Hartford Citizens for Responsible Government

[admin]

According to the December 2006 Newsletter from the Washington County Planning & Parks Department:

"Impervious Beginnings...Downstream Effects

Buildings, pavement and climate changes are at the core of the negative impacts urbanization has on lakes and streams. These negative impacts begin when as little as 10% of the drainage area or watershed is covered by impervious surfaces. Rooftops, roads, driveways, parking lots, etc., all prevent rain and melting snow from soaking into the soil surface, resulting in increased runoff from the landscape.

The underground connection of storm sewers also contributes to the degradation of water quality. During a rain or snowmelt period, this highly efficient network of curbside drains and pipes beneath our streets quietly collect runoff from lawns, shopping centers, and industrial parks. Sewers quickly dispose of the unwanted runoff to the nearest lake, stream or wetland, the runoff enters as untreated water.

Upstream, this process occurs as "out of sight, out of mind", but downstream a different scenario is evident. Vast impervious surfaces, teamed up with the storm sewers to alleviate the runoff produce unnatural downstream flows that lead to larger volumes of water, which move much faster and occur more often.

While it is common for urban streams to swell quickly during a heavy storm event, it is also common for smaller tributary streams - for flows to quickly "disappear" between storms, or are termed as "losing base flow". The local groundwater is no longer being replenished enough to maintain the stream flow that may have existed before the landscape was developed.

When it rains just 1.5 inches, pavement produces 24 times more runoff than grass! Example: 1 acre. Grass runoff = 1,630 gallons versus pavement runoff = 38,720 gallons. Grass runoff fills a 10 ft. x 10 ft. container slightly over 2 feet high compared to pavement runoff filling a container over 52 feet!

Impervious surfaces, storm sewers and engineered grading prevents rain water from getting trapped in small natural depressions and slowly seeping through the soil to replenish the groundwater. Instead of filtering through the ground, water quickly runs off, picking up nonpoint source pollutants along the way. Studies have shown that the impacts of nonpoint pollution (sediment, nutrients, metals, hydrocarbons, and other toxins), which are carried from the storm sewers and discharged into our lakes, streams and rivers, flow at an alarming rate.
• For every 10 acres of land that is under construction, an average 15 dump truck loads of eroded soil ends up in our waters.
• Lawn grass is the number one crop in the nation, fertilizers and pesticides are applied at excessive rates.
• Urban runoff almost always exceeds human contact standards for fecal coliform bacteria counts – usually 20-40 times the health standard."

Combine this with Wal-Marts poor environmental record nation wide, and there is definitely reason to doubt the sense of placing of a Wal-Mart Super Center along the Rubicon River.

HCRG

[regis]

Interesting that the county says that but doesn't seem to do anything to enforce it. Why should the city?

[MadJanie]

Interesting stuff. HOw come we didn't hear about this before? Doesn't the city and county talk about any of this stuff? or is it the pollution standards different in Dodge County. Maybe that's why Walmart wants to build there.

I like what the lawyers on the tv show Boston Legal said on 1/16: If you want to solve the problems in this country, get rid of any store that ends in "Mart".

Keep up the good work! Alot of great info on this forum - for both sides of the issues.

[Guest]

Chapter 17 Ordinance

The Erosion Control and Stormwater Management Code (ECSM) became effective January 1, 1998 and requires new land development activities to meet stormwater management and erosion control requirements. It replaces similar provisions that previously existed in the County Land Division Ordinance (Chapter 24 County Code) since 1978. This is an effort to ensure timely stabilization of sites, to protect downstream property owners and to prevent water pollution both during and after construction activities.

The above was taken directly from the Washington County Website/Land & Water Conservation section.

As one can read from the above, there are ordinances in place to help protect against the damages created to the environment by construction run-off. Interesting that I also read on this same page:

"More sediment comes from agriculture areas than from construction sites"

Further reading on the page indicates that Hartford, rather than following local governing rules on the subject, follow the County rules set forth in Chapter 17.

So, I do understand and am concerned for my environment. You know, not so many years ago people and business did not put much thought into all of these issues and thus our environment is at risk. However, as we (people and business) alike grow and learn more about the cause and effects of the different things we do adjustments are made; and some even innovate creating new ideas to help minimize our living on the effects of the environment. Read the Wal-Mart corporate site on some of the innovations they've come up with -- or any other business for that matter.

I really and hardly think that Wal-Mart, regardless if they are the biggest company globally, is the root cause of the evil that has plagued the environment; it has been many synergistic factors working together that has caused this effect. What we, as good citizens need to do is remind any one person or business about being environmentally responsible; holding businesses (large or small) to a much higher standard.

I could continue, but won't. We all know and we are all doing what we can within the limits of our ability.

Thanks.

[admin]

Hi "Guest" -

Well put! The input is much appreciated. Our goal is to make sure any damage to the environment is minimal, so if there is any way to lessen the damage done anywhere, we are all for it.

Thank you for your input.

Admin

[Pissed Off Citizen]

Have you ever took notice that all new development has a retaining pond?? Have you ever though what the purpose of the retaining pond was for?? To give examples look at any new subdivision, or large business development. The new Aurora Clinic on Hwy 60, The Home Depot in Germantown, Rettler Farms, Spathe Farms subdivisions all have retaining ponds. I am positive you will find a plan for a retaining pond in the proposed Wal-Mart project as well. It amazes me how many people in this world have no clue that retaining ponds serve more of a purpose then for aesthetics.

[admin]

Hi PO'd -

Yes, retaining ponds are a good thing. The article posted here is a complete re-print of the December 2006 newsletter from the county parks & planning, nothing added, nothing omitted. Strange that they don't include anything about them in their newsletter.

Thank you for your imput.

Admin

EDITED TO ADD:

Please refer to this entry for a review of why this is all taking place: http://hartfordcrg.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=19

[guest]

I thought the link you provided was interesting -

First it was posted August 14, 2006 and was a letter from MEA. I just want to be known before I make my next comment.

In it - MEA says that they have worked with the HCRG for the past 8 months. That would make it around January 2006. Yet - from all the information I see on this site and in the comments from the articles I have seen - HCRG formed in May 2006 after final approval was given to built WalMart - So who is mis informing the public here or is someone having behind the scenes secret meetings?

A couple of other things in the article - it mentions that it is five times the size of a normal supermarket. But the proposed store is not just a supermarket - it is also a retail store. If any of you have been in a Super Walmart - the actual portion of the supermarket is about the the size of a typical Pick n Save - maybe smaller. Another fine example of HCRG and thier cronies supplying mis information to mis lead the public

I think the best comment is that the city has failed to do a public study on (and I am bringing in only part of the quote) the reliance of cars. (Last sentenced, second paragraph). So now we know who is really behind this - a bunch of environmentalist who are against the use of cars and progress.

[admin]

Hi Guest -

Good eye on the dates. HCRG officially formed on 4/10/06. The MEA had prior to that time been working on behalf of some individuals that eventually became members of the HCRG. No mis-information, just a matter of symantics.

The MEA document was drawn to emphasize its concern for the environment, which happens to be the main area of their concern, which the HCRG is pointing out as just one of the issues concerning this development.

Thank you for your input.

Admin

[hartford_resident2]

You can call it symantics - but if the city or any other government would have done this you would have said they were having secret meetings and misleading the public -

I think this group should stop misleading the public and wasting our tax dollars.

The truth of the matter is - this group was together much longer than the official date in April. You can say you formed in April but the truth is the group was formed much earlier than that. HCRG was formed so that they could be a political action group to spend the citizens of Hartford's tax money.

As for some of the other things I have seen on this website - HCRG allegation that the Wal Mart issue was done in secret and without the knowledge of hartford's citizens - Here is link to article published January 2, 2006 as a review back on 2005 - it states that a Walmart Supercenter in hartford is in the works.

http://www.gmtoday.com/news/local_stories/2005/December_05/12312005_05.asp

[admin]

Hi HR2 -

1. We challenge anyone to show that the group was meeting before that date. There were general meetings (with public notices) regarding the Wal-Mart and land annexation issues, but never any "secret meetings".

2. The only reason the issue was made public was because of an open records request made by an individual concerned citizen that heard rumors (that individual eventually became active in the HCRG). Most likely, had those requests not been made when they were, it still would not have happened then either.

You will note that the memo from Mr. Koppelburger was dated 11/27/03 (read it here: http://www.hartfordcrg.org/PDF/Koppelberger/031127%20-%20advise%20to%20Wal-Mart.pdf), indicating that he had spoken to Mr. Dall about a big box development on that property in sometime in 2002. I believe the information first became public just before the spring elections of 2004.

By the way, I think you may have erred in your link - I didn't see any reference to Wal-Mart there.

Thank you for your input, and allowing us to clarify.

Admin

[hartford_resident2]

Link issue -

No error with it - try looking a little harder (another example of the group not seeing the facts before them?) It is the 12th starred item down in the coming soon area -

*Coming soon: Texas Roadhouse, Qdoba Mexican Grill and Panera Bread restaurants, as well as a Sportsman’s Warehouse store, have all announced plans to build in West Bend. Also in the works is a Wal-Mart Supercenter in Hartford.

Just so there is no confusion - it's the last paragraph before retail and restaurant.

[hartford_resident2]

Your challenge to find

Accordig to the letter you posted on this site (link provided here in case you can't find it) http://hartfordcrg.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=19

It states "Having worked with HCRG over the past eight months to address resident’s concerns about the proposed Wal-Mart Supercenter on HWY 60, I understand their frustration." Now this was written by a lawyer so I don't think there can be any mis interpretation of the facts since lawyers are so meticulous in thier writings. They usually make sure that all the I's are dotted and T's are crossed.

This implies that the group was meeting and would probably hold up in a court of law as fact that a resonable person can safely assume that this means the group was meeting before they officially formed. Whether it was the whole group as it is now or just part of it - the group was meeting and planning it's strategy

2. The issue was public long before your member asked for the public records request. I already provided the link to an article dated January 2, 2006 showing the things that happen in 2005 in the county and it listed the Walmart as coming to Hartford. I don't see how you and your environmentalist friends can keep saying that it was hidden from the public when it was in the paper (wait - paper is made from trees - I bet your environmentalist friends dont read the paper becuase that would support cutting down a tree to make it). I also know that members of your group knew about the WalMart project going back to April of 2005 when one of them mentioned it to me and said that many of her friends are upset about the fact that a walmart is coming

[admin]

Hi HR2 -

I can't speak for Mr. Denzin and what he wrote. I can only speak for myself, having been in the room the evening that the vote was taken to establish and name the group, which took place on the evening of 4/10/06. Any meetings prior to that time were individuals (possibly small groups), and I am sure several of them leading up to the organizational meeting on 4/10, but not until 4/10 was there any such thing as the HCRG - guaranteed.

Your challenge - to prove that the HCRG was in place prior to 4/10/06. You see, there was no reason to form until after the land was annexed on 3/28/06, so we didn't - no one thought the annexation would take place because of all of the opposition there was to it.

But you will obviously assume whatever you want.

The Wal-Mart project didn't become "public" in 2005. It became truly "public" 4/23/04, when open records at the request of the Express News were released. Read it here: http://www.hartfordcrg.org/PDF/Koppelberger/040423%20-%20confidentiality.pdf

The request for the land annexation first came to the common council in late 2005/early 2006, with the annexation approved at the common council mtg 3/28/06.

As always, we appreciate the opportunity to set the record straight.

Admin

[guest]

If it wasn't public why did I hear that walmart was going to build in hartford in April 2005?

You may want to check you date in your post - you have it being made public on April 23, 2004 - which proves my point - it was known for almost two years before you said you formed the group in 2006.

Wether or not you official became a group or not - the group was meeting prior to your date in May you claim the group was formed. That may be the official date of putting a name to it - but the group was in existent before that.

And as it was pointed out - lawyers are very carefull in how they write things and if they said they were meeting with the group for 8 months then I think that would be the case or else they aren't very good at what they do.

[admin]

Hi guest -

I can't control your sources of information, so if you didn't hear about it, there is nothing we can do about that.

Yes, again, it became known in April 2004, as shown by the "confidential memo" by Mr. K., where he disclosed to the common council that the news was out.

And, again, note by Mr. K. that this was in the works since 2002 and was kept secret.

And, again, with a coverup to make sure that it didn't interfere with those elections in 2004.

And, again, there was no reason to officially form the group until the land was actually annexed.

I also became engaged before I got married. Committed to a purpose and officially becoming a group is the same way. Before that, any "meetings" were just simply planning stages, information sessions (many of them announced in the newspaper), and seeking counsel from others that had similar experiences.

Thank you for your input.

Admin

[Guest]

[quote="admin"]

Yes, again, it became known in April 2004, as shown by the "confidential memo" by Mr. K., where he disclosed to the common council that the news was out.

And, again, note by Mr. K. that this was in the works since 2002 and was kept secret.



I also became engaged before I got married. Committed to a purpose and officially becoming a group is the same way. Before that, any "meetings" were just simply planning stages, information sessions (many of them announced in the newspaper), and seeking counsel from others that had similar experiences.

Thank you for your input.

Admin[/quote]

Point 1: There's no date on the "Confidential memo" other than a handwritten one. I don't know who wrote it or exactly when.

Point 2: Please drop the conspiracy theory. You all that formed the HCRG kept your meetings and intentions a secret; I keep my kids christmas presents a secret; my boss keeps my raises a secret, etc. There's a time and a place for disclosure, correct? This is especially true when trying to negotiate for the best possible solution or position.

Take a car dealership for example, the sales manager/owner does not dislcose what their bottom line price is -- they may say they do, but honesly, they don't. Is that a conspiracy? No, it's sound business practice. Well, the managing of the City is a business as well and it just isn't always prudent to give out too much information or any information. It's nearly akin to giving the position of our troops to the other side...

In my opinion: The city was making an attempt to bargain for the best possible position for itself; they were not covering up a Wal-Mart development. There may have been another reason why disclosure was not made immediately and that may have had to do with Wal-Mart's potential exposure. Just because they think they may like to develop on a certain plot of land does not mean that it will come to fruition. Why let it out before it's known for sure; perhaps they were bargaining for land in another area and didn't want either area to know so that they would have the better bargaining "chip" its business -- plain and simple IT IS BUSINESS!!!!

[admin]

Hi Guest -

Point 1: The rest of the memo, including the header with the date wasn't relevant to the point being made, so it was handwritten on the relevant portion. There was no denial by Mr. K. that he wrote the memo. If you desire, you can also request that memo from the city. After all, the records are open to the public at their request. Let us know, and we can supply you with a copy of the form for requesting records from the city.

Point 2: We don't disagree that some confidentiality in such causes is not only normal, but very often required to a certain point. Our point is that Mr. K. was "advising" Wal-Mart to delay the request for annexation of the land in order to avoid a "political hot potato".

We believe that Mr. K. under his contract with the city and being paid by the taxpayers, should be advising the city and the residents on such matters, not Wal-Mart.

As always, thank you for your input.

Admin

[Guest]

[quote="admin"]Hi Guest -

Point 1: The rest of the memo, including the header with the date wasn't relevant to the point being made, so it was handwritten on the relevant portion. There was no denial by Mr. K. that he wrote the memo. If you desire, you can also request that memo from the city. After all, the records are open to the public at their request. Let us know, and we can supply you with a copy of the form for requesting records from the city.

Point 2: We don't disagree that some confidentiality in such causes is not only normal, but very often required to a certain point. Our point is that Mr. K. was "advising" Wal-Mart to delay the request for annexation of the land in order to avoid a "political hot potato".

We believe that Mr. K. under his contract with the city and being paid by the taxpayers, should be advising the city and the residents on such matters, not Wal-Mart.

As always, thank you for your input.

Admin[/quote]

Hi again admin:

sorry for the delay in response to the post. As to the first point on requesting records, I think enough of that has been done already at my personal (and other taxpayer) costs. I will entrust that the document is as you say it is.

As for the second point. I thought that the concern was over the "conspiracy theory" and that the city was hiding the whole Wal-Mart issue from the public; not that they were advising the Wal-Mart developers on this that or the other thing. This site has said that the city covered up this whole wal-mart thing from the residents. They kept it a secret, yada yada yada.... Now the tune and focus changes again?

I'm pretty good with my memory and I'm even better at holding my own in a game of wits, but the manner with which the HCRG (via this message board) changes its direction/directive has my head spinning -- this is not to be construed as a point in the favor of HCRG. The propaganda and messages relayed here, in the news, etc., needs to be consistent and carry forward. There are several instances where an idea or theory is quoted and then when referred back by a guest or other poster is then referenced again but in the opposite context.

I'm all about having the ability and authority to change ones mind, but the manner that the ideas of this forum have been twisted and construed is nearly psychotic in nature. One would think that there are many different individuals responding to the posters of the forum under the signon of Admin and that each of these individuals has a different thought pattern or idea of what should be believed, what is true, etc.

If there are (which I am pretty sure is affirmative) more than one Admin of this site, please for the good and welfare of the citizens who do watch this forum and regularly post, get it together -- be consistent with your answers. stop trying to confuse anyone. Perhaps you are misunderstanding the "vibe" you are not gaining popularity or members or strength with this methodology.

Thanks for listening.

[guest]

I couldn't agree more with your comment This group routinely changes it's tune to take advantage of what ever is said and to deflect items from where it has been shown that they are wrong or have mis spoke

[admin]

Hi guest and Guest -

We have never said that this should have come out in 2002 when Mr. K. was first approached. Some confidentiality needs to be ensured for all of the parties involved.

But according to Mr. K's memo on 11/27/03, the project was in the works the year before (so that would make it sometime in 2002). He also states that Wal-Mart "...indicated the possibilty of petitioning for annexation in April [that would be '04], which we strongly advised them not to do, given the upcoming local elections, in order to avoid making the development a political 'hot potato'...". Here is the memo: http://www.hartfordcrg.org/PDF/Koppelberger/031127%20-%20advise%20to%20Wal-Mart.pdf

This is where the cover up started. Mr. K. advised Wal-Mart to keep it quiet to avoid making a political issue out of it, even though Wal-Mart had indicated that they wanted to make it public before then.

The news of the Wal-Mart project came out finally on 4/23/04, when Mr. K advised the common council that he had to finally disclose the information because Express News found out about it and, and because of open record laws, he had to reveal the information. Otherwise it still wouldn't have been disclosed. Here is the memo: http://www.hartfordcrg.org/PDF/Koppelberger/040423%20-%20confidentiality.pdf

I still have not been able to find anywhere in these postings where anything different was said on the topic. Granted I have not gone through all 540+ postings, so if you can find postings that differ, please point them out and I will see if I can clarify.

I do know that there are postings provided by other "guests" that often tend to "muddy the waters". We will not attempt to edit those postings because that is not what this site is about. This forum is about open communications with the people of Hartford, and our goal is to get different points of view on the topics so the people can come to their own conclusions.

Unfortunately, many choose to use this forum instead to discredit the people that are providing the only outlet currently available for talking about some of these issues.

As always, thank you for your continued input.

Admin

[qt2]

Hi All -

I've been watching these posts for awhile - Admin: Why do you have to keep responding with the same thing over and over? Just tell them to go read it in the forum! Better yet, tell them to stick to the topics instead of just trying to discredit you guys. At least you are talking about it!

I thought I wanted a Walmart here, but after reading the comments in this forum, I'm not so sure anymore that the W. Sumner location is the right place for it. And I am not really sure that a super-center is such a good idea either. But I would like more choices of stores to shop in, either Walmart or something else.

I think the city officials and mayor have some special agenda, otherwise they would have held a referendum.

Thank you for giving us a place to let us bring out our opinions.

q

[Guest]

The problem is - the admin doesn't answer the question - he/she goes off on a tangent and does not address the issue as it was asked. He/she says he/she answers the question but it doesn't.

He still hasn't explained why one type of growth on the west side is better than another type (or even if that growth was retail - why it would be better than walmart.

[admin]

Hi Q - and thanks for the support.

Hi Guest -

To quote (I mean repeat) the 3rd posting on page 1 in the "More Basics" topic:

"Industrial and residential growth on the west side makes sense. Commercial development on the west side doesn't (unless you are the one buying the land and can get it cheaper than elsewhere). The amount of additional traffic created by a few more houses, or even by a factory that employs several hundred people, is miniscule compared to the 16,000 vehicle trips that will be added to highway 60 by the proposed Wal-Mart alone. But the development won't stop there. City Administrator Gary Koppleburger has already indicated that an additional 100+ acres are under consideration by developers, meaning even more traffic."

Even though this addresses only the traffic issue, this apparently doesn't give you a good explanation as to why one is better than the other. Okay, let's try to put it another way. First of all, the land on the west side of Hartford had all been previously designated for industrial and residential growth until the city had been approached by "a big box retailer" to build there, and there had been and currently is other residential and industrial development at that side of town. So from that stand point, it makes sense to continue to do so.

Let's set up some scenarios for development comparisons on Hartford's west side:
A. 1,000 new homes, each with 2 vehicles that make 2 trips daily through the Hwy 60/83 intersection would generate 4,000 daily trips through the intersection, 28,000/wk.
B. 2 new large factories that each employ 1,000 people (and oh yes, we must also compare this scenario to the additional 270 jobs that Wal-Mart anticipates creating), each driving a car to/from those plants through the 60/83 intersection would generate 4,000 trips through the intersection, 28,000 per week. Note that this number in actuality would be less, since many of those employees would be coming from the west.
C. Wal-Mart supercenter, using their own numbers for comparison would generate 7,000 weekday and 16,000+ weekend trips through the intersection, 67,000 per week.
A+B together: 56,000 trips per week.
Worst case, A+B+C: 123,000 trips per week.

And Mr. K. has implied that the development would actually end up being about 150 acres with additional retail development (no numbers on what that additional commercial development would do to traffic).

The houses and industry will most likely continue growth on that side of town regardless of whether or not commercial development is allowed there. The roadways on the east side of town wouldn't need any (or maybe minimal) additional work to add massive commercial development.

So now, from a traffic impact only, which makes more sense to you?

My apologies to "Q" - I did it again...

Thank you for your input.

Admin

[quest]

If some of the employees of the factories are coming from the west - should you also factor in that some of shoppers at the retail would also be coming from the west? Also - how many of those trips would be on the way to/from home in conjunction with other trips that are already made? Again - bias use of numbers.

Assuming that the residents only make two trips daily through the intersection - they would not be going out again during the day? Assuming that they work - one trip in the morning to go to work/one in the evening to return. No grocery shopping? No trips to visit the merchants downtown? No trips to pick up diner or go out? No trips to the doctors/dentist or Walgreens to pickup a ********? No trips to take the kids to/from school and thier activities. If you are going to compare numbers, lets try to compare apples to apples and not some numbers that look good to you and don't take into fact real life.

SO there is an increase in traffic - it happens all the time and is part of life and growth. How much did the traffic increased when the Mineshaft expanded and started advertising on the radio in Milwaukee area (yes it less than anything you mention but it still increased traffic).

And from a traffic issue - Walmart still makes more sense to me because the additional revenue in sales tax that would be generated (not to mention the addition sales that would be received at restaurants/bars/gas stations from the traffic) would be beneficial. It would also cut down on the traffic driving to West Bend or Germantown to shop at someplace other than Kmart or Sentry. Additional traffic can be handled - losing revenue such as sales tax can not

[admin]

Hi quest -

First about the traffic:

Wal-Mart's study does take into account traffic from the west. The others are just for comparison, figuring a minimum amount of traffic from homes and factories (yes, there could definitely be more - this is strictly a hypothesis) versus the "study" paid for by Wal-Mart, and I don't know if anyone has ever measured "impact study" versus "actual traffic".

The capability of the 60/83 intersection to handle the increased traffic is already in question, and the study by Wal-Mart did not address that intersection - it stopped 2 blocks west so WM wouldn't have to pay for any improvements to it. And the city leaders accepted their impact study. So, I wondor who will have to pay for any improvements needed to handle additional traffic...hmmmmm.....

And there still is not a plan in place for a by-pass to relieve traffic to the west side.

Now, on to tax revenues:

There are many theories on the tax revenue thing. The one that was very prominent in the presentation on 2/8 by Doug Cunningham is the fact that "more stores" do NOT mean "more sales" and therefore do NOT generate more tax revenue.

Studies (listed later in this post) also show that property tax revenues typically do not reimburse municipalities sufficiently for additional infrastructure and fire/police protection.

We must remember that given a fixed size population, there is always a relative fixed amount of dollars spent into the enconomy. What that means is that money will be spent in either store A "or" store B, not in store A "plus" store B. Therefore, it is not "more" dollars being spent, just dollars being spent in one place instead of another, known by economists as a "tax shift".

Thus, not more tax dollars available, just the same tax dollars coming from a diffenent place than before.

More information on this topic (from someone other than Wal-Mart or the government agencies):
From Executive Intelligence Review: http://www.larouchepub.com/other/2003/3045walmart_iowa.html
From Glenn Fleischman Blog: http://blog.glennf.com/mtarchives/005987.html
From the Boulder (CO) Independent Business Alliance: http://staylocal.org/info/pdf/Why-Not-To-Have-Walmart-In-Boulder.pdf

And finally, a place that lists Economic Impact Studies of Big Box stores around the country, something that Hartford city leaders seem to think is not necessary: http://www.sfloma.org/studies - special emphasis on this one: http://www.newrules.org/retail/midcoaststudy.pdf

Thank you for your input.

Admin

[Pissed Off Citizen]

Why don't we look at what happened in Greenfield, Mass. A few years ago they prevented a Wal-Mart from being built in their town, because they were afraid that local business would go out of business and would not be able to compete with the chain. Sound familiar??? Well guess what, the downtown area stores in Greenfield still went out of business and the downtown area looks like a ghost town. You want to know why, it is because Wal-mart built in surrounding communities and all the locals would drive the additional 15 mins. or 1/2 hour out of their way to go to Wal-mart for the better prices and services. So now not only is Greenfield, Mass. a ghost town now with all the local business having gone out of business, but they are now missing out on getting any additional tax revenue if they would have just let Wal-mart be built in their town. I can tell you that this is already happening in Hartford, a large majority of Hartford citizen's currently drive out of their way to either West Bend or Germantown to shop. This is not only for lower prices but also because the local Hartford stores products and services are sub-par at best. So now I ask you, do you want the same thing to happen in Hartford??? As far as building the Wal-mart on the west side of town, that is the best place to build it from my point of view. Think about it, the only traffic from the east will be from Slinger and Hartford. Any other towns like Allenton or Polk will more than likely go to the Wal-mart in West Bend. But Dodge County, they have a long distance to drive to the nearest Wail-mart or any store for that matter, so the majority of the traffic will be coming from the west so why not build it on the west side of town.

[admin]

Hi PO'd -

A Wal-Mart in Greenfield, MA may have been a good idea. And we agree with you wholeheartedly that an economic impact study may have pointed that out. We should have an Economic Impact Study done here as well so we are all well-informed and prepared for the economic impact of having a Wal-Mart Supercenter, as well as the economic impact of NOT having a Wal-Mart Supercenter in Hartford. But the city leaders seem to be afraid of what it may show.

Did you not know when you moved here that you might have to drive some distance for products or services that might not be available here? I think most people did.

According to the Wal-Mart-funded traffic impact study, a little over 1/4 of the traffic will come from the west. And remember that for those west of Hartford, there is also a Wal-Mart store in Delafield, and Supercenters in both Beaver Dam and Watertown.

As long as you mentioned the traffic: close your eyes and envision the entire West Bend Paradise Plaza shopping center on Hartford's west side. Now envision that same traffic without a major roadway to get it there, but instead getting there by going through the intersection of Hwys 83 & 60. Not a pretty site to say the least.

As for moving Hartford's major commercial center from its current location on the east side to gobble up some of the best farm land in the state: we will probably always disagree on that.

As always, thank you for your input.

Admin