Sprawl-Busters first heard from citizens in Monroeville, Pennsylvania back in June of 2005. They were organizing to fend off a Wal-Mart supercenter proposal. Three months later, the group accomplished its purpose.'

Sprawl-Busters reported on September 17, 2005 that the Monroeville City Council had voted to reject Wal-Mart. On a vote close to midnight, the Council voted 5-2 against Wal-Mart's plans. The retailer was seeking to rezone 21.6 acres of land from industrial to commercial use, so it could build a 203,818 s.f. store on the border with the town of Pitcairn.

Wal-Mart patched together a series of lots to create enough room for the huge store. The Council's vote overturned a planning commission vote, which had narrowly recommended the plan on a 3-2 vote. The Walnut Capital Development Corp., which was pushing the Wal-Mart, told the newspaper that Wal-Mart has been trying to build a store in Monroeville for 10 years.

The developer started offering money to the town in a fruitless attempt to bolster its support: a promise of $35,000 to Pitcairn for a comprehensive plan, $50,000 for a transportation improvement district, $25,000 each to Pitcairn and Monroeville for fire and ambulance services. Wal-Mart offered to build a parking lot, restrooms and a concession stand at the ball fields located next to the store, and give Pitcairn an electronic message board for community announcements.

Wal-Mart told local officials that their store would generate half a million dollars annually in tax revenue--a figure that was a gross number, not a net impact figure. In the end, all these offerings weren't enough to sway the City Council, which ended Wal-Mart's quest---because municipalities are under no obligation to rezone land for anyone.

But this week, more than four and a half years later, local residents in Monroeville have reported to Sprawl-Busters that Wal-Mart is back---at a different site and at a much smaller size.

The Pittsburg Tribune Review ran a story on May 21st that Wal-Mart wants to move into the Monroeville Mall, in a store that once housed a Boscov department store. According to the real estate firm CB Richard Ellis, which does a lot of work for Wal-Mart Realty, Wal-Mart is willing to consider an 80,000 s.f. store. The Boscov store has three levels, and totals 230,000 s.f.---the size of superstores that Wal-Mart used to build on one story.

Wal-Mart doesn't need a huge superstore in Monroeville anyway, because it would only cannibalize sales at the Wal-Mart superstore in North Versailles, Pennsylvania, which is a mere three miles from the site. There is a second supercenter less than 10 miles away in West Mifflin, Pennsylvania. So the real estate firm marketing the Boscov store is suggesting that a JC Penney and a movie complex could also fit into the empty department store.

The mall owner, a company based in Tennessee, is saying nothing about who might go into the Mall. "We continue to pursue various opportunities for the Boscov's store, but at this time we are not able to provide any names," a spokeswoman for the owner told the Tribune Review.

What you can do: In 2005, the opponents of Wal-Mart were described in the media as a "loose coalition of neighbors, merchants and Pitcairn public officials." They turned out for four council hearings, and flooded council members with calls, and personal visits. Many of those opponents are still in Monroeville, and still against Wal-Mart. They understand that it will be harder to fight a smaller store going into an existing mall, but they also know that it makes no sense to build another superstore three miles from an existing superstore.

You would think that Wal-Mart would know better too. The company has long admitted that by packing stores in so densely, Wal-Mart eats into its own "same store" sales, which is a comparison of sales in stores that have been open at least a year. Wal-Mart hopes to gain market share from the existing Giant Eagle grocery store nearby, and the Sheetz grocery store. These regional chains have a market share that Wal-Mart wants to capture, but in the process it will pull Monroeville shoppers out of the North Versailles store.

Readers are urge to email Monroeville Mayor Gregory Erosenko at eroseg@monroeville.pa.us with the following message: "Dear Mayor Erosenko, You told voters last January that Monroeville was "on course for a better future." But if you approve a Wal-Mart project at the Monroeville Mall, you will be on course for more traffic, more crime, and more business closings. Because you have a Wal-Mart superstore just minutes away in North Versailles, another Wal-Mart offers no added value to your economy. Most sales at Wal-Mart will be captured from existing department and grocery stores in the immediate trade area, because Wal-Mart is just another large supplier for a population base that has not increased dramatically over the past 20 years.

With a fairly stagnant demand, added supply only slices everyone's pie thinner. A 2003 study suggests that for every one Wal-Mart superstore that opens, two local grocery stores will close. Perhaps you should talk to the local managers at Giant Eagle and Sheetz about how this project will impact their businesses.

I urge you to do what Monroeville did five years ago: say no to superstore sprawl. You already have a Wal-Mart nearby. Don't overplay your hand."

At a meeting of the Charles Village Civic Association in Baltimore last night, a representative from Walmart, Rhoda Washington, came to pitch the community on why they should be all happy about an ugly big box coming to town.

But Rhoda wasn't willing to answer a few simple questions to the audience: What is the average wage of employees at Walmart's other Baltimore store? If someone in the community is going to get a job there, what would their starting wage be?

Why doesn't Walmart want to answer these questions in Baltimore?

The bill, which is supported by Living Wage NYC, local community groups, and unions (including RWDSU, which put out the above ad), would require developments that receive government subsidies to pay a living wage.

"Development that merely creates permanent poverty wage jobs accomplishes nothing. Too many people in this city are hurting, worrying about how they will survive, unable to find good jobs. We need to put the interests of the people of this city above those of private developers. When the public's resources are used to support private development, the public has the right to expect something in return - and for us that means good jobs, jobs that pay living wages," said RWDSU's Stu Appelbaum.

Oh, and we are talking about this because Walmart wants into NYC bad and likes to get government subsidies to build their stores which in turn pay poverty level wages.

We're seeing a lot of stories about Heather Ravenstein, a Walmart associate who stopped someone from shoplifting a computer. And as a reward was fired.

It seems that the managers at Walmart never told Ms. Ravenstein about a policy that says that only managers and loss prevention/asset protection specialists are supposed to approach someone they believe to be stealing.

From my understanding, and having worked in retail, this is a pretty standard rule: managers and LP specialists have special training and know procedures for dealing with suspected shoplifters and may even be covered under special insurance in case the would-be thief gets violent, as was the case with Ms. Ravenstein.

But just because it is a pretty standard rule doesn't mean that it is an obvious rule, especially if an associate hasn't worked retail before. In fact, it is a little counter-intuitive that someone who has a genuine desire to help their company would let a shoplifter walk away.

Walmart obviously didn't take the time to train their associates correctly on something like this and I wonder what other types of training they are skimping on. They also don't have any kind of written contract telling them the things that they might be fired for or any kind of back-up when they are brought in to meet with a manager.

In other words, if Walmart managers spent half the time on loss prevention and safety that they do showing anti-union videos, Ms. Ravenstein might still have a job.

Does Walmart feel it is easier to fire someone than to spend a little extra time on training?

Sometime I think that the only people that Walmart might disrespect more than the people who sell the merchandise in their stores are the people who make the merchandise in their stores.

Okay, they might not treat their suppliers that bad, but they come in a close second.

Bloomberg is reporting that Walmart is going to be forcing suppliers to hand over responsibility for delivery to Walmart. So instead of the supplier delivering their product to Walmart, Walmart is going to be picking it up.

And any savings is going to go to Walmart. And Walmart is going to tell a supplier exactly what that savings is.

In two instances, Wal-Mart asked for a 6 percent reduction in the price it pays for products based on its own cost calculation, while suppliers estimated the actual expense was equal to about 3 percent, the people said.

I'd imagine that many of these suppliers are going to have to shift the costs of their transportation and delivery infrastructure onto other companies which compete with Walmart. Or fire people or sell the trucks before they would otherwise find it reasonable to do so.

Walmart has long been known for squeezing suppliers, with massive implications for how companies produce their goods.

If you haven't read Barry Lynn's book Cornered it has a lot of insight into how these supply chain pressures effectively monopolize industries. Check out a video of Barry here.

Basically, today is another example of how Walmart is benefiting at the expense of just about everyone else in the economy. While we've been talking to workers about it for years: "Hey Walmart suppliers! Ever thought about doing some collective bargaining?"

Once again, Wal-Mart's high-handed land use plans have run into legal trouble. Instead of getting ready to break ground in the city of Galt, California, Wal-Mart is now breaking open its corporate piggy bank to pay more legal bills.

On April 22, 2010, Sprawl-Busters reported that by a margin of just one vote, the city council in Galt gave Wal-Mart permission to fill more than 11 acres of land with a sea of asphalt surrounded by a wall of concrete. The Galt City Council made one of the biggest land use mistakes in its history, in front of one of the biggest crowds in history. But the deal does not end with the City Council vote.

By a split vote of 3-2, Galt City Councilors gave Wal-Mart a green light to build a 133,279 s.f. superstore in their community. Stores larger than 140,000 s.f. are banned in Galt, so this project pushes up to the limit.

As in most cities, local officials in Galt believe a new Wal-Mart means jobs and revenue---but they voted with no clear understanding of the net economic impact that happens when Wal-Mart comes to town. In Galt, a new Wal-Mart will likely result is just a shifting of market share from existing merchants to the giant retailer.

On September 18, 2007, Sprawl-Busters reported that the City Council in Galt was reviewing a proposed zoning ordinance that would ban any retail store larger than 140,000 s.f., if it had more than 10% of its interior retail space devoted to non-taxable goods, like groceries.

The law in Galt also requires stores between 100,000 to 139,999 s.f. to apply for a conditional use permit. Developers also have to produce impact studies on the project's effect on crime, urban decay, the economy and the project's general compatibility within a neighborhood.

In late September of 2007, the city's Planning Commission approved by a vote of 4-1 the big box ordinance, which officials said would apply to the proposed Wal-Mart supercenter in Galt. The commission lowered the size limit for certain stores to 120,000 s.f. that devote 10% of their floor space to selling groceries, or non-taxable goods. The Lodi News said the supercenter has 19% of grocery space, but usually a supercenter has 35% to 45% grocery space.

Planning Commissioner Eugene Davenport told the media two years ago that he didn't trust companies like Wal-Mart. "It's unacceptable that we are letting these corporations come in and tell us what they are going to do," he said. "It is our job to protect the citizens of Galt with smart planning."

Within weeks after the Planning Commission vote, the Galt City Council voted 4-1 to adopt the big box ordinance. But Wal-Mart was not deterred. Two and a half years later, Wal-Mart was back before the Galt Planning Commission. So were the plan's opponents, the Galt Citizens for Sensible Planning.

The Planning Commission had to review Wal-Mart's Conditional Use Permit, Final Environmental Impact Report, Compliance with the Big Box Ordinance, and appeal of the Community Development Director's Notice of Decision on Site Plan and Design Review.

The city's Planning staff bent Galt's General Plan to fit Wal-Mart's plan. Incredibly, planning staff concluded that "The proposed project would expand and provide new retail options in close proximity to local consumers by providing daytime and nighttime shopping opportunities." Staff also concluded that Galt is "underserved by retail options" despite the easy access to other Wal-Mart stores in the area. This project is also only 60 feet from the patios of nearest residential homes. A 12 foot sound wall has to be built to buffer nearby homes from the noise of this project.

In Galt, projects also have to show a positive fiscal balance for the city, and staff concluded that Wal-Mart would generate $497,624 annually in revenues from property and sales taxes, and cost only $37,890 in city costs. Staff said the project would create another "$230,000 per year in sales tax revenue that is ear marked for police services only." But the city failed to examine the fiscal impacts of other stores closing, and falling sales tax revenues.

The city's General Plan also says that "smart growth principles...shall be incorporated into development project proposals." Staff could not find any smart growth principles, so instead praised the project's use of "ozone friendly refrigerants" and "energy-efficient HVAC units."

Finally, developments in Galt are supposed to be "compatible with neighboring uses." The planning staff found that "impacts related to cumulative traffic and cumulative
aesthetics would remain significant and unavoidable." In other words, neighbors will just have to live with those negative impacts.

On March 28, 2010, Sprawl-Busters reported that a crowd of 200 people showed up for the Wal-Mart hearing. The Planning Commission voted 4-1 to approve the 133,279 s.f. Wal-Mart proposal. But the Planning Commission's vote led to an appeal by opponents to the Galt City Council. In a small concession to the neighbors, the Planning Commission voted to cut back the operating hours for the store to 6 a.m. to 11 p.m.

Residents repeated their position that they wanted a store no bigger than 100,000 s.f., which was supported by one Commissioner. "I'm not going to approve this at 130,000 square feet. There is no city infrastructure to support it," the Commissioner said.

But on April 20, 2010, the Galt City Council--by one vote--approved the Wal-Mart superstore. There were so many people at the hearing it had to be moved to a larger venue. The store will include 25,000 s.f. for the sale of groceries. The City Council also rejected the neighbor's request that the store have reduced operating hours. The Council will allow the store to open at 5 AM, and close at midnight. Wal-Mart argued that the longer hours would allow workers to stock shelves, clean and cook.

One day after the City Council ruling, Attorney William Kopper, of Davis,California, who is representing the Galt Citizens for Sensible Planning (GCSP), told the media that it was likely the Council decision would be appealed in court. Kopper repeated the charge that the project violated the city's municipal code and California's Environmental Quality Review Act. A spokesman for GCSP, Rich Viera, told the Lodi News, "It is idiotic. The only justification is sales tax money."

This week, less than a month after the Council vote, the Sacramento Business Journal reports that the GCSP has filed their lawsuit, naming the city and Wal-Mart as defendants. The city manager told the Journal he was not surprised by the litigation, and added, "It's unfortunate we have to go through this process. We expected it based on the comment letters we were receiving all along."

The city manager also noted that most Wal-Mart proposals get challenged legally, so the city "went above and beyond" the legal review requirements to analyze the impacts from the store. The manager said Galt officials were confident they would win the lawsuit--but he lamented that the move would throw the project off schedule, and cause the city to lose sales taxes and "shopping opportunities."

The city also planned ahead for an appeal, and got Wal-Mart to sign an "indemnification agreement" that requires the company to pay all legal bills incurred defending the conditional use permit being challenged. City taxpayers---many of them Wal-Mart opponents---will not have to use public tax dollars to defend Wal-Mart.

What you can do: Galt's retail area is perhaps best known for the Galt Market, which began as a farmer's market at the old Sacramento County Fairgrounds in the 1950's, and today is an expansive open-air collection of over 400 vendors covering ten acres of great deals.

As the city says, "the Galt Market is an inviting place to spend a relaxed day, looking for bargains, having some good food and taking home fresh produce for dinner. There is truly nothing like it anywhere else, as it's over three quarters of a million annual customers can testify." In this context, a suburban sprawl Wal-Mart makes no sense at all. It is incompatible with the 'nothing like its anywhere else' character of Galt.

This case now moves to the courts. In terms of impact on other stores, the city's planning staff report found that "At worst, $6.5 million in food store sales will be diverted away from existing primary market area retailers...the Project would not result in adverse impacts to retailers because although some stores would experience reduced sales in the short-term, these stores are expected to achieve stabilized sales within three years." But this is just wishful thinking. An independent assessment of this store's impact has not been done.

Readers are urged to email Galt Mayor Randy Shelton at rshelton@ci.galt.ca.us with the following message: "Dear Mayor Shelton, Good land use decisions never end up in a win/lose situation. Your Wal-Mart vote forced neighbors to lose big-time. This project is far too close to homes, and far too large for the neighborhood. Yet you sacrificed their quality of life and the value of their homes just to build another superstore in the area.

You told voters, "We need to...bring responsible Smart Growth" to Galt. Your residents have lots of places to find big box stores nearby---but there is only one Galt Market. This store will harm locally-serving retail uses. One independent study of Wal-Mart has concluded that for every one Wal-Mart superstore that opens, two grocery stores will close.

Before you start counting your future revenues from this project, remember that it's the net revenues you need to calculate---not the gross revenue. Wal-Mart moves money from existing cash registers to its own stores. That is economic displacement, not economic development.

This project is inconsistent with your General Plan in many ways. Your decision has now lead to a courtroom. At least you can tell taxpayers that not one dime of city money will be spent on legal fees during this appeal. You clearly have a lot of voters upset about this project. It's not too late for the city to urge Wal-Mart to reduce the size of its footprint on its own. These kinds of settlements have been negotiated many times elsewhere. Wal-Mart has proposed a 75,000 s.f. superstore in Torrance, California, for example.

If you show some leadership, it is still possible to end up with a win-win situation---but you will never get that out of Wal-Mart unless you push harder for the rights of the homeowners and taxpayers living around that site."

UPDATE May 20, 9 AM: At approximately 7:45 last evening the AP reported that Walmart was pulling the Miley Cyrus branded jewelry. USA Today says it really well in their headline Walmart pulls cadmium-tainted kids' jewelry it knowingly sold for months.

The Associated Press is reporting that Miley Cyrus branded jewelry, sold executively at Walmart, contains dangerous levels of the toxic metal cadmium. Furthermore, it looks as though while local store managers might not have been aware of the problem Bentonville has known about the items since at least February and hasn't called for the items to be pulled from store shelves.

The Miley branded jewelry wasn't the only brand at Walmart to have been found to have the toxin.

According to the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry at the Center for Disease Control, cadium poisoning is irreversible. They have found that:

• Acute inhalation of cadmium may cause symptoms similar to those of metal fume fever.
• Acute oral ingestion results in severe gastroenteritis.
• Chronic cadmium inhalation may result in impairment of pulmonary function with obstructive changes.
• Cadmium toxicity may cause renal dysfunction with both tubular and glomerular damage with resultant proteinuria.
• Bone changes appear to be secondary to renal tubular dysfunction.

Folks don't come to the Wake Up Walmart blog for medical reasons, but if you have some of this jewelry, please get rid of it and if need be see your family doctor.

Furthermore, we know that some Walmart associates, and even managers, come to this blog. If you work at a Walmart in someplace like, oh, say Dixon, Illinois, or anywhere across the country please take the initiative to remove these dangerous items from your store shelves.

Talk to your store manager, call your regional manager in Bentonville, find out which items these are and protect your customers.

There was once a time when Walmart listened to its associates and managers. At Wake Up Walmart, we hope that Bentonville still respects their associates enough to listen to them when they want to keep toxic metals away from children.

Wal-Mart opponents in a small Canadian city have outlasted the world's largest retailer, and scored a major victory against an unwanted superstore sprawl. But the war is not officially over.

On January 21, 2009, Sprawl-Busters reported that a bitter fight over a proposed Wal-Mart supercenter was turning into an epic battle for the city of Stratford, Ontario. The battle came down to eastside versus westside.

Wal-Mart Canada, after six years of resistance and outright rejection, was still trying to push its way into the city of Stratford---a unique Victorian city of about 32,000 people in Mid-western Ontario.

Stratford has a retail development in the east end of the city on a major east-west highway, comprising a Zeller's (a Canadian version of Target), Sears, Canadian Tire, Winners and a number of other smaller retailers, located in two shopping centers across the road from each other. There is a 36 acre site behind the one shopping centre that is zoned industrial that was purchased by First Pro, the developer for Wal-Mart.

There are two existing Wal-Marts and a scheduled superstore within 25 miles of Stratford. On the advice of its consultants, the City had prepared Official Plan Amendment (OPA) 10, which would reinforce the present zoning and legislate the consultants' recommendations of requiring future retail development to locate in the west end of the city. But Wal-Mart ignored the official plan, and wanted to build on the east end of the city.

Under a thinly veiled threat of taking the city to the Ontario Municipal Board, FirstPro managed to get a deferral on passing OPA 10. That was in February 2004.

On June 28, 2005, Sprawl-Busters reported that a Canadian citizens group in Stratford was reaching out for help to stop this proposed Wal-Mart project.

The group Stratford First wrote: "We are writing to solicit your support in our campaign against Wal-Mart and its developer First Pro. First Pro acquired a 64-acre parcel of land in the east end of this city. The parcel has been zoned industrial for many years. The city commissioned a study by Robin Dee & Associates which concluded that the arrival of another big box store would seriously harm the other retailers in Stratford. It further concluded that if we could not stop the arrival of a big box store, we should insist that it locate in a vacant industrial site downtown or at a site in the west end of the city."

On October 19, 2007, we reported that the 112,000 s.f. Wal-Mart project came before local officials for a vote. More than 100 anti-Wal-Mart protestors were there, wearing t-shirts that read, "Roll Back Wal-Mart." The city's planning and heritage committee voted 7-4 to keep Official Plan Amendment 10 as is.

Stratford's Mayor Dan Mathieson, who had been careful not to reveal his position on the subject, ultimately was the 7th vote against the project. "I waited it out," he told the media, "and looked at the expert reports and made sure every piece of information available was taken into consideration. Everyone had the opportunity over three years to review expert information, to attend public meetings and to hear all sides," he said. "People thought we were slow, but at the end of today, at the last public meeting, we were able to make the best decision that affects the future vision of the city."

When the Council voted to deny First Pro's application, the developer appealed the matter to the Ontario Municipal Board. Stratford First, produced more than 3,000 signed cards opposed to this development. The City Centre group, representing downtown retailers, was also strongly opposed. There were two more consultants' reports tabled since then that bluntly describe First Pro's reports as "misleading".

The Stratford Council scheduled a meeting for November 26, 2008 to reconsider the whole issue. Steve Landers from Stratford First, filed a report with Sprawl-Busters on the following day: "We had another council meeting in Stratford last night. Council voted 7-4 in favor of retaining the existing zoning under Official Plan Amendment 10. This rejects the Wal-Mart application for a change in zoning on property in the East End, so the whole matter will now go to the Ontario Municipal Board in January, 2009."

During the Council hearings, FirstPro said it was dedicated to Stratford, and that it would be spending $40 million on construction, and that Wal-Mart would hire 400 people and pay property taxes of $1.5 million.

The OMB case was expected to last 35 days, with a decision by March of 2009. All along the city held firm its desire to reject a big box store on the east end, preferring that the store be on the city's expanding west end. But Wal-Mart still wanted the east.

On January 5, 2010, the Beacon Herald newspaper reported that the city made its final argument before the OMB in the Wal-Mart appeal of OPA 10. The city's lawyer said that the city began the process of reviewing its commercial structure and planning policy in 1999 when it became clear that there was a need to respond to changing commercial circumstances. The lawyer told the OMB that the Wal-Mart project on the east side of the city sought to impose a commercial structure on the city that the city council does not support.

The OMB hearing, the city's lawyer said, was not about preventing Wal-Mart from coming to Stratford, and was not an arbitrary political decision, or unfair to the developer. The city council made a decision based on the advice of expert consultants. OPA 10 was passed not in response to a particular project, but to the "commercial evolution" that was changing Stratford. The city maintains that the project is also incompatible with the city's Official Plan, which dates back to 1993.

After five months of nail-biting while the OMB considered its decision, community activists this week walked away with an impressive victory. The Ontario Municipal Board concluded that a Wal-Mart on the east side of Stratford would be "neither in the public interest nor represent good planning."

The OMB decision affirms the City's Official Plan, which supports more commercial development in the west end--but not the retail-saturated east end. The OMB agreed with the city's position that an east side Wal-Mart would undermine development in the city's west-end retail area.

What you can do: The OMB rejected the plans of the Avonwood shopping center, which filed the OMB appeal, as not conforming with the city's 1993 planning policies or the evolution of those polices over the years. "After weighing all the facts and the arguments of opposing counsel, I find that the Avonwood do not conform either to the planning policies set out in the 1993 Official Plan or with the progression or evolution of these policies in OPA 10 and that these policies represent good planning."

The media reported that this legal victory for the city did not come at an every day low price. Stratford reportedly has incurred $1 million in legal fees---charges the city could have avoided if Wal-Mart had accepted the city's planning rules.

This time around, Stratford Mayor Dan Mathieson did not hold back his opinion of the OMB decision. "I think it speaks volumes to the many years of hard work and to the sound planning of city staff, our lawyers and our experts through public consultations. And I think it speaks well of Stratford's future development." However, Mathieson did not rule out the option that Wal-Mart could now shift its attention to the west side of the city.

Leslie Walker-Fitzpatrick, who was among those who notified Sprawl-Busters of the OMB decision, told the QMI Agency, "I'm absolutely thrilled. I'm so happy. It's a vote for local democracy; it's a vote for a community's right to self-determine its own commercial structure and not have it imposed by a corporation or powers-that-be that don't understand the needs of the community."

Although Wal-Mart has suffered a stinging setback in Stratford, the official death of the project is not yet at hand. First Pro and Wal-Mart Canada have 15 days from the decision to appeal the ruling. A Wal-Mart spokesman would not tip the retailer's hand---but the company will have to argue that a major error was made by the OMB.

This process in Stratford was elongated by Wal-Mart's six year effort to outlast the locals. Rather than try to build what the community wants---Wal-Mart and its developer continued to push for what they wanted---over the objections of local residents and the City Council.

Most other companies would have negotiated something years ago---but Wal-Mart was running a marathon in Stratford, hoping that the other side would simply get worn out---or run out of cash.

The city argued that Wal-Mart knew what the city's rules were, and that the developer "simply determined to take its chances, plain and simple, end of story."

Readers are urged to email the Mayor and Council in the City of Stratford by going to their website: www.city.stratford.on.ca. Send them the following message: "Dear Members of the Stratford City Council, Congratulations on your epic battle to keep industrial land in Stratford zoned for industrial purposes. You stood up against the Wal-Mart project to the end of the OMB process.

The developer has no right to a rezoning of this land. After what this retailer has put you through, and caused you to waste public money to defend your policies, its time to ask Wal-Mart to go darken some other community's door.

There simply is no market need for an additional Wal-Mart in the Stratford trade area--east side or west side. Wal-Mart brings neither jobs nor revenue to Stratford, and will undermine your efforts to strengthen the downtown.

A good corporate citizen would have moved on by now, but Wal-Mart does not leave unless it is forced to leave. Your city council did not cave into Wal-Mart's legal pressure, and you put the needs of Stratford residents first.

Wal-Mart has demonstrated that it cares more about its bottom line than the character and land use of Stratford. You are better off without them---on any side of the city."

The big news on Walmart today is the release of their quarterly report. They beat Wall Street analysts' expectations, with net sales rising 6% to $99.1 billion with a "B", and per share earnings up 3 cents against estimates. Great news for Bentonville and Wall Street, where I'm certain they are throwing their monocles in the air with joy.

While they are doing that, a Walmart associate working full time making the average wage is still making less than the federal poverty level. To fix that, Walmart would need to pay only 8% of the net increase in sales revenue in wages to the people who work to make their business such a success.

Currently the average hourly wage at Walmart is $11.75 (this is according to Walmart). Walmart defines full-time as 34 hours a week, 52 weeks a year for an average annual income of $20,774. Or $1,276 less than the Federal Poverty Guideline for a family of four.

To make up the difference for the 1.4 million associates (for the quarter) it would cost Walmart $447 million: an amount only equal to 8% of the company's increase in net sales of $5.6 billion.

Even then many Walmart associates would be living below the poverty level. Folks whose hours are being cut, people who want to work full-time but don't get the hours, and folks who already make less than the average of $11.75 would still be below this average.

Walmart and Wall Street may be having a good day today, but as usual their kicks are had at the expense of folks who actually work for a living.

The last thing North Carolina needs is another Wal-Mart supercenter. A tribe of Native Americans in Cherokee, North Carolina was apparently the last to find that out.

On May 23, 2009, Sprawl-Busters reported that the Indian Reservation in Cherokee, North Carolina was promoting a 150,000 s.f. Wal-Mart supercenter.

Cherokee is located in western North Carolina on the Oconaluftee River and the Qualla Reservation, near Highway 19.

Tribal leaders were looking to fill their coffers with sales tax, but local merchants worried the project would hurt their sales. The Eastern Band, which is a federally-recognized tribal nation, planned to build the store and lease it to Wal-Mart.

The Eastern Band promotes its reservation as a tourist attraction. "The landscape of Cherokee presents lots of options for spending time outdoors," the Band writes on its website. "Fish for trout, swim at Islands Park, bring your softball league to play at the new John Crowe Recreation Complex or spend your time hiking, biking, tubing, kayaking, camping and bird watching." Or, Wal-Mart shopping.

The Reservation is located at the entrance to both the Great Smoky National Park and the Blue Ridge Parkway. According to the Asheville Citizen-Times, the Eastern Band Tribal Council approved a lease agreement to bring Wal-Mart to Cherokee. Principal Chief Michell Hicks told the newspaper that the Council's voted was 9-3. The Eastern Band claimed the new store would "create" 200 jobs, and add $5 million to the tribe's sales tax receipts. "I'm absolutely 100% in favor," Chief Hicks said. "We need a box retailer to prove our market so we can do further recruitment of other retailers."

The tribe had been working on this plan for nearly four years. Swain County has a population of less than 13,000 people, and ranks 89th out of 100 counties in North Carolina for population size. Local retailers in the area warned that Cherokee didn't have the consumer base to support a Wal-Mart supercenter and other merchants at the same time. "It will have a devastating effect on the local merchants," said Mike Butrum, owner of a home furnishings and gift store in Cherokee. "I think it will take business certainly from a store like mine. Those stores that sell commodity products, it will certainly hurt them."

But Chief Hicks shrugged off the concerns of local businesses. "We don't have the mom-and-pop shops," he told the newspaper. "Most of our market is tourist-related. I don't see it having the same effect as on other towns."

On June 10, 2009, Sprawl-Busters reported that not everyone on the tribal council was 'on the reservation' with Wal-Mart. Three council members voted against the plan. Under their agreement with the retailer, the tribe would have spent $25 million building the store for Wal-Mart. The tribe would lease the building to Wal-Mart at a cost of between $564,000 and $720,000 per year. The lease agreement was for a mandatory 20 years plus six optional five-year renewals, for a total of 50 years. If Wal-Mart made an average yearly lease payment of $642,000 over a 20-year period, the tribe would only get half of its money back, or $12.8 million.

That's why Council Chairman Mike Parker voted against the plan. "There's no guarantee that they're going to stick around long enough to pay that money back," Parker told the Smoky Mountain News. "I wasn't opposed to Wal-Mart, just the idea of giving them $25 million and then with no language in the lease holding them to that amount, I just couldn't rationalize that in my mind. It doesn't make business sense to give them $25 million with no guarantee."

The Eastern Band claims they had to build the superstore, because Wal-Mart is not allowed to own trust property on the Qualla Boundary. The Indians had to own the building and lease it to Wal-Mart. The tribe said the superstore would bring in nearly $214 million in tribal levy over a 25-year period, with the amount of levy gradually increasing with each five-year period. "This project alone will almost double the current Tribal Levy collections," a tribal spokesman said.

But on May 5, 2010, the Cherokees admitted that Mike Parker was right: Wal-Mart was not going to stick around long enough. A Wal-Mart spokesman confirmed the news. "We decided not to move ahead with the project," the spokesman said. "It is a combination of things. We have to consider a number of factors."

A town official in Cherokee told the News, "Our consultants informed us in early 2010 that Wal-Mart's domestic focus had changed primarily to urban markets due to the recent recession, however they would continue to pressure Wal-Mart's upper management to get the Cherokee deal approved and construction scheduled as soon as possible since lease negotiations with the Tribe had been ongoing prior to the downturn in the U.S. economy."

Wal-Mart explained that the Cherokee site did not make their cut this year. "Every year we have a certain amount of investment capital, and we have to determine the sites best suited for its use. This site didn't meet the threshold this year, but that's not to say it couldn't do so in the future."

The company spokesman said that Wal-Mart was putting more emphasis on Project Impact, its store remodeling plan, rather than adding new stores. "Two or three years ago, we made the decision to build fewer new stores and devote some of the money to remodeling existing stores."

Despite the bad news, Chief Hicks remained loyal to his giant retailer. "The Eastern Band of Cherokee remains committed to opening a Wal-Mart in our community however we cannot discuss the content of those negotiations at this time."

What you can do: One member of the Eastern Band wrote an Op Ed in the Asheville Citizen-Times that was not so complimentary to Wal-Mart. B. Lynne Harlan, a tribal historian said, "Wal-Mart is another in a long line of businesses that has shunned Native communities. Its mission is seemingly to boost its bottom line...Wal-Mart has shown our community that our dollars are not valuable to the retailer and that service to our community is not a factor in decision-making. I would like to say that we won't shop at Wal-Mart any longer... It is a pity that the world's largest retailer doesn't believe in using its popularity to actually make a difference."

There is already a Wal-Mart superstore ten miles to the southeast from this site in Sylva, North Carolina, and another supercenter 18 miles to the east in Waynesville, North Carolina. This project was clearly designed to accommodate tourists coming to Cherokee, yet the project itself was designed as a typical suburban, land-consumptive, car-dependent superstore. It is not being built for the local residents, and many of its sales will come from existing merchants. There are a number of grocery stores in the area, from the chain Food Lion to Save-A-Lot and Ingles Markets. Ingles is a family-owned chain of 200 stores.

Readers are urged to call the Eastern Band's toll free number after business hours at 800-438-1601 and leave the following message for Chief Hicks: "Dear Chief Hicks, Imagine how visitors would feel coming to the land of Blue Smoke to find a huge, asphalt and concrete Wal-Mart superstore. You are a CPA, you understand numbers. Cherokee and Swain County don't have the population base to support another superstore. You have to rely on tourists coming to Cherokee---but it is those same tourists who support the existing merchants now. Area grocery stores, like Food Lion and Ingles, certainly will lose sales, and some smaller companies will go out of business. This is not economic development.

Your area is already saturated with two nearby Wal-Mart superstores. This big box fiasco will be remembered as the biggest mistake the Eastern Band ever made. You, and Cherokee, are better off now that Wal-Mart has made the decision to cut the project. Now you see how the company operates. They made the decision on their own, without the Eastern Band. You just saved yourself 20 years of corporate rule."

Change.org's Poverty in America section comments today on Walmart's recent pledge to donate a dumptruck full of money onto hunger.

We have our doubts about this $2b number. If that isn't a trumped up number I don't know what is. A number like that is bound to be. In reality, the lion's share of that is most likely the resale value of food that they would otherwise be throwing out .

Now giving the food to a food bank is certainly much better than throwing it out. But this isn't about helping people, this is about improving Walmart's image. Just check paragraph 6 of the Washington Post story:

The announcement comes as Wal-Mart continues its efforts to expand from the rural and suburban markets it has saturated into more urban areas.

The folks over at Change.org are putting together a petition asking Walmart to pay a living wage, something Walmart is not a fan of. Head over and sign that thing!

Good job Walmart. You've gotten all the corporate media to give you props for helping fight poverty, which you are a main cause of. Congratulations.

Yesterday, Walmart announced plans to donate $2 billion over five years to food banks and hunger relief organizations. Yet, we can't help wondering how many of Walmart's employees need food stamps to get by? The irony of this generous sum is that the company chooses to give it to charity-instead of investing in their own workforce and creating stable, career jobs with middle class wages and affordable health care.

In several states, Walmart tops the list of employers with their workers receiving public assistance such as food stamps and Medicaid. For example, according to the latest available data, there are almost 13,000 Walmart workers receiving food stamps and more than 15,000 Walmart workers receiving Medicaid benefits in Ohio, costing the state's taxpayers an estimated $66.6 million annually.

Walmart has always touted its charitable donations. But Walmart can afford to be generous not only because it shortchanges associates, but because the company diverts of millions in tax revenue from our communities. Walmart saves money by engaging in tax avoidance schemes that cost our local, state, and federal governments billions in lost taxes, putting a real strain on basic community services. Charity just can't make up the difference.

We call on Walmart to stop fleecing associates and our communities and donating to charity just to enjoy a PR boost and tax breaks. Instead, the world's biggest company should truly become an engine of prosperity that reduces the need for charity.

A lot of Wal-Mart opponents in Derry, New Hampshire were disappointed to learn this week that Wal-Mart has decided to try to build a superstore in this community of 34,000 people.

The irony of course is that there already is a Wal-Mart discount store on Manchester Road in Derry---but Wal-Mart wants a bigger store so it can add a full line of groceries. There are, in fact, no less than 12 Wal-Mart stores within 18 miles of Derry, so the residents have plenty of places to get their cheap Chinese imports.

Two years ago, in March of 2008, Wal-Mart dropped plans to build a Derry superstore. But now the company says its plans are back on the drawing board---which means the company will leave behind a 'dark store' that could remain empty for years. According to the Lawrence Eagle Tribune newspaper, the site Wal-Mart covets now is the same location on Route 28 that it was developing two years ago.

Wal-Mart's regional community manager issued the standard company statement about the on-again project. "We are excited to bring even more savings and convenience to the Derry community. Our relationship with the residents of this community has been long-standing and we look forward to continuing to serve the area."

The new store will measure in at 147,000 s.f. Wal-Mart says the 160 people it employs at its current Derry store will be transferred to the new site, and that 85 new jobs will be created. This, of course, is a gross figure, and does not indicate the net jobs left once you subtract out the similar jobs that will be lost at existing grocery stores in the Derry trade area.

The existing Manchester Road location is 115,000 s.f. which is large enough to be a supercenter, so a second location is totally unnecessary. Wal-Mart could do an "in-box conversion," in which the existing store footprint is simply reconfigured to make room for groceries. This would require no permits, no hearings, and no major controversy.

In the spring of 2008, Wal-Mart announced a major slow down in new store development. The company told Derry officials that the economy was the main reason the retailer was shutting down negotiations with the town. But Wal-Mart now says times have changed. "Due to changing dynamics in the regional and national economy, we feel this proposal is a good fit at this time," the Wal-Mart spokesman told The Eagle Tribune.

Two years ago, during negotiations with the town, Wal-Mart was asked to come up with $1 million to help upgrade Route 28 for their new store. It turns out that town officials have been having private meetings with Wal-Mart for months, without the public knowing about it. "We've had some discussions with the real estate people over the last couple months," Derry's planning director admitted to the newspaper.

According to the town, a proposal may not be submitted until July or August. But the Derry Conservation Commission is looking over any wetlands impact this coming week.
What you can do: Town officials seem to have no clue what this project means for the local economy.

"I think it's great," Derry Town Council Chairman Brad Benson told the Eagle-Tribune. "I think any further economic development Derry could get is good." But is Wal-Mart a form of economic development, or simply a form of economic displacement?

The town council has no economic impact study before them, and "think" this project means jobs---but actually has no evidence that a supercenter means jobs. Another town councilor told the newspaper, "I'm happy they are going to come. But if it's not them, then it will be someone else. If Wal-Mart comes, it will bring a lot of other people. Hopefully, it will be beneficial to Derry."

But economic development should not be based on 'hope.' The reality is not only will Derry be left with a dead Wal-Mart to fill---and very few retailers want a 115,000 s.f. used building---but there is also an existing Wal-Mart superstore only 7 miles away in Salem, New Hampshire, which could also lose sales.

Wal-Mart admitted in its recently-released 2010 annual report that new stores often steal sales from existing stores, so the addition of new stores cuts into a key indicator called "same store sales growth," which was very weak at Wal-Mart this year--in part because of the over saturation of stores---as in the Derry trade area.

Readers are urged to contact Derry Town Council Chairman Brad Benson at bradbenson@ci.derry.nh.us with the following message: "Dear Chairman Benson, I was surprised to see your assessment of the proposed Wal-Mart superstore as being "great." Why do you consider this a form of economic development?

I would urge you to check with your existing grocery stores in town to ask them how many people they employ, before you start counting your 85 promised jobs at Wal-Mart.

The town might also do well to put in place a surety bond for demolition of retail stores that sit empty for more than 12 months, because you are going to have a 115,000 s.f. dead store on your hands within a year after you green light Wal-Mart. The fact is a Wal-Mart superstore will make some things increase: crime, traffic, air pollution, noise and light pollution. It will make residential property values near the site go down. But that's it. Another retailer in town just means one more player in the game of retail musical chairs.

A study several years ago concluded that for every one Wal-Mart supercenter that opens, two area grocery stores will close.

No, Wal-Mart is not "great" for Derry. One Wal-Mart in Derry is one more than enough. Instead of wasting more land and resources on a new store, why don't you ask Wal-Mart to do an 'in-box conversion' at their existing store, by reformatting the interior floor space? That would be more sustainable, consume less energy, generate less pollution, and still give them increase market share.

Before you declare this kind of retail cannibalism "great," do some research on Wal-Mart's impact on municipal costs--especially public safety. Then you will understand why so many towns in New Hampshire have fought this suburban sprawl."

Yesterday on Huffington Post environmental strategist Andrew Winston, a consultant to many Fortune 500 companies on the subject of sustainability, posted a glowing piece on Walmart's sustainability efforts. Reading Winston's piece, you'd think that Walmart's efforts to become a "green" company are just the cat's pajamas.

But think again.

Lee Scott, while no longer CEO, has continued to make a lot of public statements about Walmart's sustainability effort (like "We are not green"). If you take a look at these one theme remains constant: Walmart's sustainability efforts are about keeping prices low. They aren't about protecting the environment, they are about getting great stories written about them.

Like the one in the Huffington Post by Winston.

This isn't to deny that Winston, and Walmart, don't make good points. Walmart does have environmental standards that it pushes onto its suppliers (and forces them to pay for). And they are cutting back on fuel consumption for overland transport. And that is peachy keen.

But when we start talking about how they are cutting down on trucking fuel use, it makes us forget that a lot of the merchandise on those trucks come from overseas and are transported here on huge merchant ships.

What do merchant ships have to do with environmentalism? Take a look at Mearsk, a huge client of Walmart and the world's largest merchant shipping company. Chartered out of Denmark, in 2008 the company produced more greenhouse gases than the rest of the country combined. Many of the goods that Mearsk ships are bound for Walmart's stores.

And let's not forget that when that merchandise arrives at its destination, it is being sold in a big box the size of four football fields surrounded by an even larger parking lot. Besides the basic environmental disaster that comes from destroying so much natural habitat, the polluted runoff from the area damages local water supplies. The bigger the parking lot, the bigger the problem.

Walmart is taking what is at it's heart an environmentally unsustainable business model and painting it green. And by the time people like Winston stop admiring the pretty trees of Walmart's Sustainable Value Networks and concertrated laundry detergent (less plastic packaging!) and take a look at the forest of environmental wreckage, it may be too late.

There should be a Gold Standard for sustainable business. If we allow Walmart to set that standard, we run the extreme risk of letting the company set that standard on their own terms.

Would you want Walmart setting the standard for wages? For health care? In that world we would all be working for below poverty wages and not be able to afford to take our kids to the doctor. For workers' rights? America would have no middle class! For women's rights? Well as Walmart tells it, management is "men's work."

If you want a world where the purpose of environmentalism and sustainability is to make the least informed among us a little less worried about the devastation of our world by corporations solely driven by profits, let Walmart take the helm on this one.

At Wake Up Walmart, we don't claim to be experts at sustainability. But we do claim to have some common sense and a nose, and something smells funny.

Walmart just put out their annual report. In it they spend pages talking about how the report is printed on recycled paper, how they sell CFL light bulbs, how they have a fancy schamzy Sustainability Index that they push on their vendors (they don't want to pay a penny more for it, but that's another story).

And then we read the news wires and we see this story: Wal-Mart to pay $27.6M in California dumping case.

And it says stuff like:

Wal-Mart employees were caught illegally storing and dumping hazardous waste at 236 stores and distributions centers across California.

and that the settlement is

one of the largest of its type in the United States.

So on the one hand Walmart is telling everyone: "Look at how green we are! We do green stuff! We totally love the environment! Buy our green stuff!"

And on the other: "Please don't look over here, where we dump hazarous stuff all over the place."

It just doesn't smell right.

Shareholders are pouring over Wal-Mart's 2010 Annual Report, which the company has posted online.

Wal-Mart by the numbers raises a number of concerns for investors, and some reason for optimism for community groups fighting the giant retailer:

• Net sales at Wal-Mart this past year grew by only 1%--the worst gain in the company's history. The company is relying on sales outside America to keep the company growing. International sales, which hit $100 billion this year, now make up roughly 25% of the company's net sales.

• Comparable store sales, which measures sales growth from existing stores in the current year to the same period the previous year, decreased in America by 0.8%, compared to a 3.5% increase in 2009. This is a key measure of store performance, and the numbers do not look good.

• Wal-Mart admits that "negative impact on comparable store sales as a result of opening new stores was approximately 0.6% in 2010, and 1.1% in 2009." In other words, when Wal-Mart opens new stores in a saturated market, they cannibalize their existing stores, and cut into their own sales. "As we continue to add new stores in the United States, we do so with an understanding that additional stores may take sales away from existing units." The good news for Wal-Mart fighters is: "With our planned slower new store growth, we expect the impact of new stores on comparable store sales to stabilize over time."

• Wal-Mart claims that comparable store sales were lower in fiscal 2010 "due to a decrease in average transaction size per customer driven by price deflation in certain merchandise categories." Consumers weren't buying as much each shopping trip.

• In 2010, Wal-Mart added only 52 new stores, or half of the 106 new stores they added in 2009, and only one-third of the 154 new stores added in 2007. Instead of opening new stores, Wal-Mart for the past couple of years has been focusing on "Project Impact"---remodeling existing stores---or expanding their existing discount stores into supercenters, instead of building new stores.

• Wal-Mart's total worldwide store count is 8,416 stores, and 952.2 million square feet of stores.
• By its 2011 report, Wal-Mart will have more stores outside the U.S. than inside. Counting all Wal-Marts and Sam's Clubs, the U.S. total is 4,304 stores, while the International store count is now 4,112.

• Wal-Mart claims that it will present something more exciting than the standard windowless big box format in the year ahead. "We have many opportunities to grow by opening new stores," the Annual Report says, "entering new markets, making acquisitions, integrating online channels, and developing new, innovative formats to allow people to experience the Wal-Mart brands."

• Look for growth in the U.S. to focus on urban areas: "Growth in the United States will come from additional penetration into more metropolitan markets, as well as from new formats and stronger integration with the online business."Chicago and New York City are the priority targets.

• Wal-Mart spent an average of $65.75 million every day over the past year on advertising. No wonder Americans are so indoctrinated with the Wal-Mart culture. Wal-Mart's advertising budget was up 14% this year.

• Wal-Mart's annual report was at the printers when the courts in California ruled that the huge gender discrimination case, Dukes V. Wal-Mart, could proceed as a class action lawsuit. The Annual Report notes, "If the company is not successful in its appeal of class certification, or an appellate court issues a ruling that allows for the certification of a class or classes with a different size or scope, and if there is a subsequent adverse verdict on the merits from which there is no successful appeal, or in the event of a negotiated settlement of the litigation, the resulting liability could be material to the company's financial condition or results of operations. The plaintiffs also seek punitive damages which, if awarded, could result in the payment of additional amounts material to the company's financial condition or results of operations." In other words, they could lose billions on this one case.

• According to the retailer's Annual Report, the company has potential future lease commitments for land and buildings for approximately 348 future locations. At its current annual rate of growth, that would be enough for the next seven years of new growth.

• If you don't like Wal-Mart superstores, the states with the least superstores are Hawaii (0), Vermont (0), Rhode Island (2) and Alaska, Connecticut and Delaware (5 each). If you love superstore saturation, move to Texas (298), Florida (168), Georgia (129), Ohio (124) and North Carolina (119). The saturation states also have the highest number of "dead Wal-Marts" that have been left empty.

What you can do: Wal-Mart is so obsessed with being politically correct on the "sustainability" issue, that they tell you more about the printing of their annual report than the number of dead store eyesores they have left empty.

Here is how Wal-Mart describes the print version of its Annual Report:

"It is printed on FSC-certified responsibly forested paper containing recycled PCW fiber that is Elementally Chlorine Free (ECF). It is printed using 100% renewable wind power (RECs), along with environmental manufacturing principles that were utilized in the printing process." The company claimed it saved "517 fewer trees consumed via recycling"

What Oscar Wilde said about cynics is true for Wal-Mart as well: Their sustainability counters know "the price of everything and the value of nothing."

Readers looking for more paint-by-numbers about Wal-Mart can go to walmartstores.com and click on "investors."

The Huffington Post has a great piece up about Betty Dukes, one of the women behind the gender discrimination suit against Walmart. If you haven't heard about Dukes v Walmart, it is the largest gender discrimination class action suit in the history of the country. Six women are suing Walmart on behalf of 1.5 million current and former female Walmart employees.

Walmart has been fighting hard against this suit, claiming that any discrimination (in this case the plaintiffs claim men are paid more for the same work and were afforded more opportunities for promotions) was an isolated incident and shouldn't have to face a class action suit. That argument didn't hold much water with the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, however, which recently ruled that the case could go forward as a class action suit.

That is good news for the 1.5 million women who have had to sue to ensure they get the same basic rights as their male counterparts. Here is just a small piece of Betty Duke's story:

As a "greeter," the cheerful Betty Dukes is one of the first employees customers usually see as they walk through the front doors of the Wal-Mart store here.

As the first "named plaintiff" in Dukes v. Wal-Mart, the ordained Baptist minister also is the face of the largest gender bias class action lawsuit in U.S. history - one that could cost the world's largest private employer billions.

Her dual roles have turned her into a civil rights crusader for the company's many critics, who have dubbed the legal battle "Betty v. Goliath." It is a far cry from where Dukes expected to be when she enthusiastically accepted an offer in 1994 to work the cash registers part-time for $5 an hour. She dreamed of turning around a hard life by advancing, through work and determination, into Wal-Mart corporate management.

Read the rest of her story on Huffington Post.