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.
