"Pullman Wal-Mart decision months away; Court of appeals hears final arguments from giant retailer, PARD"

Today's "news story" in the Moscow-Pullman Daily News about the Wal-Mart appeal hearing reads more like a PARD press release.

The reporter let stand, without any rebuttal whatsoever, propagandistic statments from PARD's union hired gun overexaggerating the amount of time that it will take to reach a decision, telepathically reading the judges' minds, conjuring frightening images of dead school children in the streets, and the outrageously false assertions that Wal-Mart will somehow steal business from non-existent Mom-and-Pop retail stores and that sales tax revenue will not increase. But my favorite quote is when Bricklin, who lives in Seattle, arrogantly states, "I think the citizens of Pullman deserve more than that." What we deserve, Mr. Bricklin, is the truth behind who is paying your fees and forcing the REAL taxpayers in Pullman to waste our hard-earned money on this fight.

And at last TV Reed finally 'fesses up about the whole Bishop Blvd. location red herring when he said: "I can't imagine a worse site to build on, but I can't imagine many better, either."

Sure, Chuck Maduell (of the Davis Wright Tremaine law firm - what happened to McCullough Hill?) had nothing to say. But what about contacting the city or the grassroots group in Pullman backing Wal-Mart, Businesses & Residents for Economic Opportuniy (BREO). Certainly there was time to do that. Speaking of the city, why didn't Laura McAloon present oral arguments? That's something that could have been covered in the article besides giving PARD even more space to spout their lies.

Oh well. Luckily, biased reporters don't decide if we get Wal-Mart, the Court of Appeals does. And I am confident they will make the right decision. Let us remember the words of Epicetus:

Nothing great is created suddenly, any more than a bunch of grapes or a fig. If you tell me that you desire a fig. I answer you that there must be time. Let it first blossom, then bear fruit, then ripen.

From today's Daily News:

SPOKANE - Pullman Alliance for Responsible Development attorney Dave Bricklin said it could take three to six months before a decision is rendered by the Division III Court of Appeals regarding Wal-Mart's plans to build a super store in Pullman.

Bricklin and Wal-Mart attorney Chuck Maduell voiced their final arguments regarding the proposed Wal-Mart Supercenter on Bishop Boulevard in front of a panel of three judges in Spokane on Wednesday. Each side was allowed 15 minutes and no new information was permitted, as only facts outlined in previously submitted briefs could be argued.

Bricklin said he hopes the judges' silence during the 30-minute proceedings were a good sign.

"They didn't say much, but maybe that's because they favor our side," he said.

Wal-Mart announced plans to build on Bishop Boulevard in October 2004 and a site plan for the store was later approved by Pullman Public Works Director Mark Workman. PARD appealed the city's approval of the retail corporation's environmental checklist and site plan on the grounds that the store would impact stormwater run-off, traffic and negatively affect Pullman's local economy.

Washington state law allows only one public hearing on a proposed development. Spokane attorney John Montgomery - who acts as Pullman's hearing examiner - was called to oversee PARD's initial appeal. Montgomery compiled a findings of fact document from Wal-Mart, PARD and Pullman and concluded the retail giant's site plan and environmental checklist was sufficient. Montgomery's decision was upheld by Whitman County Superior Court Judge David Frazier and PARD's appeal was dismissed.

PARD then took the case to appellate court.

Bricklin pointed to Montgomery's findings of fact document Wednesday to show the store would have significant effects on traffic, the environment and the local economy. Bricklin argued that Montgomery's document was not comprehensive, as a Wal-Mart-sponsored traffic study was taken at face value and was not questioned.

As examples, Bricklin said the traffic study focused on weekdays only and provides no results on potential customers accessing the store on weekends, "Wal-Mart's busiest shopping days." He noted that the study also did not identify how the increased traffic would effect police, roads or pedestrians, particularly students from nearby Franklin Elementary School and Lincoln Middle School.

"There was no mitigation of the effects on schools and no analysis of it," Bricklin said. "We don't think the impact on 800 school kids is inconsequential."

Maduell also pointed to Montgomery's findings of fact and said despite the absence of some facts - such as how much traffic the stores generate on weekends - Frazier found the document to be adequate.

"It may not have been perfect, but the code does not require that," he said.

Maduell said it is up to PARD to prove Wal-Mart's plan would not meet Pullman codes.

"The burden is on them," he said.

Maduell declined comment after presenting his oral arguments.

Bricklin said the fact that Maduell admits Montgomery's findings are "not perfect" should be a red flag that the corporation didn't do all its homework.

"I think the citizens of Pullman deserve more than that," he said.

Bricklin also argued that Pullman Financial Director Troy Woo's "assumption" that the city would benefit from a Wal-Mart store is insufficient.

Wal-Mart may generate sales tax for the city, but would do so by taking away revenue from current Pullman businesses, he said.

"While Wal-Mart may benefit, the city's tax revenue will not increase," Bricklin said.

PARD Spokesman T.V. Reed said he's glad the case is back in motion.

"I'm glad things are moving along," he said. "Now all we can do is wait. We'd like to win and get this over with."

Reed said he hopes judges will side with PARD, which would force Wal-Mart to conduct more extensive studies of the store's impact on traffic and the environment. He would not say whether PARD would accept the retail giant locating at a different site in Pullman.

"It does not make sense on Bishop Boulevard," he said. "I can't imagine a worse site to build on, but I can't imagine many better, either."

Technorati Tags: wal-mart walmart

Same S#%t, Different Town

The Seattle law firm of Bricklin Newman Dold are PARD's new union hired guns handling the appeal to the Whitman County Superior Court.

Partner David Bricklin also handled the Yelm Commerce Group's fight against a Wal-Mart Supercenter in Yelm last year. After Wal-Mart's application was approved, the Yelm Commerce Group was ecstatic that the United Food & Commerical Workers union was going to continue to pick up Mr. Bricklin's tab for an appeal:

Are you sitting down?

The Yelm Commerce Group was infomed by our lawyer David Bricklin that the UFCW (grocery store workers union) has decided that our case against Wal-Mart had merit and asked Mr. Bricklin to move ahead with the appeal.

Funny, Bricklin Newman Dold's website doesn't mention the UFCW as a client.

Too bad for the YCG though. According to The Olympian, their appeal was denied earlier this year:

A Thurston County Superior Court judge dismissed a last-ditch effort Friday by opponents of Wal-Mart to revive an earlier land-use appeal after the deadline to file it was missed by 10 minutes.

The Yelm Commerce Group, a 50-member group that has been fighting the arrival of the Wal-Mart Supercenter since fall 2004, had appealed a Yelm City Council decision to Thurston County Superior Court after the council voted to uphold a hearing examiner’s findings to proceed with the Wal-Mart project.

...May [ed: director of the Yelm Commerce Group], after consulting with attorney David Alan Bricklin, who had argued the group’s case at Friday’s court hearing, came to the mutual decision not to pursue another appeal.

“We could appeal the appeal ... but no, it’s really a long shot,” May said.

Thurston County Superior Court Judge Paula Casey’s decision and the Yelm Commerce Group’s capitulation brings to an end a sometimes contentious process in which the group had appealed various stages of Wal-Mart’s plans to build a new store.

...Afterward, Bricklin explained that his “normally reliable process server” got stuck in traffic and spent an hour traveling from Thurston County Superior Court in Olympia to Yelm on Jan. 18.

As I mentioned previously, partner Jennifer Dold represented UFCW Local 44 in their fight against Wal-Mart in Mount Vernon last year. That appeal failed also.

So what are PARD's chances? Zero. But to quote from Willie Nelson, "If you've got the money honey, I've got the time, we'll go Wal-Mart appealin' and we'll have a time"

Technorati Tags: wal-mart walmart

SLOP (Scumbag Leftists of Pullman)

In a rambling, incoherent letter in yesterday's Daily News, PARDner Don "Professor WASL-Mart" Orlich managed to touch on Warren Zevon, the WWII Axis powers, and parking in downtown Pullman and on College Hill.

But the boastful professor may have given away too much.

Orlich concluded his letter by writing, "Wal-Mart just abandoned its University Place, Wash., site because it would not pay for infrastructure needs."

It's actually not University Place, it's Fircrest. But University Place owns the street in front of the proposed site and wanted Wal-Mart to pay for millions in road improvements. Wal-Mart's decision was just announced last Tuesday. So how did Orlich know about it so quickly and get a letter in yesterday's paper?

Simple, the "grassroots" group Fircrest Against Wal-Mart has the same union-backed attorney as PARD, David Bricklin, of Bricklin Newman Dold, LLP.

I blogged about this connection a while back. Bricklin wrote a letter in 2005 to the Fircrest City Council that began, "I am writing on behalf of the United Food and Commercial Workers Local 367."

The Tacoma News-Tribune reported in a story published on May 26, 2006:

Seattle attorney David Bricklin, who represents a local food service workers’ union that is against Wal-Mart, warned Fircrest in a memo that the policy limiting discussion “violates the First Amendment rights of both members of the City Council and the public.”

[...]

Bricklin represented anti-Wal-Mart groups in Lakewood and Yelm, and part of his Lakewood case took issue with the public process, which also restricted the council from hearing resident testimony. In Yelm, city officials tried to ban residents from using the “W” word at City Hall because they didn’t want to appear biased if an appeal ever came before the council.

If you remember, in Yelm, the Yelm Commerce Group, another "grassroots" anti-Wal-Mart group posted on their message board:

The Yelm Commerce Group was infomed by our lawyer David Bricklin that the UFCW (grocery store workers union) has decided that our case against Wal-Mart had merit and asked Mr. Bricklin to move ahead with the appeal.

So what happnens to the Tacoma suburb of Fircrest, population 6,300, now that the union thugs have had their way? The News-Tribune reports

Fircrest estimated that it would receive about $400,000 annually in tax revenue from the 127,647-square-foot store. Wal-Mart estimated the store would create up to 200 jobs.

“I think revenue-wise, the city will take a big hit,” said Fircrest Councilwoman Kathy McVay. “We’ll miss it.”

That is about 100,000 sq. ft. less than the one planned for Pullman. Do your own estimates on how much sales tax revenue we will receive.

Meanwhile, TV Reed of PARD has stated repeatedly that PARD has received no assistance from any labor union. You also be the judge on the accuracy of that statement.

But don't worry. As the News-Tribune points out:

It is rare for the Bentonville, Ark.-based retailer to pull out of a planned store.

Technorati Tags: wal-mart walmart

"Wal-Mart wins another round; judge dismisses PARD appeal"

From today's Lewiston Tribune:

The door to construction of a Wal-Mart Supercenter reopened Wednesday when Superior Court Judge David Frazier dismissed an appeal by a group trying to keep the world's largest retailer out of Pullman.

Frazier, after a three-hour hearing, upheld a hearing examiner's earlier ruling that Pullman officials acted legally when they approved a Wal-Mart site plan last year and issued a decision of non-significant environmental impact.

T.V. Reed, a spokesman for the citizen's group called People for Responsible Development (PARD), said after the hearing an appeal to a higher court is possible.

Frazier, who said he labored long and hard over the case, seemed to anticipate his decision might be questioned. "I get the impression I'm not going to be the last judge to hear this case."

In addition to a possible second appeal, Reed said after the hearing PARD will continue to battle Wal-Mart on a number of fronts. "We have many next steps. This is just the legal phase," he said. ["Just the legal phase?" What's the next phase for PARD? Chaining themselves to the wheat stubble? The fat lady ain't sung yet, but you can hear her warming up.]

Frazier said he decided to rule from the bench rather than drag the process out any further. "My job here today is to determine this case as an appellate review of a land-use issue," Frazier said. "The hearing examiner gave a very careful and thorough review."

The examiner, John Montgomery of Spokane, heard two and a half days of public testimony in January and then issued his decision upholding the city's acceptance of the Wal-Mart application. Two months later, PARD appealed Montgomery's decision to Whitman County Superior Court.

After an initial hearing in June, Frazier remanded the case back to Montgomery, asking him for a more detailed analysis behind his decision. Montgomery provided the requested information and Frazier Wednesday lauded him for the effort.

"My conclusion is that he struggled with the case and came up with a decision," Frazier said, explaining that in his capacity as an appellate judge his job was to simply to determine whether Montgomery based his decision on substantial evidence. "I don't decide what the facts are," Frazier said. "If I disagree with what he's found, that doesn't matter."

But PARD's attorney, David A. Bricklin of Seattle, argued the court should be concerned with the facts because the facts show the city's decision to allow Wal-Mart into town was flawed on a number of fronts. He also said Montgomery's ruling was inconsistent, contradictory and contained findings and conclusions that didn't support his final decision.

"The city does not have evidence in the record to support the decision it made," Bricklin said.

Pullman City Attorney Laura McAloon, however, said city officials and staff pored over the Wal-Mart application for more than a year. A total of 35 conditions were imposed on the company before it can obtain an occupancy permit for the proposed 223,000-square-foot store on Bishop Boulevard.

Wal-Mart attorney Jack McCullough accused Bricklin and PARD of trying to shift the legal burden of proof away from themselves as appellants, and onto Wal-Mart and the city. "The petitioners are trying to put the court in the position of initial fact-finder," McCullough said. He said PARD continues to do little more than raise questions and make allegations while offering no evidence to support their opposition.

Bricklin said the questions arise because the city and Montgomery failed to scrutinize the potential impact of Wal-Mart coming to town. He said the super store would be four times larger than Pullman's central business district. Bricklin said PARD members want the city to treat Wal-Mart's attempt to build differently, not because it's Wal-Mart, but because the project is different than anything the city has dealt with before.

"All those claims about what PARD didn't study should fall on deaf ears," Bricklin said. He said people should be more concerned about what the city didn't study prior to giving Wal-Mart a nod of approval. Bricklin cited traffic, pedestrian and fiscal concerns that remain as important issues.

Technorati Tags: wal-mart walmart

"Round 2 of PARD vs. Wal-Mart set for court Wednesday"

From today's Moscow-Pullman Daily News:

The Pullman Alliance for Responsible Development will continue its battle to keep Wal-Mart out of Pullman when it returns to the Whitman County Superior Court on Wednesday.

A second hearing in PARD’s appeal is scheduled for 1:30 p.m. and could decide the question of whether Wal-Mart can build on Bishop Boulevard.

PARD, formed in January 2005, has been fighting Wal-Mart’s proposal for a 223,000-square-foot super center. Group members have challenged Wal-Mart on everything from its business practices to possible encroachment on the adjacent Pullman Cemetery.

The appeal stemmed from a decision by Hearing Examiner John Montgomery upholding the city’s approval of Wal-Mart’s site plan and environmental checklist.

The group believes the Wal-Mart store would have significant detrimental impacts on the local environment, including traffic conditions, stormwater runoff, and noise and light pollution. The group also believes Wal-Mart would hurt the local economy by driving out small businesses and putting more people onto state-provided social services.

Montgomery’s findings to the contrary were not based on sufficient evidence, PARD argued.

Judge David Frazier ordered Montgomery at an appeal hearing in June to revise his decision and shore up his conclusions with more thorough reasoning and evidence.

Montgomery filed his revised decision Sept. 20 — past the Sept. 15 deadline set by Frazier. The revised decision contained mistakes Montgomery had to correct about one week later.

PARD members believe there were problems in the decision even after the corrections were made.

“I found the hearing examiner’s reasoning contradictory in places and confusing in others,” PARD member Greg Hooks said.

Lawyers for PARD plan to argue that Montgomery’s revised decision should be thrown out.

The group hopes to have Wal-Mart’s application denied altogether. If a new hearing on its original appeal is mandated, PARD wants a new hearing examiner to replace Montgomery.

PARD’s lawyer, David A. Bricklin of Seattle law firm Bricklin Newman Dold LLP, filed a supplemental brief one week ago arguing that Montgomery’s decision was confusing and contradictory.

Bricklin wrote Montgomery cut and pasted sections from materials submitted by Wal-Mart, PARD and the city in a mismatched patchwork that left confusion about the basis for Montgomery’s decision to uphold the city’s approval of Wal-Mart’s site plan and environmental checklist.

Bricklin reiterated arguments made in earlier briefings that Montgomery didn’t have enough information about the possible traffic impacts 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 Supercenter on the town.

A memorandum prepared by Troy Woo in January 2005 analyzing 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.

Hooks doesn’t believe Woo’s memorandum was ever intended to serve as a fiscal impact study, as Wal-Mart claimed.

Lawyers 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 Wednesday’s hearing.

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. Whichever side loses this round has the option to appeal to the Division III appellate court in Spokane.

T.V. Reed, a PARD board member, believes the Pullman community will be stronger once the process is done.

“I think the amount of contention around this issue has actually been quite a bit exaggerated,” Reed said. “While I think the Wal-Mart issue has been divisive, I think there is a very strong community-wide feeling we want to grow carefully and don’t want to eliminate those things that bring people to Pullman.”

Wal-Mart timeline

October 2004 — Wal-Mart submits an application for a proposed 223,000-square-foot retail store. Along with general merchandise, the proposed super center would include a grocery store, pharmacy, garden center, and a tire and lube express.

January 2005 — The Pullman Alliance for Responsible Development forms to stop Wal-Mart from coming to Pullman.

June 22, 2005 — Pullman Public Works Director Mark Workman issues a preliminary determination of nonsignificance on Wal-Mart’s environmental checklist saying the store would not have any significant impact on the surrounding environment. Excluding attachments, more than 300 pages of public comments are submitted in response.

Aug. 25, 2005 — Workman issues a final determination of nonsignificance on Wal-Mart’s environmental checklist.

Sept. 7, 2005 — PARD appeals the final determination of nonsignificance, arguing the decision inadequately addressed questions about the proposed store’s impact on the city cemetery, stormwater runoff, traffic, and air pollution.

Sept. 21, 2005 — Workman approves Wal-Mart’s site plan application, with a set of 35 conditions the company must meet before it can obtain an occupancy permit for the store.

Oct. 3, 2005 — PARD appeals the site plan approval, arguing Workman failed to properly consider the impacts of increased traffic, additional pollution from stormwater runoff, loss of cultural resources, fiscal impacts and economic blight.

October 2005 — Residents form Businesses & Residents for Economic Opportunity. The group’s mission is to support free enterprise, business growth, and healthy competition in the city of Pullman and Whitman County. BREO members have been vocal supporters of the proposed Wal-Mart store.

Jan. 13, Jan. 20 and Jan. 26, 2006 — Spokane land-use attorney John Montgomery presides over two and a half days of public hearings on the environmental checklist and site plan appeals. Testimony is given by residents and experts both in favor of Wal-Mart and opposing the store. Testimony covers issues including traffic, stormwater drainage, noise and light pollution, encroachment upon the Pullman Cemetery and urban blight.

Feb. 24, 2006 — Montgomery issues his decision upholding the city’s site plan and SEPA determinations, with three conditions: Wal-Mart was to suspend construction until it was determined whether any graves from the nearby Pullman Cemetery were located on the building site; a traffic signal at the intersection of Bishop Boulevard and Fairmount Road must be completed before the building can be occupied; and Wal-Mart must study the need for a traffic signal at the intersection of Bishop Boulevard and Professional Mall Boulevard before it can get a permit to construct a gas station.

March 16, 2006 — PARD appeals the hearing examiner’s decision to the Whitman County Superior Court. The 20-page appeal document alleged the proposed store “will have a myriad of negative impacts upon the surrounding community and residents that have not been addressed or mitigated by Wal-Mart or the City of Pullman.”

June 22, 2006 — Judge David Frazier presides over an appeal hearing in the Whitman County Superior Court. Frazier remands the case back to Montgomery, asking him to write a more detailed decision that would provide more reasoning to support his conclusions.

Wednesday — A second appeal hearing is scheduled in the Whitman County Superior Court.

Hey, TV Reed and I agree on something!! I also think the Pullman community will be stronger when the process is done because PARD will no longer exist.

He's also right about exaggerated contentions. PARD has pulled out the kitchen sink in an effort to divide the community, from deer testicles to the intrusion of the lower socioeconomic classes to dead school kids.

And exactly what things would Wal-Mart eliminate that bring people to Pullman? WSU? The wheat fields? State Route 27? Certainly no one is coming to Pullman to shop. Everyone is going elsewhere for that. That's why we need a Wal-Mart.

Hopefully, the judge will stop the fight tomorrow in Round 2.

Technorati Tags: wal-mart walmart

Oh, Deary!

“I would go in the other direction. If a reporter asked if you and Hardin were friends, I’d say ‘No, we’re good friends.’ If they asked if you were good friends, ‘I’d say no, no, we’re lifelong friends.’ Give them no place to go, nothing to report, no story. I mean, there’s no sense in defusing a bomb after it’s already…it’s already gone off.”

- Jack Ryan, Clear and Present Danger

Why PARD persists in denials and running from their union benefactors is beyond me. The bomb has already gone off. Why not just come right out and publicly embrace the UFCW as their ally in the war against Wal-Mart? All of the anti-Wal-mart groups on the West Side admit the truth. Why not PARD? Concealing the relationship only keeps the “controversy” alive.

I wrote the following letter to the editor that appeared in the Moscow-Pullman Daily News on March 25.

There’s an African proverb that states “when the elephants fight, the grass suffers”.

Once perhaps, the Pullman Alliance for Responsible Development could have been considered “grassroots”. With PARD’s retention of the Seattle law firm of Bricklin Newman Dold to handle their latest appeal to the Whitman County Superior Court, the "grassroots" appellation can no longer apply.

Bricklin Newman Dold is the hired gun of the United Food and Commercial Workers union in Washington State. A quick Google search of the individual names “David Bricklin”, “Claudia Newman” or “Jennifer Dold”, coupled with “Wal-Mart”, will produce numerous stories of how the UFCW has recently retained the firm in legal fights against Wal-Mart in Mount Vernon, Yelm, Mill Creek, Arlington, and Marysville.

One excited member of the Yelm Commerce Group, which was opposing a Wal-Mart Supercenter in that community, once posted on an internet message board that “the UFCW (grocery store workers union) has decided that our case against Wal-Mart had merit and asked Mr. Bricklin to move ahead with the appeal”.

The common theme in the appeals and battles against Wal-Mart in these towns, as well as in Pullman, is traffic. Why is a grocery union interested in traffic you ask? It's not. The UFCW can’t unionize Wal-Mart, so it has launched a multi-million dollar campaign to put Wal-Mart out of business. Traffic impact and urban blight are just canards.

Last November, PARD spokesperson Christopher Lupke stated in a letter to the editor that PARD received no support or funding from any labor union. I wonder if he could make that claim now?

Pullman is just another battlefield in the war between the union behemoth and the world’s largest retailer. And we, like the grass in the proverb, suffer. It’s cost the city $17,000 so far and counting.

Neither Christopher Lupke nor Cynthia Hosick chose to address my union accusations in their letters to the editor over the past couple of days. No, the cowards turned to yet another out-of-town attorney for that, local liberal "activist" Peggy Jenkins. Jenkins, a shrill mouthpiece for the No Super Wal-Mart group over in Moscow, writes the following in today’s Daily News:

Argument is a red herring

The Pullman Alliance for Responsible Development is a group of regular citizens who strongly believe that a giant Wal-Mart would be bad for Pullman. Opponents look for any opportunity they can to tar the group with a “union” label. This is Wal-Mart’s strategy: Dismiss the opposition to Wal-Mart as “pro-union” so you don’t have to address their legitimate criticisms.

Tom Forbes now claims to have found PARD’s “union label,” but his logic is faulty. He claims that, because the appeals lawyer hired by PARD has represented a union, and because that union has (apparently) helped to fund the anti-Wal-Mart effort in Yelm, the union must be paying for PARD’s appeal. Forbes ignores the reality, which is that lawyers represent many different clients, and there is no reason to believe two clients are working together just because they have the same lawyer.

In any event, Forbes’ argument is a red herring. It is true that employee unions have good reasons for opposing giant Wal-Marts, but that does not take away from the fact that grass roots efforts like PARD are created and driven by the hard work of regular people, the great majority of whom have no union affiliations, who care about what is best for their community. If you doubt that, I encourage you to talk with one of the members of PARD to find out who they are and why they are doing what they’re doing. If you do, you’ll come to appreciate that their motives and their intentions are genuine, regardless of whether you agree with them.

The good news is that PARD is not an elephant. The bad news is that Wal-Mart is the biggest elephant around, and it only takes one big elephant to mess up the grass.

Peggy Jenkins
Deary

Thanks Peg! Your denials have just proven PARD’s union affiliation yet again!

Bricklin Newman Dold has handled every Wal-Mart legal appeal in the state of Washington over the last few years on behalf of the UFCW. That’s a fact. How is my inductive inference any different than the negative conclusions all the jihadis, such as Jenkins, have eagerly drawn from anti-Wal-Mart web sites and documentaries?

The best way to end the “controversy” is for PARD to be transparent and open up their books to public examination. Let them prove that all of the “grass roots” money they have spent on attorney’s fees has been raised by the “hard work of regular people” (does anyone else hear Bette Midler singing?).

Oh, and by the way Counselor, you're out of order. When Wal-Mart decides to open in your sleepy little hamlet of Deary, feel free to object. In the meantime, you're out of your jurisdiction in Pullman. Keep your elitist opinions on your side of the border.

Technorati Tags: wal-mart walmart

Smoking Gun?

This letter to the Mayor of Fircrest, WA, dated November 10, 2005 is interesting:

Dear Mayor and Members of the City Council:

I am writing on behalf of the United Food and Commercial Workers Local 367. They have advised me that they and other members of the public seek to communicate with the City Council regarding the Wal-Mart proposal but that the City Council members have been directed not to communicate with the public about this issue....

Very truly yours,
BRICKLIN NEWMAN DOLD LLP ,
David A. Bricklin

Huh? Supposedly this letter was written on behalf of a "grassroots citizens" group called Fircrest Against Wal-Mart.

Bricklin Newman Dold, and David Bricklin, as you know, are representing PARD in their current appeal against the site plan and SEPA approval given by the city of Pullman to the proposed Wal-Mart Supercenter project on Bishop Blvd.

TV Reed and PARD have consistently denied receiving any union funding for their legal fight. But they have never denied benefitting from free legal assistance from a law firm that is clearly on retainer to the United Food and Commerical Workers union.

Can we just the crap? Other anti-Wal-Mart groups openly admit and solicit union support. Or is PARD too ashamed ot the union thugs with their protection racket tactics we are seeing used in Chelan?

Technorati Tags: wal-mart walmart

"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

Yet Another Smoking Gun

Still unconvinced that PARD's appeals are being bankrolled by the United Food and Commerical Workers union? Look no further than Tumwater over in Thurston County.

From yesterday's Olympian:

Groups appeal proposal for store

TUMWATER — Opponents of a proposed Wal-Mart Supercenter have appealed the matter to Thurston County Superior Court.

The appeals challenge a Feb. 5 ruling by the City Council and were filed at the end of the workday Tuesday. They were filed by Tumwater Liveable Community, a citizens group, and United Food and Commercial Workers Union Local 367, said Roger Gellenbeck, the city's development services director.

The groups argue that the environmental review for the 187,000-square-foot Wal-Mart, proposed for a 21-acre tract at 5900 Littlerock Road S.W., was inadequate to protect the quality of life for residents.

The groups' appeal to the council was denied Feb. 5, upholding a Dec. 19 ruling by the city hearing examiner.

"We'll take a look at what they said, but this was expected," Wal-Mart spokeswoman Jennifer Spall said late Tuesday.

Spokespeople for the appellants could not be reached.

Spall said the appeal of the Tumwater store was one of two in Washington to reach the superior court level. Arguments on a proposed store in Pullman were heard in superior court in December, and a decision on that case has not been issued, she said.

That's not completely accurate. The appeals were heard in the superior court in October 2006. It was the appellate court that heard the appeal in December.

So what do PARD and Tumwater Liveable Community have in common besides a long losing streak when it comes to Wal-Mart appeals? They both are being represented by Bricklin Newman Dold LLC. The similarities are scary. Partner Claudia Newman, on behalf of TLC and the UFCW, had Dr. Phillip King, former chair of the Economics Department at San Francisco State University attempt to debunk an economic impact study by Johnson Gardner, the same firm that conducted the Pullman Wal-Mart EIS. Dr. King was the guy PARD tried to have appear at the appeal hearing back in January 2006, but it fell through. Obviously, the UFCW has Bricklin Newman Dold and Dr. King on retainer to appeal every new Wal-Mart in the state of Washington using the same script every time.

The only difference is that TLC proudly embraces its union brothers in the fight against the evil Wal-Mart, while PARD cowardly issues denial after denial long after the connection became obvious.

Technorati Tags: wal-mart walmart

News of the proceedings in Spokane

Decision on proposed Wal-Mart Supercenter in Pullman not expected anytime soon (says PARD's mouthpiece)


Pullman Alliance for Responsible Development attorney Dave Bricklin said it could take three to six months before a decision is rendered by the Division III Court of Appeals regarding Wal-Mart's plans to build a super center in Pullman.

Bricklin and an attorney for Wal-Mart presented their oral arguments before a panel of three judges in Spokane on Wednesday.

PARD spokesman T.V. Reed said he's glad to once again have the process moving forward.

"All we can do is wait," Reed said. "We'd like to win and get this over with."

Wal-Mart attorney Chuck Madull declined comment after presenting his oral arguments.

Can We Drop the Facade Already?

Shame on me. I missed another attorney from Bricklin Newman Dold. Associate Ryan Vancil led the long fight against Wal-Mart over in Poulsbo.

From the May 2, 2003 Kitsap Sun (Free registration required):

Wal-Mart opponents have formed a nonprofit group to raise funds for a lawyer to challenge the company's move to Poulsbo.

…The group met this week with Ryan Vancil, an attorney with Bricklin Newman and Dold, LLP. The firm represented the citizens' group Grow Smart in its appeal of the master plan for the Olhava development, where Wal-Mart plans to open in 2004.

Same old story there too. From the May 31, 2003 Kitsap Sun (Free registration required):

Citizens to Stop Wal-Mart filed an appeal Thursday, saying the city needs to do a second study of the impacts the retailer will have on the area.

The appeal claims that traffic, sewage, storm-water and air quality issues at the Olhava development have changed since the first environmental impact study and that a supplemental report should be done.

If only Pullman could be like Poulsbo. Then we wouldn’t be $17,000 plus in the hole and dealing with frivolous appeal after frivolous appeal. From the July 15, 2003 Kitsap Sun (Free registration required):

Citizens Against Wal-Mart paid $915 it owes Poulsbo for consultant fees after the city warned that it might cancel the next hearing against the store.

The hearing, the fifth held by the City Council, will be at 6:30 p.m. Wednesday at Christ Memorial Church.

…The city's code is written so that the cost of an appeal is borne by the appellants, not the city. The city will pay some expenses, such as room rental and sound recording costs, Bjorkman said.

Essentially, the appellants are paying for witnesses for their opposition.

…When the $3,000 ran out, the city sent a letter to Ryan Vancil, the group's attorney, telling him the fees would have to be paid before the hearings could continue.

Sadly for Mr. Vancil, the anti-Wal-Mart forces lost in Poulsbo too. From the November 20, 2005 Kitsap Sun:

The effort to keep Wal-Mart out of Poulsbo didn't work. And now with that store set to open in a few months, some seek to keep shoppers out.

Ryan Vancil, an attorney who led the legal fight to keep the Wal-Mart out of Poulsbo, said after the movie [Wal-Mart: The High Cost of a Low Price] that there isn't any realistic legal recourse now for those opposed to the retailer. But, he added, they can "vote with their dollars."

Too bad the “vote with their dollars” approach versus the “fight them in court infinitely” wasn’t taken earlier. It would have saved everybody a lot of trouble.

Vancil also did some work in Yelm as well.

So you can include Poulsbo in the list of places where the UFCW and anti-Wal-Mart forces in Washington have been defeated in the last few years. You’ll be able to add Pullman soon.

Wal-Mart Update

I've been getting many questions as to what happens next with the Pullman Wal-Mart Supercenter.

This is from the Pullman Planning Dept. November 2006 newsletter:

With revised documentation from the hearing examiner on hand at the proceedings in October, Judge Frazier decided to uphold Mr. Montgomery’s determination. This Superior Court decision can be appealed to the Washington State Court of Appeals in Spokane. The appeal period is 30 days from the date Judge Frazier signs the court order. He is expected to sign this document soon.

Judge Frazier signed the decision on November 1. PARD therefore has until Friday, December 1, to file an appeal.

Any appeals from here on out could be rather costly for PARD/UFCW. PARD would be required to reimburse the city and Wal-Mart for legal expenses should their appeal fail, plus they will likely be required to post an appeal bond (for possibly hundreds of thousands of dollars) for damages caused to Wal-Mart by the construction delay. That bondwould be forfeited if PARD lost their appeal.

To appeal or not appeal. That is the question. PARD will no doubt milk their final few moments of infamy for all their worth. They have a meeting scheduled for Thursday, November 30.

In the meantime, here are some quotes from Thinh Nguyen's story on the appeal hearing that appeared in the Whitman County Gazette on October 26. As usual, the Gazette offered the best coverage (an a picture of TV Reed wearing a red shirt and looking a bit like Marlowe's Dr. Faustus)

At the hearing PARD argued it did not have to supply detailed counter studies when it claimed the city and Wal-Mart had not provided proper impact studies. PARD argued it had met its requirement in the challenge by pointing out what it believed to be the shortcomings in traffic, environmental and fiscal impact studies.

Wal-Mart and the city's attorneys argued that when the city approved Wal-Mart's site plan, inherent in the approval was the city's determination that it had sufficient information to proceed according to its city code.

Judge Frazier agreed.

"The appealing party has the burden of proof," Frazier said.

....

Wal-Mart attorney Jack McCullough countered Bricklin's arguments, saying proof of the actual impacts demanded by PARD, was not Wal-Mart's responsibility.

"That's not the way the process works," McCullough said. "You've seen this elaborate exercise to turn the burden of proof on its head."

He said PARD had no evidence to support its claims that the impact studies were inadequate. PARD was required to provide any contrary evidence with its own studies, he said, and did not produce them before the hearing examiner during the January hearing.

"They had no evidence then, and they have no evidence now," he said.

....

Pullman City attorney Laura McAloon argued the city was the lead agency in determining what facts were sufficient and that Pullman was able to apply its "unique expertise."

On the impact to private businesses, the city studied neither Starbuck's impact on Daily Grind nor Fireside Grille on Swilly's, McAloon pointed out.

....

When Frazier addressed the urban blight concerns, he said economic impact in and of itself is not an environmental impact. He said unless PARD could show how economic impacts shape the environment, an environmental impact study would not be required.

Technorati Tags: wal-mart walmart

"Court rules in favor of Wal-Mart"

From today's Daily Evergreen:

Court says appeal did not provide sufficient evidence to overturn examiner’s

A judge ruled Wednesday in favor of Wal-Mart, rejecting an appeal filed by citizens attempting to stop construction of a store in Pullman. Whitman County Superior Court Judge David Frazier decided the appeal did not provide sufficient evidence to overturn the city hearing examiner’s February approval of the construction. The Pullman Alliance for Responsible Development filed in March an appeal of Hearing Examiner John Montgomery’s decision to allow the Wal-Mart plans to move forward. On Wednesday, Frazier ruled Montgomery’s findings were supported by “substantial evidence in record,” that he correctly interpreted the legal principles involved, and that PARD failed to prove the findings were clearly erroneous.

The group will decide within the next few days whether to appeal the ruling to the Washington State Court of Appeals in Spokane, PARD Legal Liaison T.V. Reed said.

Frazier said PARD raised legitimate concerns, but the court’s role was limited in this case. His job was to determine whether the hearing examiner made legal errors, rather than weighing the evidence and facts of the decision itself, he said.

“If I disagree with what he said, that does not matter,” Frazier said.

During more than two hours of oral arguments, PARD attorney David Bricklin said the group’s burden of proof was to show the city failed to fully examine Wal-Mart’s impact. Frazier disagreed, ruling that the group had to provide actual evidence to support its claims.

CLC Associates, the firm developing the Pullman Wal-Mart, hopes to begin construction next spring.

Wal-Mart first announced its intent to construct a store off Bishop Boulevard in October 2004. The 223,000-square-foot building would be across the street from Safeway.

Concerned residents formed Pullman/People Against Wal-Mart Supercenter in early 2005, with a goal of keeping the retailer out of the city. PAWS later changed its name to the Pullman Alliance for Responsible Development. The group claims the store would pose numerous environmental and traffic problems for the area. It also argues existing businesses would face a serious threat from a low-price retailer such as Wal-Mart.

A year ago, residents on the other side of the debate formed their own group, Businesses and Residents for Economic Opportunity. BREO members argue Pullman is losing a significant amount of sales revenue to Moscow and other areas, and Wal-Mart would help keep that money in town.

“We hope that PARD decides to end their appeals now,” BREO cofounder Tom Forbes said. “Over the last two years, this process has divided residents, distracted city government and cost taxpayers tens of thousands of dollars. The Pullman community wants closure.” In February, the city hearing examiner determined that Wal-Mart would not have a significant environmental impact. PARD appealed his decision to Whitman County Superior Court in March.

Frazier sent the case back to the hearing examiner over the summer for clarification on the decision. He listened to the latest arguments on the matter during Wednesday’s hearing. An attorney for the City of Pullman also presented arguments in favor of Montgomery’s decision.

Technorati Tags: wal-mart walmart

"Proposed Pullman Wal-Mart Supercenter Dealt Another Blow"

Nate Kuester once told us during an interview that he didn't like Wal-Mart because it "ruined" his home town, where ever that is.

You can sure tell by this "fair and balanced" story by Kuester on the KLEW-TV website:

PULLMAN - A Whitman County judge hands the proposed Pullman Wal-Mart Supercenter a setback Thursday.

Superior Judge David Frazier is not making a decision on an appeal filed by the Pullman Alliance for Responsible Development (PARD).

Instead, Frazier remanded the case back to the hearing examiner for an extended period of time, in which the examiner will recast his findings for the court to consider.

PARD Attorney David Bricklin said Frazier indicated that traffic and financial impacts of the proposed big box retail store along with public testimony will be the main focus of the examiners' renewed scrutiny.

After the findings are presented to the court again, Frazier may consider or deny the appeal at that time.

PARD Media Liaison Christopher Lupke said the decision is, "great news for PARD and the anti-Wal-Mart forces." He said he believes the judge is taking the appeal quite seriously and establishing that the matter isn't a simple open and shut case.

Frazier set a date for October 18th to continue with the process of the appeal hearing.

How is this "another" blow? Wal-Mart has won every round previously. And this is not a blow, just a long delay. The media feeding frenzy has begun.

Technorati Tags: wal-mart walmart

End Game

Our long local nightmare may soon be over. I have confirmed that the final Wal-Mart appeal hearing will indeed be this Thursday, June 22, at 9 AM in the Whitman County Superior Court in Colfax. It is my understanding that the public may sit in the courtroom, but will not be allowed to speak.

This is fantastic news. Unconfirmed reports had the "heroes" of PARD attempting to delay the hearing to August or October because attorney David Bricklin was "involved with another case." Judge Frazier was willing to postpone it to July 10, but I guess that wasn't far enough in the future for PARD, so June 22 it is. I'm pleased the judge didn't fall for the game PARD tried to play and he obviously wants to see this matter resolved quickly.

The constant attempts at delay ought to give you a good idea of how PARD views its chances in court. Delay (and BS in the newspaper) is about all they have left.

Keep checking Palousitics Thursday for breaking coverage.

Technorati Tags: wal-mart walmart

Professors and Oppressed Elitists of the World Unite!

“Global, predatory behemoth”

“Wal-Mart wanted at least 60 acres of land, the size of 17 football fields, to build a supercenter.”

“The average ‘associate’ is rewarded with an annual salary of $13,861 for full-time work, according to a February 2004 report from Rep. George Miller of California. But about 70 percent of the 'full-time' workers average only 28 hours a week, making their gross average wage less than $11,000 a year. The national poverty-level wage for a family of three is around $16,000. It is clear that the workers can't live on what they earn, leading to a turnover that has reached 150 percent in many of the megastores."

“According to the United Food and Commercial Workers, the majority of Wal- Mart employees don't have healthcare coverage, which would cost them 20 percent of their wages. Family coverage would cost more than twice that. The University of California at Berkeley reported that California taxpayers subsidize Wal-Mart employees by a total of $20.5 million a year in healthcare costs.”

“Wal-Mart's power goes far beyond its domination of the retailing industry. It has intervened in the public school crisis to recruit candidates for its low wages. It withdrew $20 billion from the tax-free Walton Family Foundation to bankroll a program to privatize the public school system through school vouchers.”

“Wal-Mart represents all that is endemic to monopoly capitalism--private ownership by a few of all the productive forces, and the insatiable appetite for amassing profits.”

What are these excerpts from? A new letter to the editor from PARD spokesperson Chris Lupke? No, but is sure sounds like Lu Laoshi's writing style, including the use of the words “predatory,” “behemoth,” and “monopoly capitalism,” the comparing of Wal-Mart’s size to recreational activities, and Wal-Mart leading to the destruction of the public education system.

Actually, the quotes above are from an editorial that appeared two years ago in Workers World, the daily Marxist newspaper. Sounds like Lupke might be a subscriber.

The editorial is interesting because it clearly explains why our local Marxists are against a Pullman Wal-Mart Supercenter and why PARD has allied with the UFCW and its attorneys, Bricklin Newman Dold:

Since the late 1990s, the United Food and Commercial Workers have stepped up efforts to organize Wal-Mart workers. They help employees file complaints on issues such as the company's violations of overtime, refusal to pay for healthcare and its discriminatory practices against women. Dozens of class-action suits have been filed.

If Wal-Mart is to be organized, the UFCW can't do it alone. It will have to marshal forces that include the Black and Latino communities, other oppressed nationalities, youth, seniors, women's groups and the lesbian, gay, bi and trans movement. To change the relationship of class forces, there must also be unity with the movements of immigrants, of environmentalists, against globalization and the ever-growing anti-war movement to foster the growth of an independent classwide movement. It will take shape only from the bottom up.

Wal-Mart represents all that is endemic to monopoly capitalism--private ownership by a few of all the productive forces, and the insatiable appetite for amassing profits. Cycles of imperialist wars and economic depressions are always at the expense of the workers here and the poor and oppressed abroad. Internationalism will flourish as fierce battles break out between labor and capital.

It’s not traffic, cemeteries, kids, little old ladies, or blight. It’s class warfare, right here in little old Pullman, Washington. I wonder if the NIMBYers who are sympathetic with PARD realize who they've jumped into bed with?

Technorati Tags: wal-mart walmart

Still Room for Denial and Doubletalk

Ah, it’s been far too long since Citizen Hosick imparted one of her nuggets of city planning wisdom to us. She doesn’t disappoint in today’s Moscow-Pullman Daily News.

The recently so-called Wal-Mart “war” in Pullman may be considered costly by some, but many others believe that the costs in the long run will be much greater if this development is not adequately addressed. [So, $400,000 plus is NOT considered costly by “many others”? I’d like to meet those people. And what "long run costs" is she referring to?] The Pullman Alliance for Responsible Development charted a plan to bring awareness of these costs to the community – a plan which has followed the processes allowed by law. [Oh goodie, they’ve “charted a plan for community awareness”. The BS is really starting to pile up. What a bunch of self-important, arrogant jerks. They know exactly how much their fruitless appeals are going to cost Pullman? Let’s see the numbers. While we’re at it, let’s see how much money PARD has obtained from the unions.] The Superior Court appeal is simply the next step in that process. [Only because they refuse to give up. There is no gun being held to anyone’s head forcing an appeal. The only reason this is “simply the next step” is because the UFCW is footing the bill, and probably calling the shots.]

The location chosen by Wal-Mart for its development is a poor one. Even though the C3 zone allows such a development, better long-term planning could have produced commercial development in that location with much less impact to the neighborhood and the city. [WHERE ELSE?? They have said this publically a million times and have yet to suggest an alternate location. BECAUSE THERE ISN’T ONE! This is just another canard to distract from their real motives. They wouldn’t want a Wal-Mart Supercenter on Mars. AND WHO ARE THEY TO DECIDE ANYWAY?????] Since that did not happen, PARD continues to work for additional mitigations to the Wal-Mart development that will benefit not only the Pioneer Hill neighborhood in particular, but the entire Pullman community. There is still lots of room for improvement. [Let me get this straight, Citizen Hosick. High-powered attorneys from Seattle, hired by the national grocery worker’s union, are going to work for "additional mitigations that will benefit Pioneer Hill". I see. From the March 23, 2006 edition of the Whitman County Gazette:

"The [PARD appeal] 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."

That doesn’t sound like “additional mitigations” and “room for improvement” to me.]

And STILL no mention of UFCW attorneys Bricklin Newman Dold from either Lupke or Hosick? Why are you still hiding PARDners? Everyone knows the real story now.

Technorati Tags: wal-mart walmart

"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

Look for the Union Label

In my previous post on PARD's union hired gun law firm of Bricklin Newman Dold, I somehow neglected to mention partner Claudia Newman. According to the (Everett) Daily Herald, she's also got a docket full of fighting Wal-Mart:

A small group of residents, with help from a Seattle labor union, has been fighting the plan in recent months. Resident groups in Arlington and Marysville are fighting proposed Wal-Mart stores in those cities as well. The Mill Creek group has collected about 3,000 signatures opposing the store.

...Wal-Mart's estimate of more than 5,000 trips generated by the store per day is low, said Seattle attorney Claudia Newman, who was hired by groups fighting Wal-Mart stores in Arlington and Marysville as well as the one in Mill Creek.

At least the good folks in Mill Creek are not afraid to give a shout-out to their union backers. From the Daily Herald again:

The United Food and Commercial Workers Union in Seattle has been paying the bulk of the cost for an attorney to fight approval of the store, Lowe said. Residents have been chipping in, and raised $750 in a holiday sale recently, she said.

"We're trying to help out," Bonham said.

And the Mill Creek Enterprise:

"Talk to your friends, talk to your neighbors, talk to people at your church (about Wal-Mart)," urged Heather Golden, an organizer with the United Food and Commercial Workers Union Local 1001.

In addition to a petition drive, attendees made preliminary plans to stand on local street corners waving signs opposing Wal-Mart.

Tuesday's decisions are the result of a national movement battling the company and its business practices. Spearheaded by national labor unions like the UFCW and the Teamsters, the movement, called Wake-Up Wal-Mart, seeks to change those practices.

"A number of local unions in this area have contributed money to our efforts," said Golden. "So far we've used that money to hire a land-use lawyer. (Claudia Newman)."

What do you think Lu Laoshi? Will you finally recant the statement you made in the Daily News last November?:

I have no special expertise nor have I received any help, training, support or funding from any such national union movement. I am not a member of a union nor is anyone in my family.

At a recent Pullman Alliance for Responsible Development meeting, I asked if anyone was – no one raised their hand.

The common theme in all the fights against Wal-Mart in Mount Vernon, Yelm, Yakima, Mill Creek, Arlington, Marysville, and yes, Pullman, is traffic. Who would have thought that a grocery store workers union would care so much about traffic?

Technorati Tags: wal-mart walmart

Lessons for Teacher Lu

Scotty writes about Chris Lupke's Town Crier column in the Daily News today:

He makes it seem like the businessmen in China are complaining about WalMart. But, that is not what was being said.

Given previous letters to the editor from PARD, I'm surprised Lupke stopped at lead paint and didn't blame Wal-mart for kiddie porn and crack houses as well.

Let's examine a few of Lu Laoshi's claims further, shall we?

If Wal-Mart is such a all-powerful monopsony that it squeezes poor Chinese suppliers to "commit suicide," then why has it's stock declined 25 percent in the last three years? You can't have it both ways. As a recent Wall Street Journal article so gleefully touted by the PARDners states, "As Wal-Mart's influence erodes, so does its allure to manufacturers." The Journal continues,

In some ways, Wal-Mart's loss of clout is a reflection of a more fragmented world. Retailing is a mirror to how we live and work. Big-box stores thrived by selling highly recognizable national brands, which themselves were fed by two phenomena: the growth of mass media and freeways, which encouraged large stores in remote areas. Stores and brands together achieved scale efficiencies that allowed them to overwhelm local chain stores and regional brands.

But the Internet is transforming the retail definition of scale. The once-stunning compilation of 142,000 items found in a Wal-Mart supercenter doesn't seem so vast alongside the millions of products available on the Internet.

At the same time, the cost of creating and sustaining a national brand is rising because of media fragmentation. Niche brands, created by Internet word of mouth, are winning shelf space and sapping profits required to fund big brands' advertising.

So it is the free market and consumers, as always, not union-funded "grassroots" pressure groups like PARD,that are changing Wal-Mart.

By the way, according to the New York Times, Wal-Mart's stock stumbled because the company abandoned its traditional customer base and tried to go "upscale."

If Chinese workers average $150 per month working in factories that supply Wal-Mart, what were they earning before they started working in those factories? What are the alternatives? I find it highly interesting that liberals like Lupke who want the U.S. to stop trying to impose American-style democracy on countries like Iraq are so anxious to impose American-style wages and working conditions on countries like China.

If PARD is a "grassroots group" contending that Wal-Mart damages "smaller and locally owned businesses," why did Lupke have to use a quote from a furniture store owner in Chicago? Is it because the only anti-Wal-Mart business owner in Pullman left town a year ago? Is it because ALL the public comments from business owners in Pullman have been in favor of Wal-Mart coming to town?

Speaking of Chicago, Lupke leaves out a few salient points, as you might expect. For one, the fact that 25,000 Chicagoans applied for 325 jobs at the store. I guess Wal-Mart must not be as bad a place to work as Lu Laoshi claims. Also, since Wal-Mart opened in the West Side of Chicago a year ago, according to the Chicago Tribune, it has generated more than $5 million in state and local taxes. And all of that despite massive union efforts to block the West Side store and continuing efforts to block a South Side store.

Fortunately, Mayor Daley vetoed the city council's union-bought and paid "living wage ordinance" designed to stop Wal-Mart from opening on the West Side and sided with folks like Alderwoman Emma Mitts of the predominantly minority 37th Ward on the West Side who stated:

I'm not in your business, so don't get in my business in my ward. If they don't want a Wal-Mart, fine, I do. I have kids in my neighborhood telling me, "I need a job." I can get opportunities for them. I started out working in a grocery store. It helped me.

And speaking of labor unions, it is no coincidence that Lupke used the phrase "Wal-Mart actually does seem to be waking up a bit." Wake Up Wal-Mart! is the anti-Wal-Mart organization funded by the United Food and Commerical Workers union. That is the same union that PARD's attorney David Bricklin just recently represented over in Fircrest, WA in a Wal-Mart appeal.

Wal-Mart did not launch its $4 prescription program to "cultivate support in communities," it did it to help revive those flagging stock values Lupke touts. I couldn't find any Wall Street Journal editorials critical of this, but I did find a Wall Street Journal/Harris poll that found low-priced generic drugs are likely to attract a big share of the market for prescription drugs. And there was a Journal editorial in December 2005 that concluded that the campaign against Wal-Mart is about union politics.

Is Wal-Mart Good for America?

It is a testament to the public-relations success of the anti-Wal-Mart campaign that the question above is even being asked.

By any normal measure, Wal-Mart's business ought to be noncontroversial. It sells at low cost, albeit in mind-boggling quantities, the quotidian products that huge numbers of Americans evidently want to buy--from household goods to clothes to food.

Funny, Lu Laoshi didn't mention that one.

Lastly, as to Lupke's point of the lawsuit against Wal-Mart for hours worked off the clock, I suppose it bears mentioning yet again that Costco, the preferred big-box store of PARDners everywhere, is the subject of a class action lawsuit for gender discrimination. Why, the PARDners will sputter, Wal-Mart has been sued much more than Costco. Indeed. Wal-Mart has 1.6 million employees versus 136,000 for Costco and Wal-Mart garners five times as much in annual sales as Costco. Do the math. Who's the bigger target?

Technorati Tags: wal-mart walmart