[Vision2020] Goodnight Goody, Goodnight Ridge

[B. J. Swanson]

Excellent, Bruce!  If I didn't know better, I'd think you were a rational
economist in disguise!

 

I believe in the free market too, but on a level playing field.  If my
addition is correct, there are proposals for 1.7 million square feet of new
retail in Moscow and Pullman including the Moscow Wal-Mart complex, the
corridor and Wal-Mart in Pullman.  Is this a little much?  It's easy to say
"whatever the market will bear."  But in this case, the destruction of
smaller businesses before the market "rights itself" is not good business
and effectively kills communities.  Others will say that the smaller, local
businesses must learn to compete with Wal-Mart.  That is extremely difficult
when a Wal-Mart Supercenter carries 60,000 items, many made in China in
sweatshops that are illegal here.  A typical Costco carries 4,000 items.

 

Bruce mentions buying razors at Wal-Mart.  Compare the Gillette Mach 3
razors purchased at Wal-Mart with those purchased at non-Wal-Mart stores.
Notice the color is different even though the name is the same?  Notice the
Wal-Mart Mach 3 doesn't last nearly as long as those purchased from Costco,
Rite-Aid, Hodgins, Marketime?  Ever wonder why Snapper lawn mowers are never
sold at Wal-Mart?  Because Snapper refused to lower its quality (and price)
to Wal-Mart standards.

 

B. J. Swanson

 

-----------------------------------------------

 

  _____  

From: vision2020-bounces at moscow.com [mailto:vision2020-bounces at moscow.com]
On Behalf Of Bruce and Jean Livingston
Sent: Saturday, March 04, 2006 6:24 AM
To: Donovan Arnold; Vision 2020
Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Goodnight Goody, Goodnight Ridge

 

I imagine someone telling Dave he can't expand Paradise Ridge CDs, and I
don't like it.  But the obvious analogy to Wal-Mart that you are trying to
make is not a clean one, in my opinion, Donovan, though I do agree with some
of what you write.  

 

First, I wouldn't be the least bit concerned about people telling me where
they thought I should shop.  I kept buying grapes, even though the Farm
Workers were trying to organize a boycott.  I listen to the reasons for not
shopping at Wal-Mart, and I agree with some of them, but I still shop at
Wal-Mart on rare occasions.  I try to patronize other places, and I always
try Tri-State or Spence's, first, because I think it is important to
patronize local businesses to help assure that more money stays in the
community.  But I admit it, my razor blades come from Wal-Mart when I don't
have a Costco run in the offing.

 

People may still shop at Wal-Mart, as they could at any other store that is
operating here.  I don't begrudge others the opportunity to shop at
Wal-Mart, and I agree with the free market advocates and the need for
business opportunities in our community, and so I agree with the right to
expand when it comports with good planning and the law.  

 

But if Dave were in the mood to expand Paradise Ridge, by buying up one of
his neighbors on Third Street in the heart of downtown, where retail sales
are the dominant and preferred activity according to our zoning code and
comprehensive plan, anybody arguing against that expansion would have
worthless arguments, and the expansion would be approved.  That is where
your analogy falls apart, unless you were contemplating plunking the CD
store in an area where it was not allowed -- in which case I would likely
not support that location despite my affection for the business.

 

I think that what many fail to recognize is that there are too kinds of
Wal-Mart opponents out there in our community right now:  those who abhor
Wal-Mart and would deny its entry anywhere, and those who question the
planning that went into this particular expansion effort.  I am on record as
being in the latter category.  If I can find the reasons that I submitted to
the P&Z public hearing, I will forward them to the list.  

 

Briefly, I believe that the proposed extensive commercial motor business
designation of the Thompson property is poor planning.  Such developments
should have occurred between downtown and the state line, as the
comprehensive plan dictated, had not the lack of vision by prior councils
allowed most of that property along A street to become apartments, contrary
to the comprehensive plan.  Such a plan would still allow us to shop and
draw us through downtown, making it more likely that our lovely downtown is
a convenient stop along the way.  There is still opportunity for expanded
commercial development in the area from behind the mall to the state line,
as was proposed at the same council meeting last June  when the Thompson
project first surfaced.  Equally and maybe more important given greater
availability, there is a much more obvious existing site than the Thompson
property for such extensive commercial developments at the north and south
ends of town along Highway 95, a far better traffic corridor.  The Thompson
property ought, in my opinion, to be primarily residential (as it was
designated in the comp plan until a bad planning decision by the prior
council last June) and not destroy the ambience of the existing owners to
the east and across the street on Ridge.  Finally, we ought to be saving the
west end of the Thompson property for future expansion of higher paying
businesses than a shopping center; we ought to allow Alturas that room to
expand, while fostering a pro-business attitude and encouraging businesses
that pay at least living wages to locate here.

 

Now at the risk of being a little windy here, and if you are not already
snoozing, there is a third category of Wal-Mart opponent, in my opinion and
of which I am also a member, and it relates to limited opportunities for
shopping in Moscow, the almighty mantra of "market choice."  I mentioned
this on the list a while back and it engendered little discussion.  I
expected to hear a rebuttal from Jeff Harkins who is the most fervent free
marketer on the list and my compatriot on the LEDC, and he  said he was
working on it, but I seem to have missed it.  

 

The "more market choice" category that I just mentioned might at first blush
appear to support letting anyone expand and enter, and see what happens, the
classic laissez faire free market approach.  But what I am contemplating is
something different.  

 

It seems to me that we are a very small community with a relatively limited
amount of disposable income to spend in (and therefore support) the local
stores of all types.  Wal-Mart offers one kind of shopping venue, and a
Super Wal-Mart would admittedly offer more  (if perhaps of the same lower
quality) and the most significant addition might be food.  There is already
a Wal-Mart here.  There are four grocery stores, the Co-op on the high end,
Winco on the low end (offering similar pricing to Wal-Mart from what I
understand) and Rosauer's and Safeway in between.  There will soon be a
Super Wal-Mart a mere ten miles away in Pullman.  

 

The market choice that I am talking about is more choices for us.  Why a
Wal-Mart which we already have?  Why not something else, so our consumer
choices are enhanced more than by the expansion of the existing low-end
product line at Wal-Mart?  Why not have our city and economic development
and business supporters work on attracting an alternative to Wal-Mart, so
that our limited choices are not so likely to become primarily Wal-Mart?
Why not work harder to attract something more interesting and beneficial to
consumer choice?  Why let Wal-Mart pre-empt the market and fill it up in the
predatory fashion that it appears to be following with two supercenters
within 10 miles?  Why are we only talking about the choices that the
entrepreneurs choose to offer and not the choices that we consumers would
like to see?  We could work toward educating other entrepreneurs and
attracting them instead, and if we put in place rules that applied to all
and some chose to play where Wal-Mart didn't, why wouldn't we be better off
by having more varied choices?

 

Perhaps most significant to my "more consumer choices" angle, why let a
200,000 square foot store come in and soak up the available dollars in this
very small community and make it less likely for other more varied folks to
enter our market?  Why isn't 100,000 square feet enough in this little
community?  A size cap would allow us more choices.  I have a good friend on
the Chamber Board (who would probably prefer to remain nameless) and he
likes to talk about how students often have the most disposable dollars to
spend, despite their low income, and that we ought to be able to market
Moscow and interest someone other than Wal-Mart to enter our community.  If
we are to have big boxes in our community, why not be pro-active and get us
more real choice for Moscow's consumers, rather than more of the Wal-Mart we
already have?  

 

Several of my MCA Board buddies who oppose Wal-Mart and big boxes in general
characterize this as the "pig in silk pajamas" argument, because I do
believe that large stores ought to be allowed, but play nice and look nice,
whereas these others oppose them on general principles.  I don't want large
stores to just make the "great big sucking noise" Ross Perot once described,
though he was talking about jobs going to Mexico and I am talking about more
of our dollars going to Bentonville Arkansas.  If we are to have out-of-town
chains, I would much prefer to have a Costco that pays living wages than a
Wal-Mart that does not, even if lots of those dollars spent go to Seattle. 

 

Lest someone misconstrue this, I don't believe we can choose one retailer
over the other on the whim of the Council.  We need rules that are applied
fairly to all retailers and then we need to apply the rules fairly, but I do
believe we can encourage better and more varied consumer choices through
thoughtful legislating and pro-active and creative economic development
efforts.

 

Putting a halt to an ill-conceived project buys us the time to do things
better the next time, to have a good plan in place, and to be ready for
things instead of just reacting to the next request on a developer's wish
list.

 

Bruce Livingston

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/attachments/20060304/1e19b090/attachment-0001.htm