You cannot discriminate by targeting a specific company. Any ordinace would have to apply equally to any company. If challenged in court the law would not stand.

It would apply to a Super Target and a Super Kmart, too. But Kmart just pulled out of there and we have two Targets already. So what else is there?

The Socialists have finally come to Ventura. I agree with Bubba, this thing will not pass legal muster, especially if it specifically targets Wal-Mart, which it seems clear their efforts are geared towards.

Not only would this pass legal muster, it already has. The "Supercenter" ordinance has been upheld by the supreme court.

Not so. The California Supreme Court upheld a local Supercenter ordinance that prohibited any retail store over 100,000 feet with more than 5% of its space to non-taxable items like groceries.

The proposed Ventura ordinance is more restrictive and seeks to go beyond that by applying to retail store that sell certain types of merchandise, while providing exceptions for discount warehouse stores, electronics stores, furniture stores and sporting goods stores. It is clearly aimed at only Walmart as it would allow large retail store for just about any other retailer except Walmart.

The law that was upheld made no distinction between different types of retail stores, it simply banned all stores over a certain size that sold a certain percentage of non-taxable items. As long as the rules apply to everyone then the law should be OK, but if you are targeting a specific company then the law will not survive a legal challenge.

WalMart is a definite threat to Ventura and any other community it chooses to infect with its slave labor wages and corrupt business practices, but the bottom line is that you don't have to shop there. On the other hand, if you live in Ventura, there is almost no way you can avoid driving on Victoria. So the bigger threat to Ventura right now is the ill conceived "Victoria" plan that will eliminate driving lanes down this heavily traveled corridor when there really should be lanes added. The City Council seems to think this "plan" is a done deal because they don't plan on asking the voters/commuters about it. I wonder why they are so sure of themselves?

The city scrapped the traffic flow portion of the plan back in JULY. How is it people are so misinformed?

In any case, it NEVER recommended 2 lanes in each direction. There are currently 4 lanes in each direction -- it recommended dividing the street into 3 express lanes on each side, plus a slip lane on the edges for "local" traffic (turning into businesses, allowing for parking and wider sidewalks, landscaping, etc.). It wouldn't have narrowed Victoria, it would have actually widened it. However, when more study was done (environmental review) it was determined that there are certain sections where this widening wasn't possible -- not enough right-of-way. So they scrapped that part of it.

People are misinformed because the chamber of commerce had that on all their signs before the election. Never let the truth stand in the way of a campaign slogan, they say.

I agree. We don't need walmart.

Hi Bubba,
The electronics and furniture interpretation was my own, after speaking to representatives of this group. Since they sell “taxable goods,� they would be exempt. This means a large Fry’s or IKEA could come here as long as under 3 percent of their floor space wasn’t devoted to food. Gyms, spas, theaters, etc. WERE specifically named, however.

The measure DOES have specific language which exempts wholesale stores like Costco. And that’s what I found interesting. Here’s the partial text:

"...“Superstore� means a major development retail project that sells from the premises goods and merchandise, primarily for personal or household use, and whose total Sales Floor Area exceeds ninety thousand (90,000) square feet and which devotes more than three percent (3%) of Sales Floor Area to the sale of Non-Taxable Merchandise. This definition excludes wholesale clubs or other establishments selling primarily bulk merchandise and charging membership dues or otherwise restricting merchandise sales to customers paying a periodic assessment fee. ...."

So you think this wouldn't hold up in court?

Ummm...lets do the math. 4 lanes in each direction = 8 total lanes. Take away two lanes for "slip" lanes, that equals 6. Sounds like lanes were going to be taken away to me. Go back to school Urban. The people are misinformed enough.

Check out this article detailing the effects of WalMart in smaller communities.
"Wal-Mart Uber Alles - detailed analysis of Wal-Mart's labor policies and its effect on small business, small communities" American Demographics, Oct 1, 2003 by Matthew Grimm.
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m4021/is_8_25/ai_108538942

Making the lanes right-turn lanes is not taking them away. My main point was that this plan was scrapped long ago. Get over it. It's not happening.

Ventura is running out of money.
Wal-Mart wants to move into Ventura to provide sales-tax dollars and jobs.
Certain people want Wal-Mart to stay out of Ventura, thus depriving the city of sales-tax dollars and jobs.
Ventura is running out of money for their police and fire departments.
Ventura agrees to a 9-1-1 tax.
Certain people (?the samme people?) are outraged.
Ventura is running out of money!

Marie, in answer to your question, no, I don't think it will hold up. Any law that singles out a particular individual or organization will never survive a legal challenge. The only way to ban a Walmart supercenter over 100,000 square feet is to ban all similar stores. Blatantly providing an exemption to wholesale clubs and other large retail merchants shows that the true intent of the law is to ban a specific company. If Ventura wants to prevent big box retailers from doing business in their city they have every right to do so, and they can deal with the resulting benefits or consequenses of those decisions. But they do not have the right to cherry-pick which retailers can do business in their city and which cannot. Allowing such a thing would open the door to all kinds of legalized discrimination and is a dangerous precedent.

That's what I was speculating, too. But I'm not a lawyer and the coalition has attorneys involved in the leadership of the group. A spokesman told me this measure was airtight legally. Maybe one of them will come along and explain the legalities to us.

whoever believes that the taxes that would be generated by a big walmart is living in ga ga land. what happens to all of the small businesses that will be impacted if they appear on the scene? they pay taxes and so do their workers. talk to the small storekeepers on mainstreet downtown. they know that walmart goes around checking what is being sold and then puts the same items into their stores at lower prices. they are worried.

the beauty of america is that the small business people who struggle to support their families are constantly folding up. does anyone remember the wonderful Ventura Book STore downtown? they folded when Barnes and Noble came to town.
other towns up and down the coast have been able to stop walmart and any other store that gobbles up jobs for workers at indecent wages.

I'm not an attorney, but this proposed ordinance seems to clearly go well beyond the earlier Supercenter ordinance that was decided by the California Supreme Court. In that way, what this group is trying to do is without precedent, which makes it risky and something far less than airtight. The issue in the earlier case was whether a local community could impose size restictions on big box retailers. This case would be whether a community can legally discriminate against a specific retailer by having two sets of standards. There is a lot of legal precedent that a community cannot discriminate against specific individuals, groups or organizations. This has been tested in court numerous times with the same result. Communities aren't allowed to ban a gun store, a strip club, liquor store or any other establishment that engages in legal activity so long as they comply with the same rules and ordinances that apply to everyone else. They also cannot establish a double-standard, such as allowing a Ford dealership while banning a Toyota dealership. I suppose you could write a law that would prevent the establishment of a dealership for vehicles whose make starts with the letter "T", but it would be obviously discriminatory and would be struck down. The fate of this ordinance would be the same.

By go ahead an try. It will be fun to watch.

Whatever happened to property rights? By restricting who or who can't go into the old Kmart shopping center, you have in affect tinkered with the value of the landowner's property which by the way is zoned for big-box retail.

And, who put these elitist who are against Walmart in charge? It's been my experience, as I have traveled across our nation, that Walmart means jobs, lower prices and in many cases financial support for many worthwhile community projects and organizations.

Who brought us the $4 prescriptions for many of our medications? It sure wasn't the other pharmacies in town or the elitists. Families shopping at Walmart can save up to $2,500 and more a year in their household expenses. That's a lot of money to us non-elitist who have bills to pay, and in many cases are living from pay check to pay check.

I am sure Ed Lacey and his bunch of elitists don't have a clue of what I am talking about as a high-price lawyer who I am sure hasn't given a client a break on his fees in years. These elitists want companies like Walmart to pay individuals, that in many cases may be entering the labor market for the first time, a wage that is way beyond their qualifications. They would rather a person suited for an entry level or part time job not get one than work for Walmart. That makes no sense to me. Let me remind these elitists that there there is dignity in work, and when given a chance to get a job and work hard, these individuals, in these entry level positions, will either get promoted and in many cases move on to higher paying jobs. It is the American way.

And, speaking of mom and pop stores, who were the ones that ran most of them out of business across the country: The A&P, Safeway and Kroger supermarkets, not Walmart. So, please don't preach to me about mom and pop stores and the impact on them by Walmart. Here locally, our city fathers put Manhattan Hardware out of business when Lowe's opened. Where were the outcries from the elitists when this happened?

This nonsense of spending hundreds of thousands of our tax dollars to come up with a plan to realign Victoria Avenue merely to keep Walmart out is disgraceful. I know the City Council likes to hear themselves say it wasn't about Walmart, but we all know it was.

I for one would like to see a Walmart go into the old Kmart shopping center and for our City to reap the jobs and taxes from such a responsible move. Many of our citizens need all the help they can get, and Walmart makes it happen for many of us. As for the elitists, if you don't like Walmart, don't shop there.

Apparently, our City Council is in bed with the elitists. So, having a Walmart can only happen at the ballot box by those of us that want to have a Walmart. I say that the City Council put a measure on the ballot voting Walmart up or down, and let all of us be in on this decision.

This is a good conversation.

One issue we talked about on another entry was the city's General Plan, which was developed with extensive citizen input. In this plan, big-box development and traffic patterns it generates is discouraged for Victoria, but would be allowed in other portions of the city.

Jack, would you be in favor of changing the General Plan and do you think that it would have widespread support from the citizens?

One of the anti-Wal-Mart leaders told me that they had hired Goodwin, Simon & Victoria Research to conduct a poll for them and 2/3 of Venturans were opposed to Wal-Mart coming here.

Bubba, I worry about the wording of that measure. If it were to be placed on the ballot and pass, then it would be up to our city attorney and our tax dollars to defend it if it were challenged.

@ Jack:

You have no right or knowledge to even try to characterize those who oppose Walmart as so-called "elitists." when you probably don't even know the range of people who oppose Wal-Mart. This really strikes me as a similar tactic that the Walmart spokesperson used when last October he tried to call label this coalition of Ventura homeowners and citizens as "special interests". Just because a grassroots effort is underway to make itself heard is no reason to mischaracterize their membership in such an ignorant fashion. Citizen input is the essence of democracy. I myself am a member along with many many others who live here and work here locally, just like you. Do you live anywhere near Victoria Avenue and know what we are talking about in terms of the added traffic congestion? So much additonal traffic is anticitpated, Walmart is even proposing an under ground parking garage at that location. Or how about if we lost both Trader Joe's and Green Thumb Nursery as well? Would you still be happy shopping at the local Wal-Mart? It is not true that we will be losing one dime of revenue if Wal-mart does not move in. We can have any number of revenue generating businesses at that site. Wal-mart is no savior for Ventura. We want more responsible companies that want to be good neighbors and pay liveable wages and benefits.

You also trash your own arguments and criticisms about these so-called "elitists" when you say that they didn't do enough to prevent the loss of the Manhattan Hardware store when Lowes came to town. You say: "Where were the outcries from the elitists when this happened?" Well looks like you want these "elitists" only when they are working on saving a store you care about. That's not really important though because it is never the same group of people working on an issue, even though you try to implicate that with your name calling. More importantly, your implication that Ventura residents are being selective by opposing Walmart is incorrect. Remember when Home Depot was opposed at the shopping center where Barnes & Noble now exists? The reasoning there was similar: additonal local and out-of-town traffic, additional delivery trucks congesting the roads and along with noise that the local neighbors didn't want.

Seems all you care about is Walmart's low prices as long as you don't have to think about the low wages and low benefits of their employees. We won't even get into what they pay their contract factory workers. What is wrong with trying to raise (if not at least mainitain) the current standard of living here in Ventura instead of lowering it? People should come first, not profits. Wal-Mart can do better and we should let them know that. Sign the petiition to get the regulating language on our ballot this November.

Remember Jack, even if Walmart does not come to Ventura, you can still shop at a Walmart, they are just 5 minutes away by freeway.

Bubba, look back up at the entry. I updated it with a link to the proposed measure.

Goof point Marie. You don't want to pass a law that ends up sparking an expensive legal battle that costs the city a lot of money it can't afford to spend.

Are you presently in the process of updating your general plan? Remember that a general plan is the blueprint for city development and is also legally binding on the local city government. You can certainly amend a general plan, but you are then obligated to follow its guidelines. If the GP encourages big box retail in a certain area of the city then the city council cannot go against the plan without risking a lawsuit. Conversely, a developer cannot impose a project on a city that violates its GP. I would also think that a GP could still be subject to a legal challenge if it sought to discriminate in some way against specific individuals or organizations.

Interesting topic.

Sorry, I meant to say "good" point. LOL!

I just saw your new post so I'll take a look at the link.

Our General Plan is finished. It is a document which paints broad guidelines for the city; it does have specific goals for the Victoria corridor which discourage big-box development. I believe it would take an amendment to change that. What the Council is working on right now are the various Specific Plans for each area which will nail down the coding, etc. Downtown is finished. They are still working on Victoria. But whatever they come up with cannot violate the spirit of the General Plan.

Note that all this planning has been a BIG bone of contention for the business community which is impatient and ready to move on various projects.

All this crazy hyperbole about Wal-Mart. The bottom line is we don't live in a Socialist society where the government can decide what kinds of stores can be built in a city. We live in a free market society that encourages entrepreneurship and new business development. This action by these whacked-out elitists who proclaim to be protecting their little community from the godawful, evil, behemoth Wal-Mart is just laughable. It's the stuff fairy tales are made of. Das Williams is David and Wal-Mart is Goliath.

If Wal-Mart was such an evil, preying, monster, it would ultimately self-destruct. But, no, it actually happens to be kicking a** on the New York Stock Exchange every day. That is because people value the service it provides to the community - discount prices, convenient locations, and good customer service. Wal-Mart is actually the model of a successful company in America!

Hey Mongo,

Better check your portfolio. Wal-Mart topped out at about $63 per share EIGHT YEARS AGO. It fell gradually to $50 by about three years ago, and since then it's been bouncing around at $50, plus or minus a dollar or two. They're stagnant and their growth strategy is stalling. They're pulling out out many markets in Southern California where they were planning to build stores.

Too bad your broker didn't get you out in time.

Not Mongo, they are still one of the top earners on Wall Street, my friend, despite recent downturns, all indicative of the overall economic slowdown. Most large retailers earnings have flattened out in recent years. That doesn't mean they're still not a solid investment.

Marie, I'll bet you haven't done any independent research on what Walmart pays its employees, and that you are relying on what the unions are feeding you. Unions have been after Walmart almost since it began as a corporation because their employees are not represented. That's called free enterprise Marie. It astonishes me that you and people like you become concerned about Walmart employees and a livable wage when countless retail outlets, including Target and Kmart, are not paying a livable wage. You'd rather have people on welfare than employed by one of this country's most successful retailers. As I indicated, I've been in countless Walmarts throughout our nation, and not once have I seen anyone holding its employees hostage. However, when a Walmart opens, you see hundreds of people lining up for jobs. I can see by your tone, that you don't have a clue about what it's like living in poverty. And, relying on polls to conduct business is a joke. Just look at the criticism polls have come under in some of the presidential primaries. So, when you say 2/3 of the citizens of Ventura are against Walmart, then let's put it to a vote and see what happens. You'd be surprised, but I am sure you and your elitist buddies wouldn't want to chance that vote would you? And, what about property rights? How would you like someone to tell you that you could only sell your house to red-headed, right-handed, 50-year old males. I bet you'd change your tune. It's the same with the property owners who own the old Kmart shopping center. What right do you or your elitist buddies have to prevent the owners to lease its property to a legal entity wanting to go into business in an area zoned for big-box retail. It's funny that you are the first in line to define your actions as democratic, but do not support the use of the term democratic when it comes to property rights. I'd hate to see what our country would look like with you leading our country, where in your world success is bad and socialism is good.

Jack,

I think you have my comments mixed up with BGarcia's post right above mine. But it was 5 a.m. when you posted, so I will cut you slack for not having had your coffee yet.

I never mentioned the wage issue, nor am I involved with the anti-Wal-Mart folks in any manner. My point was that it would take an amendment to the General Plan to build a big-box retail establishment on Victoria. The General Plan was developed with broad community consensus and adopted in 2005. I will quote a portion:

..."By eliminating 'big box', mega-block, auto-oriented strip development, and the traffic patterns it generates, Victoria Avenue could create tremendous opportunity for healthy economic investment in walkable blocks, connected to better serve surrounding neighborhoods. ... All new commercial development within the Victoria Avenue
corridor must follow this approach."

Wal-Mart could, however, go into the existing K-Mart building in the size it is now. Or it could go to the new area by the Auto Mall that the city has identified for larger retail projects. Olivas Park Drive will be extended to make easier access there.

The measure the anti-Wal-Mart folks are proposing will ban "super-center" development throughout the entire city, however. And they may very well get enough signatures to bring it to the ballot. So then the city can vote.

I don't really have any elitist friends. If I did, maybe I wouldn't need a job as a lowly writer. Thanks for posting.

I for one don't really care if Walmart comes here or not. But I think Victoria is the wrong place for it if it does come. The traffic is already so bad and at Chrstmas time there was no place to park when I went to Trader Joes. I can't imagine where all the cars would go if Walmart was there.

Straight into the submerged parking lot, Nancy.

Sorry Marie. Whatever I wrote to Marie should be directed to B Garcia.

One point for all who talk about Walmart Supercenters. There are at least two types of Walmart outlets: general merchandise with a few groceries and mega centers, called Supercenters, that combine general merchandise with a supermarket. It's my understanding, here in Ventura, we are talking about a smaller general merchandise store with no supermarket component. It would be similar to the one built in Oxnard.

My, you get up early, Jack.

I think a general merchandise Wal-Mart with a few groceries could go in the K-Mart building in its present form under the proposed Victoria Plan of 100,000 square feet or less for retail space. This would also conform to our General Plan. But the company wanted to build a much bigger multi-story, supercenter project, which would not conform.

The measure proposed by The Citizens to Preserve Ventura limits grocery space in any retail establishment 90,000 or bigger to 3 percent or less. This is rather draconian, even compared to other big-box ordinances I have seen, which limit grocery space to 5 and 10 percent. I wonder if even the old K-Mart would conform under this? I don't have the answer to this.

Interestingly, this proposed ballot measure doesn't pertain to Sam's Club. Don't they know that the "evil" empire owns Sam's? Or, am I missing something?

Marie, Thanks for the info. I guess I am really confused as to what size store Walmart has in mind. I recall early on it was not going to be a Supercenter; however, things could have changed since then. You seem to be well informed on this issue, maybe you could keep us all informed on what is really happening. I noted that Linda defined both sizes of Walmart, but again, I've lost track. The Supercenters I've seen across the country are on much larger lots than the old Kmart.

One look at that hippie-elitist standing at the podium should tell you the type of people that are supporting this measure. We don't need Socialism movements in Ventura. There's plenty of those going on up in Berkeley where Mr. Elitist and his band of Birkenstock-wearing, tree-hugging NIMBY's are free to re-locate if they fail to appreciate the concept of free market capitalism.

Several contrubutors to this blog stated that,in their view, this Super Store Ordinance is unlawful. In fact, the clear weight of California law supports the legality of this ordinance. In both Wal Mart Stores Inc v City of Turlock and Hernandez v City of Hanford, Californa courts have upheld the authority of cities to regulate and control the size and nature of retail businesses as part the legitimate exercise of their police powers. That same authority can be exercised by the voters of a city through the initiative process. When this ordinance is adopted by the voters of Ventura, it will withstand any legal challenge which may be brought against it.

Thanks for clearing this up, Ed.

I think the ordinance, as currently written, is too restrictive on the ability of free enterprise to operate in a free market system, regardless of its ability to pass legal muster.

Many people say that Ventura needs the sales tax revenue that Wal-Mart will bring to Ventura. But will the amount of revenue from sales tax exceed the increase in costs to the city associated with Wal-Mart, like road repair, sewer, etc.

I think people only look at one side and say "Oh great - this will give the city a lot of tax revenue." But what will it cost Ventura?

In my opinion, Wal-Mart is not needed here.

Talking about Walmart is like arguing politics and religion. We never get anywhere. So, while I would like to have Walmart here, I can continue to drive to Oxnard. I hate paying for the gas, but what I save will more than offset that increased cost.

While I don't like the signature campaign and would have preferred to have an up or down vote on having a Walmart store where Kmart was or someplace else in the City, I didn't bother getting involved like those who oppose Walmart. So, my hats off to all of those who are doing something they deeply believe in. While I won't vote for the initiative, I support their right to do exactly what they are doing.

It will be interesting to watch how this plays out. I am sure we are looking at a final vote from the City Council which will say NO and another initiative financed by Walmart to put it up for a vote. That's what has happened in other jurisdictions. But, who knows. Maybe Walmart will back off and just say adios.

My money's on Wal-Mart taking a walk, how about you?

I'm all for Wal-Mart going in where they want to go in (at the K-Mart site), which is what a free market system is supposed to allow them to do - not have an interventionist government body (the City Council) making stupid rules in the middle of the game to try and force them to go elsewhere. That's called Socialism and we should have none of it here in Ventura!

I hope Wal-Mart stands its ground and builds on that site, as currently planned. I know they have a capable legal staff who can argue their case effectively in court. Further, as a resident of Ventura, I would much rather see a vibrant retail store go in at that center than to see that building stay vacant, which will attract vagrants, bums, and drug dealers (more for our understaffed Police Department to deal with).

I am not a resident of Ventura but I wanted to say something. I just moved to Ventura County from Georgia and the small town I moved from had Walmart move in 15 years ago and the money that wal-mart has given back to that city and other resources ( Fire Dept., Rec Dept., Victim Witness) has been well worth them moving there. I have many friends that work there and love there jobs and make decent money working there. Now as far as the statement by BGarcia "We won't even get into what they pay their contract factory workers." What about every other company that gets there goods from overseas. Those are low wages jobs also. I worked for DirecTV in Camarillo and there operators are in the Philipines and get paid crap. Almost every computer and electrical component was made over seas and there resources are over seas and making low wages so which computer are you using. Maybe you need to quit and throw your computer away because it was made by somone making low wages.I bet there are items in everyones homes that were made by low wage people and you bought it in another store than walmart.

Good points, John. Thanks for providing some rational perspectives to this discussion.

To tag onto your points, the other thing folks have to remember about Wal-Mart is that, hopefully, working for a retail outlet (Wal-Mart or anyone else) should not be viewed as a long-term career choice. It is usually a job held by students or those in transitional employment situations (i.e., between jobs). Therefore, no one should expect Wal-Mart, Target, K-Mart, or any other discount retail store to pay the same wages and benefits as General Motors when all you're doing is running merchandise through a scanner (not a particularly high-skilled profession). It is just not realistic.

Those pleading for living wages and full, lifelong benefits from Wal-Mart are not living in the real world.

Actually you can target specific businesses in some instances. That's why, once upon a time, the break-ups of ATT and other mega-monopolies took place. Of course that has all reversed itself as big companies are now gobbled up by even larger ones but I digress. It could pass muster if it were proven that a Wal-Mart of this ridiculous size would cause an unfair advantage and reduce competition. The point of a market-driven economy is to promote, not discourage, competition.

BTW, I just ripped out the last of those cursed red Anti-Wal-Mart signs on Victoria! Be gone, I say to you thou heathens! Be gone!!!

"THE HEADLINE STARTLED me when I first saw it, too: Late-breaking news: Wal-Mart approved! Knowing it to be untrue, I thought for a moment that Sheldon Brown, the owner of the new biweekly newspaper the Ventura Breeze, had lost his mind. But I read a bit further and realized it was part of a phony story he’d concocted as part of a April Fool’s Day prank.
I thought Sheldon's April Fool's spoof was hilarious! I got it right away, as I'm sure 99.9% of the readers did as well, Pete LaFollette notwithstanding.
It got worse. Monday night’s City Council meeting brought out someone else who was appalled at the thought of this particular retailer slipping in the back door. Launching into a protest speech, he was quickly set straight by the council who assured him it was just a joke."

OK so it had me going. I would be the happiest April Fool if this all really was a joke, but my knee jerk reaction was because the city council and redevelopment is so growth oriented
that a thinly disguised joke in print could really become a WalMart plan in the works for Ventura. Why else would their be a StopWalmartVentura campaign in place, even before all this started? If I have to bare the humiliation of 99% who didn't fall for it
that still would be worth taking a stand against this project.