Kevin Reich noted the following: YOU'RE BEING WATCHED According to a recent Chicago Sun Times investigative feature, Wal-Mart and Procter and Gamble (P&G) have been found to be concealing high tech tracking devices in their consumer products and hiding cameras in store displays. The tracking devices, known as Radio Frequency Identification (RFID),
David Piehl adds: Actually, it's not happening yet. The technology has been developed, but is still too expensive for widespread consumer use. Some companies are in the initial stages of implementing RFID for tracking pallets and containers of freight, as did the US Military in recent operations, but for now doing it at the consumer level is a ways off. Last June or July, Wal Mart announced a supplier initiative that would place a deadline for all approved suppliers to comply with an RFID program, then backed off about a month later due to pressure from privacy advocates as well as push-back from the manufacturers, who would bear all the cost while Wal Mart reaped all the gain. One truly disturbing aspect the privacy advocates noted was the ability to track the products not just within the store, but all the way to the consumers' homes! While I often agree with Vicky Heller from a business perspective, I disagree that Wal Mart would boost the tax base. Studies in many California communities have determined that the presence of a Wal Mart actually harms the tax base as they drive the smaller businesses out of business. Many communities (San Diego is the latest) are putting restrictions in place on the size of retail facilities to keep all "big box" developments out. Here is a quote from one of the California articles (and link) http://www.alternet.org/story.html?StoryID=16282 the San Diego County Taxpayers Association (SDCTA), a nonprofit, nonpartisan organization. It found that an influx of big-box stores into San Diego would result in an annual decline in wages and benefits between $105 million and $221 million, and an increase of $9 million in public health costs. SDCTA also estimated that the region would lose pensions and retirement benefits valued between $89 million and $170 million per year and that even possible increased sales and property tax revenues would not cover the extra costs of necessary public services. "Good jobs, good pay, and good benefits should be the goal of an economy," SDCTA concluded, "and supercenters are not consistent with that objective." Here's the link to the story about Oakland CA banning big box retailers: http://209.157.64.200/focus/f-news/1005954/posts Since Minnesota still likes to build big roads and subsidize big developments, my guess is we won't see our first ban on big boxes for at least 20 years. David Piehl Central __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Free Pop-Up Blocker - Get it now http://companion.yahoo.com/ REMINDERS: 1. Think a member has violated the rules? Email the list manager at [EMAIL PROTECTED] before continuing it on the list. 2. Don't feed the troll! Ignore obvious flame-bait. For state and national discussions see: http://e-democracy.org/discuss.html For external forums, see: http://e-democracy.org/mninteract ________________________________ Minneapolis Issues Forum - A City-focused Civic Discussion - Mn E-Democracy Post messages to: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Subscribe, Un-subscribe, etc. at: http://e-democracy.org/mpls
