Law School Discussion

Nine Years of Discussion
;

Author Topic: .  (Read 4408 times)

dbgirl

  • LSD Obsessed
  • *****
  • Posts: 5091
    • View Profile
    • KnowTheTruth
then you'd be the first to be happy to see a store at the Ferry Building, since it would fail, correct?  or it would serve the poor population, which otherwise has to pay higher prices elsewhere?  why exactly would you be opposed to it?

there will be no extra parking and likely not too much extra congestion since people can't expect to find parking in the area.  and the poor, by your metric, will be the only ones who shop there, in effect everybody wins, no?
I don't think WalMart in San Francisco is going to happen.
I suggest you watch the movie, there is quite an anti-WalMart "movement" growing nationwide.
I'm not sure poor people would go to THAT WalMart, because SF has a lot of traffic congestion, I'm not seeing a SF WalMart as a destination -- even for poor folks (I would guess that poor people with cars are more likely to drive south 10 miles or so to South San Francisco than navigate city traffic).
Have you BEEN to SF? If so, you would understand that my primary objection would be the location.
WalMart, if it must be built, should be built in some wretched industrial area, not on prime real estate.
When you have somebody dying because they are poor and black or poor and white or because of whatever they are ... that erases everything that's great about this country.

-TMcGraw

http://www.wm3.org/splash.php

dbgirl

  • LSD Obsessed
  • *****
  • Posts: 5091
    • View Profile
    • KnowTheTruth
you still haven't answered any of the questions raised in my last post.  so if walmart keeps the building basically intact on the outside and only builds a walmart on the inside, what's wrong with it?  and how do you reconcile everything you said with my previous post about them just going under if all of that is true and the city (rightfully) refuses to allow them to have a parking lot.

and who are you to decide that if Walmart follows all the building regulations they can't locate there but Whole Foods, par example, can?

Well I agree a WalMart at the ferry building probably would be a failure, especially without a parking lot.
While it probably is not legal to discriminate against a particular chain, there are city planning loopholes that can accomplish the same thing. For example, there may be an ordinance against building a store larger than, oh, 20,000 square feet in certain areas of the city.
Ultimately the decision should be up to people in SF. Perhaps it should be put to public vote. That would end that.
When you have somebody dying because they are poor and black or poor and white or because of whatever they are ... that erases everything that's great about this country.

-TMcGraw

http://www.wm3.org/splash.php

cyberrev

  • Guest
change their name to Marché de Mur and they would be trendy

dbgirl

  • LSD Obsessed
  • *****
  • Posts: 5091
    • View Profile
    • KnowTheTruth
change their name to Marché de Mur and they would be trendy

We could simply call it Walle de Marte
When you have somebody dying because they are poor and black or poor and white or because of whatever they are ... that erases everything that's great about this country.

-TMcGraw

http://www.wm3.org/splash.php

dbgirl

  • LSD Obsessed
  • *****
  • Posts: 5091
    • View Profile
    • KnowTheTruth
you still haven't answered any of the questions raised in my last post.  so if walmart keeps the building basically intact on the outside and only builds a walmart on the inside, what's wrong with it?  and how do you reconcile everything you said with my previous post about them just going under if all of that is true and the city (rightfully) refuses to allow them to have a parking lot.

and who are you to decide that if Walmart follows all the building regulations they can't locate there but Whole Foods, par example, can?

Well I agree a WalMart at the ferry building probably would be a failure, especially without a parking lot.
While it probably is not legal to discriminate against a particular chain, there are city planning loopholes that can accomplish the same thing. For example, there may be an ordinance against building a store larger than, oh, 20,000 square feet in certain areas of the city.
Ultimately the decision should be up to people in SF. Perhaps it should be put to public vote. That would end that.

As well they should.  However, the Board of Supervisors, as shown recently, is readily willing to circumvent the voters' will.  Because of course, not all voters are created equal.

As long as the law is not specifically aimed at Walmart, it is legal.  Remember, though, that any law that grandfathers a whole host of businesses WILL be subject to expensive litigation, which I think is precisely what Walmart wants for it's PR.  "They hate us so much they're willing to spend millions to fight in court stores that studies show are beneficial to the local economy."  (You aren't arguing that a Walmart where-ever would hurt San Francisco's economy, I hope, because that's just BS).

I seriously doubt WalMart would hurt SF's economy, but I really don't buy the "beneficial to the local economy" argument either.
Watch the WalMart movie -- seriously.  There's some interesting information about the "before" and "after" of a WalMart coming to town.

There are certainly cases of big box stores helping a local economy. Look at the Ikea/Home Depot/Best Buy/Good Guys development in East Palo Alto. However, East Palo Alto had virtually NO business, small or large, to speak of. Yes, I am saying that the big box stores were GOOD for East Palo Alto. I just don't think they'll make a helluva lot of difference in a place like SF. They will only uglify the city.
When you have somebody dying because they are poor and black or poor and white or because of whatever they are ... that erases everything that's great about this country.

-TMcGraw

http://www.wm3.org/splash.php

dbgirl

  • LSD Obsessed
  • *****
  • Posts: 5091
    • View Profile
    • KnowTheTruth
you still haven't answered any of the questions raised in my last post.  so if walmart keeps the building basically intact on the outside and only builds a walmart on the inside, what's wrong with it?  and how do you reconcile everything you said with my previous post about them just going under if all of that is true and the city (rightfully) refuses to allow them to have a parking lot.

and who are you to decide that if Walmart follows all the building regulations they can't locate there but Whole Foods, par example, can?

Well I agree a WalMart at the ferry building probably would be a failure, especially without a parking lot.
While it probably is not legal to discriminate against a particular chain, there are city planning loopholes that can accomplish the same thing. For example, there may be an ordinance against building a store larger than, oh, 20,000 square feet in certain areas of the city.
Ultimately the decision should be up to people in SF. Perhaps it should be put to public vote. That would end that.

As well they should.  However, the Board of Supervisors, as shown recently, is readily willing to circumvent the voters' will.  Because of course, not all voters are created equal.

As long as the law is not specifically aimed at Walmart, it is legal.  Remember, though, that any law that grandfathers a whole host of businesses WILL be subject to expensive litigation, which I think is precisely what Walmart wants for it's PR.  "They hate us so much they're willing to spend millions to fight in court stores that studies show are beneficial to the local economy."  (You aren't arguing that a Walmart where-ever would hurt San Francisco's economy, I hope, because that's just BS).

I seriously doubt WalMart would hurt SF's economy, but I really don't buy the "beneficial to the local economy" argument either.
Watch the WalMart movie -- seriously.  There's some interesting information about the "before" and "after" of a WalMart coming to town.

There are certainly cases of big box stores helping a local economy. Look at the Ikea/Home Depot/Best Buy/Good Guys development in East Palo Alto. However, East Palo Alto had virtually NO business, small or large, to speak of. Yes, I am saying that the big box stores were GOOD for East Palo Alto. I just don't think they'll make a helluva lot of difference in a place like SF. They will only uglify the city.


how so, if this specific walmart looks like a Whole Foods, for the most part, which it very well may if it wants to stay in business?  i can understand that you think the normal Walmart box store is ugly, but if they keep the facade of the building they buy, even that argument fails.  point is, walmart is a private business, and as long as they follow the rules, they should be treated like any other private business, regardless how much you personally hate them.   I'd actually be interested to see in this hotbed of anti-Walmart action, where the whites are too wealthy to shop at Walmart anyway, how Walmart would do. 

i agree it won't make any difference to the economy (either way).  other than a few downtown liquor stores going under.  i've read the reports, I don't need to watch a movie.  A new Walmart in Redding will have a much different effect overall than one in a major city (where it won't have much at all).

I'd vote against the store if it was put to the ballot, because I have my own health insurance, and no kids, and can live without the multi-millions that would be funneled from social programs to not have a Walmart (lawsuits, buying the property back from the store, etc) in the city.   Then again, I don't live in the city.

I suggest you visit SF to get a better idea of what I'm talking about. Also, it's not a simple whites are rich minorities are poor situation in the Bay Area (FYI).

Anyway, I'm pretty sure that welfare is a state run program and that there is no part of the city budget dedicated to welfare benefits. SF is also it's own county, so I might be mistaken.

I'm pretty sure that if the city were to engage in legal battles with WalMart, the money would come out of the city's general fund.
That would probably have the most significant impact on either 1) Public works or 2) City government salaries . From what I know about Gavin Newsom, it would be the latter. That would be just fine with me, because city workers make a$$loads of money.
As far as WalMart being able to comply with local regulations, that would be very tough for a big box store, because box stores depend upon certain minimum square footages for profitability (or so they say.)

I HIGHLY doubt the voters in SF would vote for a WalMart, but I think they should have a chance.
When you have somebody dying because they are poor and black or poor and white or because of whatever they are ... that erases everything that's great about this country.

-TMcGraw

http://www.wm3.org/splash.php

dbgirl

  • LSD Obsessed
  • *****
  • Posts: 5091
    • View Profile
    • KnowTheTruth
i disagree with all but your last statement.  Walmart should bring to ballot exactly what they want to open, and where, and let the voters decide.  Then watch the Board of Supervisors try to block them if Walmart wins the vote, leading to an unmatched PR coup for Walmart.

Please tell me on what basis you disagree.
I know a bit about city planning and budgets, and the would-be development of big box stores, so I'm not pulling this stuff out of my ass. And I'm nearly positive that WalMart would fail at the ballot box.
When you have somebody dying because they are poor and black or poor and white or because of whatever they are ... that erases everything that's great about this country.

-TMcGraw

http://www.wm3.org/splash.php

dbgirl

  • LSD Obsessed
  • *****
  • Posts: 5091
    • View Profile
    • KnowTheTruth
i disagree with all but your last statement.  Walmart should bring to ballot exactly what they want to open, and where, and let the voters decide.  Then watch the Board of Supervisors try to block them if Walmart wins the vote, leading to an unmatched PR coup for Walmart.

Please tell me on what basis you disagree.
I know a bit about city planning and budgets, and the would-be development of big box stores, so I'm not pulling this stuff out of my ass. And I'm nearly positive that WalMart would fail at the ballot box.


Nope.  I don't think so.  The reason NYC-style school reform measures wouldn't pass is people vote their conciensce, the poor people still go to crappy schools, and most everybody else votes for the socialist ideal. 

The difference here is that it directly affects the poor people.  When it comes to the ballot box, they'd probably vote for.  So would a vast majority of of the city's Chinese population.  It would be a vote very much similar to when those bastards closed the Fell St. off-ramp, except that since a chunk of the poor who don't buy into the "Walmart bad" crap would vote for it, I think it would pass.

See edited post, I don't feel like arguing anymore, and if the main question is whether to have a Walmart or not, take that to the voters and see.
I wish more Bay Area people would weigh in on this thread. I think you're misreading how poor people would vote. Unfortunately (and this is a big problem IMO) many poor people DON'T vote. Those who do may be educated enough to realize that WalMart is not a panacea for the ills of the poor. It is, at best, a cheap place to shop.

OK, I'll stop arguing w/you.  :-* I actually think the two of us are arguing on this thread for the sake of arguing and that neither of us is really THAT much of a WalMart lover/hater. 
When you have somebody dying because they are poor and black or poor and white or because of whatever they are ... that erases everything that's great about this country.

-TMcGraw

http://www.wm3.org/splash.php

dbgirl

  • LSD Obsessed
  • *****
  • Posts: 5091
    • View Profile
    • KnowTheTruth
i disagree with all but your last statement.  Walmart should bring to ballot exactly what they want to open, and where, and let the voters decide.  Then watch the Board of Supervisors try to block them if Walmart wins the vote, leading to an unmatched PR coup for Walmart.

Please tell me on what basis you disagree.
I know a bit about city planning and budgets, and the would-be development of big box stores, so I'm not pulling this stuff out of my ass. And I'm nearly positive that WalMart would fail at the ballot box.


Nope.  I don't think so.  The reason NYC-style school reform measures wouldn't pass is people vote their conciensce, the poor people still go to crappy schools, and most everybody else votes for the socialist ideal. 

The difference here is that it directly affects the poor people.  When it comes to the ballot box, they'd probably vote for.  So would a vast majority of of the city's Chinese population.  It would be a vote very much similar to when those bastards closed the Fell St. off-ramp, except that since a chunk of the poor who don't buy into the "Walmart bad" crap would vote for it, I think it would pass.

See edited post, I don't feel like arguing anymore, and if the main question is whether to have a Walmart or not, take that to the voters and see.
I wish more Bay Area people would weigh in on this thread. I think you're misreading how poor people would vote. Unfortunately (and this is a big problem IMO) many poor people DON'T vote. Those who do may be educated enough to realize that WalMart is not a panacea for the ills of the poor. It is, at best, a cheap place to shop.

OK, I'll stop arguing w/you.  :-* I actually think the two of us are arguing on this thread for the sake of arguing and that neither of us is really THAT much of a WalMart lover/hater. 

Exactly, I was talking about them.  And being poor, another cheap place to shop, given that Walmart agrees to play by some basic rules (not building a monstrosity in SF) to not ruin the character of the city, would be a great thing.

As I said, I'd vote against it, the few things that I could get their for cheap isn't worth the opportunity to have a more interesting store where-ever it would have located in the city.

And on this point (and probably one of the few points, ever), we agree.  :-*
When you have somebody dying because they are poor and black or poor and white or because of whatever they are ... that erases everything that's great about this country.

-TMcGraw

http://www.wm3.org/splash.php

dbgirl

  • LSD Obsessed
  • *****
  • Posts: 5091
    • View Profile
    • KnowTheTruth
Well trollik perhaps you can get WalMart to build it's organic store in Pleasanton. 
I'm definitely noticing that salad (made at home) has become really expensive.
When you have somebody dying because they are poor and black or poor and white or because of whatever they are ... that erases everything that's great about this country.

-TMcGraw

http://www.wm3.org/splash.php