« Ind. Decisions - Court of Appeals issues seven today | Main | Ind. Courts - Still more on: ISTA sues over school funding »

Thursday, July 13, 2006

Law - California Supreme Court declines to review lower court ruling upholding ordinance banning big-box stores

From the San Franscisco Chronicle:

The California Supreme Court rejected Wal-Mart's appeal Wednesday of a ruling that allows cities and counties in the state to outlaw big-box superstores.

The April 5 ruling by the Court of Appeal in Fresno [Wal-Mart v. City of Turlock, a 33-page opinion available here] upheld an ordinance enacted in 2004 by Turlock (Stanislaus County) that was backed by neighborhood supermarkets and labor unions. The court, setting a statewide precedent, said local governments can enact such restrictions to prevent the collapse of local businesses and resulting urban blight.

The state's high court denied review Wednesday without comment.

It was Turlock's second legal victory over Wal-Mart this month. On July 3, a federal judge in Fresno dismissed the company's constitutional challenge to the ordinance, saying the city was not interfering with interstate commerce or discriminating illegally against one type of store.

Rick Jarvis, a lawyer for Turlock, said Wednesday's state court action allows a city to "make its own land-use plans and decide for itself what's good for the community." It will also "make it much more difficult for Wal-Mart to file expensive legal challenges against other jurisdictions that decide to adopt similar ordinances," he said. * * *

Turlock has a Wal-Mart store but responded to the company's plans for a supercenter by passing the ordinance in 2004. Without mentioning Wal-Mart, the law prohibits any retail store larger than 100,000 feet that devotes more than 5 percent of its space to nontaxable items such as groceries. The City Council said the purpose was to preserve neighborhood shopping centers.

In its April 5 ruling, the appeals court said the city's motives were legal, even if its action hurt competition.

"While zoning ordinances may not legitimately be used to control economic competition, they may be used to address the urban/suburban decay'' that can result from the entry of a large new business, the court said.

[Thanks to How Appealing for the link.]

Posted by Marcia Oddi on July 13, 2006 02:55 PM
Posted to General Law Related