"Superior Court the site of the next Pullman Wal-Mart battle"

From today's Moscow-Pullman Daily News:

The hotly-anticipated hearing in the Whitman County Superior Court on Thursday doesn’t involve a sensational crime or a million-dollar verdict. It’s about whether Wal-Mart will find a home in Pullman. [And what a sad commentary that is about Pullman. It's only a department store, for crying out loud. All this fuss over nothing.]

Many hope it will be the final showdown in a battle that began in October 2004 when Wal-Mart announced plans to build a 223,000-square-foot super center along Bishop Boulevard. [You can say that again. Everyone I know is SO ready for this battle to be over with.]

Wal-Mart’s proposal has been fought every step of the way by the Pullman Alliance for Responsible Development, a grassroots activist group that sprang up in response to the retailer’s plan.

Members of PARD believe Wal-Mart will be a drain on the town’s economy, social welfare system and environment. They have called for a stronger role in the process for residents and demanded an independent fiscal impact study projecting the effects Wal-Mart will have on the town.

PARD has collected 10,038 petition signatures, according to the group’s Web site, although the effort has been criticized by some Wal-Mart supporters because a portion of the signatures came from outside of Pullman. [A portion? Try nearly half of the petition signatures.]

Wal-Mart countered with a postcard survey asking respondents whether or not they would welcome a super center to Pullman. The company sent between 7,000 and 9,000 postcards to Pullman homeowners and claimed the responses were 2-1 in favor of Wal-Mart. Exact data was never released. [That's okay. Exact data about the source of PARD's funding has never been released either.]

A cadre of Wal-Mart supporters banded together in November [October actually] to form Businesses and Residents for Economic Opportunity, an organization designed to promote economic growth in Pullman. BREO members believe Wal-Mart will be a boon to the city’s economy, bringing more retail businesses in its wake. They also believe that as long as a business complies with state laws and city codes, it should be allowed to locate in Pullman without interference.

City officials determined Wal-Mart did meet the relevant laws and codes in two decisions issued in the summer of 2005. One decision addressed the company’s State Environmental Policy Act checklist and found the proposal would not have a significant impact on the surrounding environment. The second decision approved Wal-Mart’s site plan, including the design for its store, 1,000-car parking lot and landscaping.

PARD appealed those decisions.

John Montgomery, the Spokane land use lawyer who presided over the appeal hearing, listened to three days of public testimony in January on topics including stormwater run-off, traffic, noise and light pollution, crime and encroachment on the Pullman cemetery.

Montgomery ultimately found in favor of Wal-Mart, with the condition the company install a traffic signal at the intersection of Bishop Boulevard and Fairmount Road before it can obtain an occupancy certificate for the store.

Montgomery also required the installation of a traffic signal and a right turn lane at the intersection of Bishop Boulevard and Professional Mall Boulevard before Wal-Mart can open a gas station that may be built in the future. The gas station is not part of the plans Wal-Mart submitted to the city.

PARD wasn’t satisfied with those results and appealed again, this time to the Whitman County Superior Court.

PARD’s attorney, David A. Bricklin of Seattle law firm Bricklin Newman Dold LLP, filed a 75-page brief arguing chiefly that Montgomery didn’t have enough information about the possible traffic affects of the super center when he made his decision. Bricklin also claims the city failed to adequately consider the possible fiscal impacts of a Wal-Mart super center on the town. A memorandum prepared by Pullman Finance Director Troy Woo in 2005 that analyzed the impacts of a Wal-Mart on city services and infrastructure was presented during the January hearing, but Bricklin argues Woo’s analysis is insufficient. [Of course he does. A hired-gun lawyer from Seattle can do a MUCH better financial analysis than the Pullman Finance Director.]

The attorneys for Wal-Mart and the city of Pullman both claim Montgomery’s decision was correct, and Wal-Mart’s application meets the requirements of state and local laws.

Each side will have about an hour to argue its case at the hearing Thursday. [Thank God this won't drag on like an OJ trial. I'm sure PARD would do that if they could.]

Judge David Frazier could issue a decision from the bench at the end of the hearing, or he could opt to take more time to weigh the evidence.

Regardless of his decision, more appeals could come. Whoever loses this round has the option to appeal to the Division III appellate court in Spokane. [A further appeal by PARD would be foolhardy. An appeal to the appellate court is outside of the city's development process, so there would be hefty filing fees and PARD would be forced to pay Wal-Mart for legal costs AND lost sales if they lost the appeal. I have not heard of any Wal-Mart appeal in Washington going that far. In all likelihood, the appellate court would not even consider the appeal unless there were substantive errors after it had been rejected by both a hearing examiner and a superior court judge. There are no guarantees, but in all likelihood, tomorrow is the end.]

IF YOU GO

* WHAT: Hearing on PARD’s appeal trying to stop a Wal-Mart Supercenter from being built in Pullman. The public may attend the hearing, but no testimony will be taken.

* WHEN: 9 a.m. Thursday

* WHERE: Whitman County Superior Court in Colfax

Technorati Tags: wal-mart walmart