First of all, full disclosure: I am an active member of the Northwest Citizens for Responsible Growth (NWCRG), a local grassroots group that opposes the location of a big box Walmart store on a tract of farmland just north of Exit 20 of I-89 in St. Albans.
This effort is pretty well-known as the longest running battle in the U.S. against Walmart over a single tract of land, having begun in 1993 with the big box proposal of a previous developer for the same location. That earlier permit struggle had ended with the Supreme Court finding in favor of the opponents to the project. One might think that that would have been the end of it; and, we contend that, under the law governing “res judicata” or “settled” law, we should not have had to expend money and effort to fight the whole thing again. Be that as it may, the local and regional permit bodies chose to turn a blind eye to this fact and press forward with issuing new permits for what is essentially the same project.
The interests of the Vermont Natural Resource Council, NWCRG, Marie Frey and Hudak Farm are represented by Jon Groveman of the VNRC. This week, the VNRC issued a press release announcing the appeal. In an earlier Motion to amend the Environmental Court Decision by Judge Durkin to permit the project, the VNRC cited several important factual errors in the Decision with regard to the location of Hudak Farm, and a serious omission of evidence on the part of the applicant:
For example, the Court erred in initially finding that the Hudak Farm is located only in Swanton. In fact the Hudak Farm has 69 acres in the Town of St Albans. Although the Court later corrected the factual errors, the Court reached the flawed conclusion that the applicant Wal-Mart need not focus on the compatibility of the proposed Wal-Mart with the Hudak Farm. The Town of St Albans Subdivision Bylaws requires that an applicant prove that a project is compatible with adjacent uses – especially agriculture. The applicant did not analyze the compatibility of the proposed Wal-Mart with the adjacent Hudak Farm. The applicant has the burden of proof to satisfy the town bylaws.
“The Court has overlooked the obligation of the applicant to demonstrate that it will not jeopardize the existence of well-established local farm operations,” according to VNRC’s Deputy Director Steve Holmes.
We also contend that conflicts of interest exercised early in the permit process corrupted it sufficiently to influence the ultimate outcome.
Emotions surrounding the issue run high in Franklin County. Supporters of the project insist they represent “majority” opinion; an assertion we have reason to seriously doubt. Be that as it may, we live in a representative democracy, where we have learned that the tyranny of mob rule does not necessarily exercise the best interests of public good. If, for instance, the question of recycling were put to a popular vote in Franklin County, it is doubtful that the majority would support it.
Arguments in favor of the Exit 20 Walmart range from those that have some rational basis to the patently absurd. We have responded, ad nauseum, to the more rational arguments; but there is no countering the absurd ones. Our favorite oft-repeated myth about St. Albans is that you can’t buy socks or underwear here. It conjures up a modern day Dogpatch, where the residents go about their daily business barefoot and buck-naked. The fact is that you can buy both men’s and women’s socks and underwear in several stores throughout town; some every bit as inexpensive as Walmart. As the Tea Party pundits know so well, if you repeat a lie often enough, it eventually will be accepted as truth, even in the face of all the evidence to the contrary.
We’re all sick and tired of the never-ending battle; and in weaker moments I must confess I almost wish the proponents would get their Walmart at Exit 20, so they could finally appreciate the truth in all the warnings we have patiently repeated. Of course the unavoidable reality is that we would suffer the decline in quality of life just as surely as would all of those who think they have to have that particular Walmart.
To make matters worse, the Mayor of St. Albans (who cut an ill-advised “deal” with the developer on behalf of the City, a couple of years ago) put in his own two-cents worth in response to the announcement of our Supreme Court Appeal. Braying to the Messenger about how our appeal is costing the City money in terms of the declining value of its settlement with the developer, Mayor Manahan was quoted as follows:
“They haven’t received the answer they want,” the mayor said of the VNRC. “They are trying to represent our downtown, but they’re not trying to represent our downtown.”
Here is what I sent to the Messenger in response to Mayor Manahan’s remarks:
An open letter to Mayor Manahan
Mr. Mayor, as much as it may surprise you to hear it, the VNRC’s and the NWCRG’s opposition to the proposed Walmart at Exit 20 is not all about you; but since you broached the subject, perhaps this is as good a time as any to remind you that the NWCRG and the VNRC wanted to meet with you and the City Council after Mr. Davis (the developer) made his offer to you, so that we could discuss its implications. Instead of meeting with us, you went ahead and scheduled a vote by the City Council in a rushed and poorly warned Special Session that we barely learned of in time to attend. You will perhaps recall that we attempted to dissuade you and the Council from approving the terms of the settlement (which we only learned of at that Special Session); but you were unpleasant and dismissive in your response, essentially ending discussion and taking a vote without allowing time for us to review the terms of the settlement and prepare arguments for another meeting. You may also recall that we attempted to remind the Council that the City’s own economic expert, Mr. Kavet, hired to give testimony at the District 6 Act 250 hearings, had predicted a large number of business closures and job losses for the City as a result of location of the Exit 20 Walmart. As a result of Mr. Kavet’s assessment, the City’s attorney recommended that, should the project be built, the City should seek compensation to the tune of $10-million, to be paid in annual installments of $500,000.
You ignored that expensive advice and chose to make the deal that you did without bothering to speak with the other interested parties. As a city resident and taxpayer, I can’t say I was overly impressed with that! I even recall an off-hand remark you made to the Council members at the Special Session. It was something to the effect that, if the VNRC and NWCRG ultimately prevailed, the City might actually get even more money! That remark demonstrated to me that you have absolutely no comprehension of the realities involved. I only hope that City voters will bear this in mind in the future.
You seem to be completely unaware that Mr. Davis, with whom you made the time-sensitive bargain, has also appealed the Environmental Court’s decision to the Supreme Court. Perhaps the Messenger could now finish the job by finding out what Mr. Davis plans to appeal about the decision. And while your’re at it, Emerson, how about asking what his plans are for the other three development lots he owns out at Exit 20. Berlin City Auto? Bed Bath and Beyond? Best Buy? We’re all dying of curiosity to know what other big boxes he plans to locate at the Exit 20 bottleneck. We never tire of reminding everyone that Walmart could have been open and operating for the past five years in downtown St. Albans, had Mr. Davis accepted the compromise offered by Preservation Trust and supported by all the opponents of the Exit 20 project.
…should come with music from the Exorcist.
on this issue you’re right, they’re wrong.
keep at it
love the video
Watching that video was like watching a cancer grow on our country. Its frightening to think of all the small downtowns destroyed and small businesses killed. The monster is truly changing the face of our country, not only ripping jobs out of our downtowns but also exporting well paying manufacturing jobs to China. We simply cannot exist as the country we grew up in if all we do is consume, consume, consume, consume, consume, consume, consume, consume, consu ……………………>