Play One on TV

A few days ago, I was listening to Libertarian commentator Neal Boortz on the radio. He was aiming a particularly scathing rant at Wal-Mart. Normally, Neal is a bit bullish on anything that fosters economic development and free trade, so attacking the giant poster-boy for American capitalism seemed a little out of character for his show. Then he explained why — Wal-Mart wants to buy some land, and they are threatening private landowners with eminent domain seizures if they won’t comply.

The world’s largest retailer, battling to build a huge new distribution center in Putnam County (Florida), is threatening a handful of rural residents that they may have their land taken if they don’t agree to sell it to the company.

Representatives of Wal-Mart have told the landowners they will ask Putnam County to use its powers of eminent domain if the families won’t sell.

Across the country, another group of embattled residents are taking a page from Wal-Mart’s book of dirty tricks:

Wal-Mart Stores Inc. is known for its hardball tactics, but the little city of Hercules (California) has come up with some muscle of its own in a bid to keep the big-box retailer out.

The City Council in the affluent Bay Area suburb will hold a hearing Tuesday to consider using the power of eminent domain to seize the 17 acres where Wal-Mart intends to build a shopping complex.

What goes around, comes around. Sometimes I think Wal-Mart does some of Target’s best advertising for them.

UPDATE: According to Cam Edwards, the threat apparently did not come from Wal-Mart, but from the consulting firm charged with finding a suitable site for the distribution center. Wal-Mart had not authorized the letter and has apologized to the landowners. Sam Walton, you may now stop spinning in your grave.