Why no super Walmart in Boston? (Medford, Everett: Home Depot, neighborhood, to buy)

[massnative71]

Originally Posted by Bostonmania

and the quality of the product is really just bias. wasnt meaning that target actually had better quality, there's something that just made it seem better to me. Walmart is quite a bit bigger though. Not saying target doesnt destroy businesses but its not on the same level. And i dont get how the mayor can have that control, but i dont think boston should have a target or a walmart anyway so i dont really care that much. I was just saying how i like target that much better, even though i dont like either of them.

The traditional Targets and traditional (not Super) Walmarts seem very close in size. Yes, Target does generally carry higher-end product. That however is irrelevant to the topic. The city government has no business discriminating against retailers based on how some may feel "ones product is better than anothers". It's not like we're talking about a strip club or check-cashing store (way too many of those in the city already). This is all about Mumbles playing empty politics, nothing more nothing less. Maybe next year Target will become the new scapegoat that progressives love to hate, and South Bay will have a new large vacant building.

All I'm saying is that the same standard should apply to everyone.

[unit731]

Originally Posted by Bostonmania

I'm glad boston doesnt have one. It would change the way i saw the city. in a bad way. Walmart=evil destruction of the smaller businesses around it.

Has anyone viewed the witch dance that all employees are made to do before the store opens? Some sort of phychic voodo Heaven's Gate type of yelling and dancing with a tad of holding hands.

Never mind the class actions lawsuit - Walmart won only because it couldn't be proven that the discrimation was nationwide - but only store to store.

Never mind that many vendors are mandated to cheapify their products.

Thank God for Dollar Tree and Dollar General.

[mmyk72]

Target advertises it's philantrophy - giving back 5% of all profits or something like that. Together with it's hip ads and cleaner stores, it commands are more likeable image. Whereas Walmart's motto seems to be: If I'm cheap, they will come no matter what.

[Pear Martini]

Originally Posted by Bette

You said it. It also destroys the character and charm of these small towns and cities which used to be unique. Not every city wants a Gap, a WalMart and a Starbucks.

As a small business owner, I feel the WalMart concept has destroyed so many. Yeah, you're getting something cheap cheap but at a great cost.

MHO.

I have to agree, it strips the character and charm on surrounding neighborhoods.

By the way, they may be opening a Target downtown where filenes used to be Target eyes Downtown Crossing - BostonHerald.com (http://www.bostonherald.com/business/real_estate/view.bg?articleid=1364228&format=comments#Comments Area - broken link)

[Bostonmania]

Originally Posted by massnative71

The traditional Targets and traditional (not Super) Walmarts seem very close in size. Yes, Target does generally carry higher-end product. That however is irrelevant to the topic. The city government has no business discriminating against retailers based on how some may feel "ones product is better than anothers". It's not like we're talking about a strip club or check-cashing store (way too many of those in the city already). This is all about Mumbles playing empty politics, nothing more nothing less. Maybe next year Target will become the new scapegoat that progressives love to hate, and South Bay will have a new large vacant building.

All I'm saying is that the same standard should apply to everyone.

I totally agree that there should be allowed the same stores for every city, im definitely not arguing about that. but im also not arguing against the mayor because boston really doesnt need one. or target. the traditional sizes of the physical store size are pretty similair, but the size of the companies revenue are in different worlds.
have you ever walked across a super walmart before? it took me like 10 minutes at least.

[Mr. Joshua]

Originally Posted by Bostonmania

I'm glad boston doesnt have one. It would change the way i saw the city. in a bad way. Walmart=evil destruction of the smaller businesses around it.

Yes, jobs and affordable necessities are such evil things. What smaller businesses would WalMart destroy in Boston? Target? Best Buy?

This is stupidity and it hurts the very people that liberals in this state profess to cherish. An impoverished single mother of two doesn't have the luxury of having principles.

[RedJacket]

Originally Posted by mmyk72

Target advertises it's philantrophy - giving back 5% of all profits or something like that. Together with it's hip ads and cleaner stores, it commands are more likeable image. Whereas Walmart's motto seems to be: If I'm cheap, they will come no matter what.

Target's Anti-Union Propaganda Video - YouTube

[heetseeker]

Originally Posted by massnative71

Not a huge Wal-Mart fan, but the hypocracy just kills me (Wal-Mart is the Alll Evil but Target is trendy and hip). LOL

Target is trendy and hip? You must pay attention to their commercials.

[heetseeker]

Screw unions and their want to be gangsta members. Of course not all of them just most. You do the math- Major grocery chain one gallon of milk Six dollars- wall Mart one gal. milk 4 dollars- Sav-a-lot one gal milk 2 dollars. Yea if I got two or three kids at home busting my as# everyday you think I give a rats a## about some union thug and his speed boat payment or his 4 x 4 payment? screw that you can keep your lousy unions I'm going to Wally world with the other white trash.

[Bostonmania]

Originally Posted by Mr. Joshua

Yes, jobs and affordable necessities are such evil things. What smaller businesses would WalMart destroy in Boston? Target? Best Buy?

This is stupidity and it hurts the very people that liberals in this state profess to cherish. An impoverished single mother of two doesn't have the luxury of having principles.

The point of being a liberal is to be openminded towards anything. So if what you say is true then all of those liberals who dont like walmart are hypocrites?

My point is that it would take away the uniqueness of boston away, and you would see an impact if one was put in. There's not a whole lot of free space if you hadnt noticed, and there are plenty of pharmacies and specialty stores already there, what would you do, just wipe out several blocks of businesses to make way for a new superstore?
Just because people dont like walmart doesnt mean they want people to suffer, I mean, does walmart automatically fix poverty because it offers cheap ****? i dont think it does.

Thats a pretty heavy accusation, pointing your finger at the liberals when there's poverty, saying its all their fault because they wont allow walmarts to be built. Should they have that authority? i coudnt answer that correct because theres no right answer. There are other public services that offer resources to the poor, but why dont we go to the poor, and ask them whether they'd rather have more public services conservatives try to cut back, or a walmart.
There isnt a huge amount of poverty in boston compared to other cities anyway.