Wal Mart

The thrust of The Sun's editorial and the approach of public officials for decades for improving Liberty Road and other secondary roads with aging retail areas has been to treat the problems as economic development issues ("Life on Liberty Road," May 23). The solutions have been to update failing areas with new buildings without dealing with the core problems. People need to be connected to their neighborhoods. Suburban Baltimore County communities were built around the love affair with the car. They became commuting communities.

I am moving to Baltimore in a couple days to attend the University of Baltimore School of Law this fall. I have already signed a lease for a home in Remington. I do not want to live near a Wal-Mart. Study after study has confirmed that Wal-Mart creates a net loss of jobs, drives out locally-owned small businesses and depresses wages. Being from the South, I've seen the effects of Wal-Mart first hand. Where Wal-Mart doesn't crush all other local businesses, it doesn't make enough of a profit and it quickly moves on, leaving an ugly big box store, unemployed workers and taxpayers holding the bill.

Recent discussion about living-wage legislation introduced by Councilwoman Mary Pat Clarke and the proposed development at 25th and Howard streets has muddled the issues with comments hostile toward the legislation and dismissive of community concerns about the 25th Street Station project. Whether these comments are purposely misleading or just ill informed remains to be seen — but we do know some facts. Retail is one of the fastest-growing sectors of the economy, and it will remain so for the foreseeable future.

The Sun is right to question the worth of Councilwoman Mary Pat Clarke's legislation requiring Wal-Mart to pay a "living wage" to employees ("Another Wal-Mart bill?" May 5). However, the issue is hardly as simple as a local lawmaker being "unfair" to a giant, predatory corporation. Some of The Sun's rhetorical questions are well-aimed: indeed, why single out Wal-Mart when so many other business pay low wages? It's probably a safe bet that Ms. Clarke did not sit down and analyze the national and global economic situations before proposing her bill.

Five years ago, we chastised the Maryland General Assembly for attempting to single out one retailer, Wal-Mart Stores Inc. , with a law requiring the company to spend more on health benefits. That mandate was eventually struck down by the federal courts. Well, here those Maryland politicians go again. Baltimore City Councilwoman Mary Pat Clarke this week introduced a measure to require the city's largest retailers to pay their employees a "living wage," (currently about $10 an hour)

Four years ago, when Maryland legislators approved what became known as the Wal-Mart bill - a mandate that would have forced the retailing giant to either pay a minimum amount for employee health benefits or a hefty penalty to the state - it was derided by the company as both bad public policy and illegal. The latter objection proved to be true. It was thrown out by a federal appeals court as a violation of federal law that limits states' ability to regulate employee benefits. But the reasoning behind the proposal was sound: If companies are to compete on a level playing field, how can some be burdened with the obligation of providing increasingly expensive health care insurance while others are not?

U.S. seeks class action vs. Wal-Mart SAN FRANCISCO: The Obama administration sided with women suing Wal-Mart Stores Inc. for discrimination yesterday, urging a federal appeals court to let current and former workers sue as a group and proceed with the biggest sex-bias case in U.S. history. The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission rejected Wal-Mart's argument that as many as 2 million workers shouldn't be allowed to seek back pay and punitive damages as a group because that would violate the company's right to defend itself against each worker's claims before a jury.

NEW YORK -U.S. retailers' February sales showed their best performance in five months, aided by pent-up demand for new spring merchandise, and Presidents Day and Valentine's Day sales. Still, the better-than-expected performance didn't mean there's light at the end of the tunnel for retailers in the face of the across-the board consumer cutbacks, analysts said. They said some results were also driven by promotions that hurt profit margins. March sales will likely be negative with a calendar shift of Easter to April, they said.

A Baltimore police officer and his wife were charged in the attempted theft of more than $1,100 in items from a Wal-Mart store in Owings Mills this week, authorities said yesterday. Store security guards stopped the officer, Robert H. Gordon, 44, and Daniella Gordon, 40, outside the store after watching them leaving with the items, Baltimore County police said. The couple had purchased about $150 worth of goods - mostly household items such as cleaning supplies, clothing and food - and tried to hide other items beneath the ones they had bought, according to Bill Toohey, a Baltimore County police spokesman.

Economic gloom, as expected, dragged down Christmas sales at retailers throughout the U.S., with discounters like Wal-Mart, luxury vendors like Neiman Marcus and pretty much everybody in between saying that their holiday season results were poorer than expected. In the first wave of what is expected to be a steady flow of bad news from the retail sector in early 2009, individual companies yesterday began reporting December results and announcing steps to cope with the disappointing sales and profits.