The “good jobs” thing cannot be helped. Like people have mentioned before, only individuals have rights and no two individuals can have legitimately conflicting rights.
Because of this we cannot say that property rights “trump” some other rights. Assuming A has a property right, all that means is that B does not have the right to conflict with the use of A’s property, unless A conflicts with B’s use of his. In your example, either Walmart (i.e. Walmart’s shareholders) have the right to hire whoever they want, or some individual (Joe) has the right to demand that all employees that are hired in the town get “good jobs”, you cannot have both.
Walmart’s right to hire does not conflict with Joe’s use of his property, his body or his freedom.
You should reject the notion that the effect of a potential fall in Joe’s salary due to Walmart’s hiring policies is legitimate reason for denying Walmart the right to do as it pleases with its property. If you are consistent and do not reject this, then you will have to accept that I can demand that my wage never falls below its current value, and thus I can demand retribution from any economic agent to make this happen, since they are all affecting my wage to some extent.
The slippery slope is that this reasoning leads to the abolition of all rights, even the right to demand “good jobs”. Hence it cannot be a consistent position. QED
Something that I thought briefly in this case is to argue that the individuals in the historic old town have homesteaded the “historical look” of the old town. If that is true, then Walmart can be restricted to actions that do not restroy this “historical look”. Although, this implies an absurdly limited notion of property rights. All torts must be confined to physical intrusion into property, otherwise you get the slippery slope again.