11-27-2007, 11:12 AM
You made so good points. I’ve been on both side of the argument.
I’m an opponent of Big Box Bans when they specifically target just the consumer goods/grocery industry. I believe most of it is nothing but a pure Wal-Mart ban disguised as a Big Box Ban. After all, what’s so different between consumer goods/groceries and appliances/furniture, or clothing/cosmetics? If people don’t want a gigantic box, ban the box, not what that box is selling. If that means no K-Mart, Home Depot, Nordstrom’s, or Sears, live with it.
The area where I’m most often involved in is economic and community impact. I don’t know about Missouri so I called the state and here are some figures they provided on subsidies spent on Wal-Marts. Kansas City spent $9.1 in taxpayer funds on Wal-Marts. Kirkwood spent $5.3 million. Harrisonville spent $2.6 million. Ozark spent $3.5 million. Moberly spent $1.6 million. Cameron spent $2.1 million.
When you look at the figures, this is big taxpayer money being spent on someones ability to buy cheap stuff, not essential sevices. If you add up what Wentzville spent ($7,500,000.00) I hope they got a boatload of Wal-Marts for that money because that $375 from each man, women and child in that city. I’m still adding up the numbers (don’t have the IDC Bond figures or Enterprise zone cost for Wal-Marts) and I’m already at over $45 Million of Missouri taxpayers money being spent to subsidize Wal-Mart's shoppers.
Even more disturbing is the total taxpayer subsides spent on all other retail operations in the state was under $2.1 million. So all the Home Depots, K-Marts, Sears, Winn-Dixies and every other retail store statewide received less taxpayer subsides than what Chesterfield ($2.6 million) spent just on Wal-Mart.
I don’t care how you cut it, but that’s giving shoppers lower cost at the expense of all taxpayers, and it’s an unfair advantage disguised as economic development. How many taxpayers do you think have been told they are supporting Wal-Marts through their taxes? How many do you think would rather see that money spent on let's say police, fire, or education?
Edited by - Bob Orts on 11/27/2007 15:18:49
I’m an opponent of Big Box Bans when they specifically target just the consumer goods/grocery industry. I believe most of it is nothing but a pure Wal-Mart ban disguised as a Big Box Ban. After all, what’s so different between consumer goods/groceries and appliances/furniture, or clothing/cosmetics? If people don’t want a gigantic box, ban the box, not what that box is selling. If that means no K-Mart, Home Depot, Nordstrom’s, or Sears, live with it.
The area where I’m most often involved in is economic and community impact. I don’t know about Missouri so I called the state and here are some figures they provided on subsidies spent on Wal-Marts. Kansas City spent $9.1 in taxpayer funds on Wal-Marts. Kirkwood spent $5.3 million. Harrisonville spent $2.6 million. Ozark spent $3.5 million. Moberly spent $1.6 million. Cameron spent $2.1 million.
When you look at the figures, this is big taxpayer money being spent on someones ability to buy cheap stuff, not essential sevices. If you add up what Wentzville spent ($7,500,000.00) I hope they got a boatload of Wal-Marts for that money because that $375 from each man, women and child in that city. I’m still adding up the numbers (don’t have the IDC Bond figures or Enterprise zone cost for Wal-Marts) and I’m already at over $45 Million of Missouri taxpayers money being spent to subsidize Wal-Mart's shoppers.
Even more disturbing is the total taxpayer subsides spent on all other retail operations in the state was under $2.1 million. So all the Home Depots, K-Marts, Sears, Winn-Dixies and every other retail store statewide received less taxpayer subsides than what Chesterfield ($2.6 million) spent just on Wal-Mart.
I don’t care how you cut it, but that’s giving shoppers lower cost at the expense of all taxpayers, and it’s an unfair advantage disguised as economic development. How many taxpayers do you think have been told they are supporting Wal-Marts through their taxes? How many do you think would rather see that money spent on let's say police, fire, or education?
Edited by - Bob Orts on 11/27/2007 15:18:49