This motion was NOT announced in advance; even the supervisor was not happy with it just being brought up AT the meeting. Also, John Gavaris only voted for it, I gather, because it specified that the decision to NOT study the plan and code for deficiencies was only "at this time" and NOT a permanent hand-tying. Hence, it was a rather toothless exercise meant more to quash discussion than accomplish anything useful.

The appearance of these last-minute motions is a good reason to just GO to all meetings, and not depend on incomplete agendas.

Now, the Journal, which usually gets it right, gets this one wrong, and leaves out the rest of the story. This is about a board saying we know all we need to know, that all the tools and teeth are in place, and that we will not listen to anyone who might disagree or have actual experience or relevant research that might apply here.

For example, when I asked if the current code or plan took the economic and community impact of a large-scale development into account, Supervisor Dolaway had to agree that, no, it didn't. This alone, when one considers the potential negative economic impact of a $1-3 million per week new store to the community, makes the notion of the motion a joke.

To just claim that the current code and plan covers all potential concerns, when it leaves out one of the largest ones, and to make something a "fact" by voting it so, is a dereliction of duty. I have spoken to at least one member of each of the planning board, zoning board, and comprehensive plan panel who feel that the current plan and code DO NOT provide enough teeth to take new, larger-scale projects into account, as they pre-date the existence, for instance, of anyone looking to put a single store the size of 2-4 football fields onto a location that never had such a thing.

Sure, the planning boards have people able to weigh factors, but ONLY if they are encoded into the code! Those who have dealt with SEQRA know it's a bit of a pro forma joke, that the people who make themselves lead agency often don't have the expertise to really determine IF an environmental impact exists, so they just pass it through without real due diligence. If there is no REQUIREMENT to look at certain potential concerns, like economic and community impact, they won't get looked at, or it will be at the expense of the local government or local citizen groups, NOT at the cost of the developer who stands to profit.

Councilman Houck, who proposed this, claimed he had done research, but there was little evidence that he had, or that any other councilmen had, besides just hearing from the opinions of those who also just listen to OTHER opinions or believe what they WANT to believe. I have provided plenty of actual FACTS and research, and there's little indication anyone was studying it, and surely a town board meeting wasn't the best venue to LEARN anything in two-minute speeches that involved detailed review of long, scholarly studies, articles, documentaries, books, etc.

Now, the headline and the rest gets it completely wrong. This WAS NOT an endorsement or acceptance of Wal-Mart or any big box! It simply said that the Board has enough confidence in the planning boards and current codes to not bother to study them or consider changing or updating them, or looking at what other communities have learned and done, or take prudent steps to locate and fix deficiencies to make the boards' jobs easier and give them the teeth to do those jobs as THEY might wish.

Houck claimed that nobody has addressed the relevant parts of the comprehensive plan, and I stood up to vehemently disagree; I had sent all the board in January a detailed analysis of sections of the plan that strongly suggested that a big box store was NOT in compliance with the plan, and summarized that at the meeting, effectively refuting Houck's claim. Yet, even as the plan strongly suggests a big box store goes against what the town plan WANTS, I felt that it should be more specific and unambiguous; even the casinos get one small paragraph that says that if there are any negative impacts, the casino must pay to cover them! Shouldn't we require a big box store to do the same?

But the plan and code don't require it, and THAT is why we need a study and to consider what other communities have already done. What hubris to suggest that there's NOTHING we can learn from other places that have already paid the price!

The Board took NO position on Wal-Mart! They DID NOT vote in favor of big box development! They punted! They merely voted AGAINST studying! It was a hand-tying move, that the Supervisor felt unnecessary, and Gavaris only accepted as it was limited to "at this time" which means they can undo it at the next meeting! So only two of five actually voted for it as a finality!

As for Hydro or Schrade being relevant, Gavaris even pointed out to Houck that just because someone is thirsty, you don't give them poison to drink. Houck didn't get the point, it seems, so I elaborated that the loss of some jobs from a big, faceless corporation that only looks to its bottom-line profits doesn't justify bringing in ANOTHER big, faceless corporation that can come or go as IT wishes, to exploit US; to let a Wal-Mart or the like in just reproduces the same handing over of our economic destiny to outsiders who don't care about US! AND if it makes the situation WORSE, by taking MORE money OUT of the community, and causing MORE jobs to be lost than gained, and INCREASES poverty, as I've shown and written about; THAT could be the final nail in the economic coffin, and NOT the solution to the job loss problem or our salvation.

I then elaborated how IF the local codes don't address the range of concerns, beyond parking density, or the minimal SEQRA concerns, that the most professional planning board would have NO leverage to do anything but let anyone who says "We're a shopping mall and this is zoned shopping mall, so we comply. The end!" get whatever they want, and we can't require them to pay for ANYTHING we may get stuck with. What if they decide to leave after two years and leave a 130,000 square foot vacant hulk? What leverage do we have to make them bond it for demolition, or to find a new user? NONE! What if traffic requires wider roads or lights... what leverage have we to make them pay for it? NONE! Or water runoff, or lights at night shining in bedroom windows, or truck noise at 3 AM, or crime in the parking lots, or the harm to local existing businesses? NONE, NONE, NONE!

There is NOTHING to MAKE THE BOARD "investigate all relevant issues" IF those issues, like economic impact, aren't IN the plan or code! And even the supervisor admits that THAT major issue is NOT in the code! So the motion is false and obtuse on its face.

AND the board voted to decide it didn't need to amend the code WITHOUT even studying the code or getting input from the planning and other boards or the public (other than me)! I have heard from at least three members of the three boards or panels mentioned who feel the codes may be insufficient, yet this motion would ignore those concerns! "We've made up our minds... don't confuse us with the facts!"

This is willful stubbornness and reveling in self-satisfied smugness by the board that defies comprehension! For a board to say we know all we need to know, and our codes cover all possible contingencies and don't need to be looked at or revised to consider things we simply never considered before, is a dereliction of duty and a sad commentary on their willingness to ignore that they may not know everything about what may happen, and they don't care to find out! I challenge each councilperson to SHOW me the material they have studied about this topic that gives them such supreme confidence that everything will be fine, that Wal-Mart or other large outside projects only have positive impacts and no negative impacts that we should consider or mitigate at the developer's expense, and that what other communities have learned -- through proactive study or the hard way by experience -- has no relevance to us, and we should just sit back and let whatever happens happen, chips falling where they may! I would like to sit down with each for an hour and let them make their claims, and let me refute them with actual evidence, so that they can no longer hide behind mere beliefs and assumptions.

As for the new Village Hall being an "Ulster County Jail #2 project," the main reason I supported going that route, from the very first day I heard the building was available for sale, was PRECISELY that, as an ALREADY-BUILT building, it COULD NEVER be fraught with the cost-overruns and uncertainties and construction delays and change orders that plagued the jail project, something I was on record stating (when I ran for legislator in 2001) would cost twice what proponents claimed it would. I've been proven right then, just as my pushing for the bank building purchase has been vindicated by the vast savings over a new building.

It's always so amusing to watch people with no REAL knowledge about persons and things bloviating about those persons and things with such matter-of-fact certitude!

I shop at the Wal-Mart kingston, and it's always difficult to find a parking spot.

Saturday mid-mornings jaunts up 9W will usually find the offramp off 209 backed up for a mile. Fortunately, Wal-Mart is building another store that's closer! (I just hope it has a food market like the store in Kingston so my daughter, who doesn't drive on 209, can shop there.)

My first experience shopping at Wal-Mart was while I was on vacation in Arkansas. I was awed by the low prices and wished we had a store like it in San Diego, where I was living at that time.

My wish came true. Within a couple of years of my introduction to Wal-Mart, a store was built just a few blocks from where I worked. On most paydays (and since I had direct deposit) I'd make a beeline to Wal-Mart so I could get in and out before the rest of the county's workforce converged in the parking lot.

Virginia B., Everett WA
Customer
June 28, 2006

It wasn't too nice for the person who pointed it out to call someone a "Dope". Name calling isn't what this is all about. It would be better to say that the writer lied to try to get a point across.

Here's the letter from the website:

In my area there's usually some negative press about Wal-Mart, however, whenever I shop at the local Wal-Mart, it's always difficult to find a parking spot.

Saturday mid-mornings jaunts up I-5 will usually find the offramp to the Marysville Wal-Mart backed up for a mile. Unfortunately, this Wal-Mart, because it's on tribal land, may be closing. Fortunately, Wal-Mart is building another store that's closer! (I just hope it has a food market like the store in Marysville so my daughter, who doesn't drive the freeway, can shop there.)

My first experience shopping at Wal-Mart was while I was on vacation in Arkansas. I was awed by the low prices and wished we had a store like it in San Diego, where I was living at that time.

My wish came true. Within a couple of years of my introduction to Wal-Mart, a store was built just a few blocks from where I worked. On most paydays (and since I had direct deposit) I'd make a beeline to Wal-Mart so I could get in and out before the rest of the county's workforce converged in the parking lot.

Does the Town's current code require such an analysis for any large-scale project with potential significant impacts? NO, just as the Supervisor admits. Yet the Town Board votes to leave things as they are and stay ill-informed!:

1998-11-14
Everywhere, USA: Wal-Math, Voo-Doo Economics

Wal-Math is not taught in your local school system. It's a form of mathematics employed by developers and big box retailers who want to impress local officials with financial promises of tax nirvana. Companies like Wal-Mart, Home Depot and Target use Wal-Math to make outlandish claims about their economic impact on the local economy. This form of voo-doo economics only enumerates the gross number of new jobs, property tax revenues, or sales taxes that a development will pay--never adjusting the figures for the real, net impact on a community. Jobs lost, sales lost, property devalued--these impacts are not calculated by the Wal-Mathematicians. Case in point: Concord, New Hampshire. According to Richard Gsottschneider, the president of RKG Associates, a multi-disciplinary economic, planning and real estate consulting firm, Concord, NH in the last dozen years added more than 2.8 million square feet of new commercial and industrial development, including stores like Home Depot, but during that period the city's overall assessed valuation dropped by -19%, from $1.9 billion in 1990, to $1.5 billion today. Gsottschneider explains that his research shows that "the much-touted new retail development was a mixed blessing. While retail property values were relatively high in the major development corridors, they were stagnant in the older areas, in part because of the new competition." So Peter got paid, while Paul suffered. "Commercial and industrial encroachment into some residential neighborhoods had a negative impact on residential property values," Gsottschneider notes. In Concord, the state capital, residential property was 57% of the municipal tax base, and so the impact was substantial. "Because Concord was so focused on economic development," RKG says, "it was inadvertantly undercutting the private sector and harming property values." Gsottschneider warns local officials that they must understand how different land uses contribute to the tax base. In Concord, residential values were declining faster than the city could add new commercial and industrial values. Concord needed a residential neighborhood revitalization strategy rather than more big boxes. "A shopping center may be a boon for the community at large," he writes, "but it may also have an adverse impact on other shopping areas. As a result, the community may gain tax base in one location, only to see values decline in another." Gsottschneider recommends that communities should involve their tax assessor in any development decisions. Poor tax base management has led many communities to misread what a Wal-Mart or a Home Depot really contribute to their bottom line.

If you are suggesting it's "tilting at windmills" and delusional, I disagree.

Sometimes one has to "fight the unbeatable foe... to run where the brave dare not go... to be willing to march into Hell" and "try when your arms are to weary, to reach the unreachable star... no matter how hopeless, no matter how far... to fight for the right, without question or pause!"

Chris McAndrew
WNEG NewsChannel 32
Wednesday, May 25, 2005

Jimmy and Gwen LeCroy have lived on Memorial Drive in Stephens County for almost 40 years. They say when they moved to the county they didn't have much traffic to deal with.

Gwen says it was like living in the country. She could count the cars that were going by and pretty much know everyone.

Now a Super Wal-Mart is being built across the street from their home.

The LeCroys say traffic is already bad on Memorial Drive, and they say once the new Wal-Mart opens it will be worse. So they along with three other families on the street have all put their homes up for sale.

They hope to sell the property to another store.

But Gwen doesn't want to sell. She likes her home, she's just not willing to deal with the traffic. Plus, no one has told her whether Memorial Drive will be expanded.

Uh, that wasn't me who sent the post from the forwalmart website. I don't do anonymous posts (there were one or two where I accidentally forgot to put in my name). But I agree with the sentiments expressed.

That people are so desperate to fabricate reasons to support a local Wal-Mart that they will steal questionable posts on a pro-WM site, ostensibly from around the country (questionable, because it's been proven that these blogs are WRITTEN BY PAID PR people from Wal-Mart's Edelman flak team) and then "localize" them by inserting "local" reference points, even when they make no sense (since when have the off-ramps to Kingston been backed up a mile, or connected to 9W?!!), shows the type of people we are dealing with, for whom truth is not all that important.

Actually, it is pretty dopey to pass off these fantasy "testimonials" from Edelman's spin-shop as praise from locals!

And some are so close, that I can't imagine how they are going to get home some days, during construction, or deal with months of that noise.

My personal experience with these boards is that concerns are addressed modestly. In the matter of big box, most expressions of concernes met with silence on the part of board members. But still the approach taken, that of addressing zoneing and building, studies of traffic, etc, looks the better way to go.

I beleive the boards and government in general resppond better when there are more than ten residents in the audience and when we support our view with hard facts rather than the entertainment of trying to make someone wrong.

An Ames or Jamesway was NOT a "big box" like Wal-Mart or Home Depot. WMs or HDs are three, four, or more times the size, and taller, wider. ONE store of that size under one roof has a slew of problems and situations that are unprecedented in our area, which is why other communities have placed size caps on large retail projects. A one-stop shopping mecca like WM that needs 1-3 million dollars per week is outsized and would have a direct and indirect impact on the local economy far in excess or anything Ames or Jamesway had.

As for "traffic," it's not the "traffic" per se, but CONGESTION at the areas or egress and entrance. It's actually the same traffic that's always here, just concentrated more in that area at certain times of the day. See, there are no NEW persons driving from outside a 10-12 mile radius just to go to a Wal-Mart (no new "people coming into the area"!), when there's a larger one with lower prices and more store choices in each direction once you get outside that radius. It's the same people ALREADY driving up and down 209 to go to Peters or Shoprite or to the village, or off to work NOW... they would just be driving MORE times up or down that road making MORE trips past the same point they already are! Hence, if they were going to go to any of the other stores in the area, they already would have, as they go by them already. In fact, a WM would only eat up the time an money that could otherwise go to existing local stores. As I pointed out, when Image first opened near ShopRite, expecting it would drive "traffic" to them, it didn't and they had to close. Same with stores near Wal-Mart; once someone has spent hours and unexpected dollars through miles of aisles in WM, they will hustle the kids to the car and split for home! This will cause CONGESTION at the area near the mall, particularly annoying during rush hour and when school buses need to move, but there will be no NEW or DIFFERENT "traffic" and certainly there will be LESS traffic in the village!

See, money won't "spill" into other stores already here; it will DRAIN from those stores! On average, 84% of sales to a new WM COME FROM existing stores! Where else would they come from in OUR small area? How else will WM get $1 or more million per week? They have to get $500,000 from Peters and ShopRite, and the rest from the rest of the stores.

Smaller stores combined do not have the same impact of ONE superstore! The nighttime trucking alone will be something unexperienced previously. Wal-Mart has an atrocious environmental record, with citations, fines, lawsuits. There's plenty of research available to show how this is an unprecedented threat.

There ARE places to purchase things locally, most of the things people really need on a regular basis, NOT the more rare purchases that will still often require driving some distance, or going online. Claiming otherwise is simply ignoring facts and insulting the many local businesses that have been here long term, or have chosen to open here more recently.

Just how many jobs do we need? How will a WM that opens in a year or two deal with jobs needed NOW? And, as I've pointed out, WMs on average DESTROY three existing local retail jobs for each two they "create" (which aren't really "created" anyway, as it's just displacing some retail jobs for fewer ones)! And counties with WMs see poverty INCREASE compared to counties without them! How is this a good thing?!! And with a turnover rate of 50% average per year (some stores being 100300% per year!) what will HALF or more of those workers do AFTER they leave? Better we create NEW businesses locally or help local businesses grow to hire more people, and as for needing things, why not reopen the Ames store with one of similar size and stock? Over half a dozen have already done so, and I've contacted the owners of those stores who think it's viable to do it here too.

Wal-Mart is notorious for NOT paying it's fair share of taxes! WE in the village will see neither sales nor property taxes! And WM avoids paying much of their taxes by a variety of scams that transfer moneys out of the area as "rent" or "fees" to subsidiaries out of state that DON'T have to pay to US! Also, they usually use leverage to negotiate LOWER taxes by threatening to leave an area, or get tax breaks to come in. Finally, they often cost more for services and new infrastructure than they pay back in taxes, and the loss of other businesses REDUCES overall taxes collected and lowers property values, so it winds up LOSING the community more than it gains!

al:

Wal-Mart is a notorious charity piker! This number represents less than 1% of their sales; locally-owned businesses routinely average 4% or more, and that doesn't include the TIME local business owners and workers donate to local causes and organizations. It's only because they're so big the number looks big, but it's less than $200 per worker per year, which is accomplished by paying them less. Actually, this money doesn't come from the PROFITS or the shareholders, but mostly FROM "volunteered" contributions by the underpaid workers themselves! Or the customers. But where millions are raised from workers' pockets to go to a fund to help indigent workers, the $100 billion Walton family only gives $6000 per year toward that!

Typically, when a WM opens in a community, they give maybe $2000 divided up as a bribe to the Chamber of Commerce, some small scholarships, and maybe a church group. They demand major publicity for this pittance, and take more money FROM the community every fifteen minutes!

The whole point of this "news" is to whitewash the horrendous publicity WM has gotten over the past years! THAT is why it's all over the place. Bill Gates has already given BILLIONS, and the wealthier Walton family has given a mere fraction; indeed, they've given way more in political contributions, primarily to Bush and the GOP, than to actual charities. They care nothing for charity, only their lousy PR image. If they were really "charitable," they'd start with their poor workers and their families, many of whom are paid below poverty wages, and then they have them hit up WE taxpayers for their health care and food and to make up the income WM won't pay them!

IF WM comes to Napanoch, it will cost us ALL more than if they don't! There will be FEWER organizations, LESS social involvement, LESS charity, LESS political involvement, because THAT is what the studies show when WM comes in!

From Michael Shuman's 1998 book, "Going Local":

Armel Richardson, a propane dealer, was mayor of Nowata, Oklahoma, when Wal-Wart came in and built a store in 1982. "We welcomed then," he reminisced to a New York Times reporter in 1995. The choice was apocalyptic. HALF the local shopkeepers soon went belly-up as residents flocked for the huge selection of cheap goods from all over the world. "In an apparent departure from Wal-Mart's old emphasis on American goods, "the Times reported, "this is a United Nations of merchandise. There are men's Gitano sports shirts made in Bangladesh, Western Frontier cowboy shirts for Qatar, $7 Gitano suede skirts from China...."

In 1994, Wal-Mart pulled out of Nowata. Not because the store was losing money, but because Wal-Mart wanted to open a still larger "supercenter" 30 miles away in Bartelesville, and didn't want its stores competing against one another. The closure stunned residents of Nowata and punched a hole in the local economy. The loss of sales tax from what was once the city's largest business created a shortfall of $80,000 in the municipality's budget. But Ken Murnan, a local newspaper publisher, reflects that if the town is honest with itself, it cannot hold Wal-Mart exclusively at fault: "I could argue that Wal-Mart came in and raped the community. By the same token, I could argue that we did this to ourselves."

4

A costbenefit analysis of a proposed Wal-Mart store in St. Albans, Vermont, found that the store would cause dozens of existing businesses to close, leading to a net loss of 110,000 square feet of retail space. The 214 jobs created by the new superstore would be offset by the loss of 381 jobs at other businesses. The analysis also found that the overall tax losses expected from the small business failures would be greater than the tax revenue generated by the new Wal-Mart. Moreover, the city would incur a variety of new costs to provide roads, sewers, police, and fire protection to service the sprawling new development. The analysis concluded that for every dollar in tax benefit created by the superstore, there would be 2.5 dollars in tax losses and public costs.

walmartwatch.com(slash)blog(slash)archives(slash)new(underline)economic(underline)study(underline)disproves(underline)wal(underline)mart(underline)claims

New Economic Study Disproves Wal-Mart Claims

A study released today by the Economic Policy Institute (EPI) asserts that Wal-Mart, the worlds largest retailer, can offer better wages to its employees while keeping profit margins nearly 50 percent greater than key competitors. The report also disproves a 2005 Wal-Mart-commissioned study by Global Insight (GI), which claimed that American consumers have saved $263 billion because of expansion by Wal-Mart.

Economists Jared Bernstein and L. Josh Bivens assess the competing claims about Wal-Marts impact on prices and wages in The Wal-Mart Debate: A False Choice Between Prices and Wages. The most important revelation in the new report is the inaccuracy of the claim that Wal-Marts expansion saved consumers $263 billion. Wal-Mart commissioned a study by the consulting firm Global Insight (GI), which found that Wal-Mart had whopping positive impacts on the economy. The Wal-Mart Debate reviews research that reveals the two top-line findings of the GI report are incorrect and the GI research methodology throughout is fraught with problems.

www.epi.org(slash)content.cfm(slash)ib223
www.epi.org(slash)content.cfm(slash)wp276

But I've already pointed all this out.

Wal-Mart and County-Wide Poverty
www.cecd.aers.psu.edu(slash)pubs(slash)PovertyResearchWM.pdf

Abstract

Wal-Mart has created tremendous economic benefits for consumers by providing more choices at lower prices, especially in communities that had only local retail monopolies prior to the chain's arrival. Yet no retailer evokes stronger negative emotions than this chain. Recent media attention has focused on questionable labor practices and other impacts of the stores, while academic studies have examined impacts on retail wages, employment levels and existing stores. Missing from the literature is an analysis of whether the "Wal-Mart effect" is large enough to influence community-wide poverty rates.
We find, after controlling for other factors determining changes in the poverty rate over time, that both counties with more initial (1987) Wal-Mart stores and with more additions of stores between 1987 and 1998 experienced greater increases (or smaller decreases) in family poverty rates during the 1990s economic boom period. We offer three possible explanations for this finding, including that Wal-Mart stores destroy civic capacity in the communities in which they locate by driving out local entrepreneurs and community leaders.

...

This raises the question of why Wal-Mart affects county poverty rates. First is the obvious fact that poverty rates will rise if retail workers displaced from existing mom-and-pop type operations work for Wal-Mart at lower wages because they have no alternatives (this assertion has been contested in the literature), all else equal. Second, even though Wal-Mart Corp. presents itself as a "good local citizen" and engaged in local philanthropy through the Sam Walton Foundation in the amount of $106.9 million 2003 alone, this type of philanthropy may not be as extensive or effective as that which the displaced mom-and-pop type stores would have provided.

A third and perhaps more subtle effect may be that, by destroying the local class of entrepreneurs, the Wal-Mart chain also destroys local leadership capacity. This has been pointed to by rural sociologists and others as one outcome of the increasing concentration of non-local bank ownership and the resulting branch plant economy that is believed to have destroyed the pool of local leadership talent. The destruction of small, locally-owned businesses may also reduce social capital levels, as has been argued, for example, by Cornell University's T. Lyson (pers. comm.. 2002). Social capital, or civic capacity, is also an essential ingredient for economic growth to occur, according to Harvard University's Robert Putnam. Thus, the elimination of local leaders from among a key group of entrepreneurs may be the single-most important and far-reaching impact of Wal-Mart Corp.

Conclusion

After carefully and comprehensively accounting for other local determinants of poverty, we find that the presence of Wal-Mart unequivocally raised family poverty rates in US counties during the 1990s relative to places that had no such stores. This was true not only as a consequence of existing stores in a county in 1987, but it was also an independent outcome of the location of new stores between 1987 and 1998. The question whether the cost of relatively higher poverty in a county is offset by the benefits of lower prices and wider choices available to consumers associated with a Wal-Mart store cannot be answered here.

However, if Wal-Mart does contribute to a higher poverty rate, then it is not bearing the full economic and social costs of its business practices. Instead, Wal-Mart transfers income from the working poor and from taxpayers though welfare-programs directed at the poor to stockholders and the heirs of the Wal-Mart fortune, as well as to consumers. These transfers are in addition to the public infrastructure subsidies often provided by local communities. Regardless of the distributional effects, the Wal-Mart business model appears to extract cumulative rents that exceed those earned by owners of other corporations, including Microsoft.

Wal-Mart Destroys Social Capital, Study Finds

The presence of a Wal-Mart store reduces a community's level of social capital, according to a new study by economists Stephan J. Goetz and Anil Rupasingha.

"Bowling Alone" author Robert Putnam defines social capital this way: "Social capital refers to features of social organization such as networks, norms, and social trust that facilitate coordination and cooperation for mutual benefit." Social scientists generally measure a community's social capital by looking at such factors as how many civic and social organizations it has and the degree to which residents participate in public affairs.

Communities with higher levels of social capital are healthier and more resilient, and their members are better able to work together to solve problems. Economists have found that social capital also contributes to economic growth and poverty reduction.

"Our results indicate that the presence of Wal-Mart depresses social capital stocks in local communities," concluded Goetz and Rupasingha in their study, "Wal-Mart and Social Capital," which was published by the American Journal of Agricultural Economics. The implications include both a weakened social fabric and "real costs for communities in the form of reduced economic growth."

The study examined both communities in which new Wal-Mart stores were built in the 1990s and those that already had a Wal-Mart at the beginning of the decade. The study controlled for other variables known to affect social capital stocks in a community, such as educational attainment.

"Both the initial number of Wal-Mart stores and each store added per 10,000 persons during the decade reduced the overall social capital measure," Goetz and Rupasingha found.

They found that communities that gained a Wal-Mart during the decade had fewer non-profit groups and social capital-generating associations (such as churches, political organizations, and business groups) per capita than those that did not.

They also found that Wal-Mart's presence depresses civic participation. Communities that had or gained a Wal-Mart store in the 1990s had lower voter turnout in the 2000 presidential election.

Goetz and Rupasingha hypothesize that Wal-Mart's negative effect on social capital is partly a result of its impact on locally owned businesses. Wal-Mart harms not only local retailers, but also a wide variety of other businesses and professionals that serve local retailers, such as banks and accountants. When they disappear, the economists write, "the social capital they embody is destroyed, and their entrepreneurial skills and other forms of location-specific human capital are forever lost to the community."

Another factor they cite is the decline of the downtown and other neighborhood business districts that have long served as gathering places and helped to sustain the web of connections that knit communities together.

Goetz and Rupasingha urge local officials to take their findings into account when making land use and development decisions. The effect on social capital is "one more externality that needs to be considered" and weighed against the perceived benefits of a Wal-Mart store, they write.

(For an in-depth discussion of how locally owned businesses generate and foster social capital, see chapter three, "Community Life," in Big-Box Swindle: The True Cost of Mega-Retailers and the Fight for America's Independent Businesses.)

Wal-Mart CEO Frustrated Trying to Do Business in NYC

NEW YORK (AP) -- Wal-Mart apparently is giving up its attempt to open a store in Manhattan.

Wal-Mart Chief Executive Officer H. Lee Scott Junior told The New York Times that trying to do business in New York City was too expensive, exasperating and not worth the effort.

"I don't care if we are ever here,'' Scott said in remarks delivered at a meeting to the paper's reporters and editors on Tuesday.

But a spokesman for the Bentonville, Ark.-retailer said Wednesday that the company had looked at Manhattan but had never tried to open a store there.

"We never really tried to get into Manhattan,'' said spokesman Kevin Thornton. He said some sites were looked at but they were not feasible.

"We work with our real estate group to find a site and build a store,'' said Thornton. However, he added that the outer boroughs might present an opportunity.

Wal-Mart's attempt to open a store in Manhattan has met with local opposition from mom and pop stores worried the giant discount chain would divert its customers. Organized labor also has opposed the store from opening in New York City, including Rego Park, Queens, and in Staten Island, claiming the retailer's low wages could undercut unionized stores.

"We don't care if they're never here,'' Ed Ott, executive director of the New York City Central Labor Council said Tuesday.

Wal-Mart has had difficulty making inroads into urban areas around the country and expanding beyond its suburban market.

Wal-Mart's attempt to open a store in Manhattan has met with local opposition from mom-and-pop stores worried the discount chain would take customers away - and organized labor which believes the retailer's low wages could undercut unionized stores. Plans for stores in Rego Park, Queens and Staten Island also fell through because of union opposition.

We should be thinking about what a community will need to be doing NOW to deal with the inevitable. WE can make ourselves more self-sufficient; Wal-Mart can't.

Wal-Mart CEO Says Cautious as Fuel Prices Rise
Wed Mar 28, 2007 5:04 AM BST

NEW YORK (Reuters) - Wal-Mart Stores Inc. (WMT.N: Quote, Profile , Research) Chief Executive Officer Lee Scott said on Tuesday the world's largest retailer is adopting a cautious stance, considering that rising fuel prices could mean this year will not be easy.

"With fuel pries going up, it feels like it's going to be a challenging year," he said during a television interview on Fox News.

"I wouldn't say worried is the right word. But I think we're cautious thinking through what it means. Fuel prices have an impact on our basic customer," he added.

With more than 127 million customers visiting a Wal-Mart store or the company's Sam's Club locations in America every week, and 1.3 million U.S. employees, Wal-Mart is considered a barometer of the health of the U.S. retail sector.

Wal-Mart also caters to lower-income customers, who are most sensitive to fluctuations in energy prices.

Fuel costs have risen 45 cents over the past two months, and the government said on Monday that the national price for regular unleaded gasoline increased 3.3 cents over the past week to $2.61 a gallon -- surpassing $2.60 a gallon for the first time since September.

"The greatest correlation to Wal-Mart's (comparable) store sales -- it's not the unemployment rate, inflation rate, housing starts or anything else. It is the change in fuel price," Scott said.

"If you think about how many people today live paycheck to paycheck, which are a lot of people, and they are barely making ends meet, when they put more money in their tank that is less that they have to spend at a Wal-Mart store."

Scott's interview came late on Tuesday after U.S. stocks fell following a weak consumer confidence report. The Conference Board, a private research group, said its index of consumer sentiment declined in March amid rising gasoline prices and turmoil in financial markets.

Wal-Mart has been struggling to revive sales at its U.S. store base, which have been hurt by lackluster shopper response to its efforts to sell trendy clothing and a disruptive store remodeling program.