With policies like this, no wonder California is going broke

Search

New member
Joined
Sep 21, 2004
Messages
8,781
Tokens
I want someone to tell me how this does a city any good, especially if neighboring cities just go an open a Walmart and take your tax dollars. Practically, economically, socially...this is plain stupid policy but none of this ever surprises coming out of California anymore.

What is next, will mayor Brown and his council tell residents what restaurants and food people can eat for dinner???



Oakland Bans Wal-Mart Style Superstores
By Andrea Orr

SAN FRANCISCO (Reuters) - The city of Oakland, just across the bay from San Francisco, has banned mega-stores like Wal-Mart super centers from opening there, saying they would threaten smaller stores and depress wages.

The move comes as Wal-Mart Stores Inc., the world's largest retailer, plans an aggressive roll-out of super centers in California, with 40 such centers set to open throughout the state over the next four years.


Wal-Mart had no specific plan to open a super center in Oakland and a company spokeswoman said the ordinance was a blow to consumer choice.


The Oakland city council on Tuesday banned the opening of any "big box" retailer with more than 10,000 square feet of nontaxable sales, which typically means floor space devoted to selling groceries. Officials said the action was directed specifically at Wal-Mart.


In recent years, Wal-Mart has stepped up growth of its super centers. Those stores include grocery items and are more than twice as large as its regular discount stores.


Critics are increasingly charging these ultra-large stores that offer rock-bottom prices are making it difficult for mom-and-pop stores and even some fairly large retail chains to compete.


"Oakland has a lot of neighborhood stores," said Oakland city council member Jane Brunner, who said the move banning the super centers was designed to protect those smaller outlets and their employees.


The dispute over Wal-Mart's expansion comes amid a strike by U.S. supermarket workers in southern California and other parts of the country. Representatives for the United Food and Commercial Workers Union say Wal-Mart's expansion has put pressure on other grocery chains to keep wages low.


She cited data showing the average Wal-Mart sales clerk earned between $7 and $8 per hour, while the average wage for a check-out clerk at the Albertsons Inc. chain was $18 an hour.


"We are clearly disappointed," said Amy Hills, a spokeswoman for Wal-Mart Stores, which has also objected to a similar ban passed by Contra Costa County near Oakland. Wal-Mart may also soon have to contend with a third ban being considered in Los Angeles.


"We feel the actions taken are anti-consumer and anti-competitive. Oakland is trying to create a false marketplace by not allowing all retailers to compete," Hill said.


Hill said that Wal-Mart wages are competitive with other retailers in all the markets in which it operates.


But Barbara Maynard, a representative for the United Food and Commercial Workers Union in southern California, said there was "no question" that Wal-Mart had depressed wages industry wide.
 

New member
Joined
Sep 21, 2004
Messages
5,398
Tokens
LMAO.

I wonder what it is about Wal-Mart that gets politicians and special interests in such a frenzy? I mean, it's not even consistent ... here you have them being banned because of the "threat" they represent to small business (i.e., competition and great benefits to consumers) and in other places you have people being robbed of their property just to pave the way for more to be built (thread here.)

Something about a rabidly successful capitalist enterprise just gets everybody all worked up.


Phaedrus
 

New member
Joined
Sep 21, 2004
Messages
649
Tokens
I love it. Call me a pinko socialist but God bless Brown. Personally this country needs more guys like him and alot less like Steven Burd and anyone with the last name Walmart.
1041579183.gif
 

New member
Joined
Sep 21, 2004
Messages
8,781
Tokens
Its just nice that policy makers never tell the full truth, its all about half-disclosure. Passing things such as this mean that thousands suffer higher prices and less convenience for the benefit of a small number of fairly well off citizens(store owners and their landlords). Amazing a city with such large pockets of poverty and unemployment like Oakland can get away with protecting the rich and their "diversity" while screwing over the poor and their need to have low prices to be able to afford life in such a high cost area. I normally wouldn't get into that particular argument, but I just find it deliciously ironic that the politicians of Oakland didn't raise this particular angle. After all those from the ghettos of West Oakland are a lot more likely to shop at Walmart instead of a mom and pop with organic food and sky high prices. Add to that the mom and pop isn't as likely to hire the people from the ghetto as Walmart would. So can we say that Oakland has gone to a protectionism for the rich???
 

New member
Joined
Sep 21, 2004
Messages
2,228
Tokens
The problem is the destruction of communities.

These big corporate minimum wage warehouses spring up like mushrooms and hoover wealth and diversity from the local area.

And if/when the area is stuffed, they shut down and leave.

They have no roots, and no community connections.
Best to put them 12 miles out of town, where they belong.
 

New member
Joined
Sep 21, 2004
Messages
2,228
Tokens
I was wandering around one the other week.

Everything is concrete, tarmac, preform, glass and corrugated bolt-on coverings.
A few sorry looking trees, here and there in the car park, before entering the corporate cathedral dedicated to filthy lucre.

Alongside it, owned by the socialist baby eating council, was a park, that you could have a seat in, and look at green stuff like grass and trees, it was about the same size and shape as the shopping centre.

Someone had bashed holes in the park fence and wall, so that people could get out of the centre and sit on the grass and under the trees.

Or, so that people could escape from the nightmare of sitting in the park alongside trees and bushes and run to do lots of shopping in the retail place, and wander around on the tarmac and concrete.

I know which one my money is on.
 

New member
Joined
Sep 21, 2004
Messages
2,228
Tokens
WildBill.
Its nice that large multinational conglomerate corporations are only here to help the poor amongst us.
I am surprised that the Pope has not yet created a Saint Walmart or equivalent, for all the wonderful work that these fine upstanding companies have done over the last one hundred years.

In fact, now I think about it, is there ANY private company that has actually done ANYTHING exceptional for ANY society.

Im going on a cider rant here.
But this time it stays in one thread.
 

New member
Joined
Sep 21, 2004
Messages
2,228
Tokens
We have had nationalised industries in this country in previous years, the UK.
Two of the biggest were the Mines and British Telecom.
Average them out about 30-40 years each.
They were both destroyed by the-bitch-Thatcher around 1985.

The two biggest workers' pension funds in the UK are STILL the BT and mineworkers pensions, nearly 20 years after the companies were destroyed.

EVERY private company in the entire country does not even come close to the accumulated wealth available for distribution to retired nationalised-industry workers.

100 years of private companies, and they cant even come CLOSE.

Plus that cash pond is keeping the stock market very happy(whichever private companies manage it and tweak the management charges)and the retired employees, all of them, are laughing compared with these shitty mean-as-fuk private companies.

But these companies never had shareholders, thats why they accumulated so much cash.

the-bitch-Thatcher sold them to the British public around 1987, even though they were already owned by the british public, only the rich people bought them...

BT is now a corporate joke. (Yahoo...??)
The mines are total history.
 

New member
Joined
Sep 21, 2004
Messages
2,228
Tokens
Maybe one day, away in the future.
The USA will have one, single, nationalised industry. Water. Power.Telecoms. Health.Housing.Extraction.

Whatever. Just ONE.

And a whole new world of wealth will open up for those lucky enough to be a part of that industry.
They will work, like we all have to, but they will also derive long term benefits for themselves, their children, and their childrens children.

Benefits far greater than those that any of the cheap-as-chips private companies could ever offer to those willing to put 20-40 years of their best years into.
 

New member
Joined
Sep 21, 2004
Messages
2,228
Tokens
The jealousy arguement. Mr Gates etc.

Its a good one, often used and, is definitely relevant if you are only dealing with the stupid people.

But we're not all bloody stupid.

The Top ender is power,(TV and Judiciary stuff) where a corporate gets sooo big, it actually creates fear and uncertainty in the political zone.
No company has breached that glass ceiling yet, its only a matter of time, I will be old and drooling before it happens. So, its not my problem.

The bottom end is the lack of choice, you wind up with a situation no better than communism because any threat to the established system is either snuffed out or bought out.

The solution to that, will come from the US because you have companies that could breach the walls of established society, but you are possibly too unsure to meet it head on, and there is a distinct possibility that europe could do it for you.
Its a hard call, because the US can be very smart sometimes, and play a good game of hardball.

I'm not jealous of Bill, I only fear the LACK OF CHOICE that his company could produce.

I dont care if hes got 500 million zillion squillion dollars.
Hes still a specky.

billgates.gif


and he should get a better wig...

[This message was edited by eek on October 24, 2003 at 08:47 PM.]
 

New member
Joined
Sep 21, 2004
Messages
2,228
Tokens
Last call.

Before the u hate America neo-con threads.

I am UK. Who have we got?
The French.
The Germans......gimme a fukkin break
The Italians.
The Spanish.
Yugoslavia just finished a pile of genocidal stupidity in Clintons era.

The europeans are WAY too unstable.
The reason the UK looks so grotty, we have hundreds of years of stability.
George Orwell couldn't believe it when 2 million men handed back their guns to the Government after WW2 in the UK. He had to re-appraise his entire approach to the psychology of society.

The Yanks are all we have left.
Theres a bunch of us in Iraq, who think you're mad, and should unass the area ASAP.

We've been there before, a long time ago, we left, they dont want us, and they definitely dont want us to run their country.

Stay sane America.
Don't let us down.

[This message was edited by eek on October 24, 2003 at 09:27 PM.]
 

New member
Joined
Sep 21, 2004
Messages
5,398
Tokens
posted by eek:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
The problem is the destruction of communities.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

How do they destroy communities? By causing a few shops to go under in the process of delivering benefits to the community you claim they are destroying? If local consumers were all that concerned about it, they wouldn't shop there, and if no one shopped there, rest assured that they wouldn't build one.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
These big corporate minimum wage warehouses spring up like mushrooms and hoover wealth and diversity from the local area.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I don't know what the policy in the UK is, but every Wal-Mart I've ever seen paid well over minimum wage. Current starting wage at the Wal-Mart in my local community is $ 8.50 an hour, which is approximately 65% more than minimum wage, and quite a bit over what most locally-owned retail businesses pay their unskilled labour.

As far as hoovering wealth, as WildBill rightly points out, they in fact tend to make their customers better off by offering lower prices on virtually every single item the average consumer would want.

As far as hoovering diversity, laying aside any arguments as to whether or not diversity is a sueful or desirable thing, when did diversity get so weak as to be unseated by the creation of a large, low-price retail good shop?

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
And if/when the area is stuffed, they shut down and leave.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Not sure what you mean by stuffed, but yes, if a store is not doing business it closes. This is the same thing that anti-capitalists lament happening to local stores when a Wal-Mart opens; one would think that the place shutting down and leaving would be lauded as an improvement, not added to a list of complaints.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
I was wandering around one the other week.

Everything is concrete, tarmac, preform, glass and corrugated bolt-on coverings.
A few sorry looking trees, here and there in the car park, before entering the corporate cathedral dedicated to filthy lucre.

Alongside it, owned by the socialist baby eating council, was a park, that you could have a seat in, and look at green stuff like grass and trees, it was about the same size and shape as the shopping centre.

Someone had bashed holes in the park fence and wall, so that people could get out of the centre and sit on the grass and under the trees.

Or, so that people could escape from the nightmare of sitting in the park alongside trees and bushes and run to do lots of shopping in the retail place, and wander around on the tarmac and concrete.

I know which one my money is on.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Big box stores are not the most aesthetically-pleasing sight in the world, true. But they're not designed to be. There are plenty of parks and other such things in the world which cater to that particular part of a human being which craves these things. One of my favourite examples is New York City's Central Park, because it is so fun to hear idiots talk about how nice it is to "get back to nature" by biking, walking, or just lounging in Central Park, which is in fact not natural by any stretch of the imagination -- it is a stunning tribute to the ingenuity of engineers, having been crafted literally from the bedrock up to the leaves of the trees.


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
We have had nationalised industries in this country in previous years, the UK.
Two of the biggest were the Mines and British Telecom. Average them out about 30-40 years each. They were both destroyed by the-bitch-Thatcher around 1985.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The monstrous abortions of commerce that were the UK state-run industries are the exact same entities that you lament as "exploiters of the working class" in another thread. In the 19th century the labour union movement arose in response to low wages that were set by British city councils. In other words, it was the government which set the wages so low that workers had to turn to violence in order to initiate an improvement in their living conditions.

The city councils were often composed of the owners of the factories, ownership that was in general inherited. This is not capitalism, or liberty. Rather, it was a caste system.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
Maybe one day, away in the future.

The USA will have one, single, nationalised industry. Water. Power.Telecoms. Health.Housing.Extraction.

Whatever. Just ONE.

And a whole new world of wealth will open up for those lucky enough to be a part of that industry. They will work, like we all have to, but they will also derive long term benefits for themselves, their children, and their childrens children.

Benefits far greater than those that any of the cheap-as-chips private companies could ever offer to those willing to put 20-40 years of their best years into.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Um, we've had a great number of state-run industries in this country, inasmuch as the state developed monopolies at the behest of a handful of a few. It still goes on today, albeit in a much diminished capacity. And yes, many do have quite impressive pension funds, but no one here is stupid enough to think that this is because of long-term fiduciary responsiblity on the part of the managers. It's because of the arrangements between the state and the companies, which led to the creation of federal pensions like the Railroad Pensioners' Fund, the likes of which suck $ 80 billion per year out of our economy, far more than they ever produced during their useful life.


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
The jealousy arguement. Mr Gates etc.

Its a good one, often used and, is definitely relevant if you are only dealing with the stupid people.

But we're not all bloody stupid.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

You don't have to be stupid to be envious, just allow yourself a convenient blind spot in your morality, as the great mass of people in the world do.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
I'm not jealous of Bill, I only fear the LACK OF CHOICE that his company could produce.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

But this is nonsense. There are and have always been alternatives to Windows. Gates didn't just wake up one morning and say "Let there be shitty user systems," and that was that. Just like AOL and a many other companies in many other fields, Gates put a pretty front end on a substandard product, told everyone it was better, and everyone bought it hook, line and sinker.

Windows users get exactly what they deserve, because of their ignorance and refusal to perform any sort of due diligence on their choice of OS, a choice which is becoming more and more important as so much of the world is now dependent upon or at least somehow connected to the PC.


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
Before the u hate America neo-con threads.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well, I'm not a neo-con and often get on the receiving end of those threads, but you don't exactly seem enamored of the US ...

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
Stay sane America.
Don't let us down.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I don't follow your meaning.
 

The Great Govenor of California
Joined
Feb 21, 2001
Messages
15,972
Tokens
Good for Jerry Brown, Walmart is a sewer and brings down property value, promotes crime, and hurts quality of life. I agree with EEK, they should be 12 miles out of town.
 

New member
Joined
Sep 21, 2004
Messages
8,781
Tokens
What business that does their volume doesn't do these things Rail? This is like the little secret no government official reveals. In studies, a new mall was compared to a new casino. Turns out the mall created more crime than the casino, but of course many cities would love a mall and few would want a casino.

Someone made my point on a radio station. My stepfather recently moved to Oakland and told me he heard someone make my exact point as they had a council person on that voted for the proposal, that promoting small mom and pops is actually something skewed to the rich, that if you go to the ghetto of West Oakland you don't find unionized grocery stores, you don't find retail, you simply don't find anything but liquor stores. Walmart and a few other big box stores are the only ones willing to take chances on these "sketchy" parts of town in most of the country, but Oakland's government just put an end to the best chance of redevelopment. The council member just ranted on and on about how the city needed "managed" growth, "managed" this, "managed" that...like Jerry Brown and his cronies have any clue of how to revive a ghetto! I am disappointed I wasn't listen, it sounded like the called got the guy squirming in his chair and eventually just avoided the answer and moved onto the next question.
 

New member
Joined
Dec 7, 2005
Messages
6,145
Tokens
California looks for reasons to shut down a business. Good way to crush a local economy. I have no doubt this BS regulation will be moving north in the near future.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

L.A. threatens merchants with jail if they don't take down front window signs


Nearly two dozen merchants in a strip mall along Ventura Boulevard have been told to take down signs in their front windows -- or face possible jail time. The merchants are up in arms, saying it's unfair to make them remove the signs amid the economic downturn.
The merchants were served notices on July 7 from the Los Angeles Department of Building and Safety Code Enforcement Bureau informing them that their signs were in violation of the Ventura-Cahuenga Boulevard Corridor Specific Plan. The ordinance regulates signs, displays and murals.

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lan...f-they-dont-take-down-front-window-signs.html
 

Forum statistics

Threads
1,119,857
Messages
13,574,087
Members
100,876
Latest member
kiemt5385
The RX is the sports betting industry's leading information portal for bonuses, picks, and sportsbook reviews. Find the best deals offered by a sportsbook in your state and browse our free picks section.FacebookTwitterInstagramContact Usforum@therx.com