| Author |
Message |
Theresa
Lux Mihi Deus
Joined: 17 Jun 2001
Posts: 27256
Location: United States of America
|
 Wed May 24, 2006 11:35 am Town of Hercules Blocks Wal-Mart |
|
| Quote: | By JUSTIN M. NORTON, AP
HERCULES, Calif. (May 24) - A San Francisco suburb voted Tuesday night to use the power of eminent domain to keep Wal-Mart Stores Inc. off a piece of city land after hearing from dozens of residents who accused the big-box retailer of engaging in scare tactics to force its way into the bedroom community.
The overflow crowd that packed into the tiny Hercules City Hall cheered after the five-person City Council voted unanimously to use the unusual tactic to seize the 17 acres where Wal-Mart intended to build a shopping complex.
"The citizens have spoken. No to Wal-Mart," said Kofi Mensah, who has lived in Hercules for more than two decades and said he values the city's authentic feel.
Attorneys from Wal-Mart, based at Bentonville, Ark., told the council that the retailer had spent close to $1 million to redesign the property to the community's liking. They said the council couldn't claim it was legally necessary to take the land and that the decision set a bad precedent.
"Today it may be Wal-Mart but the question is where does it end," Wal-Mart attorney Edward G. Burg said.
City officials countered that buying the land was acceptable to ensure it was developed to the community's liking and fit in with overall plans for the city.
Opponents worried that Wal-Mart would drive local retailers out of business, tie up traffic and wreck the small-town flavor of this city of 24,000.
Wal-Mart spokesman Kevin Loscotoff said after the hearing that the company had not decided how to proceed with its plans in light of the decision.
Wal-Mart's initial proposal for a 142,000-square foot store near Hercules' San Pablo Bay waterfront was rejected by the City Council. So the company submitted a scaled-down plan that included a pedestrian plaza, two outdoor eating areas and other small shops, including a pharmacy.
Hercules said no again, and opponents began raising the possibility of eminent domain, a legal tactic where government agencies can take land from its owners for the public good.
Cities sometimes use eminent domain to build roads or redevelop properties, but the owners must be paid fair market value for their land.
The U.S. Supreme Court ruled last year that such seizures are allowable if the construction raises the tax base and benefits the entire community.
Some residents and Hercules city officials say the land, which is currently open space, would be better suited for upscale stores that attract affluent shoppers and give the suburb a classy touch.
Officials say using eminent domain is a new tactic in a fight that's occurred elsewhere. Communities across the country have kept Wal-Mart out by imposing size caps for businesses and laws that set high minimum pay rates.
Jeri Wilgus, 47, said she was proud of the council for standing up to Wal-Mart and said the town could show others how to fight back against big corporations.
"We are setting an example for the rest of the country," she said.
A handful of residents said Wal-Mart could provide a much-needed place to purchase inexpensive goods, particularly for residents who can't drive out of town.
"I know I can go there and get a fair price for a good product," said Glenna Phillips, who has lived in Hercules for 26 years.
05/24/06 04:43 EDT
Copyright 2006 The Associated Press |
| Quote: | Would you like to see a Wal-Mart in your hometown?
We have one already 53%
No 34%
Yes 13%
Total Votes: 12,031 |
I don't know the particulars of this town, but Bangor voted to block a supercenter after allowing a Walmart years before. I'm fairly glad about that.
-------signature-------
Some of us fall by the wayside
And some of us soar to the stars
And some of us sail through our troubles
And some have to live with our scars
|
|
|
LightningBoy
Commodore
Joined: 09 Mar 2003
Posts: 1446
Location: Minnesota, U.S.A.
|
| Wed May 24, 2006 12:47 pm |
|
Funny, people whine about Wal Marts being in their town all across the board; but when it comes to prices, they have no qualms going into someone ELSES neighborhood to shop at one.
If Wal Mart wants to build in my town, I GLADLY welcome it. Hopefully they build the biggest one ever.
|
|
|
Leo Wyatt
Sweetest Angel
Joined: 25 Feb 2004
Posts: 19045
Location: Investigating A Crime Scene. What did Quark do this time?
|
| Wed May 24, 2006 1:41 pm |
|
We have a super Wal-Mart in our town and it seems like people live there 24/7. The check out lines is always backed up to the clothing section 99% percent of the time. If anyone needs anything, they have to wait til like 3 am to go to Wal-Mart. Yeah Wal-Mart is best to buy groceries and clothes but it is way too crowded. I know Hinesville needs a Target so Wal-Mart can have some competition so Wal-Mart won't be crowded here lol.
But it depends on how big of a city that Wal-Mart is going to be built. Some Cities are big and might need more than one Wal-Mart so I don't think people should complain unless they live in a small town like me.
|
|
|
Theresa
Lux Mihi Deus
Joined: 17 Jun 2001
Posts: 27256
Location: United States of America
|
| Wed May 24, 2006 3:20 pm |
|
| LightningBoy wrote: | Funny, people whine about Wal Marts being in their town all across the board; but when it comes to prices, they have no qualms going into someone ELSES neighborhood to shop at one.
|
That is not true. And we really don't do the whole generalzing thing, you know.
I stop into Walmart on occasion. To see my friends, and that's all. I worked there for three years, so I know very well the *beep* the employees have to put up with. "Associates" my ass.
-------signature-------
Some of us fall by the wayside
And some of us soar to the stars
And some of us sail through our troubles
And some have to live with our scars
|
|
|
Puck
The Texan
Joined: 05 Jan 2004
Posts: 5596
|
| Wed May 24, 2006 5:03 pm |
|
We have one in Lewisville, but it is along the area of Main Street where alot of other stores and stuff are, and it's not really near residential areas. I guess it just depends on the size of the town. Lewisville can fit a Walmart into an area with alot of other stores without it looking out of place, because it is a fairly large suburb. If I lived in a smaller town though, I probably would be against it though.
|
|
|
borgslayer
Rear Admiral
Joined: 27 Aug 2003
Posts: 2646
Location: Las Vegas
|
| Wed May 24, 2006 5:51 pm |
|
Wal-Mart started small just like any other store chains. People dislike Wal-Mart because they have become to big and has surpassed many of its competetors.
Nothing wrong with Wal-Mart, Wal-Mart just needs to build in places that is not near a small grocery chain.
|
|
|
Theresa
Lux Mihi Deus
Joined: 17 Jun 2001
Posts: 27256
Location: United States of America
|
| Wed May 24, 2006 5:59 pm |
|
It really surprises me how little people know about how Walmart conducts business. It's all right here, available to see.
-------signature-------
Some of us fall by the wayside
And some of us soar to the stars
And some of us sail through our troubles
And some have to live with our scars
|
|
|
Lord Borg
Fleet Admiral
Joined: 27 May 2003
Posts: 11214
Location: Vulcan Capital City, Vulcan
|
| Wed May 24, 2006 6:03 pm |
|
I am starting to like them less and less. I still go there for certain things, but for movies and similar things its not worth it anymore, they never have anything, you can never find it due to constant re arrangement, they got lo prices thats what makes me look there for season sets.
|
|
|
Republican_Man
STV's Premier Conservative
Joined: 26 Mar 2004
Posts: 14823
Location: Classified
|
| Wed May 24, 2006 7:30 pm |
|
I'm on the other side. This isn't right, not at all. They own it legitimately and now the city's using Eminent Domain to take rightfully-bought property? That's not right, especially considering the city can't afford it.
The city has a plan for development? That's great. But to take Wal-Mart out by these means just isn't the right way to go. I am firmly opposed to Eminent Domain, and this is just another example of misuse of it once again.
Oh, and did I mention I love Wal-Mart?
-------signature-------
"Rights are only as good as the willingness of some to exercise responsibility for those rights- Fmr. Colorado Senate Pres. John Andrews
|
|
|
Lord Borg
Fleet Admiral
Joined: 27 May 2003
Posts: 11214
Location: Vulcan Capital City, Vulcan
|
| Wed May 24, 2006 7:35 pm |
|
| Republican_Man wrote: | I'm on the other side. This isn't right, not at all. They own it legitimately and now the city's using Eminent Domain to take rightfully-bought property? That's not right, especially considering the city can't afford it.
The city has a plan for development? That's great. But to take Wal-Mart out by these means just isn't the right way to go. I am firmly opposed to Eminent Domain, and this is just another example of misuse of it once again.
Oh, and did I mention I love Wal-Mart? |
I think it's fair, especialy if it don't "fit" I know of several areas in this state where stratigicly, wal mart would want to build, but they wouldn't "fit" with the area ya'know? Plus wal=marts business tatics are not exactly very nice. I think it should be within the right of the government to say no.
|
|
|
Puck
The Texan
Joined: 05 Jan 2004
Posts: 5596
|
| Wed May 24, 2006 7:37 pm |
|
Why don't the people of the city decide by not going to the Wal-Mart, should it be built? If they really don't want it, they won't go to it.
|
|
|
Lord Borg
Fleet Admiral
Joined: 27 May 2003
Posts: 11214
Location: Vulcan Capital City, Vulcan
|
| Wed May 24, 2006 7:41 pm |
|
It's not the simple really, Wal-Mart would still get business from the people that still go, due to the location
|
|
|
Republican_Man
STV's Premier Conservative
Joined: 26 Mar 2004
Posts: 14823
Location: Classified
|
| Wed May 24, 2006 7:55 pm |
|
Well, I would agree with your theory, LB, were it not for the fact that Wal-Mart already bought the property. We live in a free market society where if a business buys land, it's theirs. Unless there's true, honest, logical, good legal reasoning for it to be condemned, it should remain in Wal-Mart's hands, plain and simple. It may be wrong (and that's up to you), but that doesn't change the facts of our wonderful economic system, which does have its flaws.
If you and Hercules don't like the way the system works, move to Cuba or some other non-capitalist state. You'll be better off there 
-------signature-------
"Rights are only as good as the willingness of some to exercise responsibility for those rights- Fmr. Colorado Senate Pres. John Andrews
|
|
|
Lord Borg
Fleet Admiral
Joined: 27 May 2003
Posts: 11214
Location: Vulcan Capital City, Vulcan
|
| Wed May 24, 2006 7:59 pm |
|
It's not plain and simple, Wal-Mart would totally change that town. I am sure there are some sort of fears we don't know of for why they are doing this.
|
|
|
Theresa
Lux Mihi Deus
Joined: 17 Jun 2001
Posts: 27256
Location: United States of America
|
| Wed May 24, 2006 8:05 pm |
|
In several instances, communities have paid WM millions of dollars to build there. Then they give them tax break after tax break. They don't do that across the board, which is wrong.
And the whole "Walmart cares about the community/it's employees", is totally bogus. They actually showed us videos during training why unions were bad. And they don't help their employees out. The employees take care of each other. At my store, it was referred to as the "Sunshine Fund". They refuse to bump you up so that you can get benefits, and instead give you information on how to get welfare and medicaid. They actually have people who will fill out the paperwork for you. So basically, the state is the people's medical provider.
If people took two seconds to think about how it is they could afford to sell things so cheaply...
-------signature-------
Some of us fall by the wayside
And some of us soar to the stars
And some of us sail through our troubles
And some have to live with our scars
|
|
|
Lord Borg
Fleet Admiral
Joined: 27 May 2003
Posts: 11214
Location: Vulcan Capital City, Vulcan
|
| Wed May 24, 2006 8:09 pm |
|
| Theresa wrote: | In several instances, communities have paid WM millions of dollars to build there. Then they give them tax break after tax break. They don't do that across the board, which is wrong.
And the whole "Walmart cares about the community/it's employees", is totally bogus. They actually showed us videos during training why unions were bad. And they don't help their employees out. The employees take care of each other. At my store, it was referred to as the "Sunshine Fund". They refuse to bump you up so that you can get benefits, and instead give you information on how to get welfare and medicaid. They actually have people who will fill out the paperwork for you. So basically, the state is the people's medical provider.
If people took two seconds to think about how it is they could afford to sell things so cheaply... |
Being as they treat those asking questions like thier idiots, I can belive that...
|
|
|
Theresa
Lux Mihi Deus
Joined: 17 Jun 2001
Posts: 27256
Location: United States of America
|
| Wed May 24, 2006 8:21 pm |
|
| Quote: | Wal-Mart Memo Suggests Ways to Cut Employee Benefit Costs
By Steven Greenhouse and Michael Barbaro
The New York Times
Wednesday 26 October 2005
An internal memo sent to Wal-Mart's board of directors proposes numerous ways to hold down spending on health care and other benefits while seeking to minimize damage to the retailer's reputation. Among the recommendations are hiring more part-time workers and discouraging unhealthy people from working at Wal-Mart.
In the memorandum, M. Susan Chambers, Wal-Mart's executive vice president for benefits, also recommends reducing 401(k) contributions and wooing younger, and presumably healthier, workers by offering education benefits. The memo voices concern that workers with seven years' seniority earn more than workers with one year's seniority, but are no more productive.
To discourage unhealthy job applicants, Ms. Chambers suggests that Wal-Mart arrange for "all jobs to include some physical activity (e.g., all cashiers do some cart-gathering)."
The memo acknowledged that Wal-Mart, the world's largest retailer, had to walk a fine line in restraining benefit costs because critics had attacked it for being stingy on wages and health coverage. Ms. Chambers acknowledged that 46 percent of the children of Wal-Mart's 1.33 million United States employees were uninsured or on Medicaid.
Wal-Mart executives said the memo was part of an effort to rein in benefit costs, which to Wall Street's dismay have soared by 15 percent a year on average since 2002. Like much of corporate America, Wal-Mart has been squeezed by soaring health costs. The proposed plan, if approved, would save the company more than $1 billion a year by 2011.
In an interview, Ms. Chambers said she was focusing not on cutting costs, but on serving employees better by giving them more choices on their benefits.
"We are investing in our benefits that will take even better care of our associates," she said. "Our benefit plan is known today as being generous."
Ms. Chambers also said that she made her recommendations after surveying employees about how they felt about the benefits plan. "This is not about cutting," she said. "This is about redirecting savings to another part of their benefit plans."
One proposal would reduce the amount of time, from two years to one, that part-time employees would have to wait before qualifying for health insurance. Another would put health clinics in stores, in part to reduce expensive employee visits to emergency rooms. Wal-Mart's benefit costs jumped to $4.2 billion last year, from $2.8 billion three years earlier, causing concern within the company because benefits represented an increasing share of sales. Last year, Wal-Mart earned $10.5 billion on sales of $285 billion.
A draft memo to Wal-Mart's board was obtained from Wal-Mart Watch, a nonprofit group, allied with labor unions, that asserts that Wal-Mart's pay and benefits are too low. Tracy Sefl, a spokeswoman for Wal-Mart Watch, said someone mailed the document anonymously to her group last month. When asked about the memo, Wal-Mart officials made available the updated copy that actually went to the board.
Under fire because less than 45 percent of its workers receive company health insurance, Wal-Mart announced a new plan on Monday that seeks to increase participation by allowing some employees to pay just $11 a month in premiums. Some health experts praised the plan for making coverage more affordable, but others criticized it, noting that full-time Wal-Mart employees, who earn on average around $17,500 a year, could face out-of-pocket expenses of $2,500 a year or more.
Eager to burnish Wal-Mart's image as it faces opposition in trying to expand into New York, Chicago and Los Angeles, Wal-Mart's chief executive, H. Lee Scott Jr., also announced on Monday a sweeping plan to conserve energy. He also said that Wal-Mart supported raising the minimum wage to help Wal-Mart's customers.
The theme throughout the memo was how to slow the increase in benefit costs without giving more ammunition to critics who contend that Wal-Mart's wages and benefits are dragging down those of other American workers.
Ms. Chambers proposed that employees pay more for their spouses' health insurance. She called for cutting 401(k) contributions to 3 percent of wages from 4 percent and cutting company-paid life insurance policies to $12,000 from the current level, equal to an employee's annual earnings.
Life insurance, she said, was "a high-satisfaction, low-importance benefit, which suggests an opportunity to trim the offering without substantial impact on associate satisfaction." Wal-Mart refers to its employees as associates.
Acknowledging that Wal-Mart has image problems, Ms. Chambers wrote: "Wal-Mart's critics can easily exploit some aspects of our benefits offering to make their case; in other words, our critics are correct in some of their observations. Specifically, our coverage is expensive for low-income families, and Wal-Mart has a significant percentage of associates and their children on public assistance."
Her memo stated that 5 percent of Wal-Mart's workers were on Medicaid, compared with 4 percent for other national employers. She said that Wal-Mart spent $1.5 billion a year on health insurance, which amounts to $2,660 per insured worker.
The memo, prepared with the help of McKinsey & Company, said the board was to consider the recommendations in November. But the memo said that three top Wal-Mart officials - its chief financial officer, its top human relations executive and its executive vice president for legal and corporate affairs - had "received the recommendations enthusiastically."
Ms. Chambers's memo voiced concern that workers were staying with the company longer, pushing up wage costs, although she stopped short of calling for efforts to push out more senior workers.
She wrote that "the cost of an associate with seven years of tenure is almost 55 percent more than the cost of an associate with one year of tenure, yet there is no difference in his or her productivity. Moreover, because we pay an associate more in salary and benefits as his or her tenure increases, we are pricing that associate out of the labor market, increasing the likelihood that he or she will stay with Wal-Mart."
The memo noted that Wal-Mart workers "are getting sicker than the national population, particularly in obesity-related diseases," including diabetes and coronary artery disease. The memo said Wal-Mart workers tended to overuse emergency rooms and underuse prescriptions and doctor visits, perhaps from previous experience with Medicaid.
The memo noted, "The least healthy, least productive associates are more satisfied with their benefits than other segments and are interested in longer careers with Wal-Mart."
The memo proposed incorporating physical activity in all jobs and promoting health savings accounts. Such accounts are financed with pretax dollars and allow workers to divert their contributions into retirement savings if they are not all spent on health care. Health experts say these accounts will be more attractive to younger, healthier workers.
"It will be far easier to attract and retain a healthier work force than it will be to change behavior in an existing one," the memo said. "These moves would also dissuade unhealthy people from coming to work at Wal-Mart."
Ron Pollack, executive director of Families U.S.A., a health care consumer-advocacy group, criticized the memo for recommending that more workers move into health plans with high deductibles.
"Their people are paying a very substantial portion of their earnings out of pocket for health care," he said. "These plans will cause these workers and their families to defer or refrain from getting needed care."
The memo noted that 38 percent of Wal-Mart workers spent more than one-sixth of their Wal-Mart income on health care last year.
By reducing the amount of time part-timers must work to qualify for health insurance, Wal-Mart is hoping to allay some of its critics.
One proposal under consideration would offer new employees "limited funding" so they could "gain access to the private insurance market" after 30 days of employment while waiting to join Wal-Mart's plan.
Such assistance, the memo stated, "would give us a powerful set of messages to use in combating critics. (For instance, 'Wal-Mart offers associates access to health insurance after they've worked with us for just 30 days.')"
|
-------signature-------
Some of us fall by the wayside
And some of us soar to the stars
And some of us sail through our troubles
And some have to live with our scars
|
|
|
Lord Borg
Fleet Admiral
Joined: 27 May 2003
Posts: 11214
Location: Vulcan Capital City, Vulcan
|
| Wed May 24, 2006 8:28 pm |
|
Isn't that againts the Law? Last time I checked, it was.
|
|
|
TrekkieMage
Office Junkie
Joined: 17 Oct 2004
Posts: 5335
Location: Hiding
|
| Wed May 24, 2006 9:32 pm |
|
Good for them. I think that Wal-mart has gotten out of hand, someone needs to step in and force them to face the consiquences of their actions because they've gotten away with far too much.
I can also proudly say that there isn't a Wal-mart anywhere near me. So along with the citizens of Hercules, the Nations capital has proudly refused (somehow) Wal-marts. We prefer Target around here
|
|
|
Republican_Man
STV's Premier Conservative
Joined: 26 Mar 2004
Posts: 14823
Location: Classified
|
| Wed May 24, 2006 9:38 pm |
|
But what is this a consequence of? This isn't a consequence for bad business policies. It's a consequence buying land--that's it. It's no crime to buy land and start to work it for business. What it should be a crime for, however, is the government to just come in and think they can take private land for its own use.
-------signature-------
"Rights are only as good as the willingness of some to exercise responsibility for those rights- Fmr. Colorado Senate Pres. John Andrews
|
|
|
Theresa
Lux Mihi Deus
Joined: 17 Jun 2001
Posts: 27256
Location: United States of America
|
| Wed May 24, 2006 9:47 pm |
|
I think the main topic people are addressing here is the reasoning for stopping a Walmart...
And if people don't want a Walmart, it isn't because they have great business policies.
-------signature-------
Some of us fall by the wayside
And some of us soar to the stars
And some of us sail through our troubles
And some have to live with our scars
|
|
|
Republican_Man
STV's Premier Conservative
Joined: 26 Mar 2004
Posts: 14823
Location: Classified
|
| Wed May 24, 2006 9:49 pm |
|
A guy from the community was just on O'Reilly. The reason for stopping it wasn't because of disagreement with the policies, but over a development plan that the city had been working on for some time now.
I'm glad to say that, despite their not-so-great business policies, there are at least two Wal-Marts within 20 minutes of my house, if not three. I like Wal-Mart, as they can really provide a good service and all that. I prefer them over Target, and that has nothing to do with the rumors that Target is French-run
-------signature-------
"Rights are only as good as the willingness of some to exercise responsibility for those rights- Fmr. Colorado Senate Pres. John Andrews
|
|
|
Lord Borg
Fleet Admiral
Joined: 27 May 2003
Posts: 11214
Location: Vulcan Capital City, Vulcan
|
| Wed May 24, 2006 9:55 pm |
|
Eh, the same with Bangor I think, where they wanted to contruct the super wal-mart had wild life and such
|
|
|
Republican_Man
STV's Premier Conservative
Joined: 26 Mar 2004
Posts: 14823
Location: Classified
|
| Wed May 24, 2006 9:58 pm |
|
That's what zoning laws are for, sir. What you do is you prevent them from starting up an outlet there before they do it, not after. 
-------signature-------
"Rights are only as good as the willingness of some to exercise responsibility for those rights- Fmr. Colorado Senate Pres. John Andrews
|
|
|
Theresa
Lux Mihi Deus
Joined: 17 Jun 2001
Posts: 27256
Location: United States of America
|
| Wed May 24, 2006 10:09 pm |
|
Bangor did stop it before,
And WM has way too many bad policies. With their employees, customers, and suppliers.
-------signature-------
Some of us fall by the wayside
And some of us soar to the stars
And some of us sail through our troubles
And some have to live with our scars
|
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2002 phpBB Group
Star Trek �, in all its various forms, are trademarks & copyrights of Paramount Pictures
This site has no official connection with Star Trek or Paramount Pictures
Site content/Site design elements owned by Morphy and is meant to only be an archive/Tribute to STV.com
|
Search
FAQ
Log in
