Next round would move to Whitman County Superior Court
By Michelle Dupler, Daily News staff writer
The Pullman Alliance for Responsible Development vows to battle on to keep Wal-Mart out of town.
The group, known as PARD, announced Wednesday it will appeal Hearing Examiner John Montgomery’s Feb. 24 decision to allow Wal-Mart’s application to build a super center in Pullman. The appeal will send the matter to Whitman County Superior Court.
Montgomery presided over three days of public hearings in January on an appeal filed by the organization, challenging Wal-Mart’s site plan and State Environmental Policy Act checklist. His decision approved Wal-Mart’s site plan and upheld the city’s decision that the proposed store would not significantly impact the environment.
Montgomery added two conditions regarding traffic lights on Bishop Boulevard.
“We felt we did win some things with the mitigations regarding traffic, but we felt they didn’t go far enough to temper the effect of a massive super center on traffic,” PARD spokesman Christopher Lupke said in a telephone interview today.
In October 2004, Wal-Mart submitted its application to build a 223,000-square-foot store and 1,000-car parking lot on Bishop Boulevard. Local residents formed PARD in January 2005 to oppose the retail giant’s plan.
Pullman Public Works Director Mark Workman issued a determination of nonsignificance on Wal-Mart’s SEPA checklist Aug. 25. The DNS is a finding that the store will have no significant impact on the surrounding environment. His approval of Wal-Mart’s site plan came on Sept. 22. PARD appealed both decisions, alleging the Wal-Mart store will have serious negative effects on the environment, traffic and Pullman’s economy.
Both the city of Pullman and Wal-Mart defended the site plan and SEPA checklist, saying the documents meet all applicable standards.
PARD disagrees.
“Legally speaking, we are basing our appeal on the issue of traffic impact and also on the issue of fiscal impact,” Lupke said. PARD believes Montgomery lacked adequate information about how traffic from Wal-Mart shoppers will affect not only Bishop Boulevard, but surrounding residential neighborhoods.
“It is a requirement of the SEPA act that the decision be based on adequate information,” Lupke said.
Members of PARD have argued for more than a year that a Wal-Mart store in Pullman will drive away other businesses and create urban blight in the city. They repeatedly have called for the city to commission an independent fiscal impact study that would examine the possible economic effects a Wal-Mart would have on Pullman. PARD members argued such a study is required by SEPA.
Montgomery rejected those arguments in his decision, saying he found “no credible evidence” urban blight would result from Wal-Mart’s presence.
“His decision in that regard was based on either no information at all or on the highly skewed analysis bought and paid for by Wal-Mart itself and introduced at the eleventh hour with no previous disclosure,” Lupke said. He referred to a study of Pullman businesses performed by Portland consulting firm Johnson Gardner and presented during the second day of public hearings.
Lupke said more information is needed about whether the tax revenues Wal-Mart will bring in will outweigh the potential negative impacts on local businesses and city infrastructure. He is concerned that the Pullman store, coupled with a super center proposed in Moscow, would create a “vise-like grip” on the two communities and allow Wal-Mart a monopoly on retail business in the region.
Others in the community welcome a Wal-Mart store and believe it will be good for Pullman businesses. A pro-growth group — Businesses and Residents for Economic Opportunity — formed in October to provide residents an outlet to express their support for Wal-Mart.
BREO member Tom Forbes finds PARD’s decision to drag out its fight against Wal-Mart disappointing.
“Regardless of whether people agreed with it or not, they should respect Montgomery’s decision,” Forbes said.
He believes another round of appeals will only serve to further divide the community.
“The reactions I’ve heard range from outrage to disbelief,” Forbes said. “People are ready for it to be over.”
The public hearings on PARD’s previous appeals have cost Pullman taxpayers just under $17,000, said city Finance Director Troy Woo. That broke down into $915.45 to rent the Gladish auditorium for the public hearing days; $4,980.22 to cover Montgomery’s fees; $3,777.50 for a court reporter to transcribe the proceedings; and $7,307.48 for City Attorney Laura McAloon to come down from Spokane to represent the city during the hearings.
Woo said he couldn’t begin to calculate the costs of countless hours of time spent by the city staff preparing for and attending the hearings.
PARD has until 5 p.m. Monday to file its latest appeal.
Technorati Tags: wal-mart walmart
1 comment:
Six months of PARD's baseless appeals have cost Pullman $360,000 in direct tax revenue from the proposed Super Wal-Mart. Now we learn that an additional $17,000.00 of city tax dollars have been spent to give PARD a pulpit. I don't know about anyone else, but this seems wasteful to me. Maybe our schools, hospitals, streets, sidewalks, police and fire can just wait until PARD is through trashing our city?
Not only is PARD embarassing Pullman's reputation, they are costing every one of us many hard earned tax dollars. Pullman can not afford to support PARD's ego binge. It's time for the appeals to stop.
Post a Comment