Ambassador Young was right to say that the interests of Wal-Mart's customers and employees are not necessarily opposed. But it begs the question of who speaks for the customers and the employees -- the company itself is far from the most trustworthy spokesperson for either group.

"how box stores and developers descend on communities and have their way with them by greasing palms and using misleading claims of job creation and economic development."

The rights of working-class consumers, perhaps, have not received much attention, but that does lead to a conclusion that Wal-Mart is the solution?

Perhaps the first commenter should understand (and I didn't see it reported here) that Andrew young is on the Wal-Mart payroll as chair of Working Families for Wal-mart. Young's company, GWI Consulting has a contract with Wal-Mart for Young to write and speak positively about Wal-Mart. Perhaps he just did.

But when one raises questions about "greasing palms and using misleading claims of job creation and economic development," that reminds me of people like Sharpton, Keith Wright, Bertha Lewis, Vito Lopez and others including some of the DMI bloggers like, for example, A. Shopshire who do nothing but shill for these developers.

"I have no love ... for how box stores and developers descend on communities and have their way with them by greasing palms and using misleading claims of job creation and economic development."

You mean like Bertha Lewis or Adrianne Shropshire?

Let's keep our eye on the ball here. Every blog conversation doesn't have to be used as an opportunity to (anonymously)issue personalized backhanded attacks.

anon #1 or anon #2 should name the project or developer that I acted as a shill for. The fact of the matter is, you can't because I never have. Try elevating your analysis a little. Your shallow, petty attacks do nothing to advance a real or progressive strategy for economic development. Throwing anonymous bombs from the sidelines shows precisely what your commitment to systemic social change is and your apparent devotion to arm chair activism.

How about a forehanded attack? Call it what you will. The second comment was posted as the first didn't appear for a day or two. Even so, MWG raised the issue, and his doing so begs the question. Why are those people shilling for developers? That's EXACTLY what they are doing. Don't pretend just because they wear the progressive orthodox label that they are not doing so.

You want to criticize Andrew Young for being paid off by Wal-Mart while seemingly leading an alleged progressive think-tank? Fine, I'm there with you. But look around the room. He's not the only one.

Every time one or more of these individuals or groups glom onto some large project because the developer, or mayor, or some elected official wants to take credit for something and they all promise dubious benefits for whoever, several things inevitably happen. The benefits are usually illusory, temporary or minuscule. Even if some benefits are real, the project will hurt and displace those who are already there. Whether it's in Brooklyn, Manhattan or the Bronx, the huge projects end up displacing resident and small businesses. Just like Wal-Mart does.

So who is predatory now? Is Acorn predatory? How about the campaigns from Jobs with Justice? What about Vito Lopez who makes sure there's a 421(a) abatement in every back pocket? What about Robert Jackson who's pushing for a community benefits agreement that will allow Columbia to proceed with full steam in its plan to bulldoze Manhattanville? (oh, as long as they agree to a CBA slush fund). There's a long list of politicians who play this game.

Maybe some of these individuals or groups should stop looking for a quick payoff and stop giving the elected officials political cover for supporting neighborhood bulldozing overdevelopment. You end up hurting the very people you for whom you claim to be fighting.

The issue of Wal-Mart presents us in a concrete way with the complexities of globalization. As detailed in recent reports of the National Labor Committee, http://www.nlcnet.org/live/index.php , Wal-Mart (and other us sellers) buy clothes from factories -- sweatshops really -- in Jordan where indentured servants are treated appallingly. (the non-citizen workers are held in a "free trade zone," paid wages lower than they were promised and lower that the local minimum wages and must repay the costs of transportation and living which are set so they cannot, as a practical matter, escape.) Jordanian workers do not benefit, those in the sweat-shops dont either. Cheap clothing is sold to Wal-Mart and others (Dress Barn). ( For a recent radio report based on the NLC study go to http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5510902 ) So foreign workers held under oppressive conditions allow retailers to bring cheap clothing to the US.

It seems to me that Wal-Mart is just one expression of how "free trade", as practiced by multi-national corporations can harm workers at home (no more clothing jobs) and abroad (perpetual indentured servitude).

It's a handy example and its low wage anti-union policies make it a dangerous retail opponent. As has often been noted on DMI pages, Wal-Mart makes use government benefit programs for the poor to keep its own labor costs low. Yet unions, progressive and human rights advocates have not yet focused on a comprehenive response to the Wal-Mart challenge.

We do need to get closer to Wal-Mart and we need to take a closer look at it. We also need to engage long-time friends and allies like Amabssador Young in dialogue on the benefits and costs Wal-Mart and its clones impose on people everywhere.

Hey Anon, seriously, what example do you have of Adrianne supporting Wal-Mart? I can't find one.
She supports inclusionary zoning I think. Not Wal-Mart. I don't get where you are making that claim from?

No one ever claimed or implied Ms. Shropshire supported Wal-Mart. You don't find that claim is from ... because it was never made. Why not read the posts. Even her post above doesn't try to twist the specific charge...

...which is that she (and others, but she's the DMI person) are shilling for developers in their support of large projects. They need not say so outright (although JWJ did sign on to support the bulldozing on Manhattan's West Side).

But supporting inclusionary zoning, or community benefits agreements, those policies in themselves are the same thing as shilling for developers, and the same question raised by MWG in the initial post here, that "how box stores and developers descend on communities and have their way with them by greasing palms and using misleading claims of job creation and economic development."

Look what happened in Greenpoint yesterday. A project, originally a single building somehow turned into four buildings and got the mayor and "congressman" Yassky, Vito Lopez and others out for the groundbreaking. Reportedly HPD just gave them the land for nothing, they're getting 421(a) benefits and many other goodies. No wonder Yassky and Vito Lopez were there. And they had their fake groups there shilling for them. Mr. Subsidy himself, Brad Lander of Pratt was there praising the entire thing.

All but the people who live there.

So it's not just Shropshire by any means. But whoever it is, it's engaging in deception.

Pay no attention to that person or group undercutting community interests in the name of orthodoxy. You can fool NY1 and the dailies, but the rest of us know you're simply shilling for evil people.

And sorry to take the focus off of Wal-Mart and thanks for the comment by D. Millstone. The problems with Wal-Mart are not just in the treatment of its workers. I think we all know that even though that seems to be the thrust of all criticism. Wal-Mart drives local companies out of business, briungs unbearable traffic, impacts the supply chain (being predatory can work in both directions).

Maybe Young has a point in that the interests of consumers should be considered, but is Wal-Mart with all its ills the answer?

The point made by MWG is why I responded. Wal-Mart and others come into communities and grease palms to get what they want. Who has their hand out? Andrew Young is not the only one looking for grease on their palms.

Anyone who knows Adrianne knows that she shills for no one.

Other than that, thanks for bringing the focus back to the issues. The questions you raise about Community Benefit Agreements and inclusionary zoning are legit and deserve more attention.

Well I don't know Ms. Shropshire (so it's not personal). But it's important to expose what she and others are doing because the policies are destructive (and shameful for progressives), and she and others are in denial about what they are doing (either individually or as an organizational thing).

You say she shills for no one. Well, you're wrong. JWJ signed on to support the massive bulldozing and office park on Manhattan's West Side. It's a matter of record. That creates displacement and the support of JWJ undermines local community residents' ability to oppose it ... as politicians will latch onto the so-called support as an excuse.

It's what Quinn did on the West Side. It's what Yassky did in Williamsburg. It's what Jackson is now doing with the Columbia expansion. It's what Stringer is doing all over Manhattan. And several are doing with Atlantic Yards.

JWJ is also pushing CBA's as part of its effort to "reform" the IDA. One doesn't have to use the CBA acronym ... I'm not certain if they do. But it's exactly the same thing ... you give us something (presumably the promise of some jobs or so-called "affordable" inclusionary housing) and we'll be inclined to support some massive horrible project that kills neighborhoods. SHAME on you!

As I said before, I don't mean to dwell on Ms. Shropshire, but she's the DMI person here and pushes those ideas here. Even so, there's anough shame to be spread around ... Acorn, WFP, Pratt and so on.

No, shame on you! You actually have no idea what you are talking about, and that's a shame. Jobs with Justice signed on to nothing related to Westside development. Where exactly is the public record on that located 'cuz I'd like to see it myself? And was that before or after my arrival in this City and at Jobs with Justice?

To be clear and for the record you cannot google a development project where my name is attached to "supporting" it if there's a pay-off. Doesn't exist. You can, however, find me talking about how developers can't run over and through communities. You can find me talking about the need for local governments to get a handle on eminant domain and the displacement of poor people for parking lots. Do I support CBA's? Yes. They create an opportunity for communities to sit down and negotiate over how development happens in their neighborhoods. I've been a part of negotiating them in South Los Angeles, in downtown Los Angeles, and I support the use of this tool in New York City. You may have a problem with how they've been handled in this city but you need to seperate the process (good or bad) from the tool. Will everyone always be happy with them? No. And they don't have be.

Lastly, you're characterization of why subsidy accountability matters, or I guess from you perspective doesn't matter, is ridiculous. People have a right to determine how public capital is used. The IDA campaign is not about supporting particular development projects, it's about corporate tax-break reform. It's about changing the cozy relationship that corporations have with our government. And yes, it's about expecting more for our tax dollars.

You claim that your attacks aren't personal and yet, given that fact that you so off on everything that you have attempted to say about me, I can't imagine what else they are. If you want to argue the issues or the ideas, that's fine. But calling names is childish and suggesting that I'm about getting my palm greased off offensive.

The idea that Adrianne or JWJ shill for anyone is ridiculous. Intervening in major developments and winning critical. legitimate community benefits as a result is a good thing. There is always the danger of developers misusing this process - but that's not going to happen with a group like JWJ driving the campaign.

Leveraging economic development is an important way to build power for progressive constituencies as well as delivering concrete benefits to impacted communities.

There are always the nimby homeowner types who are generally opposed to all development, because they don't have a desperate need for quality, high-wage jobs and affordable housing.

By the way, why post anonymously? If you're feeling so righteous about your position, why not share your identity?

Why do people continue to attack people who do good work without backing up their claims?

In addition, it seems a weird way to look at politics to criticize people who are doing what they can within a system where large projects are rarely defeated - unless you have access to millions of dollars (like the people fighting the W. Side stadium did). In such a world, it seems to me like the appropriate thing to do is to leverage these projects to get benefits for the community - affordable housing, traffic mitigation, living wage jobs, etc. What's the alternative you propose? Struggling like Sisyphus, keeping your purist credentials while having no effect on the world?

I stand by my claim. Look at the Labor Community Advocacy Network, in which JWJ participated. It's right there.

But even if one disagrees with that, promoting Community Benefits Agreements is also shilling for developers. It ensures some projects that simply should not go ahead at all, allows developers, corrupt politicians and groups seeking payoffs and favors to sign-on supporting the bad development and marginalize local community groups.

Don't confuse negotiations with CBAs. They are two different things. CBAs put a discrete price on projects, gives certainty to developers and pays off certain groups whose goals may sound good on paper, but ignore a lot of bad things. CBAs are not intended to stop, scale-down or mitigate the most adverse aspects of a project. CBAs usually happen up-front and essentially give-away bargaining power. What leverage do local community groups have when Astroturf groups (whose motives are indeed suspect) have already signed on in support?

OTOH, negotiations can happen at any time, but usually later in the process and use various forms of leverage. CBAs take leverage off the table. And those seeking to reduce the impact of bad development are not nimby home owners. Don't dismiss the concerns over that. That's an arrogant and dismissive claim -- worthy of a landlord or developer.

So CBA are a misused device, especially when they are mandatory or institutionalized. Those who seek to require them are indeed shilling for developers, who want nothing less than to have certainty over the project even if it involves paying off some people. There's no leverage in that. And the benefits are questionable.

Ms. Shropshire seems to think CBA are used "negotiate over how development happens in their neighborhoods." That is incorrect. CBAs happen when a particular project is on the table. CBAs do not happen in wide-ranging discussions over long-term development ... at least not in NYC. But even if they were, the device requires huge give-aways of neighborhoods, of retail stores, of tenant protections and so on, but most important it gives away leverage.

Also misplaced is the notion of "leveraging economic development." That doesn't happen by shilling for mega-projects where you easily fall victim for developers dangling a pay-off in front of your nose. Real development -- that benefits the local community -- happens by smaller scale development, buildings within context of the area, creating local retail outlets and manufacturing jobs, providing real affordable housing, not the fake affordable housing through inclusionary zoning (which creates secondary displacement and exacerbates gentrification).

So yes, the efforts of those shilling for developers, being apologists, promoting give-aways grabbing at illusory benefits ... are shameful, and hardly progressive.