[Vision2020] Walmart

[Donovan Arnold]

Keely,
  
That you for your response. I am  aware that people that oppose Wal-Mart do so not because of evil  malcontent for the poor. They oppose it because they believe what they  are doing is right. I am simply pointing out that their actions, or  intended actions, to prevent an expanded Wal-Mart will harm the poor  and middle classes of the community, the opposite of their intentions.
  
  Not allowing a new grocery store into the area keeps grocery prices  high. Not allowing an expanded Wal-mart with more goods and services  limits the selection of affordable goods and services available to the  poorer members of our community.
  
 That is all good that you do  not like big retail stores, you do not have to shop there. But what  right do you have to block the building of one when it is not your  land, your property, or money that is being used or exchanged? Do I get  to limit the size of your house because it too big for me? Why should  you limit the size of the store where I shop?
  
 Further, I do  not agree with people's other assumptions about the Wal-Mart. It does  not sell everything. It does not pay lower wages then its competitors.  Wal-mart starts at $7 an hour, more than UI student jobs of $6 an hour,  and that of the same as Safeway, Winco, and ShopKo of $7 an hour. That  is the wage you get in Moscow. Minimum is $5.15 and Wal-Mart is  fighting to raise the minimum wage. If people oppose a $7 starting  wage, should they not oppose it everywhere, not just at Wally's World?  Wal-Mart's health insurance is the same cost and benefits as UI health  insurance, and better than my job. And the $70 a month wage it pays its  employees overseas is higher than the wage a teacher or police office  makes.
  
 The misinformation and slanted information presented  about Wal-Mart is being funded by giant union organizations that are  losing out to Wal-Mart because they over pay their workers causing  food, clothing, and other products to be unaffordable for average  Americans, so people buy foreign made goods.
  
 If a Moscow  business cannot handle competition with Wal_Mart's cheap goods and  lousy service, do we really want them in Moscow anyway? And how long  before those businesses trying to compete with Wal-mart head on fold to  ShopKo, Target, or the Internet anyway?
  
 Trying to protect the  19th century store model in the 21st century is like trying to protect  the blacksmith's horse shoeing business by outlawing a Les Schwab. The  blacksmith needs to learn to sell tires either cheaper, a different  tire, or put them on better. But doing what he has been doing and  relying on the community to outlaw his competition and modern  equivalent is only going to help him for so long. 
  
  Take Care,
  
  Donovan J Arnold
  
  

keely emerinemix <kjajmix1 at msn.com> wrote:  Donovan, no one is talking about closing the Wal-Mart that you already 
enjoy.  It's here.  Buy your stuff and be happy.  The issue is a new Super 
Wal-Mart, one of a potential triumverate of Bentonville Beasts on the 
Palouse.  That some of us argue that it's too much, and that some of us 
choose not to shop there, is not unreasonable, malicious, stupid or even 
physics-defying.  I have a heartfelt concern for the economically 
disadvantaged, and you do as well.  We demonstrate it in different ways, but 
I would no more accuse you of hating the poor because you welcome an entity 
that I think does them harm than I would accuse you of being a puppy-kicking 
Commie.  Those of us who oppose a Supercenter aren't trying to close the 
Wal-Mart that's here, nor are we trying to force you to shop only at places 
we deem acceptable.  We just think that Wal-Mart is not representative of 
the best social, economic, and community justice practices possible, and I 
wish it weren't so difficult for you to accept that people who disgree with 
you aren't inherently malicious.

For the record, you're not a puppy-kicking Commie and neither am I.  Fair 
enough?

keely




From: Donovan Arnold 
To: Bruce and Jean Livingston ,        
vision2020 at moscow.com, Jeff Harkins 
CC: jweber at ci.moscow.id.us, blambert at ci.moscow.id.us, 
nchaney at ci.moscow.id.us,        john dickinson ,   
      linda pall , bstout at ci.moscow.id.us
Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Walmart
Date: Thu, 12 Jan 2006 19:02:34 -0800 (PST)

   I for one am confused by  Bruce's letter because it seems to defy 
physics, basic economics, not  to mention fairness to the poor and average 
Moscow residents.

   For example,

   "We  should do so by requiring Wal-Mart (or any such large retailer  that 
wishes to come here) to cover all of its "external" costs,  those costs that 
are more typically dumped on the community  Wal-Mart "serves," such as the 
increased demands on police  protection, water consumption, traffic and 
related infrastructure  changes, sewer expenses, uninsured medical expenses 
(that will be  borne by Gritman), lighting poluution, etc."

  First, isn't  external costs why businesses pay property taxes? How do we 
assess this  supposed traffic increase caused by a Wal-Mart? It would seem 
to me  that two Wal-Marts (one being out of Moscow) instead of one would  
reduce traffic in Moscow because those in Pullman and the surrounding  area 
would not come to town. But if it is "pulling traffic" to one side  of town, 
is it not at the same time reducing traffic some place else?  Or is there 
magically more cars? One stop shopping would also seem to  reduce traffic. 
Should it not be equally rewarded for reducing traffic  problems elsewhere 
and pollution?

  If Wal-Mart, or any other  business, is responsible for who is put on 
Medicaid and Medicare,  should it not also be rewarded for getting  people 
off the  programs or preventing them from going on?

   Another comment that baffles me is:

   "the  community may be bearing other costs that are not factored into the 
  simple buy-sell relationship with the consumers that you describe."

   Why would this statement not be true for any business?

   "Another  angle that I have not seen discussed is on another of your 
favorite  issues: consumer choice.  I fear that a Super Wal-Mart will reduce 
  that choice, not only by the gloom and doom tales of a shuttered Main  
Street, but by the simpler difference that Wal-Mart's preemptive,  predatory 
opening of a Supercenter is seemingly designed to keep out  other 
retailers."

  Why should poor Moscow residents be forced  to pay for the same goods and 
services at a higher rate to secure a  lower rate for increased choices of 
the wealthier residents? If  wealthier residents what to pay high prices for 
greater selection, let  them. But it is unfair to attempt to force poorer 
residents to pay for  the personal preferences of the wealthier residents.

   "Among those benefits imposed on/extracted   from any such new retailer 
ought to be: a living wage,"

   Enforcing higher minimum wages will result in inflation, hurting banks,  
social security recipients, and those living on fixed income or  retired; 
societies most vulnerable. The better tactic, is to keep the  cost of living 
and inflation low in Moscow for the basics of life, such  as housing,  
groceries, medicine, clothing, and basic goods. The  best way to accomplish 
this is through free competition in a  capitalistic market, and reduced or 
no taxes on housing, groceries,  medicine, clothing, and basic needed goods.

  It might be true  that Wal-Mart is able to offer lower prices and access 
to goods and  services to the poor and financially limited by passing costs 
on the  taxpayer. But I say so what? Why shouldn't those that make 80K a 
year  be paying a little more so a waitress can afford a DVD player to watch 
  a Disney movie with her son? Or a poor woman able to buy a microwave to  
heat her tea at night? I say it is high time that those that make a  great 
deal of money subsidize the lifestyle of the poorer and middle  class rather 
than the other way around for a change.

  Bruce  has his preferences for shopping. I have mine. My neighbor has 
hers.  But what gives anybody else the right to force their shopping  
preferences on others?  I do  not like seafood,  what  gives me the  right 
to prevent others from buying and   enjoying it, or the right to prevent two 
law abiding citizens from  engaging in  a mutual transaction of property? 
Does the 14th  amendment have no meaning inside the Moscow city limits?

   Take Care,

   Donovan J Arnold


   "Jeff,

     I  agree with what you say about the simplicity of your cash register  
model -- consumers must want it because they are spending money  there -- 
but I think you are leaving something out.

     Sure,  consumers may support Wal-Mart with their dollars, but the 
community  may be bearing other costs that are not factored into the simple  
buy-sell relationship with the consumers that you describe.  Local  
taxpayers have a different relationship with Wal-Mart, as does our  local 
non-profit hospital and the citizens who have to navigate through  the 
increased traffic generated by a Supercenter.   The affected economic and 
other relationships of  all community members, not just the shoppers, ought 
to be equally  significant to our decision on whether and on what terms to 
recruit  Wal-Mart.

     We  ought to protect those other relationships through a Big Box  
ordinance.  We should do so by requiring Wal-Mart (or any  such large 
retailer that wishes to come here) to cover all of its  "external" costs, 
those costs that are more typically dumped on  the community Wal-Mart 
"serves," such as the increased demands on  police protection, water 
consumption, traffic and related  infrastructure changes, sewer expenses, 
uninsured medical expenses  (that will be borne by Gritman), lighting 
poluution, etc.

     Nor  are all retailers equal.  The costs to the community of  having a 
particular retailer are not the same.

     In  Butch Alford's talk to the LEDC today, he answered a Walter Steed  
question, something about "Valley Vision"  (Lewiston-Clarkson's equivalent 
to the LEDC) and its experience  with (and the desirability/value of) big 
box retail to the  community, by noting that all retailers are not the same 
and that  Costco pays very well -- real living wages -- and is an extremely  
generous member of the Valley community.  I believe he was  pointedly 
distinguishing between Wal-Mart and Costco, in that instance,  as two 
entirely different quality citizens.  The "citizenship"  factors of our 
corporate big box retailers are not measured merely by  the transactions at 
the cash register.  The various other factors  that result from their entry 
in our community should all be part  of the package of issues that our 
community considers and pursues,  by requiring more from any big box 
retailer that seeks to open a new  store in town than that they simply pay 
their property taxes.

     Now,  I do not support drafting a law peculiar to Wal-Mart, even  
though I find its practices, as I understand  them, offensive.  But it seems 
to me that we as a community  ought to write our laws in a way that we get 
retailers who are  willing to meet our reasonable but high standards.  
Frankly,  given the seeming desirability of our community, we ought to be 
able to  extract some real benefit to the community in return for the right 
to  locate here and saddle us with traffic congestion, etc.    Among those 
benefits imposed on/extracted from any such new  retailer ought to be: a 
living wage, for example; and substantially  more green space in the 1000 
space parking lot to avoid polluting  Paradise Creek while also enabling 
better water recharge of the  limited aquifer; as well as architectural and 
lighting design  standards; guarantees not to leave buildings vacant; etc. 
etc.

     Another  angle that I have not seen discussed is on another of your 
favorite  issues: consumer choice.  I fear that a Super Wal-Mart will reduce 
  that choice, not only by the gloom and doom tales of a shuttered Main  
Street, but by the simpler difference that Wal-Mart's preemptive,  predatory 
opening of a Supercenter is seemingly designed to keep out  other retailers.

     Isn't  consumer choice enabled by doing our best to "hire", ok,  
attract, better citizen, retailing neighbors than Wal-Mart, an  admittedly 
"naughty," law-violating, discriminatory corporate  behemoth?  We have a 
Wal-Mart.  Isn't consumer choice  greater if we retain the Wal-Mart we have 
and encourage a different  choice to locate here?  And if that new store, 
while offering a  different product line, is a better citizen of the 
community and foists  fewer external costs on the community, are we not 
better off?  We  have a relatively small population, and why wouldn't we 
want to  encourage someone else in the retail industry who (unlike Wal-Mart, 
if  the literature is true) is willing to pay living wages, if we choose to  
make that part of the ground rules to play here, for example?

     Everyone  seems to assume that we will lose our Wal-Mart to Pullman, 
which I  think is absurd.  We already HAVE a Wal-Mart, which is a point  
that Steve Cooke left out of his presentation the other night at the  MCA 
forum on the economic benefits of Wal-Mart.   Apparently, the powers that be 
in Benton Arkansas are making  so much money on their 90,000 sq. ft. store 
in Moscow, Idaho that they  feel the upgrade to a 228,000 sq. ft. store here 
is a wise  decision in their economic interest.  I have to believe that if  
they decide not to meet our requirements under a Big Box ordinance, and  
therefore choose not to expand, that they will still retain  their 
"grandfathered" and profitable current store, rather than  abdicate the 
market.

     I  encourage us all to think how best we might write a Big Box 
ordinance  that will deal with the costs of these new stores which seemingly 
wish  to locate here.

     And  until we have a big box ordinance "with teeth" in place, unlike 
the  emergency ordinance under which Wal-Mart seeks to play, I suggest  to 
our City Council that you deny the necessary re-zone at this  time, because 
it is not in our long term interest to allow such a  significant new 
addition to our community under a vague, rushed, and  temporary, "emergency 
big box ordinance" that Wal-Mart with its  huge economic power can litigate 
to death until we cave to the expense  of litigation and let it have its 
way.  I think the  existence of an unsatisfactory regulatory mechanism for 
the desired  use, along with avoidance of litigation of an ambiguous 
emergency  ordinance is reason enough to deny the re-zone.

     And  frankly, I don't understand why we would cut-off from expansion 
our  Alturas technology park.  Alturas was built at our expense  for the 
attraction of living wage jobs.  Why should we limit its  potential 
expansion and simultaneously hand that infrastructure to  a new Big Box, 
especially one that is a less than stellar  corporate citizen, when the 
obvious place for Big Box zoning in  our community is along Hwy 95, to the 
south of town near JJ's?

     Bruce Livingston



Bruce and Jean Livingston  wrote:              
Jeff,

   I  agree with what you say about the simplicity of your cash register  
model -- consumers must want it because they are spending money  there -- 
but I think you are leaving something out.

   Sure,  consumers may support Wal-Mart with their dollars, but the 
community  may be bearing other costs that are not factored into the simple  
buy-sell relationship with the consumers that you describe.  Local  
taxpayers have a different relationship with Wal-Mart, as does our  local 
non-profit hospital and the citizens who have to navigate through  the 
increased traffic generated by a Supercenter.   The affected economic and 
other relationships of  all community members, not just the shoppers, ought 
to be equally  significant to our decision on whether and on what terms to 
recruit  Wal-Mart.

   We  ought to protect those other relationships through a Big Box  
ordinance.  We should do so by requiring Wal-Mart (or any  such large 
retailer that wishes to come here) to cover all of its  "external" costs, 
those costs that are more typically dumped on  the community Wal-Mart 
"serves," such as the increased demands on  police protection, water 
consumption, traffic and related  infrastructure changes, sewer expenses, 
uninsured medical expenses  (that will be borne by Gritman), lighting 
poluution, etc.

   Nor  are all retailers equal.  The costs to the community of  having a 
particular retailer are not the same.

   In  Butch Alford's talk to the LEDC today, he answered a Walter Steed  
question, something about "Valley Vision"  (Lewiston-Clarkson's equivalent 
to the LEDC) and its experience  with (and the desirability/value of) big 
box retail to the  community, by noting that all retailers are not the same 
and that  Costco pays very well -- real living wages -- and is an extremely  
generous member of the Valley community.  I believe he was  pointedly 
distinguishing between Wal-Mart and Costco, in that instance,  as two 
entirely different quality citizens.  The "citizenship"  factors of our 
corporate big box retailers are not measured merely by  the transactions at 
the cash register.  The various other factors  that result from their entry 
in our community should all be part  of the package of issues that our 
community considers and pursues,  by requiring more from any big box 
retailer that seeks to open a new  store in town than that they simply pay 
their property taxes.

   Now,  I do not support drafting a law peculiar to Wal-Mart, even  though 
I find its practices, as I understand  them, offensive.  But it seems to me 
that we as a community  ought to write our laws in a way that we get 
retailers who are  willing to meet our reasonable but high standards.  
Frankly,  given the seeming desirability of our community, we ought to be 
able to  extract some real benefit to the community in return for the right 
to  locate here and saddle us with traffic congestion, etc.    Among those 
benefits imposed on/extracted from any such new  retailer ought to be: a 
living wage, for example; and substantially  more green space in the 1000 
space parking lot to avoid polluting  Paradise Creek while also enabling 
better water recharge of the  limited aquifer; as well as architectural and 
lighting design  standards; guarantees not to leave buildings vacant; etc. 
etc.

   Another  angle that I have not seen discussed is on another of your 
favorite  issues: consumer choice.  I fear that a Super Wal-Mart will reduce 
  that choice, not only by the gloom and doom tales of a shuttered Main  
Street, but by the simpler difference that Wal-Mart's preemptive,  predatory 
opening of a Supercenter is seemingly designed to keep out  other retailers.

   Isn't  consumer choice enabled by doing our best to "hire", ok,  attract, 
better citizen, retailing neighbors than Wal-Mart, an  admittedly "naughty," 
law-violating, discriminatory corporate  behemoth?  We have a Wal-Mart.  
Isn't consumer choice  greater if we retain the Wal-Mart we have and 
encourage a different  choice to locate here?  And if that new store, while 
offering a  different product line, is a better citizen of the community and 
foists  fewer external costs on the community, are we not better off?  We  
have a relatively small population, and why wouldn't we want to  encourage 
someone else in the retail industry who (unlike Wal-Mart, if  the literature 
is true) is willing to pay living wages, if we choose to  make that part of 
the ground rules to play here, for example?

   Everyone  seems to assume that we will lose our Wal-Mart to Pullman, 
which I  think is absurd.  We already HAVE a Wal-Mart, which is a point  
that Steve Cooke left out of his presentation the other night at the  MCA 
forum on the economic benefits of Wal-Mart.   Apparently, the powers that be 
in Benton Arkansas are making  so much money on their 90,000 sq. ft. store 
in Moscow, Idaho that they  feel the upgrade to a 228,000 sq. ft. store here 
is a wise  decision in their economic interest.  I have to believe that if  
they decide not to meet our requirements under a Big Box ordinance, and  
therefore choose not to expand, that they will still retain  their 
"grandfathered" and profitable current store, rather than  abdicate the 
market.

   I  encourage us all to think how best we might write a Big Box ordinance  
that will deal with the costs of these new stores which seemingly wish  to 
locate here.

   And  until we have a big box ordinance "with teeth" in place, unlike the  
emergency ordinance under which Wal-Mart seeks to play, I suggest  to our 
City Council that you deny the necessary re-zone at this  time, because it 
is not in our long term interest to allow such a  significant new addition 
to our community under a vague, rushed, and  temporary, "emergency big box 
ordinance" that Wal-Mart with its  huge economic power can litigate to death 
until we cave to the expense  of litigation and let it have its way.  I 
think the  existence of an unsatisfactory regulatory mechanism for the 
desired  use, along with avoidance of litigation of an ambiguous emergency  
ordinance is reason enough to deny the re-zone.

   And  frankly, I don't understand why we would cut-off from expansion our  
Alturas technology park.  Alturas was built at our expense  for the 
attraction of living wage jobs.  Why should we limit its  potential 
expansion and simultaneously hand that infrastructure to  a new Big Box, 
especially one that is a less than stellar  corporate citizen, when the 
obvious place for Big Box zoning in  our community is along Hwy 95, to the 
south of town near JJ's?

   Bruce Livingston




       ----- Original Message -----
     From:     Jeff Harkins
     To: Shelly ; vision2020 at moscow.com
     Sent: Wednesday, January 11, 2006 3:53     PM
     Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Walmart


Phil, you have a very interesting view of the economics of     
retailing/merchandising.

In  a free-enterprise, free market economy, businesses survive or die by  
counting the votes (spell that dollars!) of their customers.  The  model is 
simple - if you don't like a store don't shop there.  If  enough customers 
shop at a store, it will do well - but you still don't  have to go there.  
Obviously a lot of people shop at the Moscow  Walmart - the store is quite 
successful, customers have voted with  their dollars and Moscow seems to 
have survived the current Walmart  Store.  I have lived here almost 30 years 
now and the shopping in  Moscow has never provided as much choice or 
diversity.  Where is  the devastation in this picture?


=== message truncated ===


		
---------------------------------
Yahoo! Photos – Showcase holiday pictures in hardcover
 Photo Books. You design it and we’ll bind it!
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/attachments/20060112/39f66323/attachment-0001.htm