Wal-Mart Compromises (or maybe not)

The recent meeting among Wal-Mart, Lincoln, RG4N, and various neighborhood associations was represented as a significant step in the right direction, as willingness on the part of Wal-Mart/Lincoln to compromise. And, initially, I accepted that.

It was reported that:

[1]Lincoln increased the traffic counts closer to what they found at the WalMart on Ben White and I-35 and found them to come out at an acceptable level with the execption of the Burnet Rd and Anderson Ln intersection. As a result, they have agreed to add more turning capacity at that intersection.

[2]Lincoln will explore modifying Foster from Shoal Creek so that it's not a straight shot into the development.

[3]Add a turn lane into the development from Northcross drive.

[4]Wal-Mart would route Wal-mart truck traffic up 183 to Burnet and down Burnet to enter at Northcross Drive. Anticipate 89 deliveries a week, 1/2 of which would be Wal-Mart 18 wheelers.

[5]They will reduce the square footage of the Wal-Mart form 224,000 to 219,000 sq feet.

[6]Wal-Mart is willing to consider closing from 1:00 to 5:00 a.m.

[7]The new elevations showed sidewalks and greenspace along the eastern side of the Wal-Mart structure

[8]They said revised site design comes closer to complying with the City's recent design standards,

[9]Willing to modify the design to allow for small stores at the ground floor of the WalMart parking garage,

[10]have a rainwater capture and water quality system for runoff

[11]will not have gas or tire & lube operations as part of the development

[12]no RV parking

[13]24-hour security camera

[14]Lincoln and Wal-Mart showed the revised elevations - it did not look like a typical WalMart

Okay, looks great, right? I certainly thought so. Then I started looking at it more closely. Now, one of the things they teach you in Rhetoric classes is: look out for empty comparisons. Any time someone starts using "more" or "er" and doesn't finish that clause (more than WHAT), you put your hand on your wallet and back away.

So, my question is: how many of these "more" and "er" statements are real comparisons, and how many are empty? Is this a compromise?

And here it gets interesting. If you go back through and label them, and keep a hand on your wallet, what you find is:

1. Even Wal-Mart and Lincoln admit that the Anderson/Burnet intersection will have unacceptable traffic.
So, will a turn lane make any difference? I don't see how it will; that's no compromise--that's called admitting the major argument and then throwing a bone.

2. This is a lesson I learned multiple times. An oral argument isn't worth the paper it isn't written on. Agreeing "to explore" something is rhetorically brilliant because it looks good but actually doesn't obligate you to anything. I can "explore" an option by spending three seconds thinking about it while I'm stuck in traffic--that's like a boss saying s/he'll "think about" a raise.

3. That's something that benefits the project--that's like my saying, "Hey, as a special deal, I'll take my normal commission on this sale!"

4. How would they route traffic? They would tell their 45 trucks a week to pleeeeeeze stick to Burnet. The other 45 that they "anticipate" (note no obligation incurred there either) would....um...what? Get really dirty looks if they drive down Woodrow or Shoal Creek? Have people think very bad thoughts about them?

This one looks good, but, if you push on it, you notice, once again, Wal-Mart has done nothing other than said they'll try to be nice. They "anticipate" a certain number of trucks, but haven't agreed to be limited in that regard, so, oops!, they might be wrong! And they've said they'll tell people to do things a certain way, but haven't said what they'll do if those people fail to listen.

5. Okay, this one walks, quacks, and smells like what is called "bad faith argumentation." From the beginning the plan was for a 219k site. So, to me it looks as though they did the classic (bad faith) bargaining strategy: when they started getting pressure, they moved the plan up in size, so that they could "compromise" back to what they wanted all along. Look here for the size of the project (check the date):

6. See 2 (and 4). They'll "consider" it. Yep, and I'll "consider" letting my son stay up till ten. Just did. He can't.

7-14. True comparisons? False comparisons? Another classic strategy is to put forward an intentionally bad plan, then you reveal the real one (this is the basis of many "Dilbert" jokes). Do we have a site plan that is different in any of these regards?

For instance, would someone like to persuade me that they ever had a plan that didn't involve a 24 hour security camera? And notice that they have not promised to have that camera manned. So, great, a camera--because everyone knows that, when a camera sees someone committing a crime, it leaps off the wall and arrests them...or maybe not.

14 is especially savvy, because this was never planned as a traditional Wal-Mart--that's the whole point (see my earlier post on that). This isn't a traditional Wal-Mart (at least not right now, more on that later), so it wouldn't look like one. So, this is presenting something as a compromise that was part of the initial plan.

Okay, I was a fool of the first order. This wasn't a compromise. This was a very cunning move on the part of Wal-Mart/Lincoln, and I, for one, am backing away with my hand on my wallet.

(I swear--the more I look into pro-Wal-Mart rhetoric, the more rabidly anti-Wal-Mart I get.)