[geeks] Wal-Mart

[Rick Hamell]

>> The problem is that due to some new land use
>> measures voted in last year, the owners of the land are suing the City for
>> $77 million dollars in lost sales and "damages" in not being able to sell
>> the land to Walmart. Keep in mind the land is valued at $2million at most.
> 
> I don't get it - the land owners can't sue for lost "potential" profits, only
> actual profits (say the WalMart was a permitted use, and the city council
> stepped in and re-zoned the land mid-transaction, so the land owner had to pay
> back WalMart and take the land back - that would be lost profit).

Under the new land use law voted in locally, they can. It was an all around
bad measure, and the voters voted for it because of the amount of money and
propaganda poured into it. Now we're paying for it.

Other abuses include farmland being segmented into high-density residential
lots near small towns that can't afford the additional infrastructure. There
are even a few permits under review to build on wetlands. The land-use
offices are heavily over burdened with something like 10,000 new permits
being applied for state-wide under this new measure.

Rick