A CALIFORNIA TOWN'S VOTERS DEAL WAL-MART A SETBACK

David Merrefield

Voters in Inglewood, Calif., went to the polls last week and dealt a blow to Wal-Mart Stores' supercenter-rollout ambitions in California.

The stinging rebuke handed Wal-Mart by Inglewood voters, by a 60-to-40 ratio, is by no means fatal to the retailing giant's ambitions for California, but it may mean that Wal-Mart -- and other aggressive developers -- will need to move a bit more deliberately than they could have had the wind of victory been at their backs, and at greater cost and complexity. (News article, Page 1.)

The saga of Inglewood, an enclave of some 110,000 residents not far from Los Angeles International Airport, is important even given the fact that Wal-Mart has often faced opposition from local interests in many places in the country, and has amply demonstrated that it's up to such challenges. Frequently, Wal-Mart has overcome objection to its development scenarios by persuasion or legal action. On occasion, Wal-Mart has retreated from its plans, too.

In this instance, Wal-Mart seized the possibility afforded by California law to go straight to voters after its development plan was nixed by the Inglewood City Council, and after it became clear the council would remain impervious to the retailer's entreaties to reconsider. Wal-Mart did that by collecting thousands of signatures on a petition, winning the right to set before voters a detailed initiative specifying how its proposed development would proceed. It's reported that Wal-Mart spent more than $1 million to promote passage. Opposition was vigorous. Wal-Mart cited "outside interests" in explaining the defeat.

To the initiative's detractors, success at the ballot box would have conferred upon Wal-Mart little less than a 60-acre sovereign nation upon which it could proceed with development as it saw fit, preempting city council mandates and obviating state requirements for environmental-impact assessments. Many cited the perceived usurpation of power to explain their opposition.

Conversely, many voters were in favor of Wal-Mart's plan. That number included not only the 40% who voted in favor of it, but Inglewood's mayor, too.

After all, the proposed development site is a forlorn parking field adjacent to both the aging Hollywood Park Racetrack and the 1960s-era Forum, the erstwhile home of the Lakers that's now used occasionally as an entertainment venue. Seemingly, any improvement to the tract would be positive.

Wal-Mart's development, which would have been called "Home Stretch at Hollywood Park," would have included numerous shops and restaurants in addition to Wal-Mart's own presence. The 650,000-square-foot extravaganza could have pumped many jobs and millions of dollars in sorely needed tax revenue into Inglewood.

Naturally, Wal-Mart will proceed with its plans for California, notwithstanding Inglewood voters. According to a study prepared for Los Angeles County earlier this year, and which Wal-Mart sponsored, California could support 100 to 150 supercenters, "based solely on the state's share of the national population."

How is Wal-Mart to overcome loss of the Inglewood template? The same study shows that Wal-Mart is likely to build stores adjacent to recalcitrant towns, draining tax revenue from them.