.

[dbgirl]

They showed the WalMart renderings on TV. It actually doesn't look bad. I think people in this case are objecting to the fact that it is WalMart rather than the actual design.

[J D]

Property rights are not all that many make them out to be.  They are frequently subject to constraint by the majority (acting through the state) and have been for quite a long time, and for very good reason.

Something like that.  It's a fine line.  Kelo falls on one side (and the SCOTUS is wrong), this falls on the other, iff it would pass a popular referendum.  Especially considering that Hercules is a small town, and it would pretty much affect the entire populace of that town.

Among property law scholars, the result in Kelo is essentially uncontroversial, in light of what had come before (i.e., unanimous decisions in Berman and Midkiff, and persuasive authority on the state level, like the Poletown case in MI); the only thing that was debated was the margin by which the taking would be upheld.  What has really interested scholars is why the result proved to be so poorly received, why people were surprisingly hostile to it, considering that it shouldn't have come as any surprise to anyone who was paying attention (I think that basically answers the question).

[dbgirl]

WalMart went down.
The council voted tonight to buy the land against WalMart's wishes.

[dbgirl]

OK are people actually feeling sorry for WalMart?
It's not exactly the most ethical company around.

[dbgirl]

what ethical custom is wal-mart violating?  (and no i am not implying that they don't violate any; this is an honest question.)

Where to start? For one, there was "the memo"
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/10/26/business/26walmart.ready.html?ex=1148616000&en=6d32895ac9dd56b5&ei=5070

There are numerous other allegations of employment discrimination:
http://www.walmartclass.com/public_home.html

WalMart is also notorious for defending lawsuits to the death, even when it is liable.
http://www.nfsi.org/walmart/Lawsuits%20a%20volume%20business%20at%20Wal-Mart.htm

I can't find the link now but the company fought some poor widow whose husband was killed on the job. The idea is to "break" the opponent emotionally and financially.

[dbgirl]

all very valid allegations. 

on the other hand, i wouldn't consider them MORE unethical than lots of companies.  probably just higher profile.
[/quot

Why would these allegations be about WalMart specifically and not some other big box store? I'm sure to some degree all big companies have some shady practices, but I don't hear these stories about Target. Or KMart. Or Costco.

[dbgirl]

WalMart is also notorious for defending lawsuits to the death, even when it is liable.
http://www.nfsi.org/walmart/Lawsuits%20a%20volume%20business%20at%20Wal-Mart.htm

I don't think there is anything unethical about exercising their legal rights completely.

I wish I could find the article I was speaking about, specifically. IMO, when a company is clearly completely at fault, the company should pay for the damage it caused. If I am run over by a WalMart truck, through no fault of my own, there really isn't an excuse, IMO, for the company to fight the lawsuit to the point where I go broke or die.

[dbgirl]

all very valid allegations. 

on the other hand, i wouldn't consider them MORE unethical than lots of companies.  probably just higher profile.
[/quot

Why would these allegations be about WalMart specifically and not some other big box store? I'm sure to some degree all big companies have some shady practices, but I don't hear these stories about Target. Or KMart. Or Costco.

uh, no.

What are you saying no to?
That I included Costco on the Walmart/Kmart/Target list. Or are you saying that Costco allegedly does a lot of shady stuff too?

[dbgirl]

all very valid allegations. 

on the other hand, i wouldn't consider them MORE unethical than lots of companies.  probably just higher profile.

Why would these allegations be about WalMart specifically and not some other big box store? I'm sure to some degree all big companies have some shady practices, but I don't hear these stories about Target. Or KMart. Or Costco.

uh, no.

What are you saying no to?
That I included Costco on the Walmart/Kmart/Target list. Or are you saying that Costco allegedly does a lot of shady stuff too?

That.  Costco is one of the those socially concious companies, sorta like Starbucks.  You'd have a hard case to make against them in the same nature that could be made (rightly or wrongly) about the others.

Oh. I just threw it up there as a box store example. But I'm glad to hear that it is a socially conscious company.

[dbgirl]

WalMart is also notorious for defending lawsuits to the death, even when it is liable.
http://www.nfsi.org/walmart/Lawsuits%20a%20volume%20business%20at%20Wal-Mart.htm

I don't think there is anything unethical about exercising their legal rights completely.

I wish I could find the article I was speaking about, specifically. IMO, when a company is clearly completely at fault, the company should pay for the damage it caused. If I am run over by a WalMart truck, through no fault of my own, there really isn't an excuse, IMO, for the company to fight the lawsuit to the point where I go broke or die.

slippery slope...

I don't think settling a clear-cut case is going to open a company up to more lawsuits. It might make the company more careful about some of its practices.