Jump to content

City to consider taking land from Wal-Mart


Recommended Posts

The Hercules City Council will consider whether to use eminent domain to wrest a 17-acre property from Wal-Mart Stores Inc. after the nation's largest retailer rejected a city offer to buy the site with views of San Pablo Bay, city officials said Thursday.

The council asked that a "resolution of necessity'' be brought to it for discussion, City Manager Mike Sakamoto said. The matter has been put on the council's May 23 agenda. Efforts to reach council members about Thursday's announcement were unsuccessful.

Wal-Mart bought the property overlooking central Hercules in November after another developer received city approvals for a neighborhood shopping center.

In February, city planners recommended denying Wal-Mart's proposal for a big-box store on its property, saying the plan was not in keeping with what had been approved for the location, which commands a view of one of the Bay Area's most vaunted New Urbanist communities, with pedestrian-oriented streets and large open-space set-asides, as well as sweeping views of the bay.

The company withdrew its application before it went to the city Planning Commission. In response, the City Council voted to make an offer for the land for an undisclosed amount of money.

On March 31, however, Wal-Mart submitted a new application that it said substantially conforms to city requirements. The same day the company submitted its revised proposal, Councilwoman Charleen Raines was hardly welcoming, although she said she had not read it.

"What the council has said is that we want to buy the property,'' she said, describing the tussle with Wal-Mart as a "David and Goliath'' struggle. "At this point, we're concerned about moving ahead on this property. It's been hanging over us for a long time.''

Wal-Mart's new proposal, which is still hotly opposed by some residents, calls for a general retail and grocery store, as well as a pedestrian plaza, two outdoor dining areas and other small shops and general merchandise stores, including a pharmacy.

"We're disappointed that the city is really playing politics with the future of Hercules rather than looking at the big picture,'' company spokesman Kevin Loscotoff said.

"Many residents of the city who we've talked to are frustrated and anxious for this much-needed retail project to move forward.''

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?...05/HERCULES.TMP

I think I'm gonna be sick.

Discuss.

Link to comment
  • Replies 50
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

I've always found the idea of ownership to be a pretty flimsy idea. I still don't understand why so many put so much importance on it.

Because it'd be chaos without it?

If you didn't OWN your land or your home anyone would come on in, and not be effected by law.

Unless, of course, you were a socialist.... which is a whole differnt level of evil.

Link to comment

Has anyone ever heard of eminent domain? If they put it to public use, which due to a case in which the land was going to be used for a shopping center includes just about anything, they have the constitutional right to take it.

Oh man, I've got a big problem with the Constitution.

Link to comment

I've always found the idea of ownership to be a pretty flimsy idea. I still don't understand why so many put so much importance on it.

I've been intrigued by the anarchist idea of drawing a line between possessions and property.

I.E.: This is my car, but it's parked on the land that I use.

I don't really understand why it would be chaos without land ownership. I'm not saying this to piss you off GPS, I just really don't understand it.

Link to comment

I've been intrigued by the anarchist idea of drawing a line between possessions and property.

I.E.: This is my car, but it's parked on the land that I use.

I don't really understand why it would be chaos without land ownership. I'm not saying this to piss you off GPS, I just really don't understand it.

Things would go to hell. If no one owned any land anywhere, then people would treat it all like garbage. People would pollute and vandalize it without a care in the world, because no one owns it and so no one has a desire to care for it. Of course you could have the government own all the land, but that would be just as bad, if not worse.

I've always found the idea of ownership to be a pretty flimsy idea. I still don't understand why so many put so much importance on it.

A flimsy idea? So if a person works their ass off, they shouldn't be entitled to anything? Without ownership, there is absolutely no incentive to do anything.

And about the Wal-mart thing... Iminent domain is bullshit. Wal-mart owns the land, I don't believe the government should have the right to steal it, evil corporation or not.

Link to comment

Things would go to hell. If no one owned any land anywhere, then people would treat it all like garbage. People would pollute and vandalize it without a care in the world, because no one owns it and so no one has a desire to care for it. Of course you could have the government own all the land, but that would be just as bad, if not worse.

Man, I don't know about you, but I don't dump trash everywhere because it's illegal, I don't dump trash everywhere because it's gross.

If I lived somewhere I'd maintain it, whether I had a piece of paper that said I "owned" it or not.

And people vandalize the hell out of everything, anyway.

How would the government owning anything be any different from what we have now?

Link to comment

I've always found the idea of ownership to be a pretty flimsy idea. I still don't understand why so many put so much importance on it.

Quoted for extreme idiocy! ^

----

Now on to the topic at hand.

IT IS THEIR FUCKING LAND! END OF STORY!

Well that sums up the facts of the issue, as well as the whole of the debate.

Link to comment

Quoted for extreme idiocy! ^

But why? I mean, how can we claim ownership of things that are there before we are, and will be there after us? If I built a rocketship and landed on the moon and claimed the entire moon as Beliala and lived there as king what gives me the power to do that? The only way you can own something is by having the physical means to control and defend it. In this "civilized" world, we have governments to do that for us. We pay our taxes and in turn the government is suppose to stop our shit from getting stolen. Do you know how long this system has been in place? Not very fucking long in the grand scheme of things. I expect it won't last very long as well. I'm sorry if your mind is so perfectly conditioned to the point where you are unable to dream of a world outside your own. Remind me to congratulate your overlords on the job well done.

Link to comment
Has anyone ever heard of eminent domain? If they put it to public use, which due to a case in which the land was going to be used for a shopping center includes just about anything, they have the constitutional right to take it.
If the land meets certain requirements, like being in a blighted state. The government can't just walk in and take your land without sound legal reasoning, and if Wal-Mart is recreating its plans to meet local laws, said legal reasoning is quickly evaporating. They certainly wouldn't get away with it simply because someone doesn't want a Wal-Mart in town.
Link to comment

If you didn't OWN your land or your home anyone would come on in, and not be effected by law.

I feel that we, as humans of course, need to step off the high horse and realize that there may be no such thing as owning of material properties. I mean, is it even philosophically feasible that humans can actually become the “owners” of land? Because as far as I can tell, the only reason we are able to “own” materials is because other HUMANS agreed such a theory/truth was okay, based upon civilized urges and probably rational self-egoism too. But back to my point: Existentially speaking, we are a passion that believes we have more power over reality/our surroundings than we do. And why? Because people like to believe they own stuff. Just like people believe in God, they want to ignore the nature of reality. That being said, I'm actually split between Capitalism and Socialism, belive it or not. Moreso I'm moderate right now. I understand why the illusion of "owning" can be a good thing. I shall never decide. Not that any of this matters. Cause it don't'~!

;p

Link to comment

If the land meets certain requirements, like being in a blighted state. The government can't just walk in and take your land without sound legal reasoning, and if Wal-Mart is recreating its plans to meet local laws, said legal reasoning is quickly evaporating. They certainly wouldn't get away with it simply because someone doesn't want a Wal-Mart in town.

Theoretically, yes. Actually, see New London, Connecticut. They get land taken away because the government wants it. No state of blight, the gov just thought a shopping center would be better.

IT IS THEIR FUCKING LAND! END OF STORY!

Well that sums up the facts of the issue, as well as the whole of the debate.

no, its not. It is US government territory and the Constitution and precedents set by the Supreme Court of the United States, as well as several lower courts, apply there. You may disagree with the above authority, but they have the guns and they are in charge. eminent domain has expanded, and you may think this is bad, but if the judge ok's it, it can be done.

Link to comment

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...