Opponents of the proposed 85th Street Walmart on the south edge of Sioux Falls have announced a petition drive to refer the city's necessary rezoning decision to a public vote.
The Save Our Neighborhood folks take little interest in the economic arguments against Walmart. "This isn't about Walmart," said Save Our Neighborhood organizer Dana Palmer at Tuesday's city council meeting. Save Our Neighborhood thinks the proposed north-side Walmart is hunky-dory. They are more worried about the view from and value of their nice single-family homes. They also express reasonable alarm that the proposed 85th Street Walmart is larger, less safe, and more prone to traffic congestion than the 69th and Cliff Walmart that the city council rejected. This fight is about zoning, not economics.
We thus can't count on the south-side petitioners to counter the more-jobs hokum Walmart will peddle. (250 new jobs, Walmart's director of real estate Brian Cutting claims.) But remember: Walmart wants to kill jobs. Their business model depends on it:
Contrary to the happy talk, Walmart does notcreate jobs. Actually, it kills them.
Here’s why: first, at the local level, all Walmart does is put mom-and-pop stores out of business. The overwhelming body of evidence, including the most rigorous peer-reviewed studies, suggests that when Walmart enters a community, the most likely result is a net loss of jobs; at best, it’s a wash....
The devastating impact Walmart has had on jobs becomes most clear when you go macro, and look at its impact not just locally, but on the national economy. In its relentless quest for low prices, Walmart strong-arms its suppliers to cut labor costs to the bone. What this has meant in practice is that many suppliers have been forced to lay off workers and ship jobs to low-wage countries overseas. Because of Walmart, countless jobs in the U.S. have been lost, mostly in manufacturing.
...when Walmart comes to town, significantly more local retail jobs are destroyed than created. And to the extent Walmart grows and is empowered, even more manufacturing jobs will be lost. If Walmart’s fans understood its anti-worker business model, they would get this. Walmart’s philosophy requires cutting labor costs to a bare minimum, so it makes sense that the company would not only pay workers miserable wages, but also shred as many jobs as possible [Karen Geier, "No, Walmart Doesn't Create Jobs," Washington Monthly: Political Animal, 2013.08.10].
South Dakota invites and embraces employers with anti-worker business models. Evidently so does Save Our Neighborhood, as it chooses to fry other fish in its very literal NIMBY fight against the 85th Street Walmart.
these people just don't want the type of "clientele" that a Walmart will attract
Four Wal Marts in Sioux Falls? This tells me wages must be pretty low in the area to support that many discount stores in a town that size.
Owen,
Please step a little further back. These are single family residential houses. Sioux Falls City Planning allowed for them to be built and then sold a big box store with a massive store footprint that is open 24 hours the idea that it was perfectly allowable for them build there. Buffering and decent city planning would allow first single family residential, high density housing, light commercial, THEN big box would be appropriate.
Why? One speculation is that if Walmart were to build just a little further south, Harrisburg would get the taxes, not Sioux Falls.
There are more appropriate locations for a fourth Walmart or any other kind of big box store that would fit more appropriately. Locations that will have traffic, that the city didn't allow single family residential to build on yet.
Invest $300,000 + in your home and then wave in big box commercial with all the traffic, shipping trucks, etc. across the street? Think that will be safe for your kids? Think that will maintain your property value?
The houses that are up for sale at that location -- and plenty put their houses on the market after the city and Walmart announced their intentions for that land. They aren't moving. Asking prices are dropping and still no movement.
If the city is willing to salivate over changing zoning to entice a third or fourth Walmart, what is to say they aren't willing to make those zoning changes on other residents as well?
I am collecting signatures and helping SON fight this battle. I live a neighborhood over, and feel for these homeowners. Personally, I don't shop at Walmart because of it's corporate model. I think we pay for those "low, low prices" in spades. There are WinCo groceries, CostCo, Trader Joes models of treating their employees with a higher wage and benefits that are enjoying great success. Sioux Falls can do better than draw low wage jobs into the area. We have too many working two or three jobs on low wages.
Those people also knew that there is a new freeway going around the city coming in there some day also. That will bring more traffic than a walmart. They also built were the city is growing which means that they will not be choosing their neighbors. There neighbors will be choosing them.
Do I like what walmart does to the economy, NO. Do I like the way they treat their employees since Sam Walton died, NO. Are they going to do well after the economy gets better. Probably not. Unless we are in for a long era of low paying jobs in this conservative era.
But to build a new house where a freeway and retail will eventually come, just because they like the look of a peaceful cornfield when they built is just not using foresight at all.
Jackie, I recognize the validity of the neighborhood's concerns. The comparison to the rejected 69th and Cliff Walmart seems particularly compelling. If Sioux Falls is worried about losing those tax dollars to Harrisburg, Sioux Falls should get tough and annex Harrisburg, not improperly rezone to the detriment of current homeowners who invested and built under different circumstances.
Alas, neither the city nor Save Our Neighborhood is inclined to lead the larger conversation about the harm Walmart does to the local economy. If you gather enough signatures, it will be interesting to see if any opposition coalesces around the economic justice issue and how the city and SON will respond to it.
Jackie - please step back even a little from where you are; to where the property/area was when the SON members' homes were originally zoned. They are zoned for multi-family residential - even though the developer CHOSE to build single family there - as allowed by the zoning ordinances, and the purchasers CHOSE to buy them from said developer. But even before then - by at LEAST 10 years, the city's comprehensive plan, combined with the state DOT's plans for Minnesota avenue expansion, SD 100, and the city's plans for 85th to be a 4 lane divided major arterial street SHOULD have clued the SON folks into the idea that the land to the South of them - on the other side of that 4-lane divided major arterial they CHOSE to build there homes on - would some day be a major commercial development.
Corey - this is NOT about zoning. It is about a couple of stay-at-home mom law school grads having FAILED to look into the future plans for the neighborhood BEFORE they CHOSE to build there. Now they want to change the city's entire planning process in order to accommodate their own slack approach to home-building/buying. Further, the city of Sioux Falls did NOT "improperly" rezone the land. That has already been born out in court when SON's lawsuit making that claim was rejected. The rezoning process was proper, and the use it was rezoned to is consistent with the comprehensive plan.
I have no love for Walmart myself - never shop there - but SONs arguments/positions are all spurious and an great example of pure NIMBYism in action.
Tell me - does anyone seriously imagine that the development planning process ought to be done by city-wide referendum? How about by "neighborhood" referendum? Do you think that if you want to build an addition onto your home you should have to put it up to a vote of everyone that lives within 1/4 mile of you? If you want to plant a vegetable garden, should you have to get written permission from your neighbors?
Apparently it is terrible if Stay at home moms make a mistake about original zoning plans (which could be changed to reflect current reality as well), but never a mention when somebody like Marion Michael Rounds builds a house a few inches above the Missouri River and then whines like a puppy with a sore foot when his house floods.
I think SON should only be allowed to collect these signatures in their neighborhood. They are the only people involved with it. I also get annoyed with the remarks people make about the WalMart clientele. I shop at the westside store on a weekly basis and spend a fair amount of time sitting in the lobby waiting for a cab to bring me home. I see Hummers, Escalades, regular Caddies, etc. in the parking lot, and also see some extremely well dressed people coming and going. You can't tell me these people are low income people.
Well said Mr. Schriever!
Cory, this is a perpetuation of the myth this battle in Sioux Falls is class / economic, as in Walmart = NIMBY. While Walmart is not an attractive neighbor it really does come down to zoning.
.
We have a developer with special connections in city hall being hired by Walmart to find a spot to put their new store. City hall, to collect taxes, fees and bragging rights with the encouragement of the well connected developer changes a longstanding zoning designation.
.
The longstanding zoning designation was for a small retail building development due to many natural and man-made constraints. These issues have not been dealt with on the part of the city, Walmart or developer. At the recent city council meeting the state highway engineer stated the property would not get enough access points due to it bad location, less than 1/4 mile from the new SD100 highway.
.
Now Richard and others discuss the neighbors buying property and houses knowing there would be a retail / commercial district across the street. Yes they did know there would be one. The size they had been told would be allowed was to be a series of smaller buildings, most doing retail business 12 hours a day not 24 / 7.
.
There are many class comments being made, Caddies, Hummers and the like park in their lots. Who cares? Several are perpetuating a myth only the poor and destitute shop at Walmart. It has become a primary place to shop for many because of the near monopoly in may items. So all income levels use Walmart.
.
This is an issue of importance for the city residents and not just those at 85th and Minnesota Ave. Sioux Falls city government has a problem of making special deals and breaking their own charter at the drop of the hat. This is a reaction to a system out of control.
.
Yes this is a middle-class neighborhood but its not against Walmart being Walmart. This will happen in any neighborhood in Sioux Falls if not controlled.
.
This is fairness and propriety. Nothing more, nothing less. This is not fighting Walmart, it is fighting an out of control city hall.
Testor15, you are completely wrong. Walmart did not hire a local "connected" developer to find this location. The local developer involved in the project represents the seller, and has for some time on this and other pieces of land. In addition, there was no "long standing zoning" for small retail at this site. It 2009, it was designated as a Subregional Employment Center (one step below the largest designation of Regional), which is designed for exactly this type of development. The first city zoning took place just last week. And the neighbors were never told it would only be a "series of smaller buildings". And this will NOT happen in every neighborhood- just look at 69th & Cliff as an example (where Walmart was told "no" just over 1 year ago).
JonJS, you seem to be confused by what is 69th and Minnesota type development of .5 to 1 acre sized buildings versus one 4.5 acre building sitting on the same land. there in lays the problem in this discussion. No one seems to understand what the difference is when it comes to scale.
.
You better take a look at who Walmart is working with before you decide they do not have a well connected developer on their team. The land owner also has a team of well connecteds making sure the deal gets doen. There is a lot of money involved. So the neighborhood be damned in this discussion when the right people are pushing the money around under and on the table.
I can list a million reasons why I dislike Walmart, but the fact remains that no property owner should be allowed to turn to their neighbor and tell him or her what they can do with their own property.
I live in this neighborhood after moving back to Sioux Falls from Madison. Picked it because it was out of the hustle of town and its quiet and relaxed. As soon as they build this it'll no longer be that way.
Like I said, can list a million reasons why I don't shop at Walmart, or why I do not like this idea. But the fact remains, I would never want my neighbor to ever tell me what I can or cannot do with the property I own.
There Are Several Legal , relevant And applicable Reasons This Attempt To Harm A Neighborhood Should Fail. None Of Them Being Mentors In Your Post.
Casey, I'm curious: isn't zoning exactly that, telling your neighbors what they can and cannot do on their property? Do you reject the entire concept of zoning?
Either we have zoning to protect neighborhoods or we don't. Zoning isn't in place to just protect the wishes of the city and their friends. It is in place to give all an equal footing when buying and protecting their property.
.
This zoning referendum has nothing to do with the name on the store front but the changing of zoning rules to fit a group of developers wishes.
"The size they had been told would be allowed was to be a series of smaller buildings, most doing retail business 12 hours a day not 24 / 7."
Did they happen to check on this in writing or did they take the word of someone? Also, is there different zoning for 12 hour retail and 24 hour retail? I always thought both were covered under commercial.
"But here’s the catch: 3.5 percent unemployment is actually, if you ask economists, too low. There isn’t enough turnover between jobs and companies can’t find the employees they need. In fact, local business leaders in Sioux Falls say that when they work to woo new companies to come open stores in Sioux Falls, the companies first question is about that unemployment rate: With so few unemployed workers, how will firms find the employees they need?"
http://www.marketplace.org/topics/economy/american-futures/sioux-falls-35-unemployment-rate-americas-future