Controlling the Big Box Store Invasion
Sam Adams
This is an abreviated copy of some very thoughtful public testimony recently provided by members of Southeast Uplift to the City Council suggesting a pro-active plan to deal with the ongoing big-box store invasion underway in Portland. I'd like your thoughts... Sam
July 20, 2005
Dear Mayor and Commissioners,
We are here to ask your help in taking the initiative in responding to a type of development that affects everyone in the city of Portland. We are asking for your support in exposing and correcting the negative impacts of some big box retail developments and practices. We have provided you with copies of our testimony and an in-depth report in support of this testimony.
"We" are a sub-committee of the Land Use and Transportation Committee of the Southeast Uplift coalition of twenty neighborhood associations in Portland...We have recently seen the groundswell of citizen concern and the aggressive response to siting a big box retail use at the east end of the Burnside Bridge. We are very aware of the spontaneous and rapid growth of opposition to the negative impacts of these establishments by local communities in Hollywood, Cedar Mills, Oregon City and Gresham...
Several months of education and networking on this topic have convinced us that the greater community must become more educated about the burdens these establishments often impose, and that our elected officials need to adopt additional tools in order to prevent these burdens imposed on our community. This defense of our community values is not one that citizens should have mount on their own and not in one area after another. Yet Wal-Mart, the most notable of these big box retailers, is intent on adding a minimum of five or six stores in the Portland area over the next few years according to news accounts.
Although many people react negatively to the large, sterile buildings and parking lots, the traffic, and the impersonal store experiences they associate with "big boxes", those characteristics of these uses are only the more recognizable issues. Most people are not aware of the profound economic and social impacts we brought up in discussions with you and/or your staff. Impacts noted by economists and others around our country who have studied these stores. Impacts covered in the news and in TV documentaries like Frontline on PBS.
Speaking of Frontline, in their documentary they unmasked Wal-Mart's claim of providing a necessary service for low-income people because of their consistently lowest prices. In researching claim, Frontline found Wal-Mart's advertisements are usually for low quality items that are often hard to locate among more enticing versions at higher prices often as expensive if not more so than comparable items in other stores. This is just one example of information that needs to be considered in an overall examination of big box retail establishments.
Respectfully submitted,
Gary Naylor
City Council:
We are all very aware of the need to attract outside dollars—via tourists and new industries--to our region and to support our own local entrepreneurs. But our valiant efforts to “grow our economy” are being negated by some of the huge retailers coming in—-retailers even Portland Development Commission and other government agencies often court & subsidize.
Those who are supposed to foster our long-term economic well-being aren’t bothering to “follow the dollars”, to compare the pros of these stores, such as the taxes they pay, to the costs they impose on us. The most obvious, direct economic problem is that they send up to 60-70c of every $1 they receive from customers immediately off to their out-of-state HQ. That capital is gone and with it the multiplier effect -- being spent over & over on local goods and services -- that would have occurred if it had been spent at a local retailer. Additionally, their cut-throat buying, pricing & hiring tactics tilt the playing field away from local retailers. And we taxpayers, including undermined local retailers, are left to subsidize housing, health care and food for the employees of these “killer boxes” because they receive little or no benefits and less than family-wage pay.
To paraphrase Meredith Wilson & the Music Man, “Either we’re closing our eyes to a situation we do not wish to acknowledge, or we are unaware of the caliber of disaster indicated by the presence of ‘killer boxes’ in our community! Well we’ve got trouble, my friends. Yes, we’ve got trouble right here in River City.”
Well, we started looking for information on and solutions to this trouble. Some students in an economic development course at PSU took up our research effort. For their class project last term they compiled studies on big box retailing and examples of tools enacted or proposed to protect other jurisdictions from these harms. We have one hard copy for the City & a disk for each of you of their research, plus a printout of the disk’s Table of Contents, categories of applicable tools, info sources found since the disk was compiled, and the web sites of the 3 local groups currently fighting proposed Wal-Marts.
This research includes an effort by business and civic leaders in Austin, TX which we will cover next, because it’s a good summary of the issues and a sample of a tool that addresses the gist of the problem. Your materials include the Austin City Council’s response.
We ask you to review this information, encourage and join public discussion on it, and offer your support for adoption very soon of new regional policies to defuse the environmental, economic and social harm these retailers cause.
Thank you,
M’Lou Christ
Resolution Supporting a Conditional Use Permit for Big Box Retail
WHEREAS, Austin is experiencing the rapid spread of large national retail chains, commonly called "big box" stores or supercenters; and
WHEREAS, These 24-hour stores, which can exceed 200,000 square feet, and require over 20 acres of paved parking, have equally massive impacts on area workers, neighborhoods and our local economy; and
WHEREAS, The city's Land Development Code currently allows big box supercenters on any land zoned for General Retail or Commercial Use, regardless of size or impact to the community; and
WHEREAS, Despite huge profits, many big box chains do not provide sufficient wages and benefits for the majority of their employees to live without public assistance; and
WHEREAS, Local governments must subsidize health care, housing and other services for underpaid employees of these highly profitable corporations, while shouldering increased costs for public safety, infrastructure, roadways and environmental impacts; and
WHEREAS, Many local businesses often close under intense pressure from "predatory pricing" tactics used by some big box chains; these closures have a ripple effect on other area businesses and suppliers, further weakening the economy and removing local business leaders from the community; and
WHEREAS, The addition of ever-larger retail outlets does not increase the city's tax base, but simply shifts tax revenues from existing stores; and
WHEREAS, The City of Austin must have the means to fully evaluate the net costs and benefits of such massive projects and to withhold approval of a project if the net costs to our community are found to be too great; now therefore be it
RESOLVED, That the undersigned organizations and individuals call on the Austin City Council to establish the requirement for a Conditional Use Permit for all proposed large-scale retail developments that will include an impact analysis demonstrating the net costs and benefits to the community. The impact analysis will be paid for by the applicant and will include the possibility of negotiated exactions to mitigate substantial costs; if substantial costs cannot be mitigated, the city will have the right to deny a building permit for a proposed project.
Yours,
Brooks Koenig
City Council:
I would like to add a few telling statistics about the impacts of a particular big box chain as well as highlighting some approaches used by other communities in response. In 1994 a St. Albans Vermont State Environmental Board cost analysis on a proposed Wal-Mart superstore showed that for every $1 in tax benefit created by the superstore there would be $2.5 dollars in tax losses and public costs. The 214 jobs that would be created by this superstore would be offset by the loss of 381 jobs at other local businesses.
UC Berkeley’s Institute for Industrial Relations Report from 2004 showed that California taxpayers are currently spending $86 million/year providing healthcare and other public assistance to the state’s 44,000 Wal-Mart employees. The average Wal-Mart worker requires $730 in taxpayer-funded healthcare and $1,222 in other forms of assistance such as food stamps and subsidized housing. Wal-Mart workers earn 31% less than average workers for large retail companies and require 39% more in public assistance. If competing supermarkets and other large stores adopted Wal-Mart’s wage and benefit levels, it would cost California taxpayers an additional $410 million/year in public assistance.
We don’t know of anyone who has compiled such statistics for the Portland area, but we have begun to talk with PSU faculty and our Metro Commissioners about ways our local jurisdictions can work together to gather such info. But this information we bring you today, in and of itself, speaks to the need for prompt action.
Granted we already have some very useful environmental requirements. Store design, stormwater management, and transportation requirements can mitigate some of the harmful effects of big box retail. And we have land use & transportation policies envied elsewhere and used by our own neighbors to keep out what they have come to see as harmful stores. However, these retailers are not only constantly seeking new sites, which can contribute to urban sprawl, but they routinely submit slightly revised proposals for a site two years after an initial refusal, thus forcing new, seemingly endless, battles on exhausted volunteers. This has happened in Oregon City, Hillsboro, Gresham, and now Cedar Mills and Sellwood.
And how much land that was designated for industrial use—-uses that bring new money and family wages into the region—how much has been given over to big boxes instead? And how many of those stores are duplicates, or larger, of ones already selling the same items to the very consumers targeted by the new stores? Consider the impact that these practices will have on the urban growth boundaries throughout the region?
We’re asking for tools to reduce the impacts of these big box stores before they are built in our communities. Some cities have banned retail outlets over a certain size. Similar bills proposed in both Montana and Minnesota would impose a tax on gross receipts of retail stores that have more than $20 million in sales and do not provide employee compensation worth at least $22,000 a year or have more than one quarter of their employees working less than 40 hours/week.
Some cities are requiring that any store over a certain size, (e.g., 30,000 square feet in a small town) or one that will generate more than 500 car trips per day must submit a community impact review prepared by an independent consultant chosen by the city and paid for by the developer. These impact studies include traffic, municipal services, public revenue, the environment, the local economy, and the community. The community component includes potential impact on historic and scenic sites, the character of the town, and the downtown business district.
We have already presented this information to our County Commissioners and hope to reach other jurisdictions. We plan to ask METRO to be the lead agency for this effort since they have regional jurisdiction, as well as greater access to economists and data resources than their individual members do. But we ask that you push for a comprehensive regional analysis of the potential impacts of big box retailers that leads to the development and use of appropriate tools to address the hidden costs to our communities of these types of stores.
Thank you for your consideration of these issues,
Linda Nettercut Nettekoven
City Council:
We realize we are at least 5 years late in launching this effort, that the unfair practices of these firms has already caused world-wide harm, that protections in one spot don*t preclude the problem in the next town or rural surroundings. We can begin here, in our urban area. Our efforts may grow wider. Our own Congressman Earl Blumenauer has already spoken about this problem on the floor of the US House.
As a first step, we and these other citizens from around the area demand that those elected and hired to oversee the general economic, social and environmental well-being of our metro area begin working now to resolve this harm.
As city commissioners you are responsible for policies and programs to address a wide range of environmental, economic and social conditions for Portland residents. You also work to ensure Portland participates with neighboring jurisdictions when those issues have regional impact.
You know there are more legitimate demands for city assistance than local revenues can provide. Additional burdens on the environment and loss of hard-earned local capital and of family-wage jogs will only add to your budget difficulties.
Surely you realize it is your obligation to add your support to enact new policies and to establish new tools to overcome the harmful practices of big box retailers. Will you make that commitment please?
Linda Williams
Posted by Sam Adams on July 26, 2005
(48) Comments | Permalink | TrackBack (0)
Filed Under Front Page, Livability & Environment, Wal-Mart
Comments by site visitors
The essential problem with many of the so-called "big box" retailers is not that they are big. It is that the costs that they often impose are largely hidden, indirect, or intangible whereas their benefits (generally those of low price, convenience, and large variety), are obvious and easily quantifiable, and are in fact touted in their advertising. I shop at some of these stores and don't in principal oppose their existence. But I do believe it is the duty of government to make sure that the pros and cons of this and any other type of development are fully publicized before following the easy path of just letting private (and often out-of-town) interests make the decisions for us. One may rest assured that those hidden, indirect, and intangible costs will rest on our shoulders, not theirs. We should at least know what they are going to be.
Posted by: Robert Jordan | Jul 26, 2005 11:55:15 PM
Many areas in Portland are sensitive to the development of huge retail complexes due to traffic constraints, impact on adjacent neighborhoods, and the general appearance of the huge parking areas these stores require. Some areas, like the to-be-developed waterfront areas between the police horse barn and Albers Mill or the Linnton waterfront, may be suitable for mixed use (housing, light industry, etc.) The difference of the traffic impact on the surrounding area between a Walmart and mixed use as above would probably make the store unacceptable, although both could be allowed under current zoning.
Checks and balances need to be put into place to control the development of big-box retailers beyond existing zoning requirements to prevent undesireable impacts on existing surrounding businesses and residences in Portland.
Posted by: Kerrigan Gray | Jul 27, 2005 7:20:16 AM
You GO, Sam! WalMart kills towns. WalMart kills souls! Many full time WalMart workers qualify for food stamps their wages are so low! That burdens local municipalities. WalMart needs to be stopped in Portland! Thanks for your efforts! Tracy, 7/27/05
Posted by: Tracy Waters | Jul 27, 2005 8:13:02 AM
Please, no big box stores in or around Sellwood. For goodness sake, certainly no WalMart in or around Sellwood. Please, look at the big picture, look beyond the so called "every day low prices" and the bastardized smiley face "rolling back prices" and realize that the larger and greater costs of such stores, WalMart in particular, often far outweigh any perceived immediate benefits.
Posted by: Rick Norwood | Jul 27, 2005 9:10:17 AM
There are two issues (at least) mixed together in this thread. First, the "big box" issue and second the "killer Wal-Mart" issue. In other words, there are "good" big box stores and "bad" ones. Wal-Mart exemplifies the bad ones just as McDonald's does bad fast food stores in terms of crappy jobs, low wages, no benefits, and canabalism of local merchants offering similar services. On the other end of the spectrum are "big box" stores (and fast food emporiums like Burgerville) that provide family wage jobs, good benefits, and so on. By all accounts, Home Depot and Lowe's fall into the "good" category, despite the opinions of people in inner southeast. Given the brush they Home Depot and Lowe's have been painted with because of the Burnside Bridgehead fiasco (which was PDC's fault, not the stores'), I need to provide my take on that issue. Inner southeast is home to a large number of construction related businesses from custom window and door manufacturers, tile makers, reps for window, door, tile, lighting and other products, large and small hardware stores, tool dealers, major electrical, plumbing, and insulation supply houses, etc. In general, theser firms cater to clients very different than those of Home Depot and Lowe's and often won't even sell to the "homie" market. HOme Depot would NOT have significantly affected the business of most of these firms and may even have increased it simply because of the limited selection a Home Depot carries. In other words, a Home Depot shopper would be more likely to compare products at these local stores if they are close by than that shopper would/will if it has to drive 8 miles to do so. In my opinion, PDC screwed up by not finding a way to work with local vendors to create a "home improvement" or "building" "identity" for this district into which Home Depot would have its niche and the other vendors theirs. That would have been a tide to lift all boats. Further, the planned Home Depot at Burnside Bridgehead was not the typical Big Box with an ocean of parking (nor is the Office Depot in SE for that matter). So, the bottom line is that not all "big boxes" are bad for local businesses and they don't all have to be surrounded by an ocean of parking. Most of these chain stores are realize they need to adapt to urban environments in order to continue to grow and are actively doing so is communities elsewhere where the community doesn't slam the door in their face to start (as was done by Portland to Home Depot at both the Burnside and Copeland Lumber site in NE).
Further, I don't know how you can discriminate against a isolated "big box" but not against the same store sited in a huge shopping mall. I think BridgePort Village and new style of development it represents is much, much worse than the "power box" center on Airport Way.
Wal-Mart is a whole different story. It does pretty much insist on doing things its way (as did McDonald's with their MLK proposal). Worse, both McD's and Wal-Mart do not hesitate to force their will on a community and then abandon the store when it isn't as profitable as hoped or when it doesn't conform to their current plans (hence the large number of vacant Wal-Mart's and Sam's where new Superstores have opened).
So, I think the real issue isn't "big boxes" but Wal-Mart of more generally, developments that provide a limited number of low wage, no benefit jobs on large parcels of land that generate large volumes of shopping trips (typically single purpose trips rather than "chained" ones). Any attempt at regulation needs to be tailored to focus on these issues, rather than outlawing "big boxes" per se.
Posted by: Mike Warwick | Jul 27, 2005 10:21:48 AM
Steve,
I urge you to look around our blog a bit more thoroughly, specifically at what I posted when Sam was deciding a course of action on this issue.
It is a compilation of results from various news reports, academic economic studies, and congressional reports from around the country on the effects that Wal-Marts and big box retailers more generally have on the communities they move to.
You may perhaps charge our office with being overzealous - that is arguable- but charging us with not being interested in/ working with the facts is not well founded.
In addition to the footnotes, there are links to the studies and newsreports so you can find and look at them yourself, as well.
http://www.commissionersam.com/sam_adams/
2005/06/the_case_agains_1.html
Posted by: Roland Chlapowski | Jul 27, 2005 10:50:00 AM
Roland - My issue is that every study you provide is anti-WalMart. I think a lot of these case would apply against the small businesses you say WalMart will force out. These small businesses usually pay min wage and no benefits also along with off-the-books time. So you would probably have as many people prior to WalMart collecting benefits which is never mentioned.
That is just the way small businesses work. I am not a big fan of WalMart, but I think their size makes them an unfair target.
As far as the BigBox thing, I am not crazy about that either, however, Mr Adams has no problem with a 300ft tall condo within 100 ft of the Willamette and increased traffic in the south Waterfront project becuase it has CoP approval.
I am only ask you be objective and look at all sides. Again, WalMart is popular (since by your own admission you are worried about the extra traffic), so enough people wnat these stores to make them worth considering.
I am afraid that we are heading towards CoP deciding who we wnat vs. the people of Portland plus the message it sends to other big businesses considering Portland.
Posted by: Steve | Jul 27, 2005 12:50:59 PM
What does a new tower in a designated downtown [high density] district have anything to do with a big box store in a quiet residential neighborhood? Or a big box store in any part of the city for that matter?
Could you, Steve, also let me know what 30 story building has been approved within 100 FEET of the river? I want to purchase a pad there before it sells out.
Posted by: MarkDaMan | Jul 27, 2005 1:29:06 PM
MarkDaMan - Look at the SOuth Waterfront project, there are 3 buildings there that are pushing 300ft. As far as purchasing, CoP has already decided which developers get access.
THe relationship is this - WalMart is not going into a neighborhood and is on a state highway with access. Sq footage-wise these 3 towers would swamp a bigbox and are situated in a bad traffic area already. Yet CoP says this is OK, but WalMart is not wanted. Moreover, I haven't noticed any change in Eastport traffic before/after WalMart outside normal growth.
Sorry, I was expecting some consistency from government.
Posted by: Steve | Jul 27, 2005 1:55:14 PM
I agree with DaMan and think apples and oranges are being compared here.
In getting back to dealing with the "killer boxes", I would repeat my comments from the Walmart Opposition Letter Blog. I think other cases should be studied and discussed as far as community tactics to control the invasion. Zoning laws limiting size of development discourage these monsters from moving in, level the playing field for all businesses great and small and promote a diverse, balanced business base.
I also like the tax ideas. If these jerks are going to take our money and run, we unfortunately must resort to raising taxes, and force them into investing in the local communities that they feed off. And put the money towards Education.
Posted by: Matt Harding | Jul 27, 2005 3:39:37 PM
Shouldn't we be more worried about the illegal alien invasion than a company that wants to provide goods and services at a fair price and hire local people?
Posted by: Daniel | Jul 27, 2005 10:59:49 PM
For the life of me, I can't see a whole lot of difference between a Wal-Mart and a Fred Meyer - and there was a whole lotta hullabaloo over the construction of the Fred Meyer over in the Hollywood district. It was going to ruin everything. For whom - the hookers?
Instead, we find that it's a popular place, and a good neighbor, and an asset to the community. What is with you people, anyway?
I'm more interested in getting my water and sewer rates down to a manageble level, having cops put meth tweakers in jail where they belong, and having illegal aliens deported rather than catered to.
And I'm more interested in encouraging, rather than discouraging, business and jobs in the city in which I live.
Posted by: Jay | Jul 28, 2005 8:09:07 AM
The business model of the big box store is compelling as noted by their rapid growth and nearly universal prevalence in even moderately sized population centers. The product variety, pricing, and convenience draw customers away from smaller retailers which may result the decline or elimination of that local business. The modern grocery store chains have nearly eliminated small local food centers. There is not a hue and cry for the elimination of grocery stores chains. Just as Sears and Roebuck, Wards, and Woolworth displaced the dry goods stores of history with their operational efficiencies, the Big Box stores are out competing the smaller stores. I personally understand the anguish and personal tribulations of loosing a job because of market forces and corporate consolidation. It hurts, and it is scary.
Not all Big Box business models are the same. Wal Mart specifically keeps labor and benefits cost down to the detriment of its employees, competing business and to the tax payer who subsidize Wal Mart’s low labor and benefits costs via a variety of tax funded social benefits. Wal Mart’s empty gesture of offering an employee health plan for $200 $300 month (if I recall correctly) to average hourly employee making $350 a week is completely unaffordable for those employees. So the Wal Mart employee “elects not to participate” in the health plan offered by Wal Mart, gets sick and goes to the Emergency Room for treatment. Who pays for that Emergency Room visit? Certainly not Wal Mart, but the companies that do provide affordable health care benefits end up paying for Wal Mart’s cost advantage through ever increasing insurance premiums.
The Northwest’s contribution Big Box retailing (Costco) business model pays its employees a living wage of $16 to $18 an hour. These employees are able to afford to participate their health insurance program.
I suspect that Home Depot and Lowe’s compensate their employees somewhere between Wal Mart and Costco.
The city should scrutinize the types of development that it allows here. Having an employer that shifts employee costs to government, its competitors and wipes out family wage jobs is not the best development for the city. Wal Mart is not good for the Portland Community.
Posted by: John Rusoff | Jul 28, 2005 9:01:34 AM
Steve and Daniel: Providing services at a "fair" price is certainly not something that Wal Mart does. The shelf price that someone pays appears to be, on the surface, a "fair" price. The parking lots are full, says Steve, so they must be doing something right. I disagree. When Wal Mart, and other such employers, employ people to work at sub-standard wages, these wages do not allow them to be able to purchase their own health insurance, pay for their own food, or otherwise sustain their households by themselves. Additionally, employing people to work less than full time so that they do not have to pay full time benefits (insurance) does the same thing.....these folks plain old cannot afford to live. So, the rest of us make it up for them in highly inflated taxes, hospital and doctor care that just has to be "written off"....do you want me to continue? Oh, and before we go, let's talk to some of those former mom-and-pop business owners and employees who no longer have jobs or businesses.....I wonder if they believe that full parking lots and fair prices really is a complete picture of the price that we all pay for having big box stores around. The good always comes with the bad.
Posted by: Arnie | Jul 28, 2005 10:51:30 AM
Roland,
The studies you cite almost all focus on WalMart's impact on rural Main Streets. I have not yet seen a comparable study of WalMart's impact in a densely urbanized area like Portland. They may be there, but rural Pennsylvania just ain't Portland.
I'd also don't particularly care whether WalMart's prices are "really" low. Are posters suggesting that we, as a political system, should evaluate the business tactics of a firm when we decide whether to support or oppose them? Do you think WalMart is the only business that uses "loss leaders" to lure in customers?
I've asked in other fora and I ask again here: what always seems to be the implicit comparison to WalMart or McDonalds are the good local businesses that pay higher wages, give better benefits, and have job security.
I've seen nothing to back up this claim. I can easily find estimates that between 60-80% (they vary wildly, but all are well over 50%) of new businesses fail within a few years.
To me, fostering a healthy business climate includes a judicious mix of big and small, local and national.
I've only seen one argument about WalMart that I find convincing--that this location cannot handle the traffic load. I don't think the WalMart would hurt Sellwood businesses, and suspect it would actually help them. I think a large retailer is ideal for that location, since nothing else is likely to move in. And I'm very suspicious of the generalized claims that big=bad.
Final point: the location is not, as often claimed, in Sellwood nor in Eastmoreland. It is located closest to the southernmost portion of Westmoreland and northern Milwaukie (voices that have been mostly absent in this discussion).
Posted by: paul | Jul 28, 2005 10:55:31 AM
Paul,
The studies I cite are not just about rural areas; they include the impacts Wal-Marts have had in Chicago, Orange County, Los Angeles, Barnstable, a fairly large municipality in Massachusetts, and the San Francisco-Bay Area. Other studies and reports I cite are national in scope.
Further, I am not sure that I quite buy your implicit argument that there are significantly different forces at work, and consequences created by, Wal-Marts depending on whether they are in a rural or urban setting. Why should rural social services be more strained than their urban counterparts, considering that similarly skilled and paid employees will be employed in both places? Actually, with costs of living significantly higher in cities relative to rural towns, the case against Wal-Mart seems even more compelling for Portland.
As for Milwuakie residents not speaking out, all I know is that the strength with which the Milwaukie mayor has been lobbying Portland City Council to block Wal-Mart's bid has been surprisingly fervent. Lake Oswego's mayor isn't thrilled either.
But, moving to common ground, I am glad that we can agree that traffic is an issue as well. The traffic impact on the surrounding area would be awful unless the roadways there were significantly changed, which one could argue is simply another public subsidy for a private entity.
On a similar note, the site currently being considered for a Wal-Mart was also being considered for an extension of a light rail/street car. I personally suspect that the owner is just trying to get a higher price at a quicker pace for this land from the public, for whatever that's worth.
(Check out this story for more info on the MAX issue:
http://www.commissionersam.com/sam_adams/
2005/06/walmart_cit_col.html)
In the end, however, our office respects differing opinions on this issue, but we still respectfully disagree. And I will tell you, the feedback on our position has been -for the most part- quite positive. It doesn't seem like the anti-Wal_mart forces have an equivalent pro-Wal-Mart contigency, which I think says something in and of itself.
-Roland
Posted by: Roland Chlapowski | Jul 28, 2005 1:51:01 PM
Roland - I had one final comment and I'll leave you alone. I work with several people out of state whose companies have considered the Portland area. When they hear things like we are chasing out Walmart (no matter how bad employer you may think they are), this paints Portland in a negative like to all potential businesses.
I realize WalMart is not an ideal employer, however, they are jobs. Without WalMart, these people would be either unemployed or most likely working min wage jobs with no benefits and no opportunities for advancement.
As far as traffic, we have been able to accomodate high density housing and as I mentioned South Waterfront is going to be built with limited highway access (only one road to fwys and Downtown PDX) whereas Walmart would be situated on Hwy 99 within an industrial area already that accomodates heavy traffic.
Again, I only ask you keep an open mind. Unfortunately, I think the anti-WalMart forces are more vocal than a lot WalMart's current customers which may skew your opinion.
I still enjoy reading Mr Adams viewpoints and will give him credit, at least he communicates with us more than the rest of City Council.
PS - If you could include a preview panel, it makes it easier to fix my spelling and sentence construction.
Posted by: Steve | Jul 29, 2005 7:46:56 AM
Arnie said: When Wal Mart, and other such employers, employ people to work at sub-standard wages, these wages do not allow them to be able to purchase their own health insurance, pay for their own food, or otherwise sustain their households by themselves.
----------------------------------------------
Good point. I hope, if the anti-WalMart folks succeed, they turn their protest toward all the farmers, restaurants, nurseries, landscapers, etc. who hire part time, pay low wages and provide no benefits.
Somehow I doubt that'll happen.
Which goes to show how silly and hypocritical the WalMart foes are; big bad WalMart want's to come to Portland and actually provide jobs and boost the economy (sans tax subsidies, no less). Meanwhile, thousands of employers across Oregon provide no bennies and minimum wage jobs, but there seems to be no problem with them.
Not to mention, IKEA has plans to open a store here. Are they not a danger to mom and pop furniture stores and local retailers? Will Sam Adams et al be as vocal against IKEA as WalMart?
Somehow I doubt that'll happen either.
Posted by: Chris McMullen | Jul 29, 2005 9:41:47 AM
I don't like Wal-Mart so I choose not to shop there. I don't like any of those types of stores... Home Depot, Costco, etc. I don't like the size and I don't like the crowds. But I'd like you all to consider another point of view.
My son recently moved into his first apartment. He works in food service for slightly more than minimum wage. Even with a decent number of hours it's tough for him to pay for his food, apartment and utilities. The other day he said to me:
"Dad, I went to Wal-Mart. I didn't feel good about it, but I got a pair of jeans for ten bucks and all my toiletries for five".
As long as the city's tax policies inhibit the creation of living wage jobs and the best opportunities for young people are pouring coffee or flipping burgers, Wal-Mart's will be a thriving, and necessary, evil.
Posted by: Dave Lister | Jul 29, 2005 10:35:12 AM
Dave Lister said:
"Dad, I went to Wal-Mart. I didn't feel good about it, but I got a pair of jeans for ten bucks and all my toiletries for five".
As long as the city's tax policies inhibit the creation of living wage jobs and the best opportunities for young people are pouring coffee or flipping burgers, Wal-Mart's will be a thriving, and necessary, evil.
end quote
You're kidding me right Dave? Your kid came to you feeling GUILTY because he wasn't able to shop in boutique mom and pops stores for 500 count sheets and at Diesel for his jeans, because he can't get a living wage job, because of our cities tax policies? Being a young early twenty something myself that is probably one of the lamest things I've ever heard! Even during the height of Portland's pretty darn bad recession, with my limited experience, I found a "living wage job" with benefits and perks. I guess more than anything I can contribute that to a great parenting job by the one who brought me into this world...
Anyway, Walmart serves a need. Although we might not agree with their corporate policies we also live in a free market economy and therefore a corporation decision about employee pay, and the pricing of the products is their own business as long as they follow local and federal laws. If workers are unhappy, they can form a union, if shoppers are unhappy they can stop shopping there, or offer to pay more for the products with the hopes it will end up in the pockets of the employees.
Last week as it heated up I needed to purchase a portable AC for my second floor apartment that faces, lucky for me, east and west. I went to the local appliance shops in my neighborhood and the cheapest unit I could find was for $215. When I called around I found Walmart had almost an identical one for $78. I had to get in my car as the buses would have taken me hours, drive over 10 miles to the store, purchase my AC and a bunch of other cheap stuff while I was there, and than drive 10 miles home. While I'm not an every week or even every month Walmart shopper, I know those that are. Having a store closer cuts down on their trip lengths and opens up mass transit opportunities too.
Sam, is this fight against all Walmart proposals that might come up, or just against this store because of the location? If it is a location issue, isn't there a way we can suggest one a little more suitable?
Posted by: MarkDaMan | Jul 29, 2005 11:50:30 AM
Just a heads up:
Oregon Territory's discussion of Wal-Mart airs today at 4:30 p.m. On OPB,
91.5 FM. www.opb.org/programs/oregonterritory (preview posted there now,
audio will be there tomorrow after the show airs).
Posted by: paul | Jul 29, 2005 12:17:24 PM
Roland,
You are trying to change the basis of comparison. The primary basis upon which the Commissioner is opposing WalMart is the impact on local Sellwood and Milwaukie businesses. All of the studies that you cited which documented a negative impact (the classic "end of Main Street") were based in rural areas.
Are you really trying to claim that there is no difference between a rural urban economy?
You *imply* but don't really say that the responses you are getting indicate that anti-WalMart forces are larger and more reflective of the community. Maybe. I think the responses you get are also a commentary on state of Portland politics.
Political participation is highly skewed by income, education, and occupation. The responses you receive are reflective of Comm. Sam's constituency, a relatively white and affluent core residing in the inner SE, SW, and NW, and not the community at large.
Cmmr. Sam is not to blame here--this won't change until we revise the Charter and institute a district election system, something that I think is long overdue.
Posted by: paul | Jul 29, 2005 12:32:57 PM
Selwood, a quiet residential area? My goodness are you blind? Its within the Urban Growth Boundary which means that high density is a matter of when, not if. If I have to have MAX forced down my throat in my neighborhood, you get the WalMart. We cant have all the White Trash and low income pressed into one neighborhood, that would be racist and create profiling problems. MAX has destroyed the neighborhoods it has entered but the city has a problem with WalMart, what gives?
Posted by: Mark | Jul 29, 2005 1:59:25 PM
Maybe all our problems would be solved if Walmart would just built a MAX station into their store. It would save us some money on construction and maintenance costs and the business could be justified by encouraging mass transit use!
Posted by: MarkDaMan | Jul 29, 2005 2:21:14 PM
I think you're on to something! Add an Indian Casino and a Baseball Park to the route and it'd be better than Disneyland! Seriously though, this is the type of multi-use development that the city needs to consider as they force more and more high density occupation onto a finite amount of urban land. Considering the effects of high density on the sewage system is something that is painfully obvious (everytime it rains) that they did not consider.
Posted by: Mark | Jul 29, 2005 2:36:47 PM
Capitalism is not self-regulating and Walmart is the perfect example of why government control is needed.
I don't want to live in a country that is accountable only to its stockholders, I want to live in a country where we are all accountable to each other as citizens. Thanks Sam.
Posted by: Peyton | Jul 29, 2005 8:33:55 PM
Theres a lot of different arguements going on in here, and they all seem to be well founded. Everyones got an opinion, so here's mine. I think what the real question is whether WalMart is the best option for the city of Portland. And by Portland i mean the People of Portland. Walmart does mean lower prices, so thats a plus. Wal-mart also means low wages, a minus. Walmart brings increased public expenditures on healthcare to its employees, a minus. And we can't forget that Walmart brings economic stress to local businesses, another downside. Based on what i've read here and evidence that Roland Chlapowski gathered for us, its seems obvious that the benefits do not outweigh costs in bringing Walmart to Portland. Walmart isn't bad because of the box, its bad for what it stands for.
Posted by: Patrick | Aug 1, 2005 11:26:36 AM
I couldn't help responding to Mark's comment about a Max stop at WalMart. The "mega" department store in Paris (France) is the BHV, which has a metro stop in the basement (as does/did the main department store in DC). I routinely saw construction workers in Paris hauling tools and material (lumber included) on the metro, so this isn't a far fetched idea. If MAX can accomodate bikes, it might accomodate building materials if the bike racks were beefed up! But, be this as it may, Home Depot, Costco, etc. are all trying new "urban" models of their stores that adapt to the realities of urban plans, land values, etc. WalMart is NOT doing this. They are still trying to impose a rural/sub-urban design on urban areas.
Posted by: Mike Warwick | Aug 2, 2005 12:30:13 PM
Patrick, what's the difference between WalMart and every other low skilled employer out there?
There's a plethora of landscapers, roofers, farmers, restaurants, warehouses, framers, etc. that pay minimum wage and provide no bennies.
Should we keep them from employing people?
Posted by: Chris McMullen | Aug 2, 2005 4:04:13 PM
Here's an article from NYC.
The City Council of New York is proposing changes to City legislation tthat would limit future 'big-box' store developments until the City's zoning laws concerning these large retail developments are better established.
To all of those who believe that 'Big-Box' developments are acceptable. I recommend you bring a 5 year old child. Then try walking the length of the parking lot from the street to the entrance. (Of course I don't seriously recommend that. I would never promote the idea of putting a child's life in danger.)
Posted by: Aaron | Aug 2, 2005 6:04:39 PM
The Anti- Big Box movement (the Movement) is short-sighted. Ultimately, this will (1) decrease the nest egg of Oregonians; (2) Redline the city from an entire class of capital investment; (3) take individual choice away from workers hurts the tax base; (4) turn a blind eye to the fact that retail is changing; and (5) walk away from a critical imperative - we need to grow businesses from within and bring more in from without.
Oregon’s per capita income is about 9% below the national average according to the U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis and declining. The Movement will ensure we continue this downward trend. Modest income consumers need to have the option to buy inexpensive products at Target (etc.) and other retailers (I am actually unsure of who is classified as a "big box" and who is not – is Target a smaller box than Wal-Mart?). Building the nest egg has to do with savings *and* consumption. While I would like to shop at the superior quality of a Food Front for everything, economics force me to shop at WinCo for my family for various items to save money.
Turning businesses away is a big problem with some of our leadership statewide as they try to pick winners and losers when the consumer should decide. How can we afford to turn capital investment away when our schools need the money (via income taxes on wages where the bulk of tax revenue originates in the state)? High employment rates mean more taxpayers. Let the individuals decide on taking the job before the option is shut out.
As to the false arguments about big box retailers carrying the flag of no-benefits and low wages, if this happens, it is temporary. Not all home-grown businesses offer benefits and high wages. Let the workers vote with their feet and not work there, causing the business to increase benefits and wages to get people will work there, increasing overall wealth. Shutting out large employers will close down this option for individual choice to force higher wages. Labor responds to market forces, so give them the option to work.
Why did Rejuvenation and Chown Hardware choose to establish stores next to Home Depot in other markets? Because customers are more sophisticated and go to Home Depot for inexpensive bulk products but choose to shop at high quality specialty shops to actually finish the project. Retail in 2010 will look radically different than in 2005, this is why I think we need to look beyond our current paradigm.
Ultimately, the Movement will cost Portlander’s jobs and subtract from their nest –eggs as the city is redlined against all but home-grown micro-employers who have limited capital. Why not build your nest-egg by increasing economic activity (and local capital expenditure from without) rather than focus on ourselves from within. We need to import capital from out of state (in addition to creating a good environment for our own businesses) as trading with ourselves is a zero-sum game. I am told by economists that Oregon has been a trade dependent center since 1847. Let’s continue that legacy and not build another icon of deciding issues before the consumer does. I suggest we work with the big box retailers to preserve local values and create jobs. Give individuals choice, we can make up our minds very well thank you.
Posted by: Martin Medeiros | Aug 2, 2005 6:25:43 PM
I have no intention (never have, never will) of supporting WalMart in any way. I find their employee structure offensive and discriminatory and see no benefit of their presence when we have all the discounters we need.
There is, however, one "big Box" that would benefit the greater Portland area, and that is Ikea! Why send all the Oregonians to the Seattle area to shop there...why not keep those $s here and also create well paid jobs (they have a great rep from their employees)! What's up?
Posted by: Martha Rutherford | Aug 3, 2005 7:18:33 AM
Chris, There are numerous differences between Walmart and other low-skill jobs such as landscaping. For starters, the wages and benefits that Walmart provides its employees are grossly sub-standard for this industry. Small, immigrant powered landscaping companys don't have much, if any, standard for wages or benefits, and are not jobs that employees can expect to work for more than a decade. Restraunts don't pay great wages to servers true, but any good waiter can make good money on tips. And no one ever farmed to get rich. I've worked for a popular big-box grocery store, and was started at a wage significantly above minimum and allowed to enroll in an employee stock options plan that would give me ownership in the company after 5 years with them. I also got benefits if i worked there full time. Walmart discriminates, pays substandard wages, makes no effort to provide affordable benefits, and is currently facing a class action law suit. Walmart can do better, and if they cleaned up their act then i'm sure many people who boycott their stores would be customers.
Posted by: Patrick | Aug 3, 2005 9:02:40 AM
Chris, There are numerous differences between Walmart and other low-skill jobs such as landscaping. For starters, the wages and benefits that Walmart provides its employees are grossly sub-standard for this industry. Small, immigrant powered landscaping companys don't have much, if any, standard for wages or benefits, and are not jobs that employees can expect to work for more than a decade. Restraunts don't pay great wages to servers true, but any good waiter can make good money on tips. And no one ever farmed to get rich. I've worked for a popular big-box grocery store, and was started at a wage significantly above minimum and allowed to enroll in an employee stock options plan that would give me ownership in the company after 5 years with them. I also got benefits if i worked there full time. Walmart discriminates, pays substandard wages, makes no effort to provide affordable benefits, and is currently facing a class action law suit. Walmart can do better, and if they cleaned up their act then i'm sure many people who boycott their stores would be customers.
Posted by: Patrick | Aug 3, 2005 9:03:23 AM
Patrick, if WalMart -really- was discriminatory and paid substandard wages and bennies, no one would want to work there. WalMart wouldn't be the nation's largest retailer if they treated employees unfairly.
It'll be interesting to see if this lawsuit pans-out and I'm standing by my opinion until a verdict is reached.
It's also interesting how you marginalize other industries, but somehow force WalMart to a greater level of responsibility. I doubt most WalMart employees work there in order to climb the corporate ladder. It's low-skilled labor; as are bus-boys, laborers, warehouse workers, grape pickers, stockers, etc.
Posted by: Chris McMullen | Aug 3, 2005 9:39:49 AM
Martha, I've heard IKEA -is- planning on locating here. But, aren't you worries they'll drive all the smaller furniture stores out of business?
That's one of the main arguments against WalMart.
Posted by: Chris McMullen | Aug 3, 2005 9:42:55 AM
Personally I don't want Portland to look like every other town in America. When Wal-Mart came to the small Texas town I grew up in, all the small local businesses were put out of business. Also, the Super Wal-Marts are a monopoly. It's one stop shopping to get your oil changed, to grab a McDonald's hamburger, grocery shop, clothes shop, rent a video, purchase prescription eye glasses, etc. Everything is under one roof. Convenient, yes. Good for your gas tank, yes. Good for long-term prosperous community viability, absolutely NOT.
Posted by: Melinda | Aug 3, 2005 10:29:39 AM
The possibility of bringing a walmart to S.E. Burnside, if handeled correctly should set forth a long-term positive change for a section of town that is in need of improvement. The city council and local leadership, with concerned citzens, should work with walmart to build a building that would upgrade the neighborhood, and encourage additional develpment. The current mix of used car dealers, tatoo shops, motels that rent by the hour and strip bars, are greater concern to the neighborhood,than a box store. Don't stop the development, manage it to positive change in the area. Bringing in jobs from a large retailer, will create a business climate for smaller business to move in and also create a better enviroment for families to live in the near by area. Because this area of town has not seen much improvement, the type of retailers that compete with a walmart are not well reprented in this area, the ones that are could see a long-term improvement with the growth that could follow. Can't stop change, but you can manage it.
Posted by: tim nielsen | Aug 3, 2005 10:58:28 AM
If this testimony is one-sided, it's because it's trying to address the side that's ignored by those filling up the parking lots. This point cannot be ignored:
"The most obvious, direct economic problem is that they send up to 60-70c of every $1 they receive from customers immediately off to their out-of-state HQ."
Add to that the fact that most of these Big Box Retailers pay barely above the minimum wage, and with some foresight you'll see the end results of years of this money and equity drain from local areas.
My home town is in upstate NY, near Binghamton. When IBM and GE closed down most of their operations there, the local muncipalities courted these Big Box Retailers and were able to attract many of them: Wal-Mart & Sam's Club, Target, Borders, etc. etc. Many "jobs" were created: termporary ones as new giant strip malls and parking lots were built after razing older buildings, some historic, and "long-term" jobs in the minimum wage retail sector. Immediately these companies started forcing locally-owned businesses, some 3-4 generations old, out of commission, and those people were forced to get jobs at the very places that ran them out of work.
Meanwhile, over $0.70/$1.00 spent at these stores leaves the state immediately to go back to the HQ state of each of these retailers. And now people like my Mom have to work at Wal-Mart because there's no local jobs nor businesses left, and she can barely afford to shop at the place she works, even with an employee discount, and still pay her mortgage.
It has ruined the economy of that area of upstate NY (called the "NY southern tier region") and has helped keep in them in a recession that area entered around 1987 to today, a deep recession that's almost 20 years running. The population of the area has dropped by more than 60% in the 20 years because there's no living-wage jobs, and my hometown is destitute.
The local municipalities have lost over 60% of their tax base due to tax breaks to these large retailers and the loss of so many locally-owned businesses. Their approach to that has been to raise local, county and state taxes even higher, which has done nothing except force more business to close and more people to leave the area. My Mom is looking to move in the next year despite having lived her entire 63 years in a house just three blocks from where she was born.
Having watched what happened to my hometown over the last 20 years, I feel Big Box Retailers are worse than any natural disaster, but people do not realize it until it's too late, because it happens more slowly than a hurricane or earthquake and because most people, looking to save a few dollars or "get a good deal" lack the foresight to see what the long-term consequences of these choices are.
Big Box Retailers have devestated NY and are starting to hit a point where some are closing because there's no longer an economic base that provides them enough customers to be profitable. When that happens, all that will be left is big, empty warehouses with hardly any local residents. They're like a Economic Neutron Bomb - the buildings are all standing, but everyone is dead and gone.
Fortunately, there are others like myself who are not willing to stand by and let the short-sightedness and, to be blunt, greed of many people destroy our local economy. I love Portland and plan to spend the rest of my life here, and to do that I want to help build a sustainable local economy. Big Box Retailers are the anathma of that and must be stopped.
Posted by: Rob Vaughn | Aug 3, 2005 11:11:44 AM
Lots of good comments about this. I guess for the most part, perhaps the studies should be copied in the local Wal-Marts. Nothing like having pertinent facts that mean something to US HERE!
Since we have allowed our Fed. reps. to sell out our manufacturing base to overseas mega corporations, we're so broke from working at Wal-Mart that it's the only place we can afford to shop! A vicious "catch 22" if ever there was one. Bleumenour whines about big box stores???? How abuot going back to import tarriffs & getting rid of income tax. Seems to me it worked in building the biggest, strongest nation in the history of the world. Since we now have free trade all over the place & income taxes, coupled with the loss of our manufacturing base, we're all broke, servitudinal slaves. As soon as they get our guns, in the name of fighting terrorism of course, we'll see how ruthless they can really be. When you get shot by a Chinese soldier, with a bullet & gun that you assisted them in making, due to your constantly supporting Wal-mart, then maybe you'll remember this radical lady "told you so"! You're all complaining about symptoms. How about addressing the underlying problem?
Posted by: Ms.? | Aug 3, 2005 12:01:26 PM
This is just more proof about how the city of Portland is anti-business. That's why over 800 Oregonians are moving here (Clark County, Washington) every month. That's how many folks surrender their drivers licenses monthly. No personal income tax and better schools. We do have a sales tax, but we don't pay it if we just drive across the I-5 or I-205 bridge.
Posted by: Richard Carson | Aug 3, 2005 12:03:33 PM
Are we all just preaching to the choir here? Our country needs to accept the responsibility of our own actions. People shop at these stores for the price. If they didn't shop, the store would not be built. Our society has encouraged the pursuit of material goods. You can buy more stuff if it is cheap. Maybe we should focus on education. Teach people that cheaper stuff often breaks sooner or has lower performance. Teach people that saving 23 cents on a product does indeed negatively alter our economy, for all the reasons in prior postings. Then show people that their lives can be improved more through responsible purchasing and restraint than saving a coin or two at BIG BOX.
Posted by: Jim WP | Aug 3, 2005 12:28:05 PM
I agree with you about the Wal-Marts, but not all Big-box are that way. Most of the Lowes and Home Depots require a bit more skill than a clerk, do offer benefits and pay better. I also fear that big projects like Burnside will fail without a "big box" attraction, look at Eastport Plaza. I live downtown, and for me to find a simple plumbing device, I had to go out quite a ways from downtown because I couldn't find it in the local "Hardware Stores". With the population growth downtown, a place to anchor the Burnside Project and a place to get a simple plumbing device makes more sense than planning the retail end be manned with who? It would mean jobs, and an guarantee that this project would float. That would be nice with our tax dollars invested in it.
Posted by: Roger Garland | Aug 3, 2005 6:17:19 PM
Sam,
Just a thought..... If stores and businesses in the areas where Walmart is coming in join Think Local First and strengthen their relationships with their customers in the process (display their decal identifying them as a local business, giving out buttons to customers, having customers sign pledges at their check out counters agreeing to buy local whenever possible, giving out the ten benefits of buying local to customers, putting the Think Local First logo on business card, letterhead, invoices, anything that goes out of their businesses, and even more) the local businesses will have educated the public about their contributions to the community and are far more likely to be supported by the community. It is another thing we all can do to advocate for ourselves. Thank you for doing all you do to benefit local business in Portland.
~Paula Casner for Think Local First
Posted by: Paula Casner | Aug 22, 2005 12:19:19 PM
I don't have a real problem with big box stores. The generally provide a
wider selection, sometimes at lower prices. There are Walmarts in small
towns all over the US including, for example Dallas, Oregon. They keep
business, and jobs in town that used to go to Salem. Thanks
Posted by: Jere Retzer | Aug 22, 2005 12:20:32 PM
I'm not totally against big box retailers but why not give the tax incentives to the local and smaller businesses that will locate in the area instead. These are businesses that provide more stability and better jobs to the community. If the big box retailers want to be part of it then let them pay for the infrastructure. They require many more modifications due to increased traffic and demands on the system. Bigger isn't necessarily better. Also, if there are any special incentives businesses to locate, then they should be prioritized with green building and environmental enhancements coming first.
Posted by: Michael Roth | Aug 29, 2005 4:18:51 PM
Michael,
50% of small businesses fail within 3 years. Many large companies (excluding WalMart) provide superior wages, benefits, and pension programs.
Small businesses are useful as economic engines, but the notion that they provide more stability and better jobs is a myth.
Posted by: user | Sep 16, 2005 9:27:54 PM
Post your comment
Please note: your email address, although required to post, will not be visible. We remove inappropriate or offensive content, and content deemed improper by State and City election and ethics law. The comments posted do not necessarily reflect the views of the office or the City of Portland.
Kind of one-sided testimony. If you look at the parking lots of WalMart, they are pretty full. If these retailers are really that much of a disgrace to our area, then why are they so popular?
I think a lot of the "facts" are twisted around against big-box retailers. I mean isn't that the intent of high-density housing to put as many people in as small a space as possible? I don't understand why we don't rail against these big-box loft developments that basically detroy any semblance of family living in Portland?
Sorry, they provide a service by allowing people to efficiently buy everything in one place at a low cost. That is why they are popular. If Mr Adams wants to take a stand to get TV time, then at least back it up with some facts.
Posted by: Steve | Jul 26, 2005 9:23:41 PM