Related articles:

City stifles Wal-Mart's efforts to repeal portion of big-box ordinance Wal-Mart is correct in not challenging law Wal-Mart petitions rejected Suit to halt Wal-Mart vote is planned

Other articles by Rob O'dell:

New exec: Smaller steps key to Downtown2 Rio Nuevo design firms ranked tops in profitabilityCity to close for 5 added days to save some moneyCouncil: 'Safety initiative' means huge tax hikeDevelopers want Rialto's back rentSpring training evidently near endFinal cost to city for short film: $820,000City delay may doom Downtown dealDowntown deal revamped, drops housing, arts space Electric shocks could be problem at 3 parks

Administrative & Professional
Tucson Urban League
CEO/President Construction
West-Press
Printing Administrative & Professional
Jorgensen Brooks Group
Counselor Finance and Accounting
Charles E. Gillman Company
Accounting Specialist Mechanical
Komatsu Equipment Co
Resident Field Mechanic Health Care
Dependable Health Services
Physical Therapists Health Care
CENTRAL ARIZONA COLLEGE
DIRECTOR OF HEALTH INFORMATION MANAGEMENT

Wal-Mart announced Friday that it will not sue Tucson to force a partial repeal of the city's big-box ordinance onto the November ballot

Company representative Delia Garcia sent a letter to Mayor Bob Walkup and the rest of the City Council stating that Wal-Mart wasn't pursuing legal action to put its "Consumer Choice Initiative" on the ballot.

City Clerk Kathy Detrick rejected Wal-Mart's 22,000 signatures last week because City Attorney Mike Rankin said Arizona law prevents citizens from using the initiative process to change zoning laws or modify them.

"Engaging in a lawsuit with the city of Tucson wasn't the right alternative in this case," Garcia said.

However, Garcia insisted the decision for Wal-Mart to abandon its initiative wasn't bad news for the company because 22,000 Tucson voters supported the initiative, which if approved would have repealed the portion of the city's big-box ordinance restricting food and beverage sales to no more than 10 percent of a store's total space.

Had the petitions been accepted, the company needed 11,615 valid signatures from registered city voters to get the initiative on the ballot.

Garcia said the 22,000 voters who signed could spur the council to "take action on their behalf."

"The mayor and council has the ability to change the ordinance themselves," Garcia said.

Although Wal-Mart didn't sue, Garcia said the company felt it had a good case to make in court and would have prevailed had it sued.

Garcia said Wal-Mart just decided against it because a lawsuit wasn't "the right move. Publicity wasn't a factor," Garcia said.

She said the initiative was never a publicity stunt to put political pressure on the council. "We were really serious about it," Garcia said.

In her letter to the council, Garcia repeatedly pressed the company's talking points, that Wal-Mart saves consumers money and that residents value the convenience and affordability of Wal-Mart's big-box stores that feature one-stop shopping.

Council members said Wal-Mart's decision was the right one.

"I think that's appropriate," Walkup said. "I'm pleased to hear it."

Walkup thinks the city has gotten past the polarizing big-box debate and the council's pragmatism on big boxes was shown by the April vote to waive the big-box ordinance for a potential Wal-Mart at East 36th Street and South Kino Parkway for developer Eastbourne Investments Ltd. "The big boxes are being well-served by council," he said.

He said the council will approve a development if it's in the right part of town and the big box serves the area well. By contrast, Walkup said, "There are some places where a big box of any kind does not fit the community. Every application will receive a fair hearing."

Councilwoman Nina Trasoff said the big-box ordinance was "a zoning decision the council made. You can't do rezonings by initiative," she said.

She said she thinks it's possible Wal-Mart knew the law from the beginning and was trying to make a power play with the initiative, which she said was unfortunate because the council just showed flexibility and allowed the big box for Eastbourne.

Wal-Mart opponent Chris Tanz said she was glad to learn the city wouldn't have to fight an expensive legal battle against Wal-Mart, and that Wal-Mart opponents wouldn't have to spend the time, energy and money to beat it at the ballot box.