Last updated on 2013.09.17
How did you spend your day at work today? I had a few meetings, caught up on some e-mails, made plans for some projects for the rest of the year.
Almost certainly, I had a better day at the office than Sioux Falls City Clerk Lorie Hogstad or the rest of the folks working in her office. A little over a week ago, Hogstad and her crew received a written challenge to more than 2,000 of the signatures collected for a public referendum of the Sioux Falls City Council's decision to rezone land at the corner of 85th Street and Minnesota Avenue. That zoning decision, as it currently stands, paves the way for construction of a Walmart Supercenter on the Lincoln County land, currently owned by the Homan family. The referendum petition—with 6,362 signatures—was filed August 30 by a group called Save Our Neighborhood, but the Homans and Walmart argue that Save Our Neighborhood didn't manage to appropriately cross their t's and dot their i's while they were bugging would-be signatories at Canaries stadium.
So, for the last week, and Hogstad estimates for the next couple of weeks or more, the City Clerk's office will be inspecting and crafting a written response to each challenged signature. Ready to trade jobs with any of these city employees?
In keeping with their general approach to this whole process, Save Our Neighborhood doesn't choose the noble argument. They don't say, "We have nothing to be concerned about. Let Clerk Hogstad use her finest-toothed comb; she'll still find enough signatures to take this to a vote." Nope. They go this direction:
Dana Palmer, a spokeswoman for Save Our Neighborhood, said the action by Walmart is not surprising but that it is discouraging because it’s an effort to block the chance to settle the issue in an election.
“They’re trying to squelch the public’s right to have a voice in this matter,” Palmer said in a phone interview. “Walmart doesn’t want to hear from the public.”
Palmer said she is encouraged by recent rulings that have allowed for leniency in the petition process.
“You have to let the public voice be heard," she said [Jon Walker, "Walmart disputes 2,084 signatures in petition; family that owns land issues statement," That Sioux Falls Paper, 2013.09.10].
Yes, let's ignore the allegations of signatures without any printed name, of pages lacking notary verification, of names that don't show up on any registration lists. It's not, of course, Save Our Neighborhood's fault for potentially making errors in its petition drive. It's Walmart's fault for pointing out those potential errors. Now, it might be worth a pat on the back for Save Our Neighborhood for avoiding their typical persecution-complex rhetoric ... if their spokesperson wasn't so busy superficially donning the cloak of the "public voice" for a very personal crusade that leans pretty heavily on the "MY" part of "Not In My Back Yard."
Justification for Palmer's optimism about "leniency" is provided in part by the specific wording of SDCL 2-1-11:
The petitions herein provided for shall be liberally construed, so that the real intention of the petitioners may not be defeated by a mere technicality. (This would appear to hold true to city petitions, as well, based on the Sioux Falls City Charter's "Initiative and referendum" section)
I can't help but get a little uneasy, however, at "liberal[ly] constru[ing]" petition signatures when a "mere technicality" refers, quite simply, to not following instructions, in this case, not following South Dakota Codified Law.
Where's the line for what constitutes a "mere technicality?" Left a notary seal off one page, no biggie? What about 2? 3? Forgot the printed name and can't read the signature, toss it? No printed name, but tidy handwriting, keep it?
Judge Mark Barnett's ruling on the nomination petition issues District 8 (not just "Lake County") Democrat Charlie Johnson ran into getting on last November's ballot might just provide some of the legal interpretation Palmer groups under the category of "recent rulings" supporting giving leeway for Save Our Neighborhood's possible errors. Johnson's petitions mis-identified the jurisdiction (listing the county rather than the legislative district) on one of the lines at the top of the form, but Barnett ruled that this "substantially complied" with election law. Still, I'm not convinced an error like the one on Johnson's petitions is equal to the errors alleged with these referendum petitions.
Based on the logic of Barnett's ruling, Lorie Hogstad may not be in a place to make a decision about whether such errors are equivalent, either:
In Monday's hearing, the judge said Gant acted properly when he rejected Johnson's nominating petition because the state's top election officer must strictly apply the laws and rules.
...
However, South Dakota and prior court rulings have given the courts authority to decide whether nominating petitions substantially comply with laws and rules, Barnett said. The law is supposed to be interpreted liberally to let voters decide races, he said [Chet Brokaw, "SD Judge: Democratic candidate can be on ballot," Real Clear Politics, 2012.05.21, emphasis my own]
Thus, it may be time for Walmart backers and opponents to prepare for some fun in court if the City Clerk's office does its job with strict application and in doing so invalidates enough signatures to take the petition below the roughly 5,100-person threshold for the referendum to make it on the ballot. That probably suits Save Our Neighborhood just fine; they seem to like talking about law suits an awful lot.
To be clear, I'm not by any means the biggest Walmart fan in the world. I'd love to tell Walmart to stop building any big-box, anti-living wage, anti-local business Supercenters in this—or any—state and go sit on a tack while they're at it. But, if we're going to stick it to Walmart, I'd really rather see us do it by increasing South Dakota's minimum wage than by giving a pass to shoddy direction-following on questionably-motivated petitions.
Walmart adds another definition of white trash: what a surprise.
Save Our Neighborhood's spokesperson is a lawyer and perhaps should have spent a bit more time making sure the t's were crossed.
Details are important.
"But, if we're going to stick it to Walmart, I'd really rather see us do it by increasing South Dakota's minimum wage than by giving a pass to shoddy direction-following on questionably-motivated petitions."
You mean stick it to the working family who shops there? Wal-mart isn't going to care if they have to raise their prices to maintain their margins. Neither will HyVee, Target or any other retailer. This idea that a raise in minimum wage is only going to affect the top is a complete myth. We will take money from the working class to pay the working class. Fix the tax code first or a change in any wage over a large scale is just going to cause immediate inflation in retail and devaluation of the dollar. The bottom end gains nothing, while we take it from the middle and devalue their worth.
SNAP lifted 4 million people out of poverty and SS pays property taxes: pick a lane, [DB].
There are other 'issues' with the challenge besides the signatures, notaries, etc. I would hold tight before you make any accusations about SON.
I'm just curious but why are Walmarts prices the same except for taxes all over the country if what DB says is true?
Just for the record I would love to have a Walmart and a Sam's within ten miles of where I live. I know I know they do all kinds of bad things like pay low wages for jobs, keep prices down, run mom and pops out of business and the like but business is business and if you are big enough you do have an advantage. If you were forces to sell something for the same price as your competitor there wouldn't be much need to go into business would there?
The Blindman
"I'm just curious but why are Walmarts prices the same except for taxes all over the country if what DB says is true?"
I don't believe they are the same. There is differences between stores east river and west river that I have noticed. At least I did the last time I was in the hills.
Rorschach, I felt the same way. One of the things that gets me about this whole situation is that the conversation revolves people who appear to have a lot of privilege, access, and and know-how in the function of economic and governmental procedures using all of that privilege, access, and know-how to make things hard for Walmart in ways that would likely not be possible to people without the same advantages as the members of Save Our Neighborhood.
I don't want to advocate a different set of petition standards for people who "know the system," but if there do end up being legitimate errors in the petitions from Save Our Neighborhood, I think it will be hard for the organization to claim that it simply didn't know any better when it's availed itself of tons of legal remedies to get what it wants.
Interesting, South DaCola. Care to elaborate?
A little late to "hold tight" on anything I've already written, I suppose, but I'll stick with what I wrote at this point. I'll also stick with my discomfort over not wanting to root for either Save Our Neighborhood or Walmart, but I'm open to something that proves either side's a bad enough actor in this scenario for me to justify taking a less uneasy stance.
Toby,in the beginning I really felt this whole issue had no concern for me. But, upon further review, I'm siding with SON. Not for the same reasons as them, but would rather we not had any WM's in town. Stories like this make me nervous.
http://www.southdacola.com/blog/2013/09/wm-shorts-contractors-wuse-of-local-sf-business-and-wants-copies-of-your-voter-registration-cards-ht-gp/
Like Dacola says, I'd give this one a little more time before drawing a conclusion.
What accusations? Every sheet needs a notary stamp. That's not a hasty conclusion; that's Petitioning 101. A county auditor shouldn't even need a review and request from Walmart to see that non-notarized sheets are DQ'd.
Cory. Agree 100%. Just real hesitant about WM dealings in other states. They got a lot to prove to me.
Walmart threatened in some city to NOT build stores there if a "living wage" law or ordinance was passed. Seems like a good way to keep them out.
We visit now and then and to Sam's Club, and now and then prices are so very much lower that it is hard not to buy there compared to local prices. But, Amazon usually beats them all if the same products. It all does make me wonder what actual production costs and wholesale prices are.
Washington DC is just one city that threatened WM with livable wages. Two weeks after this article the DC mayor vetoed the living wage measure. Not to worry in SF though. WM wages are actually better than most. Not a good sign.
http://articles.washingtonpost.com/2013-08-27/local/41492809_1_mendelson-veto-decision-living-wage
http://smallbusiness.yahoo.com/advisor/answers/corporations-20090715150733AAmokPb.html
Not all Wal-marts have the same prices believe it or not - A majority have a base price which would be for all stores company wide, those items are usually featured in the ads that are mailed or put in newspapers. However, lets pretend that store A is located in a fairly populated city with many businesses near by (Lowes, Home Depot, whatever grocery chain, clothing stores) store A will go to these competitors and make sure they are beating their prices which will obviously create the store to sell more than the competitor which reduces losses on these particular items since the inventory be lower. Now say store B is located in a more rural area where there isn't much around to compete with. That stores prices will be slightly higher than store A just because there's no competition. Now, lets also say that both stores are only 10 miles apart, the factors will still be the same Store A will be cheaper than B.
Nowhere does it mention wages as a factor in the cost of those items.
The Blindman
DB, sorry ... didn't meant to ignore your comment earlier; it just required a little more time to roll around in my brain than a couple of the other things I could shoot off over lunch.
I definitely understand the complexity you point out. There's the potential--maybe the likelihood?--that increasing minimum wage, thereby increasing operating costs for Walmart, will increase costs at the checkout in a way that makes a tough situation tougher for those that could most use a break. But there's still something in my way of thinking that says that if the current minimum wage already isn't a living wage, and there's at least a chance that increasing the minimum might outpace the price increases that might--or might not--happen as a two-steps-down-the-line result, we should err on the side of catching up to a living wage.
And I get that the prices available at Walmart might the only ones some people can afford. That's why I recognize that a complete no-Walmart stance is untenable (my build-nowhere-and-sit-on-a-tack comment being a manifestation of my personalized feeling, not of any reasonable solution), and it's why I've never been one to get on the Walmart shaming bandwagon that can happen when folks start airing their grievances with the corporate behemoth. I try my very best not to shop at Walmart because I have both had terrible customer service experiences and because have so many problems with its corporate culture and community impact (see Poly43's link for starters, I guess), but I also acknowledge that I have the privilege of basing my shopping habits at least in part on what I think about the company rather than solely on how much money I have in my pocket. I'm not about to start judging shoppers who make whatever philosophical, financial, or for-the-heck-of-it calculation they make and Supercenter it up. Still, I'd rather see efforts made to address the root issue--that in our community/society, there are individuals whose only choice is a corporation whose human resource approach is part of keeping the disadvantaged disadvantaged--than just keep churning out box stores to meet a degree of need that we as neighbors shouldn't be satisfied allowing to exist.
Poly43, bad sign indeed. Any idea how many WM employees fall in the gap between current SD minimum and proposed minimum? I wonder if/where that info would be available.
I would like a list of beginning wages for employees in any of the discount stores in Sioux Falls, along with beginning wages for any other retail store, grocery store, fast food place, and restaurant. I would be willing to bet the gap isn't that large. Of all those other discount stores WalMart is the most affordable. That goes for groceries most of the time. Even the grocery ads from the other grocery stores are higher than the original prices at WalMart. Every now and then one of the ads from the other stores will have a lower price, but you can take that ad to WalMart and if the item is exactly the same they will match the prices.
Toby. This much I know. As per South Dakota Department of Labor, there are 34,500 jobs in SF that pay less than $11.12 an hour. Many I'm sure are also underemployed.
I always thought small towns like Madison were in worse shape than SF. Not the case. Per Capita, thee are twice as many people on food stamps in Minnehaha county as there are in Lake County. One in eight in Minnehaha,and one in sixteen in Lake.
Yet we have a mayor bragging about the great economic engine driving SF. BS. Come to SF if you want to work 28 hours a week with no bennies and qualify for SNAP.
TW, Cory, I can't elaborate on the issues with the challenge, but I will say this, It has NOTHING to do with the signatures, petitions or notaries themselves. I agree 100% that those things need to be correct, and the city clerk will check those things with or W/O a challenge (as I understand it, she is doing her OWN review first before looking at the challenges. If any of those things are incorrect, I am sure she will catch it.
"people who appear to have a lot of privilege, access, and and know-how in the function of economic and governmental procedures"
Enough with the class warfare on this issue. Even if you added up all of the incomes and property values of the entire SON neighborhood you still wouldn't even come close to what WM will make in profits from that store in a year. Your statement is ironic really, because WM has been using THEIR priviledge to have city and state employees to harass petitioners, get access to petitions after the close of business, and using law firms that the city also uses. It seems all the priviledge is being reserved for WM. And who is the land broker on this land? City Hall's golden boy, Lloyd. Trust me, the SON group isn't getting any special treatment.
South DaCola, I'll be interested to see what additional challenge issues come up as you say and will reserve any comments/thoughts until they do. I surmise from the tone of your two references that the additional issues will be problems for Walmart rather than for Save Our Neighborhood?
I think my understanding of the review process as the City Clerk described it in the press was that there's the standard representative sample review that would only catch any discrepancies in the sample initially but then could have led to additional checks if warranted with or without the challenge. The challenge, however, asks for the checking of very specific things on specific signaturesthat I don't think can be guaranteed to be part of the standard City Clerk's office check.
As for the last bit, why is it that "class warfare" is the blanket term I see used so often (including, but not limited to, your comment) when someone points out the inherent sociopolitical advantages that come along with economic advantage in society at large and in the community discussed on this blog?? I understand your points about how bad Walmart is and how much advantage they, as a corporation, also gain in our society. That's part of why I have to metaphorically hold my nose as I advocate a stance on petition validity that might indeed mean they "win."
However, I'll stand by my statements as a relevant critique of the issue and/or message, rather than as an opening salvo of "class warfare" because my initial point was that Save Our Neighborhood has many advantages compared to not-"Our" neighborhoods that make it hard for me to root for them as some sort of downtrodden, put-upon underdog and that at times make it seem as if their fight is more about protecting those advantages for themselves than representing "public voice" or fighting against a behemoth of a corporation.
I won't deny that Walmart is super-privileged in its own ways. But Save Our Neighborhood's own spokesperson tells us this isn't about Walmart, which seems to bring everything back to questions of zoning law and following rules and regulations, even the rules and regulations that make room for exceptions. If the City of Sioux Falls has done that and if Walmart has done that--which, I'll grant that maybe your inside information would say it hasn't--and if Save Our Neighborhood hasn't--again, remains to be seen--then sorry, kids. Game over.
I guess, in summary, that Save Our Neighborhood seems to me to have ceded an awful lot of territory for argument by refusing to make this about exactly the issues you point out, South DaCola. The comments on this post prove that there's complexity and difference of opinion related to the role that Walmart does, might, and should play in a community like Sioux Falls. Unfortunately, the direction things have gone--largely, I would argue, under the direction of Save Our Neighborhood, who as petitioners are the ones setting the agenda for the conversation--leaves the relevant conversations relegated to petition signatures and zoning notice.