Groups warn of radioactive ‘bombs’ traveling on highways

Members of local activist groups sat in front of a
mock nuclear waste cask outside the county courthouse
to call attention to the ramifications of the proposed
nuclear waste dump at Yucca Mountain, June 5, 2002.
Photo by Brendan Conley

By Brendan Conley

Asheville, North Carolina, June 5 (AGR)-- A government plan to transport nuclear waste on the nation’s interstate highways will damage human health and the environment, and provide thousands of moving targets for “dirty bomb” attacks, a coalition of local groups warned.

With a giant “mock nuclear waste cask” parked in front of the county courthouse, Physicians for Social Responsibility (PSR) and Nuclear Information and Resource Service (NIRS) held a press conference June 5 to highlight the dangers of the plan.

Also on June 5, the US Senate Energy Committee endorsed the plan, which calls for the nation’s waste to be transported from nuclear reactors across the country to Yucca Mountain in Nevada.  The committee voted 13-10 to override the state of Nevada’s veto of the $58 billion project.  The plan may reach expected final congressional approval within two months.

“Western North Carolina is an atomic crossroads,” said Mary Olson of NIRS.  “There are 33 nuclear reactors in the southeastern US.”  Olson said the government’s projected routes would have nuclear waste from South Carolina traveling on I-40 and I-26.

That is very dangerous, according to Dr. Stanley Dienst of PSR.  Dienst warned that the 850,000 curies of waste expected to travel in a typical tractor-trailer shipment would make an easy target for terrorists.  If such a shipment were blown up, said Dienst, anyone within three miles exposed to the resulting dose of ionizing radiation would be dead within a week.

“If you are further away and receive less radiation,” he said, one could expect “lingering death in half of the people exposed over two to five weeks. The only answer is to prevent these large dirty bombs from traveling through our communities.”

Olson said between 20,000 and 100,000 shipments are expected over 30 years.  The groups called for Democratic NC Senator John Edwards to vote against the Yucca Mountain bill.  Edwards has not yet said which way he will vote.

For more information: www.nirs.org

Asheville residents fight another “big box” sprawl development

The former Sayles Bleachery, proposed site for a 46-acre shopping center. Photo by Brendan Conley

By Beth Trigg

Asheville, North Carolina, June 12 (AGR)— On June 25, Asheville’s City Council will be deciding whether or not to grant permission to Riverbend Business Partners to build a vast development along the Swannanoa River at the Sayles Bleachery site. The plan is centered around a 24-hour Wal-Mart Supercenter. If this sounds familiar, that’s because this is the second time these same developers have sought the city’s permission for a Wal-Mart superstore complex on the same site. The last time, Wal-Mart and the business partners were denied, thanks to a broad-based community effort to pressure Council to turn the plan down based on environmental and community concerns. Now the developers are returning with an “urban village” design incorporating “upscale” restaurants, “decorative metal fencing,” multiple retail spaces, and fancier facades on the “anchor stores.” Local activists and neighborhood groups say this is just a thin coat of paint covering the same problems that Wal-Mart brings with it wherever it goes.

After losing the fight over the original Sayles plan to neighborhood associations, environmentalists, and other area activists who opposed the development, the Wal-Mart Corporation tried again with another developer on a different site in South Asheville, where they again failed due to organized community resistance. Now, they are returning to the Sayles site in what some term a corporate/community grudge match, but this time the developers have some allies within city government.

The price of City Council

One of the three Riverbend Business Partners is Bob Jolley, a founding member of the notorious Political Action Committee (PAC) — Citizens for New Leadership — that saturated last year’s municipal elections with special interest money, contributing thousands to the campaigns of Charles Worley, Jim Ellis, Carl Mumpower, and Joe Dunn. All four PAC candidates were elected. Dunn, who has become famous for his demeaning remarks about homeless people, “unusual people,” and immigrants, and for his block of an important affordable housing initiative, was openly supportive of the developers during his campaign, and has frequently spoken publicly in favor of Wal-Mart.The Riverbend project will be the first real test of the allegiance of local politicians who ran their campaigns on PAC money from an elite group which includes out-of-town developers and investors.

The Riverbend plan

This time, Riverbend Development Partners has submitted a plan to the city that includes covering a total of 46.16 acres with impermeable surfaces—buildings, roads, and parking lots. The development is centered around two big box stores: the massive 220,000-square-foot Super Wal-Mart and an 88,000 square-foot “upscale clothing store,” rumored to be an Old Navy. Along with other smaller shops, the plan includes three separate parking lots and a total of 1,739 parking spaces.

The developers plan to build a 4-lane bridge across the Swannanoa River from the 2-lane Swannanoa River Road, and to construct a new road to the shopping center through Oakley from Fairview Road. Riverbend has already bought a number of homes in Oakley, which they plan to raze to cut a swath through the neighborhood to create an access road to funnel cars in from the highways that converge in that area.

In addition to the box stores, which the developers say is Phase One, the plan also includes Phases Two and Three, which are where the “urban village” concept (mixed use for housing and retail) will presumably be realized. However, there is nothing binding the developer to actualize these phases. Many local activists question whether the later phases will ever come to pass, suggesting that they may be window dressing for a generic box retail development.

Planning and zoning commission
approves development

At a packed meeting last Tuesday night, the City’s Planning and Zoning Commission (P & Z) voted four to two in favor of Riverbend’s Super Wal-Mart after hearing from the public in the form of a standing-room-only crowd. Over 175 people packed the Commission meeting to speak for and against the development. After a five-hour public hearing, the Commission sided with the developer and passed the plan on to City Council for final approval.

Joining the Riverbend Partners, who are Asheville businessmen Harley Dunn, Bob Jolley, and Steve Haney, were a team of consultants and paid experts, including an architect from local firm Masters and Gentry; representatives from Horne Properties, a major national developer based in Knoxville; traffic and stormwater engineers; and Wal-Mart’s chief architect for difficult projects. This is the 80th development of this size for Horne Properties, which is coordinating the plan.

Dunn represented the partners at the meeting, offering the Commission a slide show and a presentation with a down-home, yarnspinning tone, extolling the merits of the development, mentioning the dollar amounts of property and sales tax revenues that would be generated by the scheme, and implying that taking “the biggest eyesore in Asheville,” the “derelict buildings” of the old Bleachery, would be doing the city a favor. Dunn forecasted a Fall 2003 opening for the main stores and tipped his hat to Super Wal-Mart as the driving force behind the development. “To drive the site,” said Dunn, “you have to have a very large engine. We are very fortunate to have the Wal-Mart Corporation working with us.”

The opposition

Neighbors and other city residents presented a strong case against the development at last week’s hearing. Opposition to the project has been coordinated by a local grassroots group, Community Supported Development (CSD), which originally came together to fight the first Sayles development. At the Planning and Zoning hearing, the case against the development was mostly confined to issues related to the city’s Unified Development Ordinance (UDO). In order to be granted a conditional use variance within the ordinance, the development has to meet seven specific conditions, called Conditional Use Findings. Opponents of the project cited multiple violations of these conditions.

Filling and paving in the floodplain

One major set of concerns focuses on stormwater runoff from the site, approximately 75% of which is in the floodway and floodplane of the Swannanoa River. The paving of the site would be predominantly asphalt, edged with pervious pavement.

The developers’ plans require fill for 25 acres in the existing floodplain, despite the fact that, as Beverly Hills resident Mike Moody pointed out at the public hearing, “fills in the floodplain are explicitly forbidden in the city’s UDO.”

The developers also propose “revising” the floodway and accommodating stormwater by excavating three runoff detention ponds plus “bio-retention cells,” and digging huge trenches, or “floodway expansion areas,” fifty feet from the bank of the river. But Hope Taylor-Guevera of the Clean Water Fund for North Carolina stated that “these limited measures do not begin to address the stormwater impacts that will be attributable to the site and the additional roadways required for access” and asserted that her organization “would be concerned about the stormwater impacts of any major retail development in such close proximity to surface water.”

Beth Jezek, representing the NC Green Party, listed for the Commission multiple violations of water quality laws by Wal-Mart in communities across the US, as evidence that the plan would violate the first conditional use finding, which concerns public health and safety. Wal-Mart has faced multiple penalties related to both runoff during construction and ongoing stormwater runoff. Jezek highlighted an EPA case against Wal-Mart involving violations of the Clean Water Act in 17 locations, the first federal enforcement action against a company for multi-state violations of the Act’s storm water provisions. Jezek quoted the EPA’s statement in the Wal-Mart case: “Stormwater runoff from construction sites can cause silt and sediments to build up in lakes and streams and kill aquatic life. Runoff also can transport pollutants like oil and pesticides into nearby storm drains, into sewer systems, and ultimately into streams and waterways. These discharges may drastically affect the health and quality of a waterway, and untreated stormwater runoff may contaminate drinking water and pollute recreational waters.” After detailing a litany of environmental violations, Jezek added, “These are only the violations we know about. How may other times have they polluted waterways and lakes in communities that didn’t have the resources to monitor their construction activities?”

Taylor-Guevera summarized: “Given the Wal-Mart Corporation’s well-documented failure to control stormwater impacts on numerous sites throughout the US, we believe that the Commission must question the wisdom of this particular development proposal adjacent to an already highly impacted urban river.” Dozens of community residents echoed the sentiments of the Clean Water Fund and the Green Party. Jezek told the Commission: “Wal-Mart’s environmental record is deplorable. Allowing a known polluter of waterways to open a store along the Swannanoa River seems unreasonable at best. I urge you to deny this conditional use permit.”

Making way for more cars and traffic

The Riverbend plan calls for construction of 2 miles of new roadway, including a million dollar bridge, and has significant impact on existing streets in the surrounding area. The developers’ own traffic estimates project over 17,000 car trips every day to the shopping center. Nearby residents believe that this is a recipe for disaster for neighborhoods in Oakley, Beverly Hills, Haw Creek, Redwood Forest, and all along the river.

The UDO’s seventh conditional use standard requires “that the proposed use will not cause undue traffic congestion or create a traffic hazard.” Opponents of the project say it will clearly violate this standard, and will likely require the city to spend money -- corporate welfare -- on accomodating the massive traffic flow in and out of the development. According to the City’s evaluation of the plan, “primary access to the site will be via Swannanoa River Road.” Riverbend estimates about 10,700 trips per day on this narrow road, which is 63% of the total number of cars they foresee entering the development each day. Their plan calls for a new bridge to be constructed upstream of the existing bridge, which would be demolished. The new bridge deck is designed at seven feet below the river’s high water level, in violation of North Carolina Dept. of Transportation (NCDOT) policy.

People who live in the Swannanoa River Road area are fearful that the massive influx of traffic will destroy their neighborhood. Chief City Planner Gerald Green reports that “the development would use essentially all the remaining [traffic] capacity of the section of Swannonoa River Road east of South Tunnel Road,” which “would violate the City’s Sustainable Economic Development Strategic Plan and Smart Growth Policies, as well as not comply with some of the standards for approval for conditional use.” Green explained at the public hearing that the city is investigating two options for solving this problem, both of which involve new road construction or expansion of existing roadways at taxpayer expense.

In addition to the impact on the Swannanoa River Road area, the development would add significant traffic to Oakley neighborhoods. The developers plan to construct a new road beginning at the intersection of Fairview Road at Stevens Street in Oakley. Many Oakley residents and the Oakley Neighborhood Association adamantly oppose the development and the new roadway. Oakley resident Stuart Roper, speaking at the public hearing, recounted having canvassed the entire length of Fairview Road, talking to his neighbors about the Riverbend proposal. “I’ve spoken with 95% of the residents of Fairview Road, and a lot of them say their children aren’t even allowed in the front yard because of traffic,” said Roper. “We already have a nearly intolerable traffic issue.” Christopher Fielden, speaking on behalf of the Oakley Community Association, called the development “a huge, huge step backward for the Oakley community, which has been working to reduce traffic and make it a people-friendly area rather than a cut-through.” Fielden pointed to the fact that the starting point of the new road would be very near the “already gridlocked” Fairview Road intersection where Oakley Elementary, the public library, and the Community Center are. “The residents of Oakley want our neighborhood back,” said Fielden, “we don’t want it for the cars -- we want it for the people.”

Scale and compatibility with topography and neighborhoods

UDO standards require “that the proposed use or development of the land will be in harmony with the scale, bulk, coverage, density, and character of the area or neighborhood in which it is located,” and “is reasonably compatible with significant natural and topographic features on the site and within the immediate vicinity of the site.”

City staff concluded that the development met this standard because “this project is proposing the minimum grading necessary to develop the property with this type of intense use.” But Asheville resident Gail Moody contends that the development still violates the UDO. In addition to the twenty-five acres of up to ten feet of fill, Moody points out that “100 feet would be sliced off of a hilltop to create a level area of approximately four acres to accommodate the second anchor store. Another seventy feet of elevation off of a hill adjacent to the river will also go if this plan is approved. Extensive floodway expansion and stormwater retention ponds will require conservatively another five acres of excavation. Approximately nineteen [additional] acres, or all of Phase 2 will be altered by cut and fill leaving nothing undisturbed. Yet this is the ‘minimum,’ the sacrifice made in the name of progress.”

At Tuesday’s hearing, Moody implored the Commission: “Will anyone really miss several hilltops and some floodplain along the river? I will and hopefully so will many like me, including those of you serving on the board today.”

Several speakers at the public hearing focused on the issue of harmony of scale. One opponent referred to the development as “huge—inherently out of scale.” Cicada Brokaw explained, “The character of the immediate area is small to medium-sized businesses and streets which enter residential neighborhoods. Sticking a mega-sized big box store which generates huge volumes of traffic is a major change that is out of harmony with both the scale and character of the area.”

Neighbors agreed—Corine Kurzmann, who lives in the Sayles neighborhood, told the Commission: “We can’t band-aid this if it’s a mistake. We live in this neighborhood. It’s our community.” Rebecca Campbell of CSD added, “Five neighborhoods will go up in smoke if you let this development proceed.”

Groundwater contamination

Another set of concerns centers on existing toxins and contaminants on the post-industrial site. The Sayles site was a fabric bleachery for years, and in his presentation to Planning and Zoning, Harley Dunn refered to a history of “dry cleaning liquid leached into the groundwater.” According to the NC Clean Water Fund, “The Superfund Section of the NC Division of Waste Management has been tracking the groundwater investigation being conducted at this site for a number of years.” Clean Water Fund representative Hope Taylor-Guevera told P & Z; “The site has not been included in the National Priorities List, as there are not residents drinking ground water in the vicinity. However, based on the type, concentration and mobility of the groundwater contamination found, Superfund officials have ranked this site among the top five in the state for remediation priority. The high toxicity of the di-, tri-, and tetrachloroethene and their concentrations well in excess of groundwater standards for North Carolina should raise considerable concern for the type of development under consideration and its proximity to the Swannanoa River.”

Taylor-Guevera told the Commission that any development should not be allowed to proceed without a “remediation” plan for cleaning up the toxins, revealing that the developers’ environmental consultant has identified a plume of contamination which contacts the river, but has not explained how development plans will overlay on the plume or offered a plan for clean-up. She added, “We are deeply concerned that any construction activities in advance of approved remediation could severely compromise the extent and timing of the groundwater clean up.”

Urban village or Sprawlsville, USA?

Using the city’s new “Urban Village” zoning category to package the development is a change in the developers’ plan since their last time around at the Sayles site. The developers posit that the development surrounding the superstore (Phases 2 and 3) will be “mixed-use” (housing and retail), pedestrian-friendly, “upscale,” and tastefully landscaped with green “buffer zones.” Riverbend Partners is even donating an area adjacent to the river to the city of Asheville as a park. But critics question whether anyone would want to live in a pricey condominium with a view of Super Wal-Mart, or drive to a park along side an increasingly polluted river and close to acres of highly-trafficked pavement.

Sharon Martin of CSD points out, “currently, the homeowners living near this proposed development clearly oppose living near a big box development, even with all of the buffering that the planning staff has assured us the developer will include. Phase 2 of the project includes no buffering, other than asphalt parking lots and the back of a big box retail store.” Martin posed this question at the public hearing: “If the phases of this project were reversed, with the urban village [housing and small businesses] being constructed first, would the people purchasing homes in the urban village oppose living next to a 24-hour Wal-Mart Supercenter?” Judging by the organized resistance of current neighbors, Martin believes that they would. She further questioned the Commission: “Urban village zoning intends to encourage small, locally-owned shops to create the village atmosphere. How will small, locally-owned businesses be able to compete with a Wal-Mart Supercenter?”

Next stop: City Council City Council

will address the Riverbend plan and hear public comment on June 25 at 5pm. The public hearing is currently slated to be held in Council Chambers at City Hall despite community pressure to move the hearing to a larger venue. In addition to discussing planning and zoning, Council is likely to hear comment on a broader range of issues, including tax benefits of the development and potential effects on the local economy, including job creation.

The developers are wooing the City with promises of millions of dollars in sales and property tax revenues, but opponents say there will be little net gain, pointing to the negative effect of Wal-Mart on small local businesses. Brad Sisk, who came to the P & Z hearing from Gaffney, SC to share information about the impact of Super Wal-Mart in his town, said, “It will shut local businesses down in droves if you let it in.  I saw it happen in my town.  Wal-Mart brought Gaffney to its knees.  Grocers, tire centers, stationary stores, electronics vendors, drug stores -- you name it, I saw Wal-Mart gobble them up one by one.” One study shows that 84% of sales for new Wal-Marts and Super Wal-Marts are taken from existing businesses. And according to CSD, “money spent in locally-owned businesses is recycled through the community four to five times. Chain superstore dollars leave the city immediately. Super Wal-Marts do not stimulate sales at other local businesses.”

CSD says that “Wal-Mart serves to depress wages at grocery stores and other existing businesses. Additionally they do not increase employment levels over the long term.” The group cites studies showing that big box stores, especially Wal-Mart, have neutral or negative effects on employment levels, including one study of Lake Placid, New York, which found that for every job Wal-Mart created, one-and-a-half jobs were lost in other local businesses. And, says the group’s statement opposing the Sayles development, “the jobs Wal-Mart brings with them are generally lower paying than the ones being replaced.” On the other side, several local Wal-Mart employees spoke at the public hearing in favor of the retail giant, calling the company “a very good job provider.” Anne Green, a Wal-Mart worker who drives to Asheville from Madison County to work at the Tunnel Road store, maintained “these are good jobs.” Opponents cite evidence of corporate pressure on employees exerted by Wal-Mart executives, in town from company headquarters in Arkansas, who recently held meetings with workers at an Asheville hotel. Also, CSD points to the fact that “average take-home pay for a Wal-Mart ‘associate’ is under $250 a week. Full-time employees make $6.00-$7.50 an hour -- well below living wage, and below the poverty line for many employees with families. And most Wal-Mart employees are either not eligible for benefits or can’t afford them.” Company records do show that Wal-Mart has a high turnover rate -- 70% of employees leave in the first year. Employees leave most often because of lack of recognition and inadequate pay, according to a study conducted by the Wal-Mart Corporation.

Wal-Mart has also been the target of organized labor based on it’s union-busting policies in the United States and abroad, and it’s connection to sweatshop manufacturing in the Third World. As North Carolina reels from job flight related to the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), big box stores depress the economy on a state and local level, say Wal-Mart critics. According to CSD, “[big box stores] do not support North Carolina industry—instead, they buy from sweatshop factories in the Third World. Despite a well-publicized ‘Made in the USA’ campaign, 85% of Wal-Mart’s items are made in the Third World at factories paying 13 to 35 cents an hour with up to 96-hour work weeks.”

In addition to economic concerns, the City Council hearing on June 25 will offer citizens a chance to talk about the larger issues surrounding the development. Local activists outline a holistic case against Wal-Mart and big box development in general. As Cicada Brokaw stated at the Planning and Zoning hearing: “Every time resources are utilized to construct a large shopping mall or store, more minerals are mined, more plastics are created, more trees are cut down, more fossil fuels are burned. All of these activities are destructive to the environment, contribute to the poisons in our ecosystems, and result in an increase in global warming gases. There is no need to further add to the toxic burden of the planet which endangers the health and safety of everyone. In terms of local effects, the construction at the site will add to filth being spewed into the air, further degrading the air quality of our region. We already have pretty poor air quality, so bad that it is recognized to be a danger to our health. It is irresponsible to add to this pollution.”

Citizens continue to urge the city to deny permission to Riverbend Partners -- as Asheville resident Chris Clark said at the public hearing: “Let’s not flatten another sweet cove and stick in a big box of same. Let’s not put a bunch of rick rack around the front of the box and call it a very unique box. Let’s not plop the box down into a neighborhood of families and cross our fingers that it will do no damage to the neighborhood or the character of Asheville as a whole. Let’s not expect that covering a floodway with a non-porous box will be all right.” Clark offers an alternative vision: “What I want to support is diversity in community, special, unique businesses that put the dollar back into the community to circulate around again rather than feathering the pockets of multinational companies and shipping profits elsewhere. I want to support local projects, which is a sustainable way of living together here.”