Voters in the Los Angeles suburb of Inglewood have wisely and
emphatically
turned down a ballot initiative by Wal-Mart that would have allowed
the
corporation to build a gargantuan shopping complex free of planning,
zoning and
environmental regulations.
Rather
than a David vs. Goliath victory, as some have characterized it,
Inglewood's rejection of the plan reflects the importance of a
community's right
to self-determination. It also exposes the perils of California's
laissez-fair
ballot laws that could lead to the kind of piecemeal development
that creates
sprawl.
Inglewood's
city council rejected the plan for a big-box megastore. It cited
traffic, labor, safety and economic concerns. Wal-Mart, which
plans 40
superstores in California over the next five years, was unhappy
with the
rejection, as well as the normal channels of appeal.
Instead,
the company collected 10,000 signatures to put the question directly
to voters, spending $1 million on an advertising campaign.
One
community church leader who opposed Wal-Mart's tactics told The
New York
Times that people were not necessarily opposed to the retail complex,
which
would have brought jobs and revenue to the blue-collar suburb.
Rather they
objected to the way in which the company tried to circumvent the
regulatory
process.
Rest
assured, this could not happen in Connecticut, which does not
have
statewide ballot initiatives. There is no ballot mechanism even
at the local
level that would exempt development from local regulations. That's
as it should
be.
