Wal-Mart name may hurt Bath's reputation
To the Editor,

Bath does not need to have its property taxes increased or its reputation sullied because of Wal-Mart, which has attained the dubious distinction of being the 800-pound poster child of the proverbial race to the bottom. Known for its low wages, meager benefits, encouragement of employees to seek public assistance benefits, discrimination against women, hiring of illegal immigrants, and flouting of federal labor laws, Bath can do better than Wal-Mart. Bath can attract other retailers that must realize, as Wal-Mart obviously has, that there is money to be made here in Bath. Without a Wal- Mart here, other major retailers would likely be attracted or retained, as Dollar General and now Walgreens have.

We do not need to settle for a corporation that has been shown to cause property taxes to rise. A study by Lester Hadsell, Ph.D., published in the New York Economic Review assessed the impact of large, national retailers on local governments in New York. Municipalities with a Wal-Mart experienced an increase in local property tax rates that was almost 2.4 percent greater per year than in municipalities without a Wal-Mart. After six years, the local property tax rate was estimated to be over fourteen percent higher. These higher rates were associated with increased costs to localities to provide Wal-Mart with water, sewer, fire and highway services. Increased costs for police services also seem likely. In order to pay for the public assistance benefits that Wal-Mart employees will be driven to, additional costs will be borne at the county level.

I object to having my town's reputation sullied by Wal-Mart, a corporation whose presence will likely cause my taxes to rise. Instead, the town should adopt a plan for growth that better reflects the values of the people of Bath.

Jeffrey P. Nieznanski

Bath