smoe.org mailing lists
ivan@stellysee.de
| From | MCGaudio@aol.com |
| Subject | Re: audities-digest V1 #885 (14 msgs) |
| Date | Wed, 3 Dec 2003 21:50:14 EST |
[Part 1 text/plain US-ASCII (1.6 kilobytes)]
(View Text in a separate window)
While I agree that Wal-mart's are not the primary cause of downtown blight,
they are a contributing factor in some cases. And, by boycotting Wal-mart (or
other big box retailers), you actually are doing "one goddamn thing to fix the
problem". A dollar spent in a locally owned establishment contributes a
higher percentage to the local economy in the majority of cases. More money into
the local economy equals more tax dollars equals more money for local issues
like urban redevelopment. Additionally, the influx of big box retailers had
created essentially an additional level of suburban sprawl: They don't tend to
move in to the same sites where the previous malls, etc, were, but prefer to rip
themselves a new area out of the undeveloped space. They then put a lot of
the neighboring strip mall stores, etc, out of business, so you begin to get
some level of suburban blight. So you now have empty store fronts in town, and
empty store fronts in the suburbs. If enough people stop shopping at big box
retailers, it will have an effect in reducing sprawl. Especially if they
instead shop at a locally owned store in the city.
So I would argue it's better to self-righteously boycott Wal-mart (or
whatever big box retailer) than to pontificate about how people are just deluding
themselves. Since at least the first could make a difference.
Mark
Stewart Mason wrote:>
> It's much easier to self-rightoeusly say "Well, I won't shop at Wal-Mart."
Good for you, Sparky. I'm sure you feel> much better about yourself. But you
> have not done one goddamn thing to
> actually help fix the problem.
>
For assistance, please contact
the smoe.org administrators.