”
Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it
everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong
remedies.
”
“Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong remedies.”
So said comedian Groucho Marx. While Groucho was no politician, the wisdom of his words rang true at the City Council meeting last Tuesday evening with Super Wal-Mart as the key subject on the agenda. Yes, the application of these kind of “politics” were aptly demonstrated last Tuesday evening, not by the Council, but rather by the opponents of Super Wal-Mart.
I attended that Council meeting and listened in amazement as “the people” spoke their minds. Each person desiring to be heard was given a three-minute time limit set by the mayor, in order to express their position on the coming Super Wal-Mart. Interestingly enough, former council-member Connie Rogers speaking as an opponent of Wal-Mart, decided however, that she would not obey the time limit constraint, and went rambling on reading her speech for a good portion of time well over her limit, showing her contempt for the rule that was suppose to govern everyone else wanting to speak. I guess she figured she had more of a burning mission to accomplish, and was above the rules set for the common folk.
After hearing most of the speakers, quite frankly, I was rather surprised with the faulty logic, the emotionalism, the unfounded suppositions, and the unsupported statistics quoted as well as the just plain dumb statements that virtually all of the Wal-Mart opponents put forth.
By the way, I only lasted until 10 p.m., because after almost three hours of listening to the people speak their minds, I simply couldn’t take any more gobbledygook. In addition, it was disturbing throughout the evening to see that the Wal-Mart opponents simply would not obey the mayor’s numerous requests for them to refrain from clapping for speakers that propagated their position.
Apparently these folks never learned in school the definition of what “please” and “don’t” mean. Manners and respect they left outside the chamber, assuming they had such character traits to begin with. I doubt it. But let’s consider some of the issues argued, and apply the rule of common sense.
There was a united argument that Wal-Mart will add more pollution, because 986 new parking spaces will be added. But no opponent raised any concern about the other smaller retail stores that will be opening this spring, nor about the air pollution generated by Costco and Target.
These new mini-box stores will undoubtedly have a combined total of hundreds of new parking spaces, yet no concern was mentioned about their pollution of the air. That’s rather inconsistent. In addition, it never seemed to occur to the opponents that Gavilan College probably has more than 986 parking spaces, and any further expansion of Gavilan buildings and parking would add more air pollution in Gilroy. But I guess public educational institutions are a sacred cow when it comes to air pollution.
There’s another flaw in the air pollution argument called shifting the blame. Since Gilroy has a major freeway cutting through town, what happens for example, if just 986 more cars travel through Gilroy each hour and don’t even stop at Wal-Mart or any other place in town? Isn’t this additional traffic on the freeway adding additional air pollution to Gilroy above and beyond the existing air pollution? So, how do these opponents plan to regulate freeway traffic in order to reduce Gilroy’s air pollution?
Common sense says you can’t practically regulate the volume of freeway traffic, and since that traffic is more of a pollutant than a new upgraded Wal-Mart would be, stop picking on Wal-Mart and worry about the increase of through freeway traffic traveling through Gilroy. So how about blaming Gilroy’s supposed air pollution problem on the freeway, and not on Wal-Mart? And that goes for all of the complainers there who voiced that their asthma would get worse. Hey, blame it on the freeway traffic, and not on Wal-Mart.
Another common issue brought up was the “predatory” employment practices opponents claimed Wal-Mart uses. At least one disgruntled former Wal-Mart employee reiterated the same old tripe she voiced in a letter to The Dispatch back in October, specifically that Wal-Mart’s low prices (and great profits) are based on their mistreatment of “people just like me.” Such emotionalism trashes the common sense rule that says: “Hey Pam, who forced you to get a job there?” Unless you were hog-tied and went in kicking and screaming, you made your own choice for Wal-Mart employment, and you were free to leave. So don’t play the emotional line of “poor me, I’m a victim.”
While the grocery issue was also brought up in the meeting, I’ll only repeat here what I wrote in my column dated Feb. 10, and that is given all factors, consumer convenience is a very real factor. And for grocery shopping only, I predict the new Super Wal-Mart location just won’t be convenient for many Gilroy shoppers. That should make the local Wal-Mart haters happy.
And finally, as I quoted in my Dec. 2 column, “A great many people think they are thinking when they are merely rearranging their prejudices.” Last Tuesday evening’s council meeting was a classic case of rearranged prejudices. Thank goodness the public hearing on this issue has been closed.
