Long Beach, CA. Big Box Ban To Be Overturned

A veto worth $500,000 [Long Beach (Calif.) Press Telegram]

Wal-Mart most probably never will build a superstore in Long Beach, but soon the company at least will have the satisfaction of knowing that it wouldn’t be illegal.

Mayor Bob Foster announced, two days in advance, that if the City Council votes today to go ahead with an election on the issue he will use his veto to block it. And it seems clear there wouldn’t be enough council votes to overturn his veto.

Taxpayers should relish the mayor’s logic: The city is strapped for money, and this is no time to be spending $500,000 on an unneeded election instead of useful services such as a second police helicopter, upgrading fire stations, stocking libraries, fixing streets and sidewalks or restoring recreation programs.

Foster said he can’t in good conscience support funding an election that has no immediate impact. (Actually, it has no practical purpose whatever. City Hall could easily block a superstore in the planning process without having to make it illegal to build one.)

But the council did ban superstores that sell groceries, which was aimed squarely at Wal-Mart. The company responded by financing a petition drive that collected enough signatures to force putting the issue before voters. Today is the deadline for the council to decide whether to go ahead with that election, or rescind the superstore ordinance.
The ordinance is as good as dead. There are four solid votes against it, which is all it takes to make Foster’s veto stick.

It’s not that Foster has any great love for nonunion Wal-Mart. He makes it clear he finds the company’s reputation for relentless cost-cutting, pressures on suppliers and low wages distasteful, and his veto threat is sure to cost him major points with union supporters.

The same is true for the five council members who voted for the superstore ban. But now, forced to think about which city services would have to be cut to provide more than $500,000 for a useless election, and knowing their action would be vetoed anyway, ought to give those council members second thoughts.

The council already has backed away from another ill-designed ordinance designed to please special interests. This one, characterized as a labor peace agreement, would have forced employees of hotels on city-controlled property to join a union. Opponents collected enough signatures to force an election, which, together with concerns about wording of the ordinance and a lack of union financial support for an election campaign, was enough to cause council supporters to change their minds. There is one more to go.

The $500,000 savings on the superstore ordinance is too little to cover the city’s impending shortfall. But, given its financial straits, it is far too much to waste.

Posted by Alex Goldschmidt on Tuesday, November 06, 2007

Click Here for a Printer-Friendly Version