One of the first things both new and returning students wondered when they arrived at Oberlin this fall was, “What’s a big inflatable rat doing in front of Stevenson?”

Some feared it was the start of another union conflict, recalling how the last academic year opened with the threat of a major strike. But soon it became evident that this rat, far from its usual symbolic role as a warning to picket-jumpers, was no ordinary rat. This was the Walmrat.

Oberlin students, faculty members and residents should be familiar with the ongoing controversy over the impending construction of the Wal-Mart superstore in town. It is a complicated issue fraught with anxieties; even city council members are ambivalent about the effects it will have on Downtown Oberlin.

“It will have the positive effect of creating a place for Oberlin’s lower income residents to shop without necessarily having a car,” said City Council Chair Dan Gardner. “Their alternative has been a three-hour roundtrip [on public transportation] to Elyria.

“Also, additional wage taxes will go to the city, and some new property taxes will go toward schools,” Gardner added.

“What hasn’t been discussed are class issues,” agreed Councilman Charles Peterson. “There’s no outlet for working-class people to buy things, especially if they’re on a fixed income. Also, there’s the possibility of black people not feeling welcome in some Downtown businesses. In terms of stepping into that demographic, Wal-Mart is an option, in terms of need and how much pocketbooks can bear.”

Yet both of the Council members recognized the disadvantages of the superstore coming to town.

Peterson said, “I’ve personally done some research into what happens when a Wal-Mart comes into a small town, and when I was in grad school I witnessed the negative effects [of such a case].”

“It will put pressure on our Downtown,” said Gardner. “Anyone who sells the same kind of merchandise as Wal-Mart will have to work a whole lot harder in order to compete, and Wal-Mart has a history of putting downward pressure on wages and benefits in a community.”

These sentiments have been seriously taken up by a committee known as Oberlin Citizens for Responsible Development. Its members are responsible, among other actions, for the installation of the Walmrat.

“The rat is very fitting in that it’s telling people what Wal-Mart really is,” insisted Gerald Phillips, the attorney representing OCRD, who has also been consistently vocal and active against the store. He went on tosay that he “absolutely believes” that downtown stores such as Missler’s, IGA, Dave’s Army Navy, Watson’s Hardware Store and Ben Franklin will all go out of business should Wal-Mart be built as planned.

In response to the question of whether Wal-Mart could potentially benefit working-class Oberlin citizens, Phillips stated, “You bring in a business that has lower prices at the expense of its workers. You know who’s paying for those low prices? The workers who are receiving such low-paying coverage.”

And this concern about low salaries is echoed in Phillip’s proposed “Living Wage” charter amendment for the city of Oberlin, developed alongside OCRD members.

The Living Wage petition, if passed when citizens vote on the issue in the November election, would affect only private businesses employing 25 or more members, as well as businesses that are receiving financial assistance from the city in the amount of $75,000 or more. Employees then must be paid $11.50 an hour if health insurance is included; if not, the wage must be $13.

“Part of the agenda [of this petition] is to make sure that the businesses that get assistance from the city of Oberlin treat their workers well,” Phillips explained.

Some speculate that the Living Wage petition is an attempt to drive Wal-Mart out of Oberlin as it might not want , or be able, to pay the higher wages. However, some believe that it may be unenforceable, even if it does pass.

Phillips denied, however, that the conception of the petition was directly geared toward Wal-Mart, even though it appears at the moment that Wal-Mart would be the only Oberlin business to be affected.

“It’s not just about Wal-Mart; it’s also about the Murphy Oil Gas Station,” noted Mark Chesler, a active member of OCRD and a participant in the fight against Wal-Mart. The gas station is to be built alongside Wal-Mart and, with its “predatory pricing,” will drive out local competition.

“They’ll have lower prices because they can afford it,” Chesler said.

“If Wal-Mart’s going to come into town and be a good neighbor, it’s up to them if they want to treat their workers fair and pay them a living wage,” said Phillips. “It isn’t targeted against one particular business...it’s objective.”

Phillips also said that the Living Wage motion “is responding to Oberlin; it’s not trying to kick Wal-Mart out, but rather to set some standards...what’s their true motive and what’s their true purpose. If Wal-Mart’s a true rat, it’ll leave town.”

Gardner, however, is incredulous: “What do you think when you have a giant blow-up ‘Walmrat’ and are trying to get students to sign a petition?”

“Despite what Phillips claims, this is an attempt to thwart Wal-Mart,” Peterson agreed. “I think it’s important that voters are fully informed about the limitations and possible repercussions of such a petition.”

One such repercussion is the possibility of work going to nearby towns that are not under a Living Wage agreement, like Wellington.

“Students who signed the petition may not have realized that they might be making the employment problem that much more difficult,” said Gardner. “Students under 23 years old are exempted from the Living Wage, so they could therefore get paid $7 an hour while a single mother would need to make the standardized $13. Who are you going to hire?”

City council member Eve Sandberg remarked, “It’s puzzling to me that people who will spend so much time putting out a petition can’t tell me with assurance its actual purpose. That’s an abuse of good citizen activism, and it’s really troubling.

“To the best of my knowledge, no one on the council is against the Lving Wage,” Peterson added. “I think we’d all be in favor of a thoughtful, considered, well-articulated petition, but this one leaves a lot of questions.”

Emergency Clause Controversy

Additional controversy has surrounded the emergency passage of the Development Agreement with Wal-Mart. “Emergency passage” is to vote on a measure immediately without having it go through another “reading” or meeting with the town.

The Development Agreement refers to a previously negotiated contract with Wal-Mart about the manner in which it will be constructed. In order for construction to go according to the city’s wants and needs, it needed passage. Contrary to what many believe, the vote would not determine whether or not Wal-Mart would, in fact, come to town.

“The Development Agreement is an administrative matter,” said Gardner. “It is not the making of a law. It holds the developer to the agreement we [Oberlinians] want.”

“Wal-Mart is going to do the kind of landscaping that we in Oberlin would like to see,” said Sandberg, referring to the stipulations of the development agreement. “And they’re paying for pipes, lighting, etc. We’re not paying for that; in fact, we’re recouping.”

Gardner added, “They’re making what is a very expensive site for them. It’s not going to be a box in a sea of asphalt.”

OCRD, in addition to its activism against the Oberlin Wal-Mart, has decided to focus its energy on what it deems to be an improper use of the emergency clause when passing the Development Agreement. Phillips, in fact, filed a lawsuit with the Ohio Supreme Court this past Monday, and is working on collecting signatures for a petition to overturn the passage.

Phillips’ major problem with the use of the emergency clause in this context is that he believes it was used because city council did not want community input. “I have no question about that,” he said.

In a statement he co-wrote with Chesler, he also stated that “Oberlin city council...[is] taking away the...Right to Vote...Under the Ohio Constitution citizens have the constitutional right of referendum, to place a legislative act on the ballot for the electors to vote upon,” which is no longer an option now that the measure has been approved.

It is “just downright un-American and undemocratic. It’s an insult to Democracy,” argued the written statement.

Phillips also emphasized that the use of the emergency clause was “frivolous” and “unnecessary,” as construction is not slated to begin until the spring of 2006.

“City council said the Emergency Clause is to prevent construction delays for construction that isn’t set to start for months,” Phillips stated. “So what’s the emergency?”

City council members insist that these statements are based on a fundamental misunderstanding of both the nature of the Development Agreement and of the emergency voting clause.

“It is in the courts because some people think it is not an administrative agreement, but something else,” said Sandberg.

Council members also affirm that citizens were, in fact, given time to object and comment on any aspect of the Development Agreement. The first time there was a motion to hold an emergency vote, it failed.

“Anyone who was interested had between then and the next meeting to bring up any concerns,” said Gardner. Nobody did.

“All development agreements in Oberlin have been passed on emergency since the late 1980s,” he added.

“There was no reason why we should have foreclosed on allowing the public to have time to think it over,” Sandberg said. “Nobody came forward to say that any aspect of the agreement should be changed. The only concerns were about Wal-Mart itself, so we voted on its second reading.”