Wal-Mart has history of seeking lower taxes

Dear Editor,

Wal-Mart "has sought to reduce the property taxes it pays on 35 percent of its stores and 40 percent of its distribution centers," according to a repor cited in the NY Times 10/10/07. Many local officials interviewed said they lacked resources to fight Wal- Mart and gave tax reductions they believed were not warranted. One such official reported that "when local officials refused Wal-Mart's requests for lower tax bills they 'suddenly find Lincoln Town Cars full of attorneys arriving at their offices.'"

Here in New York Wal-Mart has sued local communities at least 220 times, the bulk of these cases evidently were filed to lower its property taxes. This fact was uncovered by a search of public court records. Regionally, such lawsuits were filed in Cattaraugus, Chautauqua, Chemung, Genesee, Livingston, Monroe, Ontario, Seneca, Schuyler, Wayne, and Wyoming counties. Locally, Wal-Mart reportedly threatened to sue the town of Erwin and the Village of Watkins Glen to lower its property taxes. At a Bath Town Planning Board meeting, Wal-Mart would not rule out such a suit against the town of Bath.

Is this fair? Do you have the same ability to go to court over your property tax assessment? If you rent, how much less would your rent be if your landlord could easily challenge its property tax assessment in court with highly-paid attorneys? Should Wal-Mart, which is expected to rake in over $11 billion in profits for 2007, be allowed to shift its local property tax to property taxpayers and renters alike? How does this cost shifting affect our schools?

Not only does Wal-Mart shift its property tax to taxpayers, the cost of defending against all these suits must also be borne by taxpayers. The deep-pocketed Wal-Mart Corporation uses its tremendous financial resources to intimidate local tax officials with lawsuits and appeals. Is this what we want for our town?

Sincerely,

Jeffrey P. Nieznanski Bath