Asking legitimate questions, making reasonable demands: These
are responsible responses by elected officials to the proposal to
build a Wal-Mart Supercenter in Gilroy.
Asking legitimate questions, making reasonable demands: These are responsible responses by elected officials to the proposal to build a Wal-Mart Supercenter in Gilroy.
But many of the ridiculous demands made by the City of Gilroy are an embarrassment.
Requiring Wal-Mart to have a viable tenant for its current building before allowing it to build a newer, larger facility is prudent.
Demanding that it hold ecology classes for children is ludicrous.
Requiring Wal-Mart to prevent recreational vehicles from using its parking lot as a campground is reasonable.
Demanding that it hold classes to teach its competitors how to compete would be laughable were it not so shockingly un-American.
Requiring Wal-Mart to extend the store’s awning to create more shade would be a sensible suggestion from an architectural review board with expertise in that area – if Gilroy had one.
Demanding that the company follow a particular model for charitable giving is over the top.
Gilroy’s already the land of big-box retailers. We can’t undo the decisions that have brought us to this place and, quite frankly, adding a Wal-Mart Supercenter to our community will be a drop in the proverbial big-box bucket. Why the unreasonably intense scrutiny and the preposterous demands for Wal-Mart when Best Buy, Lowe’s, Home Depot, Costco, Target and many other giant retailers faced no such demands?
We’re forced to ask: Are Gilroy leaders hoping to give the appearance of being tough on a controversial retailer before giving the Wal-Mart Supercenter the inevitable green light? It sure smells that way.
We’ve advocated for asking tough questions that will illuminate the key question that City Council must answer: Will a Wal-Mart Supercenter be good for Gilroy residents – not just the sacred sales tax coffers of City Hall, the land of $26 million police stations?
That’s what City Council should be spending their time answering, not coming up with supercilious and superfluous hoops through which they can try to make Wal-Mart jump. This is supposed to be a City Council proceeding, not a three-ring circus.
It’s a waste of time and energy.
The unions are making Wal-Mart the battleground for obvious reasons. The grocery clerks are on strike in southern California now and next year their contract runs out in northern California. If non-union Wal-Mart is operating grocery stores in northern California, then the union clout against Safeway, for example, is greatly diminished.
Every City Council member should understand that. And there are plenty of people who will tell you that Wal-Mart is the “evil empire of capitalism.” And plenty more who will testify that working there is a good job with adequate benefits available.
The hammer being dropped on Wal-Mart is, to a large extent, ironic. Participants in the much-ballyhooed Gilroy retail job training classes, for example, will find plenty of jobs out there at outlet stores, Lowe’s and the like. But most – even the managerial jobs – are part time in order to avoid paying employee benefits.
Here’s our advice for Gilroy leaders: Drop the pretense, deal with the substantive issues and make the call. Drawing the Wal-Mart issue on and on and on just invites further polarization.
