San Francisco, CA. International Day Of Protest Against Big Box Stores Set for November 17th.
This week Sprawl-Busters received an email from a worker in the town of Mayawaddi in Myanmar (Burma), on the border of the Thailand district of Maesot, about 500 km from Bangkok. According to this worker, a company called Top Form, which manufactures women’s bras under brand names like Vanity Fair and Maidenform for retailers like Wal-Mart, operates a factory in Maesot on the border, employing Mayanmar workers. “They pay much less wages to Burmese than Thai people,” the worker told me, “and do over-time pay at rate same a normal hour rate, exceed allowed working hours, abuse and discrimination is prevalent in everyday activities. Working till midnight is normal here. Many of the workers are underage---but all the documents shown will be faked to show to any one who would check it.”
According to Umong, the worker, when “social compliance audits” are done at the factory, “they have prepared all false documents and prepare people to speak good about company in front of the compliance auditors. If someone follows them or try to speak that person is thrown out by the Management and management give money to Police to arrest same person and keep in prison and beat.” This email from Mayanmar serves as one more reminder that companies like Wal-Mart source from sweatshop producers like Top Form. Also this week came the announcement that November 17th has been designated “International Day of Protest Against Big Box Stores” by the group Global Exchange. People from 16 countries and in 16 cities in the United States have joined this action. A release from the group explained that the whole retail system is set up to encourage child and slave labor.
Read the rest of this story ...
Topics: Organizing
Posted by Al Norman on Thursday, November 01, 2007 | Permalink
Wal-Mart Files To Seal Documents In NC Tax Case
Wal-Mart, currently enmeshed in a tax dispute with North Carolina state tax authorities, has filed a motion in Wake County Superior Court to block public access to future filings. For background on the case, you can, at your leisure, click here.
Wal-Mart is complaining specifically about four documents that have been posted on publically accessible websites. According to the motion, “the posting of such business correspondence on public websites creates unreasonable and undue annoyance and oppression of a party that is attempting to litigate a serious dispute with a public agency.” Well then, we can’t have that, now can we?
So, to recap: A company which, along with its low, low prices, is known for mistreating its workers; forcing workers to work overtime without pay; discriminating against women; challenging property tax assessments right and left when not scrounging for subsidies; forcing its workers onto public health care rolls; lobbying against tougher security at American ports and against labeling requirements on imported foods; being part of one big ol’ mess involving imported toys from China; and adhering to a corporate policy to kick any puppy a Wal-Mart executive may come in contact with...this company will, yes indeed, be annoyed and oppressed if the public finds out it tried (and succeeded) in cheating on its taxes. Boo. Hoo.
Wal-Mart Asks North Carolina Court To Seal Documents in Tax-Dispute Case [The Wall Street Journal]
Wal-Mart Stores Inc. is seeking to block public access to certain court documents in a tax dispute with North Carolina state authorities.
The giant retailer Tuesday filed a legal motion with a North Carolina state judge, asking to have a range of future filings in the case sealed from public view. Past filings would be unaffected.
The company’s legal action followed a page-one article in The Wall Street Journal last week that detailed how Wal-Mart paid its outside auditor, Ernst & Young LLP, to design complex strategies to cut its state-tax bills.
Read the rest of this story ...
Topics: | Economic/Small Business | Lawsuits |
Posted by Corey Himrod on Thursday, November 01, 2007 | Permalink
My Word That Store Is Big
Opinion, yes, but still an interesting take on the growth of Wal-Mart stores into giant supercenters. The accompanying picture is of a supercenter mid-construction, by the way.
This new Wal-Mart is larger than life [The Baltimore Sun]
Let’s face it: We like big things in this country.
We like big cars, big houses, big burgers we can stuff in our big mouths and Big Gulps to wash ‘em down.
We like big TVs, big malls and big sales. Who gets excited about a regular sale anymore? Now it has to be “THE BIGGEST LABOR DAY SALE EVER! DON’T MISS THIS SPECTACULAR EVENT!”
Sometimes, even big won’t do. Sometimes we need bigger than big.
Read the rest of this story ...
Topics: | Community Impact | Environment |
Posted by Corey Himrod on Tuesday, October 30, 2007 | Permalink
Follow The Money: Wal-Mart Taxing Strategies
Following up on a post from last Friday, this is a copy of a report featured in the most recent issue of BusinessWeek. The report was compiled by The National Institute on Money in State Politics, and for more information on where the organization receives its funding you can click here.
Among other things, the report found:
Like many large corporations, Wal-Mart has been actively pursuing a strategy to limit its state tax burden. In nine states where these activities have been more focused, an analysis of campaign contributions given by Wal-Mart and its fiscal consultant Ernst & Young reveals that:
***65 percent of Wal-Mart’s contributions — or almost $2.5 million — were given in those nine states;
***Wal-Mart favored Republicans while Ernst & Young favored Democrats;
***Winning candidates or incumbents not up for re-election received 92 percent of Wal-Mart donations and 84 percent of Ernst & Young’s, an
indication that access — no matter the party — was paramount.
Taxing Strategies: Always Cutting Prices, Wal-Mart Attempts To Rollback Taxes
Posted by Corey Himrod on Tuesday, October 30, 2007 | Permalink
Atascadero, CA. Wal-Mart Suffers Early Halloween Trick
It was an early trick or treat for Wal-Mart last night in Atascadero, California, but the giant retailer left without the candy. The City Council in Atascadero turned Wal-Mart’s coach into a pumpkin. After an hour and a half of discussion, the City Council voted 4-1 to require city staff to file away the retailer’s proposal to construct a 195,000 s.f. store on Del Rio Road. Sprawl-Busters first wrote about this super-battle in Atascadero on July 6, 2006. We reported that Wal-Mart had purchased 26 acres for a superstore, as part of a larger project submitted by the developer, The Rottman Group. This proposed store would have been the first Wal-Mart superstore on California’s Central Coast---a beautiful rural area often called the Middle Kingdom. The Rottman plan totals 335,000 s.f., a scale considered by many to be far too large for the city.
In an attempt to sway public opinion, Wal-Mart released a “survey” last August written and paid for by Wal-Mart and the developer, which said that 56% of the 301 voters polled wanted a Wal-Mart, 38% did not. From the outset, this project stirred up controversy, so much so that the developer described its project with this very defensive plea: “We recognize that there are many issues surrounding the possible location of a Wal-Mart in Atascadero. We are not ignoring public comment, but are asking residents to give Wal-Mart a chance to introduce itself, correct misconceptions and make a case for why it will benefit Atascadero.” Last night, however, Wal-Mart lost its chance. Atascadero Mayor George Luna said he was concerned that the Wal-Mart building exceeded the 150,000-s.f. limit contained in the city’s General Plan, which governs land use. The Mayor said that continuing the review process at this time would only prolong the inevitable defeat of the proposal. “I don’t see the reason getting more information on a store I would never vote for,” the Mayor told the San Luis Obispo Tribune News. The Council’s vote last night followed a lengthy hearing last week in which the council ultimately voted to delay their vote until October 29th. After the vote, a Wal-Mart spokesman told a TV interviewer, “This is clearly delay tactics that we have seen for the last 10 months. We are committed to our Central Coast customers in serving their needs. We will have to evaluate whether that will be in Atascadero or elsewhere.” The company told the newspaper, “We need to evaluate whether (the city) is working as openly with us as we are with them.
Read the rest of this story ...
Topics: Comprehensive Plans
Posted by Al Norman on Tuesday, October 30, 2007 | Permalink
Duluth, GA. Landowner Sues City Over Big Box Moratorium
When you can’t get what you want by regulation, try litigation. That’s the apparent strategy in Duluth, Georgia, where a landowner who stands to make millions of dollars by selling his 27 acre parcel to Wal-Mart for a 176,305 s.f. supercenter, has sued the city over their moratorum on big box stores. Jack Bandy, who owns the parcel, had his friend, the former Governor of Georgia, Roy Barnes, file the suit in Gwinnett Superior Court yesterday, trying to invalidate the moratorium on a technicality. Bandy wants to show that the city did not properly post notices about the meeting according to state law. The complaint charges that “a few vocal residents ... began to pressure the mayor and council to stop the Wal-Mart at all costs.” The landowner claims that his land is zoned appropriately for a big box store, and that city officials “assured there was no legal problem.” At the end of July, the city passed a six month moratorium on retail stores larger than 75,000 s.f. The moratorium affected at least three projects in Duluth, including Bandy’s Wal-Mart proposal. “We believe the big box moratorium was illegally passed in violation of the Open Meetings Act,” Governor Barnes told the Atlanta Journal Constitution. “The complaint sets forth the course of action, and the emails we obtained under the Open Records Act clearly shows this was not a matter that was just brought up on the spur of the minute. Since the action was taken without public notice as required under the Open Meetings Act, we believe the moratorium was not properly passed.” The Mayor of Duluth, Shirley Lasseter, told the newspaper, “I think it’s a shame when we lose sight of what is legal and what is not, what is acceptable and what is not---at the expense of our taxpayers. Having not seen the lawsuit yet, I certainly hope that we could come to some amenable conclusion for the betterment of the city of Duluth and all of its residents.” In other words, she’s looking to make a deal somehow with Bandy. The Wal-Mart proposal on Peachtree Industrial Boulevard has been controversial from the start.
Read the rest of this story ...
Topics: Site Fights & Local Ordinances | Organizing | Zoning Regulations
Posted by Al Norman on Tuesday, October 30, 2007 | Permalink
Ventura, CA. Residents Organize To Put Superstore Ban On Ballot
Activists in Ventura, California say the foot-dragging has gone on long enough. On July 31, 2007, Sprawl-Busters reported that Wal-Mart had signed a lease on an existing K-Mart location in Ventura. Wal-Mart began talking with city planners two years ago about demolishing the Kmart store on Victoria Avenue and replacing it a 150,000 s.f. superstore with grass and a fountain in front, and with an underground parking lot. Wal-Mart has signed a lease on the Kmart store, but has not submitted a formal application. In March, 2007, the City Council in Ventura adopted a 20-year “smart growth” plan for a seven-block area along Victoria Avenue that calls for more offices and pedestrian-friendly development. The council passed an “urgency” ordinance on Victoria Avenue that requires a building greater than 50,000 s.f. to undergo a special review and a use permit.
City planners said that Wal-Mart appeared to be willing to meet the city’s new development guidelines, which would force the retailer to reduce the size of its store to a 60,000 s.f. maximum, and build it on two stories. But citizens have been pressing the city to pass an ordinance controlling big-box development. With all that body language by city officials, one would think that Wal-Mart would get the message and come back in with a much smaller project---or leave. But Wal-Mart doesn’t read body language.
Read the rest of this story ...
Topics: Ballot Measures | Organizing
Posted by Al Norman on Monday, October 29, 2007 | Permalink
Tarpon Springs, FL. City Staff OK Site Plan, Battle Goes On
Sprawl-Busters has been narrating the battle against Wal-Mart in Tarpon Springs, Florida since April 11, 2005. A couple of days ago, local residents told Sprawl-Busters that Wal-Mart was coming back in on October 26th with a revised site plan for the city’s consideration of its 204,000 s.f., Mediterranean-style Supercenter. “The City of Tarpon Springs’ Technical Review Committee (TRC) will consider a revised Site Plan submitted by Wal-Mart for a Supercenter on the Anclote River,” the Friends of the Anclote River wrote. “The Friends and various concerned residents of Tarpon Springs will argue at the meeting that the meeting itself is inappropriate at this time, and that the proposed revised Site Plan cannot be approved by the TRC.” According to the St. Petersburg Times, two nights ago, the city’s Technical Review Committee, after a three hour hearing, voted to approve the plan---with some minor changes. But the Friends were not sitting on their hands. The group filed an appeal with the city’s Board of Adjustment, arguing that the TRC review was not warranted, because the changes Wal-Mart has made in its updated site plan are major in nature, not minor ones. Major changes would trigger further city review and public hearings. All of this back-and-forth comes on top of two years and eight months of bickering over this controversial project. The TRC is a group of city staff---not elected officials. The staff raised a number of minor issues with Wal-Mart’s plan, such as the water metering, the exotic plants that will be destroyed if the store is built---but nothing of major consequence. City staff, for example, insisted that Wal-Mart widen the entrance to its store from 25 feet to 35 feet. According to The Times, Wal-Mart’s lawyer, hearing these largely benign changes, responded, “We’ll do whatever you ask.” As long as the asking amounts to little change.
Read the rest of this story ...
Topics: Environment | Organizing | Zoning Regulations
Posted by Al Norman on Monday, October 29, 2007 | Permalink
Page 133 of 208 pages « First < 131 132 133 134 135 > Last »
