Two
Los Angeles City Council committees Wednesday unanimously approved
a proposal to make it harder for Wal-Mart to open mammoth superstores
in the city.
If
the full City Council approves the ordinance next week, Wal-Mart
and other large retailers will have to pay for an economic analysis
to show if a proposed store will eliminate jobs, depress wages
or harm businesses in nearby neighborhoods.
City
officials would then consider the report's conclusions in deciding
whether to permit construction of a superstore.
"We
seek to be involved here with the impact on neighborhoods and
the avoidance of blight," Councilman Eric Garcetti told a
hearing packed with people wearing T-shirts that said, "Neighborhoods
Deserve a Voice."
The
vote marks another milestone in the faceoff between the world's
largest company and some governments in California and their allies
in organized labor.
After
the vote, Councilman Ed Reyes said he would not be surprised if
Wal-Mart filed a lawsuit.
But
Wal-Mart spokesman Peter Kanelos said the company would "wait
and see" what the full council did before making any decisions.
He
said city officials had amended their proposal more than once.
Since
nonunion Wal-Mart announced plans a few years ago to build 40
Supercenters in California - 200,000-square-foot stores with groceries
as well as the discount retailer's usual clothing and household
goods - some communities and labor groups have opposed them.
Wal-Mart
officials say that they are trying to give consumers what they
want: low prices, jobs for young people and sales tax revenue
for cash-strapped cities.
Garcetti
and Reyes introduced a proposal more than two years ago to ban
Supercenters in most areas of the city.
Earlier
this year, they modified that proposal, dropping the outright
ban and instead requiring companies to show that a superstore
would not harm communities.
Elsewhere
in California, Wal-Mart has fought bans by filing lawsuits or
persuading voters to repeal government prohibitions on the centers.
In
Inglewood earlier this year, voters rebuffed a Wal-Mart-sponsored
measure that would have allowed the company to erect a store there
without the usual planning studies or public hearings.
Los
Angeles officials have watched those battles closely as they have
crafted their own proposal.
Some
officials have braced for Wal-Mart to sue or resort to the ballot
box.
But
those officials have said such regulation is necessary to protect
the quality of life and good-paying jobs for city residents.
Los
Angeles officials praised the vote, as did labor officials.
"Do
we want to live in a city where cheap goods are valued over vibrant
neighborhoods?" asked Rick Icaza, president of the United
Food and Commercial Workers, which represents supermarket employees.
"The people of Los Angeles deserve better."
