More groups are forming to send shoppers to home-grown independent businesses. Read more about it in this Business Week article
http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/10_09/b4168057813351.htm
More groups are forming to send shoppers to home-grown independent businesses. Read more about it in this Business Week article
http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/10_09/b4168057813351.htm
While economists nationwide argue over whether we have begun to recover from the Great Recession, one financial reality is beyond dispute. Our state is facing the biggest budget challenge in decades. Even in a slowly rebounding economy, California is faced with a projected mid-year budget shortfall of $6.3 billion, which means that local governments — even if they raise school and property taxes — are going to be cutting support for such essential services as policing, fire fighting, and schools.
The enormous irony in this troubling story is that California is allowing hundreds of millions of dollars in sales tax to go uncollected by allowing remote online retailers with a significant business presence in our state to ignore their obligation to collect sales tax.
Given the sums involved, you would think there would be many in the state calling for this situation to be remedied. There are not. Perhaps it’s because opponents of sales tax equity have, so far, managed to obfuscate the issue through a combination of misinformation and scapegoating.
Under current sales tax law, any out-of-state retailer is required to collect and remit sales tax for purchases made by residents in California if the retailer has a physical presence in our state. Current sales tax laws dictate that an out-of-state retailer has a physical presence in a state if they have a store, warehouse, office, or sales agent in the state.
Amazon.com and other online giants have thousands of affiliates in California, and they are actively promoting products sold by these out-of-state businesses. When this promotion results in a sale of said product, they earn a commission. That, by any definition, is a sales agent, and that means that these online mega-retailers have the legal presence in our state that requires them to collect sales tax.
The Amazons of the world and online affiliates are naturally opposed to any steps that states might take to enforce sales tax laws. Strategically, their stance makes a lot of sense because it gives them a significant competitive advantage over our in-state businesses that must add additional cost of sales tax.
Furthermore, there is no doubt that consumers enjoy this so-called advantage. I hear it often: They will shop at out-of-state e-tailers just to avoid paying sales tax.
That sounds fine, but we need to ask ourselves, in the long run, who really is footing the bill for these duty-free purchases?
Well, I can tell you who is not paying the bill: Neither online affiliates nor remote retailers.
We are not talking about just a few dollars here and there flowing out-of-state. The reality is that hundreds of millions of dollars are lost each year, and the figure is growing. This is money that should be going to first responders, to local communities, and to lessen our tax burden. Instead, this money is flying out-of-state to remote retailers and the affiliates that pocket the cash while taxpayers subsidize their use of our in-state services, our roads, and their very business.
Taking advantage of our state’s unwillingness to enforce sales tax laws during the best of times is egregious enough. However, during a recession that has hit our state so hard, it’s an affront to every business and citizen in the state.
And what’s worse, on an economic level, it makes no sense.
Legislators who oppose sales tax equity tout their belief in fiscal responsibility. But, in truth, how fiscally responsible is it to maintain a public policy that subsidizes out-of-state retailers while punishing in-state, tax-paying businesses and residents? Does fiscal responsibility demand that our state government burden residents and businesses with higher taxes and fewer services to placate out-of-state retailers that only take from our state and provide nothing in return?
Yet that’s the stance our state legislators and Governor are currently taking. And so I ask one more question: How’s that working out for us exactly? The current budget shortfall tells me the answer is not so good.
Opponents also love to argue that e-fairness proponents are calling for a new tax. The idea that any struggling retailer in our state would demand a new tax on consumers just doesn’t pass the giggle test. In truth, if an out-of-state retailer does not have nexus in the state, shoppers are already required by law to submit the sales tax to the state. The real question is over who should collect this tax - you as a consumer or the out-of-state retailer. Now, granted, our state has not really done much to enforce the collection of use tax from residents, but trust me, as the budget situation worsens, it will. So either you’re going to pay it or someone is going to collect it from you.
Finally, as for those who worry that sales tax equity would somehow harm online business in the state, let me stress that most online retailers, including Wal-Mart, Barnes & Noble, and Sears, already collect and remit sales tax for online purchases. Technological advances have greatly simplified and automated this task. Huge corporate retailers like Amazon.com and Overstock.com are the few remaining holdouts. That said, the money they siphon from our local community and residents is significant and growing exponentially each year.
So please, when you go to the Internet for some tax-free shopping, I would only urge you to remember that your purchase isn’t really free at all. In fact, that tax-free purchase costs all of us and our communities a lot more than you might think.
Clark Kepler
Kepler’s Books
Menlo Park
We could fix 300,000 potholes for $15 million
We could provide music programs to 2000 public schools for $72 million
We could hire 500 police officers for $45 million
We could restore programs cut from the state Office of AIDS for $59 million
We could give 8,000 senior citizens served by Adult Day Health Care access to two additional days of supervised care for $27 million
We could restore all state funding for domestic violence shelters for $21 million
We could provide sufficient rape kit testing funds to the state crime lab for $20 million
We could save the state’s Healthy Families health care insurance program for children for $126 million
We could ensure that 220 state parks remain open for $70 million
We could guarantee funding for the Transitional Housing Placement program of Foster Youth Plus for $30 million
$485 Million.
Real Money. Real Help.
HTP Board welcomes new members Jason Sutherland, Patricia Doody and Elizabeth Lasensky. Read more
Green and Local! Michal Lenchner of Avi Green Now and HTP member wrote an article entitled “Encouraging job growth in our local communities” that appeared in Examiner.com.
Here’s the link http://www.examiner.com/x-12791-Bay-Area-Green-Careers-Examiner~y2009m11d23-Encouraging-job-growth-in-our-local-communities
In 2010 HTP meets the first MONDAY of the MONTH - with 3 exceptions below* — at the Menlo Park Presbyterian Church Social Hall, 700 B Santa Cruz Avenue, Menlo Park (behind Ace Hardware)
JANUARY 11th*
FEBRUARY 1st
MARCH 1st
APRIL 5th
May 3rd
JUNE 7th
JULY 12th*
AUGUST 2nd
SEPTEMBER 13th*
OCTOBER 4th
NOVEMBER 1st
DECEMBER 6th
* 2nd Monday
What looks like a simple price war between Amazon, Target, and Walmart over a handful of bestsellers is symptomatic of a much deeper problem in the book business. The larger fight is really over what you get to read.
The price war began Oct 15 when Walmart.com dropped its prices drastically on several bestsellers. Amazon.com and Target.com quickly followed suit, and within a couple of days the prices were down to $8.99 and heading lower. At this point, these behemoths were clearly selling those books below cost and engaging in an illegal form of predatory pricing.
The authors affected by this price-slashing were not amused. James Patterson said “Imagine if somebody was selling DVDs of this week’s new movies for $5. You wouldn’t be able to make movies.” John Grisham’s agent added, “I think we underestimate the effect to which extremely discounted best sellers take the consumer’s attention away from emerging writers.” (N.Y. Times, Oct. 17, 2009). The American Booksellers Association saw things the same way, saying in a letter to Christine Varney, Head of the Anti-Trust Division of the U.S. Department of Justice, that these companies are using books as loss leaders to sell other kinds of merchandise. “The entire book industry is in danger of becoming collateral damage in this war.” (Bookweb.org, Oct. 22, 2009)
Predatory pricing is a means of driving other booksellers out of business. When this happens, the choice of books is one of the first things to suffer. Some readers think that if their favorite store closes they can always buy the book they want somewhere else. But that’s a dangerous delusion — the books they want may not be there at all. In fact, these types of disruptions in how books are sold or distributed has a profound effect on what publishers decide to publish in the first place.
Think of the book business as a giant funnel, in which millions of authors are trying to reach tens of millions of readers. The image is a telling one, because the literary life of America has to go through two very narrow choke points: publishing and bookselling. Both of these choke points have become more and more constricted in recent years as a result of economic concentration and market manipulation.
Publishing is now consolidated in the hands of a few large conglomerates that control most of what is published in America. There are, to be sure, many booklovers in the publishing divisions of these giant corporations, but they are outnumbered and out-maneuvered by the bean-counters. Sadly, many of these publishing divisions could probably be shutdown entirely without having any significant affect on the bottom-line of the parent corporations. It is not an atmosphere that favors innovation or literary discoveries. In many cases the attitude seems to be to hold on and hope that declining sales and stagnant readership doesn’t cost you your job.
Concentration at the retail level is now becoming even worse. The chain stores had been doing their best to squeeze out the independent stores over the last 20 years or so, and now they in turn are being squeezed by the mass merchandisers. According to retailing expert Stacey Mitchell, big-box mass merchandisers, like Wal-Mart, Target, and Costco, have taken over 30 percent of the book market. These mass merchandisers are now selling as many books as Barnes & Noble and Borders combined. (Death of the Category Killers, June 28, 2009)
It’s hard to exaggerate the consequences of this mass-merchandiser dominance. These outlets carry, at most, a few hundred titles at any given time. This means that a handful of books — far less than 1% of all the books published — are probably accounting now for more than 30% of all sales in America. Price wars in this segment of the market only make matters worse, driving more customers to these merchandisers in search of quick bargains on a handful of big-name books. Publishers are under more and more pressure to subsidize these new, ruinous prices, and they will probably end up pushing more and more of their resources in that direction. But it’s a devil’s deal. The time may not be far off when publishers decide they can make more money by shrinking their breadth of titles and concentrating even more on just a few bestsellers.
How does a new author break into this landscape? It’s never been easy. The key has always been diversity at the retail level. There’s a big difference, say, between 500 buyers all buying for their own stores and one chain-buyer purchasing for 500 outlets. Buyers for independent stores tend to cancel out each other’s mistakes; no single error in judgment can sink a prospective literary career. But when the system is dominated by a small handful of powerful buyers, their decision can make or break a book. Often, there is no appeal from such a decision. One of the dirty little secrets of the book business is that publishers often check in advance with the buyers for the chain stores and mass merchandisers before agreeing to publish a book. If the answer they get is no, the book may never see the light of day.
One of the ironies of the current price war is that it includes The Lacuna, the latest novel by Barbara Kingsolver. But Kingsolver wasn’t always a best-selling author. When her first novel The Bean Trees was published in a modest print-run in 1988, independent booksellers recognized it as a literary treasure and sold thousands of copies. After that the chain stores climbed on the band-wagon, but without that first push from independent booksellers Kingsolver’s career might never have taken off.
Anyone who loves books should worry that the doors seem to be closing on the Barbara Kingsolvers of tomorrow.
I recently read this mind-boggling article by Stacy Mitchell of The New Rules Project of the Institute for Local Self-Reliance where she describes how Starbucks is “local-washing” some of its locations in order to appear as a locally owned business… read on. ~ Clark Kepler
Starbucks Goes Stealth with Unbranded, “Local” Cafes
By Stacy Mitchell
In one of the more brazen attempts by a corporation to disguise itself as a locally owned business, Starbucks is un-branding at least three of it Seattle outlets. The first of these conversions, reopening this week after extensive remodeling, will be called 15th Avenue Coffee and Tea. All of the signage and product labels will bear this new name. The Starbucks corporate logo will be no where to be seen.
In an interview with the Seattle Post-Intelligencer [1], Starbucks spokeswoman Anna Kim-Williams described the company’s intent: We’re continuing our commitment to delivering specialty coffee excellence while refreshing our store design approach with amplified focus on local relevance? Ultimately, we hope customers will feel an enhanced sense of community and a deeper connection to our coffee heritage.
This is the latest, and arguably most audacious, in a string of corporate attempts to imitate and co-opt local-ness (see our recent investigation, The Corporate Co-Opt of Local [2]).
Starbucks learned how to act like a locally owned, neighborhood café by studying several independent coffeehouses in Seattle. One was Seattle Coffee Works, a small, 300-square-foot café. On the café’s blog [3], co-owner Sebastian Simsch writes: Last winter, three separate delegations of Starbucks folks came by. Each time they filled our little store so that no one else could fit in. Usually they didn?t introduce themselves, and one delegation even lied, saying they were just a group of Japanese tourists. They didn?t buy a single drink. Starbucks people also logged many hours at Victrola Coffee Roasters. “They spent the last 12 months in our store with these obnoxious folders that said, ‘Observation,’” owner Dan Ollis told the Seattle Times [4].
In the most obvious rip-off of an independent business, the décor of the new 15th Avenue Coffee and Tea, which the Seattle Times describes as a “rustic, eco-friendly style,” is virtually identical to that of Smith, a successful bar next door. Owner Linda Derschang says Starbucks copied everything, from her vintage industrial light fixtures to her wooden seats, and even asked one of her managers where the bar’s awnings came from. In an interview with the Seattle Post-Intelligencer, she noted: It’s got a lot of salvaged wood, it’s the same paint color inside as Smith and some of the wood framed chalkboards look very, very similar? Where’s the independent spirit in knocking someone off?
Starbucks plans to convert at least three of its Seattle outlets to uniquely named neighborhood coffeehouses. If the experiment proves successful, the approach will be extended to more of the chain’s 16,000 outlets.
Starbucks has struggled over the last year. Some 600 outlets have been shuttered in a bid to cut costs. Yesterday, Starbucks reported that same-store sales were down 5 percent in the last quarter, after declines of 8 and 9 percent in the previous two quarters.
Published on The New Rules Project (http://www.newrules.org) The New Rules Project of the Institute for Local Self-Reliance - newrules.org
Links:
[1] http://www.seattlepi.com/business/408205_starbucks17.html
[2] http://www.newrules.org/retail/article/corporate-coopt-local
[3] http://blog.seattlecoffeeworks.com/blog/2009/07/16/that-chain-with-the-green-logo/
[4] http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2009479123_starbucks16.html
There was a great article in the August 1 issue of The Economist called Keeping it local which reports on the rising vogue for shopping near home.
Stacy Mitchell, of the New Rules Project and author of Big-Box Swindle summed up a key point in the online readers comments: “’Buy local’ campaigns are not advocating that we should only use goods grown or produced in our hometowns. That’s absurd. What they are advocating is that we reflect on how far the pendulum has swung in the other direction and consider the value of moving to more dispersed ownership, greater local decision-making, and communities that can meet more of their own needs and reap the benefits of doing so.” Read Stacy’s full comment here
Shop Local First!
Clark Kepler
Menlo Park Businesses and Property Owners oppose Downtown Plan
October 12th, 2009We are downtown property and business owners who are very concerned about the Emerging Plan that has been developed through the “visioning process.”
While we appreciate efforts to make improvements to Downtown, we believe that our downtown is doing well, despite a severe recession. Our 5% vacancy rate, compared to
Redwood City’s 27% and Palo Alto’s 10% (as reported in various newspapers), is an indicator of the relative health of the downtown. We do, however, feel that revisiting the beautification of the downtown area would be beneficial.
We also recognize the need of the City to address the El Camino Corridor and the vacant car dealerships. Some members of our Downtown Property & Business Owners Vision Group were early participants in the “visioning process” and reported that the El Camino Corridor was initially the focus of discussion. These same people were shocked to discover that in later iterations of “the Plan” Downtown suddenly had become the main focus instead of El Camino. They were even more shocked to see the results of the Final Community Workshop, which included elements, such as a 5-level parking structure in the Post Office plaza and a 3 ½ level parking structure with housing atop in Plaza 3 (behind Flegel’s Home Furnishings). The proposed building of mixed-use structures, a boutique hotel, and a Covered Marketplace on the remaining surface parking plazas would be contrary to the interests of surrounding businesses who depend upon convenient access for both their customers and their suppliers.
Downtown property owners also question the legality of the City converting a public use facility (the surface parking plazas) - the acquisition of which was funded through parking assessments paid for primarily by the property owners - for private use and private gain.
The Downtown Property & Business Owners Vision Group believes that any high-density development should occur, if it is needed, on the east side of El Camino, that additional residential development ought to occur where it is currently zoned for around the periphery of Downtown (with possible incentives to encourage redevelopment), that mixed-use development would be more appropriate around the Station Area and on El Camino. We are not advocating for this but simply agree that the above development would be more acceptable in these areas than in the downtown.
Our experience in speaking to residents and downtown business owners is that the overwhelming majority are unaware of what is being proposed. At best, a few have a very limited understanding of what is being proposed.
We are concerned and alarmed about the City’s rush to push a Plan through that will have tremendous consequences for current and future downtown businesses . One public City Council meeting, following the Final Community Workshop, with most of the time given over to the Consultant for his presentation to discuss such a significant change to Menlo Park’s Downtown, is not enough.
The elements of the project now being proposed will dramatically alter the character of the Downtown. If the residents are not fully informed and the current plan moves forward, we believe that there may follow a strong resistance from the community when they come to realize that the things they value about the downtown are threatened.
Bruce Beekley
Cortland Bohacek
Lee Boucher
John Chiappe
Russ Collier
Nancy Couperus
Tony Della Morte
Richard Draeger
Gary and Jo Eggers
Mark Flegel
Walter Harrington
Kerry Hoctor
Marc and Lynn Macy
Jack Murphy
Vicki Raugi
James Squires
Posted in Talk About Town | 2 Comments »