Per Mr. Kelland's request, here is my info: Kevin B. O'Reilly 49th Ward, Rogers Park
I'll keep in mind to include at the end of future e-mails. Sorry! -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Kevin B. O'Reilly Sent: Saturday, May 08, 2004 11:03 PM To: Chicago E-Democracy Subject: RE: [Chicago] Wal-mart (& living wage ordinance) Before I delve into specifics on this, there are a few assumptions being made by Wal-Mart opponnents that I believe ought to be challenged head on. First, there's the matter of why this is before City Council to begin with. As I understand it, Wal-Mart is requesting a zoning variance and that's all. If they're requesting tax-increment financing, it's news to me. On the zoning question, Chicago's outdated and byzantine zoning regulations couldn't foresee the size of land that the big box stores such as Wal-Mart require. So instead of having a more open system of deed restrictions similar to Houston's, what's really a private matter (where and when a corporation can locate a store on land it has justly purchased) is turned into a political football and an opportunity for bureaucrats, politicians and community activists to -- as one alderman put it -- "extract concessions" from Wal-Mart. Of course it's not just the behemoths such as Wal-Mart that routinely require zoning variances from politicians. It's a routine fact of life in the city, one that slows innovation, adds to the cost of doing business and gives aldermen power that's often abused. A sign on a small strip mall next to the Jarvis el stop, just to give one insignificant example, advertises not only the laundromat, currency exchange and video store that occupy the location but says, "Thanks to Alderman Joe Moore." Why? Is Joe Moore in the video store restocking the shelves? Is he in the currency exchange filling out money orders? I haven't seen him ironing shirts at the laundromat, that's for sure. I'm guessing it's because the owner of the center needed a variance or help with some other regulation and Moore was kind enough, ho ho, to give it to him. It's precisely this kind of political oversight of private commercial matters that leads to corruption -- the all-too-common case of the alderman who takes money under the table to "do somebody a favor," a favor that in most cases they oughtn't have the right to give. As for TIFs, they're in principle abhorrent. Rather than give politicians the ability to control who gets certain tax privileges and when, under the guise of attracting business, taxes should be eased across the board. Then firms would have a much easier time in judging the merit of doing business in the city or in a certain part of the city, without having to jump through hoops to make it financially feasible or at worst abusing the system. This is one more form of corporate welfare that has to go. That said, if Wal-Mart is applying for a TIF, it's not the firm's fault it's attempting to utilize a bad law. The law itself should go; Wal-Mart shouldn't be penalized for using it. And, really, that's not what this is about. It's about Wal-Mart in particular and its symbolic value to certain political groups, including organized labor. For example, one of the concessions Wal-Mart opponnents are trying to extract is that the firm promise not to sell groceries. Why? What does a zoning regulation have to do with what the firm chooses to sell in its store? Precisely nothing, except that organized labor is afraid that Dominick's and Jewel will lose market share to Wal-Mart. It's a legitimate fear, though consumers by no means are forced to shop at Wal-Mart, and in the proposed locations the problem is precisely that they are underserved to begin with. It's simple self-serving protectionism. If that's all that were at stake here, it would be just another routine political battle. The cruelty of denying much-needed development, jobs and shopping choices in areas that so badly needed them should not be overlooked. Jon Kelland wrote: "Similar to environmental regulations, minimum wage laws, workplace safety, etc., there are regulations put in place to protect people against profit seeking entities. Wal-mart has quite a track record ..." Any firm that records an annual profit of $9 billion will attract a number of frivolous class-action lawsuits. Wal-Mart has been a target of fraudsters, shysters and do-gooders for years. Perhaps it is a legitimate target. But it is not as though it becomes suddenly immune to civil law when it enters the city limits. It will still be subject to the same set of wage, hiring and safety regulations as any other firm doing business here. Wal-Mart, as with any other firm, must obey the law, however unjust or counterproductive it may be. As far as I know, Wal-Mart is asking for a zoning variance, not sanctuary from civil and criminal law. _______________________________________________ Chicago Issues Forum - Citywide Civic Discussion To post to list: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To (un)subscribe: http://www.e-democracy.org/chicago/ To contact list manager: [EMAIL PROTECTED] E-Democracy will not share, trade, or sell your information. Please do not harvest participant e-mail information for other lists or solicitations without specific consent from addressee. _______________________________________________ Chicago Issues Forum - Citywide Civic Discussion To post to list: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To (un)subscribe: http://www.e-democracy.org/chicago/ To contact list manager: [EMAIL PROTECTED] E-Democracy will not share, trade, or sell your information. Please do not harvest participant e-mail information for other lists or solicitations without specific consent from addressee.
