 |
EMIL
FRANZI |
There are things worse than a
|
A recent story in the Detroit
News reported that the last two Farmer Jack stores in the
city were preparing to close. If no major company picks up
their locations from the Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea
Companies, Detroit will no longer have any national chain
supermarkets, let alone a Wal-Mart or Costco.
The story further stated that attempts by city officials and community activists to woo a supermarket had been unsuccessful because major grocery chains operate on thin profit margins. Cities like Detroit have high employee turnover and increased security and thefts. Also general low income prohibits the sale of high-profit, upscale items. So what’s worse than having a Wal-Mart built in your town? How about living somewhere that Wal-Mart finds unattractive. I recall a few years back when an East Coast union organizer moved to Tucson and remarked that the “growth versus no-growth” fight was not an issue in Appalachia. The current Wal-Mart dispute in Oro Valley, a sure highlight in the upcoming town election, should be based on two fundamentals beyond the relative virtues or vices of Wal-Mart itself. Why did three town council members — Helen Dankwerth, Barry Gillaspie and Terry Parish — bail out on their original position opposing the Vestar development subsidy? That opposition got them elected. They need to explain what changed after they got there and why it was an important enough revelation to cause them (but not council members K.C. Carter and Paula Abbott) to reverse themselves. Simple courtesy let alone good governance demands that. The second argument should be why Vestar needed a subsidy and fudged (the most polite and understated word I can use) their arguments during the referendum campaign about what their development would include. The council needs to address this, too. Their voters have been conned twice — once by them and again by Vestar. There are several lessons for Oro Valley to learn from the Detroit experience. Big national chains make location decisions based on demographics and economics. Tax rebates are not that important to them, but they’re not adverse to hustling local rubes into granting them. Big national chains also have reduced prices based on volume and the opportunity to make up the difference somewhere else in the store. Anyone who ever bought groceries should know that. Those who whine about how stores like WalMart destroy “mom and pop” operations should be ready to explain that the other part of that equation means less selection and higher prices. Detroit will now be serviced only by small local stores. There is also no guarantee that the employees of those small concerns will pay their help any better or provide more benefits than “big box” operations. Wal-Mart for many is a symbol and has generated more hypocrisy and hot air than most. Besides being regularly trashed by big labor it attracts further attacks from pols pandering to them and the anti-capitalist mentality of the hard left like Sen. John Edwards, perhaps the biggest political whore in a field hardly chaste. Forget the $400 haircuts, his supposed failure to notice that the sub-prime lenders and hedge fund operators he attacks are major clients of the law firm employing him, and the sleazy way he treats his North Carolina neighbors. Note the ultimate hypocrisy of attacking Wal-Mart from a book-signing at a Borders, a big box chain that pays less and has fewer benefits than Wal-Mart and with Barnes and Noble is the main reason for the demise of the independent book store. You cannot attack Wal-Mart without blasting most other current mall inhabitants everywhere. That includes the many chain restaurants that anchor those developments. Before carrying the Wal-Mart argument to similar corporations, Vestar opponents should check the parking lots of places like On The Border or Olive Garden to note that while one might dispute their taste in cuisine, one should surely measure the numbers of voters parked there in any upcoming election. |
BUT WATCH WHAT YOU SAY! |
|
|
|||
