Sunday, January 11, 2009

Still Waiting for New Fleet Farm in West Bend

West Bend Fleet Farm update.

You know when folks like me gripe about the terrible business climate in Wisconsin?  It’s stuff like this that we’re talking about. 

It has been more than eight years since Fleet’s owners, Stuart and Henry Mills, announced their intentions to build a new, larger store on the city’s west side.

   When completed, it was visualized to include a 274,000-square-foot main store with warehouse space – the biggest in the state – a screened storage yard, a separate convenience store/gas station and an automated car wash. In fact, the city Plan Commission approved a preliminary development plan back in August, 2004.

   Today, the approximate 70-acre site remains vacant.

   Phil Eckert is the West Bend lawyer hired by the Mills brothers for their legal work here – and there was much of it, including wrangling with city and town of West Bend officials over the placement of the store, as well as issues with the state Department of Transportation over access and the state Department of Natural Resources over wetlands problems.

   Eckert said he too has not heard from the Mills brothers for over a year.

   “Not a thing,” he said.

[...]

   It was long thought the development has been delayed because of the issues with the DOT and the DNR, but Capelle said it was his understanding the access issues with the DOT have been settled. However, he said, it was also his understanding wetlands problems remain with the DNR.

Eight.  Years.  And things still aren’t resolved.  I wouldn’t be surprised if the brothers have just given up on West Bend and we’ll continue to have to read the asterisks in their ads that say “not available in Waupaca, Clintonville, or West Bend.”  Seriously, it should not take almost a decade to get permission from the government to build a store. 

 

(14) Comments
Posted by Owen at 1922 hrs
Politics + Politics - Wisconsin

  1. Fleet & Farm could have had their choice of prime sites in West Bend years ago.  Their store has always been crappy & overcrowded, but West Bend residents had to put up with it because there was no competition.  Fleet & Farm did not get serious about a replacement building until Menards & Home Depot showed up on the scene, and by then the prime land was too expensive for the Mills brothers.  Believe me, if Menards & Home Depot hadn’t built in West Bend, Fleet would have no interest in a new building in West Bend - the current facility harkens back to when they opened in the early 60’s or late 50’s, and they always had that disclaimer that not all items were available in West Bend from day 1. 

    They did have an option on a site on West Washington (near Heiser Ford), but that deal was killed because it would have required a zoning change to an area that was adjoined by residential housing. They even had people at their store getting signatures on a petition.  Funny, how many people (including non-residents of the City of West Bend) supported a zoning change, so long as it wasn’t in their neighborhood.

    So, long story long, because of their own hesitance, they have had to pursue a marginal site that has wetland & traffic access issues.  If they had been ahead of their competition, they could have had any prime site they wanted in West Bend.  I don’t see how their business ineptitude is the fault of the government.

    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 11, 2009 at 1956 hrs


  2. ....and for what it’s worth…

    Even if they tried to get it off the ground in the last 12-15 months, they probably couldn’t get financing—nor will they for at least another year.

    Banks are just plain unfriendly.

    Posted by dad29 on January 11, 2009 at 2123 hrs


  3. It should take 8 years if they want to build in a wetland.

    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 11, 2009 at 2133 hrs


  4. No it shouldn’t.  The government should either say “yes” or “no” in a reasonable amount of time.

    Posted by Owen on January 11, 2009 at 2141 hrs


  5. It should take them 8 weeks. You either want business in your town or you don’t. I’m guessing that this story pretty much answers that question.

    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 11, 2009 at 2152 hrs


  6. The developer certainly appears to be taking its sweet time in the whole affair.  A year between meetings with the DNR?  People can say what they want about DNR policies, but DNR staff aren’t terribly hard to find or sit down with.  That, coupled with the fact that their own lawyer alleges that he hasn’t heard from the owners for a year, makes me think that the site just isn’t a priority for the company.

    Coming from someone who used to be on the phone with that agency constantly, the DNR just isn’t that hard to work with.  The difficulty usually comes from constituents and property owners, who simply don’t want to comply with the law.

    Posted by Recess Supervisor on January 11, 2009 at 2205 hrs


  7. Owen- The fact it has been 8 years means:

    1. The site is not suitable for a project of this size.

    or

    2.  The developers were not willing to make changes to mitigate the problems.

    So why is this not the developers fault in your eyes?  The regulations are pretty straight forward.

    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 11, 2009 at 2234 hrs


  8. Again… if that’s the case, then the government should just give a firm “no” and be done with it.  The fact that it is still in limbo is the disgrace.

    Posted by Owen on January 11, 2009 at 2242 hrs


  9. Owen, MHT has this thing nailed.  That Fleet-Farm location was a cash cow for the company and probably still is given the really cheap metal building they are in. 

    They simply waited too long and not only Menards and Home Depot but Wal-Mart came in and ate their lunch.  Now that they have massive, massive competition, a huge new building will not cash flow for them. 

    Also agree with MHT that there were sites to the South that Fleet Farm could have had without any issues for years earlier.  And those sites might have even been better given the Jackson-West Bend growth pattern.  The sites they wanted were too close to the Wetlands and Cedar Lake environmental corridor.

    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 11, 2009 at 2243 hrs


  10. In Blaine, MN, it took them 10 years to get around to building;

    Fleet Farm bought the property in 1996, but postponed plans to build there. In fact, city officials thought the retailer might have decided not to build there and would sell the land instead, especially with property values in the area rising in recent years.

    http://www.bizjournals.com/twincities/stories/2007/04/09/story6.html

    Seems like they may be “postponing” here too. Or maybe stringing it along to discourage other competitors (i.e., Loews) from building here, although with today’s economy that probably isn’t as much of a factor.

    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 11, 2009 at 2308 hrs


  11. Once again, in a situation with limited information, Owen decrees that the problem must be with government.  Certainly, he knows that Fleet Farm is proceeding with haste and is being thwarted at every corner by lazy bureaucrats.

    Which, of course, is why Fleet Farm is in such close contact with the lawyer representing it in this matter.

    John is exactly right.  There are two entirely plausible options here.  And again, based on personal experience with the agency, the DNR rarely jerks anyone around.  If the answer is “yes, but you have to do A through triple Z first,” that’s what they’ll tell you.  If the answer is “no,” they’ll tell you that too.  Believe me, they don’t hesitate to say no to property owners.

    If this has taken eight years, it’s almost certain that the answer for this site doesn’t have to be “no.”  Which would mean that the company is simply dragging its feet on deciding whether it’s worth the effort to develop there.  That’s fine - I could give a rip what Fleet Farm wants to do.  They can take all the time they want.  But don’t, without any detailed knowledge, blame the regulatory process for something that may just as well be a decision made by the property owner to proceed slowly - especially in light of other business developments in the area during that time.

    Posted by Recess Supervisor on January 11, 2009 at 2312 hrs


  12. I don’t mean to pile on you Owen, since I’m with you on 95% of these things, but a further example is Cabela’s.  They wanted to be in Washington County and aggressively got it done in around a year at a site that was less controversial than Fleet/Farm’s but still a challenge.  And they got that tax money to boot.  Cabela’s is another store that has put the hurt on Fleet/Farm.  If Fleet really wanted a superstore in West Bend, they could have gotten it done.

    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 11, 2009 at 2329 hrs


  13. I’m waiting for the Fleet Farm to announce they are building across from the Fair Park near the hospital.  Then there will be a lot more accusations made about “stealing our businesses”.  That evil Jackson village.  Then that part of Washington Street will look ready for redevelopment (are Dick’s and Ponderosa closed?  Kmart must be about ready too).  Can you say Tax Breaks, like other areas of WB.?

    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 12, 2009 at 1214 hrs


  14. Two things (and they are only tangentially related to the post):

    1.  You’d be better off with a Farm & Fleet, anyway wink.

    2.  What is it with the propensity of those north of Milwaukee to conflate the two stores with the misnomer Fleet & Farm?  (Nothing personal, MHT.  My wife’s family says that, too).

    Posted by Jib on January 13, 2009 at 0044 hrs


Commenting is not available in this channel entry.