Wal-Mart issues go beyond traffic

Wal-Mart has a way of keeping its name in the news.

The megacorporation with its mega billions has attracted mega friends and foes alike.

Recently the retail giant announced plans to build a store on the South Hill. You can imagine my surprise and laughter when I pictured the giant retailer to the low income setting up shop on the South Hill, home to many of Spokane’s wealthy residents.

Yes, I know, we don’t make that kind of distinction here. We don’t separate class, race and gender, and deer don’t wander the hillsides of the Inland Northwest. And, yeah, I’ve got a bridge to sell you.

Let’s face it: Distinctions exist for as many reasons as there are sections of the South Hill. Wal-Mart has chosen a parcel of land at 44th and Regal in a part of the South Hill that’s home to some well-to-do, a lot of middle-class folks and some low-income residents. Smart marketing ploy by those Wal-Mart people.

Increased traffic was the top concern voiced during a recent meeting attended by 600 residents who staunchly objected to Wal-Mart’s plans.

But there’s more to it than traffic. I don’t recall such a public display of anger when ShopKo was built on Regal or the large Albertsons and strip mall at 57th and Regal that has spread faster than the Exxon Valdez oil leak.

So what is it?

In a recent Spokesman- Review letter to the editor, South Hill resident Marcus Zuhlke took time out from “working in Iraq” to write: “My obvious objections are the degradation of the quality of life for my family and neighbors, and the detrimental effect this construction will have upon the value of the properties surrounding this proposed store site.”

Traffic isn’t the pressing concern for Zuhlke and for the majority of South Hill residents. Quality of life and property values are.

Perhaps the downscale warehouse design also puts Spokane’s South Hill residents off. Even if Wal-Mart’s exterior is redesigned with designer suede paint and they install moose statues to create an upscale yet woodsy appearance, would that soothe the South Hill beast?

Good chance it won’t. There’s still the quality of life issue to overcome.

Wal-Mart caters to shoppers who value price over prestige. I can’t help but wonder that if Nordstrom were planning to build on this property, would there be such uproar?

It also could be that Wal-Mart’s low wages and its detrimental effect on nearby businesses are responsible for the outcry.

A March 8, 2004, Fortune magazine article titled “Should We Admire Wal-Mart?” said entrepreneur Sam Walton “didn’t invent the rules of discounting. He just followed them better than anyone else.”

The article also acknowledges that low wages and benefits are Wal-Mart’s downfall.

“Its promises of a good life threaten to ring increasingly hollow if it doesn’t pay its workers enough to have that good life,” the story said.

So if Wal-Mart changed its store design to woodland chic, brought its employee wage and benefits policies above standards, and reinvented its marketing strategy to include posh merchandise, would it then be accepted by our South Hill residents?

Maybe.

Or maybe what it needs to do is change its name to Nordstrom.