Editorial Editorial (September 17, 2004)

Voting alone against Wal-Mart

We're as puzzled as some of the Pleasanton residents who voiced objections at last week's City Council meeting over the efforts of two candidates for key city posts to block a stockroom and open air garden center expansion of the Pleasanton Wal-Mart store. The two, Councilwoman and mayoral candidate Jennifer Hosterman and Planning Commissioner and council candidate Matt Sullivan, asked that the expansion be delayed until city staff and politicians can determine if the retailer's anti-union stance and what they called inadequate employee pay and benefits make it a worthy business for Pleasanton. Their statements brought howls of protests from residents and even council colleagues. The city's Associate Planner Heidi Kline said Wal-Mart already had the right to expand its local store as a result of entitlements granted by a previous City Council 10 years ago when permits were issued to allow the facility as part of the development of the Metro 580 retail center at Rosewood and Owens Drive. At issue before the council was the required approval for the design of its expanded facilities, which the Planning Commission had approved 3-2, a decision that Sullivan had voted against and Hosterman had appealed for another vote by the council.

Both candidates took it on the chin as speaker after speaker walked to the rostrum to praise Wal-Mart and criticize the pair for turning a simple stockroom expansion bid into a public debate on Wal-Mart's business practices. Noting that the Pleasanton Wal-Mart was crowded with shoppers most evenings and on weekends, council candidate and former school board trustee Cindy McGovern said Wal-Mart, with its low prices, serves senior citizens and young families who would otherwise go to Target in Dublin or Costco in Livermore. Businessman Tony Schuler described the candidates' efforts to force a review of the retailer's business worthiness actions akin to social engineering. Rather than having government protect businesses from competition, they should learn to compete as he has found many retailers doing quite successfully around the country, including on Wal-Mart's home turf in the South. Judy Symcox said Hosterman and Sullivan should leave any investigation of unfair business practices to state and federal commissions that have been created to handle those issues, and let the Pleasanton council and its commissions focus on local concerns. Another speaker asked Hosterman and Sullivan, in criticizing Wal-Mart for having a nonunion shop and providing low hourly wages and benefits, whether they had also queried Pleasanton's own businesses downtown and in outlying retail centers to see if they do better.

Perhaps most surprising in their council presentations was that Hosterman and Sullivan were all alone in their views on Wal-Mart. Whether they mis-read their constituency or are moving forward with their anti-Wal-Mart views based on their conviction that the retailing giant is hurting both small businesses that can't compete and taxpayers who they say must foot the bills for what they cite as inadequate health care benefits, we don't know. But at least at last week's council meeting, where the Wal-Mart application was approved 4-1 with only Hosterman opposed, their vocal outrage over Wal-Mart's corporate governance and its plan to build more Superstores that sell groceries in California, had no local support. With the local Wal-Mart now free to expand, we hope the two candidates will address the more important issues facing Pleasanton as the city nears buildout and looks for more business development to replace the developer fees and new property tax receipts that the city and school district can no longer count on as residential growth comes to a halt.

E-mail a friend a link to this story.