COM 0032.051 2006-2008 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Ho`omalu Hawaii's Testimony Regarding I3i11 No. 167 September 17, 2007 Page 2 of 2 superstores such as Wal-Mart Supercenters and Super-Targets -that typically exceed 200,000 square feet -catty upwatds of 35,000-40,000 SKUs. By limiting the number of grocery SKUs to less than 25,000, large scale retailers are forced to eliminate the perishable items from their grocery inventory. Perishables, like milk and eggs are the high traffic generating items on which superstores rely to bring in the foot traffic that supports the massive scale for which these stores are known. While the numbers may seem arbitrary, they have been well researched and proven to eliminate the format that makes these stores profitable without impacting other retailers, such as Nordstrom, Macys and Costco, which also have a large format store but do not generate the traffic or the economic impacts that go hand-in-hand with superstores. Finally, ordinances that are nearly identical to the Proposed Ordinance are becoming commonplace in other jurisdictions and have been upheld by state and federal courts when challenged as a valid exetcise of the municipality's police power. For example, several California cities and cotmties have enacted nearly identical ordinances in response to the introduction of superstores by Wal-Matt and Target: In May 2003, the Cily of Hawaii Gardens (population 15,000), a small suburb in Los Angeles County, adopted an ordinance prohibiting superstores. ¦ In early 2004, the City of Turlock California (population 70,000) enacted a superstore prohibition ordinance. Wal-Mart, who had announced plans to develop a 24 hour "Supercenter" superstore in Turlock, Gled suit challenging the constitutionality ofthe ordinance iu State and Federal Court. Wal-Mart lost both suits and a published opinion from the California Fifth District Cowt of Appeal upheld the ordinance as within the scope of "1'urlock's police power. See Wal-Malt Stores. Inc. v. City of Turlock, 138 Ca1.App.4th 273 (2006), review denied July 12, 2006; ,tee also Wa1-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Citv of Turlock, 483 F.Supp.2d 987 (E.D.CaI.2006). ¦ In 2006, the eastern San Francisco Bay Area city of Livermore (population 80,000) and the Central Valley city of Stockton (population 290,000) - a notoriously pro- development city that was home to the first northern California Wal-Mart Supercenter superstore -enacted zoning ordinancesthat completely banned superstores. Thus, superstore ordinances that are nearly identical to the Proposed Ordinance have been utilized by municipalities that have already endured the ramifications of superstore development within their boundaries as well as by municipalities that are concerned about the introduction of superstores within their boundaries. The County has the opportunity to be proactive and prevent the development of superstores before the first superstore is constructed and its deleterious effects are felt. Thank you for your time and attention to this testimony. r---~,. R David A. Paulson, Esq. BICK[RTON LG[ RANG +SUC.LIVAN ! Il,llilO ll., I.II I.V it\i 1'-.R1vI R5n Ii' Topa }financial Gen Cer, Poe[ Su'eet 'I'oraer ~ 795 k'ort Sn'eet, Sui[e 801 • Honohil u, }tatva i`i 96#13 Yhoue: 80#.1993#11 Pos: #0$531.2}6i }VeL: [v[ru~.CfSDS.com