Walmar case in reading

In our reading of Chapters 3 & 4, there was a discussion on Wal-mart and whether they acted ethically in the Inglewood case. I argue they did. In question was the way Wal-mart sponsored an initiative to circumvent local regulations. Also in question was the fact that it over funded a campaign to allow Wal-mart to build in that area.
On the first charge, Wal-mart had no choice but to use all possible routes to build given that there existed a bias within the city council in refusing the permit. The bias comes from people believing that Wal-mart does not treat their employees well or pay high enough wages. Also, there may have been some union influence in the city council that brought them to the decision. The truth is Wal-Mart's average wage is around $10 an hour; nearly double the federal minimum wage ($5.85 according to the Department of Labor). If Wal-Mart weren't an attractive place to work, they wouldn't find themselves with thousands of applications for the hundreds of jobs created with a new store. Wal-mart used an existing law to put an issue on a ballot for the public to vote on and I see nothing unethical about that.
On the second charge, they spent so much more money than their opposition; I argue that, although true it does not show the whole picture. Most of the money was spent on advertising in some way or another. The opposing groups held rallies with community leaders, including Jesse Jackson whose influence and the amount of press he receives goes well beyond the spending of dollars. Jesse Jackson abused his influence on the majority black population in Inglewood, using figures such as Martin Luther King and Cesar Chavez to thwart Wal-mart.
Wal-marts defense in the situation was “It looked like an opportunity for Wal-Mart to redevelop an area that doesn't have a lot of jobs. Today, there is nothing there that is creating economic value. There are no jobs there. There are no better prices. There is no better assortment. The only thing that was created was a safety zone for people to charge higher prices and to take advantage of the very people who can't afford to be taken advantage of.”
Seems to me that it is irresponsible for the government to ban Wal-mart from the area. I say let them build and if the people in the community do not like the lower prices and the addition jobs, let them shop elsewhere. If no one shopped there, they would have to close and no harm done. However, I do not believe that would be the case, I’m sure they would thrive just like in any other community because it is a good business. I wish people would just say they hate Wal-mart because they are too difficult to compete with instead of creating other reasons.