Friday, June 03, 2005
Anti-Wal-Mart bill progresses in Oregon legislature
Oregon's land-use planning process doesn't provide elitists with enough tools for preventing other people from shopping at Wal-Mart, so the state legislature is proposing to add more. Under current Oregon law, people can challenge new developments based on their impacts on sewers, water, traffic, wetlands, scenery, farmlands, or a seemingly endless list of other issues. Beyond these rules, Metro, Portland's regional planning agency, has set more rules limiting the number of stores that can be larger than 100,000-square feet.
But that's not enough for Representative Charlie Ringo (D-Beaverton), who calls Oregon's process "a rubber stamp." So he has proposed a bill that would allow people to object to a new store based on its impact on other stores or if its "not compatible with the community." Ringo's bill only applies to one parcel in Beaverton, which just happens to be where Wal-Mart proposes to build a 149,000-square-foot store. But it would set a precedent for anyone else who wants to stop a Wal-Mart to go to the legislature and ask for a similar bill for their area.
Despite the supposed rubber stamp, the Portland area is currently thinly supplied with Wal-Marts. There are only three Wal-Marts serving the 1.5 million people living inside the region's urban-growth boundary, none of them supercenters (meaning none sell groceries). This has been to the benefit of Kroger subsidiary Fred Meyer, Safeway, and Albertsons, each of which have dozens of stores in the Portland area that don't have to compete with Wal-Mart. That means everyone in Portland who doesn't want to drive 50 miles to the nearest Wal-Mart supercenter has to pay higher food prices to subsidize the inefficiency of these older chain stores.
And just what does "not compatible with the community" mean for a store when the main objection is that so many people would use it that it would increase traffic congestion? That sounds like a lot of members of the community find it very compatible. But those who go to legislative hearings and planning commission meetings don't represent the people who want to shop at Wal-Mart, only those who want to deny people the right to shop there.
Representative Ringo says his goal is to make sure that "Oregonians have as much say in this process as does some company in Arkansas." If that is true, then he should allow Wal-Mart to build and let Oregonians vote with their feet.
But that's not enough for Representative Charlie Ringo (D-Beaverton), who calls Oregon's process "a rubber stamp." So he has proposed a bill that would allow people to object to a new store based on its impact on other stores or if its "not compatible with the community." Ringo's bill only applies to one parcel in Beaverton, which just happens to be where Wal-Mart proposes to build a 149,000-square-foot store. But it would set a precedent for anyone else who wants to stop a Wal-Mart to go to the legislature and ask for a similar bill for their area.
Despite the supposed rubber stamp, the Portland area is currently thinly supplied with Wal-Marts. There are only three Wal-Marts serving the 1.5 million people living inside the region's urban-growth boundary, none of them supercenters (meaning none sell groceries). This has been to the benefit of Kroger subsidiary Fred Meyer, Safeway, and Albertsons, each of which have dozens of stores in the Portland area that don't have to compete with Wal-Mart. That means everyone in Portland who doesn't want to drive 50 miles to the nearest Wal-Mart supercenter has to pay higher food prices to subsidize the inefficiency of these older chain stores.
And just what does "not compatible with the community" mean for a store when the main objection is that so many people would use it that it would increase traffic congestion? That sounds like a lot of members of the community find it very compatible. But those who go to legislative hearings and planning commission meetings don't represent the people who want to shop at Wal-Mart, only those who want to deny people the right to shop there.
Representative Ringo says his goal is to make sure that "Oregonians have as much say in this process as does some company in Arkansas." If that is true, then he should allow Wal-Mart to build and let Oregonians vote with their feet.
Comments:
>>>>>> Under current Oregon law, people can challenge new developments based on their impacts on sewers, water, traffic, wetlands, scenery, farmlands,<<<<<<
These are VALID reasons why a Wallmart shoud NOT be built. The impact on sewers from a large store like that will mean higher property taxes for the local residents. Furthermore, the impact on water and farmlands is a significant issue and who in their right mind wants a horrible parking lot as their scenery???
>>>>>>That means everyone in Portland who doesn't want to drive 50 miles to the nearest Wal-Mart supercenter has to pay higher food prices to subsidize the inefficiency of these older chain stores.<<<<
How do we know these stores are inefficient? Have you done a price comparison between these stores and Walmart or are you guessing? These other stores provide better incomes and health insurance instead of exploiting their workers like Walmart. I'm sure the few extra dollars spent in these stores is well worth the price of not supporting a Walmart that pays low wages.
Post a Comment
These are VALID reasons why a Wallmart shoud NOT be built. The impact on sewers from a large store like that will mean higher property taxes for the local residents. Furthermore, the impact on water and farmlands is a significant issue and who in their right mind wants a horrible parking lot as their scenery???
>>>>>>That means everyone in Portland who doesn't want to drive 50 miles to the nearest Wal-Mart supercenter has to pay higher food prices to subsidize the inefficiency of these older chain stores.<<<<
How do we know these stores are inefficient? Have you done a price comparison between these stores and Walmart or are you guessing? These other stores provide better incomes and health insurance instead of exploiting their workers like Walmart. I'm sure the few extra dollars spent in these stores is well worth the price of not supporting a Walmart that pays low wages.
