Barring some unforeseen development (Donna Frye style) the City of San Diego will vote to effectively ban Walmart to save us from the evils of cheap groceries and consumer choice.
Here’s a little picture of Todd Gloria who has been Labor’s voice on this issue. We can only hope he finds gainful employment with Walmart in January 2013.
Comments 32
Couldn’t Mayor Sanders have prolonged this veto in this item? Did he indirectly help the unions in their effort to ban Walmart superstores in San Diego?
I looked up when the council passed this awful ordinance: 4:17 p.m. on Tuesday, Nov. 16th. Now I sincerely doubt the City Clerk’s office was able to get the paperwork on the council’s action to the mayor’s office by 5:00 p.m. that same day, which would seem out of the ordinary, especially because there was other council business after that item. Technically, the clerk’s office has to get the item to the mayor within 48 hours. So, let’s assume it was delivered to his office the next day, Nov. 17th.
According to the City Charter, the mayor has ten business days to sign or veto the council action. (“The Mayor shall act upon each resolution or ordinance within ten business days of receiving the City Clerk’s transmittal,” Article XV, Sec. 280c2.) If he had taken the full number of days allowed, using my public school math, it means he could have issued his veto today rather than Tuesday, keeping in mind Nov. 25th was a national holiday.
If the veto had been issued at or after the close of business today, the council would not have had adequate time to issue the required public meeting notice. It is a stretch to call a “special meeting” for a non-urgent matter, but they still have to give the public a 24-hour notice, which could either have forced the measure past 5:00 p.m. on Friday, Dec. 3rd or to next week when David Alvarez and Lorie Zapf are sworn-in and take their seats.
Finally, does anybody know if Tony Young’s teleconference participation is even legal? I’ve never heard of such an outrageous departure from decorum. How does the public know it’s really him on the other end of the line?
The lawyers for Walmart are going to have a field day with this one.
Apparently the Walmart ban is now finalized. No union-owned-and-operated city council critter showed a shred of independence.
I’m hoping Walmart decides to put it on the ballot this Spring — paying for a special election to referend this ordinance. IF they do so, Walmart will win in a landslide. I want to be part of that effort.
I recommend a mail ballot election (no precinct polls), as we did in the 1980’s concerning the downtown convention center. It costs fare less than a regular election. We had a VERY high voter turnout by mail — a much higher voter “turnout” than a “poll” election would have engendered.
Yeah, Seth, no argument, but you shoulda seen this photo before we came in and somewhat fixed what Aynd had posted! Again, our bloggers are independent, but we do encourage the use of jpegs and proper cropping. That said, we love the photo!!!!
Someone needs to put together a list of all businesses who supported this so we know where not to shop.
Author
Thor’s Assistant, thank you for cleaning up the picture. I am not a techie person and need practice. That said, I wasn’t really too focused on making T.G. look better.
Yeah…and this is a low tech blog. Award winning, but still just a blog.
“I’m hoping Walmart decides to put it on the ballot this Spring — paying for a special election to referend this ordinance.”
Richard, so am I! There’s a Walmart near where I live, and I shop there frequently. As does everyone, I like paying lower prices for the same goods. Voters should get a chance to register their displeasure on how the City Council majority has prostituted itself to union interests.
FYI: Hey Walmart….Give Us a Break
The City of San Diego is not banning Walmart stores. The City Council’s vote is not discouraging them from building in San Diego. And none on the City Council is trying to limit where consumers may shop.
Here is what the recent Super Center vote accomplished: The Council instructed retailers who wish to build stores of more than 90,000 square feet, with more than 10% of the floor space dedicated to non-taxable goods (food and pharmaceuticals), to provide an Economic Impact Report. That study looks at how a super center would be likely to impact smaller businesses within a five mile radius. And how the super center business model would impact area traffic, public safety, and the quality of life in adjoining neighbor-hoods.
This Economic Impact Report would be used along with Environmental Impact Reports, Community Planning Group recommendations, staff evaluations, and established law to assist your elected officials who ultimately have the responsibility to approve or reject land use in the city. That has been the job of the City Council since our City was formed. That’s it. No Bans. No Bullying Consumers. Just asking for the information retailers al-ready collect to determine what impact they will have on the existing neighborhoods, business, and community character.
Walmart certainly must have spent a fortune to get the community to raise up in arms in defense of their mega business conglomerate to bulldoze it’s way into all areas of our communities. With all that money, they could be buying better quality merchandise and pay their workers a little more, especially before the holidays. What do you say Walmart…give us a break.
You would think a “starving artist” would care deeply about saving money by being able to shop at a WalMart…or might even understand that whether it’s a ban or simply additional hoops to jump through, it clearly is about increased regulations on one business alone. Maybe her artwork is subsidized by government, which is why she has developed a bias against free enterprise.
Oh sure, Gwendolyn — it’s not really a ban on Wal-Mart superstores. Uh huh.
LA has had an almost identical ordinance in place since about 2003. Wal-Mart fully understood the nature of the DE FACTO ban, and since then has not even proposed a new superstore there. Why waste the effort when the political outcome is so clear?
Who speaks for — or cares about — the poor and working class in LA? Certainly not the Democrats!
Seeking Wal-Mart superstore legalization is a GREAT issue for conservatives and libertarians to run with. It is here that the cynical opposition of the Democrat leadership to their supposedly core constituency can be starkly exposed.
I must correct an earlier post I made. ONE Democrat did indeed show that “shred of independence” from union control. Sherri Lightner voted against the ban.
Perhaps it was one of those infamous “safe” votes that can be made to protect an incumbent when a measure already has enough votes to pass. Lightner represents an un-Gerrymandered district where GOP candidates have a very real chance of winning. If any of the Democrats needed a safe vote on this controversial measure, she would be the one.
But that’s just idle conjecture. She may actually oppose the Wal-Mart ban.
Indeed, I suspect that several of the people voting to pass this ban know that it’s a bad deal for the very people who voted to put them in office. But these cynical politicians’ loyalty to their labor union backers trumped any concern they had about the low to middle income folks of San Diego.
And that fact makes their votes to ban Wal-Mart superstores all the more reprehensible.
Richard,
You are totally missing the point. May I repeat:
The City of San Diego is not banning Wal-Mart stores. The City Council’s vote is not discouraging them from building in San Diego. And none on the City Council is trying to limit where consumers may shop. The Council instructed ALL retailers who wish to build stores of more than 90,000 square feet, with more than 10% of the floor space dedicated to non-taxable goods (food and pharmaceuticals), to provide an Economic Impact Report.
Is Wal-Mart unwilling to comply with a study to see how their business might impact a community? If so, why? It is a reasonable request for ANY big box business look at how their “big footprint” might affect traffic, public safety, and character of a neighborhood.
I mention “character of a neighborhood” in particular because of how San Diego has been developing over the past 25 years. We now have neighborhoods that draw tourism, such as Pacific Beach, Hillcrest, North Park, etc. Each of these neighborhoods has a unique “attitude”, look and multicultural flavor that could be adversely affected by a mega store like Wal-Mart. Many of these neighborhoods have small, specialty stores that sell ethnic foods, products, and businesses that attract visitors from all over the world. It’s part of what makes San Diego a Pacific Rim tourist attraction and brings money to San Diego. Inserting a large, homogenous mega store would destroy the character of a neighborhood.
WalMart is already looking at “downsizing” their stores (and already have in some parts of the country) so that they can better fit into neighborhoods. Seems like a smart move on Wal-Mart’s part.
Gwendolyn – It’s an insult to people’s intelligence to say this isn’t targeted at Walmart because its what Labor wants. This impact study is nothing more than a way too block any new Walmart stores.
Your statement is either cynical or naive.
Dear Richard,
And you don’t think the requirements for big box super centers don’t apply to COSTCO, TARGET, etc.??? Even Wal-Mart recognizes this in one of its UT ads recently.
And, you obviously don’t understand “Big Box Ugly” in a small community.
It’s like putting a big refrigerator in the middle of your living room.
Sure you can get your snacks quicker, save energy and don’t have to get out of your TV chair. But try to negotiate it to go somewhere else without tripping over the electrical cord in the dark.
As for Labor wanting it, there are good reasons:
http://www.newrules.org/retail/key-studies-walmart-and-bigbox-retail
This was a study done by a non-profit on the impact of large retail spaces in communities around the country. In “The Effects of Wal-mart on Local Labor Markets”
‘This study presents the most sophisticated analysis to date of Wal-Mart’s impact on retail employment and wages. Analyzing national data, the study found that the opening of a Wal-Mart store reduces county-level retail employment by 150 jobs. Because Wal-Mart stores employ an average of 360 workers, this suggests that for every new retail job created by Wal-Mart, 1.4 jobs are lost as existing businesses downsize or close. The study also found that the arrival of a Wal-Mart store reduces total county-wide retail payroll by an average of about $1.2 million.’’
“Impact of Big Box Grocers on Southern California: Jobs, Wages, and Municipal Finances”
“The most useful parts of this study deal with Wal-Mart’s impact on wages. The study concluded that, as Wal-Mart builds supercenters in southern California, the company will absorb up to 20 percent of the region’s grocery market and cut grocery workers’ income by up to $1.4 billion annually. Unionized supermarket workers in southern California make the equivalent of $18.25 an hour in wages and benefits, according to the study, while Wal-Mart employees earn just $9.63 per hour. As Wal-Mart expands in the region, it will replace high-wage jobs with low-wage jobs. It will probably also force unionized supermarket workers to accept substantial wage and benefit cuts to keep their employers competitive. The combined losses are estimated in the range of $500 million to $1.4 billion. The study also compares health insurance benefits at unionized supermarkets and Wal-Mart, and examines the tax and revenue implications of supercenter development.”
And, this is not the only study supporting the above statistics.
Gwendolyn, thanks for again demonstrating that the Wal-Mart ban is an anti-consumer, labor union-backed effort, hiding behind its funded “think tank” studies — such as the one you cite. Citing a “nonprofit” does NOT mean it is not a biased outfit — and we all know that.
You might fool some people with such bogus propaganda, but here on SDRostra we are well aware of the con. The “Institute of Local Self-Reliance” is just another hard left wing think tank that hides its funding, but it is obviously paid for by liberal foundations and labor unions. The “studies” from such whore houses can’t pass the giggle test.
Gwen makes it into an actual post…
http://sdrostra.com/?p=10211
Actually Thor, Jr — I think you meant to say that RIDER makes it into an actual post. Or maybe you are saying she inspired me (which she did!).
Gwendolyn incessantly comments under posts, but I believe this is the first time she’s ever been mentioned IN a post, thanks to Rider. Yes, she inspired him!
Dear Richard,
Please go to GuideStar.org to check the validity, tax status, etc. for the Institute for Local Self-Reliance that produced the New Rules Project. I think you will find that your cynical claims of political front are unfounded and bogus.
Then go to http://www.newrules.org/retail/key-studies-walmart-and-bigbox-retail for the studies done in several communities, the most recent being 2009, showing the impact of big box retailers.
This is a more up-to-date study than the Furman 2005 article.
“This study examined financial data from 15 locally owned businesses in New Orleans and compared their impact on the local economy to that of an average SuperTarget store. The study found that only 16% of the money spent at a SuperTarget stays in the local economy. In contrast, the local retailers returned more than 32% of their revenue to the local economy. The primary difference was that the local stores purchase many goods and services from other local businesses, while Target does not. The study concludes that even modest shifts in spending patterns can make a big difference to the local economy. If residents and visitors were to shift 10% of their spending from chains to local businesses, it would generate an additional $235 million a year in local economic activity, creating many new opportunities and jobs. Likewise, a 10% shift in the opposite direction – less spending at local stores and more at chains – would lead to an economic contraction of the same magnitude. Another noteworthy finding of the study is that locally owned businesses require far less land to produce an equivalent amount of economic activity. The study found that a four-block stretch of Magazine Street, a traditional business district, provides 179,000 square feet of retail space, hosts about 100 individual businesses, and generates $105 million in sales, with $34 million remaining in the local economy. In contrast, a 179,000-square-foot SuperTarget generates $50 million in annual sales, with just $8 million remaining in the local economy, and requires an additional 300,000 square feet of space for its parking lot. See our New Rules article for more background on this study.”
The most interesting study done The Effects of Wal-Mart on Local Labor Markets – – by David Neumark (University of California-Irvine), Junfu Zhang (Clark University), and Stephen Ciccarella (Cornell University), IZA Discussion Paper No. 2545, Jan. 2007
This study presents the most sophisticated analysis to date of Wal-Mart’s impact on retail employment and wages.
” Analyzing national data, the study found that the opening of a Wal-Mart store reduces county-level retail employment by 150 jobs. Because Wal-Mart stores employ an average of 360 workers, this suggests that for every new retail job created by Wal-Mart, 1.4 jobs are lost as existing businesses downsize or close. The study also found that the arrival of a Wal-Mart store reduces total county-wide retail payroll by an average of about $1.2 million. This study improves substantially on previous studies by convincingly accounting for the endogeneity of the location and timing of Wal-Mart’s entry into a particular local market. That is, Wal-Mart presumably does not locate stores randomly. When expanding into a particular region, it may, for example, opt to build in towns experiencing greater job growth. Unless this location selection bias is accounted for, one might compare job growth in towns that gained Wal-Mart stores versus those that did not and erroneously conclude that Wal-Mart caused an expansion in employment. The authors of this study have devised a persuasive method of accounting for this bias. They also argue that the method developed by Basker (see next item below) to account for this bias is flawed and therefore her conclusion that Wal-Mart has a small positive impact on retail employment is not reliable.”
Richard didn’t say the Institute isn’t a non-profit, he said it is a biased non-profit. Guidestar doesn’t address the agendas of non-profits, by the way. Gwen apparently thinks that if an organization is non-profit, then it must be “valid.” We would laugh, if it didn’t bring us to tears seeing how intellectual she is.
Dear Thor,
Non-profits have to adhere to certain criteria to maintain their non-profit status and receive tax deductible donations.
You are showing your ignorance of non-profit culture and regulations.
Thor Jr. beat me to it. Sure, this tiny propaganda mill is a valid “educational nonprofit” by government standards. But it is an extremely biased outfit, explicitly designed to churn out left wing nonsense.
The Chairman Kirk Marckwald is big on the environmentalist religion. He’s a former consultant for the loony Environmental Defense Fund. He makes his living off government subsidies and edicts.
http://www.ceaconsulting.com/who/cea_staff.aspx?p=Marckwald
To look deeper into the cabal of left wing officers and directors that run this small but merry socialist outfit, go to their IRS Form 990.
http://207.153.189.83/EINS/237394104/237394104_2008_0603459D.PDF
The funding sources that we can see — which totals only a portion of the million dollar annual donations — are a group of liberal foundations. Check out the public grants available in 2005:
* The Homeland Foundation (LAGUNA BEACH, California), 2002 – $ 125,000 (run by guilt-ridden descendants of J. Paul Getty)
* Bush Foundation (ST PAUL, Minnesota), 2003 – $ 100,000
* David H Smith Foundation (BOSTON, Massachusetts), 2003 – $ 50,000
* Azadoutioun Foundation (CAMBRIDGE, Massachusetts), 2001 – $ 20,000
* Albert A List Foundation Inc (NEW YORK, New York), 2003 – $ 20,000
* Norman Foundation (NEW YORK, New York), 2003 – $ 20,000
* Bullitt Foundation (SEATTLE, Washington), 2003 – $ 10,000
http://institute-for-local-self-reliance.idilogic.aidpage.com/institute-for-local-self-reliance/index.b124.u139.htm#GrantorsList
The Institute for Local Self Reliance is not forthcoming on who funds them, but their activities speak for themselves:
http://www.ilsr.org/index.html
In particular, note the political activist page on how to combat “big box” stores (which seem to be limited to Wal-Mart and Target).
http://www.bigboxtoolkit.com/
Clearly, this is no think tank. It is a political advocacy group — one of many funded by labor unions and left wing foundations.
Gwendolyn, your “studies” con job might work on the uninformed, but you’ve come to the wrong website with your misrepresentations. People here know better.
But thanks for playing.
Not Thor on this end, but in my full time job I administer non-profits. Gwen is quite ignorant of the lee-way in which non-profit organizations can get away with a lot in advocating for their individual agendas. It happens ALL THE TIME.
By the way, this wording is on the ACORN website:
“ACORN is a non-profit, non-partisan social justice organization with national headquarters in New York, New Orleans and Washington, D.C.”
Stupid is as stupid does.
Dear Thor’s Assistant:
What you are missing here is the particular classification of non-profits.
Did you happen to look that up too. It appears not.
It is very evident that any opposing view or statistic from any non-profit is now suspect because of what happened with ACORN.
You have dumped all non-profit service organizations into one barrel.
That’s call “lazy thinking” and appears to be rampant on this site.
Too bad.
You mean, do I know the difference between, say a C4 and a C6 or a C3? As a start, uhhh, yes. Do you? I mean, other than the tripe you are spoon fed by your peeps.
No, not just ACORN is in the barrel of service organizations that push a particular agenda as a non-profit. There are many. Let’s start with the Institute for Local Self-Reliance.
Thanks for playing.
Yes, I do know having worked for non-profits for many years.
As for your determination that ALL non-profits rated either (C3,C4, C6)
are tools of the left….you might want to rethink that comment.
You will find many on the far right (non-profits) espouse the Conservative pap and spew forth when given money form the Far Right.
Thanks for being an opponent who tries to think.
Show me where I or anyone else — besides you — wrote that “All non-profits rated either C3, C4 or C6 are tools of the left.” Please do show me.
Economic Impact report=Environmental Impact Report=Destruction of private property rights=Government takeover.
And people in California wonder why business and people are leaving. Common sense has abandoned California and in it’s place socialism runs rampant.
At what point do the people of California wake up and throw all of these special interest elected officials out of office? The undertaker just became Governor and is busy increasing the deficit for payback to his union buddies and buying nails for the coffin of California’s burial into the vast liberal graveyard.
Watching the destruction of the State, County and City I have spent my entire life in is not fun to watch. When it takes longer to get a permit to build a grocery store in Alpine than to fight WWII something is amiss. Yet the beat goes on. California is no longer the beacon of hope in America. It is now a shining example of how not to do things. I wish we had a million Richard Riders in California. Maybe then this State would stand a chance. Since we don’t I have no choice but to put my faith for the future of California in God’s hands, as our leaders are leading us down the path of no return.
But Gwendolyn, how can far right nonprofits spew out conservative pap when they are NONPROFITS? For you have clearly stated here that nonprofits are held to a high standard that precludes such biased dissemination of information.
Which assertion is true?
Author
I’m truly glad my little post has caused all this debate. That said, can’t we go back to its original intent: making fun of Todd Gloria for being a labor tool who isn’t qualified to work the check out line at Walmart.
Okay, okay Aynd, I concede your point — Todd Gloria is indeed not qualified to work the check out line at Walmart.
But POTUS?
Perhaps, based on the recent standard.