Tweet
There has been a big tiff recently in San Diego which pits special interests and activists against free market capitalism. Wal-Mart wanted to open several new "Wal-Wart Super Centers" which would be larger then the traditional Wal-Mart stores and sell items like groceries which normal Wal-Marts do not sell. Naturally, the various supermarket chains don't like the fact that Wal-Mart would be under cutting their prices by an estimated 20% average and so they've funded a campaign to prevent any Wal-Mart Super Centers from being built.
Sadly, due to contributions by both grocery store unions as well as the stores themselves yesterday the city council passed a law of questionable legality which banned all super centers which sell groceries unless they mainly sold items in bulk (Costco Company had threatened to sue the city but withdrew its objections after the city council wrote a special exemption for Costco). I honestly can't see how this is anything but anti-free enterprise since it is just companies bribing politicians to prevent competition which would benifit consumers.
How is this not one group of politically connected companies & unions screwing over consumers to prevent competition? I likely wouldn't shop at Wal-Mart's Super Centers because I don't like Wal-Mart's labor practices however just because I don't want to shop there it doesn't mean that other people won't or shouldn't be allowed. An across the board 20% reduction in prices would be a good thing for consumers because other retailers/grocers would have to drop their prices as well. In a city with a high cost of living it seems like a 20% reduction in the price of consumer goods would help a lot of people make ends meet.
Sadly, due to contributions by both grocery store unions as well as the stores themselves yesterday the city council passed a law of questionable legality which banned all super centers which sell groceries unless they mainly sold items in bulk (Costco Company had threatened to sue the city but withdrew its objections after the city council wrote a special exemption for Costco). I honestly can't see how this is anything but anti-free enterprise since it is just companies bribing politicians to prevent competition which would benifit consumers.
S.D. council bans supercenter-size stores
By Craig Gustafson
UNION-TRIBUNE STAFF WRITER
November 29, 2006
In a move that pits the city squarely against the nation's largest retailer, San Diego yesterday joined a growing list of cities nationwide to place restrictions on large retail developments.
The City Council voted 5-3 to ban stores with more than 90,000 square feet that use 10 percent of their space to sell groceries and other merchandise not subject to sales tax.
The council also agreed to place additional scrutiny on stores with more than 50,000 square feet.
The ban targets Wal-Mart Supercenters, which have been lauded nationwide for low prices and one-stop shopping but also criticized for destroying small businesses and creating traffic congestion.
The ban excludes membership stores, such as Costco and Sam's Club, which sell grocery items in bulk.
Mayor Jerry Sanders plans to veto the council's decision, preferring regulation of large retail stores case by case.
“Consumers should have choices,” he said. “I don't believe that the role of local government is to control choices by banning where people are allowed to shop. We shouldn't act to outlaw an entire class of businesses.”
The mayor's veto would be largely symbolic because the council can override it with the five votes used to approve the ban. The council would hold a hearing to consider the veto.
However, in response to Sanders' position, the council unanimously approved his proposal to strengthen design and landscape standards for those large retail stores that will still be allowed.
Councilwoman Toni Atkins, who supported the ban, emphasized that the city has nothing against Wal-Mart but wanted to limit how its stores affected neighborhoods and small businesses.
“This policy is not going to affect negatively people's ability to choose where they want to shop. If they want to shop at Wal-Mart, please do,” Atkins said.
Council President Scott Peters and council members Donna Frye, Ben Hueso and Tony Young also supported the ban. Hueso said the city needed it so Wal-Mart couldn't skirt the mayor's proposal by expanding on a current site.
Councilman Jim Madaffer, who opposed the ban, said the city has no business limiting competition. He also said he worried about the city opening itself up to litigation. Wal-Mart has sued other jurisdictions over land-use restrictions.
“I just don't see what makes us think that we can limit competition and how that can be good for the economy,” Madaffer said. “It's not fair. It's not just.”
Joining him were Councilmen Kevin Faulconer and Brian Maienschein.
Although the council is nonpartisan, the vote was along party lines. Those supporting the ban are Democrats; those opposed are Republicans. Sanders also is a Republican.
A group of labor leaders and grocers proposed the ban three years ago, while pro-business organizations, including the San Diego Regional Chamber of Commerce, fought it.
Kevin McCall, a Wal-Mart spokesman, said each Supercenter would potentially create 350 jobs and sell groceries at prices up to 20 percent below what traditional supermarkets offer.
“Why would this council turn away a company that is seeking to bring full-service grocery stores to communities with limited shopping options?” he asked.
Sanders said the ban sends the wrong message about the city. “We would in essence be telling retailers that we don't want you here, that San Diego doesn't have a business-friendly environment.”
This was the second public hearing in three months on whether to place restrictions on those retailers, and many of the same issues have been raised repeatedly.
Art Castanares, who served as Hueso's election campaign manager, has long advocated for the ban.
“The issues haven't changed. It's still about visual blight of the large unattractive boxes,” he said. “It's still about the lack of landscaping and open space and acres of parking and the devastation of the local economy when you build these huge stores.”
Former City Councilwoman Valerie Stallings said she reluctantly supported the construction of a Wal-Mart in Serra Mesa while in office because she was convinced it would not hurt local businesses. After watching a number of businesses fold in Wal-Mart's wake, she said that she made the wrong decision.
“It's true that the big boxes may be less expensive and they do offer affordable prices to many families, but they do not provide the kind of friendly and individual service that a smaller business can,” she said.
By Craig Gustafson
UNION-TRIBUNE STAFF WRITER
November 29, 2006
In a move that pits the city squarely against the nation's largest retailer, San Diego yesterday joined a growing list of cities nationwide to place restrictions on large retail developments.
The City Council voted 5-3 to ban stores with more than 90,000 square feet that use 10 percent of their space to sell groceries and other merchandise not subject to sales tax.
The council also agreed to place additional scrutiny on stores with more than 50,000 square feet.
The ban targets Wal-Mart Supercenters, which have been lauded nationwide for low prices and one-stop shopping but also criticized for destroying small businesses and creating traffic congestion.
The ban excludes membership stores, such as Costco and Sam's Club, which sell grocery items in bulk.
Mayor Jerry Sanders plans to veto the council's decision, preferring regulation of large retail stores case by case.
“Consumers should have choices,” he said. “I don't believe that the role of local government is to control choices by banning where people are allowed to shop. We shouldn't act to outlaw an entire class of businesses.”
The mayor's veto would be largely symbolic because the council can override it with the five votes used to approve the ban. The council would hold a hearing to consider the veto.
However, in response to Sanders' position, the council unanimously approved his proposal to strengthen design and landscape standards for those large retail stores that will still be allowed.
Councilwoman Toni Atkins, who supported the ban, emphasized that the city has nothing against Wal-Mart but wanted to limit how its stores affected neighborhoods and small businesses.
“This policy is not going to affect negatively people's ability to choose where they want to shop. If they want to shop at Wal-Mart, please do,” Atkins said.
Council President Scott Peters and council members Donna Frye, Ben Hueso and Tony Young also supported the ban. Hueso said the city needed it so Wal-Mart couldn't skirt the mayor's proposal by expanding on a current site.
Councilman Jim Madaffer, who opposed the ban, said the city has no business limiting competition. He also said he worried about the city opening itself up to litigation. Wal-Mart has sued other jurisdictions over land-use restrictions.
“I just don't see what makes us think that we can limit competition and how that can be good for the economy,” Madaffer said. “It's not fair. It's not just.”
Joining him were Councilmen Kevin Faulconer and Brian Maienschein.
Although the council is nonpartisan, the vote was along party lines. Those supporting the ban are Democrats; those opposed are Republicans. Sanders also is a Republican.
A group of labor leaders and grocers proposed the ban three years ago, while pro-business organizations, including the San Diego Regional Chamber of Commerce, fought it.
Kevin McCall, a Wal-Mart spokesman, said each Supercenter would potentially create 350 jobs and sell groceries at prices up to 20 percent below what traditional supermarkets offer.
“Why would this council turn away a company that is seeking to bring full-service grocery stores to communities with limited shopping options?” he asked.
Sanders said the ban sends the wrong message about the city. “We would in essence be telling retailers that we don't want you here, that San Diego doesn't have a business-friendly environment.”
This was the second public hearing in three months on whether to place restrictions on those retailers, and many of the same issues have been raised repeatedly.
Art Castanares, who served as Hueso's election campaign manager, has long advocated for the ban.
“The issues haven't changed. It's still about visual blight of the large unattractive boxes,” he said. “It's still about the lack of landscaping and open space and acres of parking and the devastation of the local economy when you build these huge stores.”
Former City Councilwoman Valerie Stallings said she reluctantly supported the construction of a Wal-Mart in Serra Mesa while in office because she was convinced it would not hurt local businesses. After watching a number of businesses fold in Wal-Mart's wake, she said that she made the wrong decision.
“It's true that the big boxes may be less expensive and they do offer affordable prices to many families, but they do not provide the kind of friendly and individual service that a smaller business can,” she said.
How is this not one group of politically connected companies & unions screwing over consumers to prevent competition? I likely wouldn't shop at Wal-Mart's Super Centers because I don't like Wal-Mart's labor practices however just because I don't want to shop there it doesn't mean that other people won't or shouldn't be allowed. An across the board 20% reduction in prices would be a good thing for consumers because other retailers/grocers would have to drop their prices as well. In a city with a high cost of living it seems like a 20% reduction in the price of consumer goods would help a lot of people make ends meet.
. Even though I don't shop there at all.
Chicago is THE union town, and even without explicit prohibitions (which I believe DID exist but don't any longer) they've effectively nixed walmarts from the city. Only in Chicago would one of the larger neighborhoods (Hyde Park) not have a SINGLE major chain grocery or home goods store in it ... (no Dominics, no Jewel, no Albertsons, no Krogers, no Cub Foods... no Target, no WalMart ...)
to SD's council. This isn't the $#%#$ Soviet Union for chrissakes.
Comment