But if what they want is beyond the scope of their current laws, well, they should change them!
Interesting website with a lot of resources and detailed explanations.
»
Post a Comment
<< Home