Walmart Takes on Amazon for Web Dominance

[RobbieClarken]

Originally Posted by dmaul1114

Of course, the problem is many don't have the budgets to do that and have to shop where ever is cheapest, even if they hate the experience in those stores.

It occurs to me this sentence could be rephrased: "Of course, it is great that Wal-mart offers low-income shoppers the option of lower prices in exchange for a less pleasant shopping environment."

[dmaul1114]

Sure. But since I hate Wal-mart I'm not going to phrase it that way.

[Kali Yuga]

BTW, a couple of economists at WVU did an in-depth study and found that overall, Walmart does not wind up negatively effecting small businesses in the US. It can cause a shift -- e.g. small retail businesses can get killed off by the introduction of a Walmart to a nearby area -- but these businesses are typically replaced by something else.

http://www.be.wvu.edu/divecon/econ/s...0and%20Pop.pdf

[zacheryjensen]

Originally Posted by calvin-c

Where? AFAIK that would be illegal anywhere in the US. As stated, at least.

There is no reason that it is illegal, every single city in the USA practices Zoning and Wal-mart is a large scale store which nearly always has special zoning requirements due to the massive impact on local business and ecology.

Recently a large wal-mart came to my area and there was a huge push from the community to fight the zoning for it which, because of its size, warranted a public hearing. Wal-mart conceded to the complaints by funding a whole bunch of small strip malls surrounding their location. A few local businesses have opened there though most of the lots are taken by national chains that are just small by nature (subway, panda express.)

Wal-mart's presence can be devastating, just as any similarly large, national entity can be. Wal-mart just has the problem that they don't bring any quality improvements with their "Low" price (which, in many cases aren't any lower than any other chain) so it's natural for people to react negatively to them.

That said, I can't think of one single small retail business that would compete with Wal-mart in my area besides a couple grocery chains and they have adapted by providing high quality fresh goods and wal-mart can't even dream of competing with it.

All-in-all, despite the concern, the wal-mart impact in my area has generally been acceptable. In fact, I would say it was worse 15 years ago when their dominance was first becoming evident in the area. Nobody knew what to do to compete, they came in with their dirty garbage stores and super-low prices and blew away the local competition. Then the stores went to crap for whatever reason, and all the neighborhood surrounding those particular stores lost property value at an extreme rate. Those areas are all now either high crime areas or are targets for urban renewal.

So there is precedent for wal-mart wrecking communities, but I think they have improved their results to some degree now.

[Spoon Man]

Originally Posted by meraxes

Do you think there's anything wrong with that?

Nope, I was simply stating the fact for anyone that missed it.

[calvin-c]

Originally Posted by zacheryjensen

There is no reason that it is illegal, every single city in the USA practices Zoning and Wal-mart is a large scale store which nearly always has special zoning requirements due to the massive impact on local business and ecology.

I don't know. Can't think of *anywhere* that I've heard of a *Walmart* zoning designation. Don't think it would be legal, but that depends on the definition.

As I mentioned, places have turned down zoning requests made by Walmart-but they've based that, not on the request being made by Walmart, but on legally admissible factors. Turning down a zoning request because it's made by Walmart is, IMO, illegal.

Walmart's impact on local business & 'ecology' isn't any different than KMart's, Target's, Sam's Club (whoops-that's Walmart by another name, isn't it?), or Kroger's. All are large 'chain' stores that have massive impacts on local businesses and 'ecology'. (I think you mean economy, but whatever-maybe you're actually talking about pollution, building a giant parking lot, etc.)

Understand that my comment was on DaleDe's statement that some communities would block a Walmart store when they'd approve the request by Target or Kmart. IMO, such an action would be illegal. Deny all the chain stores, sure-they can get away with that (depending on why they do it), but deny one & approve others? They need more reason than the name of the requesting company on which to base their denial.

[DawnFalcon]

Some places have been downright creative in stopping walmart. Like the place that passed the tax on any company with more than x employer, x being higher than any company locally but more than walmart said they wanted to hire...

[zacheryjensen]

Originally Posted by calvin-c

I don't know. Can't think of *anywhere* that I've heard of a *Walmart* zoning designation. Don't think it would be legal, but that depends on the definition.

I never said anything about a walmart zoning designation, I was talking about "big box" stores. And for that matter, any business in any area. A community can choose to allow businesses in under whatever grounds they wish, it's the whole point of zoning laws. And yes, when given a hearing, their basis for their concerns can be whatever they wish so long as they can back them up with real expressible concerns.

The fact that you're misunderstanding is that the process is not one of accepting a store, but of changing zoning laws. There is no special right to have zoning laws changed and if such an act is proposed, any aspect of the proposal such as the scale or the proposer can be taken into account by anyone who would petition it. That, in effect, makes it legal for a community to deny a wal-mart vs. a target. Of course, once the land is zoned, anyone could buy it. And changing zoning based on who owns land is a whole other issue entirely.

At any rate, I think you would be surprised to see just how many hundreds of municipal laws exist for the sole reason of enabling a community to be more prejudiced on what business exists where.

[calvin-c]

Originally Posted by zacheryjensen

I never said anything about a walmart zoning designation, I was talking about "big box" stores. And for that matter, any business in any area. A community can choose to allow businesses in under whatever grounds they wish, it's the whole point of zoning laws. And yes, when given a hearing, their basis for their concerns can be whatever they wish so long as they can back them up with real expressible concerns.

Nope. They can't, for instance, deny a business because it's owned by a Jewish family. Nor by a Southern family. If you do read what I said I think you'll find that I agree that they can deny 'big box' stores. But they would need to deny all of them (for the designated location, at least). Not just Walmart.

Originally Posted by zacheryjensen

The fact that you're misunderstanding is that the process is not one of accepting a store, but of changing zoning laws. There is no special right to have zoning laws changed and if such an act is proposed, any aspect of the proposal such as the scale or the proposer can be taken into account by anyone who would petition it. That, in effect, makes it legal for a community to deny a wal-mart vs. a target.

Scale, certainly. They can even deny the building permit based on design. (I've heard of McDonald's which were only allowed after they gave up their Golden Arches.) But not based on the proposer. That's discrimination.

Originally Posted by zacheryjensen

At any rate, I think you would be surprised to see just how many hundreds of municipal laws exist for the sole reason of enabling a community to be more prejudiced on what business exists where.

And I'm sure you're absolutely right about this-but how many of those laws are legal?

[GA Russell]

Originally Posted by calvin-c

Few people objected to paying higher prices in the local stores-what we objected to was being unable to find what we wanted.

I agree. In 1995 I moved to a town 40 miles from Atlanta. In 2002 I moved to my present home 40 miles from Raleigh. I'm not aware of Walmart putting anybody out of business.

Although discussions of Walmart always center around their prices, I think their appeal is primarily based upon their selection. One-stop shopping.

By the way, with the price of gasoline what it is, it is less expensive to shop locally than to drive to the city.

[GA Russell]

Originally Posted by DaleDe

Some cities specifically won't let them in town due to the devastation of local business...

Dale, that might be what they say, but I don't believe it. I believe that the only reason Walmart is singled out is because it is the most successful non-union company.

I believe that the most vocal criticism is coming from organized labor and their allies in politics; and I believe that if Walmart were to unionize, the criticism would stop immediately even if Walmart continued its questionable business practices.

[Ocean]

Originally Posted by poohbear_nc

But, long term, smaller retailers that can't compete in the price wars may get priced out of the market.

Modern America doesn't believe in smaller retailers.

[kindlekitten]

Originally Posted by calvin-c

Where? AFAIK that would be illegal anywhere in the US. As stated, at least. )

where've you been?

TAos New Mexico
Santa Fe New Mexico
Boulder Colorado
Gig Harbor Washington

[zacheryjensen]

Originally Posted by GA Russell

Dale, that might be what they say, but I don't believe it. I believe that the only reason Walmart is singled out is because it is the most successful non-union company.

I believe that the most vocal criticism is coming from organized labor and their allies in politics; and I believe that if Walmart were to unionize, the criticism would stop immediately even if Walmart continued its questionable business practices.

I can only speak for my area. When Wal-mart built their last big-box store, there was huge local opposition driven primarily by the local companies. My area has a large number of smaller local grocery chains and they were the ones primarily concerned. I live a big red state and there is rarely even the mention of "union" here... may as well be painting a swastika on your face. I can assure you the dissatisfaction around here had nothing to do with unions.

Of course, it could be an odd case for all I know, as I said I can only speak for this area.

And to be completely fair, I haven't noticed any negative effect from the new store yet. In some ways, I've noticed some really positive effects. The largest of the local grocery chains took on the elite foodie crowd as their differentiating factor. Sure, prices aren't fantastic but man they have some REALLY GOOD FOOD. And top notch quality without having to walk into a store so thick with elitism it's palpable. So I'm happy about that. Plus, the strip malls surrounding the new store that Wal-mart was required to build as part of the overall agreement have several new local companies at least one of which is some rather good italian food. Several local credit unions are there, another less tasty mexican restaurant (also local.)

So, as I said, there was great opposition but perhaps either through the various agreements that were made to get that area rezoned (it was all residential, so, half was made available for a wal-mart and lowes, walmart had to build a park for the rest of the residential area, plus the strip malls with reduced rent for a few years, and whatever else I don't even know all the details) or of course possible due to there never being a threat, it seems to have overall been a positive addition to the community.

I have seen rather negative impacts from wal-marts in the past as I noted in an earlier post, though. These were smaller wal-marts. Regular sized not those super-wal-marts that are usually built now. I am not sure why they had such an impact on surrounding property values and such but it was bad. That history could be part of the animosity towards wal-mart as well.

I don't discount your union theory entirely, but at least in this area it's got nothing to do with it.

[Moejoe]

WalMart makes profits from the deaths of their low-wage 'employees'. Any other concern means nothing in the face of such rampant and sickening profiteering.