Deseret News | Commission says no to Wal-Mart rezone

Reader comments
Commission says no to Wal-Mart rezone

RE | 8:35 a.m. Sept. 11, 2008

This small group of 100 angry and I presume always grumpy people don't speak for me... I would love to have the new updated Wal-Mart This K-Mart on this site has been blight for years!! What is it going to change if they tear down the old store or remodel the current store. I think your just against Wal-Mart!!

Matt S | 8:37 a.m. Sept. 11, 2008

Nice job Planning Commission and residents. Keep the neighborhood in your hands and speak out for what you want. Its good to see the system working. Vote NO to the rezone!

Anonymous | 8:48 a.m. Sept. 11, 2008

if i were wal-mart i would do the bare minimum required. the street runs both ways. if the council wants to follow the letter of the law then so be it. i personally applaud them for sticking to thier guns. however wal-mart should not in any way go out of its way to include ANY green friendly features, zero landscape improvements, etc... this way the company meets budget and the residents they get what they asked for, inflexible, noncompromising, bare minimum shopping.

congrats to all you really stuck it to the evil company.

Comments continue below

Derick | 9:01 a.m. Sept. 11, 2008

First of all.. I am not a fan of Wal-Mart.. however if we're stuck having a Wal-Mart in our neighborhood then why not at least have an attractive building? Such as the one in Bountiful. The K-Mart building is horrendously ugly.. Now not only will we have a Wal-Mart in the neighborhood.. We'll have an ugly one. Way to be stubborn!

Scott Kisling | 9:33 a.m. Sept. 11, 2008

Thanks, Jared, for more balanced and accurate coverage than what the Tribune has been producing. The issue, and cause for the residents to be so stubborn, is that they worked hard for many years to get the 1995 zoning to disallow buildings over 15,000 square feet without public process, and make the KMart supercenter a "noncomplying structure."
WalMart bought the property aware of this restriction, but is trying to "give us" a 120,000 square foot building.
The 2005 zoning amendment that passed after WalMart purchased the property simply defined the allowable uses for each zone, and disallowed "supercenters." WalMart (or anyone else) was already prevented from opening a supercenter because of the earlier size restriction, so the 2005 zoning action is irrelevant, but WalMart is trying to convince us otherwise.

@anonymous 848am | 9:50 a.m. Sept. 11, 2008

Gotta agree with you there.

Lets face it, the people who came and complained at the commission meeting are the sort of people who want to keep WM out at any cost. They wont shop there regardless of how nice the building is, because they have political reasons against it. Which means, why bother to humor them?

Due to WM's prices, there would be enough people who will shop there to keep it profitable, even if they built it out of bare cinderblock.

Interesting how the locals decided to be asinflexible as they are, and then accuse WM of being a bad neighbor.

In Centerville, they negotiated, and got a nice store, donations to the police department for traffic enforcement, and contributions for freeway interchange improvements.

Enjoy your traffic woes and lovely views, boneheads. If you think you're keeping the po'folks out of your posh neighborhoods, think again.

And frankly, thats really what this is, isn't it? You just really don't like "those sort" of people who shop at WM up in your neck of the woods. Only Mexicans and white trash shop there, right?

Just admit it, guys.

Congradulations | 9:51 a.m. Sept. 11, 2008

I agree with anonymous - Walmart should now do the bare minimum. Paint the building and change the sign. That will really "stick it" to the big nasty corporation; They'll spend less money and still get thousands of customers in their door. I can't believe the elitist additude of the vocal minority in Sugarhouse.

An American Company wants to invest millions of dollars into a new brand new energy efficient nice looking building and site, and the residnets would rather have a run down piece of junk?

Congratulations | 10:06 a.m. Sept. 11, 2008

I'm as anti-walmart and big box stores as they come, but those east side residents really shot themselves in the foot. They will be getting the exact same store, but with less landscaping.

A less-green development makes zero sense.

Way to go, guys.

Roger | 10:31 a.m. Sept. 11, 2008

I love wal-mart. Only because they officer prices most people can afford. People are just against big businesses. Too bad, because it only hurts the people who need a place to save money. Everything is way to expensive these days. Too bad snooty people prevented a nice building, green grass and a few trees. Good job rum dums

mamiejane | 10:43 a.m. Sept. 11, 2008

Although Walmart promised an energy efficient and green built new store, when push came to shove, they refused to be accountable for that promise. When the Commission asked if Walmart would agree to have the building LEED certified, Walmart said no. Why should they get a rezone if they won't commit to being accountable for their promises?

uhh | 10:45 a.m. Sept. 11, 2008

WalMart will be in the exact same location of an old KMart regardless of the zone change. This is a great example of the tar and feather mentality of uniformed residents with money but no common sense. If you really liked the neighborhood, you would change the zoning to allow a new building with better landscaping and energy efficient design. But I guess it is more important to be ideologcally pure than rational.

*sigh* | 10:46 a.m. Sept. 11, 2008

I just love how people that are no where NEAR the property in questions, and sometimes not even in this state, are telling us how we should have our neighborhood. If you want a Wal-Mart and stores like it, you are free to move to places that have one. And just as we do not tell you where to live and what should go in your neighborhood, quit telling us what we should have and do.

Doh | 10:48 a.m. Sept. 11, 2008

The question is not whether or not they are coming to the parleys way location. The question is has Wal-Mart shown significant reason to amend the master plan of the area. The answer to that is No. They could, if they so choose, do nearly everything they have proposed via the existing zone. They do not need a rezone to make the build "beautiful", to add tress and landscaping, to re-strip the parking lot, to add pedestrian walk ways, to add green features to the building, nor do they need a re-zone to plant trees. They can do ALL of that via the current zone.

The Risks | 10:50 a.m. Sept. 11, 2008

The question for the community is risk and managing that risk. On one side we run the risk of having Wal-Mart do absolutely nothing to the building and leaving the building as the ugly eye sore that it is. On the other side we have the risk that if the rezone is granted we will not have as much say as they have promised, they will not do all the things they have verbally committed to (which after being pressed by a Commissioner last night, they agreed they would only do what other businesses are required to do and nothing more), and we will not for 40-50 years be able to move the zoning back down to something the neighborhood wants.

Our appetite for risk is not that high. We would much rather live with the ills we have then the ills we not of. We would much rather live with an ugly building for a few more years with the hope that eventually Wal-Mart will leave and we might be able to get something in that space that is conducive to the neighborhood.

Common Sense | 11:43 a.m. Sept. 11, 2008

anon848 makes sense. Do it like Centerville, Clinton and other communities have done. I am surprised the planning commission was so closed minded as to not see a huge bargining chip for Wal-Mart money to make the area nicer.

But then again, this is a win win. The 100 vocals can now go around saying we won! we won! To Wal-Mart, most likely this was not a lose situation. They get their store regardless. Now they will save thousands of dollars in community improvments and still have a booming business as soon as they open the door.

The comments above from "the risks" are really sad. The store will be there for years. Perhaps your chance for the neighborhood upgrade it shounds like you want has now been lost.

The Risks | 11:59 a.m. Sept. 11, 2008

No, it is not sad. We are not looking at the short term, as you are. We are looking at the long term. If we grant them a rezone, chances are we will never get what we want. If we deny them a rezone, then we bank on the idea that they will not be successful because they have not really done their market research and they do not under stand the demographics.

Note: They will do a lot of business initially. A lot of people will travel great distances to go to that store to make a point. But 12 months down the road, they will not. So we bank on the idea that in 5-10 years, Wal-Mart will leave (which statistically is highly likely) and then we have a chance of getting something we want.

We are not impulsive we understand and know how to balance long term desires with short term gains.

Thanks Community Councils! | 2:58 p.m. Sept. 11, 2008

Seems the short sighted pro Walmart folks are high on emotion and low on logic and facts. As if communities outside the Foothill area really give a crap about the trees. They are seething with class envy. They can continue to shop at the lovely 300 west and beautiful 9th east locations.
Those in the community who bothered to take the time to attend the meetings have generally made cohesive
and obviously persuasive arguments for rejecting the rezone.

Onward | 3:06 p.m. Sept. 11, 2008

The comments suggesting Walmart remodel with poor aesthetics, just to get even with the community is truly laughable.

It's not going to happen, at least not for that reason.

If Walamart produces an ugly building (new or remodel)
It will be because that is what Walmart does best.

Steve E. | 3:16 p.m. Sept. 11, 2008

Nice job Planning Commission. Way to listen to area residents.

I agree with Doh | 3:55 p.m. Sept. 11, 2008

Walmart could do all those lovely things without having to have a superstore. As is it, they will be remodeling the old building so those of you who cry "oh those dumb people want to keep that eyesore" are off the mark. I highly doubt (as Onward suggests) that Walmart will leave the eyesore as it is because the Planning Commission didn't cave to their demands. They are still in business to make a profit and no one wants to shop in a dump. Also, for those suggesting that the residents should have used the opportunity to bargain for some other things - grow up! We know what we want in our neighborhood and it isn't Walmart. If we have to put up with them, they can put up with the existing zoning and building. And I am pretty sure that they could tear down and build a new building if that is what they wanted, as long as it is within the zoning size restrictions. They bought the property and took the chance that they could twist some arms and get what they wanted. Now I hope the city council will enforce the zoning.

Super Shopper | 8:46 p.m. Sept. 11, 2008

The Wilshire Whack-Job Whiners win once more! Nice work! Now sit over in your wonderful Wilshire wonderland, sip sanka, and congratulate and hi five yourselves from now until doomsday - in fact, invite that other bunch of whiners, the Planning Commission to join you. The rational community will be shopping at Wal-Mart, and frankly, we don't want to shop "with your kind of people!" In fact, KEEP OUT!

Wanda | 10:30 p.m. Sept. 11, 2008

The only thing missing from the Wal-Mart rezone meeting was the cheese to go with the fine "Wilshire Whine."

Bob G | 4:01 a.m. Sept. 12, 2008

The point to all this is the zoning laws and what they are there for. Zoning laws are in place to protect the citizens and the land. These large devlopers and corporations are only concerned about profit, not serving the interest of communities. Just look at what developers have done with high density housing and other over developed areas that were zoned not to be used as commercial or residential housing. They are suffering the consequences after only a few years of being developed with land slides, flooding, and disasters that were the reason not to develope. Master plans when prepared took in to condiseration of the USGS surveys but developers come in, buy the land, and use forceful tactics to put citizens in harms way. Wal Marts is no exception, they recover costs very quickly and then move on and leave behind there eye sores just as other businesses have done in the past. Small business around these mega stores soon become eyesores as they are forced out of business. Changing master plans and zoning can backfire and be more costly to citizens than leaving them in place for the reason they were written.

guts | 6:09 a.m. Sept. 12, 2008

You stood up to Wal-Mart!!! Salute!!

deadface | 7:37 a.m. Sept. 12, 2008

Wal-Mart wants to build a 120,000 sq ft. "supercenter" in Sugarhouse. This is a company that has notoriously not followed the rules when building the stores. They keep coming back time after time for petty requests to change the structure of the building.

This is also a company that has proven in the past that they will not pay wages that will help people get above the poverty line. They will have employees work off the clock, so they don't get overtime, and then give them little in the way of real benefits, since they don't work in some cases over 28 hours a week. They have used intimidation tactics to keep unions out of their stores by shutting them down, when a union is formed. In fact that is why you don't have fresh meat cut for you at wal-mart. In 2000, the meat cutters decided to form a union at the wal-mart stores, so Wal-Mart shuts down the whole department. It wasn't because of the fact they were making a lot of money and providing great customer service, but THEY JOINED A UNION.

Keep Wal-Mart out of SugarHouse and anywhere else in Utah!!!

Wes | 9:46 a.m. Sept. 12, 2008

You know what's ironic about the Wal-Mart debate is that they insist on building in areas that are often affluent only so they can drive other businesses away. Yet here in Rose Park, where there is a complete lack of retail establishments and we must drive to downtown for shopping alternatives, we would LOVE a Wal-Mart, or K-Mart or Target store. There's a huge 11-acre tract of land for sale right off Redwood Road with easy access from I-215 and I-80. A city councilman should suggest such a purchase for Wal-Mart. It would be heavily used and draw people from a wide region. I've talked to neighbors and friends who share the same sentiment.

Elroy | 10:35 a.m. Sept. 12, 2008

It's pretty obvious that what the elitist Sugarhouse residents don't want is the lower-income crowd that the Wal-Mart will attract. It's pretty hypocritical of the liberals in Sugarhouse who claim to be all for the little guy, and yet don't want him coming to their neighborhood to shop.

Ronald A. Young | 2:18 p.m. Sept. 12, 2008

Not a Good Choice. Anti-Wal-Mart, which means Anti-Jobs, and Anti-Business. Anti-Progress and Anti-Development. 100 or so always Grumpy people just about says it all. I hope Wal-Mart takes the matter to Court. If Wal-Mart is so bad how come when a new Wal-Mart opens, people are lined up for the jobs ten deep. If I had a Store that specializes in one item, say Lamps or Tables. I would want to be Near Wal-Mart. Wal-Mart in some items has limited choice and horrible quality. That is where the Niche Market comes in. People will come to by cheap and I am right there with them. They will come over to buy Quality in certain items. Yes Wal-Mart may have the item, but would you want it. The Answer many times is No. Wal-Mart came be a boom to some small business and not a death sentence. If I sell Levi and Wal-Mart does not, the some people want Levi. There is my Market. I Love Wal-Mart. They are going to do the thing with China and the 3rd World regardless. You can control there being open on Sunday. If by nothing else not shopping on Sunday.

Clueless | 5:59 p.m. Sept. 14, 2008

The comments made by those that claim the residents are elitest and are only thinking about themselves need to take another look at what the whole issue is. The Walmart is coming. That is understood. The residents do not want the rezoning because it affects the building that goes on in the future. Once the property is rezoned, it most unlikely never to go back to what it is now and there would not be many limitations to what comes in next. The residents are protecting the master plan that is there for a purpose in an older established neighborhood. Without a master plan...what would our neighborhoods look like. So, those for the rezoning...take a better look at the issue, not just the big Super Walmart that is coming in and not getting their way..

Add your comment

Comments are monitored. Any comments found to be abusive, offensive, off-topic, misrepresentative, more than 200 words or containing URLs will not be posted.

Words Remaining

E-mail address: For internal use only. We may want to contact you to publish your comment (not your e-mail address) in the newspaper or for a separate story idea.