If you live within Sioux Falls city limits, you'll have a chance to vote in April whether or not a new Walmart Supercenter should have the zoning it needs to build on a planned site at the intersection of Minnesota Avenue and 85th Street.
That addition to the April 8, 2014, municipal election comes as the result of a petition to refer to city vote a City Council decision to rezone the land for the planned store to the specific sort of commercial zoning requested by Walmart. It took Sioux Falls City Clerk Lorie Hogstad a bit longer than the 3-4 weeks she initially estimated to respond individually to the more than 2,000 signatures Walmart challenged from the petition, sponsored by a group calling itself Save Our Neighborhood. Sioux Falls reporter J.L. Atyeo was clearly watching for news, however delayed, from the Clerk's office and reported on the confirmed petition in her article Friday.
Save Our Neighborhood needed 5,089 valid signatures (five percent of registered Sioux Falls voters) for the issue to go to a public vote. They submitted 6,502 signatures, 1,159 of which Hogstad found to be invalid. That leaves 5,343 valid signatures, enough to put this issue on the municipal ballot.
A decision on the fate of the south-side Walmart will now rest in the hands of Sioux Falls voters, who I expect will be bombarded by campaigns from both sides.
I'll be interested to watch what direction Save Our Neighborhood chooses to go with their campaign. It could be tempting—and possibly politically expedient—for Save Our Neighborhood to make this vote about the evils of Walmart. There could even be some synergy with the proposed minimum wage hike that's expected to be on November's ballot.
But if anti-Walmart campaigners lean too heavily on making April's vote about sticking it to Walmart, they risk someone bringing up this comment from the discussion at the August 7 City Council meeting:
“It isn't a Walmart thing. I shop at Walmart. Many of the folks from our neighborhood certainly shop at Walmart,” Dana Palmer with Save Our Neighborhood said. “But this is not an appropriate place to put an 185,000 square foot supercenter” [Kelly Bartnick, "A Look at the Walmart Debate," KELOLand.com, 2013-08-07].
So, Sioux Falls friends, study up and be ready to cast your informed vote four months from now. But be suspicious if you hear Save Our Neighborhood's rhetoric veer away from issues with the specific location and zoning decision and toward a broader indictment of Walmart as a corporation. Such a broadened argument might unfairly cloud the fact that, when it comes down to it, April's vote is about keeping the big-box retailer out of some particular southeast Sioux Falls backyards.
I am wondering if Sioux Falls like other SD towns (and most in US?) is giving Wal-Mart a break with infrastructure costs. One only has to look at what Cabela's got from RC and what Menard's is getting from Pierre to see the corporate welfare that the big box stores expect. IMO, that should be the argument. But that is bigger than just Wal-Mart locating in their neighborhood.
I'm not quite understanding the hostility towards people who don't want a big-box store like Wal-Mart in their back yard. Sure, NIMBY-ism can be hypocritical and annoying. However, people can also have valid reasons for not wanting certain types of development near them. That's why we have zoning laws, after all. What is it that makes these people so singularly contemptible for not wanting that kind of development in their neighborhood? (And, as Peermudd points out, for not wanting their municipality to subsidize the unwanted development in their neighborhood.)
For SON, it has never been about Walmart specifically and it won't be in the future. Naturally, there are some in our neighborhood who don't like Walmart and their tactics but overall it is strictly about the zoning and allowing one (or two) C4 development which has no maximum square footage restrictions. It's about 24x7 issues, drainage concerns, traffic concerns, etc. While Walmart will be the 'opponent' putting out information, SON is focused on the zoning and the other concerns along with it.
That's a really good question, Chris S. I've wondered myself as I've written posts what it is that gets under my skin about this situation. I think it boils down to a couple of things; take 'em or leave 'em, but hopefully it provides at least a little more insight.
First, any NIMBY-esque argument relies in large part on viewing the folks working to protect their backyards as victimized in some way by whatever it is that's trying to stake its claim. I'm struggling to view the Save Our Neighborhood folks as being victimized to a degree that warrants emptying every single possible avenue of attack to keep the zoning from happening the way it's been voted on. It's tough to cast Save Our Neighborhood and Walmart as David and Goliath, respectively, when what David's slinging stones to protect is property values and what seem to me like relative sub-division-y frills.
(As a sub-set of that point, I'm also struggling to get over the relative privilege that's involved in the wide range of legal avenues Save Our Neighborhood is able to go to in their fight. If this argument were taking place somewhere that residents were less connected to or aware of the complicated legal processes available to them, I don't think we'd be seeing such a full-throated argument against the zoning decisions. I'm uncomfortable with what seems to be a disproportionate amount of attention paid to this zoning decision seemingly because it's a relatively nice new development that has ended up in line-of-sight of the proposed store.)
Secondly, I think I'm a little miffed at how willing Save Our Neighborhood is to punt on the broader big-box/corporate welfare (good point, Peermudd)/community planning conversation when it comes to the zoning decision referendum. Though I appreciate the consistency that TG says we'll hear from Save Our Neighborhood as the campaign progresses, this kind of question SHOULD be about more than one zoning decision. If we start off by granting that bringing two more Walmarts to town is a great idea, then we risk ending up in a potentially endless ping-pong match about where to plop them down amid all kinds of single-family sprawl at the edges of Sioux Falls. But instead of starting at the big picture (which, I'll admit, the Shaping Places referendum also advanced by Save Our Neighborhood gives at least a chance of doing), this referendum is about the little picture. When there's so much room for getting at the bigger picture issues, it's frustrating that this city-wide referendum will be about one plot of land.
I would find it unpleasant living next to Wal-mart. All that traffic, crappy view... although the campaign signs in my yard would get great visibility.
So suppose we agree that living next to Wal-Mart is a net negative. On whom should we impose that negative externality? How do we minimize the negative impact?
Don't buy a house next to Walmart.
Don't buy a house next to a Washington State coffee joint.
Don't buy a house in a crappy neighborhood where gang bangers or meth housers might rear their heads.
And if they do, then fight against them until reasonable issues have been exhausted, the the rights of the gang-bangers/walmarters/methhousers begin to overshadow yours.
Then move.
There are just a few houses in a two mile stretch south of 85th & Minnesota. They could buy a few people out and have a perfect place where there are no homes for a very good distance and still have their good proximity. One big issue is that the city won't allow a light on Minnesota so all the traffic from the south HAS to use 85th which is where the current residences are. And they would have to pay for water as the corner they're looking at already has it.
All I would ask is you googlemap it or drive by before you make a final decision. Look at the SON website also as it has pictures of the flooding that takes place on 85th with a good rain. And along 85th, take note at how many houses with playsets in the backyard back up to it. Then imagine if you lived there with a 2 and 6 year old (or whatever young kids that will ultimately go to Jr. High just south of 85th on Western) and really think if you'd want all that traffic (not to mention cut through traffic - I just took Shirley today and always do to avoid 41st & Louise). I know it's tough to see it outside from living in the neighborhood but we all need to be open-minded and think if it were you. That's all I'm suggesting.
Spawling developments like Wal-Mart are merely a Ponzi scheme. They are poor civic investments resulting in reduced tax-base, reduced revenue base, lower pay and benefits for residents when contrast to upgrading the downtown. Residential sprawl has similar effects transferring what should be developers costs to taxpayers, and creating future zoning donuts (rural enclaves surrounded by urban developments). Do the math.
http://www.salon.com/2013/11/10/walmart_an_economic_cancer_on_our_cities/
http://wyofile.com/samuel/a-memo-from-minnesota-cities-need-to-rethink-growth/
Wal-Mart or no Wal-Mart, 85th has always been designated to be a major east/west corridor and 85th & Minnesota has always been slated to be a major retail intersection. Next year 85th is being paved between Minnesota and Cliff and 85th & Minnesota is receiving a stop light. If nothing else this Wal-Mart would act as a giant sound barrier when SD 100 passes just half a mile away.. The development and traffic are coming one way or another.
TG: if the development goes forward and traffic patterns changed, won't the city be obliged to change/increase regulation via traffic lights?
Sales tax per acre and job density—John, you always provide excellent links. That Salon article is an excellent read. The numbers it provides are a perfect reason for the successful petitioneers to pivot from "We don't want Walmart in this specific location" to "Walmart is a bad investment; Sioux Falls should promote better uses of this land."
But as John notes, the residential sprawl that current residents enjoy is itself another poor use of land. As PlanningStudent says, development is heading south no matter what. Even if we stop Walmart, is there any developer in MinneLincoln who would even consider a more suitable form of development?
From what we've tried to negotiate, no, they are not willing to put a traffic light on Minnesota (maybe 1/4 mile south of the intersection which help ALOT) that provides a right in/right out on Minnesota.
It's presumable that someone might think expansion would cause that area to be retail but as it stood several years ago, it was/(kind of) is still Ag zoned. Retail is NOT the issue. 24x7 is the issue among other things. There are Walmarts around the country that are not Super Centers and that are not poised to have a Sam's Club next door (hence, the other C4 allocation in the rezoning plan). If I were Walmart, I would consider this an awesome location! We just wish they'd move 1/4 mile - 1/2 or a full mile down south where there is currently no development (buy a couple of people out and make them happy) and people will know in the future what they're getting into. The retail at 69th & Western is VERY near residential and is not an issue whatsoever but they don't have a huge parking lot with tons of lights and they're not 24x7 and they don't warrant a bus stop, etc. More than me, I feel most sorry for the folks on 85th & Audie. My biggest concerns are a) the increased traffic flow from all angles (and for many reasons), b) the drainage issues already present on 85th, c) the noise from trucks 24x7 and the increased late night travel through our neighborhood(s) when people get off work, etc. That's just my two cents.
Cory, I can definitely get behind the general assertion living next to Walmart is a net negative, which makes your ensuing questions very good ones.
In terms of mitigating the net negative, it seems like discussions about setbacks, landscaping (berms, foliage, even walls and such, are things I've seen done relatively tastefully in some areas I shopped in Ohio where big box retailers and residential properties were right in each others' zones ... would also seem that landscaping and shaping of the lot could really alleviate some of the drainage issues TG mentions), light mitigation (there are lots of things one can do with street/lot lamps to direct illumination down where it needs to be instead of out), traffic control (lights, turn lanes, etc.), and loitering restrictions (hasn't Walmart already agreed to not have overnight RVs there? could they also have some sort of patrol of the parking lot?) all seem like steps that would make Walmart a less undesirable neighbor.
The question of on whom to impose what is still probably a net negative is, I think, more complicated, and I'm not sure I know my own answer. I see some merit in TG's argument that people didn't necessarily know what they were getting into, Walmart-wise, when they bought into Twin Eagle Estates (though I also see some merit in PlanningStudent's point that the development writing has pretty much been on the wall that this particular zone of SiouxFarrisburg is destined for development ... it's definitely not going to be farmland for long, and that couldn't have been a surprise). Maybe what should happen is TG's suggestion of having Walmart start a little ways further out and then let the development come knowingly toward them (though I have some qualms about leaning on folks who own property for a "buyout" when someone who is fully within his rights to do so has already sold Walmart the current property), but at this point we're sort of past where that's a viable option.
It's just a messy situation all-around, which might also be why I feel some uneasiness about Save Our Neighborhood. There's an assertion inherent in the fight that this is a clearly terrible thing and that it was clearly wrong of the City to do the rezoning and that Walmart hasn't shown any willingness to adapt; but the reality is just not that simple. While it may look cut-and-dried out the physical windows of the house at the corner of 85th and Audie, there are lots of other metaphorical windows to look through.
TG, I did drive down that way when I was in Sioux Falls over the weekend, and I had wondered about the right in/right out option south of the intersection on Minnesota. What's the thinking on why not a light to make a clear "main entrance" off Minnesota? Have they said? If that light were to go in, would that be sufficient to eliminate your/Save Our Neighborhood's concerns?
Thinking about the way I would get to a Walmart at that location, I'd want to stay on Minnesota as long as possible. Even a 1/4-mile down might be close enough that I wouldn't drive on 85th at all to get to the shopping (especially if there's more stuff down there at some point to draw me south). I certainly don't think I'd take 85th from the west to get there (going past all the houses in the development); there are other much better west-to-east routes that also have the benefit of having destinations along the way in a way that 85th just doesn't. It seems to me the big traffic on 85th would only be from Minnesota west to wherever a hypothetical parking lot entrance would be. Maybe I'm missing something?
I appreciate you taking the time to actually come and look at the situation for yourself. Sounds like you're coming from the north. That would not be a concern. It's the people coming from the south (Canton, Harrisburg, Tea, and as far south as people would come from, Beresford, etc.). I don't know the reasoning of not allowing a light in on Minnesota (I missed at least one city meeting). The other concern (my biggest traffic concern) is the traffic on 85th from the west. They plan to put an exit off of the interstate there. This means trucks plus shoppers around the clock. As for the writing on the wall though, yes, assumed there would be something similar to what's at 69th & Western or 69th & Minnesota. The reason we all thought that is because it was zoned Ag right now and figured it'd be something on the smaller end. Rezoning to allow two C4's (unlimited size and even more traffic if a Sam's Club comes too) is nothing anyone could've imagined when they bought their home. If they moved it further south, it would put the heavier traffic onto the existing Tea exit road which currently only has a few residences impacted and not an entire neighborhood. Also, the For Sale sign is still up so I'm not so sure the land was actually purchased so I still see the movement south (or somewhere else entirely) as an option. Thanks for taking the time to actually look!
For every Walmart store that opens 1/2 billion $$ in public taxpayer assistance augments non-living wages http://bit.ly/Zf7U6k