"Pullman Wal-Mart opponents take appeal to superior court"

From the March 23, 2006 edition of the Whitman County Gazette:

The Pullman Wal-Mart dispute moved into Whitman County Superior Court Friday when attorneys for Pullman Alliance for Responsible Development filed a land use petition. The filing challenges the Feb. 24 ruling issued by John Montgomery, Spokane attorney who acted as hearing officer for the PARD appeal against the city of Pullman decision which allowed the Wal-Mart plan to advance.

Wal-Mart has proposed a 223,000 square foot Supercenter ona 28-acre parcel on Bishop Boulevard in Pullman.

Friday's land use petition was filed by David A. Bricklin and Jennifer Dold from Seattle. The 20-page petition was filed three days before the March 20 deadline for a court appeal of the decision made by Montgomery.

Listed as respondents of the petition were CLC Associates of Spokane Valley, the firm developing the Wal-Mart project, City of Pullman and S&W Land Co. of Colfax, owners of the Bishop Boulevard site.

The petition asks the court to void the site plan and remand it to the city with directions to deny it. It also asks for an order reversing the city's determination of non-significance and remanding it for an environmental impact study.

The petition noted members of PARD live in close proximity to the supercenter site. Those residents would be injured or prejudiced by increased traffic generated by Wal-Mart, insufficient access to Pullman Regional Hospital on Bishop Boulevard and slower response time by emergency equipment, the petition said. [What a load of bovine fecal material]

The petition contends the appeal hearing included unlawful procedure and erroneous interpretations not supported by evidence [Yeah, PARD's case] It said the hearing examiner incorrectly concluded the project was consistent with Pullman City Codes and ignored the applicable goals, polices [sic] and standards in the city's comprehensive plan.

The petition alleges 16 specific errors made by the examiner. Among them was allowing thr city to fail to undertake a fiscal impact study and approving of the plan while Wal-Mart was allowed to withhold information on traffic impact.

Also listed were 40 points on which PARD relies to sustain a statement of error on the part of Montgomery, the hearing examiner.

A copy of Montgomery's Feb. 24 decision on the hearings was attached to the petition. The petition filing includes a summons which requires a response withing [sic] 20 days after the respondents receive notice of the suit. A preliminary hearing has been slated on the court's April 28 civil matters calendar.

The PARD appeal which led to the hearing by Montgomery contests Pullman's determination of non-significance on the project under the State Environmental Policy Act and approval of a site plan for the project. Those decisions were issued in August and September by Pullman Public Works Director Mark Workman.

In its petition to the court PARD is described as a diverse non-profit organization comprised of business people, religious leaders, working people, teachers, students, retirees, and homemakers, among others. [BWHAAAHAAAHAAA!!!!! "I'll take Perjurous PC Platitudes for $500 Alex"]

PARD was formed after the initial announcment of Wal-Mart's plans for the Supercenter were made in the fall of 2004.

Take a look at PARD's contact page. Out of 13 (12 really, as Tina Vona-Pergola is no longer in the area) names listed, I count:

1 Associate Dean
1 Department Chair
2 Associate Professors
3 Assistant Professors
1 Instructor

All in Liberal Arts

That's a pretty diverse group of "business and working people" alright. Very reflective of the community in general.

Technorati Tags: wal-mart walmart