It's been a rough year for Walmart.

The giant retailer just announced its worst net sales increase in history---just a 1% increase over 2009. But its drive to expand markets into urban areas is not slowing down one bit.

Walmart's net sales grew by only $3.9 billion in 2010, one-seventh of the $27.3 billion in net sales increase the company experienced in 2009. Between 2006 and 2009, Walmart's net sales growth has averaged 9.3%. By contrast, the 1% sales growth announced in the company's 2010 Annual Report has got to have investors nervous.

The implosion of sales growth only makes Walmart more determined to push into more lucrative markets abroad---but also into urban markets in America.

Walmart is waging two urban guerilla wars simultaneously---one in Chicago, the other in New York City. Never before has a retailer had to resort to such intense efforts to build a store.

Much of the problem stems from the fact that Walmart stores are loaded with two things: cheap Chinese imports, and cheap American jobs. This profile explains in large measure why urban markets---where organized labor is most concentrated---have been so difficult for a retailer to break into.

Walmart has opened up its corporate checkbook to buy its way into urban centers. The New York Times reported this week that the Arkansas retailer is trying to bulk up its Chicago efforts to site a second store by hiring two former employees of Mayor Richard Daley. A Walmart spokesman said the company's new lobbyists would be "helping us to tell the Walmart story."

Mayor Daley like that story, and has been urging the Chicago City Council to hold a vote on a southside Walmart and be done with it. The Mayor doesn't want to bother with passing the project through the city's Zoning Committee---where it is likely to encounter stiff Chicago winds. Walmart is therefore buying more political muscle to try and punch a hole in Chicago's zoning process.

"Vote it up or down, and then go back and tell the people 'Hey, I got a job as alderman, but you don't have one, ha ha ha,' " Daley was quoted as saying. "Laugh at the people: 'I got a job, OK, you don't have a job.'" Daley must count himself among the economic illiterates in this nation who still believe that giant retail corporations "create" jobs---even as national and regional retailers drop by the wayside---taking thousands of jobs down with them. Daley has a jobs calculator: it just has no minus pad on it.

Meanwhile, Walmart has been trying to get a bite out of the Big Apple for years, with nothing so far to show for it. The retailer rolled snakeyes in Queens and Staten Island---but is now hoping for better luck in Brooklyn. On March, 28, 2007, Sprawl-Busters reported that Walmart's then-Chairman Lee Scott told the New York Times his passion to locate a superstore in Manhattan had cooled off. "I don't care if we are ever here... I don't think it's worth the effort." The newspaper called Scott's comments "a surprising admission of defeat, given the company's vigorous efforts to crack into urban markets and expand beyond its suburban base in much of the country." Walmart clarified later that Scott was only referring to Manhattan.

This week Crain's New York Business reports that Walmart still thinks New York City is worth the effort. Walmart is reportedly the surreptitious tenant in a massive Brooklyn project known as the Gateway II. The landowner, Related Cos., says no leases have been signed---but often in such cases Walmart orders the developer not to disclose the retailer's interest. Related has already survived the toughest part of the process: Gateway II passed through the city's land-use process last summer. By hiding off-site, Walmart can now reveal its interest, unbruised by the permitting process.

Walmart allowed its Director of Community Affairs to tell Crain's, "We know that New Yorkers want to shop and work at Walmart, and as a result, we continue to evaluate potential opportunities here. New Yorkers want quality jobs and affordable groceries, and it remains our goal to be part of the solution."

But Walmart is part of the problem, because the company cannot deliver on 'quality jobs.' It's own "associates," assail the company perennially over such issues as wage and hour theft, lack of decent health care benefits, and gender and racial bias in hiring, pay and promotion. The company's impact on retail jobs has been similar to this week's tornados in Tennessee and Mississippi: the weak retailers collapse, and those that remain standing look badly beaten up.

"We don't care if they're never here," the executive director of the New York City Central Labor Council said last summer. "We don't miss them. We have great supermarkets and great retail outlets in New York. We don't need Walmart."

But by June of 2008, Lee Scott was talking about New York City again. Speaking at an analysts meeting, Scott said that New York's Mayor Michael Bloomberg wanted a Walmart. "I just talked to the Mayor who wants us," Scott told the analysts. "And Donald Trump called this week. And he'd like to have us. But in general, New York City hasn't called and said please put a store there. Things get bad enough, they will."

In Chicago, Walmart is banking on the fact that the recession has worn down some leaders in the low-income community who see a national chain store as their pathway out of poverty. The local self-reliance that used to be the hallmark of these communities has now turned into a pathetic whine for a corporate savior to make them baggers and clerks. But organized labor in Chicago is not about to drop its insistence on decent jobs at livable wages.

According to Crain's New York Business, Walmart proposals in the past were killed by "labor unions and community members who worried that the store's low prices and modest wages would eat into the market share of unionized retailers like Pathmark, Key Food and Duane Reade and put mom-and-pop shops out of business." True enough. But Walmart could also face behind-the-scenes problems from BJ's and Target, which are both anchors in the Gateway I retail center.

Last summer, when Crain's first wrote that Walmart was still beating the boroughs for a retail site, Walmart sent an email to Crain's which said, "Walmart, for sure, is a very different company than we were five years ago." But Walmart today is the same exploitive company that made it one of America's most vilified employers---it's just $120 billion bigger in net sales today. "The reality remains the same," Stuart Appelbaum, president of the Retail, Wholesale and Department Store Union told Crain's. "Walmart is not welcome in New York City, and it should not try to take advantage of these economic times to slither in."

What you can do: That sentiment was echoed last summer by New York City Council Speaker Christine Quinn, who told the media, "While Walmart claims to have improved corporate practices, these efforts appear to be little more than window dressing. Until they make actual changes, providing a living wage and ending the practice of preying on small businesses, I will block any attempt to locate in the five boroughs."

City Councilman Charles Barron of Brooklyn also threw down the challenge. "We don't like how they treat workers as it relates to salaries and benefits, and we're not going to have them in our community. They will have the fight of their lives."

Walmart may be counting on Gateway II to be their hidden gateway into New York City, and Mayor Daley may be counting up his former staff who are now on Walmart's payroll, but two things are certain: Walmart's 2010 sales were terrible, and its guerilla warfare in urban markets is going to turn into a string of ugly frontpage stories.

The United Food and Commercial Workers is gearing up for a protest in the Gateway II neigborhood soon. "Walmart was never, ever mentioned once through the entire land-use process," says Pat Purcell, assistant to the president of UFCW Local 1500. "In this area, it's a job killer. It's just the wrong use."

Eight months ago, Purcell gave Walmart shareholders a similar warning: "The day they open their doors in the city, you will see a historic labor battle the likes of which has not been seen since the [1990-91] Daily News strike and the [2005] transit strike."

Readers are urged to email New York City Council Speaker Christine Quinn at http://council.nyc.gov/d3/html/members/home.shtml with the following message: "Speaker Quinn, Please don't let Walmart slip in through the back door at Gateway II. Walmart says it is a different company than it was 5 years ago---but the exploitation has not changed, the impact on smaller merchants has not changed, the low wages and lack of decent health care has not changed. I urge you to stand by your pledge last summer not to let them into the burroughs. Don't let that change either."

This is the story of how a piece of land given to a YMCA that was supposed to remain in a natural state ended up becoming a Wal-Mart supercenter---and even worse---killing a Wal-Mart discount store five miles away.

The city of Elyria, Ohio has become the site of the 12th 'dark store' owned by Wal-Mart. A 120,036 s.f. Wal-Mart in Elyria is now on the list of stores being marketed by Wal-Mart Realty---but its also another empty box whose property taxes will plummet, and sales taxes disappear. Ohio now has 1.2 million square feet of dead Wal-Marts.

The Elyria store has closed because Wal-Mart built a new superstore in Lorain, Ohio, just five miles away. On November 23, 2005, Sprawl-Busters reported that voters in Lorain had rejected a Wal-Mart supercenter at the polls. When a Home Depot project followed almost immediately, a group called The Friends of Anna E. Martin, named in the memory of the land's former owner, formed to oppose Liberty Development Co.'s plans to build Lighthouse Village plaza on 65 acres.

The Lorain group circulated petitions for a referendum against the rezoning. The Lorain City Council approved rezoning of the property by a vote of 9-2 in 2005, and approved the preliminary plans for the Lighthouse "Village" project. Anna E. Martin willed the property to the Lorain YWCA in the 1960s to be preserved in its natural state and used for women's and youth programs. A Probate Judge ruled in 1994 that the Church on the North Coast could buy the property from the YWCA and had to adhere to the conditions of the will.

The Judge also ruled the church could sell the property to Liberty Development contingent on City Council approving the rezoning. Liberty Development was also required to donate $1.2 million to local charities to satisfy Martin's wishes in the will.

The developer put up a Home Depot at Lighthouse Village, along with a Kohl's Department store.

On July 30, 2008, Sprawl-Busters reported that Lorain was swirling with rumors that Wal-Mart was the next big box store to move in beside the Kohl's. "There is no deal," a spokesman for the developer said, and Wal-Mart told the Journal, they were unaware of any specific proposal, but added: "We're always looking for opportunities for growth and serving our customers."

A Lorain official made it clear that the city was ready to say yes to Wal-Mart. "We would entertain any company, big or small, coming into our community depending on how the deal is structured. As long as we create a win-win scenario for the business and the city of Lorain, I'm for it," said Lorain's Service Director.

The Lorain City Council voted September 15, 2008 to approve a 200,000 s.f. superstore. Councilman Bret Schuster was the only one to vote against the plan. He raised concerns over the superstore's impact on other city businesses. "Wal-Mart is not the best fit there," he said. "It'll probably cause Super K to close its doors, and who knows what other businesses will be affected?"

This week, a year and half after the Lorain vote, people in neighboring Elyria found out who else would be affected by the Lorain vote. The Midway Mall in Elyria will have a dead Wal-Mart discount store by this summer when the Lorain superstore opens.

The 13.785 acre site in Elyria is already listed for sale by Wal-Mart Realty. The store is only 18 years old--but at 120,036 s.f. (the size of 2 football fields) it is not likely to move any time soon.

Making matters more difficult---there is an empty Dillard's department store (which was killed by competitors like Wal-Mart) in the same mall, an empty Michael's craft store nearby, as well as a nearby dead Circuit City.

"We'll have another big-box building that's empty," Elyria City Council President Forrest Bullocks, told the Chronicle-Telegram. "For that reason, I hate to see it close, but I'm not surprised because I knew it was just a matter of time once the Wal-Mart on the city's southeast side opened, and Wal-Mart decided not to build that new store on Griswold Road."

Elyria already has a Wal-Mart supercenter on Chestnut Commons Drive a couple of miles from the Midway Mall. Less than two years ago, Wal-Mart dropped plans to build a second superstore in Elyria.

Elyria Mayor Bill Grace is trying to put the best face on the proliferation of 'ghost boxes' in his community. He claims the lost sales from the closed Wal-Mart will just be shifted to the city's Target store or the other Wal-Mart supercenter. But now the Mayor has a large mall that is dying on his watch.

"The effects will be relatively minor," the Mayor told the Telegram. "Many of the businesses in and around the mall are doing relatively well. But we must keep in mind the retail economy will stay pretty stagnant or produce minimal new retail construction for at least the next five years. Locations that have space available for lease will see business before new retail locations are built elsewhere in the county." An interesting theory---but one that Wal-Mart has just proven false.

What you can do: One of the area's newspapers, The Morning Journal, has also tried to put a good spin on this corporate leap-frogging.

The Journal mistakenly concluded that "Wal-Mart is bring several hundred jobs to Lorain." Actually, almost every job is coming from Elyria---so the net change will be negligible. That's because more jobs will be lost at area grocery stores. The employment bottom line will be a zero sum game for both Elyria and Lorain.

Elyria is clearly losing $100,000 in tax revenue from Wal-Mart. This makes Elyria the latest city to join the growing list of "communities that Wal-Mart killed twice"---once on the way in, and once on the way out.

Elyria is already talking about offering tax subsidies to anyone who moves to the Midway Mall. Maybe the offer of welfare will attract more national chain stores.

Readers are urged to call Elyria City Council President Forrest Bullocks at (440) 322-7370 with the following message: "Dear President Bullocks, Wal-Mart now has 12 dead stores in Ohio, counting the Elyria store in the Midway Mall, which is now listed for sale by Wal-Mart Realty.

The city should consider passing a surety bond ordinance that requires any retailer with a store greater than 100,000 s.f. leasable area to demolish their building if it sits for more than 12 months without an active retail use. A number of communities are taking this defensive action to spare their taxpayers of the cost of demolition years later.

Clearly Elyria and Lorain should be doing some regional land use planning, because currently these big chain stores are playing one city off the other---and squandering land in the process. Dead malls are not just a waste product of the free market system--they represent mindless sprawl and poor use of a limited natural resource.

I urge you to stop saying Yes to all these redundant stores, and instead come up with a land use plan that limits the size of big box stores, which amounts to nothing more than an elaborate game of musical chairs.

Elyria and Lorain will see no new jobs from all this leap frog development."

Is it credible when Morgan Stanley says Wal-Mart's impact on grocery stores is more bark than bite?

In mid March, an analyst at Morgan Stanley floated the story that Wal-Mart was planning to slash its food prices beginning in April and launch a major media campaign to prevent market share from drifting to other grocers.

The Morgan Stanley report chopped up the food retail index like a vegematic. The analysis was described as a "threat" to the grocery industry, and "a major setback" for Wal-Mart's competitors. "While this helps address Wal-Mart's traffic woes," the Morgan Stanley analyst wrote, "we view this as a major setback for the grocery stocks, which have been rallying on hopes of a return to more rational pricing."

This markdown on "10,000 items" was supposedly Wal-Mart's response to nervous investors who feared that foot traffic was leaving the giant retailer as the recession eased.

The media stories that accompanied the Morgan Stanley report noted that shares at competitors like Safeway, Supervalu, Kroger and Whole Foods all were down. Wal-Mart shares were down also. The Morgan Stanley report did not help anyone.

So less than four weeks later, Morgan Stanley dramatically changed the tone of its message about Wal-Mart's prices----as dramatically as the retailer's reported price cuts. What began as a "threat" and "major setback" in mid March, suddenly became not "overly threatening" by mid April. The same Morgan Stanley analyst now had a very different take: "While the price cuts to date don't appear overly threatening to the grocers, the threat of ongoing reductions does leave a cloud over the group, in our view." Morgan Stanley wondered out loud if "Wal-Mart's bark is worse than its bite." Or, more appropriately, was Morgan Stanley's bite worse than its bark?

This story is clouded by the fact that Morgan Stanley doesn't just conduct price checks on Wal-Mart. Morgan Stanley is an intimate business partner with Wal-Mart. For years these two companies have been developing retail ventures. For example, the Morgan Stanley Real Estate Funds have been developing at least a dozen retail shopping centers in China, each anchored by a Wal-Mart, totaling 8 million square feet of retail area. Wal-Mart's Vice President of Development for China told the media that the joint venture with Morgan Stanley "will add an entirely new level of mall development and management expertise to the China retail landscape."

Another example: In June, 2007, Morgan Stanley announced that it would own and finance solar electric power systems at seven Wal-Mart facilities in California, helping the giant retailer put on a green face to cover its expansive sprawl.

Morgan Stanley said it learned about Wal-Mart's price war with grocery competitors during a store tour and presentation with the retailer. But given the intertwined fate of these two companies, it's not clear what to make of Morgan Stanley's flip-flop analysis about Wal-Mart.

First it sounds like Wal-Mart is going to eat its grocery competitors for lunch, then it turns out that Wal-Mart's bite has no teeth. Why did Morgan Stanley decide to low-key Wal-Mart's impact on its rivals? Could it be that Morgan Stanley's comments were not helpful to it's partner Wal-Mart's stock?

What's certain is that Wal-Mart's "bite" has cut the grocery industry into small pieces. Wal-Mart was not in the grocery business until 1989. By 1992, the company only had 6 supercenters. But then things took off. Today, groceries account for more than half of Wal-Mart's domestic sales. As the consultant Retail Forward wrote in 2003, "It's hard to imagine that just a decade ago, Wal-Mart was barely on the food radar screen." Now Wal-Mart is the whole radar.

What You Can Do: If you want to understand the real impact that this huge corporation has had on groceries, you have to look at the local trade area level. The Dallas Morning News, in reporting the Morgan Stanley story, noted that Wal-Mart now controls 40% of grocery sales---two and a half times greater than its nearest competitor Kroger.

Wal-Mart has carved out 40% of the food market in many trade areas across the country---after people in the food business said Wal-Mart would never do groceries well. That's the ugly truth hiding behind the soft "bark" stories out of Morgan Stanley. It wasn't Wal-Mart's bark that killed many regional grocery chains, including several this past year.

It's also important to state the obvious: Morgan Stanley prospers when Wal-Mart prospers, and they are business partners in making Wal-Mart the Emperor of Food.

When do the anti-trust discussions begin?

Readers are urged to clip this article and email it to your Congressman at his or her website.

Executive salaries have long been absurdly out of whack when compared to the average worker, and the trend has been growing more radical every year.

This year Walmart's CEO, Mike Duke, was paid $19.2 million in direct salary, stocks, and other benefits. If this sounds like an absurdly high number, consider that this is actually less than he made last year. By nearly a third. That's right, last year Walmart's CEO made $28.4 million.

Despite the drop, Mike Duke still made nearly 1,000 times (actually 967 times) that of the average Walmart worker, who makes $11.24 an hour. Of course that is the official average Walmart lists, but it is skewed because many of the mid-level managers are still paid hourly and are included in that average. If you were to look at a Walmart cashier making $8 an hour (a category many Walmart workers would fall in to) working 34 hours a week (the average for a Walmart worker) 52 weeks a year, they would make just $14,144. Mike Duke made 1357 times more this year.

The comparison is astounding. It would take the average Walmart worker around a thousand years to earn what Mike Duke earned just this year, even after his compensation fell by a third.

Check out the article, which lists other highly paid Walmart execs, here.

Officials are getting desperate in Chicago.

Instead of community self-determination, local leaders are turning for relief to national chain stores. Wal-Mart supporters who want to see more big box stores in the city are not slowed down by the voodoo economics of Wal-Mart. A superstore will bring no new jobs to Chicago---but don't tell that to the city Aldermen who want one.

This week the battle lines grew sharper over a plan to build a second Wal-Mart in Chicago---despite the fact that the economics just aren't there.

On January 10, 2010, Sprawl-Busters reported that a new study from Loyola University and the University of Illinois at Chicago (UIC) concluded that the one existing Wal-Mart store in Chicago had not produced any new jobs in the local economy.

The study, "The Impact of an Urban Wal-Mart Store on Area Businesses: An Evaluation of One Chicago Neighborhood's Experience," found that Wal-Mart's opening in Chicago has produced a loss of 300 full-time jobs. Researchers concluded that the probability of a local retailer going out of business during the study period was significantly higher for establishments close to Wal-Mart's location. The loss of jobs in the trade areas near Wal-Mart just about balanced out any 'new' jobs attributable to Wal-Mart. "These estimates support the contention that urban Wal-Mart stores absorb retail sales from other city stores without significantly expanding the market," the researchers said.

"What we're seeing here is that placing a Wal-Mart in an urban setting is basically a 'wash' in terms of sales revenue for the city and jobs for local residents," explained study co-author David Merriman, head of UIC's economics department. "This means that communities around the city should not see Wal-Mart, and other big-box retailers, as a panacea to local economic struggles."

A total of 306 enterprises were tracked, and the research team found that 82 (27%)of them went out of business during the study period. A key finding of the survey is that the probability of going out of business was significantly higher for businesses close to Wal-Mart. Being located close to Wal-Mart was particularly toxic for retailers selling electronics, toys, office supplies, general merchandise, hardware, home furnishings, and drugs.

Based on their analysis of retail sales, the researchers concluded that "These estimates support the contention that large-city Wal-Marts absorb retail sales from other city stores without significantly expanding the market...Overall, the weight of evidence suggests that the Wal-Mart opening on the West Side led to the displacement of a range of businesses. There is no evidence that Wal-Mart sparked any significant net growth in economic activity or employment in the area."

Despite such clear evidence, the Chicago Plan Commission this week rubber-stamped a southside Wal-Mart project, leading to a show-down at the City Council, where the plan must be approved or buried. The so-called "Pullman Park" project is an enormous tract of urban land which involves not just retail, but 850 homes, a hotel tower, a community recreation center, elderly apartments, and a park.

Local officials say they need the Wal-Mart supercenter because it will sell groceries, and the southside of Chicago is called the "food desert" because of its lack of grocery stores. Instead of trying to find local entrepreneurs, clergy and other leaders of the community are turning to a giant corporation from Arkansas to save them.

But Chicago City Alderman Edward M. Burke (14th), who chairs the Council's Finance Committee, insists on linking Wal-Mart to a living wage ordinance. Burke says that any project which requires city funds should have to provide a living wage of at least $11.03 an hour. Burke has drawn a line in the sand and told Wal-Mart that he will not support their big box project unless there is a living wage deal as part of the package.

Such an agreement should not be a problem for Wal-Mart, which claims that "as of March 2010, the average wage for regular, full-time hourly associates in Illinois is $12.15 per hour." These figures don't count the myriad of part-timers who work for lower wages, and the full-timers may only get 34 hours per week.

The retailer has taken the position that it will not negotiate over wages. "We've been open and transparent through this entire process," a Wal-Mart spokesman told the Chicago Sun-Times. "We've been willing to listen to both our critics and our supporters. But, we're not willing to make any commitments" on wages. "We feel like we pay a competitive wage nationally, here in the state, in Chicagoland and specifically at our Austin store. We feel like our jobs offer real career opportunities."

None of this talk made any difference to the Chicago Plan Commission, which looks only at zoning issues. But during the presentation this week, one Alderman could not resist from injected a little politics that had nothing to do with land use. Alderman Anthony Beale (9th) told the Commission that he has the votes to win for Wal-Mart at the Zoning Committee, and ultimately from the Chicago City Council. Beale said he was backing Wal-Mart as a last resort, because "Nobody else is coming to the area. Nobody else is trying to fill the ills of my community." Wal-Mart will certainly "fill the ills" of the 9th ward. "If Wal-Mart doesn't anchor this site, my site goes nowhere because everyone else has said, 'No. We're not interested,'" Beale complained.

In fact, Beale said he tried wooing a bunch of other retailers, but ended up with Wal-Mart. "Wal-Mart wasn't our first choice," Beale admitted. "I worked with the unions to try to get someone else to come in."
What you can do: There was a note of desperation in many of the comments offered by residents of the south side. One local pastor said a Wal-Mart would bring "some optimism" to this neglected part of the city. "This will give people in that community... some hope," the pastor said.

But not all Aldermen are feeling this desperate. Alderman Freddrenna Lyle (6th) said she would introduce the living wage ordinance again---similar to the ordinance that Mayor Richard Daley vetoed once before. There are 18 Aldermen who back Lyle's ordinance, which would require businesses with 50 or more workers that take $250,000 or more in direct or indirect subsidies from the city, to pay its workers at least $11.03 an hour.

But Alderman Beale, who apparently has not read the Loyola study of the first Wal-Mart on the West Side of Chicago, still believes that this development will create thousands of new jobs, and he is not fussy about what kind of wage they pay.

When Wal-Mart opened its only store in Chicago on the West Side of the city, the retailer said, "This store will show what a great asset Wal-Mart can be to the community, as an employer and corporate citizen." From the very beginning of its drive to locate stores in the Windy City, Wal-Mart has based its case predominately on jobs. One of Wal-Mart's most visible and vocal frontmen is Alderman Howard Brookins of the city's 21st Ward on the South Side of town. "We need jobs, plain and simple," the Alderman has said repeatedly. Brookins has been so outspoken on the issue of Wal-Mart and jobs that the Chicago Tribune has referred to him as "the Alderman from Wal-Mart." But the jobs argument isn't adding up in Chicago.

The researchers in the Loyola study suggest that their findings are very similar to a number of other studies on "the Wal-Mart effect" that have been published since the 1980s. "Under the circumstances," the new study says, "claims that the Chicago Wal-Mart has led to significant economic development in nearby areas must be considered skeptically."

Wal-Mart has been trying to break into the Chicago market like gangbusters since the spring of 2004--almost a six year epic struggle. The Chicago City Council responded in part to Wal-Mart's push by passing a "big box living wage" ordinance, which Chicago Mayor Richard Daley vetoed. The West Side Wal-Mart opened in the fall of 2006. To further enhance its chances of additional stores, Wal-Mart announced in the spring of 2006 that this West Side store was going to be part of a national campaign launched by Wal-Mart called "Jobs and Opportunity Zones (JOZ).

Wal-Mart promised that it would select five small local businesses for advertisements in local newspapers and on Wal-Mart's in-store radio network. Wal-Mart also pledged to host workshops for small businesses on how to "survive & thrive" with a Wal-Mart nearby. A grant of $300,000 would be donated to local chambers of commerce to create effective programs for the funds.

But researchers from Loyola and UIC interviewed 2 of the 5 businesses selected to be part of the JOZ program. Both businesses claimed that Wal-Mart did buy ads for their businesses in local newspapers---but neither attended any Wal-Mart seminars---and one owner called the Wal-Mart initiative "pretty much a failure."

The Loyola/UIC study underscores research conducted by economists Ken Stone, Tom Mueller, David Neumark, and others that reveal the dark side of Wal-Mart's economic impacts. One earlier study showed that each Wal-Mart worker replaces about 1.4 non-Wal-Mart retail workers. The group Retail Forward concluded in 2003 that "for every Wal-Mart supercenter that opens in the next five years, two supermarkets will close their doors." Wal-Mart's only comment about the Loyola study was that it was funded by "a group with ties to labor."

It is remarkable to see Aldermen and religious leaders in Chicago turning to a national chain store to 'save' their community. The sense of self-reliance, and self-sufficiency are gone. The South Side of Chicago, they say, needs a national chain store to lift it up. The community is down on its luck, flat on its back. Wal-Mart jobs were not the first choice---but now these low wage jobs are looking good to some politicians. The concept of locally-owned community economic enterprise is dead. The local entrepreneur is gone.

All that remains is the pathetic plea of local leaders for Wal-Mart to lead them out of the wilderness.

Readers are urged to email Chicago Alderman Anthony Beale at ward09@cityofchicago.org with the following message: "Dear Alderman Beale, It is hard to watch elected officials scrap the bottom to endorse low wage jobs at Wal-Mart---especially since these national retailers create no new net jobs for your constituents.

Don't look to Wal-Mart to pull up your community. Your power lies inside the community, not in chasing down national chain stores. You call the South Side a "food desert." But it is really a "hope desert"---because its elected leaders can find no better partner to dance with than Wal-Mart---a company which has been repeatedly sued by its own workers for racial and gender discrimination, and for stealing benefits from its own 'associates.'

Lift your sights, Alderman Beale. Inspire your community to create is own grocery store, rather than turning to the billionaire family from Arkansas. Do not act out of desperation. Instead of just opening the gates to cheap, Chinese imports and part-time jobs with unremarkable benefits, work to find your people a decent job at a liveable wage---and never settle for less."

They call them "the towns that Wal-Mart killed twice." When Wal-Mart arrives in a small town, it often shows up with its suitcase already packed. On the way in, Wal-Mart destroys smaller competing merchants, and then, when corporate headquarters decides its time to pull out, the damage occurs all over again as the dependent community loses its anchor retailer.

Articles have been written about communities like Hearne, Texas, or Nowata, Bixby and Pawhuska, Oklahoma---all communities that had a Wal-Mart discount store, but lost it when the retailer shut their store down to build a bigger venue just down the road. This scenario has happened hundreds of times across America, and since 1995 Wal-Mart has abandoned over 1,000 stores just to put up a larger store across the road. This company has exhibited the most environmentally wasteful building policy in the history of retailing. It has left America looking like a giant sprawling checkerboard of stores jumping over one another.

On December 3, 2006, Sprawl-Busters updated the story of residents in Pullman, Washington, who were engaged in a marathon legal battle to block a Wal-Mart supercenter in their community. In March of 2006, residents lost an appeal of a city ruling in favor of Wal-Mart before a Hearing Examiner, and took their appeal to Whitman County Superior Court. That court appeal went in Wal-Mart's favor as well, but the battle continued.

At the end of 2006, The Pullman Alliance for Responsible Development (PARD) announced that it was taking its case against the proposed Pullman Wal-Mart to the 3rd District Court of Appeals in Spokane. On June 26, 2008, Sprawl-Busters reported that PARD was abandoning its legal battle to block Wal-Mart. But on June 13, 2009, Sprawl-Busters reported that Wal-Mart on its own had revising its plan by lopping off 68,000 s.f from its Pullman store, shrinking the store by roughly 30%, down to 155,000 s.f. The company told the newspaper that its decision to build a smaller footprint was not dictated by the faltering economy, but by "technological advances" that allow a smaller store to provide comparable service.

Wal-Mart described the smaller store as more "sustainable" in a news release, claiming the change will reduce traffic at nearby intersections and paved parking space by roughly a third. "We are committed to providing the Pullman community with a store design that addresses our commitment to sustainability while continuing to deliver on our promise to help people save money and live better," Wal-Mart said in their press release.

Before the four plus years of pitched battles in Pullman, Washington, the city council in neighboring Moscow, Idaho was working to prevent their small community from being overwhelmed by giant stores. The current Mayor Nancy Chaney, was one of those who did not want a bigger store in Moscow. The existing store in Moscow, built in 1993, was not that old, and seemed perfectly functional. But with the opening of the larger Pullman supserstore just a few miles away, the Moscow store is certain to soon become just another 'dark store' in Wal-Mart Realty's list of over 200 buildings for sale or lease. And its not at all clear that any other business will want a building that size. Wal-Mart won't sell it to a competitor. So Moscow is likely to be stuck with a ghost box.

This week, the Moscow City Council sent a letter to Wal-Mart's CEO Mike Duke, asking the retailer to keep its 'small' discount store open after the Pullman superstore opens later this year. The council told Duke that it was concerned about Moscow's dependence on the store and the 'inconvenience' that will result if the discount store closes. The city council also raised its fears about lost jobs and tax revenues. The entire city council in Moscow signed the letter, urging Wal-Mart to remodel the Moscow store or even find another location instead of shutting it down.

One reader who commented on the newspaper story about the city council's letter wrote, "Poor Moscow. Although its hard to feel sorry for them since Wal-Mart's tendency to screw municipalities is well documented, after they get them to be willing partners in gutting long established downtown businesses. I can just see the Wal-Mart execs having a good laugh at that pathetic letter. Now Moscow has lots of empty commercial space, no tax revenue, and fewer members of the middle class. And everyone has to drive to Pullman from now on."
What you can do: But in the Moscow-Pullman Daily News, the editorial board published an editorial which attacked the Mayor. The Daily News stated, "Be careful what you wish for, it may come true...The city of Moscow is poised to lose its largest big-box store. And that's not necessarily a good thing like some people believe. We don't know for sure if the 93,000-square-foot Moscow Wal-Mart will close when the Wal-Mart Supercenter opens in Pullman later this year. Company officials are tight-lipped about the possibility - much as they were in the early 1990s when Moscow was being cased as a potential site for a store. Moscow officials courted the giant retailer and the business it would bring to Moscow. There was some opposition, but not to the extent of those who fought a Wal-Mart in Pullman." According to the Daily News, the Moscow City Council used 'creative zoning' to stop a Wal-Mart supercenter from opening on the east side of Moscow."

The newspaper goes on to lay the blame "totally and fully" and the feet of Mayor Nancy Chaney, a local attorney, and a backer at the local Food Co-op. "It is their fault that we don't have a SuperStore in Moscow. Instead, Pullman will get the SuperStore and Moscow will lose our largest private employer." The editorial board of the Moscow-Pullman Daily News has concluded that "It is another urban legend that Wal-Mart closes other stores. They do not compete with the same goods or the same clientele." That will be good news to dying Wal-Mart competitors.

Wal-Mart has not tried to hide the reality of the closure of the Moscow discount store. A company spokesperson said Wal-Mart is "relocating" the store to Pullman. But the local newspaper interpreted that to mean "one of two things: Either Walmart will assign the Moscow store number to the Pullman location and the Moscow store will remain open, or the Moscow store's doors will be closed." The local newspaper clearly can't come to grips with the reality of the impending loss.

Wal-Mart did not help matters when its spokesman added, "It's up in the air as to everything with the transition. Until we decide, we're sticking with that statement." He created a buzz by suggesting that the 225 to 250 employees who work at the Moscow Walmart could lose their jobs or be transferred to the Pullman super center if the location closes. But local officials don't have to look far for a reality check. Wal-Mart recently opened a super center in Clarkston, Washington, and shuttered its store in neighboring Lewiston, Idaho.

Moscow will lose $84,000 in property taxes and roughly $16,000 in personal property taxes when the discount store closes. That's not a huge sum for any community, and other businesses are likely to be attracted to a Moscow without a Wal-Mart.

Readers are urged to email Moscow Mayor Nancy Chaney at nchaney@ci.moscow.id.us with the following message: "Dear Mayor Chaney, You've lived in Moscow for 30 years now. You've seen a lot of changes come and go. Wal-Mart arrives in Moscow with its bag already packed. You were right to insist that huge superstores were not consistent with the character of Moscow. And now Wal-Mart has made it clear that they have little regard for what happens financially to Moscow. They want their big store, or they will pull up stakes. It's too bad that Moscow doesn't have a surety bond that requires a retailer to pay for the cost of demolishing its building if it sits empty for 12 consecutive months---but perhaps that's something you still have time to discuss with the city council. Wal-Mart has not made clear its plans for its 'old' building, so the city council is certainly justified in trying to protect its future by demanding a demolition bond for all large retailers. If Wal-Mart is going to abandon Moscow, at least let them tear down their building to prevent a blighted eyesore as their legacy."

In the "sweet 16" round of Consumerist's Worst Company in America March Madness competition, Walmart goes up against Bank of America.

Go vote now!!!

On January 27, 2009 Sprawl-Busters reported that Wal-Mart was proposing a zero sum game in the city of Redlands, California. The retailer approached city officials with the idea of closing down its existing discount store, and opening up a larger superstore instead. Open one, close one. Wal-Mart officials met with members of the city's Planning commission to present plans for a 215,000 s.f. superstore on the north side of the city.

Roughly 46 acres near San Bernardino Avenue and Tennessee Street is slated for the project, which would include the supercenter, plus 9 other parcels for retail space. In 2008, in anticipation of big box applications, the City Council and the Planning Commission passed ordinances that require projects larger than 75,000 s.f. to be approved by the Commission and the Council.

Almost immediately an opposition group formed to block this huge project. A group called The Good Neighbor Coalition (GNC) presented a voter initiative in July of 2008 to stop big box stores from coming to Redlands. "We're concerned about the effect on local grocery stores," coalition member Dianne Landeros told the Redlands Daily Facts newspaper when the ballot question was formed. "The Super Wal-Mart could have a really devastating effect on them." Redlands has Vons and Statler Brothers grocery stores, both of which could suffer significant loss of sales if another large grocery store opens.

In California, where sales tax revenues are kept locally, cities and towns fight with one another over sales revenues, as the main way to pay for local government services. This has created what is known as 'cash box zoning,' in which cities and towns compete for malls and big box stores for their revenue, rather than evaluating their land use impacts, or need in the first place. The city of Redlands says it's hurting for revenue, and has a city budget with almost a $3 million deficit.

On October 18, 2009, Sprawl-Busters reported that The Good Neighbor Coalition delivered two boxes containing more than 8,000 signatures into the City Clerk's office to file a petition that would ban Wal-Marts and any "big-box" retailers from building in Redlands. The GNC collected more than 15% of the registered voters, so their initiative question will appear on the ballot this June. Once the issue was certified for placement on the ballot, the City Council had the chance to vote to accept the ordinance and make voting on the ballot question unnecessary. But on February 16, 2010 the City Council in Redlands did not vote to support the initiative, so it heads to the voters.

The initiative petition bans the construction of "mega-retail development," which is defined as stores with sales floors totaling 100,000 s.f. or more, in which more than 3% of the sales floor is dedicated to selling non-taxable merchandise. The proposed Wal-Mart supercenter, at 215,000 s.f would be limited to having 6,450 s.f. of grocery space---which would make the grocery component unlikely. In effect, projects like the Wal-Mart would be banned in the future. Wal-Mart is no longer building discount stores. All of its stores this year have a grocery component as part of the superstore. The grocery section is usually at least 40,000 s.f. The Good Neighbor Coalition initiative petition would cut these sprawling projects down to size.

The initiative will appear on the ballot as "Measure O," and will come before voters on June 8th, or roughly 8 weeks from today. This does not give supporters of Measure O to build up much of a campaign---and gives Wal-Mart a huge advantage. The giant retailer has been known to spend between $250,000 and $500,000 or more on such initiatives. There is no limit on how much a corporation can spend on such elections, while the citizens have to hold bake sales to raise money.

Wal-Mart's line will be that Measure O restricts the 'freedom to shop.' A spokesman for the retailer told the Contra Costa Times, "This will limit the choices of the city of Redlands for years to come." The local business establishment which should be supporting Measure O and smaller, local businesses, is instead backing the national chain store. The head of the Chamber of Commerce pointed out that the Measure O would restrain the existing Kmart from expanding. "I don't know if (Kmart is) planning on expanding the same as Wal-Mart is," the head of the Chamber admitted, "but if they are, (Measure O) would stop them." If she had picked up the phone and called her local Kmart manager she would have learned that Kmart is barely hanging on---and certainly not a candidate for expansion.

The Good Neighbor Coalition gathered 5,830 signatures to get on the ballot, but now the group will have to gather money---and lots of it. The city of Redlands has witnessed a drop in sales tax collection, so the illusory aspect of Wal-Mart sales taxes seems too good to pass up. But most of those 'new' revenues will in fact come from the existing sales base now held by other grocery stores and retailers. In effect, the Wal-Mart expansion is just a transfer of sales, not a net change.

The Contra Costa Times quoted Sprawl-Busters as saying that size cap ordinances "are an example of cities and towns trying to lead growth in their communities, rather than follow the lead of developers. This is an important expression of local control powers." The GNC, which wrote the ordinance, told the newspaper, "There's a lot of history of resistance to Wal-Mart coming in and developing. It takes a various forms. There's lots of different ways and lots of different cities that have tried to keep Wal-Mart out."

Wal-Mart told the Contra Costa Times that it had not yet decided how the retailer will respond to the ballot question. But voters in Redlands better fasten their seatbelts. They will soon be hit by a tidal wave of robo calls, brochures, and radio, TV and print ads, opposing Measure O. The voters will be saying "O my God" by June 8th, after witnessing the amount of cash Wal-Mart will put out (under the cover of an astro-roots campaign organization). In effect, Redlands is now for sale, and in Wal-Mart's corporate democracy, the highest bidder wins.
What you can do: Redlands is 60 miles northeast of Los Angeles. The city promotes its historic downtown district, and its "great atmosphere." In 1990, the population of Redlands was 60,394. By 2007, the population had increased to 69,941. There is room for additional retail growth in Redlands because the consumer pie is growing. The problem with the Redlands market is that Wal-Mart is already there. The retailer has a discount store on West Redlands Boulevard, close to the site of the proposed superstore. This means that most of the sales at the proposed superstore are already located at the Wal-Mart discount store, and the marginal difference between the two stores will come largely from existing merchants.

The net impact on revenues to Redlands will be negligible. When the superstore opens, Wal-Mart will close their discount store, leaving an empty 'dark store' for the city to fill. This could take years to accomplish. In the interim, the store deteriorates, and becomes blighted, hurting other property near it. Redlands would do better to reformat its existing Wal-Mart store, rather than allowing a totally new site. Wal-Mart will not admit the fate of its old store, but California and other states are littered with hundreds of dead Wal-Mart stores that were 20 years old, or less. These stores did not last beyond their usefulness to the company as profit-centers---they were shut down because Wal-Mart found that supercenters were more profitable because groceries bring people back to the store more often than clothing or household items.

There are currently 12 Wal-Mart stores within 20 miles of Redlands. Only one of them is a superstore. Over the next few years Wal-Mart will either expand or shut down most of these discount stores, so what Redlands is experiencing now, will become a shared experience in cities like Highland, Colton, Moreno Valley, Riverside, Rialto, San Bernadino, Fontana--and all the neighboring communities that have Wal-Mart discount stores. This trade area is saturated with Wal-Mart stores, and the move to supercenters will only displace other grocery stores---not provide any major sales tax bounce to desperate cities and towns.

Readers are urged to email Patricia Gilbreath, the Mayor of Redlands, at: citycouncil@cityofredlands.org with the following message: "Dear Mayor Gilbreath, You have a Master's Degree in Business Taxation. You can see that Wal-Mart's expansion in Redlands is largely a shell game--since most of the sales at its cash registers will come from other existing businesses in the city. You know that large scale, automobile oriented developments are just not sustainable in the long term.

Redlands has a revenue problem, but encouraging further sprawl, like a larger Wal-Mart supercenter, adds no value to your city. The 'old' Wal-Mart on West Redlands Boulevard will be shut down if a supercenter ever opens. In effect, Redlands will have wasted 46 acres of land for another retailer, with the added burdens of traffic and crime at a time when the city is reducing its public safety budget. A bigger Wal-Mart is not the answer to Redlands' economic woes.

The City Council should encourage Wal-Mart to reformat its existing store in Redlands rather than using a completely new site to replace an existing store. The retailer has supercenters that are no bigger than the size of your existing discount store. This is not economic development, its economic displacement.

The city council could have accepted the Good Neighbor Coalition initiative, but now that Measure O is on the ballot, as Mayor, you should embrace it, and warn residents that the retail sector is not like manufacturing---it largely cannibalizes itself. Adding more sprawl---regardless of the logo on the building---is not in the economic interest of Redlands.

Take control over growth in your community, and support Measure O this June

From big cities like Chicago, to small towns like Galt, California, local officials are so economically illiterate that they think a new retail building going up is synonymous with economic growth. Instead, when Wal-Mart comes to town, all that happens is what the libertarians call the "creative destructionism" of the free market system. That's a polite term for major economic displacement.

The most often-cited reason that local officials give for approving a Wal-Mart is the double promise of jobs and revenues. But in many communities, a closer examination of the numbers does not support Wal-Mart's voodoo economics reality. The latest example comes from the pages of The Batavia Daily News, from columnist Tom Rivers, who took a four year look at what Wal-Mart did economically to several towns in the Albion, New York region.

Sprawl-Busters reported on November 10, 2004 that the Mayor of the Village of Albion, New York was pleading to save his community from the town of Albion's Wal-Mart proposal. Village Mayor Ed Salvatore told officials from the town of the same name, that a Wal-Mart outside the Albion village center would be a disaster for his residents. "I believe it will be the demise of our community," the Mayor pleaded. "The village of Albion will never survive that."

The Mayor said a proposed 155,000 s.f. Wal-Mart supercenter, which needed a rezoning from residential to commercial, would force many stores in the village central business district to close. The former head of the Orleans County Chamber of Commerce told town officials that a department store was needed, but not a supercenter.

The Wal-Mart supercenter opened in Albion on June 14, 2006. The Daily News reported that Wal-Mart had hired 390 employees, but said nothing about the workers who lost their jobs at Ames when that retailer closed several years ago due to business lost to Wal-Mart. The only person at the festivities who seemed to connect the dots about Wal-Mart's impact on the community was George Bower, chair of the Orleans County Legislature.

At the Grand Opening, Bower handed Wal-Mart officials a letter for company CEO Lee Scott, asking the retailer to help the county attract a manufacturing company to Orleans. Bower told the Daily News that he was trying to make up for the 200 industrial jobs lost the month before Wal-Mart opened in nearby Medina, New York, when the Bernz-O-Matic company, which is a brand owned by Newell/Rubbermaid (another company almost destroyed by Wal-Mart), shut down its Medina plant and threw more than 200 local residents out of work.

Bernz-O-Matic makes consumer products like torches and kits. One of their biggest customers is Wal-Mart. Bernz-O-Matic moved its plan to China, ostensibly to be able to produce cheaper torches for Wal-Mart and Home Depot. So Wal-Mart opens its doors with 390 employees (a number which will drop dramatically within months after the store opening) and on the other side of the ledger are the lost jobs at Ames and Bernz-O-Matic.

Add to that the fact that the Wal-Mart supercenter has a grocery store, a garden center, an electronics center, a tire and lube express, a vision center, pharmacy, photo lab, and hair salon---all of which already exist in abundance in Albion. All of these stores inside the store will take most of their sales from existing merchants in the greater Albion area. Legislator Bower told Wal-Mart that he would love to see products sold in Wal-Mart that say "Made in Orleans County." But Bower's comments were lost.

Now four years later, columnist Tom Rivers is taking the toll of Wal-Mart damage. "I was dubious and I was worried. I knew the store, despite its best efforts and intentions, would cripple many of the small-business owners in Orleans County," Rivers writes. "A mammoth store with probably more shelf space than all of downtown Albion and Medina simply couldn't be absorbed into a shrinking local economy without hurting many other businesses."

According to Rivers, his look back at the last four years shows "there is evidence about the store's devastation of the village tax bases. The villages are suffering, with independent grocery stores gone, and their hulking buildings a shadow of their former assessments." The last four years includes a difficult recession, Rivers notes, "But there's no denying Wal-Mart, with its sheer immensity, has sucked too many sales out of the local economy."

One victim was Dale's Market, located on Albion's Main Street, which went out of business in 2007. That property once was assessed at close to a million dollars---but now the Village has torn it down to build a library which pays no property or sales taxes. A regional grocery chain, Tops, opened a new store in Albion village three years before Wal-Mart. It had to ask the Village to lower its assessed value from $3.6 million to $2.75 million because of declining sales.

In the nearby towns of Holley and Medina, two Jubilee grocery stores shut down within six months of Wal-Mart's opening. The Jubilee store in Medina was valued at almost half a million before Wal-Mart, and is now worth less than $100,000 after three years sitting empty.

All these retail closings, says Rivers, leave other taxpayers holding the bag: "It means the remaining residents and businesses will bear a bigger burden in keeping afloat the police departments, fire companies, DPWs and other services." In total, the Village's tax base has fallen from $143.82 million in 2007, to $141.88 million for 2009. So valuations have actually fallen 1.35% since Wal-Mart's arrival---a reversal of fortune. The same is true in Medina.

Even in the town of Albion, where the Wal-Mart superstore is located, town officials gave the world's wealthiest retailer a 50% tax break on town and county taxes. Even though Wal-Mart's store is valued at $6.975 million, it is only paying tax on $4.85 million---a 30% tax break. The building will not pay full property taxes for another six years. The Village of Albion provides the store with water and sewer services, but gets no taxes from Wal-Mart.

Tom Rivers concludes: "Wal-Mart trumpets its slogan, 'Save Money. Live Better.' But surveying the carcasses of former stores in Orleans County villages, the message rings hollow."

What you can do: It's hard to know which is more appalling: the voodoo economics of Wal-Mart's impact on Albion, and its direct connection with the closure of Bernz-O-Matic and Ames, or the impact on existing merchants catalogued by Tom Rivers since the store opened.

How many of the workers at the Medina plant that shut down will shop at Wal-Mart? How many of them will stop by the hardware section and see Bernz-O-Matic products there that they used to make in Medina, now bearing a "Made in China" imprint on it? Will they make the connection? George Bower got the message, and he passed it on to Lee Scott. Wal-Mart is responsible for another company leaving an empty factory in Orleans county, and no amount of Wal-Mart clerks and baggers will ever make up for the lost manufacturing jobs and retail jobs that Wal-Mart convinces local officials would never happen.

Readers are urged to email the Town of Albion, NY Supervisor, Judith Koehler, at supervisor@townofalbion.com with the following message: "Dear Supervisor Koehler, If you read Tom Rivers' analysis of the impact of the Town's Wal-Mart supercenter, the town of Albion might want to consider apologizing to the Medina and the Village of Albion for allowing a saturated market area to become flooded with groceries from a national chain like Wal-Mart, creating empty buildings and blighted properties in the process. To add insult to injury, your own taxpayers have been shortchanged by the unnecessary tax welfare deal you gave to Wal-Mart. I would urge you to at least renegotiate the corporate welfare deal immediately, and give the added Wal-Mart tax payments created by ending the tax break, to the Village. Right now, Wal-Mart is a symbol of the total lack of regional land use planning in Orleans county. It is this lack of coordination that allowed the Town to devastate the Village---just to give added market share to Wal-Mart. Anyone who participated in this welfare deal for Wal-Mart should be voted out of office by the residents of Albion, who could have used that money to offset the cost of police and fire services to protect Wal-Mart. It is embarrassing that the Town of Albion had no clue about how these projects work economically, and that town officials were perfectly happy to hurt their neighbors by building redundant stores."