OVER 100 MARCH IN OPPOSITION TO PROPOSED WEST ASHEVILLE WAL-MART

WEST ASHEVILLE—On Sunday, January 29, over 100 concerned residents, community
activists and local students marched in opposition to the proposed West
Asheville Wal-Mart Supercenter as part of an ongoing campaign organized by the
Asheville Wal-Mart Watch. Demonstrators expressed their opposition to the
development, highlighting a potential for damage to the local economy and
decline in quality of life in the surrounding neighborhood as primary concerns.
The issue of affordable housing—a major emphasis in the city's 2025 planning
document—was raised in connection with the 60 stick-built and mobile home units
that would be leveled during Wal-Mart construction.

Activists met at 2pm at a nearby Ingles and proceeded in parade-like fashion to
the proposed development lot, flying colorful signs and cheering at cars that
sailed by honking with approval. Once at the site, a small group ranging from
young children to elderly participants planted cherry laurel, holly, and rose
of sharon in a plot of earth they dedicated as "The Lost Cities Memorial
Garden"—a gesture designed to express a public desire for community space in
lieu of corporate parking lots and big box stores.

The protest occurred simultaneously with another anti-Wal-Mart action in Kansas
City, MO. There, activist groups the Ruckus Society and ACORN (A Community
Organization for Reform Now) posed outside Wal-Mart's senior management staff
meeting as the "Bureau of Worker's Health." Equipped with face shields, rubber
gloves, and yellow caution tape, protestors staged a "quarantine" of the
meeting, a commentary on the company's failure to provide adequate health care
to the majority of its employees.

The Asheville Wal-Mart Watch will hold a free screening of Robert Greenwald's
"The High Cost of Low Prices" at Outspoken Books at 7pm on Feb. 15.

1/31/2006 4:17:51 PM

i'd expect even more will shop there the first day its open

1/31/2006 4:27:47 PM

And yet it affected and changed nothing. Capitalism will continue to march forward in spite of all of your hatemongering. Walmart=Extra low prices, always.

1/31/2006 4:45:26 PM

wal-mart is anti-capitalism.

small businesses and such are the backbone of any capitalistic society

1/31/2006 4:46:48 PM

Quote :

"wal-martGovernment is anti-capitalism. small businesses and such are the backbone of any capitalistic society"

There. Fixed it for you.

1/31/2006 4:48:03 PM

I don't think you understand what you are saying

1/31/2006 4:48:47 PM

Quote :

"I don't think you understand what you are saying"

Is it not the government who give out billions of dollars in subsidies? Is it not the government who enforces regulations such as minimum wage laws, anti-discrimination laws, and other pro socialist regulations? All of these hurt small businesses and enable titanic corporations to grow and grow, which in the end hurts WeThePeople as our choices for employment and where to spend our monies are lessened.

1/31/2006 4:52:27 PM

rolling back prices and employment rates

1/31/2006 7:31:10 PM

Quote :

"rolling back prices and employment rates=Your government serving you."

Completed it for you.

1/31/2006 7:33:03 PM

that's not serving me at all

I'd be willing to pay inflated prices for something of higher quality
especially if it meant I got to keep my job

1/31/2006 7:49:01 PM

Quote :

"I'd be willing to pay inflated prices for something of higher quality"

Higher price doesn't equal higher quality.

Quote :

"especially if it meant I got to keep my job"

I'm not concerned about people keeping their jobs. If the work they are doing requires little to no skills, they are not going to get paid that much and can easily be replaced. Disposable employees. Why should disposable employees get paid anymore than next to nothing?

1/31/2006 7:52:51 PM

Higher price doesn't necessarily equal higher quality, true, but Wal-Mart actively works to pressure manufacturers to lower the price, without concern for quality, so that they, too, can lower their prices.

1/31/2006 7:58:37 PM

^ % ^^
Don't buy from Walmart then.

What better way then sticking it to the "man" then by letting them build a multi-thousand dollar facility and then having to close it down because of lack of sales.

And coming from manufacturing all buyers haggle prices, not just walmart. Hell, people do it in all market situations, especially asians...

[Edited on January 31, 2006 at 8:32 PM. Reason : -]

1/31/2006 8:32:07 PM

^ I don't.

1/31/2006 8:44:59 PM

Quote :

"that's not serving me at all I'd be willing to pay inflated prices for something of higher quality especially if it meant I got to keep my job"

is there a majority of the community effort to oppose walmart (where avons idea of making them close due to lack of sales would work), or is it a minority of the community who would prefer to keep their specific jobs/money rather than the majority getting lower prices?

1/31/2006 9:02:10 PM

Dude, most of the people who shop at the current super walmart are probably from west Asheville.

Also, 100 people in a town the size of Asheville - with that many hippies that care about local businesses - is pretty pitiful.

2/1/2006 12:33:49 AM

YOU TOTALLY FORGOT TO BOLD THE WORD "MY" IN HIS POST

2/1/2006 12:45:31 AM

I don't see what the big deal is with walmart. They offer low prices to everyone, rich or poor. That means the poor can keep more money they make. I'm also pretty sure they would bring along lots of new job opportunities with them.

2/1/2006 1:03:28 AM

Quote :

"[quote]wal-martGovernment is anti-capitalism. small businesses and such are the backbone of any capitalistic society[/squote] There. Fixed it for you. "

The "anti-capitalist" gov. is what created Wal-mart. They're essentially one and the same.

[Edited on February 1, 2006 at 1:04 AM. Reason : ]

2/1/2006 1:04:17 AM

Quote :

"rolling back prices and employment rates"

Are you arguing that Wal Mart has a net negative effect on the number of jobs in the economy?

You've got an uphill battle making that claim, but I'll listen to what you have to say.

2/1/2006 9:41:54 AM

Yay, yet another thread talking about the evils of WalMart.

http://www.brentroad.com/message_topic.aspx?topic=377345
http://www.brentroad.com/message_topic.aspx?topic=366315
http://www.brentroad.com/message_topic.aspx?topic=365419
http://www.brentroad.com/message_topic.aspx?topic=279179
http://www.brentroad.com/message_topic.aspx?topic=228321
http://www.brentroad.com/message_topic.aspx?topic=168215

2/1/2006 10:35:58 AM

In Big Labor's war against Wal-Mart, "collateral damage"--in the form of lost jobs and income for the poor--is starting to add up. Of course, since the unions and their legislative allies claim that their motive is to liberate people from exploitation by Wal-Mart, these unintended effects are often ignored.

Here in Maryland, however, that's getting hard to do. The consequences of our Legislature's override of Republican Gov. Robert Ehrlich's veto of their "Fair Share Health Care Act" on Jan. 12 will be tragic for some of the state's neediest residents. The law will force companies that employ over 10,000 to spend at least 8% of their payroll on health care or kick any shortfall into a special state fund. Wal-Mart would be the only employer in the state to be affected.

Almost surely, therefore, the company will pull the plug on plans to build a distribution center that would have employed 800 in Somerset County, on Maryland's picturesque Eastern Shore.

The rural county is Maryland's poorest, with per capita personal income 46% below the state average and a poverty rate 130% above it. Somerset's enduring problem is weak labor demand that greatly limits its 25,250 residents' economic opportunities.

It is hard to exaggerate how much the planned distribution center might have meant to Somerset's economy. Using an input-output model, we forecast the "ripple effects" of the new income and spending that could have emanated from Wal-Mart's facility as follows:

* The center's 800 employees would have created an additional 282 jobs among "upstream" suppliers and "downstream" retailers and service establishments; all told, the center would have boosted county employment by 14% and private-sector employment by 20%.
* Total annual employee compensation in Somerset would have risen by $46.5 million, or 19%.
* Annual output (or "gross county product") would have risen by $128.3 million, or 19%.
* State and local tax receipts would have increased by $19.2 million annually; this would include $8.5 million in property taxes, $5.6 million in sales taxes, and $1.4 million in personal income taxes.

Those losses, though dramatic, probably understate the full extent of the damage in this case. They do not include forgone employment and income from construction of the facility and related infrastructure improvements. What is more, Wal-Mart's tentative plans for a second distribution center in Garrett County, in mountainous western Maryland, also appear dead. Garrett, with a poverty rate that is 70% above the state's, is only slightly better off than Somerset.

http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=5423

[Edited on February 1, 2006 at 4:18 PM. Reason : short-short-version]

2/1/2006 4:16:45 PM

when they build the walmart they should enforce the no shoes no service as a fuck you to the hippies

2/1/2006 4:20:02 PM

this one: http://www.brentroad.com/message_topic.aspx?topic=366315
was a good thread ruined by protostars shouting about his political beliefs and that other retard bashing liberals

2/1/2006 11:03:46 PM

^^ What do you mean by "big labor"?

Also, how is that not as much (if not more) Wal-Mart's fault for not wanting to spend a meager 8% more on their employees' health, as the gov.?


[Edited on February 1, 2006 at 11:28 PM. Reason : ]

2/1/2006 11:28:07 PM

Because, for whatever reason, when you are an average Wal-Mart employee you would prefer cash monies (a higher salary) to health benefits.

Of course, there is also a minority of wal-mart employees that reject the offered health-insurance because they are already covered other means and would prefer to not pay the co-pay. You see, Wal-Mart realizes that its employees are drawn from all levels of society (people formerly on welfare, teenagers, immigrants, the temporarily unemployed, etc). So in order to employ people with such a wide variety of backgrounds, it gives them options. Keep your entire paycheck, or give back a portion in exchange for health-benefits (varies by region and market).

Why people opt out of health-benefits and therefore are not reflected in the statistics:
- OLD and therefore already covered by medicare (all those greaters that have become famous)
- considered disabled by the social security system, covered by medicare
- teenager still living with parents and covered by their health-care provider
- second income earner in family and covered by their health-care provider
- taken as a second job, have health-care provided by other employer
- Need a new car, need money, I'll sign up later for coverage
- taken as a temporary position while looking for a job in your field of specialization
- Buy your own health-care insurance or utilize a health-savings account (not likely)
- Hate Doctors

Any of these reasons would make you opt-out of the provided health-options, thus reducing wal-marts statistics. Other employeers don't have this problem because they don't give you the option of opting out and they employ a type of long-term employee (non-immigrant, over 25, has a family, etc) and therefore demands coverage.

[Edited on February 1, 2006 at 11:58 PM. Reason : .,.]

2/1/2006 11:55:47 PM

Quote :

"was a good thread ruined by protostars shouting about his political beliefs and that other retard bashing liberals"

How did I ruin it? I made ONE post the entire fucking thread.

2/2/2006 12:37:53 AM

Quote :

"Also, how is that not as much (if not more) Wal-Mart's fault for not wanting to spend a meager 8% more on their employees' health, as the gov.?"

That 8% could be spent expanding the company. As a stockholder of Walmart, I'm not concerned about their employees health, only that the stock price continues to rise.

2/2/2006 12:38:53 AM

^^^ What percentage of their employees opt-out? Is it a significant percentage?

Also, even if some opt-out, doesn't that just leave more $$$ to help the other people that don't opt-out (and that might could use better coverage?)?

^ You should be concerned with the health of your fellow human beings and neighbors. Pretty much the ONLY reason gov. interferes with businesses at all is to keep natural human greed and evil in check. There just has to be a good way to keep the gov. in check.

Also, it may just be, but your posts seem to be a bit tounge-in-cheek. If not though, I hope someone steps on you or your loved ones, and spits on them while they're down, one day.


[Edited on February 2, 2006 at 12:44 AM. Reason : ]

2/2/2006 12:40:43 AM

when we turn into a communist state, you will realize why people do this walmart shit

2/2/2006 5:35:39 AM

Quote :

"Also, even if some opt-out, doesn't that just leave more $$$ to help the other people that don't opt-out"

moron, you missed a key part of my post. When you opt-out the money saved goes to YOU in the form of a higher pay check (In this case, Wal-Mart did not automatically deduct your co-pay). So, no, the money cannot then be used to help others because the money was already given to other employees.

Quote :

"What percentage of their employees opt-out? Is it a significant percentage?"

Yes, one article gave a figure as high as 60%. But that was at one wal-mart he serveyed, not necessarily the same at all Wal-Mart stores.

[Edited on February 2, 2006 at 10:01 AM. Reason : .,.]

2/2/2006 9:56:46 AM

^^^^^^ you forgot "insurance plan doesn't cover any medical treatments you would actually need"

My bro-in-law is a manager at a Walmart and this is pretty much the case. They would rather have the cash than an insurance plan where they can't afford the copay and other costs anyways.

2/2/2006 10:11:16 AM