Where I Stand — Brian Greenspun: A marketing solution

Friday, Oct. 8, 1999 | 9:16 a.m.

Brian Greenspun is editor of the Las Vegas Sun.

WHATEVER happened to Johnny's Market?

I can't remember the exact year that Johnny's, the market near the corner of Charleston Boulevard and Eastern Avenue, went out of business but I do remember that his closing up shop was the subject of much discussion in our neighborhood. Mostly the questions had to do with, "Where are we going to shop now?"

Johnny's was one of those great Mom and Pop markets where all the neighborhood kids hung out -- staying cool in the summer because of his air conditioned produce section -- and where we all had to walk to get whatever Mom needed for that night's dinner. It was a hangout of sorts and a place where Johnny watched after those of us who had a tendency to get into trouble without such attention being paid.

I think, more than our parents, it was the kids who missed Johnny's the most when he had to close his market. It was a rite of passage for us and for Las Vegas and it was caused by competition. You see, that was the time when Las Vegas came of age in the middle 1950s, when we got our first supermarket. It didn't take long before all the "Johnny's" in town packed up their goods and left for smaller towns, the kind that would be ignored by the big chains for a few more years.

It also didn't take us long to stop missing Johnny's -- although we never got back the service we were used to and the friendly, concerned smiles we got from the owner himself -- because when Safeway, Smith's and the others moved to town so did the huge selections of food and, mostly, ice cream that most of us at the time never knew existed. Our parents lamented the loss but explained that you couldn't stop progress and bigger, more competitive stores were coming whether we liked it or not.

I've thought a lot about Johnny's Market these past few weeks, during which the Wal-Mart Supercenter controversy has brewed and embroiled most of the lawyers, politicians and citizens in a fight that has at times been billed as an anti-union effort by the nonunion, somewhat predatory Wal-Mart, an anti-competitive attempt to stop free enterprise by the politicians intent on currying favor with union members, a land use decision that could affect hundreds of small businesses and tens of thousands of jobs, and a flat-out interference with competitive forces in which government has no role.

I didn't realize it the first time it happened more than 40 years ago but this time it is clear to me that this Wal-Mart imbroglio is a bit of all of the above. And that is what makes a simple answer to the matter so difficult to come by.

As a person who believes that competition is good for everybody, I am a bit pressed to justify the decision the Clark County Commission made to prevent "box stores" that don't meet certain criteria from opening up in our neighborhoods. As a person who believes in paying people livable wages and benefits so that the government (that's the rest of us) doesn't have to pick up the slack for those employers who won't, I am pleased with the decision to the extent that it might encourage all employers to do right by their workers.

And as an individual who has grown up in Las Vegas -- through all the miserable planning decisions and the blighted neighborhoods that are left in the wake of political weakness and market indifference -- I am excited that this vote cast the other day may help stave off the time when carefully planned neighborhoods and commercial centers give way to the ravages of time and lack of business.

In short, I don't know if any answer the county commissioners could have conjured up could be entirely right or wrong. So if they are going to make a mistake, my preference would be to err on the side of the neighborhoods, the jobs and the many Mom and Pop stores that might go under as a result of the super boxes coming to town.

Actually, there are many big box stores doing quite well in our city. They sell what many of their smaller, more service-oriented competitors sell and they usually do it at more favorable prices. The consumers have a choice and make it every single day.

The Wal-Mart issue was framed by Wal-Mart supporters as a blow for free enterprise. At first blush, it would appear they are right but upon reflection, there is far more to consider. One of the things I never got to in my consideration was the effect of a nonunion supercenter. Nevada is a right to work state and it is up to the workers and management to decide whether unions will be representative. The political process, even though it does, should not, in a vacuum, give great weight to that concern.

But what our elected leaders should be concerned about is the number of workers who will be displaced through competition with the larger stores, the number of shopping centers that will go bad because anchor tenants have had to move out to larger boxes in order to compete or go out of business because they couldn't meet what some would call predatory pricing practices, and the resulting effect on the surrounding communities when those centers start their downward spirals.

These are issues that have little to do with competition and union-management matters and everything to do with the kind and quality of neighborhoods we will build for our residents to enjoy. I know the lawyers and the politicians will muddy the waters with all kinds of high-sounding arguments -- and there are good ones to be sure -- but at the end of the day, government's responsibility is to the voters who depend upon rules and regulations for some kind of orderly existence.

Does that mean that supercenters should not be allowed? Probably not. There must be some kind of formula that allows law-abiding supercenters to be built so that they will not unduly impact the neighborhoods that have grown around, in many cases, the local shopping centers.

When Johnny's went out of business it was because he couldn't compete with the larger supermarkets, who could not only buy their food at lower prices but also, it seemed, could get food that looked and tasted better than what Johnny could stock. When he left, so did the good stores in that little center. It quickly turned from a center our parents encouraged us to visit to a place that was off-limits. That's how fast a neighborhood center can deteriorate when the anchor tenant pulls up stakes.

In the case of Wal-Mart, there is an argument that foodstuffs could be made available to consumers at better prices. If that is true, those lower prices can be made available at supercenters built farther away from the established neighborhood shopping centers. Like the retail industry's self-imposed geographical constraints for discount outlet stores, one would think such a compromise could be made for these Wal-Mart behemoths. That way the consumers can make their own buying decisions based on convenience, price and the knowledge that their actions could change the landscape of their communities.

Whatever the ultimate solution -- and it appears likely that Wal-Mart will challenge the current one -- the real fight to protect our jobs and our neighborhoods is just around the corner. It has nothing to do with bigger boxes and everything to do with bigger ideas.

For all those people concerned about Wal-Mart, can you say e-commerce without cringing?

archive