Politics from the Palouse to Puget Sound

Thursday, June 05, 2008

Say What?

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.
- Chris Lupke, "PARD to Appeal Wal-Mart Ruling," Moscow-Pullman Daily News, March 16, 2006
In fact, our challenge resulted in Wal-Mart being forced to build an additional stoplight on Bishop Blvd. at an approximate cost to them of $400,000
- Chris Lupke, comment at Dnews.com, 6/4/2008

BWHAHAHAHAHA!!! Talk about revisionist history. But as I've said before, it's too late for PARD to claim victory now.

Yep, traffic is PARD's new mantra. They are transforming before our eyes yet again (before they were fighting for the workers, the small businesses, etc.) You can see where this current tack is heading. "We won a traffic light, saved the taxpayer's money, blah, blah, blah." But did they?

As a result of the Hearing Examiner's Decision, Wal-Mart agree to an increased contribution (anywhere from 21% to 100%) for a traffic light at Grand and Fairmount that was already planned. Wal-Mart also agreed to install a traffic light at Bishop and Pro Mall Blvd. if they addded a gas station. But is Wal-Mart going to build one now at this time of historically high gas prices? No way.

$400,000, Lu Laoshi? Not quite. Yet more lies from the people who will do or say anything to stop Wal-Mart (remember the one about how city attorney Laura McAloon was on retainer?)

Technorati Tags:


Will G said...

Is there any way that the City of Pullman and the residents can sue PARD for costs and lost revenue? If PARD hadn't fought this the City could be receiving property taxes as well as other fees by now.

Tom Forbes said...

Nope. PARD has been exercising their legal rights pursuing these appeals. No such lawsuit is possible. All we can hope is to get back attorneys fees.

The law concerning land use appeals needs to be changed by the Pullman City Council. Quickly.