SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: KLP who wrote (174861)7/28/2006 10:25:46 AM
From: MrLucky  Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 793625
 
Inglewood, CA local council voted against a local WMT. So the corporation went south a few miles and built the store. So much for gaining property and sales tax revenues. Politicians are Stuck on Stupid and We'll Show You. Local citizenry loses much needed tax base.



To: KLP who wrote (174861)7/29/2006 2:48:16 PM
From: Glenn Petersen  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 793625
 
To date, Wal-Mart has not had a major presence in the Chicago metropolitan area. That is going to change, though not in the city itself. The passage of the "big-box" ordinance by the Chicago City Council is a bit puzzling. Normally, the aldermen are clamoring to have jobs come into their wards. The unions had a lot to do with the vote (see my preceding post on this thread).

Wal-Mart focus on close-in suburbs

Passage of city bill requiring big-box stores to pay `living wage' likely to cause retail giant to turn to strategy of ringing city with Supercenters


By Sandra Jones
Tribune staff reporter

Published July 27, 2006

The world's largest retailer suffered a blow on Wednesday when Chicago aldermen passed a bill that requires big-box stores, including Wal-Mart, to pay a so-called living wage. The ordinance could curb Wal-Mart's appetite to build stores in the city limits.

But it's not stopping the company's longstanding plans to blanket the Chicago suburbs with Supercenters, the giant stores that sell general merchandise and groceries.

Indeed, Wal-Mart for the first time has a veteran supermarket executive planted in Chicago, signaling that big changes are ahead.

Michael J. Lewis, president of Wal-Mart's Midwest division, sees millions of consumers hungry for Wal-Mart's low-priced groceries and envisions operating 40 Supercenters in the Chicago area in the next three years by building new stores and expanding existing stores. Wal-Mart currently has only a handful of Supercenters in the outlying suburbs.

"Our share of the market is relatively low in Chicago," said Lewis. "And that's an opportunity for us. We think there's tremendous opportunity to double or even triple our market share in Chicagoland."

That expansion is a threat to Jewel and Dominick's, the Chicago area's two major supermarket chains, where workers are unionized and where prices are generally 15 to 30 percent higher than those at Wal-Mart.

In an interview at Wal-Mart's Chicago office last week, Lewis said if the city council approved the bill, Wal-Mart would "put more time and effort in the suburbs," in particular focusing on those close to the city in order to draw shoppers across city lines.

"It would stand to reason that we would ring Chicago with Supercenters," Lewis said.

Late Wednesday in a written statement issued after the Chicago vote, Lewis added, "Our preference is to serve the people of Chicago in their communities and we will do what we can to keep up with significant consumer demand from city residents." The official statement didn't address whether Wal-Mart would carry through with threats to avoid opening stores within the city limits.

Wal-Mart is on track to open its first Chicago store in September on the West Side and has been trying for two years to open more stores in the city.

Even though Wal-Mart has operated stores in the Chicago area since 1992, the company avoided establishing a high-level executive presence here until last November--a nod to Wal-Mart's impending push into Supercenters, the 150,000-square-foot to 200,000-square-foot stores that sell groceries along with general merchandise. It is also a signal of how dicey things have become for Wal-Mart as it attempts to carry out its plan to open 270 to 280 Supercenters nationwide this year.

Lewis, 55, took the job as senior vice president and president of the Midwest division overseeing 278 traditional Wal-Mart discount stores and 458 Wal-Mart Supercenters. He opened Wal-Mart's Chicago office in May in a high-rise just east of O'Hare International Airport and now has a staff of 25. Unlike Wal-Mart's reputed sparse offices in Arkansas, the outpost is sleek and modern with warm wooden cabinets, new carpet, slim desks and window views. Wal-Mart is leasing the space and got a good deal, says one of Lewis' assistants.

Traditionally, Wal-Mart has housed its division chiefs at headquarters in Bentonville, Ark. Lewis' predecessor, who retired, had been based at the home office. Putting Lewis closer to the action is part of Wal-Mart's efforts, begun earlier this year, to move top executives into the field where they can mingle with community groups and customers as the retailer battles opposition to opening new stores crucial to fueling its growth.

"They needed to put a senior executive here who can talk to local community leaders and politicians and some of the people who are influencing the conditions under which Wal-Mart's growth will occur," said Bill Bishop, founder of Willard Bishop, a Barrington-based grocery consulting firm.

A competitive squash player and expert skier, Lewis enjoys the outdoors. He plays tennis and golf and escapes to a cabin in the woods north of Toronto, where he attempts to get away from the constant blast of e-mail. A fan of the arts, he also makes a point of reading Vanity Fair and People magazines and watching American Idol. "If you want to connect with the consumer, you have to read what they read," he said.

He spent the 1980s working for Loblaw Cos. Ltd. in Ontario, the largest supermarket operator and wholesale food distributor in Canada. He led the retailer's discount division, called No Frills. Most recently, he was president of the retail division at Minnesota-based Nash Finch Co., a wholesale distributor to grocery stores.

That experience will come in handy here. Wal-Mart opened an 880,000-square-foot warehouse in Sterling, off Interstate Highway 88 in western Illinois, for food and other perishable items earlier this year in preparation for its expansion into the Chicago area.

Last year, Wal-Mart skirted a big-box ordinance in Dunkirk, Md., that put a 75,000-square-foot cap on store size by proposing a 74,998-square-foot store next to a 22,689-square-foot garden center, each with separate entrances and cash registers. When asked if Wal-Mart would attempt the same in Chicago, Mr. Lewis declined to comment, saying only that "consumers like our Supercenters best."

The Chicago ordinance requires big-box retailers that are 90,000 square feet or more and generate $1 billion in annual sales to pay workers a minimum wage of $10 an hour and $3 in benefits by 2010. It's the first ordinance of its kind in a major city and affects a total of 19 retailers, including Target, Sears, Home Depot and Bloomingdale's.

David Vite, president and CEO of the Illinois Retail Merchants Association, said the battle isn't over. Retailers are holding out hope that Mayor Richard Daley will veto the bill. If that doesn't happen, they will file a lawsuit, he said.

"We recognize Chicago is our biggest business opportunity going forward," said Lewis. "I certainly believe they're paying too much for groceries in the city of Chicago."

----------

smjones@tribune.com

Copyright © 2006, Chicago Tribune

chicagotribune.com



To: KLP who wrote (174861)7/29/2006 3:17:24 PM
From: Glenn Petersen  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 793625
 
While there is no question that introducing a Wal-Mart into a small town can have a negative impact on the financial health of many small businesses, it is a different matter when you put one in an inner city neighborhood that is underserved by the small business community.

Quite a lot, apparently. Consider a few statistics unearthed by the Chicago Reporter about major retailers in Chicago: White neighborhoods already have nearly eight times as many apparel retailers as black neighborhoods. Residents of black communities in Chicago spend some two-thirds of their consumer dollars (more than $5.3 billion a year) outside their neighborhoods.

And, perhaps most startling, the businesses don't even come when black people have plenty of money to spend: Among areas with median household earnings between $40,000 and $50,000, white areas have nearly 50 percent more major retailers than black areas.


Bigger picture lost in `big-box' debate

Alysia Tate, editor and publisher of the Chicago Reporter, a publication of the Community Renewal Society
Published July 28, 2006

When a relative of mine had a chance to take a job at a "big-box" store, he jumped at it. A few years and a few injuries later--his position required a lot of heavy lifting and hauling--he happily moved up to a less taxing gig with a different company, for a few dollars more an hour.

The point was, he took the best job he could find and worked as hard as he could for as long as he could.

Now the Chicago City Council has passed a measure that will regulate wage and benefit levels of big-box retailers. But the harsh words of some proponents could have made my relative feel like a sellout for taking a job with one of them. On the flip side, Mayor Richard Daley and others, who opposed the ordinance, may have applauded his work ethic but downplayed the difficulty of his working conditions. Regardless, it led to a young African-American man being caught in a blame game that served, yet again, to divide a community already divided over far too many issues.

Whether one supported or opposed the ordinance, a critical point got submerged by all of the rhetoric: the utter disinvestment in our city's black neighborhoods. This has resulted from a complex history involving many groups, but it remains a fact of life for far too many Chicagoans. As Ald. Toni Preckwinkle (4th) has stated time and time again, this kind of equity issue continues to remain on the back burner for the Daley administration.

And in this most recent example, many leaders and citizens of all races remained reactive, missing the opportunity to express a broad vision of sustained, viable development in these neighborhoods, with long-term solutions. We missed an opportunity to form a coalition that would address this more critical, though complex, issue. Instead, we focused on the debate of the day.

It has become more comfortable for many of us, apparently, to insist that standing up to the Wal-Marts of the world is more realistic than shining a bigger light on a problem few economists purport to know how to solve. What will it take to create healthy, vibrant African-American communities again? How can we rebuild them following decades of white flight? What stops retailers from coming to our neighborhoods? What will it take for us to move beyond desperation in our effort to attract businesses?

Quite a lot, apparently. Consider a few statistics unearthed by the Chicago Reporter about major retailers in Chicago: White neighborhoods already have nearly eight times as many apparel retailers as black neighborhoods. Residents of black communities in Chicago spend some two-thirds of their consumer dollars (more than $5.3 billion a year) outside their neighborhoods.

And, perhaps most startling, the businesses don't even come when black people have plenty of money to spend: Among areas with median household earnings between $40,000 and $50,000, white areas have nearly 50 percent more major retailers than black areas.

These are the kind of statistics Chicago's black leaders juggled as they debated the big-box ordinance. They are exactly the type of numbers Daley pointed to as he opposed it.

But we would all be mistaken to see this measure as a convenient solution to economic development problems in disadvantaged communities. Those who do will commit a great disservice to the city's African-Americans--and all of us--unless they continue to hold accountable all of our leaders in government and the business community.

The task of creating healthy African-American neighborhoods stretches far beyond a single ordinance. Just as important as this measure--or perhaps more important--is what actions will be taken now that the votes have been tallied. And all of us, not just black folks, must take some responsibility for that if things are to truly change.

A lot of why my relative took the job he did rested on a simple quandary for workers in many black neighborhoods: There were few other choices available to him.

That bigger picture, we must remember, remains the real issue.

Copyright © 2006, Chicago Tribune

chicagotribune.com