Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

livingontheland - [Livingontheland] The Home Town Advantage Bulletin

livingontheland@lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Healthy soil and sustainable growing

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: "Tradingpost" <tradingpost@gilanet.com>
  • To: livingontheland@lists.ibiblio.org
  • Subject: [Livingontheland] The Home Town Advantage Bulletin
  • Date: Mon, 17 Nov 2003 09:48:30 -0700


The Home Town Advantage Bulletin
Issue #17 - November/December 2003


CONTENTS

-- About this Bulletin
-- Reprint Policy
LOCAL BATTLES
-- Austin Coalition Forces Wal-Mart Retreat, City Agrees to Big Box Study
-- California Communities Embroiled in Supercenter Debates
-- Big Box Wins and Losses on Election Day
-- Alabama Citizens Sue to Block Wal-Mart Giveaways
ALLIANCES AND COOPERATIVES
-- Austin Retailers Urge Shoppers to Ditch Chains for a Day
NATIONAL NEWS
-- Consumer Reports Gives Top Ranking to Independent Pharmacies
-- Independent Pharmacists Fight Discriminatory Health Plans
-- National Day of Action Against Wal-Mart
NEW RULES
-- California Appeals Court Upholds Formula Business Law
-- Vote on Federal Sales Tax Fairness Bill Likely in Early 2004
INTERNATIONAL NEWS
-- Irish Pharmacists Call for Limits on Corporate Ownership
-- Malaysia Freezes Hypermarket Construction
RESOURCES
-- New Report on Strategies to Revive Local Retail
-- Directory of Land Use Attorneys



ABOUT THIS BULLETIN

In communities across the country, citizens are taking action to defend and
strengthen their local economies. The Institute for Local Self-Reliance
(ILSR) has been tracking these efforts and will use this bulletin to provide
bimonthly updates on significant developments. We hope it will serve as a
tool for making connections and sharing strategies within this growing
movement. We encourage readers to share news and resources by sending email
to smitchell@ilsr.org.

ILSR is a nonprofit organization providing research, analysis, and innovative
policy solutions for building healthy communities and strong local economies.
This bulletin is part of ILSR's New Rules Project (http://www.newrules.org),
which publishes a quarterly journal, The New Rules; several electronic
bulletins on specific issues; and books, including The Home Town Advantage:
How to Defend Your Main Street Against Chain Stores and Why It Matters. We
also maintain a web-based clearinghouse of model public policies at
http://home-town-advantage.c.tep1.com/maabFvOaa2calb2PRhIb/

Another good source of news on local efforts to keep megastores at bay is the
NewsFlash! section of the Sprawl-Busters web site
(http://www.sprawl-busters.com). Additional links and organizations are
listed at the end of each story.

If you're not already receiving this newsletter directly, subscribe by
sending a blank email to:
home_town_advantage-subscribe@topica.email-publisher.com To unsubscribe,
send a blank email to:
home_town_advantage-unsubscribe@topica.email-publisher.com.
Back issues are available at
http://home-town-advantage.c.tep1.com/maabFvOaa2canb2PRhIb/


REPRINT POLICY

Are you interested in reprinting an article from this bulletin in your
newsletter or web site? Please see our reprint policy:
http://home-town-advantage.c.tep1.com/maabFvOaa2caob2PRhIb/


I. LOCAL BATTLES

AUSTIN COALITION FORCES WAL-MART RETREAT,
CITY AGREES TO BIG BOX STUDY

Faced with strong opposition from a broad array of organizations and
residents, Wal-Mart has abandoned plans to build a 24-hour supercenter on an
ecologically sensitive site in southwest Austin. The 43-acre wooded tract
sits over the Edwards Aquifer, the largest underground reservoir in Texas. It
feeds Barton Springs and supplies drinking water to thousands of people.

Initially, opposition to Wal-Mart centered on its choice of location and the
impact polluted parking lot runoff would have on the aquifer. All of the
city's environmental groups, including the Austin Environmental Board, the
Sierra Club, and the Save Barton Creek Association, came together as the No
Aquifer Big Box Coalition to fight the project.

"But soon people with other concerns about Wal-Mart joined the coalition,"
explained Mike Blizzard of Grassroots Solutions, an Austin firm that helps
citizens fight bad development.

Groups who joined the coalition included the Austin Independent Business
Alliance, which is concerned about Wal-Mart's impact on local businesses; the
Austin AFL-CIO and several union locals, concerned about the company's
treatment of workers; the Austin chapter of the National Organization of
Women, concerned about Wal-Mart's discrimination against female employees;
Livable City, Austin Neighborhoods Together, and several other community
groups motivated by a range of social issues; and numerous homeowner
associations from the surrounding neighborhoods upset about the traffic and
noise the store would generate.

The coalition circulated petitions, organized a letter-writing campaign, and
held a public meeting attended by more than 500 people. Wal-Mart dropped the
project in late September.

Rather than disbanding, many coalition members continue to work together and
are formulating a citywide strategy to curb big box growth. "This has sparked
a broader discussion about big box retailers and about Wal-Mart in
particular," noted Blizzard. "Austin residents have learned a great deal
about Wal-Mart and its corporate practices through this controversy over the
aquifer."

"The scales fell from our eyes," said Susan Moffat, a neighborhood activist
who opposed the store initially because of its environmental impacts but
whose concerns now include economic and labor issues.

So far, the coalition has logged both victories and losses. In October, the
city council unanimously passed a 45-day moratorium on the construction of
stores over 50,000 square feet over the Edwards Aquifer (about one-quarter of
the aquifer's 350-square-mile watershed lies within Austin city limits). The
city will draft permanent regulations during the moratorium.

In early November, the city voted to commission a study of the impacts of big
box stores on Austin's economy and environment. The full scope of the study
will be determined in a few weeks.

But, under pressure from the developers, area chambers of commerce, and the
Real Estate Council of Austin, the city has given preliminary approval to two
other Wal-Mart stores and a Lowe's home improvement center.

The Lowe's, which will be built over the aquifer, was approved after a
protracted fight that included a bill passed by the Texas legislature known
as the "Lowe's amendment." The city felt the measure gave it no legal grounds
to block the store, but opponents contend Austin could have prevailed in
court.

The two new Wal-Mart stores will bring the city's total to four. The company
has said it wants to build several more supercenters within Austin over the
next year. But the coalition hopes that continued public education and
organizing, along with the results of the city's study, will persuade the
council to impose stricter regulations, including a citywide size cap.

-- No Big Box Coalition:
http://home-town-advantage.c.tep1.com/maabFvOaa2capb2PRhIb/


CALIFORNIA COMMUNITIES EMBROILED IN SUPERCENTER DEBATES

Voters in Contra Costa County, California, will decide in March whether to
keep a law banning supercenters from unincorporated areas in the county.
Contra Costa County is home to about one million people and lies east of the
San Francisco Bay area.

The law, which was approved unanimously by the County Board of Supervisors in
June, prohibits stores over 90,000 square feet that devote more than five
percent of their floor space to groceries. The measure prevents Wal-Mart and
Target from opening supercenters just beyond the borders of cities and towns.
These areas are attractive to developers, because of lower land costs and the
lack of municipal land use regulations.

Shortly after the ban passed, Wal-Mart spent $100,000 to gather the 27,000
signatures needed to put the measure on the March ballot. The company will
likely spend millions on the campaign. It has launched a "Consumer Action
Network" to collect residents' names and phone numbers, and has hired an army
of workers to persuade voters to rescind the ban. At $10 an hour, the
campaigners earn more than the $8 an hour Wal-Mart pays its supercenter
employees.

A variety of labor, environmental, and community organizations have joined
forces to convince voters to back the ban. The ordinance's sponsors,
Supervisors Mark DeSaulnier and John Gioia, are leading the campaign. They
plan to hold debates, press conferences, and go door to door to reach voters.
"We know we will be outspent and we plan to be outspent maybe 4-1. But we
hope to raise $1 million," DeSaulnier told the Tri-Valley Herald.

Supporters of the ban are focusing primarily on land use issues---the loss of
open space, the large volumes of traffic generated by grocery-department
store combinations, and the fact that groceries are nontaxable, leaving the
public to pay for the additional road maintenance costs.

"It's also about Contra Costa County---not Wal-Mart executives in
Bentonville, Arkansas---having the right to make its own decisions about
local planning," said Supervisor Gioia.

Wal-Mart is aiming to steer the referendum away from community issues and
turn it into an anti-union campaign. "So-called land-use arguments are
nothing more than a way to try to divert the real issues, which is that this
is being driven by [supermarket] unions," said company spokesperson Amy Hill.

Wal-Mart hopes that by winning the referendum it can send a strong message to
communities across California, where interest in banning supercenters is on
the rise. The state is one of the last frontiers for Wal-Mart supercenters.
When the company announced a year ago that it planned to open more than 40
supercenters across California, labor unions and community activists began
organizing to block the company's expansion.

In November, the Oakland city council voted 7-1 to adopt an ordinance similar
to the one in Contra Costa County. Earlier this year, Martinez, the county's
seat, implemented its own ban. Supervisors in Alameda County, which
encompasses Oakland, are also considering a ban. As we reported in the July
issue of this Bulletin, Los Angles is weighing a measure to require that big
box stores pay a living wage.

Voters in two other California cities will face Wal-Mart questions on the
March ballot. In San Marcos, about 35 miles north of San Diego, a grassroots
group called Citizens for Responsible Development gathered signatures for an
initiative to overturn a 3-2 decision by the city council to approve a
Wal-Mart supercenter. Wal-Mart tried to have the referendum invalidated by a
court, but failed. One city councilor who voted for the store has said he may
change his vote when the council reconsiders the matter on Nov. 18, which
would effectively cancel the referendum.

In Inglewood, near Los Angeles, Wal-Mart has organized an unprecedented
referendum to give voters the power to approve a supercenter that has not yet
gone before city officials. If it passes, the initiative would allow the
supercenter to go forward without a public hearing, environmental impact
study, or any of the other standard review procedures.

The initiative reads, "The reviewing official shall be required to issue the
requested permit or permits without the exercise of any discretion and no
development standards, criteria, requirements, procedures, mitigations or
exactions shall be imposed." The referendum needs a simple majority to pass,
but a two-thirds vote would be required to repeal or amend it.

"This is the most outrageous thing I've seen a corporation do in a low-income
community," said Madeline Janis-Aparicio, director of Los Angeles Alliance
for a New Economy, which is organizing opposition to the Inglewood
supercenter and support for the living wage measure in Los Angeles.

-- Los Angeles Alliance for a New Economy:
http://home-town-advantage.c.tep1.com/maabFvOaa2caqb2PRhIb/
-- See "Los Angeles May Require Supercenters to Pay Higher Wages," in the
July issue of this Bulletin:
http://home-town-advantage.c.tep1.com/maabFvOaa2carb2PRhIb/


BIG BOX WINS AND LOSSES ON ELECTION DAY

Voters in Lakeway, Texas, about 20 miles west of Austin, overwhelmingly
rejected a resolution to allow the construction of a 48-acre shopping center
anchored by a 184,00-square-foot Wal-Mart store. The election drew the
largest turnout in Lakeway history with residents voting 1,880 to 749 to
block the development by retaining the town's current 100,000-square-foot
size limit on retail stores.

The city council had earlier voted to lift the size cap and grant preliminary
approval to the project. Although the ballot resolution is non-binding, the
grassroots citizens group Lakeway First believes the strong showing at the
polls will convince the city council to withhold final approval for the
development and restore the size limit at its next meeting.

Meanwhile, by a margin of just 34 votes, residents of Cotati, a small town in
northern California, endorsed a referendum that will exempt a 52-acre site
from a city law prohibiting stores over 43,000 square feet. The vote, 1,047
to 1,013, opens the way for a 165,000-square-foot Lowe's superstore. The
developers spent $180,000 on the campaign, while citizens opposed to lifting
the cap, known as Cotati Residents Against Measure B, spent $30,000.

Residents Against Measure B are considering a legal challenge against the
city. They contend the referendum's language was confusing, and that city
officials misled residents by saying the store would produce $1 million
annually in new tax revenue. The city has never provided documentation
supporting this figure. For Lowe's to generate that much in sales tax
revenue, it would have to double its national average of $300 in sales per
square foot. Nor did the $1 million figure account for public costs
associated with the development, such as road maintenance, or lost revenue
from existing businesses that will lose sales when Lowe's opens.

-- No on B: http://home-town-advantage.c.tep1.com/maabFvOaa2casb2PRhIb/


ALABAMA CITIZENS SUE TO BLOCK WAL-MART GIVEAWAYS

Owners of a small business in Birmingham, Alabama, near the site of a
proposed Wal-Mart supercenter, have filed suit against the city for giving
the retailing giant a $10 million subsidy. Southeast Meats of Pelham, in
operation for over two decades, contends the handout gives Wal-Mart an unfair
advantage. The suit also asserts that the city improperly threatened to use
eminent domain to force owners of the Wal-Mart property to sell.

Meanwhile, 25 miles south in Alabaster, Alabama, a group of residents have
sued to block the city from condemning their property for a massive shopping
center anchored by a Wal-Mart supercenter. Developers acquired all but twelve
acres of the 400-acre site. When the remaining residents refused to sell, the
city declared their homes "blighted" and moved to take the property.
Alabaster has also pledged $2 million in roads and sewers for the project.

Cities are increasingly using their power to condemn property to facilitate
chain store development. Subsidies and tax breaks are rampant as well.

In October, Wheat Ridge, Colorado, declared property owned by three
independent businesses "blighted." The three enterprises---a
multi-generation, family-owned automotive repair shop, a billiards hall, and
a kitchen cabinet business---will be booted for a Walgreens drugstore. The
city has also given the developer $500,000 in public subsidies.

Meanwhile, in Denver, more than a dozen Asian-owned small businesses are
slated to evicted from a shopping center that Wal-Mart is seeking to
redevelop into a supercenter. The city's Urban Renewal Authority has offered
Wal-Mart $10 million in tax breaks. (Readers may recall that this plan first
surfaced more than a year ago, but, as we reported, the small businesses
successfully fought back. Now, under a new mayor, the project has resurfaced
and is moving forward.)

Local officials argue these big stores warrant subsidies because of the jobs
and tax revenue they generate. But studies have found that big box retailers
eliminate about as many jobs as much tax revenue as they create by forcing
local stores to close.

-- See "Denver's Asian Businesses Force Wal-Mart Retreat" and "Small
Businesses Fight Abuse of Eminent Domain" in the August 2002 issue of this
Bulletin:
http://home-town-advantage.c.tep1.com/maabFvOaa2catb2PRhIb/


II. ALLIANCES AND COOPERATIVES

AUSTIN RETAILERS URGE SHOPPERS TO DITCH CHAINS FOR A DAY

Independent retailers in Austin, Texas, are calling on local residents to
break the chain store habit by shopping exclusively at locally owned
businesses on Saturday, November 15.

The one-day event---known as Austin Unchained---is being organized by the
Austin Independent Business Alliance (AIBA), a association of some 200
locally owned businesses. The group is promoting Austin Unchained through
tee-shirts, flyers, and posters.

AIBA has generated significant media coverage in the days leading up to the
event, including appearances on local radio and television stations.

"Our core message is that there is a considerable economic impact when
consumers choose to make their purchases at locally owned stores instead of
chains," said Steve Bercu, owner of BookPeople and a co-founder of AIBA.

To support AIBA's contention, Civic Economics, a consulting firm, analyzed
the potential economic impact of the event. The firm concluded that if Austin
consumers shift all of their chain store spending to local businesses on that
day, it could generate an additional $7.2 million in local economic activity
(due to the fact that, compared to chains, local retailers spend a much
larger share of their revenue within the local economy, purchasing more goods
and services, such as printing and accounting, from other local businesses).

In the next issue of this Bulletin, we'll let you know how residents
responded to Austin Unchained.

-- To learn more about AIBA or order an Austin Unchained tee-shirt:
http://home-town-advantage.c.tep1.com/maabFvOaa2caub2PRhIb/
-- "Independent Businesses, Unite!" a recent article on independent business
alliances:
http://home-town-advantage.c.tep1.com/maabFvOaa2cavb2PRhIb/


III. NATIONAL NEWS

CONSUMER REPORTS GIVES TOP RANKING TO INDEPENDENT PHARMACIES

An article in the October 2003 issue of Consumer Reports opens with the
following recommendation: "If you're among the 47 percent of Americans who
get medicine from drugstore giants such as CVS, Eckerd, and Rite Aid, here's
a prescription: Try shopping somewhere else. The best place to start looking
is one of the 25,000 independent pharmacies that are making a comeback
throughout the U.S."

The article highlights the results of a year-long survey of more than 32,000
readers about their drugstore experiences. "Independent stores, which are
edging toward extinction a few years ago, won top honors from Consumer
Reports readers, besting the big chains by an eye-popping margin," the
magazine reports.

Independents outranked all other pharmacies----including drugstore chains,
supermarkets, mass merchandisers (e.g., Wal-Mart), and internet
companies---in terms of providing personal attention, offering health
services such as in-store screenings, filling prescriptions quickly,
supplying hard-to-find drugs, and obtaining out-of-stock medications within
24 hours.

Overall, more than 85 percent of customers at independent drugstores were
very satisfied or completely satisfied with their experience, compared with
58 percent of chain store customers.

The one drug chain that nearly equaled the scores of independent stores was
The Medicine Shoppe, which is actually a franchise, meaning that its outlets
are locally-owned and operated.

The survey did find that internet pharmacies and mass merchandisers often
have lower prices, but customers wait longer and receive less personal
attention and heath information. Chain drugstores, such as CVS and Walgreens,
had the highest prices, higher than independents.

-- If you subscribe to the Consumer Reports web site, you can download the
report: http://home-town-advantage.c.tep1.com/maabFvOaa2cawb2PRhIb/


COMMUNITY PHARMACISTS FIGHT DISCRIMINATORY HEALTH PLANS

Pennsylvania pharmacists are up in arms over a new health plan for state
workers that bars them from filling prescriptions at locally owned
drugstores, requiring instead that they use Rite Aid or a mail order service.

The plan is run by a pharmacy benefit management company (PBM), which the
state says will reduce costs by negotiating lower drug prices. In exchange,
employees must accept restrictions on where they fill their prescriptions.

"They bought a pig in a poke," contends John Rector, senior vice president
for government affairs at the National Community Pharmacists Association
(NCPA). More often than not, he says, it's more expensive to use a PBM. These
companies own their own mail order pharmacies and have financial ties to
major drug manufacturers. Benefits are often structured to boost profits for
the PBM and its affiliated drug company, not reduce costs or provide
high-quality care.

One reason that PBMs are more costly is that they underutilize generic drugs.
On average, more than half the drugs dispensed by a retail pharmacy are
generics, but under PBMs, the rate is only 28 percent. Name-brand drugs are
favored because PBMs commonly receive kickbacks from drug makers. Several
employers, including the state of West Virginia, have filed suits alleging
PBMs pocketed rebates and discounts, and did not deliver the cost savings
they promised.

In terms of quality of care, Rector says the decision-makers in Harrisburg
should visit the U.S. attorney in Philadelphia, who filed suit against Medco,
the nation's largest PBM, in September. The complaint alleges that Medco
routinely shorted customers by mailing less than the prescribed number of
pills but still charging full price; creating false records indicating
physicians had been contacted to discuss medications when they had not; and
favoring drugs manufactured by Merck, Medco's former parent company, over
less expensive alternatives.

The NCPA is working on several fronts to prevent PBMs from forcing
independent pharmacies out of businesses. The association and its members
have persuaded 33 states to adopt laws that bar health plans from limiting
patients' choice of pharmacies or imposing higher co-pays on those who choose
community pharmacies over chains or mail order.

The NCPA has also filed a class-action suit against Medco and AdvancePCS,
which together manage drug benefits for 140 million Americans. The suit
charges that the companies violated antitrust laws by using their market
power to force retail pharmacies to accept one-sided contracts and
artificially low reimbursement rates. It accuses them of steering consumers
to their own mail order operations by, for example, barring retail pharmacies
from providing more than a 30-day supply, while the mail order firms
routinely dispensed 90-day supplies.

-- National Community Pharmacists Association:
http://home-town-advantage.c.tep1.com/maabFvOaa2caxb2PRhIb/
-- Examples of state laws mandating equal access to all pharmacies:
http://home-town-advantage.c.tep1.com/maabFvOaa2cayb2PRhIb/


NATIONAL DAY OF ACTION AGAINST WAL-MART

The United Food and Commercial Workers union and dozens of allied groups are
organizing a National Day of Action to protest Wal-Mart's treatment of
workers and its impact on small businesses, communities, and the environment.
Rallies, meetings with lawmakers, and public educational events will be held
in all 50 states on Wednesday, January 14.

We may not get another issue of the Bulletin out before the 14th, so please
mark your calendars now and check the Day of Action web site (still under
construction) for state-by-state details and information on how you can get
involved: http://home-town-advantage.c.tep1.com/maabFvOaa2cazb2PRhIb/

Wal-Mart's labor practices have recently garnered coverage in mainstream
media. Here's a sampling:

Stores Follow Wal-Mart's Lead in Labor
Washington Post, November 6, 2003
http://home-town-advantage.c.tep1.com/maabFvOaa2caAb2PRhIb/

Illegally in U.S., and Never a Day Off at Wal-Mart
New York Times, November 5, 2003
http://home-town-advantage.c.tep1.com/maabFvOaa2caBb2PRhIb/

Is Wal-Mart Too Powerful?
Business Week, October 6, 2003
http://home-town-advantage.c.tep1.com/maabFvOaa2caCb2PRhIb/
(You can access it after a free registration.)


IV. NEW RULES

CALIFORNIA APPEALS COURT UPHOLDS FORMULA BUSINESS LAW

A California Appeals Court has upheld a local ordinance restricting the
proliferation of formula retail businesses in Coronado, a city of 24,000
people near San Diego. The court ruled that the ordinance does not violate
the US Constitution's commerce and equal protection clauses, and is a valid
use of municipal authority under California state law.

The ordinance, enacted in December 2000, requires anyone seeking to open a
formula retail business to obtain a special permit. Approval hinges on
demonstrating that the store will be compatible with surrounding uses, will
be designed and operated in a manner that preserves the community's character
and ambiance, and will contribute to an "appropriate balance of local,
regional, or national-based businesses." The ordinance further requires that
formula retail stores be limited to no more than 50 linear feet of street
frontage and no more than two stories.

The law defines formula retail businesses as those "required by contractual
or other arrangement to maintain any of the following: standardized
('formula') array of services and/or merchandise, trademark, logo, service
mark, symbol, decor, architecture, layout, uniform, or similar standardized
feature."

A group of property owners challenged the law several months after it was
enacted. The ordinance was upheld at the superior court level and then again
on appeal.

Most of the appeals court ruling deals with the property owners' primary
contention, which is that the ordinance discriminates against out-of-state
companies. The court found that the law does not in fact "impose different
regulations on interstate as opposed to intrastate businesses, nor does it
distinguish between those businesses that are locally owned and those that
are owned by out-of-state interests." The court notes the law focuses on
whether the store is contractually required to have standardized features,
regardless of whether it is part of a national chain or owned by a California
resident.

The court further ruled that the law does not have a discriminatory purpose.
The ordinance's lengthy preamble states that the city seeks to maintain a
vibrant and diverse commercial district, and that the unregulated
proliferation of formula businesses would frustrate this goal and lessen the
commercial district's appeal. The court concludes that this is a legitimate
purpose, noting that "the objective of promoting a diversity of retail
activity to prevent the city's business district from being taken over
exclusively by generic chain stores is not a discriminatory purpose under the
commerce clause."

The court also dismissed the equal protection and state law challenges,
stating that the ordinance is rationally related to a legitimate public
purpose.

-- To read the decision:
http://home-town-advantage.c.tep1.com/maabFvOaa2caDb2PRhIb/
-- To view Coronado's law and other examples of formula business ordinances:
http://home-town-advantage.c.tep1.com/maabFvOaa2caEb2PRhIb/


VOTE ON FEDERAL SALES TAX FAIRNESS BILL LIKELY IN EARLY 2004

Legislation introduced in Congress that would require internet retailers to
collect state and local sales taxes stands a fairly good chance of passing in
the first few months of 2004, according to supporters of the bill.

The bill, sponsored in the Senate by Byron Dorgan (D-SD) and Michael Enzi
(R-WY) and in the House by Rep. Bill Delahunt (D-MA), gives Congressional
approval to a national compact made up of states that have simplified and
aligned their sales tax rules and regulations. Once states have sufficiently
simplified their tax codes and joined the compact, they would be allowed to
require internet and mail order retailers with more than $5 million in annual
sales to collect local and state sales taxes.

Supporters argue that e-commerce companies like Amazon.com should be subject
to the same sales tax requirements imposed on bricks-and-mortar stores. The
legislation would also restore millions of dollars in state and local revenue
lost as consumers have migrated to internet shopping.

The Supreme Court has ruled that requiring remote sellers (e.g., mail order
or internet companies) to comply with the various rules and rates governing
the nation's 7,500 local sales tax jurisdictions would impose an unreasonable
burden on interstate commerce.

Led by the National Governors Association, a group of states began working
several years ago to streamline and simplify their sales tax rules, thus
removing the burden of collecting taxes for multiple jurisdictions and
opening the way for the bill now before Congress.

To date, 32 states have approved a model interstate agreement that
establishes uniform sales tax rules and definitions, and 20 state
legislatures have enacted implementing legislation.

Under the new rules, states and cities will still have the authority to
determine what goods are taxed at what rate, but must adhere to rules
governing such things as how and when they can change tax rates, as well as
uniform definitions (e.g., whether marshmallows are considered food or candy
for tax purposes).

-- For more on the bill and the Streamlined Sales Tax Project, see:
http://home-town-advantage.c.tep1.com/maabFvOaa2caFb2PRhIb/


V. INTERNATIONAL NEWS

IRISH PHARMACISTS CALL FOR LIMITS ON CORPORATE OWNERSHIP

The Irish Pharmaceutical Union (IPU) has asked the government to adopt
restrictions on the ownership of pharmacies similar to regulations in place
in most European countries.

The IPU favors restricting pharmacy ownership to pharmacists, and capping the
number of pharmacies any pharmacist can own at five. Eleven of the fifteen
European Union countries, including France and Germany, have similar laws
prohibiting corporate chains from operating drugstores. The rules are often
part of national healthcare regulations and are designed to preserve the
integrity of prescription drug services by keeping pharmacists in control.

More than one-third of Irish pharmacies are already part of a chain. In
Norway, where ownership restrictions were lifted two years ago, 70 percent of
drugstores are now owned by three chains.


MALAYSIA FREEZES HYPERMARKET CONSTRUCTION

Malaysia has placed a five-year ban on the construction of hypermarkets in
Klang Valley, which includes Kuala Lumpur, and the states of Johor and
Penang. New guidelines also lengthen the approval time for developers seeking
to build hypermarkets in other areas from four months to two years.

Hypermarkets are stores larger than 8,000 square meters (86,000 square feet)
that sell both department store merchandise and groceries, similar to
Wal-Mart supercenters. The global chains Carrefour, Tesco, Makro, and Giant
operate hypermarkets in Malaysia.

In announcing the new policy, Minister of Domestic Trade and Consumer Affairs
Tan Sri Muhyiddin Yassin said that the three regions are saturated with
hypermarkets and additional development of large stores would adversely
impact thousands of small businesses.

Klang Valley has 18 hypermarkets, or one for every 278,000 people. Planning
guidelines suggest no more than one per 350,000 people. The U.S. has one
supercenter for every 158,000 people.

-- For news on other countries that have restricted large-scale retail
development, see the International subheading at the end of our articles
index at:
http://home-town-advantage.c.tep1.com/maabFvOaa2caGb2PRhIb/


VI. RESOURCES

NEW REPORT ON STRATEGIES TO REVIVE LOCAL RETAIL

Written by Stacy Mitchell of the Institute for Local Self-Reliance and
published by the Preservation Trust of Vermont, a new report, "10 Reasons Why
Vermont's Homegrown Economy Matters and 50 Proven Ways to Revive It," offers
specific reasons why locally owned businesses matter and practical ways to
plan for a homegrown economy, foster downtown revitalization, and strengthen
independent businesses. The report highlights examples from across the U.S.

-- Download in pdf or contact the Preservation Trust for hard copies:
http://home-town-advantage.c.tep1.com/maabFvOaa2caHb2PRhIb/


DIRECTORY OF LAND USE ATTORNEYS

A directory of attorneys who will represent citizens in land use and
environmental cases has just been published by Community and Environmental
Defense Services (CEDS). CEDS has only done minimal screening of the
attorneys listed and urges citizens groups to exercise prudence in hiring an
attorney. CEDS hopes to enlarge the directory over time and encourages people
to contact them with names and contact information for attorneys with a good
history of representing citizens in land use and environmental cases.

-- Download in pdf:
http://home-town-advantage.c.tep1.com/maabFvOaa2caIb2PRhIb/



Copyright 2003 by the Institute for Local Self-Reliance. No portion of this
bulletin, except for brief quotations with attribution, may be reproduced or
utilized in any form without permission from the Institute for Local
Self-Reliance, 1313 5th Street SE, Minneapolis MN 55414 - Tel: 612-379-3815 -
Fax: 612-379-3920 - Web:
http://home-town-advantage.c.tep1.com/maabFvOaa2caJb2PRhIb/ - Email:
smitchell@ilsr.org.

====================================================================
Update your profile here:
http://home-town-advantage.u.tep1.com/survey/?b1dhm6.b2PRhI.d2VibWFz

Unsubscribe here:
http://home-town-advantage.u.tep1.com/survey/?b1dhm6.b2PRhI.d2VibWFz.u

Delivered by Topica Email Publisher, http://www.email-publisher.com/






  • [Livingontheland] The Home Town Advantage Bulletin, Tradingpost, 11/17/2003

Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page