[Vision2020] Goodnight Goody, Goodnight Ridge

Sat Mar 4 11:03:15 PST 2006

Ms. Swanson, It seems from your post that you see Moscow and Pullman as one big happy when it comes to retail. Please correct me if I'm wrong but it occurs to me that when consumer dollars are spent in Whitman county, Latah County benefits not at all. Like it or not, our two cities/counties are very much competitors for every shopping nickel and I  would like to see my team at least be able to hold its own. Creating economic barriers here when Pullman is knocking them down is not my idea of a level playing field, in fact it seems like a great way to turn ourselves into a bedroom community for Schweitzer and WSU as well as the myriad new businesses that are sure to grow there.

Your remarks about Snapper lawn mowers would seem to bear out my contention that there are businesses that can stand in the face of wal-mart and survive.  They obviously did not see the need to have the added exposure that selling through the WM distribution network would have provided. If you want a throw away mower (and many folks do) buy WM. If you want to spend a little bit more and have a higher quality product, visit a smaller specialty dealer who can satisfy your need. Prohibiting one to promote the other is definitely not "belief in a free market."

Respectfully,
G. Crabtree
  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: B. J. Swanson 
  To: 'Vision 2020' 
  Sent: Saturday, March 04, 2006 8:50 AM
  Subject: RE: [Vision2020] Goodnight Goody, Goodnight Ridge

  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

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

  _____________________________________________________
   List services made available by First Step Internet, 
   serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.   
                 http://www.fsr.net                       
            mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
  ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/attachments/20060304/1296a791/attachment-0001.htm