I'm disappointed that you let what you wanted to be true overwhelm your critical thinking on this case. Plenty of people who didn't want Wal-Mart but understood city code quite well all told RG4N the same thing (as well as, I understand, the lawyers ANA talked to, at least at the beginning). And now, rather than admit that maybe those folks were right, we're left with attempts to parse what is fundamentally a very clear statement by the judge (which matches precisely what Austin Contrarian, a real lawyer, said months ago: only one of the four claims is even worth talking about, as the other three are obviously slam dunks for the city).

The whole point of city code is to establish a set of allowable developments which don't need to be subject to public input - otherwise, we're stuck with a "rule by mob" direct democracy which would never work (Lincoln could just as easily protest your plans to add a deck to the back of your house, for instance).

Although I disagree with it completely, the Big Box Ordinance was the "rule of law"-compliant strategy to use. Yes, it wouldn't and couldn't prohibit this particular Wal-Mart at Northcross - but the rule of law is important even when the outcome isn't what we would prefer. Another strategy which fit within the rule of law but was not employed include attempting to rezone the property years ago (before Wal-Mart came up as the prospective tenant).