There Are No Other Major Retailers Willing to Come to the South Side of Chicago, Except One
CHICAGO — "Wal-Mart Stores Inc. has won the support of dozens of church ministers in its long-running battle to expand in Chicago, a sign of how the recession has softened skepticism of the retailer in a community desperate for jobs. The ministers, most of them African-Americans together representing thousands of congregants, are pressuring the city council to grant approval for a Wal-Mart "supercenter"—a store with a full grocery that also sells general merchandise—on the city's South Side. The ministers who support Wal-Mart say that if the city council doesn't act favorably on an ordinance that would allow the Chatham Wal-Mart, they will campaign against elected officials.
"The reality of the day is that there's no other retailer willing to come to the community," said Alderman Howard Brookins, a Democrat whose ward includes the development. "As the economy has faltered, there has been a renewed appreciation among customers for the Wal-Mart brand," said Julie Murphy, a Wal-Mart regional general manager involved in the company's recent effort to build support in the city."
15 Comments:
Democratic Rep. Maxine Waters, along with Jesse Jackson, helped defeat Wal-mart's bid to build a store in her (35th) district, which includes Inglewood, in Apri, 2004.
The next month, interestingly, Rev. Jeremiah Wright helped defeat Wal-mart's bid to build stores in South Chicago:
The 8,500-member Trinity United Church of Christ on the South Side became a center of opposition to Wal-Mart, and its leaders directly linked the store's attractive low prices to its low-paying jobs. "Whenever price means more to you than principle," wrote Trinity's pastor, the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, in the church newsletter, "you have defined yourself as a prostitute." Wright charged that Wal-Mart's backers among the City Council and the black religious community were "pimping" black residents and their economic hardships.
http://www.reclaimdemocracy.org/walmart/benefit_minority_communities.php
Well, looks like the folks in Bentonville found a soft spot and targeted the ministers.
The ministers are no more than betraying Judases whom received their 30 pieces of silver from Bentonville. Whether it came directly from Bentonville or through an intermediary supporting them, it means the same thing.
Put up the proof that they can't find others, since there's little substance to that claim. However, there seems to be plenty of material when they're limited to Wal-Mart support.
damn it people, understand that the poor need to help support the boutique stores preferred by the rich - allowing them to shop at walmart isn't compatible with this social goal.
damn it people, understand that the poor need to help support the boutique stores preferred by the rich
I see what you did there.
That's funny, but it isn't the boutique stores they're shopping in. It's the places with bars on the windows that actually sell cigarettes by the "each" price.
Some politician in the Bronx on a similar mission of obstruction once uttered, "The days of thinking that any job is better than no job are gone!"
That's not the America I knew, and it certainly isn't one I am anxious to see running the country.
"The ministers are no more than betraying Judases whom received their 30 pieces of silver from Bentonville"...
Well gee! What bastards! Imagine the gall of these men of the cloth wanting their flock to have someplace to shop that they can afford!!!
These ministers have stained their immortal sous!!
what I should have said ' preferred by the betters'.
And Angela is correct, it is more likely small store with bars, placing small orders with suppliers.
sethstorm
What a silly argument. No other proof is needed beyond the fact that others stores aren't there already. Only Walmart makes leftists lose their minds.
Some people believe Walmart pays its suppliers too little (the same people who shop at Walmart for lower prices). However, suppliers will not sell below costs. So, prices will not fall too low. Instead, only the most efficient suppliers will survive.
Walmart should allow the politics in the South Side of Chicago to play out. If they decide to allow a Walmart store to open, then Walmart should string them along and wait for appropriate concessions. If Walmart doesn't get them, it should continue to string them along without opening a new store.
No other proof is needed beyond the fact that others stores aren't there already.
No other store chain has campaigned this long and looked for weak points in a community. Also, there is no proof that other store chains won't open there. There's only the absence of other interested parties.
Some people believe Walmart pays its suppliers too little (the same people who shop at Walmart for lower prices). However, suppliers will not sell below costs. So, prices will not fall too low.
If their choices in meeting their debts are limited, there will be a mismatch.
Instead, only the most politically persuasive suppliers will survive.
FIFY.
Seth, perhaps you can explain how the "most politically persuasive suppliers," rather than the most efficient suppliers, make Walmart the lowest price retailer?
Wal-Mart has preferred sycophantic entities. That's how they measure efficiency and how it disfavors those in developed nations and the Manufacturing Belt of the US(and its beliefs).
If they can't get their way, people like Ms. Murphy wage war from their PR department. Then they call that efficiency, even if they take extended losses for a purely political move.
Seth, your statement makes no economic sense, i.e. contradicts the fact that Walmart is the low price retailer.
For example, if I were to exclude hiring blacks, then I'd soon be out of business, because my competitors would hire the best black workers.
Peaktrader:
If some action acheives an otherwise prohibited goal indirectly, they don't care what they do.
Say for example you can't fire/disqualify someone or set up shop where you aren't wanted because of the law(but you want to anyway). The immediate response is to then look for the smallest violation that will justify adverse/unwanted action(even if you didnt enforce it at all in the past). Given said legal cover, then you act. PR/HR/Legal then cleans up the mess and marginalizes the remaining oppositon.
If there are any losses incurred in the battle, cite them only if you have to retreat and close the store. Then open up nearby and repeat the process, even if you leave the previous neigborhood worse off(since it's never your problem even if you caused it).
Wal-Mart doesn't know the meaning of 'no means no' even if they receive that under a sustained effort. They just wear the enemy down or find a political weak point - even if it means bribing clergy.
Seth, sounds like something a disgruntled competitor or the politically biased would make up. I don't disagree with you that Walmart follows the law.
Wouldn't it be expensive to close a store and open another nearby, and repeat the process? It's remarkable Walmart is the low price retailer and still makes a profit. Do you have any proof Walmart is bribing people or leaving neighborhoods worse off?
Anyway, what right does a bunch of politicians have using religion to brainwash a neighborhood into believing Walmart is evil?
Post a Comment
<< Home