Wal-Mart vote challenged

Adrienne Packer

Thursday, Oct. 7, 1999 | 11:43 a.m.

A day after union members celebrated the Clark County Commission's decision to pass an ordinance that keeps Wal-Mart Supercenters out of the county, legal action was taken that could put the issue on next year's election ballot.

An affidavit filed this morning with the Clark County Elections Department was submitted not by the corporate giant, but by residents who formed a committee called "Citizens for Competition" late Wednesday.

"We believe the government shouldn't be deciding where a person can or cannot shop," said attorney Charles Muth, who is a member of the five-person committee. "The free market works well in America and has for 200 years."

The committee has 180 days to collect signatures from 10 percent of the people who voted in the last election -- which amounts to 25,760 residents.

If the required number of signatures is collected, the commission will have to reconsider the controversial ordinance it passed Wednesday by a 3-2 vote. The ordinance will be placed on next year's primary election ballot if board members choose not to repeal it.

"The county shouldn't be interfering with companies' rights to open their doors and citizens' rights to walk through those doors," Muth said.

During a four-hour public hearing Wednesday, opponents of the measure claimed the proposed ordinance was nothing more than a political move and evidence of organized labor's powerful hold over elected officials in Las Vegas.

But the majority of Clark County commissioners told the audience -- which was equally split between Wal-Mart supporters and union members -- that the ordinance was about future land development in the valley.

That, however, was hardly the message Commissioner Mary Kincaid offered when she told the United Food and Commercial Workers Union she wouldn't support an ordinance designed to prevent nonunion Wal-Mart from opening a Supercenter.

"My political advisors have told me that I would be much better off politically if I voted for this ordinance," Kincaid said. "But the people of Clark County didn't elect me to do the politically correct thing. They elected me to do the right thing."

Commissioners agreed the decision was one of the most difficult in their careers. It prevents the opening of stores larger than 100,000 square feet that dedicate more than 7,500 square feet to untaxable groceries, killing any possibility of new "super stores" moving to the county.

The ordinance that quickly transformed into a battle between union members and Wal-Mart was originally crafted to address traffic problems.

County planners said the number of vehicles and pedestrians in a small parking lot posed a public safety hazard. The "big box" stores also cause congestion in neighborhoods surrounding the buildings and are aesthetically displeasing.

Kincaid and Commissioner Lance Malone were the only two board members to vote against the ordinance, which was partially drafted and heavily pushed by union members whom some elected officials count on to bolster their campaign funds.

Commission Chairman Bruce Woodbury and board member Dario Herrera abstained because of possible ethical conflicts.

Kincaid and Malone knew entering the meeting the ordinance would pass, but both said they didn't want to interfere with free enterprise and deny residents their right to choose where to shop.

"I've seen the writing on the wall about how this vote is going to go," Kincaid said. "And I probably have nothing to lose if I vote for this ordinance and everything to lose if I vote against it."

Kincaid might have the most to lose. While she and Malone are both up for re-election next year, Malone's relationship with the union has been shaky ever since he was backed by the notoriously anti-union executive Sheldon Adelson.

Kincaid wasn't the only person to see the writing on the wall.

Barry Shannahan, a Wal-Mart real estate manager based at the company' corporate headquarters in Bentonville, Ark., said his hopes that commissioners would decide on the issue after the public hearing were dashed when board members began reading from prepared statements.

"The prepared statements and last-minute jockeying for abstentions made it clear to us that their decisions were made in advance," Shannahan said.

Herrera abstained because his public relations firm represents developers who lease space to large grocery stores that are members of the Food and Commercial Worker's Union.

But the most costly abstention for Wal-Mart came from Woodbury.

Woodbury, whose son works for Mark James' law firm that represented Wal-Mart until just days before the vote, said two weeks ago he would have to abstain. Wal-Mart tried to rescue Woodbury's sure 'no' vote by dumping James' firm, but District Attorney Stewart Bell advised Woodbury on Wednesday not to vote.

Shannahan said Wal-Mart was unaware of the conflict when it hired the law firm.

"We reconsidered because we knew Woodbury had a strong desire to vote," Shannahan said. "We then made a decision that we thought would permit him to vote."

After the decision was made, Woodbury told the audience he didn't want Malone and Kincaid to take the heat alone and admitted he too would have voted against the ordinance.

Daphne Davis, Wal-Mart's community affairs director, wouldn't say today whether a lawsuit would be filed against the county, but company representatives have earlier indicated if they lost, they would appeal the decision.

And although the state Attorney General's office reviewed the proposed ordinance and deemed it constitutional, some commissioners expressed doubt it will stand up in court because it interferes with competition.

The Attorney General's opinion was applauded by proponents of the ordinance, who told commissioners that a Wal-Mart Supercenter would destroy small businesses. Eventually, they said, shopping centers formerly anchored by major grocery stores would be filled with vacant buildings that would attract vagrants.

They also said Clark County taxpayers would be burdened with medical costs because Wal-Mart doesn't provide benefits to all its employees. Wal-Mart, whose Supercenter would have been the valley's first major nonunion grocery store, disputed the claim.

Opponents of the ordinance who paraded to the podium included former county planners who offered other strategies on how to address traffic problems -- which was the original reason the county introduced the ordinance.

They also included attorneys armed with statistics that showed the cost of groceries in Clark County are 15 percent higher than the national average. Even Las Vegas Chamber of Commerce representatives spoke against the proposal.

"We believe this is about controlling the free marketplace," said Kara Kelley, senior vice president of the chamber. "Businesses close everyday for a variety of reasons. Stores close not because of a super store but because Nevada consumers have chosen to spend their money somewhere else."

Kelley said the chamber's membership mostly includes small businesses, and the majority of them opposed the anti-superstore ordinance.

Most of the residents who called or wrote to the county echoed the chamber's sentiments. Assistant Planning Director Lesa Coder said as of Tuesday evening, 19,000 supported the ordinance and 23,000 opposed it.

Attorney Chris Kaempfer accused board members of developing an ordinance, then looking for ways to justify it. He pointed out that governments didn't get involved when grocery store chains moved into town and put mom-and-pop supermarkets out of business.

"This is a terribly slippery slope. Where do you begin, where do you end and who do you protect?" he said. "The proposed ordinance is anti-competition and anti-consumer and without any foundation from fact. That makes it illegal."

And while most the record crowd of about 1,000 wore fluorescent stickers either supporting competition or the union, at least one woman waded through the crowd and identified herself as a resident with no ties to either side.

Carol Leduc questioned the existence all the mom-and-pop stores union members said would be put out of business if a Supercenter moved into town. Afterall, Clark County is home to hundreds of chain stores.

Leduc said she does not shop at Wal-Mart but vowed that commissioners would face thousands of angry voters if they passed the ordinance.

"This whole ordinance is a crock," she said. "It is against free enterprise."

While the commissioners appreciated the packed chambers -- a huge difference from the meager crowds that typically frequent the zoning meetings -- they took offense to angry messages they received about the ordinance.

"Threats have been made that lawsuits will be filed or political careers will be in jeopardy depending on the outcomes," Commissioner Williams wrote in her statement. "Whatever the vote today, I hope both sides realize that this board cannot be intimidated."

archive