1
   

Walmart's helps kick Elderly out of their homes.

 
 
kjvtrue
 
Reply Tue 3 Feb, 2004 04:32 pm
Quote:
Mobile home park renters oppose Wal-Mart expansion
Wal-Mart plans to supersize if it can buy Colony Mobile Home Park. Owners would profit; renters face ruin.
By ANNE LINDBERG, Times Staff Writer
Published February 1, 2004

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


LEALMAN - Renters and property owners in a mobile home park have split over a purchase offer by Wal-Mart, which wants to expand its nearby store to a supercenter.

The 45 senior owners of Colony Mobile Home Park stand to quadruple their initial investment if the $8.2-million deal goes through. After mortgages and other debts are paid, each owner is expected to receive about $114,000 gross.

"They were very wise to go ahead and buy the park," said Largo attorney Jonathon Damonte, who represents the park owners. "They're going to benefit from the wisdom of their decision."

For the roughly 80 elderly residents on limited incomes who rent space in the park for their attached homes, the deal could mean financial ruin.

Residents say they've been promised an estimated $1,350 to $2,750 as compensation - far less than it will cost to move their homes, elevate them to current standards and codes, and to replace carports and Florida rooms that were added on and cannot be moved. Residents said the payoff also does not take into account expenses such as electric and plumbing hookups.

And that assumes they can find a park that will take their aging homes.

"All this stuff, it adds up to big money," said Sylvia Murphy, 68. "There's no place that will take our mobiles at the age they are .... They're leaving us between a rock and a hard place."

Murphy and the other renters have picketed Wal-Mart and they've lobbied government officials. They've spoken at public hearings. On Tuesday, they plan to take their battle to the County Commission.

In doing so, they've landed in the middle of the annexation battle that has spawned lawsuits pitting mid-Pinellas cities against the county.

Colony Mobile Home Park at 7901 40th Ave. N lies at the southwestern tip of the Lealman Fire District in unincorporated Pinellas. The adjacent Wal-Mart, 3993 Tyrone Blvd., lies within the city limits of St. Petersburg.

Construction of a supercenter on the combined property would be easier if all the land were in one jurisdiction. Wal-Mart would have to deal with one set of rules, one group of officials.

Wal-Mart wants Colony annexed into St. Petersburg before the purchase goes through. The city has zoned Wal-Mart commercial and, presumably, might be more willing than the county to change Colony's zoning from residential to commercial.

To make Wal-Mart happy, the county would have to change the area's annexation planning boundary line because Colony is in a no-annexation zone.

Colony's renters want to make sure the boundary stays put.

"If the annexation doesn't go through, the deal won't go through," said Ron Rosen, 68, vice president of the renters group. "The annexation is critical."

It is unclear that Wal-Mart would back away if the annexation fails. Theoretically, the supercenter still could be built. Wal-Mart did not return a phone call asking for comment.

So far, the renters are losing. They failed to convince the Pinellas Planning Council, which is dominated by city officials, that the boundary line should not be moved. That group has recommended the County Commission move the line to make way for the annexation.

County commissioners are scheduled to vote on the issue at Tuesday's 9:30 a.m. meeting, 315 Court St., Clearwater. The meeting is open to the public.

"This is a straight test of the county's commitment to the people of the unincorporated area," antiannexation activist Ray Neri said. "If the cities can bully their way into creating the annexation to happen through the PPC, there are no boundary lines that the people in the unincorporated area are going to be saved by."

The county's willingness to protect residents in unincorporated Lealman from repeated annexation precipitated legal retaliation. The commission voted in 2002 to move the boundaries established in 2000 to further protect the unincorporated Lealman area by shrinking Pinellas Park's annexation zone.

Pinellas Park, Seminole and Largo have sued the county. That case is scheduled for a hearing later this month.

Colony renters just hope commissioners will protect their homes.

"It's a shame to get rid of affordable housing for the older people," Murphy said.

Colony opened its 13 acres in 1966 and some of the older residents have lived there since that time. Residents range in age from 54 to 94.

With neatly established homes, tidy lawns, clubhouse, pool, shuffleboard courts and American flags billowing from many of the mobiles, it is far from the stereotypical "trailer park."

Losing that so it can become a parking lot for the "Wal-Mart empire" hurts especially badly, Rosen said.

Damonte, the owners' attorney, said the renters all had the chance to buy a share two years ago when the all-renter park changed hands.

The goal of those who bought in was to have control of the park and its future. They also knew that was a prime place for redevelopment, he said.

Those who refused to buy shares are now suffering from their own decisions, he said.

"They practically begged them to buy in," Damonte said. "They chose not to."

But it is not just the loss of homes that is the problem, Rosen said, citing the possibility of more traffic on already crowded streets, and the resulting noise and lights.

Those are major reasons for concern, said Gene Benware, head of the board of directors at the Villas, a condominium-style complex for seniors that is next-door to Colony.

"We're directly affected. Mainly because of the traffic and so on," Benware said. "If they're going to border on us, we need to understand what they're going to do with noise, lights. There's a whole bunch of issues there."

Benware tried to air his concerns during the PPC meeting, but he was not allowed to speak.

"We're not about to let it go," Benware said. "We want some definite answers before a building starts down there."
"I hope those folks win and get a home!"
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Discussion • Score: 1 • Views: 3,521 • Replies: 43
No top replies

 
PDiddie
 
  1  
Reply Tue 3 Feb, 2004 04:46 pm
I wasn't sure you and I would ever agree on anything, kjvtrue.

But, sure enough.....Wal-Mart is vile.

We have a whole other thread going on the topic, and you are welcome to add to it.

Please do give the citation of the above article. Do you know how to link for attribution?
0 Replies
 
kjvtrue
 
  1  
Reply Tue 3 Feb, 2004 04:55 pm
PDiddie wrote:
I wasn't sure you and I would ever agree on anything, kjvtrue.

But, sure enough.....Wal-Mart is vile.

We have a whole other thread going on the topic, and you are welcome to add to it.

Please do give the citation of the above article. Do you know how to link for attribution?
This is a different story from yours. It's from St. Petersburg Neighborhood Times, here is the link:http://www.sptimes.com/2004/02/01/Neighborhoodtimes/Mobile_home_park_rent.shtml
0 Replies
 
Acquiunk
 
  1  
Reply Tue 3 Feb, 2004 05:12 pm
kjvtrue, this is not a different story. Your article gets right to the heart of the matter, Wall-Mart doesn't care who it runs over in it's drive to make money.
0 Replies
 
littlek
 
  1  
Reply Tue 3 Feb, 2004 05:12 pm
kjv - it's all the same story when it comes to Wal-mart.
0 Replies
 
Greyfan
 
  1  
Reply Tue 3 Feb, 2004 05:35 pm
Save at Walmart....

and destroy small businesses, traditional downtowns, and the living wage at the same time.
0 Replies
 
kjvtrue
 
  1  
Reply Tue 3 Feb, 2004 05:43 pm
I don't see the other board talking about Senior's losing their homes.
0 Replies
 
Wilso
 
  1  
Reply Tue 3 Feb, 2004 11:18 pm
We don't have Walmart here. If we did, I wouldn't shop there. Maybe others can do the same. It might be only a small thing. But occasionally enough small things can add up to one big thing!
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Wed 4 Feb, 2004 11:01 am
The problem which arises in opposing Walmart is that the prices are sufficiently low that members of the lowest income groups flock there. People who scrimp and save to pay the heating bill and put food on the table cannot afford to ignore the price differential between Walmart and grocery stores which employ members of the Retail Clerks Union. To my mind, Walmart is an example of the worst consequences of Reagan et all and the union-busting ethic of conservative politics. Fifty years ago, a coporation such as Walmart would have been obliged to unionize, or restrict its operations to "right to work" states.
0 Replies
 
Acquiunk
 
  1  
Reply Wed 4 Feb, 2004 11:16 am
The impact of Wall-Mart goes beyond union busting and driving out competition. It's reach and power as a retailer are such that it now can force domestic manufacturers off shore to met its demands for the lowest possible price. It has become an example of the worst aspects of globalization.
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Wed 4 Feb, 2004 12:11 pm
Yet it remains one of the best examples of capitalism.
0 Replies
 
edgarblythe
 
  1  
Reply Wed 4 Feb, 2004 12:24 pm
Best? Was Blackbeard the best example of a sailor?
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Wed 4 Feb, 2004 12:32 pm
I'd have to agree with McG here, it is one of the best examples of capitalism. As such, it is also one of the best examples of why capitalism needs to be regulated; of why capitalists are not to be trusted to make unfettered decisions.
0 Replies
 
Acquiunk
 
  1  
Reply Wed 4 Feb, 2004 12:50 pm
Blackbeard is an excellent model for entrepreneurship in a global economy...take the money and run.
0 Replies
 
kjvtrue
 
  1  
Reply Wed 4 Feb, 2004 04:23 pm
Is Walmarts against Unions are for Unions? Question
0 Replies
 
PDiddie
 
  1  
Reply Wed 4 Feb, 2004 05:31 pm
Strongly against, kjvtrue:

Quote:
"Wal-Mart is opposed to unionization," reads a company guidebook for supervisors. "You, as a manager, are expected to support the company's position. ... This may mean walking a tightrope between legitimate campaigning and improper conduct."

Wal-Mart is in fact rabidly anti-union, deploying teams of union-busters from Bentonville to any spot where there's a whisper of organizing activity. "While unions might be appropriate for other companies, they have no place at Wal-Mart," a spokeswoman told a Texas Observer reporter who was covering an NLRB hearing on the company's manhandling of 11 meat-cutters who worked at a Wal-Mart Supercenter in Jacksonville, Texas.

These derring-do employees were sick of working harder and longer for the same low pay. "We signed [union] cards, and all hell broke loose," says Sidney Smith, one of the Jacksonville meat-cutters who established the first-ever Wal-Mart union in the United States, voting in February 2000 to join the United Food and Commercial Workers. Eleven days later, Wal-Mart announced that it was closing the meat-cutting departments in all of its stores and would henceforth buy prepackaged meat elsewhere.

But the repressive company didn't stop there. As the Observer reports: "Smith was fired for theft--after a manager agreed to let him buy a box of overripe bananas for 50 cents, Smith ate one banana before paying for the box, and was judged to have stolen that banana."


(This was part of an article I posted in the Wal-Mart thread linked above, in my last post.)
0 Replies
 
roverroad
 
  1  
Reply Wed 4 Feb, 2004 09:13 pm
You know those mobil home parks, even though they are an eye sore and often attract a bad element, really do provide a good service to low income communities.

I happen to live in an old trailer park, not because I can't afford anything better, because you can't beat the rent.

This just proves my opinion that Wal-mart is evil.
0 Replies
 
OCCOM BILL
 
  1  
Reply Wed 4 Feb, 2004 09:29 pm
At what point does running a successful business make you evil? How many jobs do they provide? How much easier do their low prices make budgeting for the poor? I can't believe you guys fault a company for buying land to expand (at 4 times its value by the sound of it). Can anyone define for me exactly when one makes the transition from successful entrepreneur to evil oppressor? Is it really evil to succeed?
0 Replies
 
roverroad
 
  1  
Reply Wed 4 Feb, 2004 09:35 pm
OCCOM BILL wrote:
At what point does running a successful business make you evil? How many jobs do they provide? How much easier do their low prices make budgeting for the poor? I can't believe you guys fault a company for buying land to expand (at 4 times its value by the sound of it). Can anyone define for me exactly when one makes the transition from successful entrepreneur to evil oppressor? Is it really evil to succeed?


The point is those people have no place else to go. They are only getting 2000 for their trailers. Why should they have to move at all. Wal-Mart doesn't care who it steps on to offer the good prices. Their employees aren't that well paid.

I work for a grocery chain that actually has better prices than Wal-Mart and you don't see the company that I work for stepping on people to get to the top. There's other ways to provide low prices.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Wed 4 Feb, 2004 10:00 pm
The manipulative corporate decisions of Walmart have implicaitons beyond this trailer park. There is a point at which society is justified in characterizing capitalist action as "evil," although bone-head stupid would be a more apt description. The economy "grows" (or not) with the fluctuations of consumption. When Walmart employs the majority of people in an area, the "power" of their wallets is considerably less, and their economic future--in terms of insurance and savings--considerably bleaker than when there are even a small percentage of union businesses. Retail clerks don't simply make more money than the $10.00 hour cashiers at Walmart, they have insurance and benefits which assure that they don't burden the larger society, and can afford to buy durable goods, which greatly benefits this society, or any trading partner who does well here in durable goods. Durable goods is considered a bell-weather because it spreads employment all through an economic chain from raw materials through intial tier and a great many value added production operations. When nobody makes any more than the local Walmart employee, nobody can afford anything better or more costly than Walmart offers, if they can even afford that. There is no competition to assure a maintenance of standards in product quality, and a high level of genuine customer service. Walmart attempts to monopolize, at whatever the cost may be. The eventual price will be the prosperity of the general population, and the quality of our lives. A consumer economy does not thrive with poor and decreasing numbers of consumers.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

T'Pring is Dead - Discussion by Brandon9000
Another Calif. shooting spree: 4 dead - Discussion by Lustig Andrei
Before you criticize the media - Discussion by Robert Gentel
Fatal Baloon Accident - Discussion by 33export
The Day Ferguson Cops Were Caught in a Bloody Lie - Discussion by bobsal u1553115
Robin Williams is dead - Discussion by Butrflynet
Amanda Knox - Discussion by JTT
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Walmart's helps kick Elderly out of their homes.
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 04/26/2024 at 07:36:12