Politics from the Palouse to Puget Sound

Monday, February 06, 2006

The PARD Study

What PARD has called for over the past year is a full, independent, careful study of he likely impact of a super center, done by a competent, objective firm – not chosen by PARD, not chosen by Wal-Mart, but agreed to by all parties. When such a real study is done, we can return to the discussion of what such a store will do for or to Pullman.

T.V. Reed, Pullman


At least, now we know that with or without a study PARD will not stop their appeals. Therefore the idea of a study is worthless. Besides, once they got their study we found via the letter to the editor that it is not good enough. Wal-Mart was supposed to pay for it, but now because Wal-Mart paid for it, it is invalid.

Also, it has been admitted that downtown is no longer the issue, as businesses on Bishop Blvd and Grand will now be hurt. I guess PARD has finally admitted that Wal-Mart will not hurt the downtown, like we have been told for so long.

Lastly, information used by the study could be found on the Internet. I am not sure what the point of that statement was, but looking into PARD's material, we find much of the information is found on the Internet.

Technorati Tags:

5 comments:

April E. Coggins said...

It's important to remember that a fiscal impact study is not a building requirement. PARD coninues to use the study as a red herring. They may as well have asked for a study about Wal-Mart's impact on child development. It is entirely inappropriate and irrelevant to the site plan and SEPA.

Palouse Patriot said...

If we give them what they want can't we shut them up finally? I mean, yes Wal-Mart would pay a few bucks, but when the results come in, this can be over and we can move on.

Joshua Coke said...

They aren't going to stop until they get what they want. What they want, however, is a study that says Wal-Mart is going to have a detrimental effect on the city. Johnson Gardner is an independent firm hired by CLC Associates. They are experienced in this particular field and are not in the pocket of Wal-Mart. PARD members publically called for a study to be done and paid for by Wal-Mart, but are now demanding another one and questioning the impartiality because of who picked up the check. I'd like to remind them that PARD is responsible for paying for a traffic impact study (roundly refuted by a number of other traffic experts) which they contend should be considered by the hearing examiner. So, if PARD pays for a study, that's just fine, but if CLC or Wal-Mart does, then it's invalid.

Tom Forbes said...

Wal-Mart did give them what they want. If you look under Links at the right, click on "Economic & Fiscal Impacts of A Wal-Mart Supercenter in Pullman, Washington"

PARD is never going to be happy until the Da Vinci Code reveals that Sam Walton was the Anti-Christ.

Joshua Coke said...

I must have missed that chapter :)