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.
>