More on Wal-Mart
After I wrote my post this afternoon, I discovered that the Ontario Mountain Village Association is holding a public meeting on Wednesday evening. Presumably the meeting attendees will labor under the assumption expressed at the September 20 City Council meeting:
John Jasbinsek said he is opposed to a Walmart Store in the area and believes 99% of Ontario residents are also opposed to it. He felt Council Members were ignoring the citizenry and the democratic process.
Don Blasco commented on the devaluation of property if a Super Walmart Store is built at Fifth Street and Mountain Avenue. He said his research efforts indicated that up to 30-40% devaluation will occur.
Well, what's the research? Here's some of what Google Answers says with regard to commercial property values:
...My preliminary research on your very specific question on the likely
economic impact of Wal-Mart on commercial property values comes up
with a blank. I don’t think anyone has conducted research at such a
detailed level. On the other hand, I have found other research reports
similar to the one you cited. Some of them were conducted by academic
institutions while others were commissioned by communities targeted
for new Wal-Mart stores. I’m afraid most of these reports are highly
negative. Granted that some of them were developed by organizations
that are openly hostile to Wal-Mart, nevertheless, even these reports
will give you a good perspective of the opposition arguments....
...[W]hile the
studies I found are uniformly negative, overall evidence regarding the
effect of Wal-Mart construction on property values appears mixed.
What does this mean to you? No hard and fast national statistics are
available, simply because the effects aren’t the same everywhere....
The 1996 study showed that in certain Iowa towns with
Wal-Marts near the city center, property values declined by 16% to
20%.
Those studies, however, do not tell the whole story.
Wal-Mart critics are much louder than its supporters, but there does
seem to be evidence that Wal-Marts can enhance property values in
areas with a high level of demand for commercial space....
The success of the commercial enterprises in an area has a direct
effect on property values. And the addition of a Wal-Mart to an area
that doesn’t have enough commercial space could increase customer
traffic, thus adding value to all of the businesses in the area.
More traffic = higher sales = higher profits and cash flows = higher
values for the business and its property.
Wait a minute...the opponents are complaining about the traffic that a new Wal-Mart will bring, then saying that the traffic will decrease property values. However, it appears that the traffic will increase at least the commercial property values, as more people patronize the Carl's Jr, the Edwards Theater, the Jack in the Box, et al.
A Greenfield Massachusetts study is interesting:
In Greenfield Massachusetts, "an Economic Impact Assessment of the
construction of a 134,272 s.f. Wal-Mart -- paid for by Wal-Mart --
found that their project would lead to a loss of 239,000 s.f. in
retail space, with a loss of nearly $36 million to existing
businesses, and instead of 177 new jobs at Wal-Mart, 148 jobs would be
lost at other businesses, leaving a net of 29 jobs..."
Now on a simplistic level you could obviously say that anyone who opposed the Wal-Mart is anti-job, because a net of 29 jobs is presumably a good thing. Of course, it depends upon the jobs that are being lost. If one thinks that a $20 union banana scanner is more important than an $8 Wal-Mart banana scanner, then the introduction of a Wal-Mart would be worse for the community. However, if you believe that a banana scanner is a banana scanner, then there's no difference.
One thing about a climate of negativity is that it's negative. It's very easy to stand up and say "Don't let Wal-Mart in," but this raises the question - what's the alternative? You have a huge area in northwest Ontario which used to host three stores, and it appears that the Ontario Mountain Village Association has some very strict criteria about who they'd like in that space. (Of course, I'm forced to assume that they're not treating Wal-Mart differently from any other business, and if they want to impose restrictions on Wal-Mart, they'd want to impose them on anyone.)
So, based upon their objections to Wal-Mart, here's what the Ontario Mountain Village Assocation wants to happen to the space:
- Any business that will draw "additional traffic, noise, and trash" into northwest Ontario is not welcome. Preferably the stores that open in the space would cater to people who walk to the stores - and walk very quietly.
- The businesses that open in this area will not sell any goods that are made in China.
- The businesses that open in this area should not attract a criminal element. I am, of course, assuming that "criminal element" is not a code word meaning "No niggers or spics in the community" - they want to keep all criminals out, regardless of race or age. Oliver North, stay away. Ex-Enron executives, stay away.
So, over the next few days, I will conduct an intense search (aided by O.J. Simpson) to find a business that meets the implied demands of the Ontario Mountain Village Association. Anyone know of a business that caters to walk-up traffic, doesn't sell any Chinese goods, and repels jaywalkers and other undesirables?
Comments