Wal Mart hits a brick wall
darkcrow
Posts: 1,102
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20061129/ap_on_bi_ge/wal_mart_supercenter_ban
SAN DIEGO - The City Council here voted late Tuesday to ban certain giant retail stores, dealing a blow to Wal-Mart Stores Inc.'s potential to expand in the nation's eighth-largest city.
ADVERTISEMENT
The measure, approved on a 5-3 vote, prohibits stores of more than 90,000 square feet that use 10 percent of space to sell groceries and other merchandise that is not subject to sales tax. It takes aim at Wal-Mart Supercenter stores, which average 185,000 square feet and sell groceries.
Mayor Jerry Sanders will veto the ban if the Council reaffirms it on a second vote, which will likely happen in January, said mayoral spokesman Fred Sainz. The Council can override his veto with five votes.
"What the Council did tonight was social engineering, not good public policy," Sainz said.
Supporters of the ban argued that Wal-Mart puts smaller competitors out of business, pays workers poorly, and contributes to traffic congestion and pollution. Opponents said the mega-retailer provides jobs and low prices and that a ban would limit consumer choice.
"Quite simply, I do not think it is the role of the San Diego City Council to dictate where families should buy their groceries," said Councilman Kevin Faulconer, who opposed the ban.
Councilman Tony Young, who joined the 5-3 majority, countered, "I have a vision for San Diego and that vision is about walkable, livable communities, not big, mega-structures that inhibit people's lives."
Wal-Mart spokesman Kevin McCall said the Bentonville, Ark.-based company may consider a legal challenge or voter referendum if the measure becomes law.
"Certainly we're disappointed but there's still a number of steps left in this process," he said. "We need to look at what our options are."
The ban is modeled on a law in Turlock, a city of 70,000 people 85 miles southeast of San Francisco. Turlock prohibited big-box stores over 100,000 square feet that devote at least 5 percent of their space to groceries.
Wal-Mart recently dropped its challenge to the Turlock ordinance, which prevented it from building a planned 225,000-square-foot Supercenter store. In July, a federal judge in Fresno said Turlock's zoning law did not infringe on the company's constitutional rights. The state Supreme Court refused to hear the case.
Wal-Mart has about 2,000 Supercenter stores, including 21 in California, but none in the San Diego area. The retailer has 18 regular Wal-Mart stores in the San Diego area, including four within limits of the city of 1.3 million people.
Wal-Mart has not disclosed plans for a Supercenter store in San Diego area. Sainz, the mayoral spokesman, said the retailer probably wants to expand.
"It's complete and total guesswork but I'm inclined they would," Sainz said. "Everything I've seen and heard from them makes me think they would."
San Diego's move comes two months after the Chicago City Council failed to override Mayor Richard Daley's veto of a so-called "living-wage" ordinance that would have required giant retailers to pay their workers higher wages.
SAN DIEGO - The City Council here voted late Tuesday to ban certain giant retail stores, dealing a blow to Wal-Mart Stores Inc.'s potential to expand in the nation's eighth-largest city.
ADVERTISEMENT
The measure, approved on a 5-3 vote, prohibits stores of more than 90,000 square feet that use 10 percent of space to sell groceries and other merchandise that is not subject to sales tax. It takes aim at Wal-Mart Supercenter stores, which average 185,000 square feet and sell groceries.
Mayor Jerry Sanders will veto the ban if the Council reaffirms it on a second vote, which will likely happen in January, said mayoral spokesman Fred Sainz. The Council can override his veto with five votes.
"What the Council did tonight was social engineering, not good public policy," Sainz said.
Supporters of the ban argued that Wal-Mart puts smaller competitors out of business, pays workers poorly, and contributes to traffic congestion and pollution. Opponents said the mega-retailer provides jobs and low prices and that a ban would limit consumer choice.
"Quite simply, I do not think it is the role of the San Diego City Council to dictate where families should buy their groceries," said Councilman Kevin Faulconer, who opposed the ban.
Councilman Tony Young, who joined the 5-3 majority, countered, "I have a vision for San Diego and that vision is about walkable, livable communities, not big, mega-structures that inhibit people's lives."
Wal-Mart spokesman Kevin McCall said the Bentonville, Ark.-based company may consider a legal challenge or voter referendum if the measure becomes law.
"Certainly we're disappointed but there's still a number of steps left in this process," he said. "We need to look at what our options are."
The ban is modeled on a law in Turlock, a city of 70,000 people 85 miles southeast of San Francisco. Turlock prohibited big-box stores over 100,000 square feet that devote at least 5 percent of their space to groceries.
Wal-Mart recently dropped its challenge to the Turlock ordinance, which prevented it from building a planned 225,000-square-foot Supercenter store. In July, a federal judge in Fresno said Turlock's zoning law did not infringe on the company's constitutional rights. The state Supreme Court refused to hear the case.
Wal-Mart has about 2,000 Supercenter stores, including 21 in California, but none in the San Diego area. The retailer has 18 regular Wal-Mart stores in the San Diego area, including four within limits of the city of 1.3 million people.
Wal-Mart has not disclosed plans for a Supercenter store in San Diego area. Sainz, the mayoral spokesman, said the retailer probably wants to expand.
"It's complete and total guesswork but I'm inclined they would," Sainz said. "Everything I've seen and heard from them makes me think they would."
San Diego's move comes two months after the Chicago City Council failed to override Mayor Richard Daley's veto of a so-called "living-wage" ordinance that would have required giant retailers to pay their workers higher wages.
DOWNLOAD THE LATEST ISSUE OF The Last Reel: http://www.mediafire.com/?jdsqazrjzdt
http://www.myspace.com/thelastreel http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=19604327965
http://www.myspace.com/thelastreel http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=19604327965
Post edited by Unknown User on
0
Comments
If the people of this community do not truly want a Wal-Mart, why would such a law be necessary?
...are those who've helped us.
Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
San Diego and Bellingham voted against Wal-Mart and Wal-Mart expansion based on the arguments mentioned in the article. The Turlock law, is law, so you would have to ask the Turlockians about that. Or, to put it another way, why not?
all posts by ©gue_barium are protected under US copyright law and are not to be reproduced, exchanged or sold
except by express written permission of ©gue_barium, the author.
Ok. But I'm wondering why such "votes" are necessary? I mean, Wal-Mart isn't going to open the store for shits and giggles. They're going to open a store because people in the community are going to shop there such that Wal-Mart can profit. If people don't want Wal-Mart, they're not going to shop there, right?
I think the suggestion is that communities are better off without large conglomarates coming in and sopping up the non-competitive local dollars, and those dollars leaving the community. Of course consumers are going to shop there to save money, that is a given. The community vote is more interested in keeping a healthy, vibrant, competitive retail playing field, and keeping the money within the community.
all posts by ©gue_barium are protected under US copyright law and are not to be reproduced, exchanged or sold
except by express written permission of ©gue_barium, the author.
Oh, I didn't realize that the town had a law against putting up any huge ugly building surrounded by blacktop.
Whose suggestion?
I don't understand. If the community wants a "healthy, vibrant, competitive retail playing field" and they want to "keep the money within the community", why would they shop at Wal-Mart?
Oh, I understand now. Come to think about it, I don't like big ugly buildings with windows on them. And I don't like townspeople with fat on them. I think I'll vote to ban them as well. It's a matter of taste, I suppose.
That's the lynch mob motto, isn't it?
The suggestion of the vote, the community, San Diego in this instance.
Thats a fair question, but, this is why we have, and vote for a city council.
all posts by ©gue_barium are protected under US copyright law and are not to be reproduced, exchanged or sold
except by express written permission of ©gue_barium, the author.
Probably. But what if, for example, I didn't like townspeople with black skin and it's the year 1950. Is it "democracy" and "just a matter of taste" if I run them out of my town?
Democracy is fallible, abso-fucking-lutely. Better educated people make a better democracy, don't ya think?
all posts by ©gue_barium are protected under US copyright law and are not to be reproduced, exchanged or sold
except by express written permission of ©gue_barium, the author.
"but wah wah, Walmart screws over there workers", whatever. thats called capitalism. If you dont like Walmart find a job somewhere else.
IMO its great sales for great electronics.
all posts by ©gue_barium are protected under US copyright law and are not to be reproduced, exchanged or sold
except by express written permission of ©gue_barium, the author.
Ok. So you'd be ok if me and my pals voted out every soup kitchen, abortion clinic, salvation army branch, red cross bloodmobile, library, school, church and any other institution that wasn't dedicated directly to our "tastes"?
Yep, I do think that.
You didn't answer my question. Would you be ok with it?
Last year we had a restaurant chain (I can't remember which one) that wanted to come here and put in a 24-hour restaurant. The people living in the neighborhood had a fit because 1) the houses in the area are 75+ years old and the chain presented blueprints for an ultra-modern design, and 2) they didn't want the closing time crowd descending on their neighborhood each night. They told the chain that a restaurant would be fine, provided they closed by 1 a.m. and built a structure that was more aesthetically in keeping with the surrounding buildings. They threw a fit, threatened to sue, a special election was called and the law was changed in accordance with the wishes of the residents.
So yeah, if you bought property in an area with no abortion clinics or schools or Salvation Army branches and you'd like to keep it that way, and others in your community agree, that's a-ok with me.
when it hits you, you feel to pain.
So brutalize me with music.”
~ Bob Marley
I am against states outlawing the practice of abortion. I have no problem with communities deciding what type of structures or businesses they want to have within their boundaries.
when it hits you, you feel to pain.
So brutalize me with music.”
~ Bob Marley
I bought property in an area that has bars and restaurants and hospitals and stores, but doesn't have factories or warehouses or 24-hour establishments, and that's the way I want it to stay. We also happen to not have an abortion clinic, although one certainly wouldn't bother me. If someone tries to build one, I guess I'll find out where my neighbors stand, haha. I'm all in favor of communities deciding what they'd like their environment to be. If changes are made, I want existing businesses to be grandfathered so as not to destroy anyone's livelihood, but beyond that, people can have at it as far as I'm concerned.
Then you're consistent. I do not agree with your position, but you're obviously willing to make any sacrifice to your community. I just hope that sacrifice doesn't end up costing you more than you bargained for.