So apparently, Wal-Mart is about to receive up to 1.3 million dollars in FEDERAL AID monies to help them buy a piece of land so they can build a Supercenter.

This is even more insulting to my intelligence than that blatant pork $4 million to study how hurricanes affect the shrimping industry.

It should be offensive to all of you.

Here is the link

http://www.newszap.com/articles/2005/01/17/dm/eastern_shore_of_maryland/sports/crs01.txt

Just a drop in the bucket, baby.

Why should it anger us?  That center is going to create 260 permanent jobs and who knows how many temp jobs during the construction of the center itself.  Most of the money seems to be going to the surrounding infrastructure.  Just look at it as a 1.3 million dollar gov't jobs program if it will make you feel better.

No fucking way.
That's just too far off the hook.

Yea, I hate pork as much as the next guy (but maybe not as much as you).  But, what's being proposed here one example of how the Feds can stimulate local economies - by giving financing to private companies who otherwise wouldn't do a certain project.  Yes, corruption and misuse of funds is undoubtedly rampant in these programs but, with no evidence that this is the case here, I'm wondering why you take such offense?

The only thing I can think of is that you personally don't like Wal-Mart as a company. To me, that's your own personal judgment, which I respect, but I'm certain that if we went through the list of companies you like, I'd have many objections as well.  Hence, not exactly a sound basis for policy decisions.

-- Modified on 1/18/2005 7:28:54 PM

Because the land is given away. Or in some cases, taken away by eminent domain, and simply handed over to Wal-Mart. Wal-Mart does not lease any property it builds on, it acquires it, usually outright, in the form of some government graft or pork.
I'm so sick to death of all the bullshit, and there are so few people left who haven't been bamboozled by one side or the other to the degree they have no capability to see the Big picture for what it really is. A big fucking mess thats about to collapse in on itself.
Fuck this, I'm heading to Vegas. I need to get laid.

Jeez, I probably need to get laid too.  Sound advice.

I wasn't aware that Wal-mart never pays for any of the land its stores or distribution centers are built on.  Are all these through federal or local grants?  They just opened a store in my city and there was quite a bit of protest, but mostly about labor practices and impact on locally-owned businesses.  I wasn't aware the city gave them land.

Do you have any links or sources?

No one said Wal Mart NEVER pays for the land. It is that way in this case though. In other words it is corporatism of the worst kind.

Why?

Because WalMart gets to privatize ALL the profit and the risk is socialized by the people. that means you and me have to pay for WalMarts risks and costs. (Tort reform is another form of socializing risks).

I find it odd that conservatives who want to de-regulate corps don't want to include de-regulation of the corp risk, but instead wnat to give welfare, funded by tax money, to the corps. I thought conservatives were against welfare.

If you want to see something even more vile and venal, look at how imminent domian is being used in some states. It is being used to take away private property of small businesses and home owners, then give or sell the land to big corps. The excuse?  more tax revenue. Imminent domain was supposed to be used for PUBLIC projects that benfitted everyone, not for PRIVATE corps who get all the profit and socialize the risks.

"WalMart gets to privatize ALL the profit and the risk is socialized by the people."  Please explain what this means.

Wal-Mart is going to put a distribution center on what is now a landfill (I googled "borrow pit").  Do you think any business is going to spend any money on a landfill.  I know where I am from in California the gov't (local state and federal) is always spending money trying to redevelope downtrodden areas.  Sometimes it works sometime is doesn't.

... governments cooperate with businsses and governments make deals that encourage business -- usually to add jobs and tax base.  

As long as all parties are equals and dealmaking is in the open, that is the way things work.


-- Modified on 1/19/2005 7:44:30 AM

If you look at the economics of building and operating a large distribution center like the one proposed, you'd find that the vast majority of capital (and thus, risk) are tied to the building, infrastructure, inventory and working capital.  Land might be 5-10% of the investment.  Beyond that, alot of times in these deals, if the company pulls out, the land reverts back to the grantor.

So, your assertion that "taxpayers already paid for it" is completely flawed - taxpayers paid $1M a project likely in excess of $50 - $100 Million.  And, they could see great benefit from a productive use of a landfill.

Actually if what you said were true, then why is the corp wanting the free land?  think about it. if the cost of land is a small fraction of the startup cost then the corp wouldn't need/want it. I doubt the total startup cost for the Walmart shop is 100 million dollars.

I challenge the gratuitous assertion that startup costs are small with respect to the cost of the land.

But the point remains. The people are paying for the private corps land. This is socializing the risks for the corp because the cost is paid by the people, not by the corp.

If the corp decides to close the distro building, the people who paid for the land still have to pay for the land. This means the taxpayers.

It seems when it comes to giving tax money out, conservatives are fine with giving it to corps but blanche at giving it to people. This is odd since the money originally came from the people, not the corps. (Yes, corps pay some taxes but it is passed on to thepeople through higher prices)

1. Read the article - its not a store they're building but a distribution center.

2. I've done business plans for hundreds of new office buildings, hospitals, strip malls, etc.  Costs of construction always far exceed land acquisition.  Thank about your house - how much is the land worth if you razed the bulding?  What if it were built on a landfill?

3. If the corp decides to close it, the land reverts to the people - it is it indeed valuable as you assert, it can be used for other purposes.

4. Duh, the corporation wants the land b/c its free.  They'd take the building for free if they could get it but they can't.  But, every little bit helps.

OK, hold the phone.

First off, yes, it is a distribution center, but what will be in the distribution center? More Chinese made crap that will supply all the Walmart stores. You have to understand why "Chinese made crap" is such a big deal. All those commercials for "roll back pricing" is evidence of Walmart using its muscle to force US manufacturers to produce products overseas. The distribution center is the glaring example of how Walmart kills jobs in the US.

Your second point is valid, but you have to stop looking at the dist. center in a vacuum. How much will it cost the city to rearrange infrastructure for the DC? I'm talking telecommunication, roads, access to highways and such.


Thirdly, you stated that, "If the corp decides to close it, the land reverts to the people" What people? The couple of hundred that will be laid off because Walmart pulls out? Those that will be unemployed probably left some other job to work at the distribution center. Who is to say that their old jobs will still be there. Further, that distribution center has an impact on the local economy. Small resteraunts, the local office supply store etc. not including the small impact of the trucking companies. What will happen to them if the distribution center closes? You can't have a flippant attitude towards a closing of an employment center.

Your forth point. Yes, Walmart would want to build the DC for free, that is what a customer would try and do. But don't think that Walmart is going to try and be so charitable and just look at one location. Walmart will use the possibility of getting free land as leverage against another city or locale to get better tax breaks and such.

You need to look at the bigger picture of what this DC could mean.

I totally disagree with just about everything you said, but rather than debate each point, let me ask you...

What would you do that is better?

Would you:

1. Raise import tariffs or force Wal-Mart to only sell US goods, thereby causing massive price increases?
2. Eliminate federal, state and local support for businesses?
3. Make it illegal for large box stores to offer lower prices than old mom and pop stores?
4. Require companies like Wal-Mart to offer lifetime employment of regulate their ability to have lay-offs?

I didn't think so.

sales, require every employer to grant lifetime workers' rights plus make the capitalist bastards responsible for the workers' retirement (including health care, burial fees etc).  Now that would be a wonderful world!  Except, the fact that every biz would go out of biz