Politics from the Palouse to Puget Sound

Thursday, March 16, 2006

"Wal-Mart opponents plan to file appeal"

From today's Lewiston Tribune:

By DAVID JOHNSON
of the Tribune


PULLMAN -- Members of a group opposed to a Wal-Mart Supercenter here will appeal a hearing examiner's decision that had reopened the door to construction of the big-box store on Bishop Boulevard, a spokesman told the Lewiston Tribune Wednesday.

Christopher Lupke, who represents the Pullman Alliance for Responsible Development (PARD), said the appeal will be filed no later than Monday in Whitman County Superior Court at Colfax.

Lupke said the appeal will not only question the adequacy of traffic mitigations ordered by the examiner, but also a failure to order an independent study of the economic impact the super center would have on city infrastructure and services, as well as the entire Pullman retail community.

Lupke said the need to file such an appeal underscores Pullman's lack of ordinances governing big-box development, as well as the city's failure to provide an early forum for public input.

"They have no way of discussing the issue," Lupke said, until a proposal like Wal-Mart's reaches a point where it can be appealed.

"Pullman deserves a more open process that allows for the public to have a voice in such major decisions early in the process," Lupke wrote in a news release that accompanied his announcement. "The whole Wal-Mart controversy in Pullman has illustrated how closed the political decision-making process is in Pullman and how so much power is concentrated in the hands of so few people."

The new appeal will be filed under the Washington State Land Use Petition Act, said Lupke, adding that the decision came after much discussion among members of PARD. Lupke said members appreciated the hearing examiner's order for certain traffic mitigations, but they weren't enough. He said a Wal-Mart Supercenter would have significant traffic impacts, not only on Bishop Boulevard, but also Grand Avenue, Spring Street and other streets in the area that are already experiencing traffic stresses.

Lupke said results of a retail economic study submitted by Wal-Mart during earlier appeal hearings amounted to a "skewed" analysis. That study contended that Wal-Mart planned to tap into retail sales losses, or "leakage," to other communities, and that Wal-Mart wouldn't compete with the vast majority of downtown businesses.

"PARD is once again calling for an independent fiscal impact study, a study that has never been done in the wake of the Wal-Mart onslaught," the news release reads.

City officials have said that fiscal studies, by law, pertain only to the impact a super center would have on city infrastructure and services, not the retail sector.

"We need both," said Lupke.

Announcement of the pending appeal comes at a time when Wal-Mart's efforts to build a second super center in neighboring Moscow continue to come under fire. That proposal stalled last week when members of the Moscow Planning and Zoning Commission denied a request for a zone change that could allow for construction of a super center.

Whitman County officials, meanwhile, have initially cleared the way for possible construction of a new shopping center adjacent to Moscow on the border between Idaho and Washington. A Lowe's home improvement center, two additional big-box stores and eight smaller retail outlets would anchor the center, according to conceptual plans. Appeals on that project must be filed with the Whitman County Commission by Friday.
According to the Whitman County Clerk, the appeal will be heard approximately two weeks after Wal-Mart files their response to PARD's appeal

This is going to be a joke and a huge waste of time and money. Judge Frazier can only look at the existing record and decide whether or not John Montgomery's decision was arbitrary and capricious. The appeal CANNOT be de novo and introduce new issues.

PARD obviously is just using this futile appeal as a bully pulpit to address "how closed the political decision-making process is in Pullman and how so much power is concentrated in the hands of so few people." What they fail to realize is that they had their chance to change city government last fall and they were overwhelmingly rejected. Dragging this issue out further is only going to turn even more people against them.

Technorati Tags:

2 comments:

WSUStretch said...

Oh where to begin....

I find it too funny - that "control is in the hands of so few...", or how closed the process is, .... it just continues to show their ignorance of the govenmental processes in the city that have been in place based on public input (testimony or voting), charter and basic structure to avoid the anarchy that would prevail if every decision were to be made by public opinion, consensus, or "collaboration".

An example, if highway speeds were to be set by public opinion, they likely would be set higher than the roads were designed for. In land use planning, we're seeing that a vocal few challenge years of public testamony and cooperation in the development of a vision and guidelines to accomplish that. It's clear they do not want to accept what is in place, they only want to parade themselves as saviors to the lower elements and uneducated members of society who don't know what's good for them.

I feel sorry for them - they may be brilliant in their fields of study (giving them the benefit of the doubt), but really have no clue about the needs of a community and providing goods and services and land use for all income strata members.

WSUStretch said...

The other comment, Tom, is that elected government positions should not be viewed as immediate, drastic, change agents. Our nation is (supposed to be) set up to be representative, not democratic in its elected officials, and as such, should provide long-term thinking, policies and directions for staff and agencies to implement.

If every decision is to be based on opinion polls (as we've seen with previous presidential administration, which shall remain unnamed), we get a floundering set of policies that have no cohesiveness or purpose other than to wave around to help with their reelection.

Lets get back to electing officials that are there to look at our future, not their future paycheck and pension