| Publications | Commentary | Newsletters | In the News | Press Releases |
 |
 |
Poor, poor Wal-Mart. As a growing amount of information suggests that the flip side of everyday low prices for consumers is round-the-clock shafting of taxpayers, the world's largest retailer feels like it's getting picked on. And you know what? It's about time.
Consider this:
- A government study in Georgia found that 10,000 participants in the state program that provides healthcare to low-income kids have parents who work for Wal-Mart.
- In California, a report by the University of California-Berkeley Labor Center showed that low wages and benefits force Wal-Mart employees in that state to seek more than $85 million in government assistance like food stamps, Medicare and subsidized housing.
- A survey by the Good Jobs First organization disclosed that around the nation Wal-Mart has received more than $1 billion in state and local subsidies including tax breaks, job-training funds and infrastructure improvements during its march to dominance.
And now, legislators in New Jersey are talking about making it tougher for Wal-Mart to drop its big-box behemoths into the landscape without first getting some data on the potential negative impacts.
The measure is spurred by cases in several municipalities where proposed Wal-Mart stores are being opposed by neighboring towns. The reasons are nothing new in a state that notoriously over-relies on property taxes and views regional planning as bordering on blasphemy: one town gets all the tax dollars and the other gets the traffic. Under the new legislation, a municipality thinking of hosting a big-box must notify adjoining towns, which then have the right to have their concerns addressed. The developer would have to pay for a study that would look at things like the store's impact on the local retail market and on wages in the area, what public services and facilities would be required by the development and projected tax revenues and who would get them.
And while the legislation never actually mentions the name Wal-Mart, it is written in a way that makes it clear this is the target. Not many other business fit the specs: at least 130,000 square feet of retail space for a facility whose wares include groceries, pharmaceuticals, auto products and the like. In other words, Wal-Mart is being singled out for the simple reason that it should be singled out. As Wal-Mart changes the face of retailing and, indeed, employment, in this country there are issues that need to be addressed. Citizens need to know more about the business and its practices, beyond what it shows the world in terms of folksy PR campaigns and prices that-admittedly-are downright inviting.
When low prices come from low pay that puts increased burdens on taxpayers to subsidize employees and that impoverishes workers in less developed nations-and when those low prices drive out local competition-it's a side of the story that needs to be told.
Negative information about Wal-Mart can help promote the sort of collective thought and action that it and so many other businesses would just rather not take place. They want us to feel like they are doing us a favor. If enough of us get together and question the mark-up on that favor, businesses are correct in fearing that we might demand some changes. And primary among them might be that the costs of compensating and providing benefits for workers are shifted back where they belong: onto business, not taxpayers.
But this legislation is good for other reasons too. New Jersey would be a better place if the regional impacts of major development were more frequently considered. There is the potential this could lead not only to less congestion but also to the tax-base sharing that takes place more often in other states. Under this concept, the property tax dollars a development brings go not only to the community where it is located but also to all the municipalities and other jurisdictions that face higher costs because of the impact of that development on them.
If we can move in this direction, maybe Wal-Mart really is doing us a favor. In the meantime, a spokesperson told the Star-Ledger, "I think my company's been accused of everything short of global warming." Hmm, since you brought it up...
A version of this piece ran as Jon Shure's column in the publication NJBiz.
| © 2008 New Jersey Policy Perspective |  |