Conclusions of Law

April commented that her favorite part of the Hearing Examiner’s Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law and Decision was the section on Fiscal Impacts.

My personal favorite is #1 and #2 under Conclusions of Law:

1. An owner of land has the ability to utilize his property in a reasonable manner and when such use does not violate reasonable laws regarding its use.

Thank God that is still the law of the land. Our country was founded on the concept of property rights. Early settlers came to America to escape the manorial system in Europe, where the aristocracy owned all private property. All of our other freedoms flow from property rights. What good would freedom of speech be if the government could take away your home, your land, your business or deprive you of your livelihood? John Adams said, "The moment the idea is admitted into society that property is not as sacred as the laws of God ... anarchy and tyranny commence. Property must be secured or LIBERTY CANNOT EXIST".

This has been my biggest argument in the Wal-Mart debate from Day One. All the other Wal-Mart supporters I know feel the same way. It’s not about Wal-Mart. It’s about freedom. I wrote a letter to the editor about economic freedom and property rights a few months back and the PARDners fired back that it would lead to crack houses, strip clubs and kiddie porn. Today, WSU Philosophy professor, Moscow resident, and Wal-Mart opponent Joe Campbell claimed that “free enterprise should never trump human rights” How is that possible? Isn’t the ability to keep or disperse the fruits of your hard-earned labor as you choose the most basic of human rights? Not to the Left it isn’t. Economic freedom and property rights are a threat to the statism and collectivism they hold so dear.

Just remember, by opposing Wal-Mart, PARD is opposing property rights. Think about that long and hard.

2. The laws of other jurisdictions in which Wal-Mart does business vary significantly from the laws of the City of Pullman and the State of Washington. That unless a specific condition is authorized by law it cannot be required of Wal-Mart either because Wal-Mart has done so in the past or that such may be a good idea or required by another jurisdiction.

Bless John Montgomery. This is another point I have tried to make all along and he summed it so beautifully. We are a nation of laws. Those laws are meant to give equal protection to everyone. The day that special interest groups get the government to change the law to go after someone that they don’t like personally, we are all in grave danger.

I don’t care if Wal-Mart has been “slam dunked” in Gig Harbor, La Grande, Bend, Medford, Gresham, Inglewood, Chicago, or New York City. I don’t care if Bozeman extorted $500,000 out of Wal-Mart. I don’t care about the effects of Wal-Mart on rural Iowa communities or unionized supermarkets in Los Angeles. THIS IS PULLMAN, WASHINGTON. We have our own needs, our own demographics, and our own history. WE'LL decide our future, not Al Norman, Wal-Mart Watch, Wake Up Wal-Mart, or Moms vs. Wal-Mart.

Those crassly hypocritical PARDners accuse Wal-Mart of creating urban sprawl that makes every town in America look the same, and yet they ignorantly claim that Wal-Mart affects every town across America in an equally bad way. They dispute any anecdotal evidence that shows the good Wal-Mart can do as invalid, while presenting negative anecdotal evidence as “expert testimony” at the appeal hearing. Why didn’t PARD do their own economic impact study instead of reading articles from union-funded web sites? Because it was they that feared the results of such a study, not Wal-Mart.

For now, at least, the law and freedom has won. For that we should all be thankful. And vigilant.

Technorati Tags: wal-mart walmart