 |
| Image: Tru dat. On the morning of the historic vote on whether or not to cast the historic re-vote to allow Walmart to expand....whew... I find myself agreeing and disagreeing with the CNR's Robert (I thought he went by Bob) Speer. In last Thursday's CNR column he wrote... Am I thankful that four members of the City Council voted to shoot down the Walmart expansion? Not really. I admire their chutzpah, and I enjoyed a tingle of schadenfreude when little ol’ Chico managed to bite the butt of the corporate world’s biggest bully, but I’m not sure the council’s decision would have made much of a difference to the shape and texture of the town whichever way it had gone. We’re talking about a single grocery store, after all. That said, I don’t think much case can be made that the expansion was needed. Groceries are a zero-sum game. Chicoans aren’t going to buy more of them just because a new store has opened up, and who drives to another town to buy groceries? The ice cream would melt before you got home. See the entire column here. I don't agree that it took chutzpah to vote down Walmart, that was the easy political decision for the left leaning council to make. It took chutzpah for Flynn and Walker to vote on the other side of the issue. I gave Flynn kudos for switching her position at the time of the vote, but in reality Walker and Wahl deserve the most credit for applying fairness from the start. It would have taken chutzpah to vote down a new Whole Foods. That's something you'd never see happen to protect jobs at Raley's and Safeway. And biting the butt of the corporate world's biggest bully didn't really happen. The city bit it's own butt when it comes to a loss in sales tax. It bit the butt of the staff that worked for 7 years on the project. And it bit the butt of its economic development team that supported the expansion. I often hear the "0 sum" argument coming from opponents of Walmart. It doesn't sound as though Mr. Speer was necessarily in that camp, but he did adopt this argument for his column. If that were true why did Chico ever move from a town with a single grocery store to one with many? Is it possible that the town's population grows over time? Doesn't our General Plan assume 2% annual growth into the future? So, in 2025 where will those 30% more Chicoans shop? Obviously we'll all be buying 30% less food, because it's a "zero sum game". I don't think everyone moving into Meriam Park, or the Northwest development areas, will bring their own food. Obviously grocery related businesses will need to expand in the coming decade. A static understanding of the local economy is not a place to argue from. So where do I agree with Robert Speer? Walmart "expanded" is just a grocery store. Just like its denial, its expansion would not have greatly impacted Chico. It would not have greatly altered the fabric of our town. I could argue that a larger Walmart would hurt Chico, but only because I do not like shopping at their stores (or Winco, or Costco, for that matter). From that podium I could demand that fewer antique and thrift stores be allowed in town. I could question the need for tanning salons, tattoo parlors, art studios, and more, because... well... I just don't shop there. But why should I, or the local government, tell people where to shop? Allowing Walmart to expand would have created more sales tax income, but not enough to solve budget woes. Denying the expansion will make it harder to bring some new businesses to Chico. Some other businesses might be more likely to come here. It's all really a wash. Except for three things that the public and councilors should consider tonight. 1. Democracy should allow equal access to economic opportunities. Walmart should be held to no higher standard than any other applicant. Obviously that's not what's happening. 2. Councilors that jumped on the "gimme more stuff" bandwagon left a bad taste in the mouths of some Chicoans. They have an opportunity to fix that tonight. I don't think Scott Gruendl really wanted a million bucks for stoves, but that impression will linger if it isn't addressed through action. 3. Many of the people that shop at Walmart are low on the socioeconomic ladder. Now is not the time to be hurting poor people. Classism, which continues to rear its head amongst Chico's elite shouldn't be promoted. |
Top Of The Class
2 Comments
Leave a comment
Lon
About Me: Fasten your seatbelts for an exhilarating trip through Chico's public policy; I guarantee it's marginally better than public access TV.
|
Lon,
I thought the Council's chutzpah was in refusing to adopt a finding of overriding considerations. That is the first time ever in my memory. In other words, for the first time they failed to find the benefits of growth to outweigh the costs.
Finally.
Mark
Mark,
In some ways I agree with you. It's obvious that an expanded Walmart would have provided much needed sales tax income to the city (how much is debatable). There's no doubt that voiding additional income during a time of significant budget problems took some fortitude. Some might use another word.
I think the decision was more related to politics than growth impacts. If the council continues along this line for future expansions I'll have to eat my words, but I think the decision was specific to Walmart.
Lon