Re: $640.00 to fill the tanks...

[Jay Honeck]

> > The fact that this hotel was built entirely with taxpayer's money, by
> > the City of Coralville, might surprise you.

> You know, after reading your post an hour or so ago, I have gotten more and
> more ****ed-off. Since when does a government have the right to tinker in
> direct competition with the private sector?

If you really want to read more about this seemingly impossible
competitive scenario, read this, from our local newspaper:

http://makeashorterlink.com/?Y1EA1249D

I don't understand it. My kids don't understand it. No one I talks to
understands it. Yet, it's happened. And a fair number of small motels
are in grave danger because of it -- including ours.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Jose[_1_]]

> If you really want to read more about this seemingly impossible
> competitive scenario, read this, from our local newspaper:
>
> http://makeashorterlink.com/?Y1EA1249D
>
> I don't understand it. My kids don't understand it. No one I talks to
> understands it. Yet, it's happened. And a fair number of small motels
> are in grave danger because of it -- including ours.

How is this =really= different from WalMart jumping in and crushing all
the local stores? Think for a moment.

It's city-owned. This means it's paid for with taxpayer money, and
profits go back to the taxpayer (in the form of lower taxes). Every
citizen is a shareholder of this business. (Skip for a moment the
question of whether they are willing shareholders). Other than the fact
that it's owner is a municipality, this is a business just like any
other business. It is competition just like any other competition. If
you wanted, you could put together fifty million and compete with them.
That is capitalism.

It may appear that the fact that it's city owned would give it an unfair
advantage, inasmuch as the city is also the legislative body entrusted
with making laws, and they could make laws favorable to their own
business, and put other businesses at an unfair disadvantage. But what
is unfair about that? Big (independently owned) businesses do this all
the time - it's called lobbying and buying votes. I don't think for a
minute that WalMart isn't close and tidy with the municipalities in
which it plants itself, getting tax breaks that smaller businesses could
only dream of. They can do this because they are big, and the
municipaliaites want the added commerce that such a big business will
bring (and the added taxes on those other businesses that the added
commerce would bring) Yes, it's an illusion, but it's one that
taxpayers buy into.

I'm sure there is a sense that city-owned is "too close" but lobbying is
"okay capitalism" but I don't really see it that way. I see it as
simply a matter of size, and what 600 pounds buys a gorilla.
Unrestrained capitalism does this. They get the keys to their own cage.
Your city owned hotel just does this more blatantly.

Jose
--
The monkey turns the crank and thinks he's making the music.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[john smith]

In article om>,
"Jay Honeck" > wrote:

> http://makeashorterlink.com/?Y1EA1249D

"However, some like Tom Stillwagon of Iowa City couldn't wait to see the
new facility close up."

When I first read this, I read the word c-l-o-s-e as in "to shut down".
Then I read the next sentence and saw the meaning was intended to be
"near".

[AES]

In article om>,
"Jay Honeck" > wrote:

> If you really want to read more about this seemingly impossible
> competitive scenario, read this, from our local newspaper:
>
> http://makeashorterlink.com/?Y1EA1249D
>
> I don't understand it. My kids don't understand it. No one I talks to
> understands it. Yet, it's happened. And a fair number of small motels
> are in grave danger because of it -- including ours.

Jay,

1) If this scenario is doing or will do serious damage to your hotel,
I'm genuinely sorry; I've had the chance to stay in a certain number of
"boutique" hotels in my life -- never an aviation one yet, but Doris
Day's highly dog-friendly small hotel in Carmel, just for example -- and
enjoyed them all.

2) But I've also attended during my working life a lot of scientific
meetings at hotel-convention center combinations of the type that your
link seems to describe -- one just last month in Quebec in fact -- and
gotten immense value from having all the action and interactions right
in one location, with one lobby. Hotel/convention centers can also
bring large economic benefit to the cities in which they're located,
which is socially valuable also.

3) As to _how_ the current result was brought about, which in your view
may be seen as representing an inappropriate mixing of government and
private activities, that may indeed be the case. But Hey! That's
precisely unregulated Free Market Economics at work.

The wealthy and prosperous -- e.g., the people who will actually profit
from this new hotel/center -- simply can, and do, purchase (in the free
market) "the best government (best for them) that money can buy".
Happens all the time: big sports stadiums, etc.

And getting rid of "big government", "starving the beast", "getting rid
of all those onerous government regulations", all the other Right Wing
nostrums: These won't prevent what's hit you, they'll just make it
_easier_, not harder, for things exactly like your current problem to
happen.

[Gig 601XL Builder]

"Jose" > wrote in message
om...
>
> How is this =really= different from WalMart jumping in and crushing all
> the local stores? Think for a moment.
>


It is plain and simple communism. The people (read government) owns the
means of production.

On the other hand, Wal-Mart was a little company that got big because it
provided something the buying public wanted. It did not start out the giant
that it is today.

[Jose[_1_]]

> It is plain and simple communism. The people (read government) owns the
> means of production.
>
> On the other hand, Wal-Mart was a little company that got big because it
> provided something the buying public wanted. It did not start out the giant
> that it is today.

But now that WalMart is big, it goes public, and the people once again
own the means of production (only this time it's a limited set of
people). And, when it gets big enough, it purchases influence in the
government.

Ultimately, if enough influence is purchased, we end up in the same
place, effectively, as what you call communism.

Also, I would say that another useful definition of communism is that
the people own the =only= means of production. This is where it gets
bad. Otherwise, it is just in competition with everything else.

Jose
--
The monkey turns the crank and thinks he's making the music.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Newps]

Jose wrote:


>
>
> How is this =really= different from WalMart jumping in and crushing all
> the local stores? Think for a moment.

You've got to be kidding.

[Jose[_1_]]

> You've got to be kidding.

Nope. Sufficient political influence is functionally equivalent to
ownership.

Jose
--
The monkey turns the crank and thinks he's making the music.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Morgans[_3_]]

> > How is this =really= different from WalMart jumping in and crushing all
> > the local stores? Think for a moment.
>
> You've got to be kidding.

Don't forget that this is from a guy that thinks his privacy may be in
danger from the radio tags in products being sold today.

Oh, brother!
--
Jim in NC

[Newps]

Morgans wrote:

>
>>>How is this =really= different from WalMart jumping in and crushing all
>>>the local stores? Think for a moment.
>>
>>You've got to be kidding.
>
>
> Don't forget that this is from a guy that thinks his privacy may be in
> danger from the radio tags in products being sold today.
>
> Oh, brother!

It shows a stunning lack of understanding of basic economics.

[Jose[_1_]]

> Don't forget that this is from a guy that thinks his privacy may be in
> danger from the radio tags in products being sold today.

Actually, I think it is in danger from the RFID readers that will almost
inevitably become commonplace, and the vast amount of computing power
that can easily be assembled to correlate "this shirt" with "that pair
of shoes" and "the car over there", and infer far more than I want them
to. Apply Moore's law and you get half-cent RFID tags and ten dollar
readers in just a few years.

I also think privacy is in danger from the likes of Sony and their
rootkits, unencrypted data tapes on UPS trucks, and the who-knows-what
that comes through the DSL line.

Jose
--
The monkey turns the crank and thinks he's making the music.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Michelle Settle]

"Newps" > wrote in message
. ..
>
>
> Jose wrote:
>
>
>>
>>
>> How is this =really= different from WalMart jumping in and crushing all
>> the local stores? Think for a moment.
>
> You've got to be kidding.
>
He must be; around most Wal-Marts, there's an influx of boutique stores and
ancillary shops such as theaters, restaurants, etc.

Michelle

[Gig 601XL Builder]

"Jose" > wrote in message
om...
>> It is plain and simple communism. The people (read government) owns the
>> means of production.
>>
>> On the other hand, Wal-Mart was a little company that got big because it
>> provided something the buying public wanted. It did not start out the
>> giant that it is today.
>
> But now that WalMart is big, it goes public, and the people once again own
> the means of production (only this time it's a limited set of people).
> And, when it gets big enough, it purchases influence in the government.
>
> Ultimately, if enough influence is purchased, we end up in the same place,
> effectively, as what you call communism.
>
> Also, I would say that another useful definition of communism is that the
> people own the =only= means of production. This is where it gets bad.
> Otherwise, it is just in competition with everything else.
>


So business are OK unless they are successful? That's a nice thought.

[Jose[_1_]]

> He must be; around most Wal-Marts, there's an influx of boutique stores and
> ancillary shops such as theaters, restaurants, etc.

Little comfort if you are a hardware store, a lumberyard, or another
store with which WalMart competes.

Jose
--
The monkey turns the crank and thinks he's making the music.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Jose[_1_]]

> So business are OK unless they are successful? That's a nice thought.

I'm not saying anything is OK or not OK. I'm saying that a business
that is too successful (gets too big) becomes relatively more powerful
than its customers. This has upsides and downsides. Sometimes, the
public benefits by some restraint on the larger companies. Sometimes not.

But "unrestrained capitalsim" is not the unmitigated good that the OP
implied.

Jose
--
The monkey turns the crank and thinks he's making the music.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Gig 601XL Builder]

"Jose" > wrote in message
t...
>> He must be; around most Wal-Marts, there's an influx of boutique stores
>> and ancillary shops such as theaters, restaurants, etc.
>
> Little comfort if you are a hardware store, a lumberyard, or another store
> with which WalMart competes.
>

Those stores must adapt or die. It is not that hard to compete with Wal-Mart
as a specialty store. All you have to do is provide something that Wal-Mart
cannot. That something is usually service or expertise. There is a reason
that the most expensive retail real estate in any given town is next to a
Wal-Mart.

[Newps]

Jose wrote:

>> He must be; around most Wal-Marts, there's an influx of boutique
>> stores and ancillary shops such as theaters, restaurants, etc.
>
>
> Little comfort if you are a hardware store, a lumberyard, or another
> store with which WalMart competes.

Then they deserve to die. Big front page story in our local Sunday
paper about three weeks ago about the local Ace hardware that is buying
the building left vacant by the Albertson grocery store. This place has
four times the floor space that they currently have now. They are
currently one block from Wal Mart and are moving across the street from
Wal Mart. Wal Mart has basic hardware, if you are a hardware store and
can't compete with Wal Mart then you should go out of business.
A lumberyard? Have you ever been to a Wal Mart? I defy you to walk
out of a Wal Mart with a 2x4 that you bought. And why all this
animosity toward Wal Mart? My wife gets most of our groceries from
Costco, they were here long before Wal Mart. They're both cheaper
overall than the grocery store. Why would I spend more money for the
same product?

[Michelle Settle]

"Gig 601XL Builder" <wrDOTgiaconaATcox.net> wrote in message
...
>
> "Jose" > wrote in message
> t...
>>> He must be; around most Wal-Marts, there's an influx of boutique stores
>>> and ancillary shops such as theaters, restaurants, etc.
>>
>> Little comfort if you are a hardware store, a lumberyard, or another
>> store with which WalMart competes.

Not to mention buggywhip manufacturers.

>>
>
> Those stores must adapt or die. It is not that hard to compete with
> Wal-Mart as a specialty store. All you have to do is provide something
> that Wal-Mart cannot. That something is usually service or expertise.
> There is a reason that the most expensive retail real estate in any given
> town is next to a Wal-Mart.

I find it amazing that you need explained this to an adult.

Michelle

[Michelle Settle]

"Gig 601XL Builder" <wrDOTgiaconaATcox.net> wrote in message
...
>
> "Jose" > wrote in message
> om...
>>> It is plain and simple communism. The people (read government) owns the
>>> means of production.
>>>
>>> On the other hand, Wal-Mart was a little company that got big because it
>>> provided something the buying public wanted. It did not start out the
>>> giant that it is today.
>>
>> But now that WalMart is big, it goes public, and the people once again
>> own the means of production (only this time it's a limited set of
>> people). And, when it gets big enough, it purchases influence in the
>> government.
>>
>> Ultimately, if enough influence is purchased, we end up in the same
>> place, effectively, as what you call communism.
>>
>> Also, I would say that another useful definition of communism is that the
>> people own the =only= means of production. This is where it gets bad.
>> Otherwise, it is just in competition with everything else.
>>
>
>
> So business are OK unless they are successful? That's a nice thought.
>
It's called envy, the same problem the Arab/Islamic world operates under.

Michelle

[Jose[_1_]]

> A lumberyard? Have you ever been to a Wal Mart?

Sorry. I was thinking Home Depot. Other examples would apply though.

Jose
--
The monkey turns the crank and thinks he's making the music.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Martin Hotze[_1_]]

On Fri, 18 Aug 2006 18:28:46 GMT, Jose wrote:

>I also think privacy is in danger from the likes of Sony and their
>rootkits, unencrypted data tapes on UPS trucks, and the who-knows-what
>that comes through the DSL line.

add to that that the European (central?) bank is discussing to add RFID
tags on our EURO currency (notes only, not on coins, of course).

#m
--
Did you ever realize how much text fits in eighty columns? If you now consider
that a signature usually consists of up to four lines, this gives you enough
space to spread a tremendous amount of information with your messages. So seize
this opportunity and don't waste your signature with bull**** nobody will read.

[Jay Beckman]

"Jose" > wrote in message
t...
>> He must be; around most Wal-Marts, there's an influx of boutique stores
>> and ancillary shops such as theaters, restaurants, etc.
>
> Little comfort if you are a hardware store, a lumberyard, or another store
> with which WalMart competes.
>
> Jose

Lowes and Home Depot dont' seem to be hurting.

Newest housing area being built SE of Phoenix: A Lowes and a Home Depot
built brand new right across the street from each other...and both parking
lots packed.

Oh, and there is a Wall Mart about two miles to the north ...

Whatever...

Jay Beckman
PP-ASEL
Chandler, AZ

[Jose[_1_]]

> Lowes and Home Depot dont' seem to be hurting.
>
> Newest housing area being built SE of Phoenix: A Lowes and a Home Depot
> built brand new right across the street from each other...and both parking
> lots packed.
>
> Oh, and there is a Wall Mart about two miles to the north ...

How healthy are all the little shops on Main Street?

It's not that Lowes and Home Depot and WalMart hurt each other, it is
that they impact the small stores that would otherwise sell the same
merchandise (more expensively because they can't get the bulk deals).
And it's not a matter of "protecting the little stores"; that's not at
all what I am advocating. (Actually I'm not advocating anything).
Rather, it is an example of the ability of the customer to influence the
retailer.

The customer can easily influence a Main Street retailer, because one
customer is important to them. There is almost no chance that a single
customer can influence a big box store. It's "take it or leave it, but
it won't change". That is the equality (or lack of it) between retailer
and customer that I am addressing. Unrestrained capitalism is "fair"
when such equality exists. The retailers have the advantage when it
does not.

Jose
--
The monkey turns the crank and thinks he's making the music.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Newps]

Jose wrote:
>> A lumberyard? Have you ever been to a Wal Mart?
>
>
> Sorry. I was thinking Home Depot. Other examples would apply though.
>

No they don't. Wal Mart does not put well run, efficient businesses out
of business.

[Newps]

Jay Beckman wrote:

A Lowes and a Home Depot
> built brand new right across the street from each other


You see that everywhere you go. These two are attracted to each other
like nothing I've ever seen.

[Don Tuite]

On Sat, 19 Aug 2006 12:24:43 -0600, Newps > wrote:

>
>
>Jose wrote:
>>> A lumberyard? Have you ever been to a Wal Mart?
>>
>>
>> Sorry. I was thinking Home Depot. Other examples would apply though.
>>
>
>No they don't. Wal Mart does not put well run, efficient businesses out
>of business.

I've heard that they overbuy from small suppliers, squeeze the margins
out of them with promises of large volumes,thereby limiting those
suppliers to a single customer, bankrupt them and take over the
assets. I don't have any first-hand verification, though. Fifty years
ago, the same stories were told about Sears Roebuck.

There is the potential to do that. The little guy wouldn't be able to
compete because he couldn't get the stock.

Don

[Roger[_4_]]

On Fri, 18 Aug 2006 11:48:25 -0500, "Gig 601XL Builder"
<wrDOTgiaconaATcox.net> wrote:

>
>"Jose" > wrote in message
om...
>>
>> How is this =really= different from WalMart jumping in and crushing all
>> the local stores? Think for a moment.
>>
>
>
>It is plain and simple communism. The people (read government) owns the
>means of production.

Communism is an economic system, not a governmental system.
Theoretically In Communism the wealth is shared equally among the
people. However Communism (read commune ism) has only been able to
sorta work under a totalitarian system.

City owned convention centers are certainly nothing new. OTOH when
they start getting into business such as hotels and stores which are
in direct competition with businesses they may be running afoul of
state and federal laws. It's going to take someone with more
knowledge of the laws than I have to figure that one out.

>
>On the other hand, Wal-Mart was a little company that got big because it
>provided something the buying public wanted. It did not start out the giant
>that it is today.

Which is a prime example of Capitalism. Unfortunately when companies
get too big there are lots of downsides.

They provided what the public wanted and the small stores couldn't.
The public went for cheap and low price, then they complain about the
chains taking over the market.




>
Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com

[Roger[_4_]]

On Fri, 18 Aug 2006 13:52:29 -0400, "Morgans"
> wrote:

>
>
>> > How is this =really= different from WalMart jumping in and crushing all
>> > the local stores? Think for a moment.
>>
>> You've got to be kidding.
>
>Don't forget that this is from a guy that thinks his privacy may be in
>danger from the radio tags in products being sold today.

I wouldn't be too concerned about that. So the store could be able to
know when you purchased the underware you have on. I have little
concern about that, but I sure am concerned about the RFID tags in
pass ports. To any one with a reader they are like a big sign saying
"I'm from what ever country".




>
>Oh, brother!
Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com

[Martin Hotze[_1_]]

On Sun, 20 Aug 2006 01:28:03 -0400, Roger wrote:

>To any one with a reader they are like a big sign saying
>"I'm from what ever country".

If you have nothing to hide .... :-)
and: it is for <killer argument> national security, protecting the
homeland.

#m
--
Did you ever realize how much text fits in eighty columns? If you now consider
that a signature usually consists of up to four lines, this gives you enough
space to spread a tremendous amount of information with your messages. So seize
this opportunity and don't waste your signature with bull**** nobody will read.

[Bob Noel]

In article >,
Martin Hotze > wrote:

> On Sun, 20 Aug 2006 01:28:03 -0400, Roger wrote:
>
> >To any one with a reader they are like a big sign saying
> >"I'm from what ever country".
>
> If you have nothing to hide .... :-)
> and: it is for <killer argument> national security, protecting the
> homeland.

and even better: it's impossible to forge.

no, really, it's got that electronic gizmo magic in it.

honest.

(>-{

--
Bob Noel
Looking for a sig the
lawyers will hate

[Jose[_1_]]

> I wouldn't be too concerned about that. So the store could be able to
> know when you purchased the underware you have on.

That I don't care about. What I care about is that that same underwear
could be traced everywhere it goes, and the other items it cavorts with
could be correleated to it.

Jose
--
The monkey turns the crank and thinks he's making the music.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Jay Honeck]

> How is this =really= different from WalMart jumping in and crushing all
> the local stores? Think for a moment.

Because the City built the hotel complex only after shopping the idea
around to all the big-box hotel chains -- and failing. Without
exception, the big chains rejected the notion of building a giant
luxury hotel and conference center in little Coralville, Iowa, because
they knew there was no way to net a return on their investment within
their lifetimes.

So, the Mayor of Coralville and his cronies -- flush with tax money
from the huge mall that was built there (after the anti-business lobby
drove them out of Iowa City, BTW) -- simply decided to build it
themselves, and lease it back to Marriott Corporation.

I'm sure Marriott is still pinching themselves, trying to figure out if
they're dreaming. They got a brand, new $60 million hotel for ZERO
investment, and don't have to worry about paying ANYTHING but a monthly
lease. It's a hotelier's dream -- and a taxpayer's nightmare.

Some citizens of Coralville tried to stop this madness -- they knew
that they would end up holding the bag, down the road -- but to no
avail. There simply is no law prohibiting a city from building a
hotel, and calling it "urban development", in Iowa.

WalMart only builds where they think they can make a profit.
Governments don't CARE about profit -- after all, it's not *their*
money. THAT is the difference, and that is why a government-owned
hotel is "unfair"...and Walmart isn't.

(Incidentally, the same anti-business lobby in Iowa City recently
succeeded in disallowing WalMart from building a Super Walmart just
down the road from our hotel on airport-owned land. They sued, and
delayed, and delayed, and eventually made it impossible for Walmart to
obtain a zoning variance to allow them to build a gas station on the
site. Walmart had agreed to pay our airport $3.2 million for that
land -- which would have made our airport debt-free, and would have
opened the area up to all the development that follows a new Walmart.


The anti-Walmart crowd is successfully using the courts to stifle free
enterprise -- ANY free enterprise -- that they think is "unsuitable".
Somehow these self-annointed saviors believe that the unwashed masses
who flock to Walmart every day aren't capable of making these decisions
for themselves, and must be led toward the light. It's sickening.)
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Martin Hotze[_1_]]

On Sun, 20 Aug 2006 13:40:05 GMT, Jose wrote:

>That I don't care about. What I care about is that that same underwear
>could be traced everywhere it goes, and the other items it cavorts with
>could be correleated to it.

and for some it also might be embarassing when everybody with a reader
knows that you are wearing your wife's panties :-))))

>Jose

#m
--
Did you ever realize how much text fits in eighty columns? If you now consider
that a signature usually consists of up to four lines, this gives you enough
space to spread a tremendous amount of information with your messages. So seize
this opportunity and don't waste your signature with bull**** nobody will read.

[Jose[_1_]]

>> How is this =really= different from WalMart jumping in and crushing all
>> the local stores? Think for a moment.
>
>
> Because the City built the hotel complex only after shopping the idea
> around to all the big-box hotel chains -- and failing. [...]
> ...they knew there was no way to net a return on their investment
> within their lifetimes.

That makes it a bad business decision on the city's part.

> So, the Mayor of Coralville and his cronies [...] simply decided to
> build it themselves, and lease it back to Marriott Corporation.
>
> [Marriott] got a brand, new $60 million hotel for ZERO
> investment, and don't have to worry about paying ANYTHING but a monthly
> lease.

I think Marriott typically leases space and runs hotels that way. At
least that's the way it is here.

> It's a hotelier's dream -- and a taxpayer's nightmare.

The taxpayer gets a lease payment out of the deal, and doesn't have to
worry whether or not the hotel makes money.

> There simply is no law prohibiting a city from building a
> hotel, and calling it "urban development", in Iowa.

This is similar (from my POV) to a city building a sports complex, for
the Olympics.

> WalMart only builds where they think they can make a profit.
> Governments don't CARE about profit -- after all, it's not *their*
> money. THAT is the difference, and that is why a government-owned
> hotel is "unfair"...and Walmart isn't.

Governments don't care about profit - true. But that's not why it's
"unfair". In my eyes, what makes government-run businesses unfair is
that there is no separation of powers between those who make the laws
and the government business that has to follow them.

However, other big businesses get cozy with government too, winning tax
concessions which are just as good as free investment money. Government
lures business promising homeowners that it expands the tax base (and
keeps the mill rate down), but then it gives tax abatements and zoning
conessions and special considerations which nullify these putative
benefits to the homeowners. These concessions would be very difficult,
or even impossible, for a small business to get.

This is equally cozy in my view. But it is not labeled "communism",
wheras the former is.

I'm not fighting here, I'm just trying to see whether you have a zebra,
or just a horse in stripes.

> Walmart had agreed to pay our airport $3.2 million for that
> land -- which would have made our airport debt-free...

.... which sounds good until the first plane crashes on the roof killing
seventy five people, and then there is a call to close the airport.
There's a reason airports (should) have buffer zones. You should know
it better than most.

> The anti-Walmart crowd is successfully using the courts to stifle free
> enterprise -- ANY free enterprise -- that they think is "unsuitable".
> Somehow these self-annointed saviors believe that the unwashed masses
> who flock to Walmart every day aren't capable of making these decisions
> for themselves, and must be led toward the light. It's sickening.)

That's mighty theatrical talk. What exactly did they sue to prevent?

Jose
--
The monkey turns the crank and thinks he's making the music.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Klein]

On Sat, 19 Aug 2006 12:33:59 -0600, Newps > wrote:

>
>
>Jay Beckman wrote:
>
> A Lowes and a Home Depot
>> built brand new right across the street from each other
>
>
>You see that everywhere you go. These two are attracted to each other
>like nothing I've ever seen.

The best looking and largest lumber and hardware store I've ever seen
anywhere was built recently by Kenyon Noble in Bozeman, MT. This
company has been here since 1889. Motto - "We're not the best because
we're the oldest but we are the oldest because we're the best."

It is just a couple of blocks away from a fairly new Home Depot and a
couple of blocks in the other direction from a Wal-Mart that was built
first.

Wal-Mart? Bring 'em on!

Klein
Bozeman, MT

[Don Tuite]

On Sun, 20 Aug 2006 15:58:58 -0600, Klein > wrote:

>On Sat, 19 Aug 2006 12:33:59 -0600, Newps > wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>Jay Beckman wrote:
>>
>> A Lowes and a Home Depot
>>> built brand new right across the street from each other
>>
>>
>>You see that everywhere you go. These two are attracted to each other
>>like nothing I've ever seen.
>
>The best looking and largest lumber and hardware store I've ever seen
>anywhere was built recently by Kenyon Noble in Bozeman, MT. This
>company has been here since 1889. Motto - "We're not the best because
>we're the oldest but we are the oldest because we're the best."
>
>It is just a couple of blocks away from a fairly new Home Depot and a
>couple of blocks in the other direction from a Wal-Mart that was built
>first.
>
>Wal-Mart? Bring 'em on!

Home Depot can be a pain in the ass. But they're displacing the
neighborhood hardware stores that are moribund anyway. Went into HD
the other day looking for a 2 x 4 cutoff for a minor project. Found
one in the bin, along with some other fine woods cutoffs, but it
hadn't been marked with a SKU, so the two clerks at the contractors
cash register insisted I'd have to pay the 8-foot price. Fasteners not
so good either. Need a couple of 10-32 Tee-Nuts for the same project.
No joy. Went to the local HW store (They're an ACE affiliate, but
they stock like a real HW store) and found 'em in the bins. In favor
of the local HD, they hired this 70-year old woman who works in
plumbing, and she is a virtual encyclopedia of practical plumbing
knowledge. Probably used to own a hardware store.

Don

[Jay Honeck]

> > The anti-Walmart crowd is successfully using the courts to stifle free
> > enterprise -- ANY free enterprise -- that they think is "unsuitable".
> > Somehow these self-annointed saviors believe that the unwashed masses
> > who flock to Walmart every day aren't capable of making these decisions
> > for themselves, and must be led toward the light. It's sickening.)
>
> That's mighty theatrical talk. What exactly did they sue to prevent?

A local group called "Stop Walmart" constituted itself back in the late
1970s, in an attempt to stop the construction of the original Walmart
store here in Iowa City.

They apparently made life miserable for Walmart (it's before my time),
but, eventually, the store was built. It's been successfully providing
low priced, high quality goods and excellent customer service ever
since. (And shafting their vendors, of which I was one, BTW.)

In 2005, Walmart announced plans to build a new Super Walmart on a site
just to the East of their store, on airport land that was carved out by
the Airport Commission in an attempt to free the airport from the
slavery of begging the city council for money each year.

(Flash back a few years: The infrastructure of the airport was
crumbling, and the city simply wouldn't pay to repave taxiways, etc. --
so the airport commission decided to take matters into their own hands,
and devised a way of making the airport self-sufficient. They carved
out 15 acres on the north side of the airport and designated it a
commercial park, with the idea of selling or leasing the land to
business interests. Walmart was to be the first, anchor tenant.)

Incredibly, the SAME THREE PEOPLE from the late 1970s (a group of
former hippies -- Iowa City is chock full of 'em) reconstituted itself
to stop THIS Walmart store. The city had allowed a zoning variance on
the land, in order to facilitate Walmart's purchase, and the "Stop
Walmart" folks jumped all over this, suing to prove that the variance
was illegally processed by the city.

The suit dragged on for over a year, thanks to our wonderfully inept
judiciary system. Walmart patiently bided its time, and in July they
won the case. The court ruled that the City of Iowa City followed
procedures to the letter, and that nothing untoward had happened during
the issuing of the zoning variance.

"Stop Walmart" had 60 days to appeal the decision. On the 60th day,
they did, throwing the case to the Iowa Supreme Court. Everything was
done to take the maximum amount of time possible, and all involved knew
that any case that goes to the supreme court takes AT LEAST two years
to hear.

The coup de grace was when the city decided (under pressure from "Stop
Walmart") that *they* didn't want to wait two more years to see if this
land would sell. They then decided not to allow another variance that
Walmart was seeking to change the land from a "100 year flood plain" to
something less restrictive, saying that Walmart was being stupid and
obstructionist even ASKING for such a variance.

(Background: The reason Walmart asked for this new variance was because
of another Iowa court ruling against Walmart in -- I think --
Maquoketa, Iowa that related to the Walmart there being built on a 100
year flood plain. Somehow they ended up in dutch because of that flood
plain designation, and they wanted to prevent that from happening here
down the road. It was really a simple wording change, but...)

So, the City refused the variance. Walmart, now facing several years
more of legal costs and battles, walked away from the deal, and is now
looking to buy land *just* outside of the city limits -- exactly like
so many other businesses have done in our area. (Iowa City is famous
throughout Iowa for being completely anti-business development. I can
attest to this from personal experience -- for example, they would not
let us hang a "Grand Opening" banner at the hotel, when we opened in
2002, because of some absurd local ordinance. Funnier still, my barber
was not allowed to hang his restored antique barber pole outside,
because of a local law against "moving signs" that can be a
"distraction" to drivers. His shop is on a cul de sac...)

Bottom line: All "Stop Walmart" had to do was sue, and appeal, work
the phones, and delay, and they were able to defeat the building of a
new store that (a) would have provided jobs for hundreds, (b) would
have meant development of restaurants and retail stores on the out-lots
all around, and (c) would have made our airport financially
self-sufficient.

>From a personal standpoint, our plans for developing a restaurant on
land adjacent to the hotel hinged on that Walmart sale going through.
Now, we may never do it. You simply can't imagine the impact that
store would have had on our relatively isolated part of town.

The "Stop Walmart" folks are nothing but selfish, pompous asses, who
have harmed more working Americans than they could EVER have hoped to
help -- but then, that's not what they're *really* about anyway, now is
it?
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Emily[_1_]]

Jay Honeck wrote:

>It's been successfully providing
> low priced, high quality goods and excellent customer service ever
> since. (And shafting their vendors, of which I was one, BTW.)

Excellent customer service? We must be thinking of two different
companies named Wal-Mart.

[Jay Honeck]

> >It's been successfully providing
> > low priced, high quality goods and excellent customer service ever
> > since. (And shafting their vendors, of which I was one, BTW.)
>
> Excellent customer service? We must be thinking of two different
> companies named Wal-Mart.

I'm not a fan of Walmart (they STILL owe me money, from my previous
business). They are absolute *******s to do business with, from the
vendor end -- but I can't argue the fact that their employees are
friendly, outgoing, well-trained, and helpful.

At least they are around here.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Matt Whiting]

Jay Honeck wrote:
>>>The anti-Walmart crowd is successfully using the courts to stifle free
>>>enterprise -- ANY free enterprise -- that they think is "unsuitable".
>>>Somehow these self-annointed saviors believe that the unwashed masses
>>>who flock to Walmart every day aren't capable of making these decisions
>>>for themselves, and must be led toward the light. It's sickening.)
>>
>>That's mighty theatrical talk. What exactly did they sue to prevent?
>
>
> A local group called "Stop Walmart" constituted itself back in the late
> 1970s, in an attempt to stop the construction of the original Walmart
> store here in Iowa City.
>
> They apparently made life miserable for Walmart (it's before my time),
> but, eventually, the store was built. It's been successfully providing
> low priced, high quality goods and excellent customer service ever
> since. (And shafting their vendors, of which I was one, BTW.)

OK, two of our three isn't bad. I've rarely found Wal-Mart stuff to be
of high quality. The exception is stuff like brand-name oil. Their
tools are pretty pathetic and most other stuff is just cheap stuff, but
that is what their customers want. Customer service is good in the
sense that they'll take back pretty much anything with no questions
asked, but customer service in the sense of providing information on
their products (other than where to locate them) is also pathetic.

Matt

[Emily[_1_]]

Jay Honeck wrote:
>
> I'm not a fan of Walmart (they STILL owe me money, from my previous
> business). They are absolute *******s to do business with, from the
> vendor end -- but I can't argue the fact that their employees are
> friendly, outgoing, well-trained, and helpful.


My gosh...I can't think of a place around here with as uneducated, rude,
trashy, and unhelpful employees as Wal-Mart.

Ok, except the DFW parking authority people.

[Bob Noel]

In article om>,
"Jay Honeck" > wrote:

> I'm not a fan of Walmart (they STILL owe me money, from my previous
> business). They are absolute *******s to do business with, from the
> vendor end -- but I can't argue the fact that their employees are
> friendly, outgoing, well-trained, and helpful.
>
> At least they are around here.

Maybe it's just Iowa...

--
Bob Noel
Looking for a sig the
lawyers will hate

[Jose[_1_]]

Sorry Jay, but I see the other side of this. I have been in a four year
battle to save the last full square mile of wetlands in Ridgefield from
being turned into golf courses, condos, business and industrial
development, and other icky things that would destroy our little town.

I've never been to Iowa City, so I don't know what the impact of such a
store would be on the feel of the town, but I can understand those who
don't want such a behemoth in their back yard, and also understand those
who don't want to be shafted by WalMart itself. When the mall went up
by Danbury airport, a lot of the local stores on Main Street were
affected, and at this point it's mostly real estate offices. However, I
also understand the benefits of such megastores, and do shop at the mall.

> Incredibly, the SAME THREE PEOPLE from the late 1970s (a group of
> former hippies -- Iowa City is chock full of 'em) reconstituted itself
> to stop THIS Walmart store.

It is a threat to their way of life. You would too if it were to
replace an airport, and thus threaten your way of life.

> The city had allowed a zoning variance on
> the land, in order to facilitate Walmart's purchase

Zoning variances are just like printing money. It's one of the ways the
municipality can favor one group over another. The variances that our
developer wanted (for the Bennetts Pond property) would have ultimately
raised its value from $8 million to $30 million, depending on how you
calculate. All windfall to the developer, and on the backs of the taxpayer.

> Everything was done to take the maximum amount of time possible

That's our legal system. That's how it works. You would do the same
thing to save an airport, wouldn't you?

> They then decided not to allow another variance that
> Walmart was seeking to change the land from a "100 year
> flood plain" to something less restrictive

My sister lived in a "100 year flood plain". Her house flooded eight
feet deep. We later found out that it flooded the same way several
years before. It turns out that "100 year flood plain" means, if the
land is undisturbed, that on the average it floods once per hundred
years. But once the land around it is developed, floods typically
happen more often, sometimes an order of magnitude more often. The
designation however is rarely changed. Developing the parcel may well
cause it to flood more often. Making it =more= restrictive is what is
called for, not making it =less= restrictive. All of this of course
depends on the specific geology of the site, but I doubt they did a
hundred year study.

> It was really a simple wording change, but...)

"It's just a standard contract, you don't need to read it..."

> for example, they would not
> let us hang a "Grand Opening" banner at the hotel, when we opened in
> 2002, because of some absurd local ordinance.

It's only absurd to you because you wanted to hang the sign. It may
well be that the tonwspeople didn't want to look at the sign. They have
a right to that, via the legislative process - a process that works so
well we're exporting it at gunpoint to the middle east.

> they were able to defeat the building of a
> new store that (a) would have provided jobs for hundreds, (b) would
> have meant development of restaurants and retail stores on the out-lots
> all around, and (c) would have made our airport financially
> self-sufficient.

All those are positives, but there are negatives too. It's all a
balance, and other people's rights count too.

> The "Stop Walmart" folks are nothing but selfish, pompous asses, who
> have harmed more working Americans...

Translation: "Your ox got gored, and you don't like it."

Putting up a Walmart would also harm working Americans. Again, I don't
know the specifics of your town, but I am here to tell you that the
negative impact of development here in Ridgefield CT is quite onerous,
and the steamroller keeps on coming.

Jose
--
The monkey turns the crank and thinks he's making the music.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Bob Noel]

In article >,
Jose > wrote:

> > for example, they would not
> > let us hang a "Grand Opening" banner at the hotel, when we opened in
> > 2002, because of some absurd local ordinance.
>
> It's only absurd to you because you wanted to hang the sign. It may
> well be that the tonwspeople didn't want to look at the sign. They have
> a right to that, via the legislative process - a process that works so
> well we're exporting it at gunpoint to the middle east.

Have you seen the area of town around Jay's hotel? Hanging a banner, ANY
banner would be improvement - cripes, it's nothing but store after store after
ugly store... Don't think farms, and corn, etc when thinking of Iowa City.

(Sorry Jay - the beautiful part is the airport)

--
Bob Noel
Looking for a sig the
lawyers will hate

[Jose[_1_]]

> Have you seen the area of town around Jay's hotel?

No. I said that up top.

> Hanging a banner, ANY
> banner would be improvement - cripes, it's nothing but store after store after
> ugly store... Don't think farms, and corn, etc when thinking of Iowa City.

Then maybe it's too late for Iowa City residents. We're trying to
prevent that from happening where I live.

I don't say the rules are appropriate for that town (although the
residents, through their government proxies, think so). What I do say
is that if the town thinks it's an appropriate restriction, Jay is in
the minority with his opinion that it is "absurd".

I wonder how "store after store after ugly store" gets by with no signage.

Jose
--
The monkey turns the crank and thinks he's making the music.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Montblack[_1_]]

("Jose" wrote)
> How is this =really= different from WalMart jumping in and crushing all
> the local stores? Think for a moment.


Wall-Mart doesn't invest $60 million to get back $4 million, or even $4
million ...per year. The city plays by different marketplace rules - a
little like Al Capone.


Montblack

[Bob Noel]

In article >,
Jose > wrote:

> I wonder how "store after store after ugly store" gets by with no signage.

signs are everywhere.

--
Bob Noel
Looking for a sig the
lawyers will hate

[Jose[_1_]]

>>I wonder how "store after store after ugly store" gets by with no signage.
> signs are everywhere.

Are they in compliance? What was so eggregious about Jay's sign?

Jose
--
The monkey turns the crank and thinks he's making the music.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Gig 601XL Builder]

"Michelle Settle" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Gig 601XL Builder" <wrDOTgiaconaATcox.net> wrote in message
> ...

>>
>> Those stores must adapt or die. It is not that hard to compete with
>> Wal-Mart as a specialty store. All you have to do is provide something
>> that Wal-Mart cannot. That something is usually service or expertise.
>> There is a reason that the most expensive retail real estate in any given
>> town is next to a Wal-Mart.
>
> I find it amazing that you need explained this to an adult.
>
> Michelle
>
>

So do I Michelle, so do I.

[Gig 601XL Builder]

"Don Tuite" > wrote in message
...
> On Sat, 19 Aug 2006 12:24:43 -0600, Newps > wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>Jose wrote:
>>>> A lumberyard? Have you ever been to a Wal Mart?
>>>
>>>
>>> Sorry. I was thinking Home Depot. Other examples would apply though.
>>>
>>
>>No they don't. Wal Mart does not put well run, efficient businesses out
>>of business.
>
> I've heard that they overbuy from small suppliers, squeeze the margins
> out of them with promises of large volumes,thereby limiting those
> suppliers to a single customer, bankrupt them and take over the
> assets. I don't have any first-hand verification, though. Fifty years
> ago, the same stories were told about Sears Roebuck.
>
> There is the potential to do that. The little guy wouldn't be able to
> compete because he couldn't get the stock.
>
> Don

Actually it is a story that was told about Sears that evolved into a story
about Wal-Mart. While Wal-Mart may be at times a little slow paying vendors
I can find no case where Wal-Mart has taken over a vendor that they put into
financial problems. For that mater I can't find a case of WM taking over a
vendor.

They did take over a bank only after they realized that 85% of the money in
that bank was Walton family money.

Wal-Mart does have one interesting policy though. If you are vendor you must
have an office in the Northwest area. It doesn't mater if you supply 1 item
or 1000. The population in NWA metro area has just about doubled in the last
10 years.

[B A R R Y[_1_]]

>>> Those stores must adapt or die. It is not that hard to compete with
>>> Wal-Mart as a specialty store.

The same goes for Home Depot, Lowes, Ikea, etc...

My two favorite local tool stores are directly across the street from
Home Depot.

[RST Engineering]

Why would an Arkansas company care if you have an office in Washington,
Oregon, or Idaho?

Jim



"Gig 601XL Builder" <wrDOTgiaconaATcox.net> wrote in message
...


>
> Wal-Mart does have one interesting policy though. If you are vendor you
> must have an office in the Northwest area. It doesn't mater if you supply
> 1 item or 1000. The population in NWA metro area has just about doubled in
> the last 10 years.
>

[Gig 601XL Builder]

"RST Engineering" > wrote in message
...
> Why would an Arkansas company care if you have an office in Washington,
> Oregon, or Idaho?
>
> Jim
>
>
>
> "Gig 601XL Builder" <wrDOTgiaconaATcox.net> wrote in message
> ...
>
>
>>
>> Wal-Mart does have one interesting policy though. If you are vendor you
>> must have an office in the Northwest area. It doesn't mater if you supply
>> 1 item or 1000. The population in NWA metro area has just about doubled
>> in the last 10 years.
>>
>
>

That should have read "Northwest 'Arkansas' Area"

[Newps]

Jose wrote:

>
> Putting up a Walmart would also harm working Americans.


Yes, all those jobs can't be good for the economy.