[Vision2020] RE: Unstable, Doomed, Missed Points

[Jeff Harkins]

Hi Melynda,

>So, Jeff, you would certainly take issue with Walmart's decision not 
>to provide the "morning-after" contraceptive pill to any of its customers?
>Even after several states adopted specific legislation to require it 
>to do so, Walmart resisted making this legal, safe, and cheap 
>pharmaceutical birth control choice available to customers when 
>prescribed by a doctor--and it still permits, even encourages, 
>individual pharmacists to refuse to fill the prescription, even when 
>patients have no other pharmacy available to them (as in small towns 
>where other drug stores have been driven out of business by Walmart).

Actually, I think WM has fixed this issue.

>Similarly, some years ago, Walmart pulled teeshirts depicting a 
>cartoon character saying "Some day a girl will be President," from 
>all its stores, stating in a press release that the shirts were in 
>conflict with the corporation's "family values."  Presumably those 
>are the same values that keep women from advancing within the company.

I don't know about this issue, but I will do some research about 
it.  My guess is that there are some pieces missing to this story.

>Are these not two examples of a small group of people, Walmart's 
>policy makers, imposing or defining standards of living and quality 
>of life on others?  And since the corporation has disproportionate 
>power in the marketplace--think of those women who don't have access 
>to another pharmacy--their decisions have considerably greater 
>impact on the limitation of other people's choices than anything I 
>might say or do to try to persuade others that our town doesn't need 
>another Walmart.

Actually, WM is a publicly-owned company - accountable first to its 
shareholders. And the business press has countless examples of the 
accountability of WM to the markets and its shareholders.  And when 
prosecuted and convicted for violations of various statutes, WM 
writes settlement checks - believe it - that has a significant impact 
on behavior.

>In fact, I'm taking some umbrage at the notion that by expressing my 
>opposition to another Walmart in our town--or to the business 
>practices of Walmart--that I am limiting people's choices in some 
>meaningful way.
>There's a Walmart in Moscow.  There's going to be another Walmart in 
>Pullman.  Can choice only be exercised if there's a Super Walmart 
>every 6 miles?

Yes, and the fundamental question is whether the Moscow WM (or any 
other local business) can expand (or should be allowed to 
expand).  It is protectionism and it is wrong.

There is a rational argument to be made that instead on one "core 
business district" in the center of Moscow,  that we should take 
advantage of the fact that there is a link between the westside mall 
area, the downtown area and the eastside mall area as well as a link 
between the northend business area, the downtown and the southside 
business area.  Surrounding this "mixed business zone" is a diverse 
collection of residential areas.  This balances access to our 
business investment centers for workers, visitors and 
customers.  This advances the opportunity for diversity of housing 
and work and shopping.  People would have more choices for where they 
live relative to where they work and shop and do business.

Clustering all new growth in the "core business district" would 
concentrate all that activity in one area - exacerbating access 
problems, interpersonal conflict, traffic as well as limit diversity.

The local geo-political economics will drive this issue.  Denying the 
WM site on the eastside, may well bring significant unexpected and 
probably unpleasant consequences that would not be in our collective 
best interests.

>I'd also oppose a Super-Casino-and-Brothel or a 
>Super-Pig-Farm-and-Abbatoir, even though each of those businesses 
>might represent "economic growth" for our town, and even though my 
>shopping choices might be limited by the lack of such outlets, 
>because for me the costs of the business offset the 
>benefits.  There's not much middle ground here, since my failure to 
>shop at the Super Casino and Brothel doesn't insulate me from the 
>negative overall consequences of its existence.
>There's no Tiffany's in Moscow, either, and yet I don't feel injured 
>by the failure of the corporation to provide me with a shopping 
>choice for place settings of my favorite sterling (Kirk Steiff 
>Repousse, in case anybody's wondering) right here in Moscow.  I 
>can't have every single possible choice.  Why shouldn't we, as a 
>community, try to exercise responsibly the functionally limited 
>choices we have?

Because once that cat is out of the bag, where will it stop?  Will 
you be the one to decide when enough is enough? Or would you trust 
that decision to someone else in the community?  How about me - would 
you trust me to make that call (I doubt it).  Free and relatively 
unfettered markets, although not perfect, are a viable means of 
allocating scarce resources - it has not failed us, it has served us 
- and served us well.

Changing zoning rules to let one business in and keep this other one 
out are wrong - and I think you know that.

Your examples are interesting. Brothels are illegal, so a straw man 
argument.  I could find some rationale and reason to court a casino 
and golf club (say along the lines of the Coeur d'Alene Casino and 
Circling Raven Golf Course). Casinos are very effective at attracting 
capital from outside our economic zone - that alone could help fund 
good jobs as well as infrastructure e.g.,  roads, schools, public 
buildings.  But, there are legal obstacles to casino 
operations.  Probably need to review the state's provisions for 
that.  A high end golf course and tennis club could be another very 
effective economic engine for our area. The pig farm is another 
possibility - we have the zoning for it (agricultural and forestry 
areas) and the region did at one time support numerous livestock 
operations.  But state and federal regulations have made such 
operations economically not viable, so in essence another straw man argument.

Tiffany's is another possibility, but our per capita income is 
probably well below their business model minimums.  But at the rate 
that Pullman is prospering (with Schweitzer Engineering and the 
relative prosperity of their operations), Pullman might have a market 
to support such a upscale retailer.  We do have the economic 
demographics to support ventures like "The Dollar Store", "Ross 
Clothing" and WalMart.

The best way to deal with your concerns is to create an economic 
climate that fosters an improvement in our per capita income, which 
provides folks with more disposable income, which attracts more 
retail choices (maybe we could get a Target or a Fred Meyer; maybe we 
could get Neimann-Marcus), which may fund better schools, which funds 
more police and fire services, which may attract more employers, 
which may provide better jobs to attract young families and so on. 
Heck, we might generate enough resources to actually pave all the 
streets in Moscow.

A WalMart Supercenter doesn't define our community; it fits 
it.  Change our demographics and you change the desirability of our 
community - for all kinds of opportunities.  Change our real 
disposable income and people will demand a different market mix.

Melynda, I appreciate the sincerity of your positions.  I respect you 
for articulating your arguments and that you have not attacked me 
personally.   But I continue to believe we are separated by 
ideology.  IMHO, the social welfare economic model died some time ago.

I look forward to our continuing dialogue.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/attachments/20060308/f0ae5fb9/attachment.htm