All true, Arthur. It’s just that in more cities and even
small towns, people are beginning to question what became a runaway
avalanche. There is no reason in
my mind why we can’t strike a balance.
Note the number of towns passing caps on formula retail growth and the
current debate and counter debate about smart growth.
Maybe the dot.com collapse and the ongoing
recession have helped people to look at their communities in a different
light. If the economy were still
going gangbusters and there had not been several political and culturally
significant events (i.e.. Florida election, 9/11, USA Patriot Act, Enron –
WorldCom scandals affecting innocent pension holders, and now a public deeply
divided over US foreign policy) the economic viability of their own
communities might never have caught the attention of many of the comatose,
sleep-walking, non-questioning public.
Public policy has its rightful place in the
civic domain. Why shouldn’t local
and state governments endow local entrepreneurs with the same go-for-broke
attitude (some say unquestioning desperation) that they do recruiting and
underwriting (some say submitting to economic blackmail) (why blackmail, when you can bribe through campaign financing or
gifts of "Board Positions" when leaving public office?) large
corporations? Shouldn’t we look
at the long term goals and consequences of our actions, not just individually
but collectively?
Yes, I agree with your following email
that some (especially small) centres can block this intrusion (or, is the
centre too small for the se mega-corps. to even consider). This is especially
true of "tourist towns". But the main problem is still the federal and
state/provincial legislatures that cater to these international giants for
reasons only THEY will actually know. Here in Canada we have no "personal
liability" for someone in public office or for the owners of businesses.
Either the office is sued or the business; but you cannot go after the
"individual" for "damages to the community, the environment or any of the
structures therein.
BAD GOVERNMENTS CREATE BAD COMMUNITIES.
CORRUPT INDIVIDUALS CORRUPT THE BEST OF GOVERNMENTS.
Maybe we could take our cue from Keith’s
musings about Novelty. Local
living economies could be marketed as a new novel way to solve the fiscal sand trap
we are in, then the politicians can take up sides for and against and the
media can generate case studies and dig into current data by researches and
opinion of academics (ahem) CBC radio here in Canada has
had MANY excellent shows done on many topics, some on just these items, but
they do not have a mass appeal and so relate to a very low % of population.
The rest would rather watch sports, drink beer, and bitch about how hard their
lives are (and this still occurs when they are OUT of work). and the
public might be surprised to find out just how resourceful the little guy can
be. -
KWC
CBC
It's
interesting. Most of these arguments were and are used against foreign
ownership in Canada. With little effect. Canadians voted with
their pocketbooks as do most of those in the US who reap short term savings at
the longer term cost of loss of community, both literally and
figuratively.
arthur
Bill
wrote: Harry,
Wal-Mart is cheap and I do shop there. Something about the end of small stores
and the fact that Wal-Mart and others use basically a temporary work force
that will have to live totally off of SS at the end it would
appear.
There
are other points to consider. As
the Institute for Self-Reliance (www.islr.org)
and The Hometown Advantage
(Stacy Mitchell) document, communities dominated by corporate chains are worse
off economically than are diverse economies maintaining small-scale, locally
owned enterprises. Here is
Mitchell’s list of why, paraphrased by yours truly:
1.
Jobs and taxes. A new Home Depot will not sell anymore hammers and nails than
3 local hardware stores – it’s supply and demand. But because the Home Depot
will eventually force the local stores to decline, all the revenue exchange
goes out of town rather than staying local. For every 1 job that a Wal-Mart
provides it takes away 3 previous jobs.
2.
Public costs. Land use patterns accommodating big corporate retail contribute
not just to sprawl but the costs of additional roads, sewers and fire and
police protection. This adds to the costs local taxpayers are already paying
without adding to the revenue base when corporations have received lucrative
tax incentives. The community
bears the brunt of the investment and gets a small return in the long run.
3.
Multiplier effect. Indie
retailers keep their profits local, and tend to trade goods and do business
with other local operations, such as accountants, lawyers, advertisers,
printers, and of course, local banks.
Chain stores not only distribute from giant national warehouses but
produce their advertising and do their other support tasks outside the
community in which they build.
Sending your consumer dollars to Arkansas (much less offshore banks-
kwc) is not good for community sustainability in the long term.
4.
Fewer Choices. Consolidation of
buying patterns reduces choices and the range of products available to the
consumer. You can see this on
your grocer’s shelves when mega buyers demand more shelf space or at the
bookstore where one Barnes & Nobles is just like every other in terms of
selection. (What about local culture and color? – kwc)
5.
Monopoly Prices. Surveys found
that prices vary significantly from one major chain outlet to another and are
higher in areas where the local competition has been eliminated. This includes Wal-Mart and Home
Depot. (Note lawsuits where
unfair business practices are proliferating – kwc)
6.
Long-term Commitment. Local
merchants are residents of the communities they invest in, it’s where they pay
their taxes and raise their children, whereas global chains are highly
mobile. In addition to demanding
tax incentives to come into a community, when they leave with changing
economic winds they leave behind large properties not well-suited to other
development, and in fact often hold their leases for years to keep competitors
from coming in, so that vacant big box stores are now a common blight – by
itself, Wal-Mart has almost 400 empty stores across the US.
7.
The Big Picture. Economic
research being gathered shows that cookie cutter developments lessen a
community’s appeal to entrepreneurs and skilled workers and in the long run
reduces prospects for new investments and jobs.
Too
many of us for too long have assumed that bigger is better, that the
liabilities are offset by the advantages, or this is just “the price of
progress”. Aside from the
environmental and social/civic costs to the community when local businesses
are displaced, there is the even broader issue of democracy and sovereignty,
since large corporate chains are wielding their assets long-distance. What needs to be addressed here, those
who are studying this seem to be saying is, level the playing field with
public policy. For those of us in
industrialized countries staring at sprawl and closed businesses with high
unemployment, we should be addressing the rules of doing business at the local
level more intelligently and aggressively. I am a cultural Globalist but want to
see local businesses have as much given to them as the big corporate
houses. Who needs a
monoculture? It’s all about
balance and moderation. –
KWC
Also
see Failed
Empire,
a four part series in the Buffalo News concerning enterprise zones and tax
incentives http://www.buffalonews.com/editorial/20030608/1048744.asp
or contact me
offline for a compiled Word document.
