This paper examines the viability of the Advocacy Coalition Framework(ACF) by applying it in a single case study. The aim is to advance the framework’s theoretical understanding of the policy process and its usefulness for analyzing local policy contexts. The case addressed is a long-spun policy conflict regarding the use of compulsory acquisition of real estate by a Swedish municipality for the sake of local business development. Analyzed data consisted of the municipality diary on the issue, correspondence between actors, public statements, official and internal documents and interviews with actors and non-actors. The ACF is a good starting point for understanding this local policy process, largely because of the great flexibility of its concepts. However, its basic assumptions on beliefs cannot fully explain observed events. Relating to this, the paper has five main findings. First, although beliefs play an important role in forming policy action, so does interests. Second, a conjunction of beliefs and self-interest is an important condition for some actors’ actions. Third, coalition formation is not dependent on similarity of beliefs but on similarity of policy objectives. Fourth, policy objectives are resultant of beliefs for some actors, of self-interest for others and for yet others the result of both. Therefore, actors in coalition act to achieve the same policy objectives but not necessarily for the same reasons. Fifth, one non-actor refrained from policy action in spite of strong policy core beliefs due to the policy process not being a zero sum game for this non-actor. This paper supports recent studies proposing the incorporation of interests into the ACF. For further development of the ACF the paper suggests further research to answer two generic questions: What is the relationship betweeninterests and beliefs? Are potential actors more likely to take policy action inzero sum game policy processes? For the ACF to cope with certain conditionsin local contexts the paper suggest further research into the question: Is the level of abstraction of policy issues key in understanding the involvement of legal and natural persons and their basis for policy action?