Wal-Mart versus Communities - Case Study Example

Proposal: Wal-Mart It is fact that there are many instances where communities have had to make do with things they would have preferred not to be there if they had the choice. Nonetheless, there are also many a times when great opportunities nave been lost, thanks to politicking and anti-development attitudes put forth by the community. The case of the community being against Wal-Mart taking over the site and constructing a superstore is just but a single of the many cases which leave one in a quandary as to which side to support. I take a look at both sides of the coin and rest my argument, Wal-Mart should be allowed to take over the site and build the proposed superstore. Why one is quick to ask? I am compelled to give lots of reasons to this obvious question. Let us start by looking at the motive of both parties. Conventionally, motive is an important element in decision making. Before condemning Wal-Mart or supporting its proposal, it is of fundamental importance that the driving motives for both parties are considered. For starters, we look at the community. The community seems to be an agreement on having the site redeveloped. Their only problem is the traffic impact that such a superstore will have. This is a problem that they can consider addressing rather than shunning Wal-Mart. For starters, they can consider talking Wal-Mart into settling for a redeveloped center that matches the communities ideals. Alternatively, they can opt to discuss with Wal-Mart the possible ways of alleviating the anticipated heavy traffic that the community is against. The truth is, not every objection is worth entertaining, of course, and you shouldnt include one just to include one. But some imagining of other views, or of resistance to ones own, occurs in many instances. Other than a counter proposal, there are the economic benefits associated with development of a superstore. Jobs will not only be created but most importantly, the region’s economy will be boosted. The regional and national governments will both stand to gain from taxes arising from the superstore. Services will also be brought closer to the community not just within the superstore but also due to related business and service providers the superstore will attract. Additionally, it may be important to question, whether or not there is an available alternative developer in case of Wal-Mart not being given the opportunity. It would be an extreme opportunity cost if Wal-Mart was to be shunned only for the community not to find an alternative redeveloper. On the other hand, it is important to consider the possible reasons the community may have to support their decision to bar Wal-Mart from taking over and developing a superstore in the site. Policies are often well researched and form the basis for a better tomorrow. It is always important to look at the broader picture rather than merely focusing on the possible benefits of today. A poorly planned town could have extreme negative impacts on the future of the area. Further, it would be wastage of resources, time and intellect if policies were to be formulated only to be discarded due to perceived benefits of breaking the policy. Wal-Mart is known for its preference for superstore and hence it may be out of question, a possibility of having Wal-Mart settle for something lesser. Additionally, the traffic issue raised is of extreme importance and forms basis of the towns future planning. While Wal-Mart will bring lots of benefits, it is likely to severe the existing plan of the area, a situation which many end up creating a negative rippling effect on multiple other areas. Persecution for the proposal may seem perfectly logical. If the committee have no doubt of their premises or power and want a certain result with all their heart, they can naturally express your wishes in policy and sweep away all contrasting proposals. Logically, one would expect both sides to present their unique arguments to the Austin’s Council. While Wal-Mart would argue that constructing a super-store will boost the area’s economy through employment, bringing services closer, attracting related infrastructure and even improving security, the group calling itself, Responsible Growth for Norcross would argue along the line of existing policies. Will construction of a Wal-Mart superstore infringe on the existing policies of the Council. It is also likely to point out the diseconomies of having the superstore. For instance, the time people will have to spend on the increased traffic, rate of pollution, resulting congestion, and impact of smaller similar business in the area. The superstore will without doubt aim to compete directly with the entire range of shops found in our towns and high streets. Notably, the committee will argue that superstores claim that they provide choice to consumers, but in reality they often erode real choices for people: a recent Mintel survey of shopping patterns commented that “arguably the biggest threat to smaller towns and the high street is increased provision of convenience items by major grocery superstores (Mintel 11).” By dominating food sales, they take away the choice to shop in traditional shops such as greengrocers and butchers; they make it hard for new schemes to start and expand; and by targeting non-food shops they could take away the choice to visit a thriving town Centre. Several companies, in particular Sainsbury and Tesco, are also buying up independent convenience stores. Local traders re likely to experience a fall in takings and the new superstore, if allowed, will eat up land previously used for parking. It may also be wise to point out that a study in Fakenham, established that town-centre food retailers registered a 64% decline in market share as a result of opening of an out-of-town superstore (Office of the Deputy Prime Minister 40). As a matter of fact, the number of convenience food stores fell from 18 to 13, and the number of vacant shops rose by 33% (Office of the Deputy Prime Minister 41). These are some of the kind of statistics likely to be presented by the committee. Works Cited Mintel, Jim. Out-of-town versus In-town retailing Special report, September 2002 Office of the Deputy Prime Minister. Impact of large foodstores on market towns and district centres. 1998. http://www.odpm.gov.uk/stellent/groups/odpm_planning/documents/page/odpm_pla Read More