Walmart begins their Chicago exit

Walmart begins their Chicago exit

Markets that don’t exist don’t care how smart you are. ― Entrepreneur Marc Andreessen

In an abundantly predictable move, after CVS, Whole Foods, SuperValu, Target, and Walgreen’s failed miserably in poor Chicago neighborhoods, Walmart commenced their Second City exit with far less fanfare than when those stores arrived. Four of their eight locations closed for good on Sunday, three in predominantly black West and South Side neighborhoods.

These quiet closures stand in stark contrast to Walmart, Walgreens, and SuperValu CEOs standing with Michelle Obama at a White House press conference to announce they’d open 1,500 stores in neighborhoods with limited food access by 2016. Despite that pledge, just 250 supermarkets were built in those economically blighted areas and most of them are gone, or will soon follow suit.

I’m no fan of Walmart to the point where I refuse to shop there, but I truly believe their corporate hearts were in the right place when they issued that proclamation. They and their host cities truly believed a $20.6 billion company could buck the business trend to make a go of it. But as The First Ward has so bitterly insisted over the course of its existence, no one can beat the market, not even the biggest retail chain on the planet.

Now, it’s just a matter of time before the four remaining Chicago locations close, too.

The bottom line, literally, is that Walmart hasn’t made money in Chicago since their first store opened their doors in the West Side Austin neighborhood in 2006. According to corporate executives, “These stores lose tens of millions of dollars a year, and their annual losses nearly doubled in just the last five years.”

Why are those Walmart locations losing so much money? The U.S. media may sidestep or barely mention the core issue for fear of enraging progressive and black activists, but the simple truth is it was retail theft!

As reported in the UK’s Daily Mail, Walmart CEO Doug McMillon warned Chicago and other cities that thefts had hit a record highs in 17 stores across nine states, and if the trend continued, those stores would be forced to close. But no one listened, it only got worse, and now the stores are closed.

Through utterly untenable policies, progressive state’s attorneys in Chicago, New York, Portland, and California have essentially legalized shoplifting by refusing to prosecute thefts under $1,000 or letting the perps off with a small fine. So, local residents were stealing them blind, and now that those chickens are coming home to roost, those same DA’s are trying to point the finger at the corporate giant.

On what planet should Walmart, or any commercial enterprise, be forced to endure those steep losses in the name of some stilted form “social justice?” But that’s exactly what the usual suspects want them to do.

Sixth ward Chicago alderman-elect William Hall threatened to incite a national boycott claiming, “If Walmart doesn’t invest in the people here, we will disinvest across the entire nation.” But alderman, Walmart did invest in the people here and they were repaid by being robbed blind. And I don’t think an embargo is much of a threat when too many of your constituents fervently believe they’re entitled to steal.

Never one to miss an opportunity to make a problem worse, the perpetually smarmy and self-aggrandizing activist Father Michael Pfleger said that “Every time I go into this store, it is packed with people,” adding “They talk about theft. Please Walmart, stop using that stereotype.”

“Stereotype?” So, please tell me Father, why would Walmart, or any other big box chain, shut down a profitable store? That makes absolutely no sense and neither do you!

Other aldermen and community activists referred to the closures as “corporate racism.” So, Walmart’s nefarious plan all along was to spend millions of dollars on those giant buildings, make a reasonable profit, and then close those stores just to spite minorities? That’s a really strange business model.

It does suck that local entrepreneurs who rented businesses in those Walmart stores, were given just two days’ notice. But the current progressive political firestorm would’ve paled in comparison to what would’ve been unleashed had the company announced their exit months in advance. Why would any business that truly tried to be a good corporate citizen want to have to  endure those kinds of ceaseless spurious attacks?

It’s also important to note that one of the four shuttered stores was located in the affluent Kenwood area where thefts weren’t an issue. The problem there was Walmart’s business model is based on customers making fewer large volume shopping trips, not the smaller more frequent stops neighborhood stores are prone to.

In the end we’re left with a record four First Ward ironies.

The first is, with rare exception, the folks so loudly lamenting Walmart’s exit were the very individuals who railed against them coming in in the first place. Pfleger may say that he “fought hard to bring Walmart in,” but the truth is he initially railed against them for being “non-union.”

The next is that threatening boycotts and applying the term “corporate racism” will make the next enterprise think more than twice about entering this food desert fray. It’s becomes a self-fulfilling prophetic feedback loop that’s certainly not going to encourage Walmart, or any business, to come into the city or stay.

Third, Walmart is leaving a larger food desert in their wake than before they came into to the city. Some sage Chicago leaders warned that Walmart’s entry would force out the smaller mom and pop stores and that’s exactly what happened. Now both are gone.

And lastly, as The First Ward’s already noted, the progressive policies intended to protect and support minorities only produce the polar opposite. Had state’s attorney Kim Foxx, the mayor, and Chicago alderman made any effort to stem the shoplifting tide, Walmart would’ve stayed. But they didn’t, and per irony three above, those neighborhoods are worse off than they were before.

Life isn’t fair, and being born into economically disadvantaged circumstances is one of the most unfortunate disparities. In my case, the Bulls have repeatedly turned down my application to play center claiming I’m too short and too white. But that doesn’t mean I can’t play basketball nor does it abrogate anyone’s responsibility to make a reasonable effort to make the best of a difficult situation.

What I don’t get is the blatant entitlement mentality of on the part of incoming 4th ward alderman Lamont Robinson who said, “We deserve to be able to shop, work, and play in our own communities.”

No, you don’t! Your constituents are entitled to NOTHING! Like everyone else on this vast planet, they have the right to EARN those privileges, and it starts with taking back their neighborhoods. As difficult as it will be, until South and West Side residents stop listening to the progressive panderers and placaters who insist on relegating them to perpetual victimhood nothing will change.

Because if Walmart can’t make it there, then who can?

Leave a Reply