[Vision2020] Opposing Wal-Mart is Still the Good Fight

[Tom Hansen]

>From today's (December 8, 2006) Moscow-Pullman Daily News with special
thanks to TV Reed of Pullman.

--------------------------------------------------------------------

HIS VIEW: Opposing Wal-Mart is still the good fight 

By TV Reed

ReedWhy does the Pullman Alliance for Responsible Development continue to
fight Wal-Mart? Because the deep concerns we have raised about traffic
safety and negative local economic impact still have not been addressed. We
continue because we represent thousands of folks in this community who share
our concerns and who urge us daily to continue. 

When Judge Frazier made his ruling last month, he praised PARD for its civic
mindedness, the thoroughness of our research, and the seriousness of our
concerns. He also told the courtroom he anticipated we would appeal his
decision. 

Our case was turned down not because we failed to present credible evidence
of potentially dangerous traffic and economic impacts, but only because we
could not show unequivocally that the hearing examiner failed to weigh our
evidence. We continue to believe our evidence is far more compelling than
the self-serving "evidence" provided by Wal-Mart, and we are confident that
a panel of judges will agree. 

The traffic studies done for Wal-Mart were flawed from the beginning; our
traffic expert pointed out more than 100 errors. They not only
underestimated Wal-Mart traffic (as Wal-Mart admitted in court), but failed
to measure the effect of weekend traffic (always the highest levels) at all.
This is a huge error for a town that has thousands of extra visitors in town
on football and other special event weekends. 

PARD's concerns about the traffic effect on Bishop Boulevard, forcing
drivers onto smaller roads that pass schools, is more valid than ever given
plans for retail expansion that would add a total 750,000 square feet on the
street - three times the entire retail space downtown. 

A recent claim that the Pullman Comprehensive Plan authorizes this kind of
development on Bishop is flat wrong. Like many, I was part of the dialogue
around the city plan in 1997, and no one mentioned the level of development
now being contemplated. This was written into the plan in clear terms:
"commercial development on Bishop should complement, rather than compete
with, downtown " (CP 5.5). The reason we face the possibility of a level of
development that makes a mockery of the plan is that we did not enact zoning
laws that match the plan's rhetoric. 

As for the alleged costs of the Wal-Mart defense to the city, why are they
paying anything at all? Wal-Mart has a multi-million dollar budget to fight
lawsuits (they are facing hundreds in communities all over the country) and
a lawyer who does nothing but travel around the Northwest defending the
giant corporation against local residents. He just lost a case in Oregon,
and Bellingham also recently succeeded in keeping a super center out of
town. City attorney Laura McAloon estimates city court costs as $27,000.
That's less than $1 per local resident - a small price to pay to ensure
safety and economic stability - but even this small amount should have been
covered by Wal-Mart. 

Proponents make wild claims about the vast amount of money that will flow
into the city coffers if the store is built. But the only legally relevant
estimate of the sales tax revenues Wal-Mart might generate are contained in
a memo by city finance officer Troy Woo who estimated the possible economic
gain at $41,587. Why is Woo's figure so much lower than those claimed by
Wal-Mart's local representatives? Because unlike them he understands that
the vast majority of money gained in sales tax will be offset by losses to
other community businesses. And gains in property taxes will be negated by a
slew of failed businesses that will no longer pay taxes on abandoned
buildings. Every dollar made by Wal-Mart's grocery will be a dollar lost by
Safeway or Dissmore's. Every dollar made at Wal-Mart's pharmacy will be a
loss to Sid's or Rite Aid. Every dollar made on pet supplies, electronics,
appliances, clothes, household items, lube jobs and tire sales, sporting
goods, beauty care, and on and on will come out of the hide of someone else
in town who already provides those things. This is why we believe the court
will conclude that approval of Wal-Mart violates city codes requiring that
fiscal impact be determined. 

-----

TV Reed is a 20-year resident of Pullman, teaches at Washington State
University and chairs the Pullman Alliance for Responsible Development.

--------------------------------------------------------------------

Seeya round town, Moscow.

Tom Hansen
Moscow, Idaho

"If not us, who?
If not now, when?"

- Unknown