.

[dbgirl]

Well trollik, maybe after law school you can get a job on the WalMart dream team.
As for me, I probably couldn't do corporate defense.  I'll probably represent the person who got run over by the WalMart truck.

[J D]

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).

Perhaps someone forgot to mention all that to these folks:

You seem to have mastered the "insert image" tool: bravo.    Two of those people (O'Connor and Rehnquist) appear to have conveniently forgotten about what they signed on to (or, in the case of O'Connor, wrote) in Midkiff.  If that case was rightly decided, it's very hard to argue that Kelo wasn't; O'Connor's dissent in Kelo doesn't do a terribly good job of distinguishing the two while at the same time preserving traditionally accepted uses of the power of condemnation, even in situations where the whole public will not be allowed to use the condemned land afterwards (condemnation of land for a military base, or condemnation of an easement across a privately owned area of land for the benefit of another private, landlocked parcel, or the condemnation of land for the construction of a privately owned and operated railroad line; all these scenarios readily come to mind).

[dbgirl]

Well trollik, maybe after law school you can get a job on the WalMart dream team.
As for me, I probably couldn't do corporate defense.  I'll probably represent the person who got run over by the WalMart truck.

Corporations are big ole targets for laswsuits though, and I imagine most corporate defense work is dealing with the constant shakedown attempts by various jackasses.

Ive heard Wal-Mart is also trying to buy the Embarcadero Ferry Building, I hope this Hercules victory puts a stop to that non sense.

i think walmart may just want to spend multimillions fighting with SF cause they hate the city, and are willing to do whatever.  if they buy the ferry building, and the city chooses to use eminient domain, let's just say it's a pretty penny that will come out of programs for homosexual homeless anti-war protestors.

Damn, you had to make me bring out the vomiticon.


Homosexuality has nothing to do with homelessness or anti-war protesting.
A lot of anti-war protestors are rich, actually.
And homeless people in San Francisco are not exactly rolling in dough.

Anyway, you can be incredibly hostile.

[dbgirl]

Trollik, I am flattered that you added me to your signature.

However, the alteration of your post misses my point.
Homesexuals and Anti-War protestors are, generally speaking, not living off of the government's dime. And honestly many of the city's homeless people are not even collecting general assistance in SF, which is a whopping $59 per month. Actually, many homeless people have jobs!

Therefore, the assertion that the money to fight WalMart will significantly reduce programs for homosexuals, anti-war protestors or the homeless is largely off the mark, IMO.

Of course I realize you were probably just using the WalMart debate as an opportunity to take a jab at liberals.
Actually, I didn't have particularly stronge feelings about WalMart one way or the other until I got involved with this thread. You will be happy to know that, inspired by this thread, I have rented the WalMart is the Devil DVD and will view it this weekend. 

[the original dunson]

Walmart is a festering ttt.

[cyberrev]

Don't try to pass it off like she just doesn't "get" your humor.  I can appreciate dry humor, but there's a difference between dry humor and humor that attempts to reaffirm straight, rich, white, Christian male supremacy.

ok, lemme run the checklist....


straight?  um, yeah, mostly, check.
rich?  @#!*, no.  damn.
white?  ok, there we go, 2 outta 3!
christian?  damn, we are on a roll now, 3 for 4.
male?  motherfucking snakes on the plane, baby!  4 for 5.
supreme?  nah, i'm married, *&^% i know damn well i'm not supreme.

final total:  4/6, 66% barely passing.

[dbgirl]

Don't try to pass it off like she just doesn't "get" your humor.  I can appreciate dry humor, but there's a difference between dry humor and humor that attempts to reaffirm straight, rich, white, Christian male supremacy.

ok, lemme run the checklist....


straight?  um, yeah, mostly, check.
rich?  @#!*, no.  damn.
white?  ok, there we go, 2 outta 3!
christian?  damn, we are on a roll now, 3 for 4.
male?  motherfucking snakes on the plane, baby!  4 for 5.
supreme?  nah, i'm married, sh*t i know damn well i'm not supreme.

final total:  4/6, 66% barely passing.

Don't worry, they'll probably still let you into their club 

[dbgirl]

i think walmart may just want to spend multimillions fighting with SF cause they hate the city, and are willing to do whatever.  if they buy the ferry building, and the city chooses to use eminient domain, let's just say it's a pretty penny that will come out of programs for homosexual homeless anti-war protestors.

Ha ha, why do you say Wal-Mart hates the city of SF?

because it's probably the hotbed of urban anti-walmart action.  and i think walmart just wants to stick it to them.  i wouldn't be surprised if they purposely paid over market value for the ferry building...

and then they could run ads on how there were 11,000 apps for 400 jobs in Oakland, and how the city of San Francisco is spending precious taxpayers funds because of a vendetta.  It would be great for PR.

The area of Oakland where WalMart is located is not nearly as objectionable as the area in SF where WalMart WANTS to locate.  The Oakland WalMart is on the outskirts of town near the airport. 
And the fact that there were so many applicants for so few jobs at the Oakland WalMart is sad evidence of how desperate some people are for work. I doubt it's a reflection on the desirability of working for WalMart.

[dbgirl]

i think walmart may just want to spend multimillions fighting with SF cause they hate the city, and are willing to do whatever.  if they buy the ferry building, and the city chooses to use eminient domain, let's just say it's a pretty penny that will come out of programs for homosexual homeless anti-war protestors.

Ha ha, why do you say Wal-Mart hates the city of SF?

because it's probably the hotbed of urban anti-walmart action.  and i think walmart just wants to stick it to them.  i wouldn't be surprised if they purposely paid over market value for the ferry building...

and then they could run ads on how there were 11,000 apps for 400 jobs in Oakland, and how the city of San Francisco is spending precious taxpayers funds because of a vendetta.  It would be great for PR.

The area of Oakland where WalMart is located is not nearly as objectionable as the area in SF where WalMart WANTS to locate.  The Oakland WalMart is on the outskirts of town near the airport. 
And the fact that there were so many applicants for so few jobs at the Oakland WalMart is sad evidence of how desperate some people are for work. I doubt it's a reflection on the desirability of working for WalMart.

AFAIK the Macy's in Downtown San Francisco sells, amongst other things, a whole collection of Armani, Boss, etc. that you don't find in any other Macy's.  Because people there will buy those things.  Some Walmarts sell organics.  What's to say that the choice of groceries at a Downtown Walmart won't be more similar to Whole Foods than Food4Less, for example, to reflect the needs of the customer base, which every local Walmart strives to do.  It's not their fault that those needs are similar where you're in Upstate NY, Kansas, or Fresno.

Desirability?  Sorry, people with no education don't get $50,000/yr jobs unless they have innate talent (selling [cars, real estate, and so forth], entertaining, etc).  Regardless how disadvantaged they were.  That's how capitalism works.  I'd rather see them working somewhere, even Walmart, then just sitting on welfare and collecting checks without doing any work.

Well Trollik, I wrote a long response to this earlier but it timed out so it didn't get posted.
So, a few quick things: WalMart might have some overlap with Macy's/Whole Foods customers, but generally speaking the Macy's/Whole Foods people do not shop at WalMart. I don't know any non-poor people who shop at WalMart. 
Speaking of poor people, I'm watching the WalMart movie right now -- you should watch it.
Apparently, the store actually encourages its employees to rely on the government for food stamps and medicaid.

[dbgirl]

i know how walmart's benefits system works, and it's not pretty, which is why I said earlier in this thread I don't really like them too much.  but between Bentonville and the Loonytunes Board (who recently tried to squash the voters will by voting to introduce some crap that had specifically lost a referendum some years back), I pick Walmart without a second thought.  that and as I said, I'd rather people work at Walmart then just be sitting on welfare.

-------

More wealthy people don't shop at Walmart because Walmart doesn't carry what they want and generally has many "ghetto" shoppers who they don't want to be around.  But if you put one Downtown at the Ferry Building, it would carry the right items, and they would shop at that particular Walmart.  And also, Walmart doesn't situate itself in areas that would be likely to carry those kinds of items.  For whatever reason.  But if they build a flagship store in downtown SF, I don't think they'll be too successful selling their crappy cheap clothes, and they probably won't.

ghetto in this case means poor, rather than specifying any race.

Trollik, I am a lifelong Bay Area resident. I'm pretty familiar with the "habits" of Bay Areans. Upper-middle-class people in the Bay Area will NOT shop at any store named WalMart. It can be the swankiest WalMart ever, and wealthy people will not go there because it is a WalMart (unless they are lame cheap people, like my brother.)
If I go to WalMart, it's because I am broke and looking for the cheapest (fill in the blank here) -- there IS no other reason to go there.