« Courts - Federal district court for western Michigan has had 3 of its 4 slots open for 18 months | Main | Environment - Post-Raponas wetlands guidelines issued, criticized »

Monday, June 18, 2007

Law - Big box concerns in Fishers

"No big box in project, Fishers official vows" is the headline to a story today in the Indianapolis Star, reported by John Tuohy. The story begins:

FISHERS, Ind. -- An Ohio firm chosen to develop a new $100 million downtown here is embroiled in a lawsuit in a Virginia town after officials there learned a Wal-Mart had unexpectedly been added to plans for a quaint downtown.

"They never said big box," said Chris Lawrence, an assistant to the Blacksburg, Va., town manager, a contention that developer Fairmount Properties disputes.

"The ideas being illustrated had nothing to do with big box."

Blacksburg, like Fishers, was anticipating a pedestrian-friendly mix of specialty shops, restaurants and homes. But when Fairmount submitted its site plan nearly a year after getting a zoning change to move the project forward, a 186,000-square-foot Wal-Mart was included.

Now, Blacksburg and Fairmount are suing each other, and the Town Council has passed an ordinance that could kill the proposed Wal-Mart and cripple the project.

The ILB has had a long list of stories about big box stores and big box ordinances over the years. And earlier this month the Supreme Court of California ruled that cities and counties can "decide what kind of commercial development they prefer, regardless of whether big-box stores are allowed and even if the effect is to restrict competition." That from a story dated June 8th in the San Francisco Chronicle. The Fresno Bee has this story. The 33-page California Supreme Court decision in Hernandex v. City of Hanford may be accessed here. [Thanks to How Appealing for the links.]

Posted by Marcia Oddi on June 18, 2007 08:51 AM
Posted to General Law Related