At the start of Tuesday’s hearing on a proposed Wal-Mart at I-35 and Slaughter Lane, Zoning and Platting Commission Chair Betty Baker cast a stern gaze around the crowded room. “This is not a Wal-Mart case; this is a land-use case,” she said. “We would appreciate it if your remarks were confined to land-use.”
Within minutes, it was clear that no one was willing to hold her silence about the elephant in the room, and Z.A.P. members had no choice but to listen. After about an hour of impassioned pleas from Park Ridge neighborhood homeowners and other citizens, Chairwoman Baker, in a move that surprised both sides, called for a task force — comprising four Z.A.P. commissioners, two Park Ridge representatives, and one Wal-Mart representative — to study the cumulative effects of a big-box Supercenter at Slaughter and I-35.
Perhaps no one was more surprised than lawyer Richard Suttle, who represents Wal-Mart and its local developer, Endeavor Real Estate Group. “If it’s not about Wal-Mart, then why are we doing a task force?” Suttle demanded. Baker explained that after hearing all the testimony, it was clear that the issue went beyond merely GR zoning. “I almost feel like I’m being chicken,” Baker said, to which Commissioner Clarke Hammond responded, “more of a wise owl than a chicken.”
The task force will have until Oct. 14 to consider the case and make recommendations to the commission. Z.A.P. also granted a two-week postponement on another Wal-Mart zoning case on Ben White, at the request of the South River City Citizens neighborhood.
In its mission to saturate the Austin market, Wal-Mart faces its stiffest resistance in South Austin, where the Bentonville, Ark.-based discount giant wants to build three Supercenters — one at I-35 and Slaughter, another on Ben White near I-35, and a third at MoPac and Slaughter, where zoning is already in place.
The third site is the linchpin in the whole Wal-Mart debate. That property is smack-dab on top of the Edwards Aquifer and is replete with a number of critical water-quality features. It has also drawn the most fierce opposition from an ad hoc coalition of nearly 20 neighborhood and environmental groups that are calling themselves “the NoAquiferBigBox Coalition.” The army of resisters has vowed to fight any Wal-Mart project until the corporate office and Endeavor pull their plans for the aquifer site or agree to adhere to the standards of the SOS water-quality ordinance.
Should Wal-Mart and Endeavor agree to those demands, some coalition members, nevertheless, have said they would continue supporting other opposition efforts — not just against Wal-Mart but against giant big boxes in general. That would be good news to neighborhood groups like the Park Ridge Homeowners Association and the South River City Citizens, neither of which relishes the idea of Supercenters in their back yards, regardless of their location in the city’s “desired development zone.” (The Ben White store, in the South River City neighborhood, would replace an existing Wal-Mart at I-35 and Stassney.)
Park Ridge residents say their concerns regarding the planned Wal-Mart at I-35 and Slaughter involve three key issues: increased traffic, reduced property values, and a potential increase in muggings and burglaries associated with large shopping areas. The Wal-Mart in their neighborhood would serve as a 206,600-square-foot anchor for Endeavor’s planned 32-acre shopping center that would also hold fast-food restaurants, a drive-through bank, and a Wal-Mart gas station with 12 fueling stations. If the requested general-retail zoning were approved, Endeavor would buy the property — made up of about 10 tracts — from six different landowners. Wal-Mart and Endeavor are trying to win favor from naysayers with promises to meet “many” of the city’s green-builder standards and to conserve “many” oak and pecan trees.
Park Ridge HOA President Aron Wisneski says he is particularly dismayed with Wal-Mart’s projected tax revenue of 5 million “new” dollars. “They make it sound like they’re making something out of nothing,” he said. “What they’re doing is shifting the tax dollars around by siphoning it from other stores — and that’s disingenuous at best.”
This article appears in September 12 • 2003.
