Maine Passes Nation’s First Big-Box Law

[Double A]

Maine Passes Nation’s First Big-Box Law

by James Parks, Jul 2, 2007

Maine is the first state to take a stand against big-box stores like Wal-Mart, Target and Home Depot that often swagger into a town, pushing out small businesses while harming the environment and sucking up municipal services. Gov. John Baldacci (D) last month signed into law the Informed Growth Act, which holds big-box corporations accountable and gives citizens a real voice in development decisions.

Specifically, the new lawâ€"which was strongly backed by working families and small businessesâ€"requires developers of retail stores exceeding 75,000 square feet to conduct studies gauging a project’s impact on municipal services, the environment and local businesses. The proposed store can’t be approved if the studies find it is likely to cause a quantifiable “undue adverse impactâ€? in any of these areas.

Although Maine is the first state to take this action, similar legislation has been introduced in six other states in the past two years. The Wall Street Journal (subscription required) reports that states such as Montana and New Jersey have or are considering similar adverse-impact laws. California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger (R) vetoed a big-box impact law last year.

Please take a moment to call Gov. Baldacci at 207-287-3531 and thank him for signing this bill into law.

[inteller]

quote:Originally posted by Double A

Maine Passes Nation’s First Big-Box Law

by James Parks, Jul 2, 2007

Maine is the first state to take a stand against big-box stores like Wal-Mart, Target and Home Depot that often swagger into a town, pushing out small businesses while harming the environment and sucking up municipal services. Gov. John Baldacci (D) last month signed into law the Informed Growth Act, which holds big-box corporations accountable and gives citizens a real voice in development decisions.

Specifically, the new lawâ€"which was strongly backed by working families and small businessesâ€"requires developers of retail stores exceeding 75,000 square feet to conduct studies gauging a project’s impact on municipal services, the environment and local businesses. The proposed store can’t be approved if the studies find it is likely to cause a quantifiable “undue adverse impactâ€? in any of these areas.

Although Maine is the first state to take this action, similar legislation has been introduced in six other states in the past two years. The Wall Street Journal (subscription required) reports that states such as Montana and New Jersey have or are considering similar adverse-impact laws. California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger (R) vetoed a big-box impact law last year.

Please take a moment to call Gov. Baldacci at 207-287-3531 and thank him for signing this bill into law.

yay!  lets preserve high prices for EVERYONE!

[TheArtist]

How would you quantify an adverse impact?

[USRufnex]

http://www.suntimes.com/business/337911,CST-FIN-walmart12.article

Wal-Mart store ignites taxes, jobs
RETAILING | Austin outlet hires 443 people

April 12, 2007
BY FRAN SPIELMAN City Hall Reporter/fspielman@suntimes.com

Chicago's first and only Wal-Mart store has produced $2 million in state and local taxes and 443 jobs for West Side residents since it opened in Austin six months ago, the world's largest retailer said Wednesday.

Wal-Mart wants to forge ahead with its urban strategy by building at least four more stores in Chicago, primarily on the South Side.

The decision whether to approve the zoning changes needed to build those new stores will rest with the newly elected City Council.

Mayor Daley vetoed the big box minimum wage ordinance and made it stick with three crossover votes. Union leaders are pouring millions into the 12 aldermanic run-offs in an effort to elect a veto-proof majority for the big box ordinance. Wal-Mart has contributed $100,000 to a fund that supports big-box opponents.

On Wednesday, Wal-Mart made its case in a six-month report card released by Ald. Emma Mitts (37th), whose impoverished West Side ward includes the Austin store.

It shows the store has generated more than $2 million in state and local taxes, including $500,000 in city sales taxes alone.

Of the 443 jobs, more than half went to 37th Ward residents.

Seventy-seven percent of those Wal-Mart associates are African American. Eighteen percent are Hispanic.

The new Wal-Mart has also served as a catalyst for development. A new Menard's is under construction. Aldi's, CVS, Panera Bakery and Bank of America have made commitments to build on the West Side.

Roderick Scott, Wal-Mart's regional manager for community affairs, said the company is scouting locations for more Chicago stores, primarily on the South Side.

[YoungTulsan]

Actually, anything more efficient is going to be more friendly to the environment.  The **** the hippies come up with is either short-sighted or deliberately positioned to destroy the US economy.

Wal-mart is a good thing because it took the idea of a store and CONSOLIDATED various functions, therefore creating PRODUCTIVITY beyond what was there already.  Mom and Pop stores are INEFFICIENT and shutting them down allows redundant people in the realm of sales to redivert their talents into other sectors.

The American economy is successful because of ingenuity, productivity, efficiency, and of course, cheap energy.  Which reminds me of what a devious plot against the US Economy the global warming BS is.



So you naysayers don't think that after we've figured out how to make selling **** to people more efficient, the market wont move on to finding out how to make other things in the economy more efficient?

[tulsascoot]

Perhaps the **** hippies are nostalgic about walking into a store where someone could actually help you. Finding a knowledgeable employee at a Wal-Mart is frustrating.

I would pay more to have a few small stores where I can shop within 1 or 2 miles (preferably 1) of my home rather than drive 6 miles to WalMart to stock up for the winter. For me Walmart is less convenient than it is a pain in the donkey.

[YoungTulsan]

Unfortunately, a personal servant does not factor into the competative pricing of today's stores.

Lucky for you, there is an invention called the internet where you can study products and make wise purchase decisions without having to rely on a "shopkeep" with knowledge about every product.  Besides, only small stores with small selections, and no employee turnover (which means they probably charge a hefty markup to make a profit) are capable of having a human being that can actually tell you about all of the products they offer.  This should be expected in a specialty store, but not a general market that sells everything.

[Conan71]

The biznitch and moan about big box stores fails to take into account improvement for the average worker.

Big box stores typically create more jobs than combined mom & pops which are put out of business.  They provide benefits M & P's cannot afford, and in many cases can afford to pay better wages and offer stock ownership in the company.

There are long-time worker associates who invested in company stock programs long ago with their big box employer who are now millionaires.  Would've never happened for those people without the benefits BB's offer.

I'm all for the little guy making it with his own business, but if he cannot provide a good or service the public wants at a price they want to pay, he becomes a dinosaur.

[Double A]

Monopolies and Oligarchies rule. They are the best thing to happen to a free market economy. I hate to break it to you, but small businesses are the backbone of Tulsa's economy. They are the ones who have kept Tulsa afloat through thick and thin. I say it's about time we start taking care of them the way we take take of the big boys, because they have one thing the big boys don't, and that's loyalty. Isn't it strange they would have such a relationship with their executioner?

[cannon_fodder]

quote:Originally posted by Double A


Specifically, the new lawâ€"which was strongly backed by working families

Thank got it was supported by working families and not the elitist that shop at Wal-Mart.

quote: and small businesses

That fear competition.

quote:requires developers of retail stores exceeding 75,000 square feet to conduct studies gauging a project’s impact on municipal services, the environment and local businesses.

A big box store is not a very high drawer of municipal services.  In fact, I would bet heavily that one Wal-Mart uses less of EVERYTHING than the mom and pop stores that it competes with per volume of sales.  So the municipals services would be reduced.

quote:The proposed store can’t be approved if the studies find it is likely to cause a quantifiable “undue adverse impact� in any of these areas.

An increase in development is ALWAYS bad for the environment.  More competition is always bad for existing local businesses.  Therefor, they may as well have created a "no retailers over 75K Sq. Feet" law.  Does this apply to Dillards?  Macy's?  Sears?  Or just the unpopular retailers?

quote: Monopolies and Oligarchies rule

Double A , its apparent that you do not really understand these terms from an economic nor legal perspective.  Monopoly power is the ability of a single player to change prices without effect on their sales.  Wal-Mart's transgression in this area is to lower prices - not an indication of monopoly power.  You could accuse them of predatory pricing, but even ignoring the flawed nature of that theory; there is no evidence to suggest they raise prices when competition abates.

An Oligarchy is a collection of 2 or more players than have the ability to tacitly or maliciously control the market.  Target and Wal-Mart are fierce competitors with each other.  In addition to that, as you rightfully pointed out, mom and pop shops have a strong foothold and loyal following.  If Wal-Mart and/or Target did anything drastic in the market the masses could easily avoid them and shop elsewhere.  

So there is no monopoly or oligarchy in place in the retail sector.  Certain some players have greater market influence, but in the event of an abuse of that influence the consumer can easily abandon that retailer and find a plethora of other willing sellers.

Not too mention, if you think Wal-Mart is a monopoly, file suit.  Do not make laws that facially are for the good of the community but in reality are targeted at a couple of businesses.
- - -

Small businesses are the backbone of Tulsa and America.  They are more dynamic, faster growing, and easier to fail (ie. they dont ask for nor receive government bailouts, that's good for everyone).  I try to shop at local business; I get my groceries at Reasor's,  I chose Ron's instead of McDonald's, my books at Steve's Sundry, and my hardware at Midtown.

But they do not always foot the bill.  I will shop at the place that meets my needs the best.  I want a knowledgeable staff that is professional, I want to find the goods I need in a reasonable variety, and I want it close to my house and open the hours I desire, and I want it at the best price I can afford.  If, weighing these factors, Lowe's can better meet my needs - why should I reward an inferior business?

In the end, the consumer's decide what they want.  In the end, they will get it.

[Double A]

Wal- mart is a predatory monopoly in the fact that they engage in price fixing with suppliers to ensure that they are the only ones able to offer the lower price. What is worse than a Wal-Mart opening in a community is one closing, because they will hang on to the location and keep it vacant to ensure none of their competitors move in. Now you tell me whose afraid of competition?

[cannon_fodder]

First of all, negotiating with suppliers to ensure lower prices is NOT predatory pricing.  Predatory pricing generally regarded as pricing below a market point, even to the stage of losing money, to drive away competition.  When competition is left, the predatory pricer then RAISES the price to recoup its loses and tack on a healthy profit.

Wal-Mart is certainly in the business of defeating its competition.  As are most businesses.  However, there is nothing to suggest that it is doing so for the purpose of raising prices.  Nor is there evidence that suggests it has the ability to demand premium prices due to its activities.

Therefor, the claim of predatory pricing is unfounded.  Not to mention predatory pricing is an old theory that is no longer generally accepted.  The argue fails to account for new entrants into a retail market that has relatively low barriers to entry.  If Walmart put Target, K-Mart, and other retailers out of business and raised its prices - new retailers would simply enter the market to benefit from the inflated prices.  Thus, the the price raising would have to stop and consumers would again benefit from low prices.

And there is nothing illegal nor monopolistic about a company leverage the best possible prices from suppliers.   Wal-Mart learned this tactic from Toyota who has had great success and built industrial empires for its suppliers.  All companies do their best to negotiate for lower prices as do all consumers.  That's what a free market is.

[USRufnex]

Sorry Canon, you're wasting your breath.

Unionizing WalMart is the holy grail for the modern organized labor movement in this country... unionizing Walmart is more important than "livable wage" or a higher minimum wage... and if WalMart were unionized, Mr. Double-A would be singing a different tune of large-scale retail strikes while union bureacrats are busy bending over and conceding mandatory OT and optional offshoring... in exchange for  

I always thought labor unions would love for there to be more perceived oligarchs and perceived monopolies because that's their favorite targets... the only company I considered a monopoly was Ma Bell... that was a union shop.  Maybe the US Postal Service?  Unionized.  Huge American auto conglomerates?  Unionized.

I've always been a fan of unionized skilled and/or hard labor... the tradition of the "guild"... but I fail to see the benefit of unionizing discount retailers or grocers... can't tell the difference between the Reasor's workers in Tulsa and the Kroger workers in Indy... I've previously been a fan of the traditional unions who decades ago stood up for workers taken advantage of during/following the great depression...

If the state of Maine (and all of New England) wants to preserve their quaint, historical and provincial B&B charm by targeting Walmart (pun intended), they can pass big box laws to protect the so-called rights of "mom-and-pop stores" to sell equally substandard merchandise from China and Taiwan at higher prices, like they've been doing for generations... I actually was betting Vermont would beat them to the punch.  I'm sure it's the feelgood hit of the summer over there... after all, WalMart's based out of hillbilly, flyover country in NW Arkansas... ya know, one of those pesky "square states"... and a southern state to boot... maybe citizens in Oklahoma and Arkansas can pass a law that specifically targets Dunkin' Donuts some day soon...

And I'm thinking about local Tulsa discount retailers... hmmm... TG&Y? (not local), Venture ?(not local), Kmart? (not local), Target? (definitely not local)...

hmmm... "What is Oertle's or David's?...
I'll take Local Discount Retailers for $400, Alex..."

Unionized grocery stores have systematically abandoned many poverty-stricken and crime-infested  areas of south and west Chicago in the past few years.  There are WalMarts co-existing with unionized grocery stores in almost every single affluent suburb outside Chicago... many have 2 or more WalMarts...  

Yet, a year ago last summer, a coalition of organized labor and we-know-better-than-you enlightened Chicago liberals decided to "draw a line" and try to pass big box legislation that would ensure the working poor in south and west Chicago could continue paying more for groceries, etc. and have limited economic opportunities... the jobs are needed... jobs that would go to people in the neighborhood... instead of having the working poor pay a premium for groceries and basic necessities or pay extra for gas to drive to the suburbs to shop... those labor unions care much more about preserving power than catering to the needs of the poor and working poor...