Jerry Path has information that indicates that while the actual EIR may comply with the law, Home Depot will be an environmental disaster nonetheless. While I think it's important to acknowledge legal compliance, I think we can also be opposed to (or in support of) matters that do not have to do with legal compliance and that is certainly how we should approach Home Depot. Sue John, These are great reasons to oppose Home Depot in general, and I assume you'd get a resounding "yes" vote from the GM endorsing this position. I don't think anyone was voting against the Home Depot resolution last Wednesday because they like Home Depot. Instead, I think it was a matter of the way the process went down for some (me) and a division among a few people who had (not unreasonable) differing points of view about the "local jobs" vs. "environment" aspects of the project. The main point I was trying to make in the earlier email was that opposing Home Depot as an entity is a better way to oppose them, rather than resorting to opposing the EIR, which as far as I know, generally complies with state environmental law. Personally I'd much rather walk in solidarity with labor and environmental groups for precisely the reasons you've highlighted to oppose Home Depot from setting up shop in SF, instead of being on record that we oppose an EIR, when we had no factual or legal basis before us last Wednesday to oppose the EIR other than "we don't like Home Depot." If we had been involved on the front lines of this fight from years back, and we felt that Home Depot was a core, defining issue for the Green Party, then actively opposing the EIR as a tactical measure to help our chances in the courts at a later date might make sense (much as some of the folks who have been fighting the GGP garage used this tactic), but we haven't been a player in the battle, not much anyway, and I'm not sure what it gets us to go on record as "opposing the EIR" when there have been no technical reasons given why the EIR is defective. With the limited manpower resources of the GP, I suggest that if we want to get involved with land use issues it would be much better for us to become engaged with the11 different *active* planning areas in SOMA - our neighborhood, or the upcoming Better Neighborhoods Plus legislation, or even an evaluation and critique of the mayor's new homeless programs. Those are areas where the Green Party might be able to make a difference and will get us recognized as a contributor to the city's progress. The more I've had to write about this (relatively insignificant) issue (the EIR itself), this discussion highlights what I think is a weakness in our party - we stand up when the media spotlight is shining on an issue and we wave our hands like we're a player - I wish we'd spend as much time developing our various interests and skills, and becoming truly actively involved with our various areas of interest in concert with other activists. I think we'd have more of an impact, and we'd attract more people who want to join the effort. dw John Rizzo <jrizzo@sprintmail.com> wrote: Home Depot is a lot like Walmart. Home Depot is the second largest retailer after Wal-Mart in the US (and third largest in the world). Like Walmart, Home Depot is radically non-union, and fights efforts to organize labor. Like Walmart, Home Depots have the effect of lowering wages. They pay lower wages than the smaller local hardware and appliance stores that they put out of business. Like Walmart, Home Depot has been proven to massively discriminate against women and minorities for management jobs: (From the Denver Post 09/20/04: "On Aug. 25, [Home Depot] agreed to pay $5.5 million to settle a discrimination and retaliation charge brought by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission on behalf of dozens of Colorado employees.") Like Walmart, it is a stated goal of Home Depot to eliminate retail competition. Like Walmart, Home Depot does NOT create jobs. Studies show that for every two jobs created by a big box store, the community loses three. (1994 report from the Congressional Research Service) If that isn't enough, Home Depot causes rainforest deforestation on a massive scale by selling high volumes of old-growth rainforest lumber at cheap prices. John PS: A quote from Home Depot's 1996 Orientation Handbook: "We believe that Home Depot associates are much better off remaining union-free rather than dealing with third-party outsiders. We believe outsiders would destroy the open and direct communication we have with our associates. Home Depot is strongly opposed to union organizing and will resist organizing attempts by unwanted outsiders."
We need to also take into account that THIS Home Depot will be 40% larger than any other Home Depot in the region. Now, why would they do that? Are there more people in San Francisco than in surrounding areas where there are other Home Depot's? Or, are they planning on closing other neighboring stores in order to consolidate? This would bring even more traffic and congestion to San Francisco.
A condition must be included in their permit that if any Home Depot closes within a 20 mile radius, this store must also close.
Please, let's reconsider this. Can this be done online as with other actions?
Bruce
mark barnes wrote:
Folks,
I think need to reconsider our position in regard to Home Depot. We took a vote on a narrow issue with few in attendance with minimal information. Perhaps a working group can consider this. Is the BOS vote next week on this?
More on Home Depot:
Mark