Walmart vs Hercules

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: Starbuck1975

So let's re-cap: Costco workers make 40% more than Wal-Mart workers. Costco shells out thousands of $ more per year for beneifts. WTF more do you want to know? Go compare your benefits to the Costco benefits package I linked above.

And over time, if Costco has a better business model that provides the same goods and services while also promoting an employee friendly public relations image, they will ultimately expand while Walmart will continue to face hurdles such as the scenario in Hercules.

This will cause Walmart to revisit their business practices, or risk losing market share in the high volume/low cost market.

And capitalism once again prevails.

What it will do is cause WalMart to buy more amd more politicials at all levels of government to make laws facilitating their vision and pump out more and more lies about how wonderful they are.

 

[dainthomas]

Originally posted by: TheBeast
Walmart is nowhere near a monopoly. You've got Target, SuperValu stores, a host of grocery stores, Costco, Walgreens, CVS, Rite Aid, etc. etc. etc. Any talk of monopoly is ludacris.

Word.

 

[DealMonkey]

Originally posted by: Starbuck1975

So let's re-cap: Costco workers make 40% more than Wal-Mart workers. Costco shells out thousands of $ more per year for beneifts. WTF more do you want to know? Go compare your benefits to the Costco benefits package I linked above.

And over time, if Costco has a better business model that provides the same goods and services while also promoting an employee friendly public relations image, they will ultimately expand while Walmart will continue to face hurdles such as the scenario in Hercules.

This will cause Walmart to revisit their business practices, or risk losing market share in the high volume/low cost market.

And capitalism once again prevails.

If you say so. However, I was merely pointing out the facts which some people around here seem to have some problem dealing with.

 

[Starbuck1975]

What it will do is cause WalMart to buy more amd more politicials at all levels of government to make laws facilitating their vision and pump out more and more lies about how wonderful they are.

That would be the glass half empty analysis.

 

[Zorba]

Originally posted by: Genx87
How many roads are owned by private industry?

Lets see, every turnpike in Oklahoma is held by a private company, and they used a lot of eminent domain to build those roads. I am sure the same holds true for just about every toll road in the country.

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: Zorba

Originally posted by: Genx87
How many roads are owned by private industry?

Lets see, every turnpike in Oklahoma is held by a private company, and they used a lot of eminent domain to build those roads. I am sure the same holds true for just about every toll road in the country.

He left the discussion when he realized he likes taking the train and really approves of government seizure.

 

[Thump553]

This discussion has really strayed off point. Last fall, there was a huge controversy when the US Supreme Court confirmed that New London, CT ( your typical distressed small New England city) had the power under eminent domain to seize homes (and pay fair market value) and turn them over to a quasi-private developer in order to build an office park. I defended that decision then and still defend it.

Much as I dislike Walmart and it's ilk, and what they have done to this country, I think that Hercules has stepped way beyond the bounds of its eminent domain power here. If Walmart appeals, I predict Hercules will be slapped down.

Even if this exercise of eminent domain in restraint of trade was allowable, it most likely makes bad economic sense for the community. I hope these taxpayers realize that they must pay out of their pockets to buy this land to keep it from Walmart.

 

[OutHouse]

Originally posted by: homercles337

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
I think there are two Walmarts 7 and 10 miles from this location. This is a high class city of well off people.

WalMart apparently thought they could build anything they wanted even though the city had prior detailed plans for what they had expected developers to follow. The Supreme Court explicitly ruled that it's legislatures that determine community good.

To add more deail to moonies' post, there are already 11 Walmarts within 30 miles of Hercules. Yes, i said ELEVEN! WTF?! I live in Cambridge (Mass) and i bet there arent 11 grocery stores within 30 miles...

:Q

 

[piasabird]

Microsoft did not think it was a monopoly either.

 

[piasabird]

If you have one town and Walmart moves in and everyone else closes because they can not compete then in that one town Wal-mart is a monopoly. You dont have to be a monopoly per se. If you have predatory competition on a national scale you could be exhibiting illegal behavior.

The point I was trying to make is not that Wal-mart is a monopoly, but what they are doing may be considered illegal. The laws governing Free Trade and competition can be very difficult to interpret.

Microsft is technically not really a monopoly. You can buy an Apple computer or buy a Linux operating system. They are not a true monopoly, but some stupid judge just interpreted the situation as a monoploy. Walmart runs stores that sell Hardware, housewares, and groceries. They way they do business they are very predatory, and they could be judged to be out to take over the whole market which in itself is illegal.

This just kind of confuses people because it is not illegal to compete or to make money. However if your intent is to take over a market or cause harm to the competition by unfair business practices that could be considered to be illegal. This is a very fine line that Wal-mart is walking. They control so many stores that they have taken over so much of the market that at this point they could be considered to be the size of an oligarcy. Just their volume of sales makes them a threat to free competition.

 

[Zorba]

Why doesn't the city just refuse to issue a building permit for a building larger than 60K sq. ft. if that is what the zoning requires? Then if Wally tries to build something bigger than that knock it down. I know in Tulsa they have knocked down brand new building for not sticking to the building permit.

 

[DealMonkey]

Originally posted by: Zorba
Why doesn't the city just refuse to issue a building permit for a building larger than 60K sq. ft. if that is what the zoning requires? Then if Wally tries to build something bigger than that knock it down. I know in Tulsa they have knocked down brand new building for not sticking to the building permit.

Most communities attempting to block all big box stores are doing exactly that. It would be interesting to know why Hercules city councilmembers felt they had to resort to eminent domain. Odd.

 

[TheBeast]

Piasabird,

Microsoft had more than 90% of the OS market. Then they forced internet explorer on people using the power of their OS effectively eliminating browser competition, that is essentially why they were ruled a monopoly. Wal-Mart IIRC doesn't even have 30% of the retail market. Apples to onions comparison between the two.

I hear about Wal-Mart predatory pricing all the time .... I haven't seen any actual data to back it up, though (not saying it doesn't exist). If having lower prices (due to the efficiencies WM has compared to mom and pop) is predatory pricing .... oh well.

How many small towns are worse off economically after WM enters (jobs, tax revenue)? I would venture the answer to that is very few if any.

 

[LEDominator]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: Starbuck1975

So let's re-cap: Costco workers make 40% more than Wal-Mart workers. Costco shells out thousands of $ more per year for beneifts. WTF more do you want to know? Go compare your benefits to the Costco benefits package I linked above.

And over time, if Costco has a better business model that provides the same goods and services while also promoting an employee friendly public relations image, they will ultimately expand while Walmart will continue to face hurdles such as the scenario in Hercules.

This will cause Walmart to revisit their business practices, or risk losing market share in the high volume/low cost market.

And capitalism once again prevails.

What it will do is cause WalMart to buy more amd more politicials at all levels of government to make laws facilitating their vision and pump out more and more lies about how wonderful they are.

and this is coming from the person who just said that we are suppossed to trust in our government... I hate to tell ya, but more government isn't the answer nor is bitching about the evils of corporations going to solve anything. From what you've posted before it is pretty clear you lean towards liberalism. I might point out that you shouldn't let your (warranted) critique of more right leaning groups cloud your knowledge about the left as well. Each side is as corrupt as the rest. The difference is when the people hold them accountable

 

[LEDominator]

Originally posted by: Zorba

Originally posted by: Genx87
How many roads are owned by private industry?

Lets see, every turnpike in Oklahoma is held by a private company, and they used a lot of eminent domain to build those roads. I am sure the same holds true for just about every toll road in the country.

I thinke it depends actually. Most toll roads (such as the bay bridge, etc.) are government toll roads which put the money back into maintenance (at least they are supposed to)

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: LEDominator

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: Starbuck1975

So let's re-cap: Costco workers make 40% more than Wal-Mart workers. Costco shells out thousands of $ more per year for beneifts. WTF more do you want to know? Go compare your benefits to the Costco benefits package I linked above.

And over time, if Costco has a better business model that provides the same goods and services while also promoting an employee friendly public relations image, they will ultimately expand while Walmart will continue to face hurdles such as the scenario in Hercules.

This will cause Walmart to revisit their business practices, or risk losing market share in the high volume/low cost market.

And capitalism once again prevails.

What it will do is cause WalMart to buy more amd more politicials at all levels of government to make laws facilitating their vision and pump out more and more lies about how wonderful they are.

and this is coming from the person who just said that we are suppossed to trust in our government... I hate to tell ya, but more government isn't the answer nor is bitching about the evils of corporations going to solve anything. From what you've posted before it is pretty clear you lean towards liberalism. I might point out that you shouldn't let your (warranted) critique of more right leaning groups cloud your knowledge about the left as well. Each side is as corrupt as the rest. The difference is when the people hold them accountable

We have here an issue where the city council and the people who elected them are in apparent accord, not, that is, a corrupt government set up. Responding to the voter isn't corruption. Taking money, etc, from WalMart to vote a store in the people don't want would be. You seem to want to limit me to a view that government is either good or bad but I judge that by the issue. Do you think WalMart won't seek to favor their stores by campaign contributions and advertising pressure? I think they very likely will and do.

 

[LEDominator]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: LEDominator

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: Starbuck1975

So let's re-cap: Costco workers make 40% more than Wal-Mart workers. Costco shells out thousands of $ more per year for beneifts. WTF more do you want to know? Go compare your benefits to the Costco benefits package I linked above.

And over time, if Costco has a better business model that provides the same goods and services while also promoting an employee friendly public relations image, they will ultimately expand while Walmart will continue to face hurdles such as the scenario in Hercules.

This will cause Walmart to revisit their business practices, or risk losing market share in the high volume/low cost market.

And capitalism once again prevails.

What it will do is cause WalMart to buy more amd more politicials at all levels of government to make laws facilitating their vision and pump out more and more lies about how wonderful they are.

and this is coming from the person who just said that we are suppossed to trust in our government... I hate to tell ya, but more government isn't the answer nor is bitching about the evils of corporations going to solve anything. From what you've posted before it is pretty clear you lean towards liberalism. I might point out that you shouldn't let your (warranted) critique of more right leaning groups cloud your knowledge about the left as well. Each side is as corrupt as the rest. The difference is when the people hold them accountable

We have here an issue where the city council and the people who elected them are in apparent accord, not, that is, a corrupt government set up. Responding to the voter isn't corruption. Taking money, etc, from WalMart to vote a store in the people don't want would be. You seem to want to limit me to a view that government is either good or bad but I judge that by the issue. Do you think WalMart won't seek to favor their stores by campaign contributions and advertising pressure? I think they very likely will and do.

You just made my point for me... To assume that because a government, in this case a city council, is uncorruptable as opposed to the state or federal level is naive. Of course Wal Mart is going to press their people to go with them and will make it worth their while. In this case the council responded to voters, this is true, however I will guarantee you that somewhere in there shady deals have and will continue to happen. Its just the nature of politics. Even Harry Reid who is supposedly ending the "Culture of Corruption" isn't dirt free
Link

 

[Moonbeam]

How did I make your point for you. What is true of local government is true of any other government too. Government either responds to the Constitutional needs of its citizens' wishes or those wishes are bought off by special interests with gifts. What any government does is look to the welfare of its citizens or to the welfare of those who favor them with gifts and the virtue of any one vote is determined, therein, by its motive.

In this WalMart case it looks like the people win. That would always be true with a citizenry awakened.

See your link for my take on your disgusting acceptance of corruption. The government is corrupt because of you.

 

[LEDominator]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
How did I make your point for you. What is true of local government is true of any other government too. Government either responds to the Constitutional needs of its citizens' wishes or those wishes are bought off by special interests with gifts. What any government does is look to the welfare of its citizens or to the welfare of those who favor them with gifts and the virtue of any one vote is determined, therein, by its motive.

In this WalMart case it looks like the people win. That would always be true with a citizenry awakened.

See your link for my take on your disgusting acceptance of corruption. The government is corrupt because of you.

mmmk. Your statement "What is true of local government is true of any other government too" pretty much sums up what I said in my last post... How is my link an acceptance of corruption? My point is that people always look out for #1 and their own interests. The benefit to the people is only secondary. To attack me and say that I accept corruption or that I somehow cause it just shows that you cannot make a cohesive argument. If anything my cynacism towards government and assumption that people will be corrupt puts me more in a place to try and expose it because I expect to find something and thus keep looking for it. To make the connection that somehow because I view all governments as corrupt makes me accept it is somewhat of a stretch. I think anyone you talk to will be against corruption, but there is only so much one person can do. As they say you can't fight the world alone, which is why reporters and the like (and people on forums like this) talk about things because information is power.

Anyways, as far as the original topic is concerned I agree with the end result that Wal Mart is thwarted, but I don't think Eminent Domain was the way to go. #1 because they already had stipulations on the property and thus could have went after Wal Mart in that way rather than aquire the land and secondly you have to wonder who they are going to sell it to after they acquire it. To me that is the perfect opportunity for someone else with cash or other items ie political favors to make a grab at the land.

 

[Starbuck1975]

This just kind of confuses people because it is not illegal to compete or to make money. However if your intent is to take over a market or cause harm to the competition by unfair business practices that could be considered to be illegal. This is a very fine line that Wal-mart is walking. They control so many stores that they have taken over so much of the market that at this point they could be considered to be the size of an oligarcy. Just their volume of sales makes them a threat to free competition.

I find your choice of Microsoft interesting, as many would consider them a monopoly, and there are plenty of allegations against Microsoft that suggest unfair competitive practices, particularly with their integration of web browsers and media players into their OS.

As for Walmart, it is also largely a matter of perception. You make mention of predatory practices, but capitalism and a free market economy by its very nature is a bit predatory...now, if you can provide concrete evidence of illegal activities on the part of Walmart, then we have a court system to address such crimes. Otherwise, there is nothing wrong with their business model of retail dominance. Given the products that they sell, consumers are motivated more by cost then service in deciding where they make their purchases...essentially, the mom and pop stores everyone keeps defending are built on an antiquated business model that the government should not step in to preserve.

Most communities attempting to block all big box stores are doing exactly that. It would be interesting to know why Hercules city councilmembers felt they had to resort to eminent domain. Odd.

I do find it odd that the local city government chose this as their approved solution for blocking Walmart...one would think that through appropriate zoning laws and such, it would have prevented Walmart from even purchasing the property to begin with. Eminent domain is a delicate topic and policy, one that the government should not abuse...my perception of the situation is that the city council is doing this simply to slap the great corporate behemoth in the face. Some may gain great satisfaction and pleasure from such a gesture, but it is otherwise meaningless.

 

[Future Shock]

Originally posted by: Starbuck1975
Eminent domain is a delicate topic and policy, one that the government should not abuse...my perception of the situation is that the city council is doing this simply to slap the great corporate behemoth in the face. Some may gain great satisfaction and pleasure from such a gesture, but it is otherwise meaningless.

I don't get what is SO hard to figure here - the city council want ONE type of shopper in that particular area - those with a decent disposable income that can afford more than basic necessities. It is a BRANDING excersize by the town council - saying that the desired image for their town (or at least that area of it) is one where people have and spend money on luxury or near-luxury goods, NOT paper towels and cheap clothing.

That's a commercial decision, and one of the key things you learn about branding is that your entire message MUST be consistent - if you run a newspaper company, the cleanliness and paintjobs on your delivery trucks matters. So having a store known for selling bargain basement staple goods is not consistent with that message, and would adversely affect the city councils desire to set up that area as a luxury or near-luxury sales area. The public backed them on that marketing positioning.

Case closed - a victory for town that decided to move itself (or at least try to move) upscale. Wal-Mart would have LOVED to have had a position near that upscale shopping - all of those well-off consumers - while at the same time destroying the brand message by it's own presence. They couldn't lose - they win if the other stores succeed and bring them shoppers with money to the area, and they win if the other stores go out of business, as they will be all that remains.

The town chose wisely in an attempt to move upmarket...that will provide them overall with a larger tax base to finance their town's growth. The public was smart enough to know that, and made a valid business decision FOR THEM - one that will long-term enhance their tax base and economic growth. Capitalism at work...

Future Shock

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: Starbuck1975

This just kind of confuses people because it is not illegal to compete or to make money. However if your intent is to take over a market or cause harm to the competition by unfair business practices that could be considered to be illegal. This is a very fine line that Wal-mart is walking. They control so many stores that they have taken over so much of the market that at this point they could be considered to be the size of an oligarcy. Just their volume of sales makes them a threat to free competition.

I find your choice of Microsoft interesting, as many would consider them a monopoly, and there are plenty of allegations against Microsoft that suggest unfair competitive practices, particularly with their integration of web browsers and media players into their OS.

As for Walmart, it is also largely a matter of perception. You make mention of predatory practices, but capitalism and a free market economy by its very nature is a bit predatory...now, if you can provide concrete evidence of illegal activities on the part of Walmart, then we have a court system to address such crimes. Otherwise, there is nothing wrong with their business model of retail dominance. Given the products that they sell, consumers are motivated more by cost then service in deciding where they make their purchases...essentially, the mom and pop stores everyone keeps defending are built on an antiquated business model that the government should not step in to preserve.

Most communities attempting to block all big box stores are doing exactly that. It would be interesting to know why Hercules city councilmembers felt they had to resort to eminent domain. Odd.

I do find it odd that the local city government chose this as their approved solution for blocking Walmart...one would think that through appropriate zoning laws and such, it would have prevented Walmart from even purchasing the property to begin with. Eminent domain is a delicate topic and policy, one that the government should not abuse...my perception of the situation is that the city council is doing this simply to slap the great corporate behemoth in the face. Some may gain great satisfaction and pleasure from such a gesture, but it is otherwise meaningless.

Geez the city sold WalMart the land with the 60000 sq feet plan already made and publicly known to WalMart who then turned around and went for a huge store and then a less huge one of 100000 sq feet and wouldn't return the land with a refund after the city said no, you gotta go with the 60000 sq ft limit just like we said when we sold you the land. Because they didn't want to give the land back the city condemned their ass.

 

[Starbuck1975]

The town chose wisely in an attempt to move upmarket...that will provide them overall with a larger tax base to finance their town's growth. The public was smart enough to know that, and made a valid business decision FOR THEM - one that will long-term enhance their tax base and economic growth. Capitalism at work...

Fair enough...from a strategic perspective, you can't blame Walmart for wanting to tap into that market...similarly, if the town is attempting to create an upmarket image, that is certainly a sound decision for its financial security.

Let me pose this question to you. What if the land in question was not Walmart...what if it was instead low income housing, and the town chose to exercise eminent domain in achieving their vision of upscale retail space to finance the town's financial growth.

The end result is still the same...but the means are a bit different...are people on this thread who are happy about this story motivated by recognition and appreciation for what is best for the town from an economic perspective, or is their pleasure derived simply from Walmart getting a slap in the face. I can respect the former, but kind of confused by the latter.

 

[DealMonkey]

Originally posted by: Starbuck1975

The town chose wisely in an attempt to move upmarket...that will provide them overall with a larger tax base to finance their town's growth. The public was smart enough to know that, and made a valid business decision FOR THEM - one that will long-term enhance their tax base and economic growth. Capitalism at work...

Fair enough...from a strategic perspective, you can't blame Walmart for wanting to tap into that market...similarly, if the town is attempting to create an upmarket image, that is certainly a sound decision for its financial security.

Let me pose this question to you. What if the land in question was not Walmart...what if it was instead low income housing, and the town chose to exercise eminent domain in achieving their vision of upscale retail space to finance the town's financial growth.

The end result is still the same...but the means are a bit different...are people on this thread who are happy about this story motivated by recognition and appreciation for what is best for the town from an economic perspective, or is their pleasure derived simply from Walmart getting a slap in the face. I can respect the former, but kind of confused by the latter.

It's not simply a slap in the face that matters. Some of us truly believe that Wal-Mart is simply a bad corporate citizen. There are at least a dozen reasons why I believe this to be the case. Further, I believe communities have the right to set their own zoning laws. If they don't want "big box" stores then too bad for the likes of Wal-Mart or Home Depot or Target. As a community, that's their decision to make. Eminent domain seems like a last resort for Hercules who tried dealing with Wal-Mart in a reasonable fashion.

 

[Starbuck1975]

It's not simply a slap in the face that matters. Some of us truly believe that Wal-Mart is simply a bad corporate citizen. There are at least a dozen reasons why I believe this to be the case. Further, I believe communities have the right to set their own zoning laws. If they don't want "big box" stores then too bad for the likes of Wal-Mart or Home Depot or Target. As a community, that's their decision to make. Eminent domain seems like a last resort for Hercules who tried dealing with Wal-Mart in a reasonable fashion.

I recognize and accept that...however, there is a certain irony to the fact that many suburban and even urban communities love having access to big black box stores, yet don't want them built in their back yards.