Walmart

Walmart is the biggest and strongest department store in the world. And we could see it in Burbank soon (“Walmart to engage community,” July 20). It will have its good and bad effects on our community. After the public's swift and blistering reaction online to news that Walmart may move into the Great Indoors store next to the Empire Center, a “No Wal Mart in Burbank” page on Facebook was created. I and lots of people joined this page to share our opinions and suggestions.

In reply to the letter to the editor regarding the traffic issue and Walmart (“ Walmart traffic issue is a red herring ,” Sept. 19), it's probably true that the traffic problem is a non-issue. I really wonder, though, do we need another superstore in the Empire Center? We already have a Target and a Costco, and a Kmart not that far away. Perhaps Whole Foods is not the answer, but anything but a Walmart, please. The type of people the store attracts, and the crime, would be bad for the rest of the businesses in that area.

I think Walmart will be a fantastic addition to the Empire Center, and to Burbank as a whole. The two letters published in the Saturday edition of the Leader (Mailbag, May 19), one expressing worries about the City Council selling out, and one fearful Walmart will change the very fabric of Burbank, are not concerns residents should use to prevent Walmart from becoming part of Burbank. I don't think the City Council has “sold out” residents by allowing Walmart to set up shop in the Empire Center.

I see the Topless Maids van with a phone number on the side of the van hit the front page of the Oct. 10 issue of the Leader. This seems to be OK, but don't let the dreaded Walmart come to town because of the crime it will bring in. Where is our City Council while all of this is going on? Jim McAllister Burbank

I don't understand the logic behind approval for the new IKEA store and the constant delays in approving the Walmart store. Burbank deserves the same choices and convenience that so many others have benefited from across L.A. County with their Walmarts. Burbank should be treated no differently, especially considering that big-box retailers like IKEA and Walmart contribute equally to community development - be it the individual jobs or the collective government revenue that is collected to help pay for our schools, streets, teachers, firefighters and police force.

I see Walmart fitting in very well with this community. It will also bring more people into the city. We used to travel outside of Burbank to shop at Walmart. With the addition of Walmart, it will bring better prices to the area and other stores. Sure, it will force pressure on some of the other stores, but nothing stays the same forever. When Target came to Burbank, I stopped shopping at Kmart. Why was there not the same stink raised? The only ones I see complaining are the unions and high-priced labor.

The letters defending Walmart in the Dec. 14 Leader - “Crime isn't any worse at Walmart” and “Can't wait for Walmart to arrive” - are laughable because they reflect a total ignorance of the destructive effects that the retailer has had on American workers. The authors' main concern appears to be that they have easy access to cheap, Chinese-made goods. There are very good reasons why many cities have fought hard to keep Walmart out. Walmart has destroyed the livelihoods of thousands of small business owners throughout the U.S. by offering non-competitive volume purchasing and discounting that small businesses can't match.

Am I the only person who remembers reading and being shocked by the L.A. Times Pulitzer prize-winning three-part expose of Walmart, published in 2003, titled “The Wal-Mart Effect”? I suggest anyone on the fence in the “let-'em-in or keep 'em out” debate go back and read what was written. Since reading about their business practices in those articles, I have never again set foot in a Walmart store and never will. I will go without that new T-shirt before I'll cause some mother in Honduras to work 18 hours a day to meet her quota while her children take care of themselves.

A recent pepper spraying incident at a Walmart store in Porter Ranch where an angry female shopper injured 20 people, with the shooting of two people in the parking lot of a Walmart store in San Leandro, should be proof enough that Burbank does not need this retailer in our midst. In addition to the excessive traffic it will generate, Walmart attracts many people of criminal or disreputable character who are prone to violence. City Council members, notably Mayor Jess Talamantes, say there is nothing they can do to keep Walmart from opening in Burbank.

Since this has been a big issue for Walmart to open a location in Burbank, why don't they move the location to the old Kmart property on San Fernando Road in Glendale? The lot has a big open space and it has not been used for years. It also has plenty room for parking. I also think it will help the neighborhood because they don't have a Target near them and it will help with employment. Cathy Safavi-Ruelas Burbank

Did the three Burbank women who filed a lawsuit against Walmart ever file a lawsuit against IKEA, whose employees are also non-union? Or because IKEA's very large store would also bring increased traffic? IKEA's factory employees in Sweden “enjoy a minimum wage of about $19 an hour,” according to a 2011 article in the Los Angeles Times. Now that IKEA is planning a huge expansion in Burbank, why aren't these three protesters protesting against that? Certainly the money that is going toward paying the three women's attorney fees could be put to better use, especially since Walmart will, sooner or later, be doing business in Burbank.

The time is now to resolve the Empire Center Walmart issue. Opponents discuss increased traffic around the center and at the busy Burbank Boulevard/Victory intersection. There is a retail location that will open in the next year or so that has ample parking for adding a Walmart and bring hundreds of jobs to Burbank. It is the current IKEA building which will be surplus when IKEA moves to its new location. Having solved this multiyear problem, let me invite you to bring other issues for me to solve!

Gregory S. Krikorian's op-ed in the Leader (“Walmart could create 250 new jobs,” Dec. 18 ) arrived on the heels of the City Council's decision to not appeal the Los Angeles Superior Court's final ruling on the case. The city's decision to not appeal is a sound one: The judge in that case found that by issuing permits to Walmart, the city proceeded in a manner not authorized by law and materially breached its mandatory duty and obligations, and that city staff deliberately suppressed the need for certain traffic mitigation measures.

Gregory Krikorian's Dec. 18 op-ed piece about Walmar t supported occupying empty buildings and staffing them with low-paid, part-time employees to boost employment statistics. His and other letters imply that what is most important is for Burbank citizens to be able to buy cheap merchandise and not see vacant buildings around the city. Businesses do exist in order to make profits but they are dependent upon workers and obligated to provide decent working conditions. Workers have legal rights to protect them from unfair employment practices and should earn a living wage for their labor.

Gregory Krikorian's opinion piece in the Dec. 18 edition of the Burbank Leader fails to factually educate the reader. Krikorian is launching his own opinion about the much lauded 250 jobs. Had Krikorian done his research, he should have told the reader that these 250 Walmart jobs are mostly part-time, poor-paying jobs. Even if these were to be full-time jobs, the workers would not earn enough to have any significant economic effect on Burbank or its residents. As far as construction jobs related to a new Walmart, these would be temporary and would do little to improve our local economy for the long term.

It's ironic that people, like those opposed to Walmart, complain about how Walmart hurts the small business sector causing closings and empty buildings in cities and creating more traffic problems and harming the environment. Well, Burbank is slowly accumulating empty buildings around town and Walmart has nothing to do with it. As a matter of fact, the store would actually reduce the number of empty buildings in town if only it was allowed to occupy the Great Indoors building as intended.

Firstly, not one of us wants a vacant store. We want an environmentally responsible, financially sound, properly permitted business up and running. We'd prefer that company be one that doesn't just “fill the need” for low priced merchandise already available locally. We'd prefer the corporation value their workers so these employees can further help our economy by earning enough to spend at other businesses. We'd prefer that their wages weren't so low that tax dollars were needed for their assistance with programs like WICS.

I've already had my “two cents” published in the Leader regarding my support for a Walmart in the Great Indoors vacant building , but after reading Tim Elliott's letter in the Leader in support of the store (Jan. 1 “ Walmart would fill a city need ”), I want to show my support again. I totally agree with everything he said.... “we want a business there that will serve the people of Burbank, employ people and pay taxes to the city and the state. We want to have the choice of shopping and/or working at Walmart.” I also can relate to the opinion stated by Lawrence Pane regarding street cleaning (Jan.

Re: “ Is Walmart what we want in a business ,” Mailbag, Dec. 25. Walmart is not in business to improve your wages, they are not in business to give you healthcare, vacations, pensions, sick days and support unions. They are in business to make a profit. Secondly, they are in business to fill a need. A need that apparently most Burbank residents would like fulfilled. According to the letters in this paper, the majority of people in this city want a Walmart in the Empire Center.

Gregory Krikorian clearly knows how to utilize chamber of commerce corporate-speak in his defense of Walmart in the Leader (“ Walmart could create 250 new jobs ,” Op-Ed, Dec. 18), but he fails to inform the readers about the true nature of Walmart's history of exploiting workers and destroying small businesses across the United States with non-competitive and predatory business practices. Krikorian laments the vacant Great Indoors structure and claims that a new Walmart store will create about 250 jobs.