$640.00 to fill the tanks...

How is this =really= different from WalMart jumping in and crushing all
the local stores? Think for a moment.


Because the City built the hotel complex only after shopping the idea
around to all the big-box hotel chains -- and failing. [...]
...they knew there was no way to net a return on their investment
within their lifetimes.

That makes it a bad business decision on the city's part.

So, the Mayor of Coralville and his cronies [...] simply decided to
build it themselves, and lease it back to Marriott Corporation.

[Marriott] got a brand, new $60 million hotel for ZERO
investment, and don't have to worry about paying ANYTHING but a monthly
lease.

I think Marriott typically leases space and runs hotels that way. At
least that's the way it is here.

It's a hotelier's dream -- and a taxpayer's nightmare.

The taxpayer gets a lease payment out of the deal, and doesn't have to
worry whether or not the hotel makes money.

There simply is no law prohibiting a city from building a
hotel, and calling it "urban development", in Iowa.

This is similar (from my POV) to a city building a sports complex, for
the Olympics.

WalMart only builds where they think they can make a profit.
Governments don't CARE about profit -- after all, it's not *their*
money. THAT is the difference, and that is why a government-owned
hotel is "unfair"...and Walmart isn't.

Governments don't care about profit - true. But that's not why it's
"unfair". In my eyes, what makes government-run businesses unfair is
that there is no separation of powers between those who make the laws
and the government business that has to follow them.

However, other big businesses get cozy with government too, winning tax
concessions which are just as good as free investment money. Government
lures business promising homeowners that it expands the tax base (and
keeps the mill rate down), but then it gives tax abatements and zoning
conessions and special considerations which nullify these putative
benefits to the homeowners. These concessions would be very difficult,
or even impossible, for a small business to get.

This is equally cozy in my view. But it is not labeled "communism",
wheras the former is.

I'm not fighting here, I'm just trying to see whether you have a zebra,
or just a horse in stripes.

Walmart had agreed to pay our airport $3.2 million for that
land -- which would have made our airport debt-free...

.... which sounds good until the first plane crashes on the roof killing
seventy five people, and then there is a call to close the airport.
There's a reason airports (should) have buffer zones. You should know
it better than most.

The anti-Walmart crowd is successfully using the courts to stifle free
enterprise -- ANY free enterprise -- that they think is "unsuitable".
Somehow these self-annointed saviors believe that the unwashed masses
who flock to Walmart every day aren't capable of making these decisions
for themselves, and must be led toward the light. It's sickening.)

That's mighty theatrical talk. What exactly did they sue to prevent?

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

The anti-Walmart crowd is successfully using the courts to stifle free
enterprise -- ANY free enterprise -- that they think is "unsuitable".
Somehow these self-annointed saviors believe that the unwashed masses
who flock to Walmart every day aren't capable of making these decisions
for themselves, and must be led toward the light. It's sickening.)

That's mighty theatrical talk. What exactly did they sue to prevent?

A local group called "Stop Walmart" constituted itself back in the late
1970s, in an attempt to stop the construction of the original Walmart
store here in Iowa City.

They apparently made life miserable for Walmart (it's before my time),
but, eventually, the store was built. It's been successfully providing
low priced, high quality goods and excellent customer service ever
since. (And shafting their vendors, of which I was one, BTW.)

In 2005, Walmart announced plans to build a new Super Walmart on a site
just to the East of their store, on airport land that was carved out by
the Airport Commission in an attempt to free the airport from the
slavery of begging the city council for money each year.

(Flash back a few years: The infrastructure of the airport was
crumbling, and the city simply wouldn't pay to repave taxiways, etc. --
so the airport commission decided to take matters into their own hands,
and devised a way of making the airport self-sufficient. They carved
out 15 acres on the north side of the airport and designated it a
commercial park, with the idea of selling or leasing the land to
business interests. Walmart was to be the first, anchor tenant.)

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. The city had allowed a zoning variance on
the land, in order to facilitate Walmart's purchase, and the "Stop
Walmart" folks jumped all over this, suing to prove that the variance
was illegally processed by the city.

The suit dragged on for over a year, thanks to our wonderfully inept
judiciary system. Walmart patiently bided its time, and in July they
won the case. The court ruled that the City of Iowa City followed
procedures to the letter, and that nothing untoward had happened during
the issuing of the zoning variance.

"Stop Walmart" had 60 days to appeal the decision. On the 60th day,
they did, throwing the case to the Iowa Supreme Court. Everything was
done to take the maximum amount of time possible, and all involved knew
that any case that goes to the supreme court takes AT LEAST two years
to hear.

The coup de grace was when the city decided (under pressure from "Stop
Walmart") that *they* didn't want to wait two more years to see if this
land would sell. 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, saying that Walmart was being stupid and
obstructionist even ASKING for such a variance.

(Background: The reason Walmart asked for this new variance was because
of another Iowa court ruling against Walmart in -- I think --
Maquoketa, Iowa that related to the Walmart there being built on a 100
year flood plain. Somehow they ended up in dutch because of that flood
plain designation, and they wanted to prevent that from happening here
down the road. It was really a simple wording change, but...)

So, the City refused the variance. Walmart, now facing several years
more of legal costs and battles, walked away from the deal, and is now
looking to buy land *just* outside of the city limits -- exactly like
so many other businesses have done in our area. (Iowa City is famous
throughout Iowa for being completely anti-business development. I can
attest to this from personal experience -- 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. Funnier still, my barber
was not allowed to hang his restored antique barber pole outside,
because of a local law against "moving signs" that can be a
"distraction" to drivers. His shop is on a cul de sac...)

Bottom line: All "Stop Walmart" had to do was sue, and appeal, work
the phones, and delay, and 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.

From a personal standpoint, our plans for developing a restaurant on
land adjacent to the hotel hinged on that Walmart sale going through.
Now, we may never do it. You simply can't imagine the impact that
store would have had on our relatively isolated part of town.

The "Stop Walmart" folks are nothing but selfish, pompous asses, who
have harmed more working Americans than they could EVER have hoped to
help -- but then, that's not what they're *really* about anyway, now is
it?
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

Jay Honeck wrote:

It's been successfully providing
low priced, high quality goods and excellent customer service ever
since. (And shafting their vendors, of which I was one, BTW.)

Excellent customer service? We must be thinking of two different
companies named Wal-Mart.

It's been successfully providing
low priced, high quality goods and excellent customer service ever
since. (And shafting their vendors, of which I was one, BTW.)

Excellent customer service? We must be thinking of two different
companies named Wal-Mart.

I'm not a fan of Walmart (they STILL owe me money, from my previous
business). They are absolute *******s to do business with, from the
vendor end -- but I can't argue the fact that their employees are
friendly, outgoing, well-trained, and helpful.

At least they are around here.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

Jay Honeck wrote:

I'm not a fan of Walmart (they STILL owe me money, from my previous
business). They are absolute *******s to do business with, from the
vendor end -- but I can't argue the fact that their employees are
friendly, outgoing, well-trained, and helpful.


My gosh...I can't think of a place around here with as uneducated, rude,
trashy, and unhelpful employees as Wal-Mart.

Ok, except the DFW parking authority people.

In article . com,
"Jay Honeck" wrote:

I'm not a fan of Walmart (they STILL owe me money, from my previous
business). They are absolute *******s to do business with, from the
vendor end -- but I can't argue the fact that their employees are
friendly, outgoing, well-trained, and helpful.

At least they are around here.

Maybe it's just Iowa...

--
Bob Noel
Looking for a sig the
lawyers will hate

Jay Honeck wrote:
The anti-Walmart crowd is successfully using the courts to stifle free
enterprise -- ANY free enterprise -- that they think is "unsuitable".
Somehow these self-annointed saviors believe that the unwashed masses
who flock to Walmart every day aren't capable of making these decisions
for themselves, and must be led toward the light. It's sickening.)

That's mighty theatrical talk. What exactly did they sue to prevent?


A local group called "Stop Walmart" constituted itself back in the late
1970s, in an attempt to stop the construction of the original Walmart
store here in Iowa City.

They apparently made life miserable for Walmart (it's before my time),
but, eventually, the store was built. It's been successfully providing
low priced, high quality goods and excellent customer service ever
since. (And shafting their vendors, of which I was one, BTW.)

OK, two of our three isn't bad. I've rarely found Wal-Mart stuff to be
of high quality. The exception is stuff like brand-name oil. Their
tools are pretty pathetic and most other stuff is just cheap stuff, but
that is what their customers want. Customer service is good in the
sense that they'll take back pretty much anything with no questions
asked, but customer service in the sense of providing information on
their products (other than where to locate them) is also pathetic.

Matt

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.

In article ,
Jose wrote:

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.

Have you seen the area of town around Jay's hotel? Hanging a banner, ANY
banner would be improvement - cripes, it's nothing but store after store after
ugly store... Don't think farms, and corn, etc when thinking of Iowa City.

(Sorry Jay - the beautiful part is the airport)

--
Bob Noel
Looking for a sig the
lawyers will hate

Have you seen the area of town around Jay's hotel?

No. I said that up top.

Hanging a banner, ANY
banner would be improvement - cripes, it's nothing but store after store after
ugly store... Don't think farms, and corn, etc when thinking of Iowa City.

Then maybe it's too late for Iowa City residents. We're trying to
prevent that from happening where I live.

I don't say the rules are appropriate for that town (although the
residents, through their government proxies, think so). What I do say
is that if the town thinks it's an appropriate restriction, Jay is in
the minority with his opinion that it is "absurd".

I wonder how "store after store after ugly store" gets by with no signage.

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