| It has been brought to my attention that perhaps I should precede this diary with the following disclaimer which I already inserted further into the text. I am an active and vocal member of the Northwest Citizens for Responsible Growth, and have been for almost six years.
I think most readers may have heard that a proposal for the largest Walmart store in Vermont, to be located in St. Albans, has been wending its way through the permit system for a number of years, steadfastly opposed by several entities, including a lion-hearted band of Franklin County residents, The Northwest Citizens for Responsible Growth, and the owners of Hudak Farm. They have been joined and supported in this historic challenge by the Vermont Natural Resource Council. What you may not know is that the St. Albans Walmart struggle represents the longest continuous opposition to a store on a single site. This dubious distinction came to light recently through the good offices of the Boston Globe who did a pretty fair job of chronicling the epic struggle to date. A smaller Walmart was first propsed for the site in 1993, but later denied an Act 250 permit by the Supreme Court of Vermont.
Some salient points that may have been buried in the length of the article bear repeating (after the fold)... |
| 1) There is a significant family produce farm (Hudak's) located just three-tenths of a mile north of the propsed site. This is not, as the developer is fond of characterizing it, merely a "farm stand." The family actively farms both sides of Route 7 and has a thriving business. The beauty of the farm makes it an attractive tourist destination, and the family contributes much to the local community.
2) The current developer, JLD Properties of Williston, first optioned, and then purchased the property specifically for the purpose of building a Walmart store on the site even though he was fully aware that the previous developer had been denied an Act 250 permit for that purpose. Mr. Davis is fond of presenting himself as the helpless victim of an unfair permitting process that continues to frustrate his attempt to profit from his investment. He conveniently overlooks the fact that his arrogant insistence on a previously denied project puts project opponents in the position of having to waste time and resources to fight something that should be excluded from possibility, simply as a matter of settled law.
3) The Northwest Citizens for Responsible Growth have never opposed an appropriately sized and located Walmart in Franklin County. In the name of full disclosure, I have to mention that I am an active member of the NWCRG. We oppose this project because its size and location make it a threat to the local economy, the environment, and to the social fabric of Franklin County. We would oppose a store of this size and in this location no matter whether it was Target, Sears, K-Mart, or Fred Meyer.
4) The so-called "designated growth center" for which this Walmart is proposed is merely a fiction of the Town fathers, who are not qualified planners and have arbitrarily concluded that both exits ofI-89 should be designated growth centers for the Town. These designations are contrary to the intent of the Vermont statutes governing growth centers. The actual traditional village center of the Town is located at St. Albans Bay, about as far away from both highway exits as physically possible within the confines of the donut-shaped Town.
The current status of the Walmart application for Act 250, is that it has been approved by the District 6 Commission and that approval has been appealed by the NWCRG, the owners of Hudak Farm, and the Vermont Natural Resource Council; all acting as a single voice. It has also been appealed in a separate and different action by the owners of the Highgate Shopping Center and of Maplefield's. Judge Durkin of the Environmental Court heard arguments in those appeals this past June, and we are now awaiting a decision. Still outstanding are complaints we have raised regarding several instances of conflicts of interest in the local and state permit process, but Judge Durkin has declined to address those at this point. Could this application go all of the way to the Supreme Court, as did the last one? Quite possibly.
Stay tuned for updates. |
