NYC: Mosques 100, Wal-Marts 0.

[Shady]

So far Mayor Bloomberg and President Obama have been silent. But I'm sure they'll address this issue any day now.

Protest over Wal-Mart Brooklyn store

While unions and New York officials lock arms to keep Wal-Mart from opening up a store in the Big Apple, the giant retailer might still have a golden opportunity to open its first city store.

The opportunity rests with a Brooklyn development -- a commercial and residential project called Gateway II being built by real-estate giant Related Cos. near Jamaica Bay -- that has already won key zoning approvals from city officials, sources said.

Those opposing Wal-Mart are trying to persuade Related and others to bring a smaller supermarket or other retailer to the site.

NYP

From what I've been reading and hearing, property rights are paramount. And they're applied to everyone equally, regardless of race, religion, etc. Unless of course you're Wal-Mart. In which case you're given the opportunity for ZERO locations in the city of New York, population 8.4 million.

If you're keeping score at home. New York City: Mosques 100. Wal-Marts 0.

*Edit*

There are currently 30 mosques in Manhattan, and 100 in the entire city.

Edited August 17, 2010 by Shady

[punked]

Is Walmart a place of worship? I guess for you it is explains a lot.

[Shady]

Is Walmart a place of worship? I guess for you it is explains a lot.

When did private property rights only apply to a place of worship?

[GostHacked]

I have personally boycotted Wal-Mart.

But, if you knew anything about Wal-Mart and their business practices, you would not want them in your neighborhood either.

There is a huge difference between the two, one is a corporation and one is a religion. And you know a corporation is out to make the maximum profit it can at the expense of a low paid worker who buys real cheaply made stuff from China (where their world headquarters is located).

People protesting the Wal-Mart know how they impact local economies. They have a history of it. And hurting your economy is more of a concern than a mosque being built. Impact peoples wallets and then you have a fight on your hands. Some towns and cities have banned Wal-mArt supercenters. They can still build a smaller store, but that is not how Wal-Mart likes to operate.

http://www.planetizen.com/node/22048

http://articles.sfgate.com/2006-07-13/bay-area/17304122_1_wal-mart-spokesman-john-simley-turlock-wal-mart-estimates

http://www.amiba.net/pressroom/chicago_debates_supercenters_5.4.04.html

In some towns where they have been banned, Wal-Mart ends up setting up shop just outside of town. Reduced property taxes while still having the ability to destroy small local economies regardless of being banned.

http://www.pbs.org/itvs/storewars/stores3_2.html

Empty Boxes

Wal-Mart stores are often the size of four or five football fields - huge in scale compared to many of the small communities that they neighbor. Criticized for deserting stores that under-perform, Wal-Mart has left behind more than 25 million square feet of unoccupied space across the country (May, 2000). The company claims it tries to sell these properties, but the only potential buyers are other big retailers, and Wal-Mart will not sell real estate to its competitors. In one Kentucky town, an empty Wal-Mart was torn down at the taxpayers' expense.

http://www.pbs.org/itvs/storewars/stores3.html

Wal-Mart employs more people than any other company in the United States outside of the Federal government, yet the majority of its employees with children live below the poverty line. "Buy American" banners are prominently placed throughout its stores; however, the majority of its goods are made outside the U.S. and often in sweatshops. Critics believe that Wal-Mart opens stores to saturate the marketplace and clear out the competition, then closes the stores and leaves them sitting empty. Freedom of speech issues also come into play. Musicians are at the mercy of Wal-Mart's stringent content rules, forcing many to create "sanitized" versions of their albums specifically for the discount chain.

Should watch the film Store Wars. It's quite revealing.

It's not surprising you don't see the difference.

Edited August 17, 2010 by GostHacked

[M.Dancer]

But, if you knew anything about Wal-Mart and their business practices...

That's precisely why we shop there.

Edited August 17, 2010 by M.Dancer

[Michael Hardner]

Wow. This is a stretch worthy of Plasticman himself.

Because they've zoned out Wal Mart... then... that means...

The US doesn't provide property rights across the board anyway, so your whole premise is nil. Eminent domain can be used to expropriate your property and sell it or give it to - for example - Wal Mart.

[Shady]

Wow. This is a stretch worthy of Plasticman himself.

Because they've zoned out Wal Mart... then... that means...

This is obviously over your head. But please explain how this is a stretch. If Wal-Mart buys land that's specifically zoned for their specificied use, as in the case I posted. How is it any different than the mosque situation? Other than you not liking Wal-Mart, but loving Muslims.

From the link:

that has already won key zoning approvals from city officials

Did you read that? Zoning approvals? Good.

[Shady]

But, if you knew anything about Wal-Mart and their business practices, you would not want them in your neighborhood either.

Business practices that every business tries to take advantage of. Legal business practices

There is a huge difference between the two, one is a corporation and one is a religion.

Wow. That's profound. Yep, one's a business and one's a religion. It still doesn't mean private property rights are applied differently. Especially if each one satistfies the zoning requirements.

a corporation is out to make the maximum profit

When did maximum profits become illegal?

it can at the expense of a low paid worker

You don't have to work there. Besides that, they have to offer at least minimum wage. They actually pay more than that. They also offer health benefits. Which is not maximum profit.

who buys real cheaply made stuff from China (where their world headquarters is located).

When did buying things from China become illegal? Also, you wanna know where Islam's headquarters is? Saudi Arabia. Maybe you've heard of it, it's called Mecca.

It's not surprising you don't see the difference.

Sorry dude. But you can't pick and choose when to apply private property rights.

[Smallc]

I didn't realize that Wal Mart is protected by freedom of religion.

[Michael Hardner]

Did you read that? Zoning approvals? Good.

No, I didn't read it, because I don't like to invest time in things if it doesn't make a difference. Now that you've straightened that out, where are we ?

NYC likes Muslims but hates Wal Mart ?

As I pointed out, there are no property rights. I vacation in a New England town that has NEVER had a fast food franchise within its limits, and yes it's wonderful. Individuals do have freedom of religion, though, so you can't outlaw Quakers, Jews, Muslims from your town.

So are we done now ?

[Shady]

No, I didn't read it, because I don't like to invest time in things if it doesn't make a difference.

I see. You just post in threads about them.

NYC likes Muslims but hates Wal Mart ?

Not NYC, people like you.

As I pointed out, there are no property rights.

And as I pointed out, you're completely wrong. But, let's go with your assertion. Good, then nobody can complain about this proposed mosque being moved to a different location within the city.

Individuals do have freedom of religion

Yes they do. Nobody has suggested otherwise.

so you can't outlaw Quakers, Jews, Muslims from your town.

Once again, nobody has suggested otherwise.

[Michael Hardner]

I see. You just post in threads about them.

What can I say ? I made a mistake.

Not NYC, people like you.

People like me ? Why people like me ? You're presuming that you know me, which you don't. It seems like a New York thing. Although I confess I didn't click the link (still) I doubt it indicates that I'm a key reason why the Wal Mart would be rejected.

And as I pointed out, you're completely wrong. But, let's go with your assertion. Good, then nobody can complain about this proposed mosque being moved to a different location within the city.

If that happens, then it happens. They can complain - just as the Wal Mart people complain. Sorry, to tell you - politics drives most of these decisions. Also there's no tooth fairy, your wife is putting that money under your pillow.

Yes they do. Nobody has suggested otherwise.

Once again, nobody has suggested otherwise.

Yes they did - double stamped it.

They (or, to rephrase it "you") suggested that by implying that Wal Marts and Mosques have the same rights. They don't. My favourite town in Maine can say "No McDonalds Allowed" and that's kosher. But if they said "No Synagogues" then that wouldn't be... uh... constitutional.

Edited August 17, 2010 by Michael Hardner

[Machjo]

So far Mayor Bloomberg and President Obama have been silent. But I'm sure they'll address this issue any day now.

From what I've been reading and hearing, property rights are paramount. And they're applied to everyone equally, regardless of race, religion, etc. Unless of course you're Wal-Mart. In which case you're given the opportunity for ZERO locations in the city of New York, population 8.4 million.

If you're keeping score at home. New York City: Mosques 100. Wal-Marts 0.

*Edit*

There are currently 30 mosques in Manhattan, and 100 in the entire city.

There you go. Is it not better to stand for something rather than against something? Instead of wasting energy being against the mosque, why not divert energy to be for Walmart. At least that way the activits would actually be fighting for a cause rather than just against everything, no?

[GostHacked]

Business practices that every business tries to take advantage of. Legal business practices

Legal sure, ethical, hells no.

Wow. That's profound. Yep, one's a business and one's a religion. It still doesn't mean private property rights are applied differently. Especially if each one satistfies the zoning requirements.

Religions are exempt from some taxes and such. Business are not. So property rights ARE applied different because they ARE different.

When did maximum profits become illegal?

You don't have to work there. Besides that, they have to offer at least minimum wage. They actually pay more than that. They also offer health benefits. Which is not maximum profit.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/19/business/19health.html

Because of criticism, they changed their health coverage about 2 years ago. It may be better now, but that is not because of any initiative on Wal-Mart's part. They simply reacted to the complaints. You also missed the part where the article states that over half of the employees with children live below the poverty line.

When did buying things from China become illegal? Also, you wanna know where Islam's headquarters is? Saudi Arabia. Maybe you've heard of it, it's called Mecca.

I notice you don't see the hypocrisy in Buying American when most of the goods are made in China. False advertising and that is illegal.

They also control the manufactureres and their pricing. Walmart wants to bring in Product A, but only if they buy it at stated amount. Which is usually way below what the manufacturer wants to sell it for. Those companies are making less because of how Walmart procures items.

Sorry dude. But you can't pick and choose when to apply private property rights.

The Wal-Mart protesters are probably more effective at getting a Wal-Mart banned because they know what they are up against. Most people who are against the mosque really don't have a clue what they were protesting.

[Shady]

But if they said "No Synagogues" then that wouldn't be... uh... constitutional.

Once again, nobody is saying "No Synagogues" or "No Mosques." You really kicked the hell outta that strawman though. Much like the litany of others you've stated.

[Guest American Woman]

Once again, nobody is saying "No Synagogues" or "No Mosques." You really kicked the hell outta that strawman though. Much like the litany of others you've stated.

His point is that you can't compare retail companies to religion. Mosques and Wal-mart are two different things, and your attempt to link the two, as if Obama and Bloomberg should address Wal-Mart's rights to build the same as they would a church, synagogue, or mosque, is way out in left field. It would be bizarre if Obama and/or Bloomberg were to take up the cause of a retail store, be it Wal-Mart or any other, over the unions' cause.

[Shady]

Legal sure, ethical, hells no.

Some would say the same about Islam.

You also missed the part where the article states that over half of the employees with children live below the poverty line.

Nobody forces anyone to work there. It's a low-skill job. It's not going to demand a large salary. But that's not the point. You apply the law equally, not based on what a company pays its employees.

I notice you don't see the hypocrisy in Buying American when most of the goods are made in China.

Hypocrisy isn't a legal framework to deny anyone equal treatment under the law.

False advertising and that is illegal.

Good. Then take them to court. But again, it's not relevant to applying the law as to whether they can build a store on private property that's been zoned for their specific needs.

Walmart wants to bring in Product A, but only if they buy it at stated amount. Which is usually way below what the manufacturer wants to sell it for.

Then don't choose to sell your product to Wal-Mart for less than the desired price. That still isn't a legal reason to not apply the law equally.

Most people who are against the mosque really don't have a clue what they were protesting.

I disagree. I think people know exactly what they're protesting.

[bloodyminded]

Gosthacked already made the salient points, but some bear repeating...because this is not in any way an analogous situation.

First of all, WalMart's proposed stores raise controversy all the time, virtually everywhere. People like to shop at WalMart because some of its product is inexpensive; but people also don't like the effects the chain can have on their communities.

Second (as already made clear) WalMart's slight changes in its treatment of employees is exactly and only because of the activism agaisnt the company. So anyone who defends WalMart because it gives health coverage (with strict guyidelines, ensuring that many people don't get covered) or because it pays higher than minimum wage (usually by a factor of fifty cents or some other generosity)...well, that person should actually be thanking the activists and critics. It's their doing.

At any rate, however one feels about all this, to use it as analogy is false. Talk about apples and oranges!

[Shady]

First of all, WalMart's proposed stores raise controversy all the time, virtually everywhere.

If by virtually everywhere you mean once in a while, by a small group of people, then yes. Some people also view mosques as controversial. Because of the intolerances within Islam.

Second (as already made clear) WalMart's slight changes in its treatment of employees

It still treats its employees better than Muslims treat woman, homosexuals, and non-believers.

At any rate, however one feels about all this, to use it as analogy is false. Talk about apples and oranges!

The analogy is completely apt. Except that you people run to the defense of Muslims.

[GostHacked]

Shady, you've been pansted again by the looks of it. How many times have you 'pwnd' me now?

[Shady]

His point is that you can't compare retail companies to religion.

His point is wrong. When you have two pieces of private property, both zoned according to thier buyers needs, one doesn't get preferential treatment over the other.

[dre]

It still treats its employees better than Muslims treat woman, homosexuals, and non-believers.

Holy shit...

Is this seriously what passes for a thread here?

[Shady]

Holy shit...

Is this seriously what passes for a thread here?

Sometimes the truth hurts.

[Guest American Woman]

His point is wrong. When you have two pieces of private property, both zoned according to thier buyers needs, one doesn't get preferential treatment over the other.

As I pointed out, unions have rights, too, not just businesses/corporations.

So no, his point isn't wrong. It would be idiotic for the POTUS or mayor of NYC to speak out against unions to support Wal-Mart.

[dre]

As I pointed out, unions have rights, too, not just businesses/corporations.

So no, his point isn't wrong. It would be idiotic for the POTUS or mayor of NYC to speak out against unions to support Wal-Mart.

It would be idiotic for the POTUS to even weigh in a municiple zoning decision in the first place.