Wal-Mart and Saturation

Lee Scott isn't shy about Wal-Mart’s plans for growth:

During a recent speech in Chicago, the chief executive officer of Wal-Mart Stores Inc. painted a mind-boggling picture of the long-term growth potential of his $285 billion company.

Wal-Mart, Scott noted, has U.S. market share of only about 10 percent; in contrast, European retailer Tesco, he said, has 30 percent of the United Kingdom's food market alone.

"We're a $200 billion U.S. company. If we were a $600 billion U.S. company, we'd only be as good as Tesco," Scott said at an Executives' Club of Chicago luncheon last month. "So there's an extraordinary amount of growth ahead of us because there aren't many people who can say, `I see a clear path to adding $400 billion to my sales.' But we can."

In an interview afterwards, Scott said he wasn't necessarily claiming that Wal-Mart would become a $600 billion business, although some retail analysts have predicted that Wal-Mart could reach the $500 billion mark by 2010. Rather, Scott said he was trying to convey the importance of daring to dream when you're already the world's biggest retailer.

This year, Wal-Mart plans to open as many as 530 new stores, the company said in its annual report. That includes 165 international locations.

Wal-Mart has the right to continue to desire expansion but communities too have a right to be wary of a company with such an aggressive growth model. When Wal-Mart enters a market the mega-retailer deliberately attempts to saturate it, constructing a number of stores and supercenters within close proximity to each other. Take this story from Ohio where a new Wal-Mart supercenter is going to replace a regular Wal-Mart across the street:

The city of Xenia may be next on the Wal-Mart Supercenter list.
Xenia officials confirmed that a 203,000-square-foot Wal-Mart Supercenter is planned for a 22-acre site across the street from the existing Wal-Mart store along U.S. Route 35.

Bentonville, Ark.-based Wal-Mart has earmarked the Dayton market for growth.

The retail chain already has seven Dayton-area Supercenters that have opened or are under construction in Moraine, Englewood, Huber Heights, Sugarcreek Township, Troy, Sidney and Butler Township. Another is planned for Miami Township, near the Dayton Mall.

This saturation is due, in part, to a desire to crush competition even if that means having various Wal-Marts compete with each other. We believe that the antagonism shown to Wal-Mart, especially in New York City, is in part due to the fact that people know if it gets into the city it won’t be happy with just a few stores. If there are already 7 supercenters in the Dayton, Ohio area what will happen in the ripe New York market?

As we outline in our conservative case against Wal-Mart, neighborhood residents are worried about losing their quality of life and unique mixture of residential areas and walk-to-shop commercial strips. They do not want to see New York City become another cookie cutter suburb, something that would be accelerated by tens if not more 100,000 + sq. ft. Wal-Marts.

Atlantic Yards Project

There are some who have been questioning our support (check out the comments section of that post) for the Atlantic Yards development. Please remember that the Alliance is not a generic anti-development group. It is an organization designed to advance and protect the interests of neighborhood retailers first and foremost.

The Atlantic Yards project will be building thousands of units of affordable housing and, most importantly from our standpoint, will not include big box stores but rather neighborhood-based retail. We also believe that when all is said and done there will be a number of minority store owners as part of the retail component of the project.

We will have more to say on this soon, as well as on our role in the project which is related exclusively to the sports aspect of the development. For those who want more information on the sports theme we suggest you get a hold of Richard Lipsky’s book, How We Play the Game, a comprehensive look at the political and social implications of American sports.

Olympics Redux

In a last ditch effort to salvage the city’s 2012 Olympic bid the mayor, Deputy Dan and the governor have reluctantly revisited the idea of a stadium in Queens. We say reluctantly because if you’ve listened to the West Side story over the past year you’d have learned one thing: No way is Queens a good site for an Olympic Stadium. In fact, the mayor had been down right rude in his assessment of this low rent alternative.

So now enter the Mets. There is a tentative deal in place to build a new stadium for the team and, at the same time, revitalize the Willets Point area. And, lo and behold, all the elected officials who opposed the Manhattan stadium are on board for the Queens alternative. Think of how much could have been accomplished if the bulldozer boys had used some political acumen two years ago.

Wither Willets Point?

Which brings us to the plan to revitalize Willets Point. Can anyone say Bronx Terminal Market? There are scores of small businesses in the area who have been there for twenty, thirty and even forty years. But you see, these are not the chic kind of entrepreneurs that the city’s economic development hot shots tend to gravitate towards.

Let’s be clear on this before the euphoria becomes a contagion. Mr. Alper, don’t come up with any revitalization plan that doesn’t adequately look to keep the Willets Point businesses alive, well and flourishing. These are business people, many of whom are home owners and stakeholders in the city’s economic well-being, and they need to be protected. If that doesn’t happen you’ll have an unnecessary fight on your hands. Let’s hope the city planners have learned something from the previous stadium failure.

Talking Trash

Talking about piling on! Now the Daily News editorial page takes its shot at Gifford Miller and the Council for its defeat of the mayor’s twenty year “master plan” for the disposal of NYC’s garbage. They call the speaker “cynical” and his alternative plan “half-baked” and “irresponsible because Miller in effect threw out a sweeping plan aimed at relieving poor communities in other boroughs of having to process Manhattan’s waste.”

That’s pretty heavy criticism but has anyone on the editorial board really analyzed the mayor’s plan? To call it sweeping would be accurate only if you meant how the plan sweeps NYC’s garbage problem under the proverbial rug.

Here is the crux of the issue: New York City cannot continue to produce tens of thousands of tons of commercial and residential waste everyday and expect other communities to gratefully accept it. The annual cost of disposal has already exceeded one billion dollars with no fiscal ceiling in sight.

And what about the commercial garbage? The study that was commissioned by the City Council but RFPed by the DSNY was really “half-baked” and “irresponsible.” Its only scope seemed to be focused on transfer station siting and its conclusion was that those communities that the Daily News feels such angst for could actually accommodate more transfer stations since the environmental impact wasn’t so bad.

What is even worse, the commercial study, despite being asked in the strongest terms, failed to include commercial waste disposers in its scope of work. Not only that, it never even bothered to address, although it was clearly part of its mandate, the issues of commercial waste at its points of generation: the 186,000 neighborhood retail stores.

Commercial Waste Study a Cruel Joke

The study and DSNY itself weren’t concerned by the fact that, because of a decision of the Business Integrity Commission (formerly Trade Waste), garbage rates could be set based on weight as well as volume and, as a result, food stores were being hit with a doubling and even a tripling of their disposal costs. So, with a “study” that was simply a joke, it is no surprise that the 20 year “master” plan has nothing to say about commercial waste. Once again the concerns of small neighborhood stores are way below this administration’s radar. This time, however, the failure to consider their plight has implications for all New Yorkers.

Better Plan is Needed

The mayor’s plan should be looked at simply as a proposal that the legislature needs to hold hearing on. The siting cart should not be put before the garbage generation and disposal horse. So, the Speaker is right to reject this rush to decide the siting formula before the other substantive disposal issues are dealt with.

On the other hand, Gifford is open to legitimate criticism for not working harder to come up with a more comprehensive critique of the Bloomberg plan. In his defense, however, is the fact that the mayor cleverly put siting on the front burner so that all concerned wouldn’t check the dreck that was simmering in the pot at the rear of the stove. The Council’s job is to expose this, come up with a more comprehensive plan to reduce waste exports and the job of the media is to avoid being suckered by the mayor’s three card monte gambit and truly evaluate the deficiencies of his proposal.

The most comical and oxymoronic comment in the News’s editorial was its depiction of the “sanitation professionals” who spent years developing a plan that runs “thousands of pages.” Forget the fact that a great deal of the plan was outsourced to some bright people (with no knowledge of waste disposal) at EDC. Since when does length equal depth? In fact, Miller’s 14 pages were more germane in focus than anything in DSNY’s War and Peace version of waste removal.

Freddy Rebounds – Marist Poll

After having been counted out subsequent to the Diallo fiasco, it now appears that Freddy Ferrer is back in the driver’s seat in the Democratic primary. The new Marist Poll has him at 38%, a healthy 14 point margin over Virginia Fields, whose initial boost - thanks to Freddy – appears to have lost its steam.

Even more interesting, Marist has Freddy and the mayor running neck and neck (46-45) which is the clearest indication that it hasn’t been the best week for Bloomberg. The big question now, however, is will Freddy be able to capitalize on the mayor’s misfortune? Our view, something we have shared with the candidate and the campaign (we’ll admit we’ve been somewhat promiscuous with our advice) is that Freddy needs to find a couple of issues that place him to the right of Bloomberg. We are self-serving enough to think that Wal-Mart (if approached from our neighborhood conservative perspective), can be such an issue. After all, Tom Ognibene and Dennis Gallagher have shown how this can be done and our own analysis provides a useful blueprint.

The issue of firehouse closings is another such issue, as our previous posts highlight. To us, it’s all about the neighborhood. We must admit that our advice, available to all the Democrats (well almost all), is advanced because we believe that there are three Democrats who would be preferable to the incumbent. As we have said before the only way the mayor can become palatable (from the perspective of the Alliance’s retail stakeholders) is if he publicly announces that Deputy Mayor Doctoroff will return to investment banking (Be resolute Mike, let Dan do the hedging!).

Wal-Mart Doesn't Like Pregnant Women

An interesting story/commentary from the Wal-Mart Free NYC Blog:

In California, "A state civil rights agency says Wal-Mart must pay at least $188,000 for refusing to reinstate a manager at its Antioch store after pregnancy leave."

Wal-Mart's crime? Firing a pregnant woman for attempting to exercise her legal right to disability leave. This must be part of their self-hyped diversity drive. Krista Jane Carver was a manager at Wal-Mart, and had worked there from 1996-2002.

"She applied for a month's disability leave in May 2002 after coming down with pregnancy-related diabetes. But when she tried to return the next month, she was told by George Allen, a regional manager, that she had used up all her leave time, had no right to reinstatement and had already been replaced."

No wonder Wal-Mart hates unions! They want to maintain their open door policy: the freedom to show pregnant women the open exit door (unless they're currently locked in the store). Regardless of the law.

Does all this sound familiar? It should: "In 1997, a jury found that Wal-Mart intentionally refused to rehire Ms. Stern because she was pregnant." That time, Wal-Mart was forced to cough up $220,000. If they got caught twice, one can imagine how many times this has actually occured.

Someone should do something about all these pesky laws that keep getting in the way of Wal-Mart's style of business. Or maybe it's time for the government to stop slapping Wal-Mart on the wrist and actually hold them accountable.

“Giff’s Garbage”

A New York Post Editorial today attacks Gifford Miller for his Nimby attitude on waste transfer stations. That’s fair enough but then it goes on to say:

The mayor's plan may not be perfect, but it's sound. It funnels trash through transfer stations to barges, which would ship it out via the waterways.

This might cost a bit more in the short-term. But it would save a bundle down the road.

Oh really? How does a no waste reduction, no recycling, land-fill based methodology do anything but cost us a bundle down the road. With landfill space dwindling and disposal costs rising, the mayor’s plan condems the city to be held hostage to unfriendly environs.

The plan is unimaginative and expensive and everyone, including the Post, should stop the political posturing and tell both parties to negotiate a better deal for New Yorkers.

And while we’re on the subject, are we the only ones who can’t quite see how or why Bob McManus (the Post’s Editorial Editor) and the environmental justice folks are occupying the same public policy position. Bob, be careful with the dangers of guilt by association.

Where There’s Smoke There’s A Liar

According to a study conducted the New York City Department of Health the number of city smokers has declined 15%. Of course, for Commissioner Friedan this decline, if even accurate, is the result of Mayor Bloomberg’s 1800% cigarette tax increase, smoke-free restaurant and bar policy, and distribution of free nicotine patches.

The first obvious problem is that this study is so self-serving there are few guarantees that it is, in fact, accurate. Just like Wal-Mart putting out a poll that says that New Yorkers want Wal-Mart, the Health Department is conducting a survey whose sole purpose is to bolster its own self-interests. We know nothing of the methodology or sample used but one thing is for certain: this study was an attempt to justify previous public policy decisions not determine if they actually are right or effective.

But let’s assume for a moment that there has been a drop in the number of smokers in the 5 boroughs. Does this drop match, as Commissioner Friedan asserts, “what the published literature says will happen when you increase the tax by as much as we increased it by and when you go smoke free"?

Besides the fact that we doubt that any of the “published literature” that Friedan references is itself unbiased(being conducted by anti-smoking partisans), we know that his assertion is dead wrong. All the cigarette tax increase has done in New York is to encourage smokers to seek out cigarettes in cheaper locales (mainly Indian reservations and the internet) or utilize a burgeoning city black market. In both cases New York City loses tax revenue (and legitimate cigarette-selling businesses are hurt) and in the latter scenario deadly cigarette turf wars result. Increasing the tax on an addictive substance, especially when lower priced alternatives are easily accessible, is unlikely to stop the use of that substance.

We also do not understand the logic of how smoke-free restaurants, bars and clubs lead to fewer smokers. Are we to believe that someone who can longer smoke in a bar will then quit this addictive habit? Anyone who lives in New York knows that these people just go outside or choose to smoke at another time. Once again the Health Commissioner is just exploiting already doubtful statistics to justify his and the mayor’s crusade against smoking.

The Mayor, and his public health flak Dr. Friedan, need stop confusing correlation with causation. Next thing you'll see is Frieden the crowing rooster taking credit for the sunrise. We do hope that the decline in smokers is accurate but even if it is this does not mean that the cigarette tax or the smoke-free policy is close to effective. Until we see evidence showing that these two moves directly lead to decreased smoking and that this decrease is worth the harm to small businesses, we will continue to point out that Friedan and Bloomberg are simply blowing smoke.

Let the Override Games Begin

The arm twisting and logrolling are being unleashed with full force as the Mayor and Council Speaker Miller try to line up votes on the expected mayoral veto of the legislative defeat of the Solid Waste Management Program. Ann Michaud in Crain’s this morning is outright picking a victory for Bloomberg. Ann, whose take is that? With four or five votes that may go either way it is much too early to predict the outcome.

In the Daily News this morning Errol Louis takes off the gloves and goes after the Council, particularly the minority members, for, in his eyes, their vote against public health and racial justice.

Parents of the 300,000 city children who suffer from asthma should remember the names of the politicians who bargained away their health this week when the City Council disgraced itself by voting, 29-19, to stop Mayor Bloomberg's proposed trash-removal plan.

...

The real scandal was the vote of members of the Black, Latino and Asian Caucus who normally posture as champions of poor people. Council members Erik Dilan, Margarita Lopez, Miguel Martinez, Philip Reed, Al Vann, Larry Seabrook, Hiram Monserratte and John Liu all cast votes against the mayor's plan.

The key point that we agree with in the column is the necessity of removing diesel trucks and cutting down on harmful emissions in communities that are suffering from high rates of asthma. But Errol, while the mayor’s plan is incrementally better than what exists, it woefully falls short, as Councilmember Yassky reiterated again yesterday, in forcefully addressing the heart of the problem.

Commercial waste is the central issue that is not addressed (Anthony DePalma's story in the Times today hits on this issue). All of those privately owned transfer stations that process this waste are an assault on communities of color. What we need to do (remember Mr. Mayor the health of our city has no price tag) is to begin to roll out commercial waste disposers which would:

1) Reduce the commercial waste stream by up to 28%

2) Eliminate thousands of daily truck trips both on the pick-up and the disposal end

3) Clean up all the organic waste that is currently rotting in restaurant, supermarket and food store basements

4) Remove the food supply in neighborhoods that rats and roaches feast on

5) Eliminate transfer stations and their attendant odors and convert them into recycling facilities

6) Radically reduce the exporting of city garbage by reducing waste and increasing recycling in the commercial sector

Changed Times

Were you as bemused as we were by the back-to-back development pieces that the New York Times ran this week? On Wednesday, Jennifer Steinhauer, eulogizing the death of the West Side stadium, raised the question of whether it was still possible to do large scale projects in NYC given the anti-development obstacles that are supposedly endemic to this city. On Thursday, however, in what amounted to the Times’s version of point-counterpoint, the paper printed the Rutenberg-Brick story on the seemingly contrasting success of the Forest City Ratner project in Brooklyn.

You know if you hadn’t glanced at the byline of the Thursday story you might have assumed it has been written by the paper’s Public Editor as a corrective. In fact, it probably should be been because the theme of Steinhauer piece – that the Luddites had taken over and progress was no longer possible – was pure spin and was basically the rationale of Team Doctoroff for its own failures.

The key point here, of course, is you can’t make generic observations about development qua development. The first point of analysis needs to be about the quality of the development itself, its public purpose, and the rationale or nature used to define the public purpose. A flawed proposal, no matter how skillfully navigated, is still vulnerable because of the legitimate opposition it is likely to generate. It is also true that a magnificent development plan can be mishandled in the review process and go down to defeat.

Our view here is that, as far as the above analysis goes, Team Doctoroff hit the daily double with its Jets stadium proposal. A flawed plan was mishandled and ignominious defeat followed. We should add here that the defects in the plan and the plan’s implementation were exacerbated by the arrogance and abrasiveness of Deputy Dan himself. Remember that the Giuliani megastore proposal was also defeated, in part, by the volatile personality mix that the former mayor’s team brought into its negotiation with the City Council (just ask Walter McCaffrey).

Wal-Mart: The Movie

We just finished talking with Lisa Smithline from Brave New Films, Robert Greenwald’s production company that will be releasing the documentary Wal-Mart: The High Cost of Low Price. We are impressed with the efforts of Greenwald and his people and wholeheartedly support the film. The movie will include a focus on Wal-Mart’s effect on small business as well as successful fights that independent retailers have waged against this and other mega-stores.

Take a look at their website, view the trailer, host a screening and spread the word.

Internet Cigarettes

We commend Congressman John McHugh from upstate New York who has introduced a bill that would prevent the US Postal Service from delivering untaxed cigarettes by mail. The congressman estimates that the state is losing around $1.6 billion a year in revenue. All of this, of course, devolves from the Governor's failure to insure that Indian tobacco retailers charge tax on cigarettes when selling to non-Indians.

Garbage Redux

The City Council’s 29-19 vote to trash the mayor’s garbage plan leaves the question of an override (34 votes needed) up in the air. We believe that the Speaker will be able to do it because there are some council members (see Yassky’s comments in today’s Times) who, while they voted for the plan, clearly see its crippling deficiencies.

Gifford Miller hit just the right note in his arguments against the mayor’s proposal by pointing out that it fails to deal with commercial waste and has nothing substantive to propose on recycling. So when the mayor’s spokesman Jordan Barowitz says that the Council is voting for keeping more trucks on the road he is only partially correct. It would be better phrased to say that the mayor’s plan also leaves more trucks on the street than is necessary while, at the same time, keeping the transfer station neighborhoods hostage to the odor of putrescible garbage.

Atlantic Yards Exemplar

The New York Times runs a good piece today by Jim Rutenberg and Michael Brick on the difference between the West Side stadium and the Atlantic Yards project in Brooklyn. It rightfully points out that Ratner’s group was politically more astute and created community-based support that will ultimately, in our opinion, lead to the building of an arena for the Nets in Brooklyn.

As we mentioned in a previous post:

So proponents of development need to cultivate local stakeholders and develop a genuine public interest rationale that resonates with local constituencies as well as wider publics. Failing to do this, more than any anti-development climate, is what often dooms the grandiose plans of deputy mayors and developers.

Rutenberg and Brick seem to agree:

While the Brooklyn plan still has hurdles, its progress so far is providing an object lesson in how to navigate big projects through the often treacherous and choppy waters of New York state and city politics. In the Brooklyn project, backers have aggressively courted the local community since the project's inception, trying to placate those who could be its most aggressive foes.

The Times also hits the mark by singling out the role of Bruce Bender. Bender has been the master political orchestrator and has used his vast government experience to do what Deputy Mayor Doctoroff failed to do: create a consensus that is the prerequisite of success.

A Wal-Mart Grows in Brooklyn?

According to Metro New York, Wal-Mart is looking to become a tenant in the base of a 48 story office tower in downtown Brooklyn that will begin construction later this year. We are a bit skeptical of this story for a number of reasons, including that no sources were mentioned, but we'll check it out and report back.

Bronx Terminal Market Media Coverage

El Diario's Maria Vega has a nice piece on the status of the Bronx Terminal Market redevelopment, especially now that the Olympics dream is essentially dead and the velodrome will no longer be part of the site. We have surmised all along that this secretive sweetheart deal, that included handing over the Bronx House of Detention without public review, was in part motivated by Doctoroff’s intense desire to secure the 2012 bid. Now that the dream is dead it will be interesting to see what happens.

There is also a story from Bronx 12 (with video) and 1010Wins, WBAI and WFUV and WNYC TV all ran pieces (no links, sorry).

Update: We forgot to mention Alexandra Ochoa's coverage of the event in Hoy.

Garbage Hits the Fan

At this writing it appears that Speaker Miller may have averted a palace coup on the transfer station ULURP. We haven't seen the numbers but the question still remaining is the ability of Gifford to orchestrate an override. In the process, however, he was unfortunately damaged after being led into an ambush by certain staff members who should have known better.

Frankly, it is a situation we predicted last September when we went before CB #8 to discuss the whole 91st street transfer station issue. At the meeting we told the board that Miller was going to be accused of environmental racism and a clear policy of waste reduction was needed in order for the Speaker to be able to change the tenor of the conversation on waste.

Siting is not the key issue. Reducing the amount of waste exported is essential so that a concomitant reduction of waste transfer stations can be achieved. Check out the IBO report on the mayor’s recycling plan which finds, just as with Gertrude Stein’s commend about Oakland, “There is no there, there.” It is likely, however, that this is just the first skirmish in what will undoubtedly will be a much longer battle.

Wal-Mart and Health Care

As a response to reports that Wal-Mart and other large corporations are burdening the public health care programs of many states, groups like Wake-Up Wal-Mart and other concerned parties are encouraging state legislation that would mandate that the mega-retailer give its workers proper health care benefits.

This editorial from the Capitol Times (WI), responding to recent report about Wal-Mart’s reliance on the state’s Badger Care program, emphasizes the need for responsibility:

Despite the fact that the Wal-Mart retail behemoth collected more than $10 [b]illion in profits last year, the corporation has shown no interest in being a good corporate citizen of Wisconsin. Instead, the firm continues to raid the state treasury by steering thousands of its uninsured employees into the state's taxpayer-funded BadgerCare program, which provides access to health care for low-income workers and their families.
Some legislators, led by state Rep. Terese Berceau, D-Madison, and newspapers, including this one, have expressed concern about the way Wal-Mart and other corporations made their profits by shifting the burden for providing employee health care onto the state's shoulders. But, clearly, more pressure is needed.

So it is good to learn that Wisconsin Citizen Action and other groups will be turning up the heat on Wal-Mart, McDonald's, Walgreens and other large and profitable firms that expect the state to provide benefits for their employees.

"(We)will be targeting McDonald's and Walgreens," says Citizen Action's Darcy Haber. "Any big, profitable corporation that can afford to be offering health insurance for their employees should be doing the responsible thing and offering that health insurance coverage, because if not, they are part of the health insurance crisis we are facing now."

In particular, Wal-Mart needs to get whacked on this issue. But that will only happen if consumers put pressure on the image-conscious corporation to clean up its act, and if citizens let legislators know that they have a responsibility to protect taxpayers and workers by requiring Wal-Mart to steer a portion of its profits into taking care of its employees.

A similar, city-wide initiative, the New York City Health Care Security Act (HCSA), is being pushed by good folks at NY Jobs with Justice. They will be having a City Hall press conference tomorrow at 11:00 a.m. to tout the bill prior to a hearing on the issue. Here’s an except from their advisory:

With employer based health coverage in decline, responsible businesses that continue to provide health care are being undercut by unfair competition. More and more working New Yorkers are being pushed out of the health care system and into public assistance programs, where city taxpayers pick up the tab. On Thursday, June 9th, employers, workers, community leaders, and clergy will advocate for ending the “race to the bottom” by passing the Health Care Security Act.

Wal-Mart affects NJ mayor race

The Wal-Mart Free NYC coalition alerts us to this piece of news from New Jersey:

Jun Choi, a political newcomer who tapped into Edison's burgeoning Asian population, wrestled the Democratic nomination from Mayor George Spadoro yesterday in a stunning upset.

Choi's candidacy was boosted by his union support and his opposition to a Wal-Mart proposed for Edison:

Choi ran a tough campaign against the three-term incumbent, saying he wanted to free Edison from the grip of machine politics. He criticized Spadoro for raising taxes, overdevelopment and allowing a Wal-Mart to be built on Route 27.

After his speech last night, Choi said he would do what he could to stop the planned mega store.

"We're going to do everything we can to stop that development," said Choi, who received endorsements from UFCW Local 1262, the International Brotherhood of Teamsters Joint Council 73, and the Retail Workers and Department Store Union Local 108, partly because of his opposition to the retail store.

The proposed 142,048-square-foot store, along with an attached retail store, a restaurant and a bank, passed Nov. 15 in one planning board hearing.

Kinsora said that the unions decided to support Choi with no agreement that the Wal-Mart would be scuttled. But if that happened, Kinsora said, "It would be a happy coincidence."

Today's Press Conference

The event today went really well especially the support we received from elected officials. In addition to merchants and business groups, we had Council members Monserrate, Foster, Jackson, Seabrook, Clark, Stewart, Nelson and Dilan all speaking eloquently about the need to preserve the Bronx Terminal Market. This support will be very important for the June 27th City Council hearing that will take a close look at the subsidy-laden deal to bring in Related and redevelop the area.

We'll also link to the news stories as they come out tomorrow.