A Stitch in Haste

To review, here is my previous definition of the "Reverse-Poletown Doctrine" (I'm starting to think I should have called it the "Inverse-Poletown Doctrine" -- oh well):

Aggressive zoning generally, targeted zoning against a particular company, environmental impact statements, etc., are all bad enough. But to require a property owner to in essence "win back" his property rights a priori by having to prove a negative (i.e., no net economic harm) is exactly the same kind of perverse reasoning that was just soundly rejected in Wayne County v. Hathcock, the Michigan case that overturned Poletown. "Heads, we win -- tails, you lose."

In Part One I described an example of the attempt to circumvent eminent domain (as properly applied -- i.e., as a check on government) by quashing property rights through the use of the "historic landmark" maneuver. In other words, one common way that property rights are infringed is by blocking the creative destruction of property to make way for better uses ("better" defined in the only objective way possible -- by the free market).

Meanwhile, some New Yorkers are now gearing up to block the creative construction of property. The target (no pun intended) is that company people love to hate -- Wal-Mart:

While Wal-Mart plans to make its New York City debut in Rego Park, Queens, its second city store could wind up in Downtown Brooklyn's Fulton Street shopping district. The world's largest retailer is in talks about building a store in The Gallery at Fulton Street shopping mall, sources told the Daily News.
...
Wal-Mart's Rego Park plan is starting to stir controversy. If the discounter winds up selecting the Downtown Brooklyn site as well, similar backlash is predicted there from area merchants, community groups, unions and politicians.

"Wal-Mart should expect significant opposition," said Michael Burke, director of the Downtown Brooklyn Council.

Opposition like this:

Democratic Queens Assemblyman Brian McLaughlin, president of the New York City Central Labor Council, called for a moratorium on all big-box stores like Wal-Mart until the City Council can "come up with a smart strategy that examines the impact on other jobs." Democratic City Councilwoman Letitia James, a member of the Economic Development Committee, said she supports the moratorium and believes there's a consensus among City Council members to institute one.
...
"This red store does not belong in a blue city," she said, adding that the health care plan for its employees is inadequate and its pay falls beneath competitors' standards.
...
No Wal-Mart representative attended the City Council meeting, but company spokeswoman Mia T. Masten prepared a letter for the meeting that said, "We believe that Wal-Mart would be an extraordinary asset to the local economy."

Or this:

"Wal-Mart's low prices come with a very high price tag," said [a union leader]. "Should Wal-Mart succeed with their plan to open a mega-store in Queens, it will prove to be an economic disaster for our entire city. The ongoing national and international union battle against Wal-Mart is about maintaining quality community living standards.

The true legacy of Wal-Mart isn't lower prices. The true legacy of Wal-Mart is lower living standards for hard working Americans and those overseas. The fact is for every Wal-Mart store that opens, jobs are lost to the community, the tax base shrinks, the number of workers with health benefits declines, and the number of workers eligible for welfare increases.

Of course, that last sentence is a flat-out lie, as Wal-Mart now feels compelled to demonstrate via a massive "fact-checking" campaign.

More important is the undertone of the opposition. Opposition to Wal-Marts in New York City has nothing to do with New York City and everything to do with Wal-Mart.

Wal-Mart means lower prices for New Yorkers -- blank that out! No, Wal-Mart "drives out" (higher-priced or lower-variety) "local" businesses in other parts of the country.

Wal-Mart will employ New Yorkers -- blank that out! No, Wal-Marts outside the city employ -- gasp! -- non-union workers. (Of course, with the exception of supermarket workers, the New Yorkers who would go to work for Wal-Mart are not currently unionized anyway -- I don't think there's a "bodega union." And supermarkets are hardly "small, community-based family businesses." No, they're just union shops, which, at the end of the day, is why the opponents are, um, opposed to Wal-Mart.)

Wal-Mart will pay significant property taxes -- blank that out! No, it's a "red store in a blue city."

Wal-Mart is a leader in part-time employment, youth employment, flex-time employment, management training -- more opportunities for disadvantaged people with special employment needs -- blank that out! No, they won't be union jobs, so they can't possibly be "good jobs."

Wherever a Wal-Mart springs up, smaller, often local businesses tend to locate nearby (think the old "anchor tenant" concept in a mall). Also, a significant portion of Wal-Mart's sales (especially its "Sam's Club" chain) are to small businesses, the very businesses critics contend that Wal-Mart destroys -- blank that out! No, it's bad because a (unionized) supermarket might shut down.

As I blogged previously: Companies that are successful are successful for a reason. Yes, sometimes the success is nefarious (e.g., sweetheart deals with government, corrupt business practices, even outright criminal conduct), but they never last long and have more to do with human nature generally than with any inherent defect in capitalism. The real success stories, the Wal-Marts, Microsofts, Apples, McDonalds, etc., got where they are by making the world a better place.

Of all the socialist logical-pretzel-twisting arguments one is likely to see, the notion that it's good for consumers to pay higher prices has to be the single most perverse. Perhaps even evil. People who advocate such nonsense are not motivated by concern for workers or small businesses -- they are motivated by hatred of the successful.

UPDATE: Ryan Sager has more.

Wal-Mart Archive:
"Men's Socks are Amazing..."
Political Child Abuse Update: Targeting Wal-Mart

Eminent Domain Archive:
Eminent Domain: Are We Seeing a Paradigm Shift?
The Other Supreme Court Property Case
Will the Supreme Court Extend the Poletown Reversal?
"Kill Poletown, Vol. 2"
But What About "Reverse-Poletown"?
The End of "Mow"-Town