The Wal-Mart issue continues to get more play. Yesterday, the Wall Street Journal ran a feature article on Wal-Mart’s battles with big cities as it attempts to increase its presence in urban markets. The leaders of both Boston and New York have both told Wal-Mart that it is not welcome in their cities. Mayor Thomas Menino of Boston was quoted as saying “Wal-Mart does not suit the clientele we have in the city of Boston. They don't pay wages that are sufficient. Their benefit structure is poor. I don't need employers like that in our city.”

Bravo, Mayor Menino! After lamenting Mayor Richard Daley’s decision last week to veto a big box ordinance in Chicago, I am heartened to read about Merino and other politicians who understand both the true impact of a Wal-Mart on local communities and the leverage urban areas have in these battles. The article also reports that officials in Miami prevented Wal-Mart from locating a store in a large midtown redevelopment project, because “its sprawling, suburban aesthetics and low-end appeal didn't conform to the city's architectural and social vision for the project.” This observation isn’t news to anyone. What’s new is that politicians finally have the courage to say it.

Similar tactics are being used across the country, and are now proliferating due to websites like www.bigboxtoolkit.com. This website is run by the Institute for Local Self-Reliance, a national nonprofit organization which promotes sustainable, community-centered economic development. I haven’t had to chance to review all the information on this website, but it does provide great insight into the tactics being used to fight new Wal-Marts.

I would like to point out that I do not agree with the notion that Wal-Mart is bad for cities because it caters to a lower end clientele. In fact, I believe this is one of the strengths of Wal-Mart and why the company and large cities need to work together to develop stores that fit within the character and rhythm of urban communities. Modern retailing provides tremendous benefits to consumers, and these benefits should flow to urban residents as well.

Despite Daley’s poor judgment on the Wal-Mart issue, the city continues to shine with regard to transportation initiatives. The city just announced plans to correct the most glaring gap in its impressive network of commuter rail and subway lines: the complete lack of overlap between Metra commuter rail stations and the city’s famous “L.” Overlapping rail and subway lines are common throughout Europe but quite rare in the U.S. Currently, commuters must walk significant distances, even in downtown Chicago, to transfer from one system to the other. A proposed Circle Line would connect both systems along a loop outside of downtown Chicago. The new connection would allow suburban commuters to hop off a commuter train outside downtown and catch a train to the L or another part of the city. The plans would also help reverse commuters and others among the expanding ranks of workers who no longer live or work downtown.

My last item is another reference to extreme commuters, this time from an article in the Seattle Times. I have developed somewhat of an obsession about these stories because I continue to marvel at the absurdity of the lives these people live, of their own free will, and the blatant selfishness of their decisions. The featured commuter moved to a small town on Puget Sound and expected to commute to Seattle by ferry. After she moved, the State cancelled daily ferry service from her little utopia. The funny thing is that the ferry service wasn’t meant for commuters in the first place. And then she has the audacity to blame the public transportation system for not making her alternative commute from the edge of the earth easy.

When you read these articles, take out a map and find the towns where these people live. These are all rural communities. Why would anyone working in or near Seattle think it is logical to live in these communities? Why should anyone feel sorry for these people? Even the sob stories don’t make sense. For every one person who is forced to take a job that is 50 miles from home, there are 10 other people who move as a result of such a job change. We don’t write articles about these people. These aren’t human interest stories. These are cautionary tales that need to come with a warning label: Don’t let this happen to you!