Surprising Veto by Jerry Brown - SB 469

I was alerted by a tweet from my councilmember Lorie Zapf that Governor Jerry Brown has vetoed the anti-Walmart legislation sponsored by Juan Vargas, SB-469. Despite any rhetoric to the contrary, this bill was designed to make it harder for cities to approve Walmart supercenters that sell groceries, in direct competition with the largely unionized grocers like Ralphs, Vons and Albertsons. Labor's support of the legislation is the key indicator that this bill was all about protecting union jobs from competition. From the U-T:

“We are disappointed but not surprised that we couldn’t defeat the millions spent by Walmart against this bill,” said Lorena Gonzalez, secretary-treasurer of the San Diego and Imperial Counties Labor Council. “We will continue to do more to work with small businesses and local decision makers to find a solution that protects local economies from supercenters.”

Protects local economies from supercenters? As long as the supercenters aren't given sweetheart tax deals, like say, sports franchises, then they will generate sales tax and property tax for local government, while saving shoppers real dollars due to increased competition. With the NY Times reporting that household incomes are continuing to drop, despite the "end of the recession," why wouldn't we want to help those hardest hit by getting more competition in the grocery business.

As an additional item that I find offensive, we have Juan Vargas explicitly using state legislation to meddle in local affairs.

The measure was introduced statewide after the San Diego City Council rescinded its ordinance that would have required superstores to undergo an extensive economic impact analysis as part of the permit process.

Despite all the rhetoric about how this is about transparency, it was not. It is commonly understood that adding bureaucratic layers of review is the best way to kill a proposed business project. Walmart's supercenters should enjoy equal protection under the law, and face the same scrutiny as any other land use proposal in any city. Is equal treatment for all businesses too much to ask?

Jerry Brown's second governorship is proving interesting if nothing else. He has vetoed legislation to allow card check to ease union organizing of farm workers, as well as legislation limiting paid signature gathering for petitions. On the other hand he signed the California Dream act legislation giving in state tuition rates to illegal aliens. He is certainly proving hard to predict. Exit question: How would a Meg Whitman governorship been substantially different?

OK, one more question, what do #OWS types think? Do they believe in equal treatment for all businesses?

Odds and Ends

Lorie Zapf makes good on another campaign promise to focus on ways to strengthen public safety without increasing spending. She calls for changing the working hours of firefighters in recognition of the fact that there are almost no calls for firefighting between midnight and 7:00 a.m.

As the City wrestles with ending the brownouts at two engine stations, the City should consider staffing one engine with normal 3/24 hour shifts and the second engine should be alternatively staffed with firefighters who are on 4/10 hour shifts or some similar type of alternative staffing. The city could leave the second engine idle from the hours of midnight to 6 a.m. on weekdays and 2 a.m. to 8 a.m. on weekends.

Stand by for major gas from the firefighters union, as this would cut into overtime pay, as I understand it. (Looking for anyone with more knowledge of union staffing rules to correct me, if necessary.)

Darrell Issa is the new bête noire for liberals, because he, gasp, wants to investigate wrongdoing by government officials. The left's response, full on smear attack, of course, with professional smearers. We should expect nothing less.

Walmart is a global force for good, so how do you explain Boston Mayor Tom Menino's unrelenting hatred of an organization that deserves the Nobel Peace Prize (it's been awarded for far less than Walmart has accomplished.) From Michael Graham:

Effete Boston liberals hate Wal-Mart, the unions hate Wal-Mart, and so Menino does, too. And if that means poor families struggle to find work or buy food, well .  .  .

Walmart Ordinance Repealed

The San Diego City Council, as predicted, repealed the big box economic analysis ordinance this afternoon, on a 7-1 vote. The VOSD has an editorial inveighing against the so called subversion of democracy this represents, because somehow Walmart had the temerity to pay for signature gatherers. News flash, they would have got the signatures with out without paid gatherers. I would have volunteered myself. Leftists trying to shut down Walmart underestimate the depth of loyalty of their shoppers.

Marti Emerald (District 7) was on the losing end of the vote and is reportedly angry:

Emerald accused Walmart of lobbing a “constant volley of attacks” on the council’s character and unfairly depicting the supercenter debate as a battle between labor unions and businesses. For example, she said the retailer urged elderly people to call her office to complain that the councilwoman was opposed to them having access to fresh food.

It was a battle between labor unions and business. The patina of "concerned small business owners" was never convincing and the speakers at council hearings did not claim to represent small business:

Numerous times, opponents identified themselves as "worker advocates" and stated, "I didn't vote for Wal-Mart to set policy in this city. I voted for you to do that. I can't fight Wal-Mart alone."

This doesn't mean that new Walmarts will be opening in my neighborhood, but it is a step in the right direction.

Walmart San Diego Update

In a sign that the repeal of the big box supercenter economic analysis stupidity is inevitable, Walmart announced plans to build a dozen stores in San Diego, strongly hinting that they will build in under-served District 4, represented by Council President Tony Young. This is great news for the city, bringing jobs and better shopping to our town.

While repeal of the law doesn't guarantee that Walmart will start building, if it stayed on the books, it would guarantee that we wouldn't be getting any new Walmarts. The city planning process could still gum up the works, but this is great news.

As the left liked to say in 2008, elections have consequences. I don't think we would be having this discussion if Lorie Zapf hadn't beat Howard Wayne in swing district 6, here in San Diego. Also, it's nice to see that Tony Young is seeing how the interests of unions diverge from the interests of his relatively poorer constituents. Maybe this is another trend that work in the Tea Party movement's favor. Big government policies have always hurt the poor, because they generally lack the resources to have the same impact as the rich and middle class. Getting them on board for some issues can only strengthen our coalition.

Walmart San Diego - Labor's Flawed Logic

Lorena Gonzales makes some absurd arguments in today's U-T editorial section on the law to block WalMart from setting up "big boxes" that sell groceries without a special economic impact analysis that no other business is subject to. Here is the core of her argument, Superstores have unknown and potentially economic impact, so they should be required to submit to a special analysis before being approved. News flash, all new businesses have an unknown economic impact. If they didn't then the central planning of the former Soviet Union would have made it the richest nation on the planet. Further, even if an analysis is performed, it is unlikely to predict the true effects of any new business. After scaremongering and passing along numerous lies regarding Walmart, she accuses the business of "bullying" the City Council with its petition drive. Bullying? Really? Exercising constitutional rights when being subjugated by local government is bullying? Remember this, which also applies to local government:

Congress shall make no law respecting . . . the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

There is a rebuttal by W. Erik Bruvold, Big-box ordinance unfairly targets one retailer, on the opposite side of the paper. While good, it doesn't really capture my outrage. So here are my rebuttal points:

1. There is already a planning process. Use it. Stop targeting a business that competes with union shop grocers.
   
2. New business is disruptive, so what? Henry Ford didn't submit an impact analysis on the carriage industry.
   
3. Lot's of businesses thrive near Walmarts.
4. Walmart provides wages and benefits that are usually better than the small businesses they supposedly supplant. Like it or not, and I don't, California's minimum wage laws guarantee this.
5. People want to pay less for groceries. Poor people need to pay less for groceries. Why don't you care about the poor?
   
6. Why are labor unions leading the charge against Walmart if the negative impact is allegedly against small businesses, who usually lack union shops, by the way.
   
7. An economic analysis is a ban. Look at the experience in Los Angeles. Quit obfuscating.
8. Labor is going to get thumped again if this goes to a vote, leaving them with less money to make my life more miserable.

I look forward to seeing how the City Council handles this issue.

Cross posted to sdrostra.com

Walmart San Diego Update

As I posted earlier, the San Diego City Council voted to require extra hurdles before Super Walmarts that sell groceries can set up shop in San Diego. The hurdles all but guarantee that lower priced groceries won't be coming to a neighborhood near you if you live in the city limits of "Enron by the Bay."

Richard Rider likes Walmart's chances and is predicting a smack down for the City Council. He says it's a foregone conclusion that Walmart will gather the necessary signatures to put a repeal measure on the ballot. He is also predicting that at least one Democrat will flip and the measure will be repealed. If you haven't done so yet, get out to Walmart and sign the petition. I love nothing more than seeing this City Council get slapped down when they run roughshod over the desires of the people.

Supporting Walmart - UPDATED

I love Walmart. Every time I shop there, which isn't that often because they don't have enough locations in San Diego convenient to me, I am surprised by some new low priced item. However, the San Diego City Council, by overriding the mayor's veto of the "Big Box" ordinance doesn't think I should be able to get the most for my shopping dollar. In brief, this ordinance is aimed directly at Walmart.

Walmart and other ordinance opponents said it would create a de facto ban on retailers that have are least 90,000 square feet and dedicate at least 10 percent of its floorspace to nontaxable items like groceries and prescription drugs.

Even supporters of the ordinance admit that this is the goal of the ordinance. Note too, that the primary supporters of preventing Walmart supercenters in San Diego are all Democrats. I also note that most African-Americans support Democrats. But here is what happened at the council hearing on the matter.

And then the tone in council chambers changed sharply as one after another black resident approached the microphone to appeal to the council, painting a drab, disheartening portrait of the dearth of opportunity that exists in one of the city's most economically struggling districts, the one represented by Councilman Tony Young, and the one they said could most benefit from the arrival of a supercenter like Walmart. They asked the council not to make it harder for the company to move in.

Dominic Littleton told the council he was the father of six children, and that he had lost his union job 3 years ago and been unemployed ever since.

Taesha McCall said she needed a job, and that she thought Walmart would help her community.

Note this fact as well:

In Los Angeles, no superstore applications have been submitted since the city adopted a similar ordinance in 2004.

Fortunately, it appears that there will be a petition drive to put a measure on the ballot to overturn this ordinance.

Walmart is going to the voters to get its supercenter stores in San Diego. A signature drive began this morning at Walmart's four stores in the city.
. . .
The signature gathering started at the Walmart store in Murphy Canyon this morning. Walmart has 30-days to collect 31-thousand signatures.

I will definitely be heading to Walmart to sign a petition. Maybe I'll wear that yellow T-shirt. Watch this video to hear more gory details.



I hope to also contact Lorie Zapf's office to ensure that she would be a vote to repeal the Walmart ban. She certainly campaigned hard against union special interests during the recent campaign.

UPDATE:

Commenter Scott notes that I misspelled ordinance as "ordnance" in the original post, which I have corrected. However, in my feeble defense, it seems that the law is actually "ordnance" aimed at Walmart.

More Proof That This City Council Can't Be Trusted

One of the successful arguments against Proposition D was that we couldn't trust this city council and mayor to deliver on their promises to reform city government. The day after Prop D went down to defeat, Todd Gloria introduced legislation to ban Walmart Supercenters in San Diego. And the Democrats on the City Council mimic the underhanded methods used by their fellow partisans in Congress in passing Obamacare. From the U-T (the whole editorial is worth a read):

But if it is so benign, why did Gloria and his City Council allies put the measure on a fast track with few if any precedents? Why did they ignore complaints from members of the Planning Commission that the rushed process didn’t allow for a proper vetting of the proposal? And why did Council President Ben Hueso already schedule a vote early next month to override Mayor Jerry Sanders’ expected veto of the ordinance just before Hueso and another council Democrat, Donna Frye, depart office?

So what's the damage from Walmart Supercenters? The real answer is that they threaten the one area where private sector unions still hold sway, grocery stores. The alleged reason is that they destroy small businesses. And how do they do that? By offering lower prices than their competitors. So let me get this straight, when the federal government negotiates lower prices on drugs for medicare patients, buying from the low cost provider, that's good. When you want lower prices on groceries and go to WalMart, that's bad? Why? Because you are a selfish racist, but the federal government is only filled with noble purpose, dedicated to helping others. Get it? This is the narrative the left always uses. If the government is helping people, its all good. But people helping themselves? Clearly evil.

If this passes, who is up for a proposition to overturn this law?