Update: The Wal-Mart Controversyand the Fate of the JessonFamily's 40 Acres

Not long ago, the City of Livingston and two local conservation groups sued Park County over a zone change made to a parcel near the I-90 interchange on the east side of Livingston. The plaintiffs alleged the county overstepped its authority by spot-zoning the land as commercial, which, they argued, could create a “McDonald’s exit” where visitors would gas up, eat and leave without ever visiting Livingston’s core districts.

The parties eventually entered into a settlement agreement in 2003, which gave the county a mandate to work with its citizens in forming a growth policy for the 4.5-mile “donut” surrounding Livingston. As many may know, the county then formed a growth policy, adopted it and then watched helplessly as a citizen-led petition effectively suspended the visionary document until an up or down vote in November 2008.

Now, in a slightly ironic twist of fate, the City of Livingston finds itself working with county landowners to create a commercial zone on the I-90 interchange west of town. The initial moves toward annexation and re-zoning–coupled with rumors of corporate juggernaut Wal-Mart setting up shop there–are creating quite a hullabaloo in this community.

On April 21, 2008, the Livingston City Commission amended the city’s growth policy zoning map by including portions of two sections as light industrial and/or commercial. The 40.5 acres (currently zoned as agriculture) belong to the Jessons, a local family who began a dialogue with the city in hopes of selling the land for their retirement. So far, the Jessons have found open ears. The same night, the commission also passed Resolution No. 3937 giving the city manager the authority to enter into an annexation agreement with Margie Jesson.

Some months ago, the Jessons and the City held a workshop exploring the possibilities for commercial development of the land. Livingston City Commission Chair Steve Caldwell described the conversation as trying to find out what development would “make sense given the location.” According to those involved, discussions ranged from truck stops to car dealerships.
Meanwhile, more than one source told the Livingston Weekly the Jessons were in discussions with Wal-Mart to sell the land for several million dollars. The family denies this, and their lawyer Vuko Voyich adamantly states there have been no such negotiations between the landowners and Wal-Mart or any other potential buyer.

Fair enough. Rumors can have a momentum of their own in small towns, and even though several credible sources heard of dealings with Wally-World, we should take the Jessons at their word. Still, the mere talk of box store development in Livingston is opening an important dialogue about the town’s future.

We know with relative certainty this land is likely going to see development of some sort. Be it a Wal-Mart or a mom-and-pop, the western gateway to Livingston is slated to change. What exactly that change will be and how it will affect the community is anybody’s guess at this point. Either way, the situation exemplifies the classic growth scenario: balancing private property rights with the will and vision of the greater community.

Before any development can happen, the Jessons must first petition the City to annex their land, which is currently in the donut and subject to county regulations. If the City is in favor of annexing the land, which they are likely to be, they must then produce a statement of intent to annex followed by a resolution to officially annex the property. All subsequent decisions would be done at the commission’s regular public meetings (first and third Monday of every month).

At the April 21 meeting, the commissioners gave several reasons for supporting the growth policy change and potential annexation. Prevalent among those reasons was the argument that the situation would be far worse if the property stayed in the county and out of the city’s regulatory jurisdiction.

“We could be in for a much worse scenario if we leave it in the county,” Commissioner Vicki Blakeman said.

Blakeman’s concerns likely stem from the county’s growth policy (or lack thereof). But while the document’s suspension does limit what the county can and cannot do, the situation does not render the county powerless.
Park County Land Use Planner Mike Inman, for one, is not so sure city annexation is the only answer to the situation. Inman says only development proposals permitted under the Donut Zoning Regulations would be allowed under the county’s watch. And once the County does have a growth policy, the zoning regulations could be amended, as well as the Donut zoning designation. This would include a substantial public process, Inman stresses. It is this public process that concerns Inman the most.

“Changing the Growth Policy based upon the request of a single land owner negates the purpose and intent of having a growth policy, which is a community vision of future growth in an area,” Inman points out. “I would encourage the City Commission to revisit their Growth Policy and encourage public participation in order to amend the Growth Policy to reflect the desires and vision of the community is serves, not the request of one landowner.”

Livingston’s 2004 growth policy (which is presumably coming soon to the city’s website) states on Page One, Objective One: “Support existing businesses in economic viability.”

Given the hypothetical scenario of Wal-Mart coming to town, passionate arguments–which have been debated in town after town across the country–arise over whether or not superstores like Wal-Mart are good for communities. Whether or not one is coming to Livingston, the conversation is a good one to have.

While Commissioner Caldwell says he does not like Wal-Mart nor does he shop there, he emphasizes, “Who am I to control what people’s shopping decisions or economic decisions can be?”

As for whether or not a Wal-Mart would be a boon to Livingston, Caldwell believes the situation would probably not be as gloomy as some think.
“It wouldn’t be a catastrophic impact on this town’s viability.”

A Livingston Wal-Mart may not necessarily be catastrophic for Livingston, but there seems to be ample evidence illustrating how the retail giant can hurt communities. Downtown businesses have developed relative immunity, but Wal-Mart’s presence could certainly hurt some. Pamida would likely close. Yellowstone Gateway Sports would take a hit. And if the Wal-Mart carried groceries, Town and Country and Albertson’s would certainly see it in their bottom lines as well.

So how would a Wal-Mart (or a similar store) be good for Livingston? Well, it would provide jobs (though low-paying and with limited room for advancement). It would provide an increased tax base for the city, who already provides emergency and other services to the area, and the city could also require impact fees from developers.

One of the biggest arguments for stores like Wal-Mart is the economic opportunities big box prices pass on to the less affluent, which, lest we all forget, Livingston has its fair share of. Gas is pricey and getting more so. Wouldn’t it be better if more locals could get their supplies “locally” without having to go to Bozeman?

To be frank, the idea that a Wal-Mart would help heal Livingston’s socioeconomic wounds is a bit of a farce. First of all, going to Wal-Mart or North Nineteenth Street in Bozeman is not like crossing the Oregon Trail anymore. Secondly, the existence of a Wal-Mart and cheap products does not magically erase the underlying economic problems in Livingston. There seems to be plenty of evidence in towns across the country that Wal-Marts generally are not so great for small towns. This community needs money coming in, not being siphoned out. Surely there are better uses for these 40 acres.

But, like Commissioner Caldwell says, who is any one person to say whether or not this community supports a Wal-Mart? Does it?
The idea of a commercial district in this area is certainly not flawed; the area is not very suitable for residential, and the gateway corridor makes sense for commercial growth. Printing for Less, a significant local employer and economic engine, is testament to this.

So how would different businesses on this property affect Livingston? The Jessons reportedly were courted by a developer who wanted to build a truck stop. The current owners of the existing truck stop on the west end might not think a truck stop would be the best idea. One business could be good for some and not for others. One use might be good for some but not for others. This is the nature of community planning.

It is not clear whether or not Wal-Mart is coming to Livingston. What is perfectly clear from this situation is that a real discussion needs to happen regarding where and how Livingston wants to grow. That will involve the Jessons and it will involve the City and County, hopefully working together. Ultimately, however, it needs to involve Livingstonians taking an active role in the future of the community. Reactionary planning will do little to preserve what makes this place great, and it will do little to bring in good local business and jobs. Those are, after all, what this community seems to be needing the most.

—David Nolt