I explained a few reasons why readers of the Alibi might want to support the Wal Mart proposed for Coors and Montaño. The letter is a response to this column which ran in the paper.
It is a challenge to argue in support of Wal-Mart to a relatively left-wing Alibi readership, but there are some sound even arguments in support of the new store location at Coors and Montaño. For starters, I live less than 1 mile from the proposed site and can vouch for the fact that many other neighbors of the site support Wal-Mart and the jobs and increased options it would bring to our area.
If the store were a Whole Foods or Trader Joe’s, it is hard to imagine the same level of opposition. The land is zoned commercial, so regardless of Antoine Predock’s vision for the area, city planners always intended for some major development to be located at that spot. The area, by the way, has been a vacant lot and hardly “natural” for many years.
In terms of the site itself, it is worth nothing that Bosque School already backs up to the Bosque as would the proposed Wal Mart. To my knowledge, no one has complained about the school location. There is also a small park with a parking lot between the Bosque and the proposed Wal Mart.
Lastly, while Wal Mart is hated by most self-described “progressives,” Sebastian Mallaby of The Washington Post pointed out in a 2005 column that “The average Wal-Mart customer earns $35,000 a year, compared with $50,000 at Target and $74,000 at Costco. Moreover, Wal-Mart’s ‘every day low prices’ make the biggest difference to the poor, since they spend a higher proportion of income on food and other basics.”
9 Replies to “Defending Wal-Mart in The Alibi”
Shopping at Walmart is like getting a raise in salary. Low income people need that the most. The real reason the left hates Walmart is that it is non-union and sells groceries in competition with unionized grocery stores, thus putting them at a disadvantage.
It really is a union issue but you can’t tell that from listening to the left. And they are leftist and not progressives. They aren’t progressive about anything.
Walmart is a multinational corporation dedicated to making a profit for its multinational shareholders, not by beating their small local competition, but destroying them. Equivalent to football or hockey played to break legs to vanquish the opponent. Ordinary citizens can stand up and say “this is no way play the game, “ but forces such as RGP gather to side with the nameless/faceless investors to assure an easy path for predator enterprise to come into a community and break small business.
Albuquerque’s big box ordinance is clear about large supply trucks making their pilgrimage through residential streets. This will not stop this very powerful Walmart from trying an end run. The Coors Corridor Development Plan is very clear about the placement of buildings. The traffic mess at Coors and Montano is considered a failed intersection, yet Walmart knows they can defeat all these objections by exercising their political influence (read campaign funds) over the city council. They will spout silliness about (minimum wage) jobs and low prices for the poor, with total ignorance of the system into which they inject themselves.
Somehow I expect a true libertarian blog to gravitate to small business and the health of the local community rather than defending a predatory multinational monster.
Well a lot of so called “libertarians” are very despotic and conformist for that matter.
So defending financial predators is some thing they’ll take great pride in.
Pat, what in the world is a “failed intersection”? I think it is you who spouts “silliness”. More progressive BS. It is all about union control.
Thanks for the clarification, Andrew.
Will, sorry for the traffic design jargon. A failed intersection is the condition when an intersection must handle more cars on a regular basis than it was (re)designed to carry. The failure cascades into affecting other nearby intersections.
I’ve never belonged to a labor union, have no reason to do that. Unions rise up when large scale employers mistreat their means of production. They teach, train and give the employes a voice. Perhaps it is our idea of mass employment that needs scrutiny. 20th century history is instructive on this.
The government builds the roads and plans development and has indeed failed as government so often does. Of course, the plot of land where Wal Mart wants to put its store is already zoned commercial, so traffic is going to increase regardless.
Also, opponents of the Wal Mart often claim that “there are already several stores nearby” implying that the new store is somehow unnecessary and that they know best. In the next breath they cite the traffic problem. Which is it?
Paul, where is the contradiction? Adding a Walmart is going to add to the traffic that already exists. Not adding a big box at a failed intersection costs in commute time but not in tax dollars to redesign and build a new intersection. We taxpayers will be picking up the tab just as we did for the Coors and I-40 Walmart. No thanks.
A free market solution would improve our roads as well. But, the fact is that some kind of commercial development is slated for the site. Wal Mart is the best (and as far as I know, only) candidate to occupy the space that has come along. I see no reason why the government should suddenly decide to prevent such a development for the sole reason that it is Wal Mart.
Wal-Mart is a multinational corporation dedicated to delivering value to its customers as well as its employee shareholders, not by beating their small local competition, but by providing the unmatched value that their competition are either unwilling or unable to provide. Equivalent to football or hockey, or any competitive team venture that is undertaken to establish the very best from a field of many, ordinary citizens can stand up and say “whose providing value for me…is it Government, perhaps my elected officials, or is it the place where I shop, or would like to shop, on a regular basis? It is Wal-Mart!” Fresh breezes, such as RGP, gather to side with the voiceless and to assure an accessible path for efficient enterprise to be given an equal opportunity to come into a community and provide maximum value.
Despite the failed efforts of public transportation (Andrew, feel free to chime in, here), the traffic mess at Coors and Montano is considered a failed intersection. Yet, Wal-Mart likely knows that they can partner with the community to overcome the failures of the city and its unionized employees.
Those in support of the weak minded (I’m seeing a name…Andrew), and of less value, not more, will attempt to diminish entry level accessible jobs, employee shareholders and low prices for the poor, with total ignorance of the system into which they inject themselves. However, and if ontogeny does indeed recapitulate phylogeny, then we should expect nothing less from these creature like developed MONSTERS.