Forgive me if I begin to laugh, but this just in: A new Wal-Mart Supercenter is coming to town and—Whoa, Nellie!—the nearby natives are none too happy about it.
Who’s shocked?
Anyone? … Anyone? … Bueller?
Residents of Springlake and Fairhill subdivisions getting their Hanro boxers in a bunch over the discount behemoth coming to an empty lot near them is as predictable as Louisiana politicians embroiled in sex scandals. These irate folks, living in what’s known collectively as Bluebonnet Highlands, will, of course, ultimately make Wal-Mart their second home, but history makes it clear that everyday low prices—like an Impressionist painting—are best enjoyed from a distance. Not since the invention of the brothel has anything been so universally abhorred and beloved.
The attention-getter here isn’t Wal-Mart wanting to build on a 17-acre commercially zoned lot at the intersection of Bluebonnet Boulevard and Burbank Drive. Nor is it NIMBYs storming a public hearing to complain about the project. Nor is it the Planning Commission voting 6-3 in favor of the Supercenter, represented by über land attorney Charles Landry.
These merely support a law, first proffered by Mr. Newton, that states: For every Wal-Mart action, there is an equal and opposite NIMBY reaction.
Newton’s Third Law of NIMBYism was previously on display when Wal-Mart’s global domination dream blitzkrieged Central and then Southdowns.
What caught my eye after this latest example of NIMBY futility isn’t the outcome; it’s the post-game comments coming from the losing locker room. Oh sure, there are your pedestrian complaints—traffic, crime, property values and drainage—but this group goes a bit further by straying from the time-tested talking points. The result is a fascinating insight into the mind of the NIMBY, a creature seen only when its habitat is threatened.
A Springlake homeowner by the name of Patrick Stutes provided the best example in an e-mail advising us to “all beware.”
He begins with this shocking revelation: The Planning Commission is pro-development and—here’s your Watergate moment—that commission member Herb Gomez is also the head of the Greater Baton Rouge Association of Realtors.
Really? Anyone who’s ever attended a commission meeting, or watched one on television, knows this group favors developers and that they never beat back a Landry-fronted project.
And, geez, Gomez has only been a commissioner for six years now. He was re-appointed last year, and the apparent conflict of interest has been debated for his entire tenure. Read a paper, man!
Mr. Stutes—and I’m sure he’s a nice guy—then takes issue with a comment made by Wal-Mart attorney Jim Percy, who noted that not only is his client’s land zoned heavy commercial but so too is the property where Springlake and Fairhill subdivisions are built. Here’s the kicker: It’s been that way since 1984—before those subdivisions broke ground—when the area was planned as a heavy commercial corridor.
Mr. Stutes doesn’t dispute the point but takes offense that it was raised—and then blasts local government, developers, appraisers, title attorneys and mortgage lenders for allowing him to buy his house.
Uh, well, umm … I’m wondering if the Stutes family or any of the other homeowners bothered to check zoning in the area before buying? Apparently the bliss of ignorance goes out the window when Wal-Mart is on the scene.
Maybe that’s a reason why houses in those subdivisions are some of the most affordable in Baton Rouge. If it helps, under today’s development regulations you couldn’t build Springlake and Fairhill on those tracts.
Mr. Stutes saves his best for last, writing that the shooting death of police officer Vicki Wax at the old Perkins Road Wal-Mart is clear and convincing evidence that neighborhood crime will soar. Under that theory, there should also be a prohibition on banks, gas stations, churches and homes—all places where, sadly, people have been murdered in Baton Rouge.
Frankly, if our pro-development Planning Commission should have denied anything it was the construction of Springlake and Fairhill subdivisions.
But the larger point is research before you buy, not after. And remember: Today’s tree-filled solitude is tomorrow’s neighboring subdivision, strip center or … dare I write it? … Wal-Mart Supercenter.
Comments
Posted by bayout on July 20, 2007 at 1:57 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Mr. Ball,
You are correct that these subdivisions should never have been built in the center of commercially zoned property, but you are a heartless SOB to make fun of the people who made the mistake of buying homes there. Facing a Walmart Super Center on one end and a casino on the other would, and has, struck fear in the hearts of any family who made their homes in the path of this unprecedented wave of greed in our parish. I say “greed” because not enough of us seem to comprehend that more money in our city and state coffers does not translate into quality of life. Don't you think these people rue the day they decided to invest (their life savings in many cases) in the trust that some degree of development sanity in EBR would protect them, only to learn that greed rules in this parish. I don’t live in the Spring Hill/Fair Lake area, but it is clear to me that we need yet another Walmart Super Center and another casino like a hole-in-the-head. Many of these families comprise the same young professionals you and I bemoan leaving our state and city in droves. You can make fun all you want but we'll all ultimately suffer the consequences.
Posted by joshbull33 on July 20, 2007 at 4:17 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Mr. Ball,
If the land that Springlake and Fairhill are located on has always been zoned for commercial use, then why did the city allow for subdivisions to be built on these tracts of land in the first place? The fact that these neighborhoods are now in existence and thriving should supercede the old zoning since the city apparently had no problems with the neighborhood developments being built. Why they would allow the neighborhoods to be developed and and then try to use the argument that the land is and always has been zoned for commercial use five years later makes little sense.
Regarding Wal-Mart, you are absolutely correct: the people who were against Wal-Mart coming to their neighborhood are also going to shop there, and for good reason. Boycotting the #1 ranked company on the Fortune 500 isn't going to shut them down, so why avoid Wal-Mart once it is built? However, just because people enjoy low prices does not mean they have to be happy with a Wal-Mart in their neighborhood to avoid being labeled "hypocritical".
You're awful quick to come down on Mr. Stutes and his use of the shooting of a police officer at Wal-Mart as a bad argument for the increase in crime Wal-Mart will bring. Perhaps the inference he is making is a little too general, but unfortunately, several studies have been conducted which document the increased occurrence of crime around Wal-Mart locations. Feel free to read the results of one of these studies at at http://www.walmartcrimereport.com. The site contains a link to the 30-page report outlining the findings. Summarizing the study's findings, the average rate of police-reported incidents was over 400% higher than at Target store locations. Pick on Mr. Stutes all you want, but there is ample supporting evidence to his claim that Wal-Mart brings more crime to an area. More crime leads to lower property values, which is one of the many reasons why residents of the area don't want a 24-hour Wal-Mart Supercenter at the front of their neighborhood.
Posted by rebelzrule on July 24, 2007 at 8:15 a.m. (Suggest removal)
I am a resident of that area, and while I am not at all thrilled about Wal-Mart coming, I have sort of accepted it. Since it is commercially-zoned property, if it is not Wal Mart, something else will come along and occupy that land. At least Wal Mart put in the effort to make it "neighborhood friendly" (at least as much as a Wal Mart can be).
On the other hand, I don't see how you can dismiss people's legitimate concerns about increased crime that will result from having a Wal Mart. Not to mention what will happen if and when Albertson's is run out of business and we are left with a large abandoned building.
However, my biggest problem with your article:
"Maybe that’s a reason why houses in those subdivisions are some of the most affordable in Baton Rouge."
I have not done the research, but I am pretty sure you can find plenty of places around Baton Rouge that are selling for lower than the approximate $130 - $135 per square foot that Springlake and Fairhill are going for.
Additionally, for the record, I attended the public meeting at the library, and there were people from at least 3 or 4 other subdivisions that were equally concerned and upset about Wal Mart coming, so singling out Springlake and Fairhill is pretty ignorant of you.
Posted by fourx5 on July 29, 2007 at 4:41 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Now business report censors comments that had no profanity - but which argue a different point of view.
Nice. Keep watching your kids flee Baton Rouge for Texas, California, and the East Coast - where people don't fear everything that isn't exactly like them.
Posted by brgambling on November 6, 2007 at 10:53 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Ha! Good stuff. Who's fault is it for buying homes in a commercially zoned area? The home buyers. Duh. They won't cry when they're selling their homes for 100% profit.
http://brgambling.blogspot.com
Post a comment
(Requires free registration.)