Print

Email story

Comment

Email editor

Opponents relish rematch in battle over Wal-Mart

Those opposing the supercenter win a chance to continue opposing it.

By ROBIN STEIN
Published October 20, 2006

TARPON SPRINGS - Anti-Wal-Mart forces stormed City Hall on Tuesday night and persuaded battle-weary commissioners to agree to a public rematch.

It is a do-over the opponents have sought ever since a historic all-night showdown in January 2005, when city officials approved plans for a new Wal-Mart Supercenter on a 74-acre site along the Anclote River.

The 3-2 vote emerged after a bitterly divisive battle that pit city officials and staffers against a band of local activists.

The anti-Wal-Mart activists lost, but they did not go quietly.

They formed a nonprofit group called Friends of the Anclote River, filed two lawsuits and paid $100,000 in legal bills in an attempt to stop it.

While the activists managed to stall construction, they appeared to concede defeat in April after an appellate court issued a unanimous opinion dismissing one of their cases.

There was one remaining plaintiff, but his fight would be expensive, and winning was a long shot. So the project appeared to be foregone conclusion.

But in July, their crusade was resurrected by a surprising victory by the sole remaining litigant, Chris Hrabovsky, an activist-turned-candidate for the state Legislature

Hrabovsky - and an informal coalition of volunteers from Wal-Mart Alliance for Reform Now, Wal-Mart Watch, the Sierra Club and Defenders of Wildlife - found that the Army Corps of Engineers had improperly used an expedited review process when it granted Wal-Mart a permit to destroy a small wetland area.

In an extremely rare reversal, the federal wetlands regulator suspended Wal-Mart's permit, admitting the agency had not been aware that the site was along the Anclote River, a protected Florida waterway.

The suspension seemed to leave Wal-Mart with two alternatives: It could reapply for a federal Army Corps of Engineers permit and go through a long, backlogged review process that requires a public commentary period; or, it could alter site plans to avoid destroying any wetlands, and forgo the need for the permit altogether.

But city law requires amended site plans to be treated like new site plans, and scrutinized through public hearings.

Either way, the victory seemed to promise a public - and politically dangerous - rematch, in which Hrabovsky and the activists believed they could muster the evidence and pressure to win.

But what the Wal-Mart opponents did not anticipate was a caveat in city law. The slog through the series of public hearings is required only when developers propose changes to their site plan that are deemed to be "major."

The rules permit "minor" amendments to short-cut the public hearings and proceed after getting approval from just one technical committee comprised of city staff members.

Wal-Mart's amended site plan was judged by city staffers as "minor," and late last month the matter was scheduled to be reviewed by the technical committee.

Two days before the meeting, an anti-Wal-Mart activist came upon the agenda on the city's Web site, setting off a frenzy of calls and pressure.

Opponents demanded explanations.

The original site plan called for a 204,000-square-foot supercenter with a drive-through pharmacy, tire and lube center, and liquor store; a major, curving entrance road off U.S. 19; paved parking for 1,000 cars; a bus depot; and, to satisfy city officials, a canoe launch on the river just behind the store and a nature trail and boardwalk through a 27-acre wetland area that would be deeded to the city.

Opponents said that in an effort to avoid wetlands, the new plans appeared to call for a shift in the entrance way, and shelve plans for the liquor store and tire and lube center.

It also included cuts in parking spaces, sidewalks and bus lanes. And they said it seemed to eliminate 5 acres of wetlands acreage from the site.

At first, their demands were rebuffed by city officials, who said city staff members used criteria enumerated in the city code in determining that the changes qualified as "minor."

But Tuesday night, dozens of opponents packed into the rarely filled City Hall auditorium. One by one, people took turns at the lectern, laying out concerns and conciliatory pleas.

As soon as the line tapered off, Commissioner Peter Dalacos proposed a formal motion to discuss the major-versus-minor designation.

Mayor Beverly Billiris called Dalacos' move "grandstanding," but agreed that questions raised by the opponents deserved the commission's attention.

And while city officials did not return phone messages requesting details about plans for a public hearing, it looks like opponents now have their rematch.

[Last modified October 19, 2006, 23:11:55]