[Vision2020] Decision to Allow Super Wal-Mart in Pullman Goes Back to Examiner

[Tom Hansen]

>From today's (June 23, 2006) Lewiston Tribune -

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

Decision to allow super Wal-Mart in Pullman goes back to examiner; Judge
says ruling is vague; group opposed to store hails decision

By JOEL MILLS of the Tribune

An affirmation of Pullman's decision to allow a super-sized Wal-Mart into
town was thrown back Thursday to the hearing examiner who crafted it. 

Whitman County Superior Court Judge David Frazier thought John Montgomery's
14-page ruling was confusing and vague, Pullman City Attorney Laura McAloon
said. 

"He (Frazier) wants the hearing examiner to clarify some of the points in
his decision," McAloon said. "He was essentially unable to determine how the
hearing examiner got from some of his conclusions to his findings." 

A member of the anti-Wal-Mart group Pullman Alliance for Responsible
Development called the ruling "a very good day for Pullman." 

"We're very, very pleased," said Christopher Lupke, assistant professor of
Chinese at Washington State University. "What the judge indicated is that he
felt the original decision made by the hearing examiner was not sufficient,
and was not clear enough for him to even contemplate the issue of appeal." 

Wal-Mart attorney John C. McCullough of Seattle did not return calls seeking
comment. 

Frazier gave Montgomery, who was not at the morning hearing in Colfax, 45
days to rewrite and clarify his ruling. He set a date of Oct. 18 to hear
PARD's appeal of the revised ruling. 

Wal-Mart wants to jump into the Pullman economy with a 223,000- square-foot
super center on 28 acres between Bishop Boulevard and the Pullman Cemetery. 

The city first cleared the way for the development with a determination of
nonsignificance last year. Montgomery upheld that decision in February after
weighing facts and listening to three days of public testimony. 

PARD almost immediately appealed. 

Aside from being opposed to Wal-Mart in principle, the group contends the
traffic that could be generated by a super center would pose a threat to
public safety and hurt downtown businesses. 

Lupke said the proposed location is adjacent to access points for the junior
high school, an elementary school, an assisted living community and the town
hospital. 

"For those reasons this traffic issue isn't a matter of luxury," he said.
"It could be a matter of life and death." 

The issue has divided the community between people like Lupke and those who
want the economic development a super center could bring. Those in the
latter camp have long lamented the bleed of retail customers to Moscow,
Lewiston and Spokane. 

McAloon said if Wal-Mart wants to apply for a building permit at this point,
the city would begin processing it. 

"The only way they could be prevented from proceeding with building is if
PARD or someone else obtained an injunction from the court," she said. But
that measure hasn't been requested yet as the appeal of Montgomery's
decision continues, she said. 

Once Montgomery rewrites his ruling, Frazier will decide if his findings of
fact and conclusions of law are correct, McAloon said. 

"The judge felt there were things in there that he was confused by," she
said. And he wants to make sure whatever ruling he ends up making is sound
enough to withstand an appeal by either party, she added. 

"But he can't get past that initial step because he couldn't determine how
the hearing examiner got from A to B."

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

And many of us are still recuperating from the last "No Wal-Mart" party.

Well, Nils, it's your turn to buy the party hats.

Seeya round Vandalville, Moscow.

Tom Hansen
Moscow, Idaho

"Uh, how about a 1-strike law. Death doesn't seem too extreme for a Level-3
sex offender."

- Dale "Comb-Over" Courtney (August 3, 2005)