Final Hearing Date Set in Wilderness Standoff

This is it, so don’t get scared now.

The Orange County Board of Supervisors is set to make a decision once and for all on the fate of the Wilderness Wal-Mart - a public hearing has been scheduled for July 27th, which will be the last time the public (and Robert Duvall) will be able to make their opinions known before the board takes the matter for good. Note: As a Civil War vet, Robert Duvall can actually comment all he’d like.

What will they decide? Will Wal-Mart be allowed to desecrate a piece of American history? Will they be denied, and an alternate site be recommended?

There seems to be a divide between the County Planning Commission and Orange County residents - the Commission voted 5-4 last week to approve development on the Battlefield site, yet at previous public hearings, the majority of Orange County residents were against the project (by an estimated 2-1 margin). This public outcry, combined with the history of the land at stake, would make it seem appropriate that Wal-Mart would be eager for a compromise that would still allow them to develop in the area, if one were presented...but to this point, no dice. Which is why County Administrator Bill Rolfe believes it’s now up to the supervisors to make the “win-win” a reality.

“The question that begs to be asked is, ‘Why isn’t the county trying to broker a deal that keeps Wal-Mart in the county and moves it further away from the congressionally approved boundary line of the Wilderness Battlefield?’ Both would be in our best interest,” Rolfe wrote the Board of Supervisors in a June 15 e-mail...He noted two goals--that Orange enlarge and diversify its tax base, and not do anything that would “detract from the [Wilderness] battlefield as a tourism destination for our community.”

Rolfe went on to point out that the coalition of historic preservation groups currently fighting the Wilderness plan would appear to be amenable to a development located farther from the battlefield park. And it just so happens that just such a piece of land could be made available next to a nearby 51-acre retail development. The question is, will County Supervisors go for it, or will they doom the Wilderness Battlefield to witnessing another brutal defeat?

Seeking win-win in store debate [Fredericksburg Free Lance-Star]

Read the rest of this story ...

Topics: | | Lawsuits | Organizing | | | | | | Environment | Site Fights & Local Ordinances |

Posted by Corey Himrod on Wednesday, July 01, 2009 | Permalink

Wal-Mart Watch Daily Clips- July 1st 2009

Unfortunately, Wal-Mart Watch Daily Clips emails will be suspended indefinitely after today. Make sure to check the Wal-Mart Watch Blog for updates on what's happening in the world of Wal-Mart. 

WAL-MART SUPPORTS EMPLOYER MANDATE IN HEALTH CARE REFORM

• Wal-Mart Backs Drive to Make Companies Pay for Health Coverage [Wall Street Journal]
  In a major break with most other large companies, Wal-Mart Stores Inc. Tuesday told the White House that it supports requiring employers to provide health insurance to workers, a centerpiece of President Barack Obama's effort to provide near-universal coverage to Americans. The support of Wal-Mart, the nation's largest private employer, could give momentum to one of the most-contentious aspects of legislation taking shape in Congress to fix the health system. To help pay for covering the 46 million uninsured, lawmakers have proposed mandating that all but small employers provide insurance for workers or help pay for it.

• Wal-Mart Says It Backs a Mandate on Insurance [New York Times]
  Wal-Mart, the nation's largest private employer, joined hands with a major labor union Tuesday to endorse the idea of requiring large companies to provide health insurance to their workers, a move that gives a boost to President Obama as he is pushing for health legislation on Capitol Hill."Not every business can make the same contribution, but everyone must make some contribution," Wal-Mart's chief executive, Michael T. Duke, wrote in a letter to White House and Congressional officials, adding that he favored "an employer mandate which is fair and broad in its coverage."

• Wal-Mart, Union Jointly Endorse Employer Health Insurance Mandate [Workforce Management]
  Wal-Mart, in a letter about health care reform to President Barack Obama, has endorsed an employer mandate, undercutting employer opposition to the provision and delivering Democrats a key victory. The letter, sent Tuesday, June 30, reflects the company's effort to bury a Senate proposal that would require employers to pay for employees who get their health coverage with government assistance.

• Wal-Mart supports employer-mandated health coverage [Reuters]
  Wal-Mart Stores Inc, the world's largest retailer, said on Tuesday that it supports President Barack Obama's push to require large employers to offer health insurance to workers. "We are for an employer mandate which is fair and broad in its coverage," stated a letter addressed to Obama and signed by Mike Duke, the chief executive of Wal-Mart; Andy Stern, the president of Service Employees International Union (SEIU) and John Podesta, the CEO of the Center for American Progress.

• Wal-Mart backs health insurance mandate [Jacksonville Business Journal (Fla.)]
  Wal-Mart Stores Inc. is backing President Barack Obama's push to require that large employers offer health insurance to their workers. Wal-Mart (NYSE:WMT) joined the Service Employees International Union and the Center for American Progress economic think tank in voicing support for mandated health coverage. The Bentonville, Ark.-based retailer is Northeast Florida's second-largest private employer and has come under criticism in the past for the quality of benefits offered to some workers. Wal-Mart has expanded benefits in recent years and supports federal health care reform that would include requirements that employers offer at least some coverage.

Read the rest of this story ...

Topics: | Economic/Small Business | Site Fights & Local Ordinances | | | |

Posted by Research Team on Wednesday, July 01, 2009 | Permalink

Chicago, IL. Chicago Alderman Still Hungers For Wal-Jobs

What do Michael Bloomberg, Donald Trump, and Howard Brookins have in common? They all don’t understand how Wal-Math works. The New York City Mayor, the entrepreneur, and the Chicago Alderman all think that Wal-Mart means new jobs. But according to “Wal-Math,” one job created at Wal-Mart, minus one job destroyed at another retailer, equals one job. On April 26, 2009, Sprawl-Busters reported that Wal-Mart was still trying to use the jobs argument to open a second store in Chicago, Illinois. But the company has been facing a strong political wind of opposition in the Windy City. The retailer’s attempts to open superstores in Chicago has resulted in one open facility, and five years of spinning wheels. Wal-Mart and big city Mayors generally don’t get along. But Wal-Mart figures that as the economy slides downward, and more people lose their jobs, “Wal-jobs” will start to look better, and more cities will open up their doors to the discounter. Boston Mayor Tom Menino wouldn’t let Wal-Mart into the Downtown Crossing area. Wal-Mart’s forays into Brooklyn, New York have been very bloody. But last June, speaking at an analysts meeting, former Wal-Mart CEO Lee Scott said that New York’s Mayor Michael Bloomberg wanted a Wal-Mart. “I just talked to the Mayor,” Scott said, “who wants us. And Donald Trump called this week. And he’d like to have us. But in general, New York City hasn’t called and said please put a store there. Things get bad enough, they will.” This waiting for things to get “bad enough” is the core strategy in Chicago. On February 6, 2009, Sprawl-Busters reported that Wal-Mart wanted to increase its one-store presence in Chicago. In May of 2008, Wal-Mart decided to abandon efforts to locate a store on the South Side of Chicago. The corporation said it was “turning its attention to a backup plan of opening stores just outside city limits.” Chicago Mayor Richard Daley had reportedly advised Wal-Mart that he didn’t want controversial headlines about big box battles in his city while his Administration pursues an effort to host the 2016 Olympics in Chicago. That decision won’t be made by the Olympic Committee until this October. If true, that put a strangle hold on any Wal-Mart projects in the short-term. In March of 2008, city officials denied Wal-Mart’s request to build a 150,000 s.f. store in the huge Chatham Market project, which spreads out over 50 acres on the site of a former steel plant, with a total of 418,000 s.f. of retail space. Chicago’s Planning Commissioner notified Archon, an Irving, Texas-based developer that Wal-Mart would not be allowed to open at Chatham Market as proposed. Despite this history, rumors about Wal-Mart’s renewed interest in Chicago began surfacing again in February of 2009. After losing its battle at the Chatham site, Archon, which is owned by the Goldman Sachs Group, put Wal-Mart’s piece of the southside property up for sale, hunting for a new, and less-controversial anchor. In Chicago, the issue was not over zoning, but over wages. The Chicago City Council passed a “living wage” ordinance, but on September 19, 2006, Mayor Daley vetoed the legislation, which would have forced large corporations to pay a “living wage” to its workers. The City Council voted 31-to-18 to override his veto, coming just 3 votes short of the necessary two-thirds needed to override. The ordinance would have set minimum pay and benefit levels for any major retailer with a store 90,000 s.f. or larger. Wal-Mart issued a press release just after the vote which said: “We will open our first store in the city on Chicago’s west side later this month. This store will show what a great asset Wal-Mart can be to the community, as an employer and corporate citizen, and as an affordable resource for thousands of Chicago’s working families.” It never worked out that way. Wal-Mart had hoped to open 20 stores in the city. Thus far they have opened only one 142,000 s.f. discount store on the west side of the city---and only after a very contentious political debate. But Wal-Mart never gave up on its south side dreams. In February, 2009, the Chicago media ran stories that said Wal-Mart was preparing a ‘new push’ for as many as 5 new stores in Chicago. Chicago Alderman Howard Brookins, who has long supported a Wal-Mart in his ward, said the retailer wants to build its next store in his district, the 21st Ward on Chicago’s South Side. Two other potential stores would also be located in the 20th and 34th wards, which are also on the South Side. But on March 4, 2009, Sprawl-Busters noted that most Chicago Aldermen remained opposed to Wal-Mart. Mayor Daley asked Brookins to hold off on pushing a new store. Crain’s quoted one Alderman as saying Wal-Mart “would be welcome to come to Chicago if they gave their workers the right, if they so desire, to organize. We are simply asking them for that level of fairness.” Alderman Brookins has drafted legislation that would take away power to approve the store from the city’s Community Development Commission, and give that right to the City Council, but the Mayor has told Brookins he needs to have enough votes to overcome a Mayoral veto---which Brookins is not likely to have. That’s because over time, at least half a dozen of the Aldermen who supported Wal-Mart in 2006 have lost their seats. But Wal-Mart continues to push its voodoo economics claim that big box retail stores will help the city financially by generating sales taxes. Unfortunately, what the company fails to reveal is that most of that sales tax comes from replacing existing merchants who are generating that same sales tax now---and paying their people a better wage. “We are evaluating all projects on a case-by-case basis,” Wal-Mart said in written statement, “and balancing the city’s current political and economic climate as we work to bring new locations to our Chicagoland customers.” On April 26, 2009, the Chicago Tribune repeated Mayor Daley’s opinion that there is ‘no chance’ that a south side Wal-Mart will happen. Daley told reporters there just were not enough votes on the City Council to pass a redevelopment agreement. Daley said Wal-Mart would bring taxes and jobs to Chicago, but one of the Mayor’s key floor leaders on the City Council told the Tribune that the Mayor is trying to keep peace with the unions. “This is not gonna fly. You know that. They don’t have enough votes,” Daley concluded. Yesterday, Alderman Brookins was stumping again for Wal-Mart. The Tribune reports that the “Alderman From Wal-Mart” held his own press conference in front of City Hall urging his colleagues to allow a second Wal-Mart store into Chicago. “We need jobs, plain and simple,” the Alderman said. Brookins has submitted an amendment to the Rules Committee that would make it easiser for the retailer to set up shop. But his amendment has been deferred. Brookins told the Tribune he is on the verge of having the 26 votes he needs to pass his amendment. To put more wind behind Brookins’ effort, the Chicagoland Chamber of Commerce released a poll of 11 wards, which found that residents are “overwhelmingly” in favor of Wal-Mart opening a second store. The Chamber would not make it survey public, or reveal the push/pull of the questions. The Wal-Mart affair could blow open after October 2, 2009, when Chicago finds out it it has been picked to host the 2016 elections. If Chicago is not chosen, and falls out of the Olympic race, Mayor Daley may be more comfortable running after a Wal-Mart controversy, and fighting for Wal-Jobs for his constituents.

Read the rest of this story ...

Topics: | Community Impact | Economic/Small Business | Site Fights & Local Ordinances

Posted by Al Norman on Wednesday, July 01, 2009 | Permalink

Norfolk, VA. Kmart Sued For Discriminating Against Worker With Cane

Kmart, America’s forgotten retailer, had an unflattering blue light shining on it this week, when it was announced that the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) had named the discount retailer in a lawsuit filed June 23rd under the Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA). The lawsuit was filed on behalf of a former worker who used a cane to walk. According to the legal complaint, which was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia (Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Kmart Corporation), in September of 2004 Alonzo McGlone was hired as a greeter at a Kmart Super Center in Norfolk, Virginia. McGlone uses a cane, and the EEOC alleges that the Kmart employee was successfully performing his duties as a greeter. The lawsuit contends that Kmart fired him for using his cane while on the job. EEOC lawsuits are only filed after the federal agency tries for months, or years, to reach an out of court settlement. In the filing, the EEOC seeks to have Kmart rehire McGlone in an equivalent job, and to give him back pay, compensatory damages, and punitive damages. As is typical in these cases, the EEOC also wants to require Kmart to put in place policies, practices, and training programs to provide equal employment opportunities for individuals with disabilities. “Mr. McGlone lost his job because he needed to use an assistive device to walk,” said the director of EEOC’s Norfolk Local Office. “It is unfortunate that many employers still deny people who are ready and able the opportunity to work simply because of a disability. The EEOC will continue to fight for the rights of people victimized by such prejudices.” According to the Associated Press, in 2008, the EEOC fielded almost 20,000 discrimination claims, the highest number of claims in 14 years. A spokesman for the EEOC told the AP that the Kmart suit was a reminder that “although we have made great strides in educating employers and the public about disability discrimination, some employers still judge applicants and employees based on a disability rather than on their proven ability to do a job.”

Read the rest of this story ...

Topics: | | Workers Rights & Wages | Lawsuits | Organizing

Posted by Al Norman on Tuesday, June 30, 2009 | Permalink

St. Paul, MN. Wal-Mart Charged With Unfair Labor Practices, Threatening Workers

Every Wal-Mart manager is warned by the company not to “Threaten, Interrogate Promise, Spy” on their workers. Wal-Mart calls this their TIPS on unionization. But union officials say that Wal-Mart routinely uses threats and intimidation to scare workers away from voting in a union. On June 30, 2008, the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) ruled in a case brought against Wal-Mart by the United Food and Commercial Workers, that Wal-Mart had violated federal labor law at its Kingman, Arizona store. The NLRB found that Wal-Mart had threatened its workers with a loss of a merit wage increase if they supported a union, and granted workers new benefits and improved working conditions to discourage their employees from supporting a union. The NLRB forced Wal-Mart to post a notice in their store for the workers to see for 60 days which said “Federal Law Gives You The Right to From, Join or Assist A Union,” along with a list of organizing rights. During its investigation, the NLRB found that Wal-Mart “engaged in surveillance of its employee’s union activities, and gave its employees that impression.” Wal-Mart fired one of its tire and lube employees because of his union activities. The NLRB noted that from the day a union petition was filed at the Kingman store, (Wal-Mart) had been engaged in a high intensity effort to defeat the local union. A labor relations team had immediately been brought in from Arkansas and, thereafter, assumed total control of the campaign. The managers held daily meetings where they discussed strategy and the likely union sympathies of the employees. The report says that the Wal-Mart employee who organized the petition became a ‘marked man,’ and that the retailer “engaged in various unfair labor practices.” It took the UFCW eight years to get justice in this complaint. The Kingman case was settled exactly one year ago. Similar unfair labor practices have been filed many times by the UFCW. Sprawl-Busters reported on March 17, 2005 the union’s complaints that Wal-Mart had intimidated and bullied workers at a store in Loveland, Colorado, scaring workers into voting against union representation. Workers at the Loveland Tire & Lube Express section of Wal-Mart voted 17-1 in February of 2005 to reject the union. But the United Food and Commercial Workers asked the NLRB to void the results. The UFCW says no union member was allowed to observe the election and that Wal-Mart added employees to the unit to dilute the strength of the union supporters. Wal-Mart warns its managers to watch out for “salts"--union plants in the workforce--but in this case, the union is charging that Wal-Mart “salted” its own workforce with anti-union plants. This week, Minnesota Public Radio aired a story about another unfair labor practice filed by the UFCW against a Wal-Mart store in St. Paul, Minnesota. According to the complaint, which was filed on June 25th, the UFCW charges that supervisors at the St. Paul Wal-Mart store forced workers to attend anti-union meetings and threatened to fire union supporters. According to United Food and Commercial Workers Local 789, Wal-Mart flew in a team of corporate representatives to the Twin Cities to block the organizing efforts. The company told workers “that union supporters would not continue to be employed by Wal-Mart.” The UFCW charges that assistant store managers asked workers if they had signed union cards and “interrogated” workers regarding their union support. Tensions are rising inside Wal-Mart corporate headquarters as pressure mounts to pass the Employee Free Choice Act, which would change the organizing rules to allow workers to collect card pledges for union representation, instead of requiring an election. This is essentially the same process now used in Canada, where several Wal-Mart stores have been unionized. Wal-Mart has joined other retailers in raising funds to block the EFCA in Congress. The NLRB complaints are holding actions—since the cases take years to resolve, and result in only minor sanctions against the companies that have violated the National Labor Relations Act. But the unfair labor practices cases help to hold the spotlight on the need for an Employee Free Choice Act in America.

Read the rest of this story ...

Topics: | Site Fights & Local Ordinances | Traffic/Sprawl |

Posted by Al Norman on Tuesday, June 30, 2009 | Permalink

Clovis, CA. After Six Years, Wal-Mart’s Plan Goes Back to City Council

Local residents have been pushing back against big box stores for years. Clovis, population roughly 90,000, already has six Wal-Marts within 18 miles, and a Wal-Mart discount store on West Shaw Avenue in Clovis. But the closest superstore is 26 miles away in Dinuba, California. Wal-Mart wants to build a bigger store in the shadows of the majestic Sierra Nevada. The city manager of Clovis says that “unchecked growth elsewhere in California has slowed services and lessened the quality of life,” but in Clovis, they have “benefited from observing planning practices that have and haven’t worked in other communities.” The manager boasts, “We are building a community with a commitment to thoughtful design, planned growth and quality services.” On August 3, 2003, Sprawl-Busters reported that the City planning commissioners in Clovis, by a 3-1 vote, had given preliminary approval to a zoning change that would require conditional use permits to open super stores larger than 15,000 s.f.. The zoning change was suggested by area merchants in response to plans for a 200,000 s.f. Wal-Mart supercenter. Local grocers told city officials that the community could not sustain more grocery stores without forcing others to close, leading to empty buildings and dead malls. A representative of a group called Save Mart told the City Council that a grocery store needs 10,000 people to survive, and that Clovis, which had 77,000 people at the time, could support 10 markets--but not a huge superstore. In April, 2003, the City Council approved a site plan application for a Wal-Mart, but the decision was appealed by a group called the Association for Sensible and Informed Planning, on the grounds that no environmental impact study was done for the project. At the time of approval, the city placed a condition that would prevent any retail grocery outlet of more than 50,000 s.f. from opening in the center for five years. The proposed new ordinance would separate supermarkets from grocery stores. Stores with less than 15,000 s.f. would be called grocery stores, and would not need conditional permits. The new ordinance would “grandfather” any existing supermarkets already in Clovis. The ordinance would require an applicant to do more market studies to justify the building of another grocery store in the city. The developer of the proposed Wal-Mart opposed the new ordinance. “I think the free-market system works pretty well,” he told the newspaper. But city planners pointed out that the city had two weak grocery stores already, and if these stores close, the shopping centers around them will suffer also. A representative of Wal-Mart said they would challenge the ordinance in court. “We are going to fight any ordinance that will limit our ability to serve our customers’ needs,” Wal-Mart warned. On September 23, 2007, Sprawl-Busters noted that more than 200 people had crowded into a City Council meeting room in Clovis for a public hearing on the proposed Wal-Mart supercenter. That hearing lasted six hours until 1:30 am. The City Council voted to postpone a decision on the project’s environmental impact report. Small-business owners warned of losing shoppers to the Wal-Mart shopping center, which was planned for Clovis and Herndon avenues. Neighbors complained about increased traffic and pollution, and the Clovis police officers warned of an increase in crime. Testimony was also heard regarding the impact of the superstore on Old Town Clovis, the existing core commercial area. “When you build that super Wal-Mart, you’re going to destroy downtown Clovis,” one resident said. “You’re going to destroy the Clovis way of life.” The project would sprawl over 50-acres, and would include 10 major retailers, including a Wal-Mart Supercenter. The supercenter would be 228,754 s.f. and would be open 24 hours a day. The “old” Wal-Mart in Clovis--only 3 miles away---would close down. The city voted in October, 2007 to approve the superstore, but instead of leading to a ribbon cutting, the project led to a courtroom. The citizens group appealed to court in November, and six months later, the case began in court. Almost five years after the superstore was first presented to the city, lawyers for the anti-Wal-Mart group were in Fresno County Superior Court. According to the Fresno Bee newspaper, the hearing lasted nearly 6 hours. The Association for Sensible and Informed Planning argued that the city did not properly complete its environmental reviews of the project, or its effect on endangered species. The city never determined if there was enough water for this project. Attorney Steve Herum, who represented the citizens group, said the city had to conduct a water-supply study because the project is larger than 500,000 s.f., the threshold under California law that requires a water supply analysis. The lawyer for the city said the project was only 492,000 s.f.---not counting the 33,000 s.f. shopping center already on the site that was built by a another developer ten years ago. Herum also said the city failed to study the superstore’s impact on urban decay, caused by the blighting of other stores that close when Wal-Mart opens. This argument was used successfully in Bakersfield, California to slow down two supercenters there. Herum said the urban decay report should have examined a 30 square mile trade area typical for a supercenter, but Wal-Mart, said 80% of shoppers would be Clovis residents. Opponents also wanted better numbers on pollution impacts caused by the increased traffic at the site. The citizen’s group said the study of endangered species also left out fairy shrimp, tiger salamanders, and burrowing owls. Wal-Mart admitted there were fairy shrimp on the site, but said there was no evidence of salamanders or owls. On August 19, 2007, Sprawl-Busters noted that the Fresno County Superior Court had ruled in favor of the citizens, and against Wal-Mart and the city. Judge Wayne Ellison ruled that city officials failed to meet state guidelines in studying water impacts and urban decay. The court’s ruling meant the city needed to revise its environmental review to address the cumulative effects of urban decay and water availability across a wider area than just Clovis. A spokesman for the developer told the Fresno Bee his company was “committed to the project no matter how long it may take.” “The judge is saying everything you did is wiped out and you are starting over again,” Attorney Herum told the Bee. But the lawyer for Clovis said he would ask the judge to allow the city to focus on only the water and urban decay issues and leave the rest of the environmental study intact. Four and a half years ago, the same judge forced the city to prepare an environmental report because citizen opponents challenged the project in court. The Clovis City Council finished that environmental report in October, 2007, and citizens took them to court for a second time. The September, 2008 court ruling meant that Clovis had to study impacts outside of the city’s limits. “Unlike other environmental effects, such as noise and traffic, the evaluation of water supplies may demand consideration of a wide geographic range of water users, to avoid potentially disastrous consequences,” the court ruling said. The judge criticized the economic impact study prepared by the developer, which looked at impacts on a grocery store in Clovis, but not a similar store in nearby Fresno. Judge Ellison said this methodology “offered no practical reasons why those same retailers could not have been included in its market area study.” The Judge’s ruling required the city to revise two key parts of the environmental report, but it had to scrap its previous approvals, and redo the public hearings. Judge Ellison said the city’s environmental report was decertified. Clovis’ lawyer said the City Council would revise the document and hold new hearings—which could mean the Wal-Mart project would be delayed another year. In his order, the Judge said the city needed to “adequately analyze the project.” On September 15, 2008 the Clovis City Council took the painful required vote to overturn its approval of the supercenter. The council voted 5-0 to decertify the environmental report and the project’s site plan without discussion. The developer, Paynter Realty, must now undertake a study on urban decay and water and the impacts on surrounding communities, including the city of Fresno. That environmental report and site plan would once again have to go before the Clovis Planning Commission and then go to the City Council. On April 24, 2009, seven months after the court threw out the environmental study, Sprawl-Busters noted that the Clovis Planning Commissioners were back in the news. The Commissioners voted unanimously again to approve the Wal-Mart shopping center project, including a Kohl’s, Petco, and Bed, Bath and Beyond. One Commissioner said he voted for the project because it would bring more jobs. Two Commissioners attempted to remove the grocery store component of the Wal-Mart superstore, and make the facility more pedestrian-oriented---but their motion failed. The revised water report concluded that the project had a water entitlement greater than the expected water demand. The consultant studying urban decay, CB Richard Ellis, which has real estate contracts with Wal-Mart, found that “some closures of market area stores could occur,” but that it will not add to urban decay. Attorney Herum, representing the citizens, said the water report was still incorrect because the land is not being farmed and water is not required on the land currently. He also said the urban decay report should be thrown out because Wal-Mart uses CB Richard Ellis as a real estate broker for its dead stores. Ellis could gain financially from this project if the ‘old’ Wal-Mart in Clovis goes on the market. Tonight, the Clovis City Council will take up the Planning Commission’s recommendation. The Council will be asked to certify the environmental impact report for the project’s site plan. The rewritten portions of the environmental document will be discussed this evening. Opponents expect that the City Council will approve the environmental plan—just as they have approved it in the past. Wal-Mart’s six year epic battle could end up in litigation once again.

Read the rest of this story ...

Topics: | Community Impact | Environment | Traffic/Sprawl | Workers Rights & Wages

Posted by Al Norman on Monday, June 29, 2009 | Permalink

Penitas, TX. Texas Governor A “Fan” Of Wal-Mart Supercenters

The Governor of Texas recently had Wal-Mart stage a special ribbon-cutting for a new superstore in his state so he could brag about Texas’ economic climate. On April 23, 2008, Sprawl-Busters reported that Wal-Mart had proposed a 184,109 s.f. superstore one mile north of the Mexican border in the tiny Rio Grande Valley “city” of Penitas, Texas. As of 2007, Penitas had a population of less than 1,200 people—not much change over the past decade. It also has 7 Wal-Mart supercenters within 20 miles, including a superstore 8 miles away in Palmhurst, and 10 miles away in Mission, Texas. The idea of another Wal-Mart supercenter for this trade area is, as the locals might say, loco. In the spring of 2008---right in the middle of building its new supercenter in Penitas---Wal-Mart stopped work on the project. The Monitor newspaper called it a “halt in construction…only months from completion.” Wal-Mart officials would not comment on the abrupt stoppage, but city leaders explained that Wal-Mart wanted to make its store more Hispanic. The rumors started that Wal-Mart suddenly decided that it wanted to make a store that was “more locally focused.” That means more Mexican products to appeal to the large immigrant population in Hidalgo County. A former Mayor of Penitas told the newspaper, “Wal-Mart decided that they were going to do a new product mix, floor plan and make it directed towards Mexican clients.” Mayor Marcos Ochoa said he was unofficially told that Wal-Mart was taking a break in order to “reformat” the store. The real estate agent who made the land sale to Wal-Mart, told the media that Wal-Mart was “excited about the new concept for the store.” “They have been experimenting with new formats and they have chosen a new format for this store,” said broker John Womack. “We’re excited that it’s going to allow us to be distinguished from other stores in the region.” The reformatted superstore actually opened in April of 2009-—but a second ribbon-cutting was staged on June 26th so the Governor of Texas could join the event. According to a press release issued by his office, Governor Rick Perry said he was “proud to welcome this new Wal-Mart to Texas.” The Governor said that “Wal-Mart is a company that understands what it means to compete, a company that understands its customers, and will do what it takes to meet their needs. The fact that their new workforce will represent roughly 10% of the Penitas population is remarkable. The 300 new associates who have donned the blue shirt are taking their place in a statewide Wal-Mart workforce of nearly 160,000 associates. When you factor in the number of people who work for Wal-Mart suppliers in Texas…you see another 200,000 jobs connected to the company, which add up to a whole lot of paychecks that people are using to feed their families.” The Governor’s numbers all came directly from Wal-Mart’s website. “I have to admit I’m a Wal-Mart fan,” Governor Perry continued. “Sure, I’m proud of them for investing in the local community, with their grants to local schools and first responders, and their commitment to buy local.” At the end of his speech, the Governor congratulated the town of Penitas “on this new magnet for jobs and investment.”

Read the rest of this story ...

Topics: | Site Fights & Local Ordinances | Traffic/Sprawl | Workers Rights & Wages | Lawsuits | Zoning Regulations

Posted by Al Norman on Monday, June 29, 2009 | Permalink

Waco, TX. Wal-Mart Pulls Misleading Ads---Again

The driving mission of the Wal-Mart corporation is to make money by saving its customers money. “At Wal-Mart,” the company says, “everything we do flows from our purpose of saving people money so they can live better.” This week, Wal-Mart’s truthfulness about “saving people money” was called into doubt again. The retailer’s cost-saving claims in its advertising were labeled “unsupported” by the advertising industry’s cop---the National Advertising Division. The NAD, in a case published this month, found that Wal-Mart’s radio and TV ads which claimed “you could save on average over $700 a year” on groceries, was not based on any evidence in the record. Wal-Mart’s TV ads featured two small disclaimers: at the bottom of the screen it reads, “Excludes fresh meat and produce.” The voiceover then states, “if you bought these kinds of groceries at Wal-Mart, you could save on average over $700 a year.” A second disclosure, lasting four seconds, appears directly below the packaged goods and states that the claim is based on the “8/15/08 Global Insight, Inc. U.S. Cost Comparison Study based on 2007 sales of packaged foods by category; excludes meat, produce & other random weight items. Local savings vary.” Wal-Mart’s ad was challenged at the NAD by the Texas-based grocery chain H.E.B., which charged that the $700 savings claim was based on a faulty study paid for by Wal-Mart. Since 2005, Wal-Mart has paid the firm Global Insight to produce market studies. Their 2005 study concluded that Wal-Mart had produced consumer savings of $2,329 per household per year. Global Insight determined that Wal-Mart was responsible for an overall 3.1% decline in consumer prices. That reduction in price level “translates directly into savings for consumers amounting to $263 billion by 2004” according to Global Insight. Wal-Mart was so enamored of its consultant’s findings that it installed a calculator on its website to show how many millions of dollars in savings the company had created for Americans as the months rolled by. That calculator is now gone from their website. But the Global Insight study was roundly criticized by economists who said its conclusions were “deeply flawed” and “unreliable.” The Economic Policy Institute noted that the Global Insight study was based on the retailer’s impact on the Consumer Price Index---but 60% of the items in the CPI are services, not commodities at Wal-Mart. “The real pressures on family income are coming from items that can’t be bought at Wal-Mart (health care, housing, transportation),” said EPI. H.E.B. complained that the 2007 Global Insight report blended together the whole grocery market, showing only that Wal-Mart’s grocery prices were better than the average of all prices offered by all stores that sell food, including many small or specialty food stores that would have higher prices. H.E.B. said that Global Insight failed to look at brand, grade or quality of merchandise in its comparisons, and that the methodology used would allow Wal-Mart to claim lower prices even when consumers buying identical items would see no price difference on the shelves. H.E.B. even produced its own item-by-item cost survey of H.E.B. vs. Wal-Mart stores in Waco, Texas and concluded that “some shoppers will save more at H.E.B. due to its use of promotional pricing and coupons.” The NAD reviewed H.E.B.’s charges, and Wal-Mart’s response, and found “a significant disconnect” between the Global Insight study and the claims made in Wal-Mart’s commercials. NAD wrote that the Wal-Mart TV ad made it appear that “you” (the individual viewer) could save $700 a year by buying groceries at Wal-Mart. The NAD said “the Global Insight study cannot support this message, as it concerns a national average. Consumers who live in many towns and cities will not save even close to the promised $700.” NAD was also concerned that grocery items in the Global Insight survey accounted for less than 36% of total supermarket sales, and items such as fresh meat and other produce were omitted from the survey--disclaimers that no consumer would read or understand. As a result of the H.E.B. complaint, the NAD found that the savings claim by Wal-Mart “was not supported by the evidence” and recommended to Wal-Mart that it discontinue its $700 savings claim. Wal-Mart responded by saying its claims were adequately substantiated and “well-supported,” and “we stand by these findings and are proud of the savings we deliver to our customers.” The company, however, admitted that it was no longer airing “that particular spot,” and that it would take the Division’s recommendations “into account in future advertising.”

Read the rest of this story ...

Topics: | Economic/Small Business | Traffic/Sprawl | Workers Rights & Wages | Zoning Regulations

Posted by Al Norman on Monday, June 29, 2009 | Permalink

Page 1 of 245 pages  1 2 3 >  Last »