One of the few silver linings to emerge from last year's turmoil at San Diego City Hall was that the comings and goings of council members and mayors led to the shelving of some very bad legislation. Unfortunately, the advent of more normal times has led to renewed interest in the biggest stinker: a proposed law ostensibly meant to promote wise land use but that in fact is a bald bid to stop Wal-Mart from building in San Diego the combined department store-supermarkets it calls Supercenters. This would be achieved by banning large discount retailers on grossly arbitrary grounds: if they sell too many different items or if they sell too many groceries.
In late June or early July, the City Council is expected to take up the anti-Wal-Mart measure and a related, less-noxious proposal dealing with the design and amenities of large retail facilities. At that point, council members allied with the United Food and Commercial Workers and other unions will spout the usual talking points about Wal-Mart hurting mom-and-pop businesses while offering slave – i.e., nonunion – wages.
But what we won't hear about is the extraordinary consumer benefits that much of the rest of the nation has realized because of Wal-Mart's entry in to the grocery business. UBS Warburg study found that Wal-Mart's prices on a typical range of supermarket goods were an astounding 14 percent below its rivals. Even those whose elitism or politics lead them to avoid Wal-Mart benefit because other grocers reduce prices to compete with the retail giant.
In other words, Wal-Mart has done for groceries what it did for consumer goods: cut prices to the bone to the enormous benefit of everyone, especially poor and working-class families.
Unions and their allies act as if this is a minor point. It's not. If a needy family can save $200 a month buying Wal-Mart groceries, that has an immediate positive effect on its standard of living – even more than a $200 increase in pay, which would be reduced by taxes and various deductions.
Talk about serving the greater good. Who helps more people: the UFCW or Wal-Mart?
The good news is that Mayor Jerry Sanders feels that “market forces should drive the decision-making” on what retailers sell, not politicians, according to spokesman Bill Harris.
But the bad news is that insiders believe five City Council members may be ready to force the measure through – including council President Scott Peters.
This will be a profound test for the ambitious Peters. Will he dare to stand up to his allies' demagoguery? Or will he do their bidding, however dubious it may be?
We shall see in a few weeks.
A final note: We haven't even mentioned the worst news. That's the fact that Wal-Mart has no plans to build Supercenters and selling groceries in San Diego even if the City Council doesn't pass a spiteful bill preventing it.
Too bad. Not just folks in studio apartments but anyone with a mortgage to pay could have used the extra money that Supercenters would put in all our pockets.
