Sleepy Marlow Fights Back
The sleepy market town of Marlow, nestled against the Thames river in beautiful Buckinghamshire, is one of Britain's wealthiest towns and the last place that one would expect to find the locals up in arms against globalisation and corporate greed.
However, the "bully boy" tactics of Waitrose, one of Britain's largest supermarket chains, has incensed locals and brought about a wave of protest rarely seen in such a languid town.
Waitrose propose expanding their store in the heart of the town's Georgian conservation area, where they wish to double their existing premises and build a three-storey supermarket with an underground car park and a café, and are going to extraordinary lengths to get their own way.
They are planning to force out a family run funeral business that has operated in the town since 1925, evicting 84 year old Marjorie Sawyer who lives in a flat above the business in the process, by applying for a compulsory purchase order for the Sawyer's funeral service.
A poster signed by Marjorie Sawyer and her daughter, Anne Howlett, is displayed in the window. It says:
"We are once again facing the unwelcome prospect of a renewed threat to our business as the supermarket giant Waitrose has submitted revised plans to the council. It is hard enough keeping a small business going in the best of times, but it is that much harder when being harassed by a covetous multi-national company."
Even Waitrose, the middle class British shopper's favourite store - the kind of business that the residents of Marlow imagined shared their values - find that when it comes to making money, they will destroy your sleepy town and erode your beautiful Georgian conservation status, if it means more money for their shareholders.Campaigners found a little-known rule in the Local Government Act which states that if 10 residents sign a motion, the council must hold a parish referendum on an issue. They used the law to trigger a referendum on whether a compulsory purchase order (CPO) should be executed on the Sawyer's property.
Despite having only one polling station, voting hours of 6pm and 9pm and no official publicity, 2,214 of the 10,734 eligible population turned out on the issue, with 94 per cent voting against the prospect of a CPO.
Jo Baybrooke, the president of the town's Chamber of Commerce, said: "The support for the campaign has been really quite extraordinary. People in Marlow are very much Waitrose-type customers and don't tend to get up in arms about things, but this is different. Waitrose are not listening to local residents. I used to think they were better than other supermarkets on things like this, but they are just bullies."
Who but the crassest capitalist could seriously propose building a three storey building with underground car parking and cafe here?
God bless Marlow for fighting back.Click title for full article.
Tags:
12 comments:
Great chronicling of another chapter in the globalization epidemic. I'm not anti-capitalist by any means, but then, corporations are not exactly capitalist either. They are fascist. Capitalism stands for free competition. But when a multi-national steps in, competition goes out the window, and fascism steps in.
This post seems to echo the plight of Darryl Hannah and her tree sitters on the South Central L.A. cooperative farm.
It's funny you should say that Musclemouth as I thought of you and that farm story when I found this.
They will simply trample anyone. The thought of evicting an 84 year old woman from the flat that she and her family have lived in since 1925 simply boggles the brain.
Kel,
You may also be familiar with a similar situation the US saw last year in the Supreme Court case Kelo v. New London, whereon the Court ruled in favour of eminant domain claims by the town to appropriate a number of small businesses so that a big developer could build some kind of shopping mall. The decision caused and uproar on both the left and right. But in that case, the difference was that it was actually the town council pushing the for the developer and arguing against the towns long-standing residents and business owners.
Some have argued that the Court's decision was actually meant to force states to reconsider their eminent domain laws, which across the country, are a mish-mash of confused regulations and decisions. I had my doubts about that, but they might be right. If the local political pressure becomes strong enough, cities and states will have to reconsider their eminant domain rulings or there will be a revolt soon if this kind of nonsense gets out of hand.
Americans may put up with being spied on and having banks records searched, but if you start fucking with their property, watch out.
Bhc,
I agree that nothing incites Americans more than someone mucking about with their property rights. And the idea that some supermarket can force another business (the funeral parlour) to sell is simply absurd, especially as above the parlour was the woman's living space as well!
And no, I wasn't aware of Kelo vs New London case. I'll do a search after I've posted this.
I know Marlow and it's as picturesque as Stratford Upon Avon, the last place in the country where you'd want some bloody mall.
There's a similar situation in the states where Nantucket have banned chain stores I believe.
And this is not me being some arse who fights modernity. Osterley, where I live, is a conservation area. When the wall outside my house collapsed I had to rebuild it with the same bricks - that is the law - and I understand this, as the area is of a certain period and the local council have decided, and put into law, that this should be preserved.
It's also the fact that a giant supermarket feels these same laws don't apply to them that annoys me.
And that's before we get to the part where they want to force you to sell your property, against your will, so that they can evade the same laws you have to live under.
This is one area where many on the right would agree with many on the far left.
Unfortunately, the "mainstreams" (those who are bought and owned by the MNCs) of both the left and right in Britain and the U.S. are intent on pushing this nonsense upon us.
The truth is that for all the talk of free-market capitalism, many large corporations are happy to demand all sorts of special perks from the government when it suits them.
I think I may have recommended reading it before, but I'll recommend it one more time for any of you who might interested; there is an online ebook by Dean Baker, one of my favorite common-sense economists, called the Conservative Nanny State:
http://www.conservativenannystate.org/
His blog is a great site for rational commentary on economic issues:
http://beatthepress.blogspot.com/
Tommy,
We've found an issue on which we agree!
The excitment is too much. I'm going to have to lie down in a darkened room with a cool compress.
Who would have believed it! :-)
Tommy,
I think anyone of any political persuasion ought to be incensed by the embarrassing levels of coporate welfare that currently exist and have been further ratched to new heights by the Bush administration. The Medicare prescription bill, the so-called energy bill -- containing billions in tax breaks and grants for the most profitable industry on the planet -- and the latest news of the astonishing increases in government contract awards by the White House, some $800 billion of which are cited as redolent with fraud, waste and abuse, should inform us all of the sham of an American "free market economy." Many of this country's largest and most profitable companies live and breath off the largesse of Washington. A company like Halliburton, which has seen a 600% increase in government contracts since 2000, would scarcely exist were it not for taxpayer funding.
The Cunningham and Abramoff scandals illustrate perfectly where the real market exists: Capitol Hill.
By the way, Tommy, why did you use that Bill O'Reilly term "far left"? You could have said, "many on the right and left agree", and yet you chose to say, "many on the right and far left agree."
Why did you do that? Are all the left far left to you?
O'Reilly hardly has a monopoly on the term "far left" Kel. LoL.
I used that term because mainstream Democrats (along with Republicans) are more than happy to sign trade agreements which result in job losses overseas, provide pork for their corporate backers, and otherwise participate in the "conservative" nanny state.
Up until recently, many on the right were upset with Republican (and Democratic) attempts to grant an amnesty to illegal immigrants and implement a "guest worker" program. My comments kind of reflected right-wing disaffection with the Republicans on this issue. I could say the "far right" I suppose but sometimes, at least in the US, that has connotations of neo-Nazi groups and the like. "Far left" is usually a little more innocent in meaning. Ralph Nader isn't as extreme as Tom Metzger, but many would refer to Nader as a far leftist and Tom Metzger as a far rightist.
I suppose I could speak of a "principled left and right" if you prefer. Nader is, at least IMO, a principled indidvidual unlike say, Edward Kennedy or Harry Reid.
I think you use it because you see the left as extreme and Conservatism as the natural centre.
And I think Edward Kennedy is a principled man, they're just not your principles.
Super-doubleplus-ultra-righteous left.
The left-right paradigm is meaningless these days. As long as people continue to use those terms, reality will stay relegated to a cardboard box in the attic.
Musclemouth,
I agree that the terms right and left are not very useful anymore. The new battleground, certainly here in the UK, is between those prepared to surrender civil rights for a perceived increase in security and those who recognise that this is an arbitrary power grab by the executive.
I am obviously in the latter group.
Post a Comment