The Ham Lake City Council declined to take immediate action Monday night on a moratorium on "big box" development, deferring a decision until the council's next meeting in two weeks. The council directed the City Attorney to prepare several options for review at their April 4 meeting.
The delay disappointed local residents, including local union members, who mobilized in recent weeks to oppose a proposed 203,000-square-foot Wal-Mart store.
The agenda for the meeting originally called for action on the Planning Commission's recommendation to reject the Wal-Mart proposal. Last Thursday, however, Wal-Mart withdrew its proposed rezoning request in the face of local opposition.
United Food and Commerical Workers Local 653 had written to its more than 100 full-time members in Ham Lake and urged them to attend the meeting, said Local 653's Jim Vossen. "We called them today and told them it's off the agenda."
Nonetheless, nearly 100 people, including union members, came to the council meeting, many wearing buttons expressing opposition to Wal-Mart.
Citizens for Responsible Development in Ham Lake, which organized opposition to Wal-Mart, presented the council with a proposed moratorium on big box development and asked the council to act on immediately. The group also offered to hire a planner to work with the city to better define its development plans.
"This is another one of those big decisions and we have to be careful not to over-react," said Mayor Gary W. Kirkeide. "Maybe [Wal-Mart] is going to come up with a revised plan that's going to work up here."
"I think we're vulnerable," said City Council Member Paul Meunier, who supported the moratorium. "What if Wal-Mart does submit a proposal tomorrow?"
"I think they'll be back next week with another plan," feared Christine Dahlman, vice-chair of Citizens for Responsible Development in Ham Lake.
CWA member Pat Jeukens was one of several union members who came to the meeting. Like many opposed to Wal-Mart's proposal, she said the corner of Highway 65 and Crosstown Boulevard was not a good site for such a large store.
"I'm fighting it, mainly for environmental reasons and traffic," she said. "We have five Wal-Marts and six Targets within a 20-minute radius from that intersection," she added.
 |
Ham Lake resident Ann Rude (above), a former 15-year member of UFCW Local 653, attended the meeting with her son, Jacob. "I live near the site where Wal-Mart could have gone in," she said. "We moved to Ham Lake because of the rural feel and to get away from the big stores." More than 100 Ham Lake residents, including union members, filled the City Council chambers (below). Minneapolis Labor Review photos |
 |
Share
The Ham Lake City Council declined to take immediate action Monday night on a moratorium on “big box” development, deferring a decision until the council’s next meeting in two weeks. The council directed the City Attorney to prepare several options for review at their April 4 meeting.
The delay disappointed local residents, including local union members, who mobilized in recent weeks to oppose a proposed 203,000-square-foot Wal-Mart store.
The agenda for the meeting originally called for action on the Planning Commission’s recommendation to reject the Wal-Mart proposal. Last Thursday, however, Wal-Mart withdrew its proposed rezoning request in the face of local opposition.
United Food and Commerical Workers Local 653 had written to its more than 100 full-time members in Ham Lake and urged them to attend the meeting, said Local 653’s Jim Vossen. “We called them today and told them it’s off the agenda.”
Nonetheless, nearly 100 people, including union members, came to the council meeting, many wearing buttons expressing opposition to Wal-Mart.
Citizens for Responsible Development in Ham Lake, which organized opposition to Wal-Mart, presented the council with a proposed moratorium on big box development and asked the council to act on immediately. The group also offered to hire a planner to work with the city to better define its development plans.
“This is another one of those big decisions and we have to be careful not to over-react,” said Mayor Gary W. Kirkeide. “Maybe [Wal-Mart] is going to come up with a revised plan that’s going to work up here.”
“I think we’re vulnerable,” said City Council Member Paul Meunier, who supported the moratorium. “What if Wal-Mart does submit a proposal tomorrow?”
“I think they’ll be back next week with another plan,” feared Christine Dahlman, vice-chair of Citizens for Responsible Development in Ham Lake.
CWA member Pat Jeukens was one of several union members who came to the meeting. Like many opposed to Wal-Mart’s proposal, she said the corner of Highway 65 and Crosstown Boulevard was not a good site for such a large store.
“I’m fighting it, mainly for environmental reasons and traffic,” she said. “We have five Wal-Marts and six Targets within a 20-minute radius from that intersection,” she added.
|
|
Ham Lake resident Ann Rude (above), a former 15-year member of UFCW Local 653, attended the meeting with her son, Jacob. "I live near the site where Wal-Mart could have gone in," she said. "We moved to Ham Lake because of the rural feel and to get away from the big stores." More than 100 Ham Lake residents, including union members, filled the City Council chambers (below). Minneapolis Labor Review photos |
|