• Home
• People
• All Blogs
• Posts
• Comments
• Inside Guide

As the world's biggest retailer, Wal-Mart Stores Inc. pays billions of dollars a year in rent for its stores. Luckily for Wal-Mart, in about 25 states it has been paying most of that rent to itself -- and then deducting that amount from its state taxes.

The strategy is complex, but the bottom line is simple: It has saved Wal-Mart from paying several hundred million dollars in taxes, according to court records and a person familiar with the matter. And Wal-Mart is far from alone.

IT'S A DEAL
The arrangement takes advantage of a tax loophole that the federal government plugged decades ago, but which many states have been slower to catch. Here's how it works: One Wal-Mart subsidiary pays the rent to a real-estate investment trust, or REIT, which is entitled to a tax break if it pays its profits out in dividends. The REIT is 99%-owned by another Wal-Mart subsidiary, which receives the REIT's dividends tax-free. And Wal-Mart gets to deduct the rent from state taxes as a business expense, even though the money has stayed within the company.

Partly thanks to sophisticated financial strategies like these, states' tax collections from companies have been plummeting. On average, Wal-Mart has paid only about half of the statutory state tax rates for the past decade, according to Standard & Poor's Compustat, which collects data from SEC filings. The so-called "captive REIT" strategy alone cut Wal-Mart's state taxes by about 20% over one four-year period. Now several state regulators are trying to crack down on the strategy, used largely by retailers and banks, and some other states have changed their laws to try to end the practice. Yesterday, New York Gov. Eliot Spitzer included elimination of the loophole as part of his proposed budget, a fix he said would bring the state $83 million a year.

North Carolina tax authorities are challenging Wal-Mart, saying its REIT strategy was intended to "distort [the company's] true net income," according to its filings in the case in Superior Court in Raleigh, N.C. The state calls captive REITs a "high priority corporate tax sheltering issue" and in 2005 ordered Wal-Mart to pay $33 million for back taxes, interest and penalties stemming from the REIT. The company paid it and last year sued the state for a refund.

The structure Wal-Mart is using features some unusual elements. Because REITs must have at least 100 shareholders to gain tax benefits, roughly 100 Wal-Mart executives were enlisted to own a combined total of around 1% of the REIT's shares, without any voting rights. H. Lee Scott Jr., now Wal-Mart's CEO, was listed as the REIT's "managing trustee" from 1996 to 2004.

A single Wal-Mart real-estate official, Tony Fuller, represented the company both as tenant and landlord in its lease with itself. Ernst & Young LLP, the accounting firm that sold the strategy to Wal-Mart, also is the company's outside auditor. In its internal sales training materials, the accounting firm explicitly labeled the strategy as a method to reduce taxes -- a red flag to tax authorities, who often demand that tax shelters have other business purposes.

Wal-Mart attorneys say in court filings that the strategy is perfectly legal and that North Carolina is exceeding its authority. A spokesman for the Bentonville, Ark., company, John Simley, said Wal-Mart "is comfortable with its current structure and is in compliance with federal and state tax laws." He added that the REIT structure was adopted to "more effectively and efficiently manage the company's real-estate portfolio, including the impact on the company's overall state tax planning."

Regulators in at least a half-dozen states are going after companies that have trimmed their taxes through similar arrangements, including Regions Financial Corp.'s AmSouth Bancorp. unit; AutoZone Inc. of Memphis, Tenn.; and two units of Bank of America Corp. In a Massachusetts case against Bank of America unit Fleet Funding Inc., authorities call Fleet's REIT arrangement a "sham" in court filings. They note that Fleet increased the salaries of the roughly 100 employees whom it made REIT shareholders to compensate them for personal income taxes stemming from ownership. The Multistate Tax Commission, an association of state revenue authorities, says it has started examining the use of captive REITs to avoid taxes, alerting states to the issue and proposing legislative fixes to close the loophole.

States collected more than $44 billion last year in corporate income taxes, out of $607 billion in total state tax receipts, according to the Nelson A. Rockefeller Institute of Government, a nonpartisan think tank associated with the State University of New York. But the average effective corporate state and local tax rate has dropped from 6.7% during the 1980s to about 5% during the first half of this decade, according to a recent report by the Congressional Research Service. This is in part because of the proliferation of state and local tax breaks, as well as tax shelters, according to several academic and government studies.

Some corporate state tax planners say arrangements like these are merely smart business, and that the loopholes exploited by companies should be fixed by state legislatures rather than litigated by state lawyers. Critics of the shelters complain they let companies use public services provided by local governments -- such as police and fire protection or new highways -- without having to shoulder their fair share of the costs. Meanwhile, the portion of state taxes borne by individuals is steadily rising.

Congress created REITs in 1960 as a way to allow smaller investors to put money in a wide portfolio of commercial real estate, spreading their risk. Congress also gave them a tax benefit: REITs aren't subject to corporate income tax on the profits they pay to shareholders as long as they pay out at least 90% of the profits. The shareholders still usually get federally taxed on the dividends, which still count as income for them.

After a boom in REITs in the early 1990s, big accounting firms including Ernst & Young and KPMG LLP figured out that on the state level, they could pair the tax break on REIT dividends with a separate tax rule that allows companies to receive dividends tax-free from their subsidiaries. With the REIT as a subsidiary itself, two rules aimed at avoiding double taxation could be combined to effectively avoid any taxation at all.

The strategy worked especially well if the REIT was owned by a company incorporated, and claiming to do all its business, in a state such as Delaware or Nevada that often wouldn't tax the corporate income anyway. That created an extra hurdle for other states to challenge the practice if they caught onto it.

Ernst & Young early on targeted the banking industry as a possible beneficiary of the captive REIT strategy. Like retailers, banks have branches in many states and often are liable for lots of state-level corporate tax. Ernst & Young targeted at least 30 banks, some of them its audit clients. The SEC generally permits that dual role as long as the firm's fee isn't contingent on the tax savings.

According to documents from a 1995 internal Ernst & Young sales training meeting reviewed by The Wall Street Journal, the accounting firm suggested banks put some of their income-producing assets, such as a portfolio of mortgages, into a REIT subsidiary, then use the double-tax break to "shelter" the income from state taxes. The REIT would issue a tiny number of non-voting shares to bank "officers and directors" to meet the 100-shareholder rule that REIT law requires.

U.S. banks "pay millions of dollars each year in state and local taxes," read the Ernst & Young presentation to its sales force. "The FSI State Tax Financial Product we have developed can significantly reduce or eliminate this heavy tax obligation..." One section of the Ernst & Young sales package featured hypothetical questions from clients about the REIT shelter, and the proposed answers. To pass legal muster, many corporate tax shelters purport to have additional business purposes behind merely saving taxes. Ernst & Young, however, was blunt about the reason for its proposed strategy:

"Q: What's the business purpose?
"A: Reduction in state and local taxes.

"Q: What if the press gets wind of this and portrays us as a 'tax cheat'?
"A: That's a possibility....If you are concerned about possible negative publicity, you can counter it by reinvesting the savings in the community."

An Ernst & Young spokesman declined to comment on its REIT work, saying the firm was "prohibited from commenting on client matters." The spokesman said he could not verify the authenticity of the internal sales training documents based on quotes provided by the Journal. However, he said the "limited language communicated in the internal memo does not reflect the quality and nature of the advice we provide to our clients."

State authorities have had mixed records so far in pursuing back taxes and penalties in captive-REIT cases. AutoZone, the big auto-parts chain, won the right to deduct the dividends from its taxes in Kentucky but lost a preliminary round in Louisiana . The Hawaii Department of Taxation won a case involving a REIT used by Central Pacific Financial Corp., a bank holding company. AmSouth is in litigation with Alabama over tax benefits from its REIT.

Fleet Funding's REIT, on which the company was advised by KPMG, has led Massachusetts to seek more than $42 million in back taxes, interest and penalties. BankBoston Corp. is in similar litigation with Massachusetts . Both banks have been acquired by Bank of America, which declined to comment on the litigation.

Fleet's attorneys have said in court papers that its REITs were legitimate, and the fact that they were partly motivated by tax considerations does not legally undermine their valid business purpose -- to raise capital, they say. A KPMG spokeswoman declined to comment on the Fleet case, but said it had stopped any involvement with "prepackaged tax products" before a 2005 agreement it made with the U.S. Justice Department over improper tax strategies that also led to the indictment of 17 former KPMG officials.

It's unknown how many disputes have been raised over the strategy used by Wal-Mart and others, because such tax disputes are generally not disclosed unless lawsuits are publicly filed or the company reveals them in SEC filings.

Wal-Mart adopted its captive-REIT structure just as it was unwinding a previous strategy to reduce taxes that states had begun to challenge. For the first half of the 1990s, the retailer used a so-called intangible holdings company structure also used by many other corporations. Wal-Mart transferred its trademarks to a subsidiary called WMR Inc. in Delaware, which does not tax many forms of corporate income. Then it paid the subsidiary for the use of the brands. That allowed Wal-Mart to deduct those payments from its local income taxes in some states, while WMR's income wasn't taxed by Delaware.

Several states won challenges to the strategy, used by various retailers. Wal-Mart settled a dispute over its use of WMR in Louisiana -- the details of the settlement are sealed -- and lost on the main points of a case in New Mexico. Wal-Mart merged with WMR in February of 1997 and its use as a state tax avoidance vehicle was apparently discontinued, according to New Mexico court records.

In the meantime, Wal-Mart set up a new vehicle to control its state tax bill: captive REITs. In the summer and fall of 1996, Delaware corporate records show, Wal-Mart created a new hierarchy of subsidiaries: a REIT called the Wal-Mart Real Estate Business Trust; a Delaware-based parent company for the REIT, called the Wal-Mart Property Co.; and Wal-Mart Stores East Inc., parent of the Delaware firm. Wal-Mart Property owned 99% of the REIT's shares, and 100% of the voting shares, according to Wal-Mart court filings in North Carolina and West Virginia. The company also set up a similar arrangement for its Sam's Club stores.

To meet the 100-shareholder threshold required for REITs, Wal-Mart distributed a minimal amount of nonvoting stock, to approximately 114 Wal-Mart employees, according to a person familiar with the arrangement. The dividend payouts were nominal. The structure involved Wal-Mart's top executive tier. The shareholders were generally executive vice presidents and above. David Glass, then Wal-Mart's president and CEO, was listed as president of Wal-Mart Stores East on the lease agreement, and Paul Carter, then a Wal-Mart executive vice president, was listed as the president of the REIT.

Wal-Mart began transferring to the REIT ownership of the properties -- the land and buildings -- for hundreds of its stores in 27 states, real-estate records show. Then Wal-Mart Stores East signed a 10-year lease agreement with its REIT that took effect on Jan. 31, 1997, agreeing to pay a fixed percentage of the stores'"gross sales" as rent, according to a copy of the arrangement filed in the North Carolina case. Mr. Fuller, the Wal-Mart real-estate official, is listed as the contact for both the tenant and the landlord. The original lease was due to be renewed this week.

Wal-Mart could deduct from its state-taxable income the rent paid by Wal-Mart Stores East to the REIT. The REIT paid the majority of its rental earnings to its 99% owner, Wal-Mart Property Co., in the form of dividends. That company's base in Delaware gave it another way to avoid liability for state taxes, since some states do require that dividends a REIT pays to its corporate owner be taxed, as the federal government does.

The Delaware subsidiary then paid the money back to Wal-Mart Stores East, the same subsidiary that made the payments to the REIT to begin with. Those payments to Wal-Mart Stores East weren't taxed either, because dividends paid to a corporation by a subsidiary normally aren't counted as taxable income for the parent company.

The result of the circuitous transaction: Wal-Mart could effectively turn rental payments to itself into state level tax-deductions in most of the states where the payments have been made. Under typical circumstances, rent paid to a third-party landlord also would reduce taxable income. But that would ordinarily be cash out the door, like most other tax-deductible expenses. Here, the majority of the tax-deductible rental payments came straight back to Wal-Mart.

The national tax savings have been significant. Over a four-year period, from 1998 to 2001, Wal-Mart and Sam's Club paid company-controlled REITs a total of $7.27 billion that eventually came back to Wal-Mart in states across the country, according to a North Carolina Department of Revenue auditor's report filed in court by Wal-Mart. Based on an average state corporate income tax rate of 6.5%, three accounting experts consulted by The Wall Street Journal estimated the REIT payments led to a state tax savings for Wal-Mart of roughly $350 million over just those four years. SEC filings show the company paid $1.18 billion in state taxes during that period. The loss of federal deductions that bigger state tax payments would have triggered brought the company's effective tax savings overall down to about $230 million. Wal-Mart declined to comment on the figures.

It is not clear how much Wal-Mart has paid to its own REITs in the most recent five years. The yearly rental payments -- on which the tax savings are based -- are pegged to the "gross sales" of the stores, according to the lease agreement.

Underscoring that the rental payments were cashless Wal-Mart accounting moves, an affidavit filed in North Carolina by the company's former controller, James A. Walker Jr., states that the payments were made by simply debiting the account of one subsidiary and then crediting the account of the other. "Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. served, in effect, as a bank for" both sides, the affidavit stated.

In 2005, after an audit, the North Carolina Department of Revenue issued a notice to Wal-Mart challenging the REIT structure. The state is site of about 140 of the company's roughly 3,900 U.S. stores, including Sam's Clubs. Wal-Mart paid the $33 million the state sought, and in March 2006 sued for a refund.

The company argues that the state does not have the authority to essentially combine the results of the subsidiary that did business in North Carolina with those of the Delaware-based unit and the REIT. The Delaware-based subsidiary, the company says, did no business in North Carolina and therefore was not taxable there. The company says in court filings that the REIT was qualified under federal law, that all the deductions were properly taken and that its North Carolina tax returns reflect its "true income."

© 2007 The Wall St. Journal

You said they are not alone.  Any other names you'd care to share?  It would surprise me if most major corps. didn't do the same thing, or similar anyway.  I know all of them look for loopholes to avoid taxes.   Come to think of it..so do most of us little people, just on a much smaller scale.  

I know it sounds like I'm always defending WM but I'm really not.  It just irks me that people pick out one company and rant about it when there are a lot more who are using the same tactics.  I know, I know, it's because WM is the biggest bully on the block.

As for benefits..I keep repeating, I had very good benefits when I worked there.  Insurance cost about the same as where I now work, 401K plan THEY paid into etc.  I think one major difference is that I'm told they no longer hire full time people and that the time to be eligible for benefits has been extended.  There's no way I'd want to go back to work there but then, I wouldn't  want to go back to waitressing or bartending either.  I had NO real benefits there.

Regardless of popular opinion, MHO is that it provides entry level jobs....oh..I said that already didn't I?

Nancy, regarding your comment that there are no neighborhoods near the proposed Wal-Mart on Panama Lane....there are several. I live in one. There are large neighborhoods on  both sides of the 99 and on both sides of Panama Lane.  The traffic on Panama would be impacted greatly between Wible and South H if that Wal-Mart goes in. It's already a mess with the Lowe's there....more accidents, lots of noise, more rowdies.  Just to let you know.

Nancy:

Before

After

Still think there aren't any neighborhoods affected? The rear (loading dock) of the Super Wal-Mart is directly across from those houses. And there's no way to stop refer trucks from using it at 3am.

BTW, the Bakersfield Metro General Plan had a 4-5 acre park there for the neighborhood to use. The next closest park is over a mile away. The remainder of the area was supposed to be more houses.

I would like to see Gosford Village live up to its original puffed-up promise -- a shopping center better than the Marketplace by Haggin Oaks.

A Super Wal-Mart should shatter that promise forever.

But our town is known for its big and grand plans that go nowhere.

The hardcore people that like to shop at Wal-Mart will continue to go, and those of us who find their tactics and their stores offensive will continue to stay away. Wal-Mart just posted its worst comp month's sales results in 28 years this April with declines  of  shoppers and overall sales. Their move to more upscale products has been a failure thus far with many articles indicating that the idea will be scrapped altogether. I get the fact that many people consider retail, fast food, home service jobs all to be entry level positions, but what happens when those are really the only positions for many people? The thinking that only losers work these jobs is a big part of why there is so much bitterness and resentment throughout our little nation. If you want help, courtesy and thoughtfulness you have to pay to get it. When cheap is all you're interested in rudeness and thoughtlessness is what prevails.
Cheap does not make anything better. It only robs people of dignity and respect. You might try reading  Nickle and Dimed by Barbara Ehrenreich for another perspective on this growing class of Americans.

Patblue1947, the Super Wal-Mart on Panama is in a (planned) residential area. Or was, until the plans were approved and building started (illegally). Click on the "before" and "after" links I posted for Nancy above. It was planned for residential and a (regional) neighborhood park. It wasn't built yet, but that doesn't mean that the neighbors weren't expecting it to, eventually.

Matt..thanks for making my point for me.  The block walls are already there, the entire corner is a commercial area, it's near an off/on ramp, Denny's has been there forEVER along with the trucker hotel behind it, and the block wall acts as a sound barrier.  If that's not enough, they can petition for a taller block wall such as seen along the freeway.  Walmart isn't going to destroy that neighborhood..it's already commercial  I saw somewhere that the canal project is stirring again..that will also add to the commercialism in that area.

As far as the other Supercenter down on Gosford, that's another story except that it's also already a commercial area.  They (take your pick who "they" are) stopped the WM store there but allowed Kohls and the Petco store to remain while also allowing a Sams Club.  Now, no one ever said our city planners were the brightest bulbs in the box but what I am saying is that the supercenter isn't going to destroy the city...or even the neighborhoods.

Was the park supposed to be located on the property where the WM stores are supposed to be built?

To consider WM workers to be losers, or to even suggest that they can't do any better is ridiculous.  A lot of college students work there because of the flexible hours.  When they finish school, they move on to better jobs.  That's the idea you know  the ability to survive while being able to finish school.  Retirees work there, housewives who just want part time work, people who are just entering the job market and have no experience, people like me who needed a break from past jobs.  There are any number of reasons people work at places like WM and yes, there ARE some losers there but you can spot them right away by the lack of work ethics.

Please don't tell me that the small stores can absorb all the high school/college kids who need pocket money.  Don't tell me that small mom and pop stores can afford to hire more than a couple of people at a time.  Do you have any idea how many people are employed by WM in all 3 stores?  When I worked there we had over 300 employed in that store alone...add the other two stores to that and it's significant number of people.  Add Sams club and a supercenter and figure the number of people who have jobs.  Are you going to find them jobs in small stores, boutiques?  They may not be the highest paying or the most desirable jobs but they are jobs nonetheless.

As for the medical/WM issue?  Yeah..I'd much rather see to it that a a woman with children working to help pay her own way be eligible for medical if she's not eligible for insurance because at least she's working and not sitting home watching soap operas.  The idea is to get them working for experience so they CAN stand on their own two feet.

I fully support welfare to work and CalWorks programs.  That's the case of a hand up, not a hand out.   Geezz..that's a whole nother topic.  I'll quit before I get too many topics going.

 

I also read his biography and was impressed.  It's one reason some folks are saying he would roll over in his grave if he saw what has been done to his company and the way his family sold out.  For those who weren't aware, it was his wife who suggested they call employees associates and make them a part of the family by offering stock options and bonuses.  She felt it would build more loyalty that way.  A gal I worked with started with the company when she was 17 back in AR I believe.  She was in her 40's and was worth over a million dollars.  She had money taken out for stocks all those years...it certainly paid off for her.

 

The Walmart (I see the spelling nazis are out in force) that Sam Walton had envisisioned is NOT the Walmart of today.  Even his closest friends and relatives have conceded that point.  For one, Sam envisioned a store that would carry ONLY American made products.  Have you looked at the inventory of a Walmart lately?  There have been several cases in which American companies have been shut-down because of Walmart's policies.  Chinese labor is cheaper than American labor and THAT is where your "low prices" come from.  Sam also wanted to keep his stores clean, friendly, and personal (hence the "greeters" at the door). 

I was at the city council meetings when they first started talking about this development.  I had concerns about the additional traffic to Harris Road (especially in front of Suburu School).  Walmart, and the developer, LIED OUT OF THEIR TEETH in the rebuttals made by our group.  They claimed that there would be NO increased traffic on Harris Road.  Guess what?  As soon as the Kohls and Sam's opened, ... the traffic got worse.  I'm not upset that traffic increased (that was bound to happen), I'm upset that they feigned ignorance to the potential.  Same goes for the parking lot lighting - I *know* a bunch of people went before the city council and voiced concerns about lighting in their houses at night.  The developer said that there would be no appreciable change in the amount of light visible across Gosford.  HA!!  Drive down Gosford at night and look at the light hitting some of those houses.  Like Hardliner, I recall the statements by the developer about making the area "better than the Market Place".  I remember discussions wherein it was claimed that they were going to put in "significant and mature landscaping."  And, I recall the promises to keep trash in the parking lots to a minimum.  NONE of these promises have been kept.  When I called to ask about these promises, I was rudely informed that the developer considered the initial claims to be null and void since the big, bad regulators stopped their construction. 

As for shopping - a few people, here in comments, seem to suggest that; if you're not shopping at Walmart, you must be shopping at the mall or other high priced stores.  Um.  Not really.  I shop at Target.  I shop at amazon.com.  I shop at Borders. I shop at Trader Joes.  We shop where we can get the best values, but we also have a social conscience.  We are mindful of our global footprint and, I don't know about all of you, but the thought of some nine year old, Chinese girl sitting amidst plastic television parts to produce Walmart's "sale of the week" really makes me feel like a rotten human.  I'm a bargain shopper... I just try to minimize the profit of large corporations on the backs of peasants in foreign countries (beyond the reach of fair labor standards and practices). 

As far as food goes, I'll take the farmer's market and locally grown/produced foods any day.  It's healthier for you and, if you plan a bit, you can eat cheaper than you'd think. 

Oh and... the distance between Walmarts (from Rosedale to Gosford and Harris or White Lane and Buena Vista) are almost identical...there goes that theory.

Possum..the Farmers Market idea is great..if you buy fresh vegetables.  I'm one of those carnivores who eat few veggies and then only canned (other than potatoes).

(General statement)  I use WM for paper products, dog food (not Ole Roy), sundries that I don't get at Dollar Tree, and, on occasion, clothing.  I've never had any luck with Target having the products I use at the price I'll pay.  And don't kid yourselves...Targets products aren't made in the US any more than WM's are.  Before WM came to town, it was K-Mart and Target who were the bad boys who drove out small businesses.  They all carry basically the same brands on cleaning products and major brands.  Does anyone acutally believe that the Sony TV you buy is made any differently at Target than it is at WM?  The same little Chinese girl doesn't know or care which store sells the product she helped make.

Most of the people I know who prefer Target say it's because of the congestion and the clientele at WM.  One of the reasons Target stays so clean is because it isn't as busy...not even at Christmas.  The parking lot at WM on Rosedale isn't any worse then the parking lot at Rosedale Target.

I still say..you (the people) don't want to shop WM then don't.  It's not mandatory.   But for the rest of us..let us have an option.  I thought that was what freedom was all about.  Do I have to call the ACLU?  (kidding folks..lol)

1 2

Leave a Comment

Ground Rules for posting comments:

• No profanity or personal attacks.
• Please comment on the subject of the post itself.

If you do not follow these rules we will remove your comment. Please keep it civil.

 

To protect users from spam, please enter the text from the image on the left.

   

About eyeofbakersfield Member Since: July 05, 2006 Last Signed In: May 05, 2008 Profile Views: 5408 Blog Views: 76112 View Profile Send a Message Send To A Friend Sign Guestbook Add as a Friend Previous Posts Relay for Life -- Bakersfield a leader Lay off the old people, you NFL bruisers Scratching and rubbing, good feelings Female-only buses in Mexico City, but not Bakersfield A $200,000 ride to space, how nice How healthy are your dogs? Mother gives up newborn to Bakersfield fire station A $2,000 puppy stolen in Oildale How much of a hassle are fog delays? Fog, the thing I like least about Bakersfield Archives July 06 August 06 September 06 October 06 November 06 December 06 January 07 February 07 March 07 April 07 May 07 June 07 July 07 August 07 September 07 October 07 November 07 December 07 January 08 February 08 March 08 April 08 May 08 June 08 July 08 August 08 September 08 October 08 More Archives June 06 May 06 April 06 March 06 February 06 January 06 December 05 November 05 October 05 September 05 Blog Roll Ask The Californian Editorials Entertainment Eye of Bakersfield Faith Forum Fired Up! Inside Sports Neighbors Right Thinking Sound Off Talk of the Town Subscribe! RSS 2.0 How does this work? Share!

eyeofbakersfield - > Eye of Bakersfield -> Can Wal-marts in Bakersfield be any more super?

Can Wal-marts in Bakersfield be any more super? First of all, I am personally ashamed and embarrassed that it would seem I'm poking fun at two Wal-mart supercenters in Bakersfield just because they are part of a huge corporate giant. But moving along, the Bakersfield Planning Commission will accept public comment Thursday evening (6/7) on two environmental impact reports for the proposed centers  on Panama Lane near Highway 99 and Gosford Road near Pacheco Road. These aren't just Wal-marts. They are supercenters. I've been in all three Wal-marts in Bakersfield and they all seem like supercenters to me. Hard to imagine anything larger. The EIRs are two-inches thick. That's a lot of blue light specials. (oops, wrong mart) Without reading a word of those mammoth documents, do you have any thoughts on whether Bakersfield is ready for these behemoth bargain basements? Posted by Steve E. Swenson   Leave Comment Subscribe to comments Posted in these Groups: Topics: posted by eyeofbakersfield on Wednesday, June 6, 2007 at 01:17 PM Report a Violation Viewed 538 times 62 comments from 27 users <Reverse Sort Order> 1 2 posted by Griffon64 on Jun 6, 2007 at 01:44 PM If this means that they'll take out the Wal-Mart in the NW Promenade on Rosedale Hwy and its constant stream of slow-walking shoppers crossing the road in front of it, forcing me to scoot around using the street closer to the road to get by, I may be all for it. But then again, no. Less Wal-Marts, please. Been once to see what it was like and had no desire to go again. Report Violation posted by DOHandel on Jun 6, 2007 at 02:03 PM I'm all for seeing a Wal-Mart Super Store or two come here to Bakersfield.  Some of the older stores should be demolished, as they just don't have the ammenties as the newer big Wal-Marts.  Bakersfield needs these stores for their residents to enjoy shopping at.  Having shopped in Super Wal-Marts in various parts of the USA, I really have enjoyed having everything you need under one roof.   Dennis H. Report Violation posted by djfrancis on Jun 6, 2007 at 02:07 PM IF YOU ALLOW A COST-CO AND A SAM'S CLUB JUST DOWN THE STREET WHY NOT ALLOW A SUPER CENTER. I THINK WE NEED THE COMPETITION IN THE AREA. THE LARGER CORPORATE STORES WILL HAVE TO BE COMPETITIVE TO STAY, WHICH WOULD BE GOOD FOR THE SHOPPER. Report Violation posted by randomfactor on Jun 6, 2007 at 02:17 PM No, it will not be good for the shopper for smaller, locally-owned stores to close. Report Violation posted by anonymous on Jun 6, 2007 at 02:21 PM Why not Irma Carson and Zack can always use another empty carcass building in  their ward. Maybe they can put bars on the windows to house the annual gang round up cache. He one more dollars store is another option, that would make three within three blocks. Oh and super centers sell a lot of good cheap Chinese veggies as well as some of those healthy tooth paste and pet products. Ah these commies, we hate them but without them we would have to go back to two tin cans and  piece of string for cell phones and we would have to watch TV by candle light since we don't make any. But an we could go to Malaysia or Pakistan, but they are full of Muslims who we hate even more. Report Violation posted by anonymous on Jun 6, 2007 at 02:44 PM djfrancis is right., if they allowed the other huge box chains to open why not allow a  Super Walmart. The only reason the Walmarts are being opposed is due to the fact that the labor unions are trying to organize the Walmart labor force and use the "environmental impact" angle to hold up progress. It's a very sad and mafia-like tactic that has been used by them in large industrial construction projects for years. If Walmart were to have their labor force organized I guarantee the red tape would suddenly disappear. Report Violation posted by anonymous on Jun 6, 2007 at 02:56 PM Actually, the problems were site-specific. The traffic for the Panama/99 off-ramps would go to hell with the Super Wal-Mart. Oh, and abandoning the existing store would cause many problems on White Lane as well. Sure, Costco did the same thing, but that should have been taken care of at that time as well. Keeping empty buildings empty as a business decision (Builder's Square on Ming, I'm lookin' at you) should be addressed through the environmental document, and wasn't for the Wal-Marts. Which is part of what they lost their case on. Having refer trucks idling across the street from residences is another issue. As is the removal of a (planned) local park for the residents in that neighborhood. And the localized traffic pollution from that intersection. And alternative sites nearby without the same disadvantages were a huge problem with the document. And on, and on, and on..... Signed- someone who knows Report Violation posted by adampayne on Jun 6, 2007 at 03:46 PM This town doesn't need two Wal-mart supercenters. The town does not need additional abandoned big boxes where two of the current Wal-marts are located. This town is already over run with big-box launchpad styled mass merchants. The idea that this is shopping convenience, or that competition will finally arrive when they open is ludicrous. These supercenters cater to the same crowd that shops at Sam's (another Wal-mart company) will shop at Target, Home Depot, Lowe's, Costco and Best Buy. I would hope that Bakersfield would be pushing for smaller specialty retailers that could inhabit Marketplace style shopping and dining centers. More choices of shopping is what I believe the community truly desires, not even larger more gridlocked varities of what we already have too much of. Report Violation posted by blue53 on Jun 6, 2007 at 05:32 PM YES..For 1 thing here in Bakersfield, you can not get around because there are so many people in them.. and NO these stores are small... isles are thin making it even harder to get around with all the people in them... No grocery stuff and many many other items you would enjoy.. If the people of Bakersfield vote not to have Super Centers here it will be a great lost to everyone.. I dont enjoy shopping in the wal marts here, Super Centers are the only way to go.. Report Violation posted by blue53 on Jun 6, 2007 at 05:40 PM Wal Mart  Is a GOOD think with all the people here..just ask 10 people whom go out their door what would the do if there were no Wal Marts.. and once the Super Centers come in you wont enjoy the reg Wal Marts Report Violation posted by anonymous on Jun 6, 2007 at 05:46 PM The ? is can you live without............. WAL MART  SUPER CENTERS ARE ONLY THE NEW IMPROVED STORESSSSSSSS Report Violation posted by anonymous on Jun 6, 2007 at 05:57 PM Wal Mart, Lowes, Home Depot, COSTCO and the like offer a value in price to customers.  If local specialty shops want that business, then I think they need competitive business practices.  Not everyone has a lot of disposable income and thus, they need to make every penny count.  If these stores make that happen for them, then good.  What is wrong with being able to make your family a little better off by stretching every dollar?  I can fully understand why smaller mom and pop stores have a hard time competing with these giants.  However, no one in this community has had a problem with Sears, JC Penney, Macys, Mervyns ect along with all the other mentioned "giants" in this town.  Be fair Bakersfield.  Give everyone a chance or no one a chance. Report Violation posted by randomfactor on Jun 6, 2007 at 06:04 PM I don't like WalMart and never buy there, but I have recently priced stuff there.  It's not better than alternative stores. Here's a price comparison where (unfortunately versus Target, another chain) Wal-Mart comes out just slightly better (kind of at the last minute.) http://www.cockeyed.com/cit... . But factor in California Medi-Cal support for Wal-Mart employees not covered by insurance, and I bet that $4.89 advantage would melt right quick.  Besides, it's not worth my soul to save $4.89 on a $120 shopping list. . As for groceries, I'd rather spend at WinCo, which is employee-owned, or if I need large quanties, CostCo, which treats its employees humanely. Report Violation posted by anonymous on Jun 6, 2007 at 06:08 PM That's a Union argument RF and that is at the heart of the matter. Report Violation posted by randomfactor on Jun 6, 2007 at 06:09 PM That doesn't make it incorrect.  The "low prices" myth is sustained by Wal-Mart which nevertheless had to drop its "Always low prices" slogan. . For what it's worth, I am not a member of a union. Report Violation posted by possummomma on Jun 6, 2007 at 08:39 PM I am vehemently opposed to putting two Walmart Super Centers in Bakersfield.  The Walmarts at White Lane and Rosedale Highway are eye sores!  Despite all of the promises, the parking lots of both are a mess.  Walmart, in my opinion and based on the evidence I've seen, are NEVER good for a neighborhood.  And, since I've refused to shop Walmart for almost four years now...I have absolutely no desire to see one built in my area.  I've done the price comparrison and found that their prices are NOT the lowest on most products.    Report Violation posted by possummomma on Jun 6, 2007 at 08:41 PM I meant to add: If Walmart is so great, why don't they build it near Seven Oaks?  Why don't they build it out off of White Lane and Buena Vista?  Oooooooh, that's right...that plan was suggested and the residents of Seven Oaks said they wouldn't like that "element" in their neighborhoods.  Gee...know what?  I don't want it here, either.  Report Violation posted by NancyII on Jun 6, 2007 at 09:48 PM Addressing some of the things I've seen posted.  The Walmart on Panama isn't in a "neighborhood", it's on a commercial corner next to the freeway.  The Rosedale store has no intention of closing.  The White Lane store will close if the super senter is built.  I heard lots of clamor for stores and restaurants that I didn't see a need for but heavens, if you don't shop Walmart you don't think anyone else should get to either?  I have news for you..I would like to shop at a supercenter.  The idling trucks at Walmart in Rosedale are in the parking lot out front NOT in the neighborhood.   The only ones that idle are reefers and right now, they don't have them.  In the supercenters I'm sure they use them but what "neighbors" are you talking about? You want a lot of specialty type stores instead of a supercenter?  Well, you must have more income than I do because I can't afford specialty shops.  I can't afford to pay 50-60 bucks for a pair of pants at places like Revelation so I go where I CAN afford a pair of pants.  If they aren't Prada, it's not a problem for me because I buy for value and coverage of my uuhhh..self, not for prestige.   Saving money isn't measured in 50% off..it's measured in saving what you can when you can and over a year it really adds up.  It's something I do on a daily basis....not just for a $120 purchase. I will agree about Winco but even there you have to watch prices.  While groceries were cheaper than Vons or Albertsons, their dog food was a lot higher than Walmart. Maybe you guys can afford the luxury of turning your nose up at value..but I can't. Report Violation posted by NancyII on Jun 6, 2007 at 09:54 PM Oh yeah..I shop at K-Mart too on occasion..it's less crowded there.  I was in the one on Wilson the other day and they've taken the snack bar out and put in an internet cafe.   Booo hisssss.  Report Violation posted by RoyTullis on Jun 6, 2007 at 10:21 PM Nancy. I prefer the WalMart on Rosedale over the one on White Lane.  It is cleaner and better stocked.  I too would welcome a super center. Report Violation posted by anonymous on Jun 7, 2007 at 12:25 AM There is nothing wrong with Wal-Mart the store, instead it's the type of people that shop there.  Why do customers have to rummage through things, open up packaging, litter the aisles, pull items off shelves onto the floor (especially during a sale)? In the Gosford village it is not the Wal-Mart that I really want to see but maybe some of the smaller stores such as Payless Shoes open up. A Target would be great. In fact if they just finished the Gosford Village shopping center it would be a nice place to go shopping. Report Violation posted by NancyII on Jun 7, 2007 at 07:11 AM The store on White Lane, being the first in Bakersfield, is older with narrow aisles and pretty crowded.  I only go there if I'm on that side of town as I was the other day.  I also prefer the Rosedale store (the one I worked in) especially since they remodeled it and have a pretty good grocery section.  I was surprised at the price of milk, eggs, and other dairy products...and the selection. Like it or not folks, WM provides entry level jobs for people with no experience, college students, homemakers looking ofr a part time job, and senior citizens.  Sometimes it's the only place they can get a job.  Most people don't go to work there expecting to make it a career, and a WHOLE lot of them are not interested in work ethics or reliability.  For my part, I took the job only to work over Christmas while I decided what I wanted to do when I got out of the food and beverage business.    I ended up staying there for almost 4 years because they worked with me on my schedule, gave me increasing raises, and it allowed me to finish my course at CSUB with a fairly flexible schedule.  Of course I had a great dept manager who went to bat for me allowing me to split my shift to go take a mid term or final when they came up. We rant and rave about places like WM and fast food paying slave wages but do any of you have any idea what the turnover is in those places?  The cost of training and retraining people?  Giving them more money won't give them better work ethics or get then to come to work on a Saturday morning after partying all night on Friday.  There was a young woman in the next dept that would start with the "I have a headache, or (insert your illness here), as soon as she got to work and you KNEW that she would be going home early leaving all her section to be covered by me.  It was common..it was all over the store. I have to admit, one of the highlights of my time at WM was when a young man who felt he had been discriminated against got on the PA and announced to the world,  "XXXX(asst mgr on duty) eff you and eff Walmart...I quit!"  The look on the customers faces was priceless.  I had only lady ask me "Did he say what I think he said?"  All I could say was "ummm yeah..I believe he did." Report Violation posted by adampayne on Jun 7, 2007 at 07:53 AM The only thing to champion about Wal-Mart is cheapness. Cheap goods, cheap on the pay and benefits, cheap on the gounds and maintenance and cheap on paying their tax liabilities. Here's an interesting article originally published by the Wall Street Journal, that bastion of liberal viewpoint and socialism. Wal-Mart is the consumate rip-off artist. Wal-Mart's State Tax Evasion Ploy: Paying Rent to Itself  By Jesse Drucker First published by The Wall St. Journal, February 1, 2007

Copyright © The Bakersfield Californian
Privacy Policy | Terms of Use | Jobs at The Californian | Advertise With Us | The Bakersfield Californian Foundation | RSS

• Bakersfield.org
• BakersfieldLife.com
• Bakotopia
• Kern Business
• Kern Life
• Mas
• Northwest Voice
• Raising Bakersfield
• Southwest Voice
• Tehachapi News