Today on AirTalk, the proposed Walmart in Chinatown may have to halt construction, a new environmental tool will rank California ZIP codes according to pollution, Costa Mesa calls for more transparency in public employee contracts, immigrants in Arizona may have to show law enforcement officials their papers after all, a bill calling for driver licenses for undocumented immigrants goes to Governor Jerry Brown for approval, and Hollywood tax credits are called into question for their cost-effectiveness.
Walmart in Chinatown? Not so fast…
Plans for a Walmart in Chinatown may be derailed if two groups have their way. The Asian Asian Pacific American Labor Alliance and the United Food and Commercial Workers Union have long opposed the big-box retailer because of its non-union labor practices.
In July the two groups sued the city of Los Angeles, claiming it pushed Walmart’s building permit through without sufficient environmental review; that court date is set for November. The retail chain hasn’t let that stop them from building, and construction is already underway for their Chinatown store. The two labor groups are now seeking a judge’s order for Walmart to halt construction until the court date. They’ll present their request Friday morning.
Meanwhile, construction workers from the Walmart site are demonstrating this morning to protest the potential work stoppage. A group of about 25, organized by a large PR company, spoke about how they would personally be impacted if construction is stalled. Walmart spokesperson Stephen Restivo told AirTalk that if the court votes to pause building, over 100 construction workers will be out of a job a few hours later.
"This ruling is not about a grocery store, it's not about labor special interests; it's all about people who are being employed, who are earning a living, who are caught in the middle of this political fight," he continued.
According to Restivo, the permits were issued validly by the city, and he anticipates a favorable ruling. He added that many downtown residents want the Walmart store there.
"I think some of the louder voices in this discussion just don't represent the majority opinion, and that fact will come to life the day our store opens, as thousands and thousands of local residents vote for our store with their feet," he said.
He went on to say that contrary to dissenters, Walmart will improve the area's economy.
"Residents just want a store in their community from a brand they trust that's going to treat them well, offer them low prices and have a positive impact," he said. "Our store is going to do all these things and more. It's moving into a space that's zoned for grocery that's been underutilized for close to 20 years, and so we see our store having a positive economic ripple effect across the entire downtown region."
Gideon Krakov, attorney representing the Asian Pacific American Labor Alliance, rebutted that though Walmart talks about saving jobs, the corporation fails to look at the jobs that will be lost when smaller businesses find they can't compete with Walmart's "race-to-the-bottom" pricing approach.
"Let's talk about the other side of the equation. Those thousands of jobs that are being lost at Albertsons – that has to be factored into this too.
He said that the case is about transparency and the rule of the law.
"If this project is constructed before either the city officials had a hearing, or the court gets to weigh in, I think that's fundamentally unfair. If Walmart is so confident that this is such a great project and that it's warranted in that community, it shouldn't have a problem with either the city or the court weighing its actions," he said.
Krakov is similarly confident the court will rule in his client's favor.
"Walmart is not above the law, no matter how powerful it is. It's really one of the crown jewels of the legal system. We filed our injunction motion back in July," he said. "Even since it started construction, Walmart knew that it proceeded at its own risk."
WEIGH IN:
Is a judge likely to rule for the city in favor of Walmart, or those opposed to building? And what about the jobs that will be nixed if construction does stop? How determined is Walmart to stake a claim in Chinatown?
Guests:
Alice Walton, KPCC government reporter
Steven Restivo, Walmart spokesperson
Gideon Krakov, attorney representing the United Food and Commercial Workers Union and the Asian Pacific American Labor Alliance
New environmental screening tool irks California business leaders
There’s a new method of ranking California communities in regards to pollution, and some feel it could have a great impact on the state. The California Communities Environmental Health Screening Tool rates ZIP codes based on a wide range of environmental, health and socioeconomic data, such as air pollution, traffic, amount of pesticides used, the number of dump sites, rates of cancer and asthma, and numbers of elderly and children.
While shedding light on how pollution is affecting communities seems like a good idea on paper, several businesses are raising concerns that this will lead to a growing disparity between the advantaged and disadvantaged areas in the state. A ZIP code with an unfavorable ranking could lead to more industry regulation, which would deter business growth and lead to a loss of jobs.
But those who support the new procedure say it will finally begin to bridge the gap between the communities which are negatively affected by pollution and don’t have the means, resources or representation to fight it.
So, who is right here? Will jobs be lost? Or is that beside the point if where you work is heavily polluted anyway? How will this tool be implemented? Can it be improved upon?
Guest:
Arsenio Mataka, Assistant Secretary for Environmental Justice and Tribal Affairs, California Environmental Protection Agency (Cal-EPA)
Gayle Covey, Executive Director, San Bernardino County Farm Bureau
City of Costa Mesa opts for more transparency in contracts… but only with public employees
The Costa Mesa City Council approved a measure on Tuesday that proponents say significantly improves transparency on how taxpayer money is spent.
Citing the 75% of Costa Mesa’s general fund that’s spent on public employee contracts, the measure would bring in an independent negotiator any time a city worker is involved in a negotiation. Councilman Steve Mensinger says that’s because high level officials often work on contracts that can affect their own benefits down the line.
Additional transparency measures include publishing contract details 30 days before renegotiation starts, and posting proposed contracts on the city’s website a week ahead of council meetings where they will be reviewed. Labor groups say this bill unfairly targets public employees, and creates no accountability for private contractors.
If you’re an Orange County resident, do you favor these steps? Should cities go even further to control costs associated with public contracts? Or is this a lighter version of union busting?
Guests:
Steve Mensinger, Council member, City of Costa Mesa
Nick Berardino, General Manager, Orange County Employees Association
Judge upholds 'Show Me Your Papers' provision of Arizona’s immigration law
Of all the provisions in Arizona’s controversial SB 1070 bill, the most contentious of them was upheld Wednesday by a U.S. district judge. The “Show Me Your Papers” provision allows law enforcement officers to question the immigration status of those people they believe to be in the country illegally while making their regular stops.
Opponents of the provision say that it would allow for racial profiling and a loss of civil rights while those in favor of the bill say that the officers are well qualified and trained to make those judgment calls. Ultimately, Judge Susan Bolton decided that it was language from the initial Supreme Court ruling that the provision “cannot be challenged further on its face before the law takes effect” which inspired her ruling.
Legalese aside, the ruling will allow for Governor Jan Brewer's law to take full effect shortly. After the seemingly endless battles in high courts over the bill and its provisions, is this the final stop for SB 1070? Is this a big loss for the Obama Administration which challenged the law as well? Do you think this sets precedent for other states who want to draft their own immigration law?
Guest:
Omar Jadwat, staff attorney with the ACLU Immigrants' Rights Project
Kris Kobach, Kansas Secretary of State: Constitutional law expert and former Law Professor at University of Missouri-Kansas City (UMKC); Former Counsel to U.S. Attorney General John Ashcroft (from 2001-2003, he was the Attorney General's Chief Advisor on immigration law)
California’s undocumented immigrant driver license bill heads to governor’s office
For the ninth time in his career, Gil Cedillo has got his pet project to the governor’s desk. Since 1998, the Democratic member of the California State Assembly has been tirelessly working to allow undocumented immigrants access to driver licenses. While Governor Gray Davis signed one such bill into law, it was repealed when Arnold Schwarzenegger took office.
As a sign of compromise, Cedillo has reduced the scope of his bill to only grant such privileges to the same immigrants who fall under President Barack Obama’s deferred action program: illegal immigrants who were brought here before they were sixteen, don’t have criminal records, and are either in school or have certain education credentials.
While limiting the range of those who could gain driver licenses may be politically smart, is it going far enough? The main reason to get these people driver licenses is so they have to actually pass a driving test. A vast majority of them don’t know the formal rules for driving, and in some reports illegal immigrants are involved in fatal accidents at a rate five times that of documented drivers. Not to mention that if you don’t have a driver license, you definitely don’t have automobile insurance.
Does AB 2189 stand a chance of being signed into law? If so, is it selling itself short? What steps can be taken to ensure that the roads are made more secure, not just for undocumented immigrants, but for those who already have licenses?
Guests:
Gil Cedillo, California State Assemblyman (D-45)
Tim Donnelly, California State Assemblyman (R- 59)
Do Hollywood tax credits pay off?
It’s right there in the name – when we say Hollywood, we don’t mean the collection of t-shirt shops and tourist attractions just north of Sunset Blvd, we’re talking about the glamour and power of the film industry. To keep its namesake, and promote economic activity, the state of California offers $100 million dollars a year in tax credits for film productions.
That hasn’t stopped some entertainment jobs from moving out of state as Massachusetts, New York and Michigan try to get in on the action. Another round of credits waits on Governor Jerry Brown’s desk, but some Sacramento analysts say the state would be better off if the credits expired.
According to industry groups, taxpayers spend only $10,000 per year per job created, which they say is more than made up for in income tax revenue and buying food, gas and housing in California. But state analysts believe that cost is much, much higher, and has done little to stop productions from leaving town.
Where do you land? Is the film industry a net gain or loss for California? And even if it costs the state more than it takes in to keep productions and talent here, is it worth your tax dollars to keep Hollywood in the Golden State?
Guests:
Paul Audley, president of Film L.A., Inc.
Will Freeland, economist with The Tax Foundation, a non-profit, non-partisan tax research organization based in Washington, D.C.