Sorry Jay, but I see the other side of this. I have been in a four year
battle to save the last full square mile of wetlands in Ridgefield from
being turned into golf courses, condos, business and industrial
development, and other icky things that would destroy our little town.

I've never been to Iowa City, so I don't know what the impact of such a
store would be on the feel of the town, but I can understand those who
don't want such a behemoth in their back yard, and also understand those
who don't want to be shafted by WalMart itself. When the mall went up
by Danbury airport, a lot of the local stores on Main Street were
affected, and at this point it's mostly real estate offices. However, I
also understand the benefits of such megastores, and do shop at the mall.

Incredibly, the SAME THREE PEOPLE from the late 1970s (a group of
former hippies -- Iowa City is chock full of 'em) reconstituted itself
to stop THIS Walmart store.

It is a threat to their way of life. You would too if it were to
replace an airport, and thus threaten your way of life.

The city had allowed a zoning variance on
the land, in order to facilitate Walmart's purchase

Zoning variances are just like printing money. It's one of the ways the
municipality can favor one group over another. The variances that our
developer wanted (for the Bennetts Pond property) would have ultimately
raised its value from $8 million to $30 million, depending on how you
calculate. All windfall to the developer, and on the backs of the taxpayer.

Everything was done to take the maximum amount of time possible

That's our legal system. That's how it works. You would do the same
thing to save an airport, wouldn't you?

They then decided not to allow another variance that
Walmart was seeking to change the land from a "100 year
flood plain" to something less restrictive

My sister lived in a "100 year flood plain". Her house flooded eight
feet deep. We later found out that it flooded the same way several
years before. It turns out that "100 year flood plain" means, if the
land is undisturbed, that on the average it floods once per hundred
years. But once the land around it is developed, floods typically
happen more often, sometimes an order of magnitude more often. The
designation however is rarely changed. Developing the parcel may well
cause it to flood more often. Making it =more= restrictive is what is
called for, not making it =less= restrictive. All of this of course
depends on the specific geology of the site, but I doubt they did a
hundred year study.

It was really a simple wording change, but...)

"It's just a standard contract, you don't need to read it..."

for example, they would not
let us hang a "Grand Opening" banner at the hotel, when we opened in
2002, because of some absurd local ordinance.

It's only absurd to you because you wanted to hang the sign. It may
well be that the tonwspeople didn't want to look at the sign. They have
a right to that, via the legislative process - a process that works so
well we're exporting it at gunpoint to the middle east.

they were able to defeat the building of a
new store that (a) would have provided jobs for hundreds, (b) would
have meant development of restaurants and retail stores on the out-lots
all around, and (c) would have made our airport financially
self-sufficient.

All those are positives, but there are negatives too. It's all a
balance, and other people's rights count too.

The "Stop Walmart" folks are nothing but selfish, pompous asses, who
have harmed more working Americans...

Translation: "Your ox got gored, and you don't like it."

Putting up a Walmart would also harm working Americans. Again, I don't
know the specifics of your town, but I am here to tell you that the
negative impact of development here in Ridgefield CT is quite onerous,
and the steamroller keeps on coming.

Jose
--
The monkey turns the crank and thinks he's making the music.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.