Wal-Mart has been criticized for going around the city council
of the Los Angeles suburb of Inglewood and asking residents to
vote on whether they wanted a superstore in their neighborhood.
Last
week the nation's largest retailer lost the referendum, which
was seen as a test case for the big-box store's nationwide expansion
strategy - which includes moving into urban areas and, in California
alone, 40 new superstores that would sell groceries in addition
to dry goods.
Generally,
it's not advisable to circumvent the checks and balances of a
city-council approval process. For instance, a "yes"
from Inglewood's voters would have meant Wal-Mart could build
its "supercenter" - as big as 17 football fields - without
public hearings, or traffic and environmental studies.
And
as a rule, it's also best to leave public decisionmaking to elected
officials, because they have the best overview and know the details.
But
Wal-Mart has become such a divisive, hot-button subject - and
a political one, with Democrats and unions leading the fight against
it, and Republicans rallying for consumer choice - that perhaps
the populace is better suited to decide whether it wants the store
in its backyard.
If
anything, the vote in Inglewood showed that residents are capable
of making up their own minds on this complicated issue. And Wal-Mart
is complex. On the one hand, it offers communities undeniable
advantages such as jobs, tax revenue, and prices that save consumers
25 to 35 percent.
On
the other, its nonunion, low-wage jobs depress pay not just in
a community but, because of its size, across industries. In California,
state Democratic legislators complain that Wal-Mart's skimpy health-insurance
coverage leaves many of its workers with no choice but the public
health system. Then there's the complaint that Wal-Mart crushes
local stores, and that its low-cost structure pushes its suppliers
to outsource jobs to China.
The
issue before residents in Inglewood was more straightforward than
this. They simply voted on whether Wal-Mart should be allowed
to bypass local government in building its store. But the complexities
were raised in the campaign, and despite Wal-Mart outspending
the opposition by a factor of 10 to 1, the company still lost.
So
far, Wal-Mart has a mixed record with voters in California. Two
counties supported stores, while Inglewood said "no."
Outside the marketplace, Congress and the federal agencies are
the best places to settle the macroeconomic issues swirling around
Wal-Mart. But when it comes to location, it's obvious that local
populations have strong feelings. They should be allowed their
say.
