DeKalb Zoning Board Passes Parking Variance for Suburban Plaza Walmart
Decatur Metro | December 14, 2011Scott is brief and to the point, but reports that the DeKalb Zoning Board of Appeals passed the parking variance for the Walmart redevelopment of Suburban Plaza. To quote Scott…
Variance passes.
Now, if you only really care about the end result, you should be good to go. Feel free to stick around, buy a t-shirt or see what kind of weird links are in the Morning Metro section today. But if you really want to get down into the weeds, Patch has a live blog of the event. Sounds like things got a little heated.
Decatur-wise, Patch reported that Decatur Heights ultimately took a neutral stance of the variance.
It also sounds like some of you all were there. If you were, please let us know us all about the beautiful democracy in action.
Rendering Photo courtesy of MANA
The most curious part was that the board was voting solely on a parking variance. Nothing else. If I recall, they made this point several times. Accordingly, those there in favor spoke about how they liked the idea of less unnecessary parking and how they supported the application. But when it got to the opponents, I don’t recall a single one who addressed parking. They talked about traffic, about small businesses getting killed and about Walmart being evil. Not a word about the subject of the vote.
It was almost as though they were intentionally handing the commissioners reasons to turn a deaf ear. Their most sensical effort was a push for a 90 day deferral but, even then, no one presented any information as to how an extra 90 days would change anything or make the reduction in parking any less appropriate. Weird stuff.
“The most curious part was that the board was voting solely on a parking variance.”
That’s all they were supposed to vote on. That point seems to have been lost on the opponents who were going to argue about parking, crime, etc. Absent the need for the variance, shovels could already be turning.
Also interesting was the point noted in Patch’s Twitter feed that the County Staff admitted the required number of parking places was high, much higher than surrounding jurisdictions. If DeKalb’s requirements were more in line with those, the variance never would have been required to begin with.
Aw, jeez. I should have been more clear. I meant it was curious that, even though the vote was on one single thing, that’s the one thing opponents failed to address. Not curious that there was just one thing. I’ve already commented ad nauseum about that.
I understood you, Scott. Just reinforcing the comment.
Watched the same thing happen at the zoning overlay meeting for Emory Village. At that meeting even the lawyer that spoke rambled on about lifestyle.
Somebody needs to do a handbook on how to press the buttons at these things. The ballot box is of course the best way but there’s usually a way to gum up the works if you look hard enough.
Oh and getting an expert to speak n your behalf doesn’t hurt. Government folks like to CYA alot so bringing somebody who might know more than they do makes them nervous. That’s how the developers do it.
It’s also really not over. If somebody wants to file an injunction based on say traffic issues or environmental concerns it could still put a fly in Sprawalmarts ointment.
That would be a tough fight. I guess you’d like to have the County spend your money on lawyers.
I’d rather se them spend it on that than some of the other things they do.
My guess is the opposition in this case does not have any money nor would they spend it on experts and lawyers.
Yay! Christmas has come early
I can’t wait to go to Wally World with my family.
Now if the community wants to have some positive impact on the development, let’s start pressing for a better looking design for the Walmart and the renovation.
I hope it bring in great retailers like Michaels and Home Goods!!!!! I think the whole project will be a great improvement for that corner!
Hello all. Scott seems to have a memory problem. People asked — as did members of the zoning board — for a delay in the vote because one cannot determine the number of parking spots needed until real traffic studies are conducted and Selig knows which stores will be in the center. Keep in mind Walmart is just one store that Selig hopes will go in.
Scott also seems to forget that the members voting violated DeKalb County rules of fair public notice since the two of the three hearing signs were illegible.
Scott, maybe you should ask Channel 2, who filmed the whole meeting, for a copy of their tape before you spread any more lies.
Once again, we’re talking past each other. Parking is established according to formulas — sometimes arbitrary, sometimes closely linked to real world performance. Actual lessees are irrelevant because the formulas are based on retail types, not retail tenants. Traffic studies examine existing traffic counts and whether or not surrounding roads will experience increased traffic counts as a result of the comings and goings expected for the applicant. This affects flow, not parking counts. Existing parking formulas already account for the customer draw associated with big box retail. Today’s vote was only on whether or not DeKalb’s 5.5 spaces per 1,000 square feet was necessary. Members of the board, along with any professional who works in retail, will tell you that it’s not. It’s excessive and only results in unnecessary asphalt. If you’re in the asphalt business, I guess that sounds good. Otherwise, it’s a pointless waste of resources.
Which is all to say, the examples you cite may seem like they’re germane to what was being voted on but they’re not. It is not my fault, nor am I lying, to point out that people looking to stop Walmart chose to be emotional rather than strategic.
And illegible signs? That’s really what this has come to?
“[Is] DeKalb’s 5.5 spaces per 1,000 square feet … necessary. Members of the board, along with any professional who works in retail, will tell you that it’s not. It’s excessive…”
A member of the County Staff admitted as much at the hearing
And to be clear, I don’t care for Walmart. I don’t agree with a number of their business practices and I don’t shop there. I was holding out hope that opponents would get a foothold and advised people involved to fight the good fight.
Opponents made choices as to how to frame their concerns. It brings me no pleasure that they missed the mark. It only surprised me, given the amount of discussion around the issue here and throughout the community.
Scott,
did any of Wal-Mart’s opponents speak to the actual issues? I wasn’t there and it’s been difficult to get a believable account of what actually happened.
I didn’t think so but I’m sure some of them would disagree with me, because they spoke about traffic studies and tried to tie them to parking. They also suggested that parking can’t be evaluated until the other actual tenants are known. So it’s sort of a toss-up.
Should Farm Burger not have received their certificate of occupancy until they opened and knew how much parking they would require, at which point they could have been made to build more? Doesn’t really work that way. We set parking requirements before development (or pre-leasing) occurs, not after.
In this case the county recognized that their parking requirement was inappropriate for the site, and recasting that reality based on opposition to a specific tenant would have set a dangerous precedent, eg, next someone’s blocking a mosque under the pretense of traffic and parking, and pinning their argument on “illegible signs”.
Victoria – you are right that most of the public that attended was in opposition, but I would argue that most of the public was misinformed about the nature of the hearing and their ability to influence its outcome based on issues unrelated to the parking requirement. I totally support that they tried, but the opportunity to rezone Suburban passed long ago. Furthermore, the developer in this case is a long time Dekalb County taxpayer, so the board shouldn’t have to apologize for working with them in good faith.
Spread lies! hello…where is the moderation? That is a personal attack if I’ve ever seen one…Totally uncalled for…
Agreed, but Scott can (and did) handle it.
Iheart, I’m a bit shocked.
You’re right. Sorry, Scott.
This is kind of a threadjack (although I’ll bet some thank me for it–how much weeping and wailing about Walmart can we stand in one month?)….I’ve been thinking about the whole moderation thing since it came up last week. Now I can’t remember who it was, but somebody suggested there might be value in not removing personal attacks and such, instead letting the posters be hoist with their own petards. I agree, at least to an extent, and was thinking it might be interesting if our esteemed moderator were to flag those comments but only remove the truly egregious ones. Guess it would add another dimension to the moderating, but what else does DM have to do all day? I seem to remember there’s a toddler in the picture, but they sleep a lot, right?
Hugely disagree. I may not want a moderator in every part of my life but I appreciate having one here. Besides, I think of a blog as someone’s living room where the contributors are the guests. The host gets to call the shots. If you don’t care for that kind of party, there are other parties or one could begin one’s own party. In a world of increasing incivility, I worship the people who try to keep it nice.
I was at the meeting. I agree with iheartnelliebelle- the majority of the public opposed to the development was in full force and voiced their concerns. Traffic and parking can’t really be separated, but the Chair of the board seemed to want to make that case.
A couple of the zoning board members requested a deferral to study an independently produced parking study – Selig offered their own, whose numbers cannot possibly be impartial. One member of the audience brought this to the attention of the board towards the end.
I’m both dismayed by the board’s decision and not encouraged by the process. I hope that in the future the board will show less deference to developers and more interest in the neighborhoods they represent.
+1
Do you really think that more parking spaces in your neighborhood would be a good thing? The opposition is going to find someone to do a study so they can say, “please build us a bigger parking lot so we can see more asphalt?” Reducing the number of parking spaces required is the right thing to do – for everyone. By fighting this variance you are fighting for more asphalt. Another route is necessary to “stop Wal-Mart.”
Warren, one step at a time.
Huh? Your first step is to ask for MORE parking from Selig/Wal-Mart? Then what? Ask for a coal-fired power plant to replace the bowling alley?
Btw, I don’t believe anyone asked for more asphalt. If you were there, you know people asked for a delay in the vote. If you were not there, you can see video coverage on WSB.
If you weren’t asking for MORE asphalt, then why were you at the meeting? That is what the meeting was about – a parking variance. I hope you can find a way to stop Wal-Mart, but the approach appears to be way off. And if what Davis says below is true, then it seems that the legs you may have been standing on are crumbling.
According to the board members parking and traffic are two separate issues which does not make any sense. I thought they’ve read and informed themselves, but most of them sounded like they had no idea. The chair of the committee kept asking for evidence and then said she remembered seeing it somewhere. She and others also could not find the development sketching Selig submitted among other stuff. Some of the members did not talk at all, and the one member who made a strong case for the deferral was shut out by the others.
The chair of the committee even mentioned that no one parks at the underground parking lot in Chamblee Walmart and people are driving in circles to find a parking spot. My guess is that this will be the same in Suburban Plaza.
I always park below at chamblee tucker when I go to Five Guys.
I got to admit that the underground parking at the Edgewood Shopping Center by Target scares me. It’s even more deserted and dangerous feeling than the DeKalb Country Courthouse parking deck late at night.
I use that underground parking all the time, especially if it’s pouring rain and in hot weather. Not once have I ever felt threatened or the least bit insecure or vulnerable. In that surface lot, on the other hand, I have been approached more than once by panhandlers (always in broad daylight) and once did feel the person was on the verge of becoming aggressive. And it was in the surface lot, not underground, where there was a running gun battle last year (or the year before?).
I thought it was the big Kroger parking lot that scared you.
Hey, I’ve lived in New York City and Los Angeles, had friends there who were car-jacked, mugged, and stabbed in their dorm room by a stranger. I’ve got urban reflexes, paranoid peripheral vision, and apprehension about empty or dimly lit under-peopled areas. There’s lots of places that make me nervous and I always make my walking and parking decisions based on what the safety folks have taught me–stay with well-lit, populated, areas, sit near the transit police and the conductor on the subway, etc. I was probably the only mother in Decatur who walked around with her heavy infant carrier prepared to swing it as a weapon if necessary. I don’t even like the upper lot of the high school parking lot at night!!!
I should add that the current Suburban Plaza upper parking lot isn’t the most reassuring at night either. But I rarely have any shopping there after dark since I mostly frequent Hancock Fabrics and rarely one of the discount stores. The bowling alley parking area doesn’t have that empty, deserted feeling.
People drive around in circles in parking lots because they don’t want to risk walking farther than they absolutely have to, not because there aren’t enough spaces. Publix at N. Decatur/Clairmont is a prime example. There are always empty spaces there, but people still drive round and round. And yet, it doesn’t cause traffic to back up on the adjacent streets. At the Big Kroger, on the other hand, the parking lot is such a vast wasteland–once you get more than 100 ft from the door–that people drive willy-nilly across the outer reaches. It’s a miracle there’s not a wreck there every other day.
I wish Big Kroger would put in more gas pumps in those spaces–they’ve got room and there is always a line at those pumps!
Ditto on this. Often the best gas prices around and the lines to prove it.
The county could require a certain amount of permeable or green space instead of parking. I’m sure Sprawalmart would have tried to get a variance for that instead of parking. All they wanted was to build one of their standard size stores with so many square feet so they could make so many dollars per sq ft. . I’m also sure that they won’t build if they can’t build a supercenter since they’re closing their smaller stores. They don’t do nuthin’ but big.
The community doesn’t matter to them no matter what they say only the dollars per sq ft.
Time will tell, but I don’t think this is going away.
Today, I witnessed one of the most shameful acts in a public meeting. A member of the board of directors of the church across the street from Suburban Plaza stood up to say that the church supported the application and thought that redevelopment would be good for the church and the surrounding community. As he returned to his seat, someone in the audience shouted to him, “You are no Christian.”
I believe most of the audience heard the comment and the Chair attempted to regain order. How low can people stoop? Several people nearby gasped at comment. What has happened to civil discourse? I did not think this would happen in our community. I am very disappointed. We need to have a conversation about our public behavior.
The ZBA made the right call. The ordinance regarding requests to reduce off-street parking allows only a very narrow set of criteria upon which the ZBA can make their decision. In this particular case, the only criteria that could be used was whether the character of use of the buildings (i.e.- the shopping center) required the full provision of the 5.5 spaces/1000 s.f. which the ordinance requires. For you lay people, it is generally accepted by retail real estate professionals, whether they be tenants or landlords, that approx. 4 spaces/1000 s.f. is sufficient. Selig’s request was only for slightly less, 3.9/1000. The opposition simply failed to do their homework. They should have spent less time designing and producing those stupid anti-Walmart stickers they were all wearing and spent more time crafting an argument that the 5.5 spaces/1000 s.f. was needed. It may be difficult to comprehend, but additional traffic generated has absolutely no correlation to the number of parking spaces needed. Even the DeKalb County planner stated as much by putting in his staff recommendation that the traffic study was not relevant to this case.
+1
I’m glad to see we have our own Selig rep.
So anyone that disagrees with you must be aligned with the evil empires? I guess he could have left the word “stupid” out, but other than that, it was a fair criticism. Did you want to dispute anything they said, or just take a pot shot because you did not get your way? It takes a lot of absurdity to get me to defend Walmart of all things, but the comments I have been seeing here are just so outlandish, that’s where I’m at. (Like your comment yesterday that Selig should donate Suburban and turn it into a park. Really???)
We’re not talking about razing a historic building and plopping in a Walmart, this is a space that can support this type of development. And clutch my pearls, look what’s happening!
Take a look at Victoria’s comment. She’s informed, paying attention and obviously done her research into things past. Now review your comments on the matter. See the difference?
I loathe the way money, politics and business work against average citizens, but no one is going to make any ground using some of the ridiculousness I have seen here on the matter.
I was talking about Steve not the original post. Here’s the thing. I sign my name to my posts but there are some folks here with a vested interest in these matters that don’t. Therefore it looks like they’re just average citizens making a point. They’re not, they’re shilling for what ever particular thing they’re trying to sell. Look at the patterns of response and you’ll see what I’m talking about.
I also don’t think a park is a bad idea. In the past it was normal for wealthy folks to donate things that reinforced civic pride.
So if you work the city or a developer and you’re proud of what you do sign your name here so we can see and praise…or damn.
For the record, I have nothing to do with Selig, DeKalb County government, I am not a developer or a lawyer and I resent any implication that I have a vested interest in the development or lack thereof.
The points I have been trying to make here, and Suburbanist, among others, also alluded to, are a) the variance was required in the first place because of an arbitrary, unsupported metric and if the metric had been more like similar figures in use other places and supported by 3rd parties, the variance never would have been required; the construction could begin as soon as plans are approved, and b) the sole issue being decided was the parking variance, not traffic, the reputation of WalMart, crime, or anything else. As has been brought up in many postings other than mine, the opponents totally missed that point and were arguing about un-arguable points.
This whole thing reminds me of the discussion, which I also brought up, surrounding the Agnes Scott parking deck 15 years ago. People of high integrity were demonized in that discourse and were called “homewreckers”. You know what? The neighborhood survived, the College continued to grow and everyone came out none the worse for wear.
People’s desire to remain anonymous does not mean they are shilling anything or have ulterior motives. IMO, it promotes an open and honest discussion and has many benefits. For example, if I knew you in real life, my opinion of you would change based on several of your comments, and not for the better.
Fortunately this country has a long history of people willing to sign their names to causes they believe in or it wouldn’t be here. In many ways Walmart represents a path I would rather not see our country go any further down.
As to you not liking me, well, I can actually be a pretty funny guy!
I am sure you are!
The rest of us have no way of knowing whether or not “David Hudson” is your real name, and I imagine most of us don’t really care.
“In the past it was normal for wealthy folks to donate things that reinforced civic pride.”
Do you have any examples of these folks demolishing functioning large income and tax generating businesses to do so? Perhaps it has happened, but I’m not familiar with it.
Next time, before you make the implication that people aren’t doing their part, maybe you could quickly use Google to find out a little more information about them.
There’s always room for improvement even if you are on the board of the much loved AAA parking company.
I hate rich people too…
http://www.jewishfederations.org/page.aspx?id=248719
Is your statement meant to be anti-semitic?
Too whom are you speaking?
Rebeccab made a comment about hating rich people then posted a link to philanthropic awards Steve Selig has received. I was confused about the connection and wanted clarification.
I think she was being facetious David and her sarcasm was aimed at me but if I’m wrong I’m sure she’ll tell me.
Thanks for the clarification. It is a reminder to me that the printed word doesn’t always express the emotion intended.
What David Hudson said.
Usually they just demolished low income neighborhoods.
I need someone to Give me a lesson in zoning. Selig is adding sq.ft. to Suburban Plaza. When the plaza was originally approved by zoning to be constructed, was it based on a specific built out sq.ft. or a maximum density on the lot?
Suburban Plaza may actually predate the adoption of the zoning ordinance by Dekalb Co. Regardless, if the zoning for the property contained conditions as to density or maximum square footage, the WM proposal fits within those requirements or they would need a variance.
I assumed they were under since there was no variance for it. I was just trying to figure out how zoning is structured.
The property is currently zoned for 800,000 sf and the parking to support it. What is the proposed plan? 300,000 +/- s.f.?
Asking the ZBOA to uphold their current parking requirements was at the time of the hearing, the only means to delay (or ultimately defeat) the development. Walmart will not spend the money to build an above ground deck to hold additional parking space, the rep said so at the hearing.
My criticism is that the board members could have deferred approval to review an independent parking study – Selig offered their own, hardly impartial. Traffic impact and parking – these have not yet had adequate review and both are related to the other. If it’s the case that Dekalb County does not currently factor both into its zoning for development, then the zoning should be changed.
More progressive cities/counties use both in determining parking spaces during development. See Berkeley, CA’s 2005 study for their Oxford Plaza redevelopment.
The fact that the board seemed confused about its own zoning requirements is troubling. A county appointed board should not offer approval based on the fact that they ‘have been talking about making changes to the parking variance’ in the future; ie, reducing the requirements.
Citing Farmburger as a comparison doesn’t compute – Walmart is a large development, not just one lot.
Thank you, Victoria. That’s what I was trying to say!!
Why should have the board deferred? The opposition had plenty of time to get their own, independent parking study done prior to the hearing.
@Suburbanist – the county should be responsible for the independent parking or traffic study, not the neighborhoods.
This is the way most municipalities usually respond – they request impact studies that are independent but paid for by the developer.
I also question whether sewer and/or water projects might not be required once the building begins. Another ‘issue’ that would be addressed in an EIS that wasn’t asked for by the county. (Environmental Impact Study)
I investigated the potential historic impact with the state’s reviewers long before yesterday’s meeting, who told me it was out of their purview unless the county roads became involved or if Federal funding were used. And what will happen now that the parking variance was the only thing standing between a yes and maybe? That’s why some of us thought more time should have been given to the entire process. This is not a small development.
I noted early on, perhaps in response to you, that no Historic EIS would be required, but that point apparently was ignored by the opponents also who insisted that, because of the “historic” nature of nearby neighborhoods (despite the fact that none were so designated), such a study was in order. The SHPO answered you correctly citing the same factors that I previously mentioned.
First, although this has been stated several times by many people today, the impact on traffic was NOT a factor in the parking variance. The hearing was based solely on whether the proposed parking was sufficient. The “entire process” was worked through when the property was initially zoned and you can’t demand it all be redone just b/c you don’t approve of what is going in there. The property is zoned for big box retail and that is exactly what Selig intends to use it for. Second, the impact studies are required in re-zonings or variances for such as things as increased density/square footage, changes in permitted uses, etc. The impact on roads, facilities etc. is already factored into the current zoning (or if it isn’t, that isn’t Selig’s fault or problem). If the existing water and sewer systems on the property are inadequate, this will be addressed by the permit office – they will not be able to obtain building permits if the plans are inadequate and they won’t be able to obtain a CO if the construction isn’t up to par. What will be the environmental impact (other than removing asbestos and huge increases in energy efficiency) from tearing down a 50 yr old building and tearing up a 50 yr old parking lot and replacing it with a new building and new asphalt. There will actually be more greenspace when they are done. Selig will have to comply with various environmental regs during construction.
@Steve, yes I understood about the lack of preservation for historic districts – there isn’t one designated and while both churches are over 50 years old and should be on the National Register, neither is.
Too bad there isn’t a strong historical society covering the immediate area. Another option for the residents to consider going forward.
My point above your last post is that the county could have requested an impact study based on traffic and parking. There simply isn’t enough information about how the development may impact the area’s traffic patterns that are directly tied to parking, no matter what was said at that meeting.
@Dawgfan, we don’t know the impact on parking because no study was done! That was Ms. Beyer’s point; not enough information. Yes legally, the variance was up to the discretion of the board members. If they had required it, the developer would have had to adhere to the current parking zoning and probably need to build an above ground deck. That would have resulted in the development either being delayed or not going through at all. But the board allowed the parking variance and exception.
Environmental impact can be more than simply tearing down old buildings, which are always ‘greener’ than new ones. You also have to factor in more of the populace from various areas driving to the megastores, creating more emissions, etc. Even older wooden windows can be made more efficient than new vinyl versions, and they last about 70 years longer. Unless the county required a LEEDS certified building with a lot of green buffer zones, the impact will be negative.
I think I’ll bow out of this conversation since I’ve said all that was on my mind. Grateful to all for a chance to debate and ponder these ‘developments’.
I like parking spaces. I usually find it helpful, when I want to visit a place of business, work, worship, play, or miscellaneous categorization, to leave my car (that I drive everywhere as there are few alternatives in this metro area for getting around) in a designated place. That way, I can be reasonably certain it will be there when I am finished with my businessing, working, praising, playing, and __________ing (fill in blank). Leaving the car running on the street has proven impractical.
I also would like, either very nearby or somewhere along my walk from said parking spot to my destination, the following: plenty of water fountains, adjacent sharrow lanes, a new owner for the Decatur Diner, a restaurant where singles and families can peacefully coexist, a nice green lawn on which leaves are both bagged and arranged neatly on the curb for pick up AND are blown into the street with a blower with the decibel level of a 777 (early in the morning), a school system where everyone is happy, and where I can enjoy the sight of dogs and cats sleeping together. I’m sure I missed a few things, but……HAPPY 2011 EVERYONE!
Well, I’m no fan of WalMart, but trying to stop them on a technicality was never going to work.
For folks in DeKalb County who are opposed to WalMart, this is a wake up call to get your zoning changed. WalMart’s business is built on (one could say, it exploits) the one-size-fits-all suburban sprawl zoning code that pervades this country. And not just WalMart, but all big box retailers have emerged from this zoning ecosystem.
DeKalb County is densely populated and highly developed. It’s a good time to get moving on zoning that is form based and mixed use, before any more dinosaur suburban development models are employed.
@TeeRuss- yes, I absolutely agree. We need to lobby to change our zoning.
Wow, just wow. How in the hell is WM “exploiting” the zoning code by doing something that is permitted by law? And please explain to me how WM is any different from any (and by any, I don’t mean just big box retailers – I mean Little Shop of Stories, clothing boutiques, non-chain restaurants and other stores which meet your approval) retailer or commercial establishment who opens its business in areas which are designated by ordinance. They have a desire (and profit motive) to open a store, look for a place which they believe will be a good location and buy/rent the property and open up shop. At some point, our beloved Intown Ace built its store on land which is zoned commercial, and there are residences right across the street. Was that exploitation? If the zoning ordinance was not in place, we may not have that Intown Ace. No offense, but I just think your bias is effecting your ability to think things through. Based on the clearly biased comments of half of the opponents of WM, if Trader Joe’s was moving in there, you would be applauding our system that allows an opportunity for such a “wonderful” company to open its doors in our community.
Dear DawgFan,
Settle down.
I used the term “exploit” because I’m talking about the nationalization of zoning codes, which provides big boxes with a consistent, national business model, rather than one requiring local variations and complexities. WalMart or Trader Joes would not have sprung up in a world in which every municipality had developed its zoning codes independently and thoughtfully. Neither would Woolworth’s decades ago, for that matter.
The process of zoning, yesterday and today, is rather more of a copy-and-paste, and so businesses can rely on a standard bricks-and-mortar template to expand nationally very easily.
All I was saying is that, if DeKalb County residents want to foster more independent businesses and resist big boxes more effectively, they need to rework their zoning. And as a self-governing municipality, they have the right to do this if they want.
Signed,
TeeRuss
Not a leftist, Trader Joe’s lover, or anything else you assumed.
No need to settle down as I am not upset at all. I was just surprised by the comment and your choice of the word “exploit” seemed like cheap sensationalism to me. I think David’s comment below pretty well sums up my point that all of this hatred is directed at WM, and not big box retailers generally. Not sure if you have seen the numerous threads about this, but in one of the firsts, there were a large number of posts which said they wanted Trader Joes or Whole Foods or Target. Noone was up in arms to stop those stores. I am not defending WM – but everyone is not thinking rationally, and, IMHO, that is counterproductive towards having some real concerns addressed. If people are able to see past their biases (including myself) and articulate real concerns, we might have some meaningful conversation. This was illustrated at the hearing yesterday – people had lots of concerns, just not about parking. Maybe pointing out those biases isn’t as constructive as I and others want it to be – in fact, it seems to have the opposite effect.
If the Trader Joe’s comment is off base, I apologize. But, I honestly would expect that response from many of the strongest opponents of WM if Trader Joe’s was opening a store there.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/exploit
ex·ploit2 [ik-sploit]
verb (used with object)
1.to utilize, especially for profit
It has other meanings and connotations, and I didn’t think (and still don’t) believe you chose the word “exploit” based on the literal meaning in your definition. If I am wrong, so be it.
Well you are wrong. And it looks like you want to be wrong, so I’ll leave you to it.
I re-read your post, and based on the way you put it “(or one could say, exploits)”, I am sticking with my original interpretation.
The opposition ‘shot itself in the foot’ with its off-message testimony and rudeness. Yes – I was there and witnessed some of the most disgusting behavior from those who were opposed. That ‘you’re no Christian/ sealed the opposition’s fate.
Indeed, another opponent ranted about government corruption – clearly insulting the Board’s integrity as she argued against Wal-Mart (not the parking ratio).
As for the Board members not listening to the one member’s call for deferral – she called for deferral for highly suspicious reasons. She simply ignored the evidence about parking space ratios at other shopping sites. One wonders why she is on the Board if she finds it so difficult to understand the issues. She rambled for many minutes and I finally concluded that she was masking her desire to undermine the project.
@David, I agree that some of the remark were unfortunate. However, I can’t subscribe to the idea that the board member who wanted to defer is less than informed or somehow ‘highly suspicious’. She was in fact, adhering to the current county standards on parking. The majority of the board gave the developers credence to their own data on parking ratios. An independent study would have been preferable and more fair.
Ms. Beyer was explaining her views and that this hearing was the first time most of the board members had a chance to review the neighborhoods’ conditions and requests. I for one, wish that we’d had more discussion about the topic, as she suggested several times. That hearing was also the first time that many of us ever got a chance to voice our concerns to county officials in a widely advertised meeting covered by the press.
Again, the parking variance was the only thing standing in the developers’ way. If it had been deferred or if they’d been made to adhere to the current variance there would probably be no development. In light of that, a deferral would have been a successful outcome for those of us who support local small business instead of big-box retail in an urban environment.
You’ve made very reasonable arguments that I happen to not agree with. Personally I don’t think it’s a victory to block someone from developing a legal use on land for which they have paid decades of property taxes. I respect that you feel otherwise.
p.s. how awesome is Farm Burger?
Victoria, why do you assume an “independent” parking study would have yielded a different suggestion?
I watched Wal-Mart move into my home town and undercut nearly every small business offering like products, including my parent’s business. I also watched Wal-Mart’s predatory purchasing policies bankrupt my brother’s wholesale business. So, I have personal reasons to dislike Wal-Mart. What I won’t do, however, is mask that dislike by using parking zoning to stop development of an eye sore of shopping center that sits in an unmanageable crossroads of streets with many acres of urban blight. The myth about local small business vs. big-box isn’t supported by all the calls for anchor stores like Whole Foods or Trader Joes. Those are not local businesses and certainly are large chains. While I would love to see a funky, small business-oriented shopping zone at Suburban Plaza what I cannot tolerate is Wal-Mart hatred that is driven by middle class snobbery. After all, a Wal-Mart may attract shoppers of lower classes.
Ms Beyer was unprofessional at the meeting. She rambled about not understanding and needing more time. The purpose of the Board she serves on is to deal with items like the special exception. If she, or others on the Board, didn’t understand one or more of the 8 conditions, they had the option not to accept the conditions and rule solely on the request for a lower parking ratio. Please don’t pretend those 8 items were issues. The option to approve only the initial request was as valid as the option of deferral. Ms. Beyer would have served the Board better by recusing herself.
Oh – by the way, the conditions werre not appended to the final approval of the special exception, anyway. The Board only voted on the exception as presented before the meeting.
Oh by the way. The board is appointed by the commissioners. Each commissioner gets to pick their very own member. It’s a good place to hide when you’ve got unpopular decisions to make.
Or a great way to take credit when a popular decision is made. I don’t think this decision is universally unpopular. I, for one, am glad we are getting a WM instead of a Target. My wife rarely steps foot in WM. I can’t tell you how much money she has spent at Target on things we “need”.
+1,000…dollars, that is!
If it’s popular they stand there and wave their hands saying look at me, metaphorically speaking of course. They don’t need nobody to take the praise just the heat. The board is expendable plus they don’t run for election.
@DawgFan – it’s never a good idea to allow a developer to control any study for impact, whether it’s environmental, traffic or parking. There’s plenty of research on the web to prove the point.
@David – My personal feelings about Walmart have nothing to do with class, although their wage structure suggests that the class they can support is only below poverty level. My concerns are with sustainability and economics. Beyond that, Walmart has terrible labor practices, does not provide adequate wages or healthcare to its workers, etc. Look at the AFL-CIO’s set of links on Walmart for more info.
And from my own experience serving for over five years on a historical commission in PA, I’ve seen developers make generous promises that often fall short after approval of their plans. So call me a healthy skeptic on all fronts.
I’m for smart urban growth, not sprawl. There are many economic studies pointing to small businesses generating more growth for local communities than big box retailers – but I don’t include Trader Joe’s or Whole Foods as local either.
However, I understand your viewpoint about the SPlaza not having much potential at this time. Too bad we don’t have the luxury of waiting out this tough economy. Stricter zoning would go a long way to solving these issues in the future and all of us would have a win-win on our hands the next round.
As for your complaints about the board member, I sit on the opposite side of that argument.
I’ve also seen developers sue a township to get their way, so I suspect the county was sensitive to that possibility.
It’s very rare that I’m speechless but the whole Walmart “discussion”, in this thread and others, has done it. I want to say something sarcastic and possibly even insulting but I don’t think I can top the words already spoken in apparent earnestness. So I’ll let Rodney Dangerfield do it for me since for some reason many of the comments just bring to mind this scene:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fj5k6toS7i8
It’s just too bad that Walmart wasn’t the ubiquitous presence it is today back in 1990:
Whoa! I just cut-and-pasted the links. Not sure how the second one embedded itself like that. Also not sure how I got this old, but the second link was actually from 1988, not 1990. Of course, Back To School was 1986 and remains one of the funniest movies of all time…
Walmart wasn’t ubiquitous back in 1990? I thought it was ubiquitous for much longer. Or maybe that was K-Mart?
I assume that Walmart must have been pretty big by 1990 but it was much more regional. Growing up in New Jersey I don’t think I ever even heard of Walmart until I went to college and a brand spanking new Walmart Supercenter had just opened. I’d imagine that if they made Rain Main five to ten years later, “Walmart Sucks!” would have entered the lexicon at that point!
I wish the market supported something there other than Walmart. Turns out it doesn’t, as I sincerely believe Selig would pursue a different strategy if they could make the numbers work. I have no dog in the fight, and don’t work for or represent Selig in any way.
I understand why some folks would want to derail this plan, even if it means taking up an argument that they probably wouldn’t otherwise support (rigid adherence to an obsolete parking requirement). My belief is that our civic responsibility lies in setting up rules of engagement that are transparent and to allow entrepreneurs who follow the process to invest in our community without obstruction. If the rules are too loose, shame on us, but I don’t think Selig is to blame for this situation.
Well said, Bo.
+1
Amen
Not a Walmart lover at all, I never shop there if I can avoid it (which I almost always can), and admittedly subscribe to the peculiar bias that Target, Trader’s, etc are somehow cooler and have more integrity. I shop local and American as much as possible. But rationally, I have to agree:
1. It’s a “suburban plaza” zoned for a big box store.
2. We have so many big box choices within a short drive. Anyone inclined to buy big-box over local is already doing so. And local shoppers are keeping the quality locals in business. It doesn’t seem likely that having another choice will hurt locals that haven’t already been hurt in this economy. There’s even a small chance the traffic increase would be mitigated somewhat by Decaturites not needing to drive quite as far to other nearby big boxes–that they’ve already decided to shop.
3. Arguing for more asphalt over underground parking seems counter-productive. The asphalt requirements reduced by yesterday’s zoning decision is potential green space we could reclaim from what’s there now.
4. Having the shoppers that WM will bring in should indeed lure some better/smaller marketers into the Plaza, resulting in a perceptual upgrade from the existing desolate strip–which if not upping our values, should hopefully not decrease them.
5. Our best efforts now may be to petition for the most green space and the most modern design we can secure.
Last comment I have on this and then I, too, am going to leave this one alone for a while. The county’s goal with property zoned for retail is to have it developed as retail, so that the county can collect more tax revenue. This doesn’t place the county “in bed” with developers, it means they’re carrying out the people’s will to have retail space at suburban plaza, and being fiscally prudent in doing so. And since WalMart – however abhorrent – has not yet been banned by the FTC, the ZBA had no business taking on a NIMBY stance here. I still don’t get why that shocks people. Totally different story if it was a rezoning.
To quote Alan Iverson: “We talkin bout parkin lots!”
Or to quote his mother: “Did Tawanna tell you that?!?”
For folks interested in the neighborhoods’ negotiations with Selig and Walmart and in listening to parts of Wed’s ZBOA hearing:
MANA’s posted on their website the MOA (form chosen by MANA and Selig) and the Conditions attached to Selig’s ZBOA request. The key reps for the surrounding neighborhoods greatly appreciate MANA for entering into the agreement on behalf of all of our neighborhoods, and we commend Selig and Walmart for being receptive to taking our neighborhoods’ concerns into account as they redevelop Suburban Plaza.
http://www.medlockpark.org/2011/12/approved-seligs-special-exception-to.html
Dave Kell is providing his excellent service to the community by supplying audio in his coverage of Wednesday’s hearing on his Greater Decatur blog: http://www.greaterdecaturga.com