Wal-Mart
Cartoon didn’t
delve deep enough
Rik Dalvit’s cartoon of Feb. 17, like its characters, fails to look deeply enough into the Wal-Mart issue. I don’t pretend to understand all the ins and outs of what a Wal-Mart does to local economies, but what I do know makes me concerned.
Wal-Mart typically drives out other businesses. The newly unemployed are generally left with Wal-Mart as their only employment option, where they’ll make less money and zero benefits. This costs a community.
On the other hand, a Wal-Mart ‘brings in millions.’ They may patronize local businesses such as janitorial services. They pay whatever taxes local officials are able to charge them, much of which returns to them in the form of infrastructure and its maintenance. Most of the millions generated by Wal-Mart go to its owners. Sure, shoppers will save a few cents on their purchases, but the majority of Mill Creek residents probably don’t need to save an extra 10 cents on toilet paper and won’t go near the place. The only real winners are the owners, the owners of support businesses, and elected officials. Those who lose end up wearing blue vests and doing their own dental work.
R CUPLIN
Brier
Edmonds
Height limits are affecting economy
About 30 years ago the Edmonds City Council limited height. Over time, what has happened?
The downtown has lost pharmacies, supermarkets, hardware stores, and many other businesses that couldn’t make a go of it because there were not enough people nearby to support these businesses. While other parts of Western Washington recognized the problem and responded, Edmonds did not. Now they are thriving while Edmonds is not.
Michael Plunkett believes Edmonds is thriving. The figure that he quotes is that sales revenue has doubled in only 10 years.
A doubling in 10 years equals a growth rate of 7.2 percents. The official inflation rate for 2000 was 3.4 percent. That leaves a real growth rate of 3.8 percent. The 1990 census lists Edmonds population as 30,000. The official census of 2000 lists Edmonds population as almost 40,000. That’s 10,000 more people. Retail sales are dismal when compared to the towns around us.
Not long ago we laid off fire and police. Our city council asked us to pay more property tax. We can’t afford to properly maintain city buildings or roads. We can’t meet the levels of service we promised in the Comprehensive Plan. This isn’t a new problem.
We have studied the problem to death, and the studies came up with the same conclusion. But the experts are being ignored. No businessman or woman will risk their own money and no bank will lend money if the city doesn’t allow at least two stories of condos over retail.
It’s ironic. The city council allows buildings few of us like while they prevent well designed structures from being built. The city council has forgotten that the downtown Edmonds we all love was built when there were no limits.
DON KREIMAN
Edmonds
Shoreline
Lawsuit seems to be politically motivated
Since the election and installation of the new members, we have seen a change in direction.
In The Enterprise issue of Jan. 20, councilman Rich Gustafson “points out discrepancies.” He is not in the new ‘majority of four’ and has a sorely disjointed noise. Even though four people do not seem to be very many, they represent the majority of residents in Shoreline. Their decisions are meant to reflect the wants of the populace. In the loss of Steve Burkett, one of my desires is answered.
Our new minority seems to be a poor loser. In the issue of Jan. 27, we see a lawsuit. It is brought by two council members, a former mayor, a former council member and a citizen. They say the present majority acted illegally in disposing of Burkett. I do not feel that they did. They proceeded on the advice of legal counsel.
It appears the lawsuit is politically motivated. I hope that all is cleared up in a proper fashion and that the feuding may end.
DICK LEMMON
Shoreline
Talk to us
> Give us your news tips.
> Send us a letter to the editor.
> More Herald contact information.
