THREE BULLOCKS AND A LION

     A LION had been watching three Bullocks feeding in an open field. He had tried to attack them several times, but they had kept together, and helped each other to drive him off. The Lion had little hope of eating them, for he was no match for three strong Bullocks with their sharp horns and hoofs. But he could not keep away from that field, for it is hard to resist watching a good meal, even when there is little chance of getting it.



Then one day the Bullocks had a quarrel, and when the hungry Lion came to look at them and lick his chops as he was accustomed to do, he found them in separate corners of the field, as far away from one another as they could get.

It was now an easy matter for the Lion to attack them one at a time, and this he proceeded to do with the greatest satisfaction and relish.

In unity is strength. 

Fables: The Wolf and The Kid

THE WOLF AND THE KID

   THERE was once a little Kid whose growing horns made him think he was a grown-up Billy Goat and able to take care of himself. So one evening when the flock started home from the pasture and his mother called, the Kid paid no heed and kept right on nibbling the tender grass. A little later when he lifted his head, the flock was gone.

He was all alone. The sun was sinking. Long shadows came creeping over the ground. A chilly little wind came creeping with them making scary noises in the grass. The Kid shivered as he thought of the terrible Wolf. Then he started wildly over the field, bleating for his mother. But not half-way, near a clump of trees, there was the Wolf!

The Kid knew there was little hope for him.

"Please, Mr. Wolf," he said trembling," I know you are going to eat me. But first please pipe me a tune, for I want to dance and be merry as long as I can."

The Wolf liked the idea of a little music before eating, so he struck up a merry tune and the Kid leaped and frisked gaily.

THE WOLF AND THE KID

Meanwhile, the flock was moving slowly homeward. In the still evening air the Wolf's piping carried far. The Shepherd Dogs pricked up their ears. They recognized the song the Wolf sings before a feast, and in a moment they were racing back to the pasture. The Wolf's song ended suddenly, and as he ran, with the Dogs at his heels, he called himself a fool for turning piper to please a Kid, when he should have stuck to his butcher's trade.

Do not let anything turn you from your purpose.

This is how the left will die - Sam Harris

It is "Free Speech Week" at Berkeley.  

The Freeway Revolt of 1956-1966 proves Citizens can make a difference.

The Freeway Revolt

Historical Essay

by Chris Carlsson

Freeway protesters in City Hall, c. 1960

Photo: San Francisco History Center, San Francisco Public Library

Picketers protesting against the Southern Freeway marching at City Hall, April 18, 1961.

Photo: San Francisco History Center, San Francisco Public Library

Save the Panhandle Park rally in Golden Gate Park, May 17, 1964.

Photo: Bancroft Library

Malvina Reynolds sings her anti-freeway ballad at the May 17, 1964 rally to save the Panhandle in Golden Gate Park.

Photo: Bancroft Library

New ramps to Washington and Clay Streets from the Embarcadero Freeway, August 15, 1965.

Charles Cushman Collection: Indiana University Archives (P14851)

Construction of the Embarcadero Freeway stopped here at Broadway due to popular anger.

Photo: San Francisco History Center, San Francisco Public Library

Freeway protestors walk along Embarcadero, old Embarcadero Freeway and Ferry Building in background, c. 1964

Photo: San Francisco History Center, SF Public Library

In the 1950s, the California Division of Highways had a plan to extend freeways across San Francisco. At that time the freeway reigned supreme in California, but San Francisco harbored the seeds of an incipient revolt which ultimately saved several neighborhoods from the wrecking ball and also put up the first serious opposition to the post-WWII consensus on automobiles, freeways, and suburbanization.

Early plan for 8-lane freeway to cut under Russian Hill on its way from the Embarcadero to the Golden Gate Bridge

The Haight-Ashbury Neighborhood Council (HANC), one of the city's oldest and most persistent neighborhood groups, dates its origins to the initial struggles against the proposed Panhandle-Golden Gate Park freeway, which was to extend the central freeway up the Oak/Fell corridor, slice 60% of the Panhandle for the roadway, and tunnel under the north edge of Golden Gate Park before turning onto today's Park Presidio towards the Golden Gate Bridge.

On November 2, 1956 the San Francisco Chronicle graciously published a map of the proposed and actual freeway routes through San Francisco even though its accompanying editorial was already chastising protestors: "The remarkable aspect of these protests and claims of injury is their tardiness. They concern projects that have for years been set forth in master plans, surveys and expensive traffic studies. They have been ignored or overlooked by citizens and public official alike—until the time was at hand for concrete pouring and when revision had become either impossible or extremely costly. The evidence indicates that the citizenry never did know or had forgotten what freeways the planners had in mind for them."

Highway 101 just south of Cesar Chavez exit, 2007

Photo: Chris Carlsson

James Lick Freeway under construction in 1953: San Francisco's first. Seals Stadium, the old ballpark is visible in center-left of photo

Photo: Ed Brady

Just three years earlier San Francisco had opened what became known as "hospital curve" both for its location behind General Hospital and its high rate of accidents. On October 1, 1953 the Bayshore Freeway opened from Army to Bryant/7th Street, nearing a later direct link with the Bay Bridge. San Franciscans could now drive three unmolested miles of "divided no-stop freeways" from Alemany to Bryant. The new Bayshore Freeway was the first highway to open after the failed effort of state highway authorities to build a 2nd Bay Bridge right next to the first, a plan they pursued from 1945-49 before it was finally defeated, in part thanks to Mayor Elmer Robinson appealing to military authorities to halt it because it would reinforce the bottleneck the Bay Bridge already presented for getting in or out of the City.

California passed the Collier-Burns Act in 1947, which allowed the construction of freeways to proceed without charging tolls. The Act reoriented the state highway system from multipurpose rural roads to limited-access superhighways and extended them into the cities for the first time. The assumption, which was borne out by developments, is that by building the new highways into the cities, the state gas tax revenues (which were raised 50% in the same bill) would rise rapidly because of all the additional driving the highways promoted among urban dwellers. As it turns out, it was California’s lead that shaped the 1956 Interstate Highway System, which followed the same funding formula. As Katherine M. Johnson has written, the “major flaw of this solution to the rural bias of American highway[s] was precisely its fiscal logic.” Focusing on solving a funding problem ignored basic issues of design standards and integration into the urban fabric. Instead, new highways were marketed as solutions for urban blight, dovetailing with the massive urban renewal programs that were gutting central city neighborhoods in dozens of cities from the late 1950s into the 1970s.

As the plans unfolded, public opposition grew. By the time the Embarcadero Freeway was nearly under construction in 1958, a loud opposition had formed, going on to campaign for its removal after its completion. Over 30,000 people signed petitions at meetings organized in the Sunset, Telegraph and Russian Hills, Potrero, Polk Gulch and other threatened areas. In 1959 The Supervisors voted to cancel 75% of planned freeway routes through the city, much to the shock of the Department of Highways and the state government. But that was not the end of the freeway revolt.

Proposed freeway routes

Freeway builders continued to resurrect various routes, encountering persistent, well-organized resistance by San Francisco neighborhoods, especially in the Sunset and Richmond where neighbors were dedicated to stopping the proposed Western Freeway. Supervisor William Blake was a key opponent of the freeway planners.

Lost in the story of the Freeway Revolt is the role it played in helping BART get institutional support. After the 1959 Supervisorial defeat of freeway plans, BART advocates got surplus Bay Bridge tolls allocated to the proposed transbay tube. After the 1961 vote against the Western Freeway, Mayor George Christopher and the influential Bay Area Council both endorsed the proposed BART system. As freeway proponents continued to advocate for their plans, Supervisor Blake proposed burying a freeway in a “crosstown” tunnel as an alternative to the “beautified” Panhandle freeway. But state highway officials derided it as an unrealistic and costly plan, and after a year of study, ruled it out. San Francisco officials, including new Mayor Jack Shelley, made it clear they wanted the Embarcadero Freeway taken down and replaced with an underground route, the proposed Golden Gate Freeway, that would connect to the Golden Gate Bridge.

In 1964 the Panhandle-Golden Gate Freeway plan reached a climax, with a May 17 rally at the Polo Grounds to save the Park, featuring a "Natural Anthem" and a dedicated tune by Malvina Reynolds, the famous left-wing folk singer, and a speech by poetKenneth Rexroth. Months later, in a final, climactic 6-5 vote, the Board of Supervisors rejected the Park Freeway on October 13. Black supervisor Terry Francois cast the deciding vote, delivering a point-by-point six-page rebuttal to the pro-freeway arguments. (It is interesting to note that the other No-votes on that Board were future mayor George Moscone, future CAO/auto dealer and consumer of sexual services Roger Boas, future Lt. Governor Leo McCarthy, William Blake and Clarissa McMahon. In favor of the freeway were "progressive" supervisors Jack Morrison, Joseph Casey, Jack Ertola, Joseph Tinney and Peter Tamaras.) Mayor Jack Shelley was all for it, as was the Labor Council from which he hailed. The Supervisors' Transportation Committee had received a petition with 15,000 signatures, 20,000 letters and telegrams, and had received opposition from 77 community organizations.

After all that, it seemed to be decided. But it wasn’t. More bureaucratic studies and fears of losing several hundred million in federal financing for the City’s highways led to another climax. In 1966, the Panhandle and Golden Gate Freeways were once again brought forward, pissing off the thousands of people who thought they’d already stopped the plans. Ultimatums from the State Highway Commission and much bluster from pro-freeway politicians failed to carry the day. Mobilized citizens and their community organizations won over organized labor, who now opposed the plans too, arguing that jobs would actually be lost if the city became “one long strip of concrete for commuters with bigger and better ghettoes.” Finally, on March 21, 1966 both the Panhandle and Golden Gate freeways were defeated 6-5 by Supervisorial votes.

New Bayshore Freeway soon after opening, April 7, 1955. View from Bernal Heights southeast, with Bayview Hill in background.

Charles Cushman Collection: Indiana University Archives (P08309)

View southeast from Bernal Heights towards Bayview Hill, 2009.

Photo: Chris Carlsson

Today, San Francisco's freeways have changed again, thanks to the Loma Prieta 1989 earthquake. The much maligned Embarcadero Freeway has been removed, as has an unsightly spur of the Central Freeway. A raging debate over the future of the Central Freeway ramps that go north across Market was finally resolved and has now been replaced by the surface Octavia Boulevard. The 101-280 interchange was a mess from 1989 to 1996. New offramps were added to I-280 to serve a new waterfront roadway and the planned Giants ballpark at China Basin in 1997, but no new freeways will be built in San Francisco. New transit money goes to BART and MUNI, while Caltrans and SF Dept. of Public Works continue to spend vast quantities of social wealth on maintaining the San Francisco road system. The rapid rise in value in both areas where freeways were removed, along the now open waterfront, as well as the rapidly gentrifying Hayes Valley/Civic Center area, show that profits can be drawn from forward looking urban planning, de-emphasizing cars and re-emphasizing neighborhood, community, and nature. But most U.S. urban planners still adhere religiously to the cult of the car, hence constant efforts to expand roads and parking at the expense of numerous more sensible alternatives, from decent mass transit to ubiquitous bikeways.

More on the freeways that were planned, some built, most not

Second Freeway Revolt

For a deeply detailed account of the 1956-66 freeway revolt, see Katherine M. Johnson’s article “Captain Blake versus the Highwaymen: Or, How San Francisco Won the Freeway Revolt” in Journal of Planning History 2009; 8; 56, originally published onlineNov. 28, 2008.

See also, William Issel's excellent article "Land Values, Human Values, and the Preservation of the City's Treasured Appearance: Environmentalism, Politics, and the San Francisco Freeway Revolt" in Pacific Historical Review 68, no. 4 (1999).

Protestors against the Massive Larkspur Station Area Plan

The Larkspur Rebellion May 22, 2014

Where to Start: How to Stop a Big Box

| Written byStacy Mitchell |0 Comments | Updated onMar 28, 2007The content that follows was originally published on the Institute for Local Self-Reliance website at https://ilsr.org/where-to-start-how-to-stop-a-big-box/

There are many reasons why communities seek to stop a big-box proposal — the effect on local economic development and small businesses, traffic congestion, environmental issues, community impacts, low-paying jobs. Whatever your concerns, however, the main way most communities succeed in preventing the development of a big-box store is through the local land use system.

Don’t worry if you know nothing about land use policy. Most citizens who succeed in stopping a big-box development started out with very little knowledge of or experience with planning and zoning. This guide and the other resources in the Big-Box Tool Kit will explain not only how to navigate your local land use policies, but also how to organize a citizen-based campaign to stop a big-box proposal and to make permanent changes to your local policies to put citizens in control of how the community grows and develops.

Citizens groups often succeed in blocking big-box proposals. According to a recent study published in the American Journal of Sociology, between 1998 and 2005, citizens organized to block Walmart proposals in 563 locations. In 366 of those sites, Walmart was either defeated or withdrew its proposal.

STEP ONE: Identify Opportunities to Say No

STEP TWO: Persuade Decision-Makers to Say No

STEP THREE: Don’t Stop!

STEP ONE: Identify Opportunities to Say No

Your first task is to determine the status of the big-box proposal and what is required under your city’s comprehensive plan and zoning code for the development to proceed. You should determine what steps the developer will have to go through, what permits and reviews will be necessary, which government bodies will be making the decisions (e.g., planning board, board of zoning appeals, city council), and what the timeline is for those decisions.

Basics of Land Use Policy

In most communities, development is governed by two interrelated polices: the comprehensive plan and the zoning code.

The comprehensive plan outlines the community’s goals and policies with regard to land use and development. It provides city officials with guidance for making decisions about development projects and serves as the basis for the city’s zoning code.

The zoning code implements the comprehensive plan through specific regulations. It stipulates what types of uses (residential, office, industrial, etc.) are allowed in each area of town. It also regulates the scale and character of development through rules governing the height and size of buildings, densities (e.g., number of dwellings per acre), lot sizes, parking requirements, the ratio of landscaping to pavement, and so forth.

The two primary purposes of zoning are to prevent landowners from using their properties in ways that harm the community and to ensure a balanced and efficient pattern of land use that avoids the many public costs and harms of haphazard development.

Cities (and, in some cases, counties and regions) derive their planning and zoning authority from state law. Some states require cities to have comprehensive plans and zoning codes; some do not. States may also impose certain rules on how cities implement and exercise their zoning authority.

The Development Approval Process

Depending on the rules set forth in the zoning code, a developer may need any number of approvals and permits from the city in order to build. In some cases, a big-box project may also require permits from one or more state or federal agencies (if, for example, it adds traffic to a state road or involves wetlands or impaired waterways).

Each of these points in the process – each review, each permit – offers an opportunity for decision-makers to reject the development. Your task is to identify each of these opportunities (see “Questions to Ask” below) and then to persuade officials to say no.

Your city planner or other local official should be able to meet with you to explain what will be required under your zoning code. However, we encourage you not to rely solely on information provided by a local official, who may have unintentional biases or flawed interpretations of land use law. We strongly advise that you read and study the relevant sections of your comprehensive plan and zoning code yourself, that you consult with experts, and that you hire a land use attorney.

Having an attorney on your side will not only help you use your city’s land use policies to stop the project, but it sends a signal to city officials that you are serious and that they may face a lawsuit should they approve a big-box store that harms public welfare or violates the comprehensive plan. Although raising money to hire an attorney may seem daunting at first, keep in mind that asking for donations is part of building a grassroots coalition (more on this below). Many people and local businesses will want to donate and an attorney is one of the best uses of these funds. Not just any attorney will do. You’ll need to find one who specializes in land use and who ideally has experience with controversial retail projects.

Questions to Ask

Here are some key questions to ask as you assess the status of the proposal and your community’s requirements:

Has the developer formally approached the city?
In most cases, once a developer has submitted an application or other formal proposal to the city, then the project is subject only to the rules already contained in the zoning code. If the developer has not yet submitted an application, then you still have time to revise and strengthen your land use policies. It’s always best to get out in front of these proposals. One course of action would be to push the city to enact a development moratorium. This would suspend retail development for several months, giving the city time to study the potential impact of additional big-box stores and to adopt a store size cap, economic impact review requirement, or other measures to protect the community. Alternately, you might skip the moratorium and move quickly to enact a size cap or other ordinance to prevent or control big-box development. When citizens in Damariscotta, Maine, heard a rumor that Wal-Mart was eying a piece of property on the outskirts of town, they immediately gathered signatures for a voter referendum to ban large superstores, which ultimately passed. Had they not done this, the proposal would have been subject only to the town’s weak site plan review process.

Does the project conform to your city’s comprehensive plan?
You should carefully review your city’s comprehensive plan and highlight any aspects of the plan the proposed big-box store would violate or conflict with. The plan may state, for example, that it is the city’s intention to maintain the downtown as the center of commercial activity, ensure new development is compatible with its surroundings, or minimize automobile use. In the past, comprehensive plans were treated merely as advisory documents. But many states have passed laws that give these plans greater legal weight and require that local officials use them as a basis for deciding whether to approve development. In most states, the failure of a development proposal to fit the comprehensive plan obligates, or at least provides a legal basis, for the city to reject the project. In some states, comprehensive plans have now attained a status akin to a local constitution: decisions that do not conform to the goals contained in the plan can be overturned by the courts. Your land use attorney can tell you how seriously your state treats comprehensive plans (or, depending on the state, we may be able to provide basic advice).

Will the developer need the city to rezone the land?
If the land is zoned for something other than retail (e.g., residential or office), then the developer must petition the city to rezone the parcel, a process that usually involves a public hearing and a vote by the planning board and/or city council. Your task will be to build a case that rezoning the site to allow the development would negatively affect the community and/or be at odds with the city’s comprehensive plan. Remember that city officials are under no obligation to change established zoning policies to accommodate a developer. Indeed, doing so may be considered arbitrary “spot zoning” – the rezoning of a single parcel to benefit a property owner rather than carry out an objective of the comprehensive plan – which courts have deemed illegal.

Will the developer need a special use (or conditional use) permit?
Zoning rules for the site may define retail as a “special use,” meaning that it is not normally allowed but can be under special circumstances. To proceed with a big-box project, the developer must apply for a special use permit, which usually involves a public hearing and a vote by the planning board, city council, or other government body. Officials may grant the permit only after concluding that the development will not harm the community, is consistent with the city’s general land use policies for that area, and meets specific conditions described in the zoning code. Your task will be to assemble evidence that the proposal does not meet these criteria and that the special use permit should therefore not be granted.

Will the developer need a variance?
A variance is an exception to a zoning rule that may be granted by city officials. Due to the constraints of a particular property, a developer may request a variance from having to, for example, create a certain number of parking spaces or set the building back so many feet from the road. Variances may be granted only if the city determines that conditions particular to that parcel (topography, soil problems, etc.) make it impossible to comply with the rule, that allowing the exception will not harm the community, and that it will not result in the grant of a special privilege to a particular property owner. The zoning code may contain additional criteria for granting variances.

In general, the legal basis for allowing variances is to prevent a situation in which strictly applying a particular zoning rule would deny a property owner all reasonable use of the property. Big-box stores are never the only reasonable use of property in a commercial zone and therefore variances requested by big-box developers should be presumed to be unwarranted exceptions to rules that all other property owners must follow.

Will the developer need the city to annex the land?
If the proposed big-box store is situated just beyond a town’s borders, the developer may need the town to annex the land and run water and sewer lines out to the site. The conditions under which a town may annex land are stipulated by state law, but local elected officials often fail to heed these requirements. You should determine what state law mandates and insist that the city comply. Minnesota law, for example, allows cities to annex land only after conducting an “analysis of the fiscal impact on the annexing municipality, the subject area, and adjacent units of local government, including net tax capacity and the present bonded indebtedness. . .” Such an analysis may reveal, as some studies have, that the stores will cost the municipality more in infrastructure and services than they generate in tax revenue – a compelling reason for officials to deny the annexation and prevent the development.

Will the development be required to undergo a traffic impact study?
Many big-box projects have been rejected because of their impact on traffic. A single big-box store can generate more than 10,000 car trips a day (see our fact sheets), subjecting residents to traffic congestion, safety hazards, and high tax costs for road maintenance and police services. Many communities require developers to submit a professional traffic analysis of the impact their projects will have on road capacity and level-of-service. Ideally you should hire your own traffic engineer to review the developer’s traffic study.

Will the development be required to undergo an economic impact study?
Your city’s zoning code may mandate that a proposed big-box store undergo an economic or fiscal (i.e., tax) impact analysis – or your city council may be able to require one on a case-by-case basis. A thorough study should reveal many of the hidden costs of a proposed big-box store in terms of job losses, local business closures and vacancies, and the impact on public services – giving city officials cause to reject the development. You should insist that the study be conducted by a qualified independent consultant selected by the city, not the developer. (See our recommendations.) You should review the study to ensure that its data and methods are sound. Contact us for help.

Will the project be required to undergo an environmental impact review?
In some states, including California and New York, major development projects must submit to an environmental impact study. If the findings indicate that the development will have significant environmental impacts, officials may reject the project or demand substantial changes to it. The range of impacts evaluated varies, but are fairly broad in some states. California courts, for example, have ruled that urban blight is an environmental impact and therefore cities must evaluate the potential of a big-box store “to indirectly cause urban/suburban decay by precipitating a downward spiral of store closures and long-term vacancies in existing shopping centers.”

Will the development be required to undergo site plan review?
Even when the land is zoned for commercial retail and no special use permit is required, most big-box projects still need to undergo “site plan review” to ensure that the development meets land use, transportation, environmental, and public safety standards. Your city’s zoning code will indicate whether the review will be carried out by city staff or by the planning board or other body, and whether there will be a public hearing and opportunity for citizen input. Site plan review standards vary in their strength and scope, but they may provide the city with the power to demand substantial changes to the project or to reject it altogether.

Will the project need a permit from a state or federal agency?
In some cases, a big-box store must obtain a permit from one or more state or federal agencies. If it is situated on a state highway, for example, it will likely need approval from the state’s department of transportation. If it involves sensitive habitat or other important environmental assets, it may need to be reviewed by the state’s department of environmental protection. If the developer intends to fill wetlands, then he or she may need a permit from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Often these agencies will do no more than require changes to the project to mitigate the worst effects on traffic or the environment, but in some cases they have concluded that the impacts are severe enough to reject the development.

STEP TWO: Persuade Decision-Makers to Say No

After you have mapped out the process that the proposal must go through – what approvals will be needed, who will make those decisions, and when they will be made – the next step is to persuade decision-makers to deny one or more of those necessary permits or approvals.

In order to vote against a big-box proposal, local officials need to know:

• how the store would harm the community, economy, and/or environment (and thereby violate the goals and policies contained in your comprehensive plan and zoning code); and
• that many people in the community support a “no” vote.

The best way to accomplish this is through a grassroots campaign that gets the message out about the hidden costs of big-box stores and makes citizen opposition to the store highly visible.

What follows is a brief guide for launching such a campaign. We recommend that you consult other resources as well, particularly Al Norman’s book, Slam-Dunking Wal-Mart: How You Can Stop Superstore Sprawl in Your Hometown and Norman’s consulting services (contact him through his Sprawl-Busters web site).

Create a Citizens Coalition

You need a core group of people to lead the campaign and a larger group of volunteers to carry out discreet tasks, such as writing letters to the editor or distributing lawn signs. Ideally the group should include a broad cross-section of the community: business owners, labor union members, religious leaders, environmental activists, and lots of ordinary citizens.

Many people in the community undoubtedly share your concerns about the proposed store. Here are a few ideas for finding them and getting them involved:

• Use the grapevine. Talk to people you know and ask them to spread the word.
• Hold a community meeting. Post notices around town inviting anyone concerned about the proposed store to attend and ask local newspapers to list the meeting.
• Reach out to local organizations, such as environmental or neighborhood groups, or churches. Ask if you could have a few minutes to talk about the big-box proposal at their next meeting.
• Meet with business owners who are likely to be affected by the superstore. This is a broader list of businesses than you might think at first. Home Depot, for example, will impact not only hardware stores and lumber dealers, but also appliance stores, remodeling contractors (the chain has its own installers for windows, flooring, etc.), banks (the chain finances construction loans), and many others. Ask business owners to become involved in the campaign, talk to their employees about the proposed big-box, and contribute money.

Develop a Campaign Plan

• Start by naming your group. A good name should be positive and evoke the community controlling its own future, such as “Our Town Damariscotta” or “Gresham First.”
• Map out a plan and a basic campaign schedule.
• Set up committees to carry out various tasks, such as letters to the editor, fundraising, developing campaign materials, research, press releases/media, and so on.
• Find experts, such as a traffic engineer, and especially a land use attorney.

Make the Case

Develop a list of the negative effects the proposed project will have on your community and repeat these concerns at every opportunity: public hearings, in your campaign materials, letters to the editor, and so on.

You’ll want to emphasize those issues that are likely to have the most influence on decision-makers. For example, if your zoning code says that businesses in that part of town should serve the needs of the local neighborhood, then talk about how the proposed supercenter is designed to serve a much larger region, pulling traffic from a wide radius. If rising property tax bills are a big issue in your town, talk about the added cost of providing road maintenance and police services for the store.

This web site contains information and tools you will need to educate your neighbors and elected officials about the hidden costs of big-box development.  In particular, you’ll want to review Key Studies on Walmart and Big Box Retail and our Fact Sheets.

Be Visible

Take advantage of every opportunity to get your message out: lawn signs, posters in storefronts, tee-shirts/buttons/hats, letters to the editor (the most-read section of the newspaper), tabling at events, flyers, direct mail, radio advertisements, guest speakers, a web site, and so on. Get in the news often; get your group quoted in every article about the proposed development.

Make sure that decision-makers hear from lots of people. Set up one-on-one meetings with members of the planning board and/or city council, and ask people to call or write them. Turn out as many people as you can to public hearings on the project, preferably all wearing stickers or another item that identifies them as opponents of the project.

Your message will be especially powerful if decision-makers hear it from a broad range of people. Don’t let supporters of the big-box peg you as nothing more than a narrow special interest (e.g., just a bunch of small business owners out to protect their profits or labor unions angry with Wal-Mart). To avoid this, make sure a diversity of people representing different parts of the community are visible in the campaign.

Ease Concerns about a Lawsuit

Cities are understandably nervous about being sued by a big-box retailer or developer if they turn down a project. But, while developers may threaten legal action, they are less likely to take it because such lawsuits usually fail. On land use matters, the courts generally defer to city officials, presuming their decisions are legal if they followed reasonable logic and the process was fair. Decisions to reject big-box development should pass legal muster if local officials make findings stating how the store would harm the community and reference language from the comprehensive plan and/or zoning code.

What to do with a Bad Decision

If the project is approved, you still have options:

• Appeal. Local zoning regulations may provide a mechanism for appealing a decision on a big-box project. A decision by the planning board, for example, might be appealed to the city council. You can also appeal the decision through the courts. In both cases, the key to winning is demonstrating that the decision-making body did not adhere to the policies set forth in your comprehensive plan and zoning code.
• Initiate a referendum. In some places, you can gather signatures for a ballot referendum that would allow voters to overturn the decision.

STEP THREE: Don’t Stop!

Whether you win or lose, don’t disband your group and lose all of your momentum once the fight is over. Working to stop a bad development should be the first phase of a larger campaign to change your community’s approach to land use policy and economic development.

One thing is certain: win or lose, the big boxes will be back. More proposals are undoubtedly just around the corner. You can save yourself from having to take them on one at a time by changing your community’s land use and development policies. Please visit our Rules section to see model policies.

Keeping out what you don’t want is half the battle. Growing the kind of economy you do want is the other half. People are much more vulnerable to the lure of big-box retail if their local economies fail to provide sufficient shopping options and jobs. Communities need to develop a concrete plan for rebuilding their local economies.  ILSR has written about many innovative approaches, which you can find in our Independent Business initiative.