Wal-Mart has gained a reputation for destroying small-town main
streets by
putting other retailers out of business, and building sprawling
stores that
generate traffic and pollution. It also is challenging online
retailers and,
with its "supercenters," supermarket chains.
But as the company has run out of small towns to invade, it has
turned
increasingly to urban and dense suburban areas to expand. And,
at least in
California, it has found how true it is that action generates
reaction. Although
other strictures are under consideration elsewhere, it was citizens
of Inglewood
in Los Angeles County who showed that Goliath can be defeated.
Wal-Mart, changing its usual tactics and attempting to outmaneuver
elected
Inglewood authorities, went the referendum route to win approval
of a proposed
development the size of 17 football fields. It spent more than
$1 million
gathering signatures, advertising and engaging in other public-relations
gambits
to overturn a city council ruling and to exempt the project from
any further
review.
The effort backfired. On April 6, residents rejected Wal-Mart's
initiative
7,049 to 4,575. But while this was a victory for the community,
other
municipalities should view it only with cautious optimism.
Wal-Mart is as aggressive as any when it comes to expansion. Battles
with it
will not subside as long as there is a conflict between residents'
desire to
balance jobs, housing and commercial development on a scale that
supports their
quality of life, and a Wal-Mart business model that demands huge
commercial
developments that ripple through local economies.
Why all the controversy? The main difference is scale: Wal-Mart
dwarfs most
competitors. But, it is often argued, Wal-Mart brings jobs and
tax revenue.
Right? Wrong.
The stores create jobs initially, but most studies show that the
jobs
generated are merely lower-paid replacements for ones lost due
to the
competition. Smart-growth advocates note that Wal-Mart's developments
generate
traffic, noise and further car-dependent land uses.
Cumulatively, these effects have ruined downtowns and undermined
local
economies. As a result, sales- and property-tax values can actually
decline in a
city as competing commercial space becomes vacant and blight develops.
Overall, research on the company and communities is demonstrating
that the
municipal revenue and job creation often touted by company officials
fail to
meet expectations. Over time many communities have felt more harm
than help
after Wal-Mart came to town. So, can anyone blame the people of
Inglewood for
not embracing the nation's largest retailer with open arms?
What Wal-Mart does not understand is that despite proposing a
development
that may meet or exceed environmental and land-use criteria, and
touting jobs
and municipal revenues, it may still face stiff community opposition.
There are several reasons for this, the least of which is Wal-Mart's
typical
retort "this is just labor making a fuss." In reality,
many of the issues --
traffic, the destruction of locally owned businesses, and low
wages and benefits
-- are not fully addressed by existing development guidelines.
And,
increasingly, these are issues that all community residents care
about -- not
just labor, smart-growth advocates and environmentalists.
There is no denying Wal-Mart's success at cost control and its
extraordinary
growth. What is often overlooked is how the company reflects the
broader
processes of globalization: Wal-Mart has immense capital, economies
of scale and
can source the cheapest goods from anywhere in the world. As such,
it reflects a
domestic economy in which many American cities no longer produce
and sell and
buy local goods, and one that has left behind many less-educated
former factory
workers.
Rather than acknowledge and address such issues through collaboration
with
communities, Wal-Mart's strategy has been to bulldoze planning
groups and
elected officials, and hire public-relations consultants.
Unfortunately, in such cases, both the company and communities
lose. The
company spends a lot of money, communities do not get a project
they hoped would
meet their concerns, and transparency and civic democracy suffer.
One solution is to have Wal-Mart and communities actually sit
down at the
table and attempt to have an open discussion about the issues.
But if events in
Inglewood are any indication, the company seems to be more intent
on having its
own way -- regardless.
