| << Front page | Commentary | October 7, 2005 |
More on Wal-Mart issue, other letters
To the Editors:
I am pleased to see that Oberlin students have begun to get involved in the
local debate about the imminent construction of a Wal-Mart in town. I have been
a vocal opponent of Wal-Mart locally for about a year and a half now, and I hope
that students will participate in legal, responsible opposition to that
development. But the most recent Review shows an alarming lack of command
of the facts.
First and foremost, there never has been “a decision to bring Wal-Mart
to Oberlin” by any members of city council, a fact that seems to have
eluded the Review editorial board even in this week’s
“clarification” of last week’s editorial. Wal-Mart decided to
come to Oberlin all by itself. Cities do not have the right to pick and choose
who can develop within their confines. We can enact zoning restrictions and
enforce them rigorously, but we cannot deny Wal-Mart a permit simply because we
don’t like them, any more than we would want cities to have the right to
deny permits to, say, African-American owned businesses.
There has been absolutely nothing secretive in the city’s dealings with
Wal-Mart. The Wal-Mart application for site plan approval was vigorously debated
last year in open meetings of the city council, City Planning Commission and
Design Review Subcommittee. Some members of city council employees of the City
Planning Office did meet with Wal-Mart privately. This is normal process in the
development of any site plan proposal. City representatives used those meetings
to force Wal-Mart to make concessions that they initially did not want to make.
Any results of those meetings, moreover, were fully and openly discussed at
numerous crowded public meetings.
Next, I must point out that Edward Livingston’s characterization of
city council Chairperson Dan Gardner as “pro-Wal-Mart” has no basis
in fact. At the very moment that Wal-Mart filed their initial site plan, Mr.
Gardner was pushing the city council to adopt stricter zoning regulations for
the property in question. Had those zoning restrictions passed, they would have
at least discouraged, and perhaps prevented, Wal-Mart; among them was a limit of
100,000 square feet for any retail space. (The store that Wal-Mart plans to
build is approximately 155,000 square feet). Even after Wal-Mart filed their
initial application, Mr. Gardner led the charge to approve the new restrictions,
in the hope that they could be applied retroactively to Wal-Mart. Alas, he was a
minority vote on the Council that night. (For those who are interested in such
matters, Councilperson Sandberg was absent due to a religious observance;
Councilperson Peterson was also absent.) Mr. Livingston’s characterization
of Mr. Gardner demonstrates a thorough ignorance of the events of last
year’s council meetings.
Students should also know that Wal-Mart threatened both the city council and
the City Planning Commission with legal action if those bodies did not give in
and approve Wal-Mart’s initial plans. To their credit, our city officials
stood their ground and insisted that Wal-Mart meet Oberlin’s zoning
requirements to the letter. In fact, Wal-Mart has granted the city concessions
that go beyond our zoning requirements and that we could not legally insist on.
These concessions were won by a process of hard negotiation in the face of
threats from Wal-Mart’s legal bullies.
Please also be aware that Avon resident and lawyer Jerry Phillips is not the
arbiter of truth on these issues. Mr. Phillips has, regrettably, been hired by a
group of well-meaning citizens (Oberlin Citizens for Responsible Development).
In that capacity he has engaged in a series of lawsuits against the city. I will
not comment on the merit of these suits beyond pointing out that the first was
summarily dismissed (currently under appeal), the second, denied by the Ohio
Supreme Court. I dissociated myself from OCRD when they chose to hire Mr.
Phillips, because I came to the conclusion that I could not trust him or work
with him. I urge Oberlin students and residents to look at his record carefully
before joining in his tactics.
Last: Wal-Mart is a despicable company. Their business practices are
appalling, their record of labor violations is incredible (over 60 violations
filed with the National Labor Review Board) and their record of hiring and
promotion has shown clear, systemic racism and sexism. They are currently the
defendant in the largest sex-discrimination class action suit in American
history. Their effect on small towns and rural counties has been
well-documented: study after study shows that after Wal-Mart moves in, towns
lose local businesses, average wages go down and poverty increases. For all
these reasons and more I hope that Oberlin residents and Oberlin College
students will join together to oppose Wal-Mart. But please, do so in full
knowledge of the facts and don’t rely on a hired gun like Mr. Phillips to
give you your information. City council meetings are open to the public.
I am afraid that the Wal-Mart development will go forward. If it does, I
believe that the best thing we as citizens of Oberlin can do is to boycott the
store and help educate the community about Wal-Mart’s failings. It is also
crucial that we continue to support locally-owned businesses. I hope Oberlin
students and the OCRD will join me, and other concerned citizens like me, in
this endeavor.
–Kirk Ormand To the Editors:
Edward Livingston’s letter in the Sept. 30 issue of the Review
is notable for a number of reasons, one of them good. His obvious passion and
dedication to his anti-Wal-Mart position are laudable, but the substance of his
argument is largely unintelligible due to a combination of economic illiteracy
and plain and simple bad writing (if the problem is the Review’s,
this would constitute Hall of Shame proofing).
Let’s get the uniformed economics out of the way first. Here is the
culpable sentence: “Wal-Mart products en mass [sic] function as a Geffin
[sic] good monopolizing the low end of the market.” Just what does this
mean? Who knows? A “Giffen Good” (after Robert Giffen, b. 1837) is
one with an upward sloping demand curve, or portion thereof. This means that as
prices rise people would increase the quantity they would wish to purchase, and
if prices fell, they would decrease the quantity they would wish to purchase.
This has nothing to do with monopoly, and more with what are usually known as
“income and substitution effects,” and is certainly not, one would
hope, what Mr. Livingston intended to say. Now some of Wal-Mart’s products
might be Giffen Goods for certain customers, but which ones, and in what price
ranges do we observe this relatively rare phenomenon? Here is a perfect example
of a little knowledge having deleterious effects on one’s persuasiveness.
The rest of the letter is a mess and should have been edited either by Mr.
Livingston, the Review or both much more carefully. Here are the
offending sentences and, unfortunately, non-sentences:
“Likewise in Honduras, employees make 42 cents per hour and work 14
hours a day and women under 17.”
“People shop at Wal-Mart, eats at the lunch counter and leave.”
“Seven dollar an hour salaries” (he means “wages”)
“won’t put any new stores in business and their employees will only
be able to afford Wal-Mart.”
“Every disinterested individual who read the article...were swayed by
coverage either to support Wal-Mart or to abstain from opinion.”
“To the extent that Oberlin is a polity, the Wal-Mart is political and
political reasons are admissible.”
“It” (the Review’s editorial) “does not offer
logical arguments as much as a manipulation.”
“City council President Dan Gardner’s letter to the Review
which appeared Sept. 23 in which he generously confers upon them
‘kudos’ for ‘thoughtful and nuanced treatment of the Wal-Mart
issue in Oberlin.’”
“The OCFD does not see the rat as ‘far from’ its usual
significance. Nor do members of the AFL-CIO actually, sending a speaker in
support of the anti-Wal-Mart position to a panel next here at Oberlin next
Wednesday.”
“Furthermore, why did OCFD spend two hours talking to Emma Dumain of
the Review to have guys like Charles Peterson or Dan Gardner state our
position for us?”
“The article is a collection of variously spanned quotations...”
While it may seem that my goal in performing this odious exercise is to act
out my Mrs. McGreevy elementary schoolteacher fantasies and correct every damn
error of grammar, syntax and construction in sight, it is not. I’m just
ticked that some of us who think Wal-Mart is not the commercial version of the
Second Coming do such a lousy job of convincing (knowledgeable) people on the
other side of the debate. So, I ask students and others seeking to join this
fateful argument about our city’s future to brush up on their
communication skills before they commit their thoughts to public scrutiny.
–Bob Piron To the Editors:
Bill Jindra, who recently quit serving on city council, has written,
“The Oberlin Review has been manipulated into writing an editorial
that supports the candidacy of some at the cost of others.” That is a
false statement. To my knowledge, The Oberlin Review was not approached
by any candidate regarding its coverage of city issues or campaigns, certainly
not me. I am often misquoted by the Review or see my comments
contextualized in a way that departs from what I’ve told a reporter. That
Mr. Jindra was so affected by an Oberlin Review report, frankly, boggles
the mind.
Second, a reader of the editorial could see it as attacking Eve Sandberg,
Charles Peterson and Daniel Gardner. It accused us of pledging to bring
transparency to city council business and then passing the Wal-Mart
administrative agreement on its second reading, not its third. In response, last
week I wrote a letter to the Review disputing its charge. Two public
readings brought few comments besides traffic flow issues. The vote was not
about whether or not Wal-Mart could come to town. The Review, in its
editorial that week, clarified the issue.
Mr. Jindra and the local paper now charge that my offer to write job
recommendations for students who work on my campaign when they apply for future
campaign positions “smacks of abuse of power.” Any candidate in the
U.S. can, and most do, write letters of recommendation for students who work in
their campaigns. Some candidates even pay staff, including students, to work for
them. I’ve been placing students in campaigns (Republican, Democrat or
third party according to a student’s wishes) for at least a dozen years.
Most return with fine recommendations. At the OC Dems candidate night, every
candidate present made a pitch for students to work on their campaign. I cannot
pay students who work on my campaign, I will write them letters of
recommendation. Additionally, faculty members across the country have always run
for office — two notables are Paul Wellstone (PoliSci) and Newt Gingrich
(Hist.).
Unlike some, I do not change my behavior or forget my word when it will
benefit me; suddenly Mr. Jindra and others want public disclosure of 2003
campaign donations. But it was Mr. Jindra’s council that established the
rules for financing campaigns when I ran in 2003. Anyone who raised less than
$2000 did not need to report the names and amounts of those who contributed.
Most Oberlinians decry that college members know little about the community, Mr.
Jindra appears to know little about College politics. Many of my colleagues
across the campus generously contributed to my campaign. But as I have been
active in campus politics, before contributing, many asked if their contribution
could be private. I assured them such contributions would not be disclosed as I
would abide by the finance limit. For 2005, Daniel Gardner’s council has
decreed total disclosure as part of transparency. (Yes, I happily I voted for
it.) All 2005 contributors will be so informed.
I am sorry that some have devised a conspiracy theory to explain why others
might criticize them, occasionally find their conduct objectionable, or why
students might choose to work in an opposing campaign. There is not one shred of
evidence of any conspiracy. I am proud of my work on city council and of my
ability to organize a campaign. I have worked hard on issues of economic
development, helping our needy, transparency, etc. And I look forward to working
hard on the issues facing Oberlin for many years to come.
–Eve Sandberg To the Editors:
It’s me, the Enchiridion, that incredible art and literary
magazine you see lying around Stevenson and Wilder and anywhere else my minions
on the staff put me. I’ve got a pretty good life, you see, being read and
enjoyed by the Oberlin community, but here’s the thing: I’m hungry.I
need food.
Now, an Enchiridion like me isn’t like other people and animals.
I only gotta eat for a couple little blocks of time every year, and I can only
eat two things: submissions and orphans.
If I get a lot of submissions — I’m talking about poetry, prose,
plays, screenplays, humor, comics, nonfiction and art stuff like photography,
sketches, anything that can work in a magazine — I’m full and happy,
and that’s all I need. It’s a good meal, especially if the work is
low fat, high-quality.
But if I don’t get enough submissions, I’m still hungry, and
I’ve gotta gorge on the only other thing I can keep down: orphans.
Adorable, cute, innocent orphans. Personally, I’d prefer submissions, but
if orphans it’s gotta be, then orphans it is, ’cause a
magazine’s gotta live, right?
So the choice is yours: Will you send me all kinds of great art and writing,
or will I feast on the flesh of young, lonely orphans?
Send your submissions to Wilder Box 29 or
Enchiridion@oberlin.edu.
Keep me and those adorable orphans alive.
–Enchiridion To the Editors:
The Office of Health and Life Skills Education, the Office of Judicial
Affairs and the Office of Residential Education and Dining Services join
together to support the College’s mission to provide students with
educational programming in an environment that encourages personal growth and
individual well-being. In particular, we seek to support students in making
choices that avoid risks associated with unhealthy or dangerous use of alcohol
and other substances. We recognize that students are adults and can be expected
to obey the law and take personal responsibility for their conduct.
Collaborations with students, faculty and others help address community issues
related to the misuse of alcohol and other drugs. Various administrators,
faculty and students serve on the Alcohol, Tobacco and Other Drug Committee,
focusing on concerns such as substance-free living and events, policy and
sanctioning, prevention and education and campus awareness.
As the semester begins we would like to draw your attention to the following
policies and initiatives related to alcohol and other drugs:
1. All students are expected to familiarize themselves with college policy
related to alcohol and other drugs. A complete summary of the rules and
regulations related to alcohol and other drug use and abuse can be found at this
link: http://www.oberlin.edu/students/links-life/rules-regs.html.
2. All on-campus parties being held in residential spaces must be registered
through Residential Education and Dining Services in advance. Students should
call x58472 to schedule an appointment. It can take four weeks for an alcohol
permit to be approved by the state. Students sponsoring parties not approved
through the party planning process will be held accountable to College policy.
3. Substance-free housing is available for students choosing to abstain from
the use of drugs and alcohol within their residential community. Please contact
Residential Education at 775-8472 for application information.
4. AA and Al-Anon meetings take place both off and on campus. For complete
information, visit http://www.oberlin.edu/lifeskills/aod.
–Lori K. Morgan Flood To the Editors:
We were saddened and dismayed when we opened the first issue of the
Review this year and the Safety and Security Report was nowhere to be
found. However, we reasoned that perhaps there had not yet been enough incidents
to warrant a report. The next issue, though, was also missing this vital
section. In fact, we haven’t seen it at all this year.
We always look forward to reading the Safety and Security Report. Every week
we waited impatiently for the report, anxious for news on the most recent
happenings around campus. How else would we know that a student had tripped and
fallen in Wilder Bowl, though they did not require further assistance? We try to
keep a running tally on drunk freshmen whose roommates agreed to to keep an eye
on them. What about bikes that were stolen while unlocked?
We are ships unmoored, set loose upon the seas without sails. The
Review without the Safety and Security Report is like Stevenson without
ice cream, like DeCafe without smoothies. We know that we are not alone. Please
revive the Safety and Security Report!
–Helen Travis [Editor’s note: the Review Security Notebook can be
found in the news section on page 3.] To the Editors:
On Tuesday, Oct. 11 at 7 p.m. in the Meeting House of First Church in Oberlin
(United Church of Christ), Main and Lorain Sts., Ed Jerse, speaking for Reform
Ohio Now, and Robert Rousseau, speaking for Ohio First, will square off to
debate four proposed constitutional amendments dealing with election reform.
Petitions circulated by Reform Ohio Now and signed by over 500,000 Ohioans
ensured their place on the November ballot. The amendments, if passed, will
change Ohio’s present laws on early voting (issue two), campaign finance
(issue three), how redistricting is done (issue four), and the way in which
elections are administered (issue five). We urge all students who plan to vote
in Oberlin to attend.
First Church and the League of Women Voters of the Oberlin Area, co-sponsors
of the debate, hope that the event will sharpen our understanding of the
arguments on both sides of the issue. To achieve this goal, the sponsors have
asked the debaters to focus strictly on the merits of their respective
positions, emphasizing facts and supporting evidence and avoiding simple
assertions. Ronald Kahn, James Monroe Professor of Politics and Law at Oberlin
College, will serve as the moderator.
After the debate, the speakers will have an opportunity to answer questions
turned in by the audience. In addition, once the Q&A session is over, the
audience will be able to pick up literature distributed by Reform Ohio Now, the
proponents of the amendments; Ohio First, the opponents of the amendments and
the Ohio League of Women Voters, who have taken individual positions on each
amendment. The event is free and open to the public. Please come!
–Mary Kirtz Van Nortwick
Associate Professor of Classics
Professor of Economics
Associate Professor of Politics
Member, City
Council
Literary magazine
Assistant Dean/Director of Health and Life
Skills Education
–Kimberly Jackson Davidson
Associate Dean of
Students
–Adrian Bautista
Associate Dean of Students
–Molly
Tyson
Director of Residential Education
College junior
–Molly Grove
College
junior
–Emily Narrow
College junior
Voters Service Chair
Oberlin Area League of Women Voters
About us
Subscriptions
Advertising