Congress shall make no law respecting . . . the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
There is a rebuttal by W. Erik Bruvold, Big-box ordinance unfairly targets one retailer, on the opposite side of the paper. While good, it doesn’t really capture my outrage. So here are my rebuttal points:
- 1. There is already a planning process. Use it. Stop targeting a business that competes with union shop grocers.
- 2. New business is disruptive, so what? Henry Ford didn’t submit an impact analysis on the carriage industry.
- 3. Lot’s of businesses thrive near Walmarts.
- 4. Walmart provides wages and benefits that are usually better than the small businesses they supposedly supplant. Like it or not, and I don’t, California’s minimum wage laws guarantee this.
- 5. People want to pay less for groceries. Poor people need to pay less for groceries. Why don’t you care about the poor?
- 6. Why are labor unions leading the charge against Walmart if the negative impact is allegedly against small businesses, who usually lack union shops, by the way.
- 7. An economic analysis is a ban. Look at the experience in Los Angeles. Quit obfuscating.
- 8. Labor is going to get thumped again if this goes to a vote, leaving them with less money to make my life more miserable.
I look forward to seeing how the City Council handles this issue.
Cross posted to The Liberator Today.