When special interests conspire to limit choices and harm consumers.

[Dinner]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Wal-Mart
Target

I tend to shop more at Target then Wal-Mart since Target only costs a bit more but tends to have better quality goods. Occasionally I will go to Wal-Mart to get something generic cheaply. Wal-Mart's automotive department will change my oil for $12.95 while Jiffy Lube wants $29.95. A dealership would want something like $39.95 to do the same work.

The motor oil and filter are generic and since it never freezes here I don't need fancy multi-weight oil. $12.95 suits me fine. Besides, I can't buy the motor oil and filter for that much so doing it myself doesn't make sense. Going to Wal-Mart costs less and I get someone to do it for me.

[Dinner]

Originally posted by MRT144
the thing i dont understand is how everyone has this black and white ideal with regards to business.

Protectionism is a market force. Government is a market force. Business must contend with market forces and I'm not crying if they dont make it.

Protectionism is not a market force. It is a deliberate distortion of market forces designed to favor certain politically connected industries or individuals. Government is also a destortion of market forces or at least that is what it does.

[Dinner]

Originally posted by Dis
I thought they banned super walmarts in my city. But I guess something happened, because now we have them. The cashier's union fought long and hard, but in the end, Walmart prevailed.

Two or three years ago there was a strike/lockout by the grocery stores and their unions in Southern California. The grocery stores were saying that once Wal-Mart moves in they wouldn't be able to pay $20 an hour to cashiers since Wal-Mart pays $6-$7 for people doing the same jobs. The unions didn't want pay cuts so they struck. That strike was very costly for both the companies and the unions so it seems they've decided not to fight each other and instead to work together to stiffle competition.

[Sava]

"WHEN SPECIAL INTERESTS ATTACK"

tonight at 9

[Dinner]

The latest update is that Walmart is still considering if it wants to sue but is worried about a ruling in Central California which said cities can ban big box stores if they come up with a decent excuse (like traffic impacts). The problem is the pro-union city council didn't outlaw all big box stores and instead allow certain ones but not others based upon the unions not wanting to actually compete against more efficent retailers.

What looks more likely is that there will be a city wide vote to attempt to over turn the ban. Likely this vote will not go Walmart's way because the city is pretty affluent and most people in their $1million houses in the suburbs don't mind paying inflated prices for goods. The poor and the lower middle class will be the ones who have trouble paying the high prices so that yuppies feel better about themselves.

Wal-Mart's Next SD Opening Could Be Courts, Ballots
By EVAN McLAUGHLIN Voice Staff Writer


Monday, Dec. 11, 2006 | Any designs that Wal-Mart had to open one of its controversial supercenters in San Diego appear dead following the City Council's decision to keep the grocery-plus-retail emporiums from setting up shop in the city limits. But if history is any indication, the world's largest retailer won't shy away from fighting the council's decision on legal grounds and in the political arena.

Wal-Mart regularly shifts its battles with local governments to the courtrooms and ballot when politicians have used laws to box out the big-box retailer.

The City Council's decision last month to shut out the superstores that Wal-Mart is pushing in urban markets could prod the company to mount similar efforts in San Diego, where politicos from all sides agree that the ban is vulnerable to the corporate giant's big bucks.

Wal-Mart officials said they are contemplating a challenge to the ban's legality in court or placing the issue in front of the city's voters in an upcoming election if the council, which passed the ban by a 5-3 margin, overrides the veto that Mayor Jerry Sanders has threatened to slap on the ordinance early next year.

"Anytime you have a lot of options available to you, you kind of have to explore what's out there," Wal-Mart spokesman Kevin McCall said. "We know there's been a lot of response from community members because this is a bad ordinance."

The law prohibits stores of 90,000 or more square feet that use at least 10 percent of their floor space for grocery sales -- which matches the profile for the big-box grocers -- from setting up shop in the city. Stores that sell food items in bulk, such as Costco, are exempt.

Related Links

Wal-Mart Big-Boxed Out of SD (Nov. 29, 2006)

Wal-Mart Offers Incentives to Public Supporters (Nov. 28, 2006)

Big Turnout Expected for Big-Box (Nov. 27, 2006)

Wal-Mart has threatened to litigate the issue for the past three years. Additionally, the retail giant's political organization and the visibility of its struggle against the city's law have firmed up during the last few months, when it purchased newspaper and radio advertisements and hired some of the city's best known lobbyists to pressure the council into rejecting the ban.

"Given what they did before the council vote, they probably could spend enough to try and fool the public," said Art Castañares, the lobbyist for the coalition of traditional grocers and their unions that spearheaded the superstore ban. "It's not even a campaign for them. It's an investment."

Although Wal-Mart officials remain tight-lipped about their strategy, case studies around the state -- including a recent showdown in San Diego County -- show a glimpse of what the city could be in for if Wal-Mart pursues overturning the law.

Wal-Mart has sued municipalities over the bans before, arguing that laws prohibiting the stores discriminate against the company and are anticompetitive.

In 2003, just as the council began considering a restriction on big-box stores that sell groceries, lawyers for Wal-Mart made the City Attorney's Office aware that they would likely challenge any ban.

After the City Council voted in September to pursue regulations on the superstores, City Attorney Mike Aguirre changed the law to more closely mirror an ordinance that Turlock, a city in the Central Valley, passed in 2004.

The Turlock ordinance withstood a legal challenge from Wal-Mart when a state Court of Appeals ruled in April that it is OK for a government to pass laws that "address the urban/suburban decay'' of a community. The California Supreme Court turned down a subsequent appeal in July.

Like Turlock, San Diego's superstore ban is an attempt to curb environmental impacts -- most notably, traffic congestion -- and the flight of shoppers from the city's neighborhood retail centers, proponents said. The behemoth grocers, they argued, contributed to both.

With the Turlock ruling in hand, some city officials said they believe they are safe from a legal challenge, although Wal-Mart attorney Tom Turner said last week that litigation is still "a distinct possibility."

Attorneys not related to the case said it would make sense for the company to sue so that it can compile a legal record on an issue that has not been thoroughly vetted through the state's courts.

"If it were litigated, and the court came to a different opinion, it offers the opportunity for conflict between the different appellate divisions that the state Supreme Court didn't have before," said Jerry Livingston, general counsel for the Building Industry Association of San Diego County.

More likely than a legal challenge, politicos say, is a voter referendum to overturn the ban.

One well-known Republican political consultant, who requested anonymity, has already tried to contact the company about working on a referendum, but said the company has not responded to his request. Others in the political community expect the company to wait for the council vote on overriding the mayoral veto -- which would take just the same five votes that were needed to pass the ban -- before announcing its plans.

Wal-Mart has regularly involved itself in electoral affairs of communities that have imperiled its entry.

In Rosemead, a Los Angeles-area enclave, the company spent a reported $213,000 to defend two city council members who were the subject of a recall because of their support for opening a superstore in the community. The recall failed.

In San Diego County, the company spent more than $100,000 in San Marcos to stop a 2004 proposition that would have outlawed the supercenters, although its effort was unsuccessful. San Marcos' ban passed 61 percent to 39 percent.

The company is currently gathering signatures in Long Beach to place a referendum seeking to void that city government's decision to similarly outlaw big-box grocers on an upcoming ballot.

Randy Gordon, president of the Long Beach Area Chamber of Commerce, which is working hand-in-hand with Wal-Mart on the referendum, said the company has already hired campaign consultants and conducted polling. Gordon claims that 65 percent of the respondents to a recent poll want to upend the ban.

Success for a similar proposition in the city of San Diego would also be likely, local Democratic consultant Christopher Crotty predicted. The area's dominating ideology and the company's fortunes make the prospects of a referendum appear promising for Wal-Mart, he said.

"It is a much more conservative crowd, and an initiative to qualify it would probably pass," said Crotty, who noted that opposition to Wal-Mart was a key selling point for the congressional campaigns he worked on elsewhere across the nation this fall.

Crotty cautioned, however, that a pro-Wal-Mart measure could be defeated if it faced a well-organized opposition. The San Diego-Imperial Counties Labor Council, a perennial player in local elections, could furnish the fundraising prowess and campaign expertise that would be needed to keep pace with Wal-Mart's big guns if a referendum were held.

Jerry Butkiewicz, the labor council's secretary-treasurer, said he believed his organization would help stage a fight against the measure, but said he predicted that the small businesses, environmentalists and civic activists that pushed for the band would also become heavily involved in a campaign against Wal-Mart.

"I think you would see them organize like never before," he said.

(Clarification: The original version of this story said that the law prohibited stores that use at least 10 percent of their floor space from operating in the city. It should have stated that the law prohibits stores who use 10 percent of their floor space for grocery sales from setting up in city limits.)

Please contact Evan McLaughlin directly with your thoughts, ideas, personal stories or tips. Or send a letter to the editor.

http://www.voiceofsandiego.org/articles/2006/12/11/news/01walmart.txt

[mrmitchell]

Wal Mart

Camden is on the verge of catching up with the 1990s finally. We've been put on the high priority list for a new Supercenter. Only problem is, at first corporate wanted to put it in East Camden, goodbye 37% of the city's sales tax revenues. But since then they've reconsidered and are looking at a few lots in town.

A grocery store will probably shutter because of it, but hey, good riddance. One is ridiculously overpriced, two have all the crappy brands, and the fourth had about five major leaks when I was in it the other day. And no bull about wages. I have friends that work at all of them and they all pay minimum wage.

[Jaguar]

This thread isn't toolish and partisan. Who are you, and what have you done with Oerdin?

[Jaguar]

The forum's uiber-slow for me right now.

[Dr Strangelove]

Gee, here in small town Lynchburg we've had Wal-Mart Supercenters for the past 3 years. Incredibly we have 2 of them, with 2 more in smaller towns within 30 miles radius. Despite the competition from the giant, chain grocery stores are for the most part holding their own. Frankly I avoid Wal-Mart as much as possible. The crowds and traffic are horrendous. Occassionally I go there for hard to find items. One thing you can say for them is that they have variety. I can often find an item at Wal-Mart when even a specialty store doesn't have it.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
He's the one saying they force everyone's standard of living down. I'm correcting the fallacy.

Ask a Rubermaid worker what happened to their standard of living after Wal-Mart ordered the company to cut its costs . . . if you can find one.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Oerdin


Protectionism is not a market force. It is a deliberate distortion of market forces designed to favor certain politically connected industries or individuals. Government is also a destortion of market forces or at least that is what it does.

So?

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Jaguar
This thread isn't toolish and partisan.

The hell it isn't.

[Kuciwalker]

Your opinion doesn't count, commie.

[chequita guevara]

damn

[Jack_www]

Originally posted by Oerdin


The main reason for the exception was because Costco threatened to sue. Costco is a place were mostly upper class people shop for discounted luxury goods so the council thinks its ok but they don't want any Wal-Mart Super Centers because that would mostly be for working class people to get discounts on grocies and household goods. It honestly hope Wal-Mart does sue and that the grocery store chains financing this campaign are forced to face the full force of the free market.

I shop at Costco and I know others that do, and I would hardly call them or my self rich.