KeepKeizerLivable.org
            

Recap of the Initiative Petition
  Keep Keizer Livable launched an initiative petition limiting where large format stores can be located in Keizer.  Below is a synopsis of the petition drive as summed up at the Keizer City Council meeting on October 18, 2010.  Unfortunately, the initiative failed in a special election by 34 votes.  Thank you, everyone, for all of your support!

As you know, we organized as a community group around three years ago when Keizer’s planning commission and city council were considering a proposal to remove the cap on the size of retail buildings in mixed-use areas throughout Keizer. Hundreds of local residents wrote emails and letters, signed petitions and attended and testified at hearings. In spite of overwhelming public opposition to the proposal, the council voted to make the change in Keizer’s development code.

After much consideration and discussion, we decided to launch a petition to get an initiative on the ballot. The text of the initiative says “No retail building larger than 65,000 square feet can he built anywhere in Keizer except for Area A of Keizer Station” and goes on to define Area A as being the area around where the Lowes and Target are currently located.

We filed the official paperwork on July 21st and received the approval to start
collecting signatures on August 18th. State law allows local petitions up to two years to collect signatures. However, Keizer passed an ordinance in the 1980s that limits the collection period to 90 days after the original filing. The built in approval process time period ate up 30 percent of the 90 days and left us 61 days to collect signatures.

Local petitions need the signatures of 15 percent of the registered voters to reach the ballot. In our case we needed 2,739 valid signatures. This afternoon we turned in 3,765 signatures that we’ve gathered over the past 60 days - 1000 over the required minimum.

Frankly, the response that we’ve had to the petition has been somewhat overwhelming. We’ve had more then 75 folks in retirement homes from McNary Estates, local business owners, neighbors, friends and local unions out collecting signatures. We’ve had people emailing us, calling us at home, stopping us on the street and coming by the Keep Keizer Livable office to sign.

We’ve talked to a lot of people, made many new friends and learned a lot about our community. Keizer residents have a huge amount of frustration with the city staff and city council. We heard over and over from folks who feel that their voices are not heard.

The choice of what happens now with this initiative is up to you. State law requires that you consider adopting it without spending money on a special election. We suggest before you make any decisions, you take the time to get out and talk to people. Not the same circle of groups that you’re usually involved with—neighborhood associations, service clubs, Chamber of Commerce, etc., but go knock on doors. Visit people you don’t know. Hear what Keizerites have to say about our great community and listen to what their vision and struggles are.

Although this has been a lot of work and we’ve invested a lot of time and energy, we’re grateful that we’ve had the opportunity to listen to so many of our neighbors. Now it’s your turn.




                                  No, We Don't Want a Big Box Store MP3 by Curt McCormack


                      Keizer Comp Plan                                             KeizerStationPlan                          
                                                                              
                      Keizer Station Recap                       
                                                
                      Mixed Use Research                                         Mixed Use Comparisons      
                                                                   
                                                       Impact on Local Businesses 
                                      

                            

                      
                             Links for Additional Information

               
Wake up Wal Mart.com                                  Big Box Tool Kit.com

               Wal Mart Watch Research Center                 National Trust.org 

              
Institute for Local Self Reliance                    Shils Report                      
                         


City Tax Revenue

A study compared the tax revenue and the costs of public services associated with various types of development
projects in Barnstable, Massachusetts. It found that big-box retail developments cost more than the revenues they generated, producing an annual net loss of $468 per 1,000 square feet. While the city gained revenues through property and sales taxes, these were outweighed by expenditures including the costs of general government and public works.                                                                                

Poverty Rates

In a study of over 3,000 counties, researchers found that counties with more Wal-Mart stores had a larger increase (or a smaller reduction) in the poverty rate between 1987 and 1999 than did counties with fewer or no Wal-Mart stores. Controlling for factors such as education, employment rates and population, the study also found that an additional Wal-Mart store was correlated with a statistically significant 0.2 percentage point increase in the county poverty rate. The authors conclude that the presence of Wal-Mart unequivocally raised family poverty rates in U.S. counties during the 1990s relative to places that had no such stores. The authors hypothesize that the increase in poverty rates can partly be explained by displaced  workers going to work at Wal-Mart for lower wages.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


The Cost of Wal-Mart's entry into a community can be significant

  • According to a 2003 estimate, the influx of big-box stores into San Diego would result in an annual decline in wages and benefits which could cost the area up to $221 million [San Diego Taxpayers Association (SDCTA), 2003]

Lower wages mean less money for communities

  • When an employer pays low wages to its employees, the employees have less money to spend on goods and services in the community, which in turn reduces the income and spending of others in the community. In other words a reduction in wages has a multiplier impact in the surrounding area.
  • For instance, in 1999, Southern California municipalities estimated that for every dollar decrease in wages in the southern California economy, $2.08 in spending was lost-- the $1 decrease plus another $1.08 in indirect multiplier impacts. ["The Impact of Big Box Grocers in Southern California" Dr. Marlon Boarnet and Dr. Randall Crane, 1999.]

Wal-Mart's growth negatively impact worker's wages

  • The most comprehensive study of Wal-Mart's impact showed that the stores reduced earnings per person by 5 percent. This 2005 study by an economist from the National Bureau of Economic Research used Wal-Mart's own store data and government data for all counties where Wal-Mart has operated for 30 years, It found that the average Wal-Mart store reduces earnings per person by 5 percent in the county in which it operates. [David Neumark, The Effects of Wal-Mart on Local Labor Markets 2005]

Wal-Mart hurts other businesses when it comes to town.

  • In Maine, existing businesses lost over 10 percent of their market in 80 percent of the towns where Wal-Mart opened stores. [Georgeanne Artz And James McConnon, The Impact of Wal-Mart on Host Towns and Surrounding Communities in Maine, 2001]
  • Food stores in Mississippi lost 17 percent of their sales by the fifth year after a Wal-Mart Supercenter had come into their county, and retail stores lost 9 percent of their sales [Kenneth Stone and Georgeanne Artz, The Economic Impact of a Wal-Mart Supercenter on Existing Businesses in Mississippi, 2002]
  • Over the course of [a few years after Wal-Mart entered a community], retailers' sales of apparel dropped 28% on average, hardware sales fell by 20%, and sales of specialty stores fell by 17%. [Kenneth Stone at Iowa State University, "Impact of the Wal-Mart Phenomenon on Rural Communities," 1997]
  • In towns without Wal-Marts that are close to towns with Wal-Marts, sales in general merchandise declined immediately after Wal-Mart stores opened. After ten years, sales declined by a cumulative 34%. [Kenneth Stone at Iowa State University, "Impact of the Wal-Mart Phenomenon on Rural Communities," 1997]

Wal-Mart destroys the environment

  • Between 2003 and 2005, state and federal environmental agencies fined Wal-Mart $5 million.
  • In 2005, Wal-Mart reached a $1.15 million settlement with the State of Connecticut for allowing improperly stored pesticides and other pollutants to pollute streams. This was the largest such settlement in state history. [Hartford Courant, 8/16/05]
  • In May 2004, Wal-Mart agreed to pay the largest settlement for stormwater violations in EPA history. The United States sued Wal-mart for violating the Clean Water Act in 9 states, calling for penalties of over $3.1 million and changes to Wal-Mart's building practices. [U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, May 12, 2004, U.S. v. Wal-Mart Stores Inc., 2004 WL 2370700]
  • In 2004, Wal-Mart was fined $765,000 for violating Florida's petroleum storage tank laws at its automobile service centers. Wal-Mart failed to register its fuel tanks, failed to install devices that prevent overflow, did not perform monthly monitoring, lacked current technologies, and blocked state inspectors. [Associated Press, 11/18/04]
  • In Georgia, Wal-Mart was fined about $150,000 in 2004 for water contamination. [Atlanta Journal-Constitution, 2/10/05]

Wal-Mart increases vehicle traffic

  • A 2004 study of estimated additional driving costs of Supercenters in the San Francisco Bay area concluded that there would be up to an additional 238 million vehicle miles traveled per year. [Supercenters and the Transformation of the Bay Area Grocery Industry: Issues, Trends, and Impacts. Bay Area Economic Forum, 2004]
  • These extra miles traveled could cost communities in the Bay area up $256 million in additional costs for infrastructure repair and environmental degradation. [Supercenters and the Transformation of the Bay Area Grocery Industry: Issues, Trends, and Impacts. Bay Area Economic Forum, 2004]

A Substantial Number of Wal-Mart Associates earn far below the poverty line

  • In 2001, sales associates, the most common job in Wal-Mart, earned on average $8.23 an hour for annual wages of $13,861. The 2001 poverty line for a family of three was $14,630. ["Is Wal-Mart Too Powerful?", Business Week, 10/6/03, US Dept of Health and Human Services 2001 Poverty Guidelines, 2001]
  • A 2003 wage analysis reported that cashiers, the second most common job, earn approximately $7.92 per hour and work 29 hours a week. This brings in annual wages of only $11,948. ["Statistical Analysis of Gender Patterns in Wal-Mart's Workforce", Dr. Richard Drogin 2003]

Wal-Mart's Health Care Spending Falls Below Industry Standards

  • Wal-Mart's spending on health care for its employees falls well below industry and national employer averages. In 2002, as reported in the Wall Street Journal, Wal-Mart spent an average of $3,500 per employee. By comparison, the average spending per employee in the wholesale/retailing sector was $4,800. For U.S. employers in general, the average was $5,600 per employee, Therefore, Wal-Mart's average spending on health benefits for each covered employee was 27% less than the industry average and 37% less than the national average. [Bernard Wysocki, Jr. and Ann Zimmerman, "Wal-Mart Cost-Cutting Finds a Big Target in Health Benefits," Wall Street Journal September 30, 2003 p1]

Wal-Mart Covers Less of the Health Care Costs Compared to Its Competitors

  • In a state analysis, the Massachusetts Department of Health and Human Services found that in 2003, Wal-Mart covered only 52% of total health care premium costs compared to K-Mart which covered 66%, Target which covered 68%, and Sears which covered 80% ["Employers Who Have 50 or More Employees Using Public Health Assistance," Division of Health Care Finance and Policy, 2/2005]

Wal-Mart Admits Public Health Care is a "Better Value"

  • President and CEO Lee Scott said in 2005, "In some of our states, the public program may actually be a better value - with relatively high income limits to qualify, and low premiums." [Transcript Lee Scott Speech 4/5/05]

Your tax dollars pay for Wal-Mart's greed

  • The estimated total amount of federal assistance for which Wal-Mart employees were eligible in 2004 was $2.5 billion. [The Hidden Price We All Pay For Wal-Mart, A Report By The Democratic Staff Of The Committee On Education And The Workforce, 2/16/04]
  • One 200-employee Wal-Mart store may cost federal taxpayers $420,750 per year. This cost comes from the following, on average:
    • $36,000 a year for free and reduced lunches for just 50 qualifying Wal-Mart families.
    • $42,000 a year for low-income housing assistance.
    • $125,000 a year for federal tax credits and deductions for low-income families.
    • $100,000 a year for the additional expenses for programs for students.
    • $108,000 a year for the additional federal health care costs of moving into state children's health insurance programs (S-CHIP)
    • $9,750 a year for the additional costs for low income energy assistance.
    [The Hidden Price We All Pay For Wal-Mart, A Report By The Democratic Staff Of The Committee On Education And The Workforce, 2/16/04]

 

Website Builder