<html>
<body>
<b>Hi Melynda, <br><br>
</b><blockquote type=cite class=cite cite="">So, Jeff, you would
certainly take issue with Walmart's decision not to provide the
"morning-after" contraceptive pill to any of its
customers? <br>
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).</blockquote><br>
<b>Actually, I think WM has fixed this issue.<br><br>
</b><blockquote type=cite class=cite cite="">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.</blockquote><br>
<b>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.<br><br>
</b><blockquote type=cite class=cite cite="">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.</blockquote><br>
<b>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.<br><br>
</b><blockquote type=cite class=cite cite="">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. <br>
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?</blockquote><br>
<b>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. <br><br>
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. <br><br>
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.<br><br>
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.<br><br>
</b><blockquote type=cite class=cite cite="">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. <br>
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?</blockquote><br>
<b>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.<br><br>
Changing zoning rules to let one business in and keep this other one out
are wrong - and I think you know that.<br><br>
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.<br><br>
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. <br><br>
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.<br><br>
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.<br><br>
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.<br><br>
I look forward to our continuing dialogue.<br><br>
</b></body>
</html>