Originally
posted from 06-13-02 to 06-27-02
Burn Your Costco Card!
by Jeffrey Quick
You may have heard
of the recent vote of the city council in Cypress, CA to seize land
through eminent domain which a church had bought tobuild a larger building
on (see article
in the Orange County
Register). If you read these pages regularly, I shouldn't have to
spell out why taking land for private development is wrong, or how taking
church land in particular can be understood as an attack on freedom
of religion. But I want to focus on several paragraphs of the above
referenced article, which show the real culprit here.
"Cities ranging
from New York to Lancaster to Fountain Valley have used eminent domain
to clear land for Costcos, help them expand or build roadways that
help customers reach their stores."
In other words,
Costco has exhibited a pattern of encouraging communities to use eminent
domain.
"Bruce Greenwood,
Orange County regional manager for Costco, denied that the company
seeks special treatment. 'Can you imagine us going out and saying,
'We want that block over there?' ... If it's a benefit for the city,
they should (use eminent domain),'he said."
This is a little
disingenuous. Receiving stolen merchandise is a crime. Working with
the city to get land through eminent domain is conspiracy to commit
robbery.
"Greg Vena,
a Costco real estate negotiator, said his company approached Cypress
officials in 2000. The officials showed him several possible sites
for a store, he said, including the Cottonwood property and another
property at Katella Avenue and Valley View Street.The Valley View
site didn't work out, Vena said, because the landowner, a large development
company, didn't want to sell."
This is revealing.
The development company had plans to develop their land, which presumably
would have brought a higher return than anything Costco was willing
to pay. The city did not condemn the Valley View parcel. Thus presumably
whatever the developers had in mind was a "higher and better use"
for Valley view than a Costco. So why didn't the city take the Cottonwood
property and give it to the Valley View developer instead of Costco?
Who on the Cypress council
is holding Costco stock?
According to an
article
published by WorldNetDaily:
"Cottonwood
fears that if it succumbs to city officials' dictates, a precedent
will be set and cities across the nation will be encouraged to seize
church property to build businesses that will provide more tax dollars."
I think Cottonwood
and WND are right, which means that this decision affects us all. We
can't all vote out the Cypress city council, though we can probably
contribute to opposing candidates. But we can let Costco know we disapprove,
in the language we know they understand- by trimming that $34 billion
they took in last year. You aren't saving that much anyway after the
membership fee, especially if you count having to make that extra trip.
And they track your purchases. So burn your card. Not all the way...you
want them to know who you are. Or cut it up. Either way, send the remains
to one of the following gentlemen, with a polite note explaining your
position:
Paul
G. Moulton Executive
Vice President, Real Estate
or
James D. Sinegal President
Chief Executive Officer and Director
Costco
999 Lake Drive
Issaquah, WA 98027
If
you prefer, click
here to email some comments.
If enough of us
do this, they'll change their mind about building there, and doing business
that way. Sure, Cypress will find somebody else to collect tax money
from. And we'll do the same to that company...and the next, until Cypress
is stuck with 18 acres of unusable land. If at that point, they decide
to donate it to Cottonwood Christian Center, I won't do my usual separation-of-church-and-state
whining, because it will be victim compensation, not support of religion.
Will this hurt the
citizens of Cypress? Yes...but only they have the power to recall their
councilmen. If they don't, they share equal culpability.
Originally
posted from 05-30-02 to 06-06-02
Sleeping with the Enemy
by Jeffrey Quick
I remember
the last night. We'd gone out to eat, and on the way back to my place
had started discussing politics. This was always risky. but something
I could never refrain from, given the proper opening, which she could
never refrain from presenting. She'd worked for the campaign of a liberal
Congressman (the vegan one), was anti-gun because she didn't trust herself
with one, a social conservative about sex and drugs and a bleeding heart
about all else. And I was a hardshell Libertarian. She was cultured,
kind, and willing. And until now, that had been enough.
"The
problem with your ideas is that you're too intelligent. Half the population
has IQs under 100. That's scary. If everyone was like you, maybe this
Libertarian stuff would work. But they can't take care of themselves.
I can't take care of myself; I don't have your brains.
We have laws for the same reason parents childproof their houses, to
protect the incapable, and if that inconveniences the adults in the
household, people like you, oh well."
As
I picked my jaw up off the floor, I tried to decide what was more appalling:
the elitism that sneered at the stupidity of normal people, the same
ones she trusted to vote, or the self-contempt implicit in denying that
she could run her own life. I began my usual verbal thrust and parry
(about which she usually said, "I can't win an argument with you.").
I wanted desperately to convince myself that she didn't really believe
what she had said, or, failing that, to convince myself beyond doubt
that it was so. I met each of her statements with smirking and laughter
as I lost connection. Finally we wound down and sat there, two lonely
people.
"Isn't
it about time for bed?" she asked, her eyes continuing the thought:
take me, rape me even, I can't lose you, loving will make it all right
again...
"I
think I'd better take you home." She had defined herself as a child,
and I'm not a pedophile.
Later,
I found a lady. She worked in a steel mill, had neither money nor the
grades for college. But she was curious about everything, had political
savvy and courage far beyond mine, and was at least as capable of running
her own life as I am. We disagree sometimes, but not about core values.
She's my lover and my best friend, for as long as she wants the job.
My
point? This is a lonely fight, one we need to share. We can't afford
the energy drain that comes from having our own personal Lillian Rearden.
The people who want to run our lives do so because they are afraid to
run their own. It's not enough to keep them from wiping our noses, when
we are willing to wipe theirs. To waste ourselves on that kind of person
means that another fighter for freedom will spend a lonely night, alone
or with somebody.
I would
never tell somebody to break their promises. But as you take responsibility
for yourself, you will change. And unless your mate is changing with
you, the time will come when you can no longer continue living a lie.
When that day comes, accept it and embrace it, because it will free
you to find real love, from a person who respects herself as much as
she respects you. Even if you have to wait, it will be worth it.