Published Friday April 9, 2004

MATTHEW SHEEHEY reported: Allen Schaefer, KNGG president, said in an e-mail sent after the meeting that planners should have had a lighting expert and a landscaper on hand. "They [board members] seemed in over their heads by terminology," he wrote. "What we had here was an attorney [Marco Marzocchi of Widewaters] planning the largest development for Kinderhook to date with lay people. It was the blind leading the blind."

"If this mall gets built," Mr. Schaefer said, "it will have been designed by amateurs when the experts should have been called in."

Mr. Simonsen, whose board is lead agency on the Widewaters application review, took umbrage at those remarks. "That's emotional, inflammatory language," he said. "That certainly doesn't do justice to our concern for the project."

Widewaters' landscape designers and architects are not amateurs, he said, and Kinderhook has a qualified Planning Board.

A KNGG EDITORIAL

I am sorry that Mr. Simonsen took umbrage in my statement. I’m afraid that the statement which I wrote after that late Planning Board Workshop on Wednesday evening (2:00 AM) was worded poorly. It was in no way meant as a criticism of Mr. Simonsen and the Planning Board of which he is the chairman. The criticism was meant to be of the Town procedure.

The Widewaters’ proposal is the largest ever to be reviewed in Kinderhook and as the first of its kind it will set a precedence for all future commercial development in the Town. The volunteer board of lay persons could have used the advice of more specialists such as an architect, light designer and a landscaper who understood the complex terminology and technology involved.  For the most of the discussion on Wednesday evening, the board had to rely upon the developer’s word.

Below is a quotation from local architect Kate Johns. It demonstrates that the Town should have retained experts because Widewaters has been trying to pull a fast one on the Town with their so called "experts." (SEQRA allows for the developer to pay a substantial part of these fees.)

Kate Johns, AIA, Old Chatham, New York 12136

Ms Johns is Principle and owner of an architecture firm specializing in historic preservation and contextual new construction and site design.

The Kinderhook Zoning Code contains specific design guidelines for roofs and those guidelines are clearly intended to promote a particular design preference for roof types that evoke the historical – cultural heritage of the Kinderhook area and the Town’s vision of its future development.

• The alternate designs presented by QPK Design (for Widewaters) in the Brace affidavit are clearly intended to present the worst possible scenario for complying with the design standards of the zoning code – QPK has chosen alternatives that maximize the roof pitch and design the roofs as monolithic entities to emphasize the mass and height of the structures.
• Instead of single roof elements as proposed there are numerous other alternatives that should have been presented which would break up the roof line and remain consistent with the code without requiring a variance or would closely comply with the code and require a minimal variance (i.e. – different roof slopes)
• Among the alternatives not presented are: multiple side-by-side gables and multiple cross gables.
• Other alternatives can be developed if the size and/or configuration of buildings 4 and 4a are altered – difficulties with complying with the code are direct result of the applicant’s choice of building size and configuration. The footprint of building 4a alone is the same size as the aggregate footprints of approximately 39 traditional main street buildings at plus or minus 20’ x 50’.
• In my professional opinion, Widewaters’ architect has provided a biased and incomplete presentation of alternative styles that can comply with the code thus portraying the requested variance as the only reasonable alternative. Widewaters should be required to present realistic alternatives consistent with my above comments as there are a variety of means of meeting the code requirements without creating an unsightly structure.

Needing the help of experts in a specialized fields is not to be looked down upon.

Mr. Simonsen and the Kinderhook Town Planning Board have been working very hard in reviewing the Widewaters application since 2001. I know this very well because I’ve attended almost every planning board meeting since February 2002. I have seen the diligent work they have done with this developer and others.

The Planning Board meets usually twice monthly but because of the complexity of the Widewaters application, they have often met three and four times a month. Many a meeting lasted from seven till after eleven in the evening. I understand that it is tiring working with the unfamiliar. Specialized consultation beginning earlier in the process would have been advantageous for them and the Town.

I see this planning board as a hard working dedicated group of citizens and I have never wished to offend them.

Allen Schaefer, president

THURSDAY'S PLANNING BOARD WORKSHOP

Citing Wal-Mart's failure to provide a decent wage and health benefits for most of its employees, the Albany (New York) County Legislature voted in March to decline a $1,000 donation from the corporation.

The donation had been earmarked for the county's low-income health care program, but many lawmakers saw it as a disingenuous attempt to appear responsive to community needs. They noted that county programs are undoubtedly covering the health care costs of many Wal-Mart employees and their families. Most Wal-Mart workers are either ineligible for the company's health care plan or unable to afford the premiums.

"We should send that $1,000 back to Wal-Mart, back to Arkansas, and tell them to give it to their employees for health insurance," said Legislator Gary Domalewicz. "We shouldn't help them enhance their corporate image."

The donation was rejected on a bipartisan 33-4 vote.

Surprise Defeat for Wal-Mart in Inglewood

In a stunning upset that made headlines around the globe, voters in Inglewood, California, overwhelmingly defeated a ballot measure on April 6 that would have opened the way for a massive Wal-Mart supercenter. The final tally was 7,049 against and 4,575 in favor.

The unprecedented measure would have given Wal-Mart complete control over a 60-acre site, allowing it to bypass the public process and build a supercenter and other chain retail stores without any of the normal environmental, traffic, or zoning reviews. Although the initiative, which was written by Wal-Mart, only needed a simple majority to pass, one of its provisions stipulated that repealing the measure or altering the terms of the development would require support from two-thirds of voters.

"This is the first time in the country they've tried to do something this extreme," said Madeline Janis-Aparicio, leader of the Coalition for a Better Inglewood, which formed to fight the initiative. Had the measure succeeded, it likely would have become a blueprint for Wal-Mart and other developers seeking to skirt the planning process in cities and towns across California.

Although there were indications in the final days that the vote might be closer than expected, Wal-Mart had been predicted to win. The company outspent opponents many times over. Final figures

on spending are not yet available, but Wal-Mart spent well over $1 million on the campaign itself and several million more on television advertisements that are considered part of its normal operations and will not count in the spending tally. It hired advertising and public relations firms, and employed an army of people to canvas the city door-to-door.

Much of Wal-Mart's campaign message was infused with race and class themes. "It's important that Inglewood consumers have the same shopping that many of the neighboring communities have had for years," Wal-Mart spokesman Peter Kanelos repeated throughout the campaign. Wal-Mart's television ads and fliers featured smiling African-Americans talking about how good a supercenter would be for Inglewood and how much the company cares about its employees and the community. It touted the jobs that would be created for local youth.

Inglewood, which is part of the Los Angeles metro, has a population of 112,000, split evenly between African-Americans and Latinos. The city's median household income is $34,000, about 20 percent lower than the national average, and its unemployment rate is 8.4 percent.

The opposition----which included labor unions, local business owners, community groups, religious leaders, and dozens of elected officials---had far less money to work with. The Coalition for a Better Inglewood budgeted $35,000 for its campaign. The Los Angeles County Federation of Labor put up $125,000.

But they made up for the gap in financial resources with volunteers, rallies, and grassroots communication networks. Churches and mosques, for example, disseminated information and facilitated discussions within their congregations. Opponents emphasized that a supercenter would force local businesses to close, eliminate jobs, and depress wages.

They also talked about the damage the initiative would do to community self-determination. "This is . . . about protecting democratic processes," State Assemblyman Jerome Horton, who represents Inglewood in Sacramento, told the Los Angeles Times. "It's about ensuring every citizen has a voice in any development that could have a negative impact on their community."

The fight began in October 2002. Wal-Mart indicated interest in building a supercenter in Inglewood and the City Council responded with an ordinance that banned stores over 155,000 square feet that sell more than 20,000 nontaxable items (i.e., food). Wal-Mart threatened a lawsuit and the city rescinded the ordinance.

Angry that the council backed down, Wal-Mart opponents, led by the United Food and Commercial Workers union, which represents supermarket workers who make higher wages than employees at competing supercenters, helped elect a new member to the city council. Fearing that the ordinance would be reinstated, Wal-Mart gathered the 6,500 signatures necessary to put its initiative on the ballot. (The signature gatherers were paid more than the company's cashiers.)

The Inglewood outlet would have been Wal-Mart's first supercenter in Los Angeles County. The company wants to open more than forty across the state, but has encountered resistance in many areas. In some cases, Wal-Mart has overcome the opposition; last month, it persuaded voters in Contra Costa County to overturn an ordinance banning supercenters. But elsewhere, concerns about Wal-Mart's predatory tactics and low wages appear to be growing. The city of Los Angeles is weighing a measure to ban supercenters. Bills have been introduced in the legislature that would force Wal-Mart to provide health insurance to more of its employees and pay for economic impact studies before it could build stores.

-- For more on the fight in Inglewood, see the Los Angeles Alliance for a New Economy.
-- The LA Weekly has had excellent coverage of Wal-Mart's tactics in Inglewood.

Report Finds Wal-Mart's Low Wages Cost Taxpayers Millions

Taxpayers are picking up the tab for Wal-Mart's low wages and meager benefits, according to a new congressional report.

Prepared by the Democratic staff of the House Committee on Education and the Workforce and released by Rep. George Miller in February, the report concludes that the federal government is providing an average of $2,100 annually in public assistance per Wal-Mart employee. This includes Section 8 housing assistance, reduced-cost lunches and health care programs for the children of Wal-Mart employees, and tax credits for the working poor.

The report concludes that taxpayers are effectively subsidizing Wal-Mart's labor costs, giving the company an advantage over more responsible employers. "There's no question that Wal-Mart imposes a huge, often hidden, cost on its workers, our communities, and U.S. taxpayers," said Miller. "Wal-Mart is in the driver's seat in the global race to the bottom."

The report documents the Wal-Mart's labor practices, including its wage and benefit policies, history of discrimination and labor law violations, and role in shifting manufacturing to low-wage countries.

The company has responded to growing criticism of its treatment of workers with a multi-million dollar television ad campaign featuring employees talking about how great it is to work at Wal-Mart. The company has also beefed up its campaign contributions. Last year, Wal-Mart's political action committee ranked as the top corporate donor to federal parties and candidates.

-- "Everyday Low Wages: The Hidden Price We All Pay for Wal-Mart"