"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

Wal-Mart Watch Watching Palousitics

More fun with the Palousitics hit counter:

VISITOR ANALYSIS
Referring Link: http://technorati.com/blogs/palousitics.blogspot.com
Host Name: mail.walmartwatch.com
IP Address: 38.99.210.226
Country: United States
Region: District Of Columbia
City: Washington
ISP: Performance Systems International Inc
Navigation Path
Date: 14th December 2007
Time: 08:59:12
WebPage: technorati.com/blogs/palousitics.blogspot.com

Wal-Mart Watch is the anti-Wal-Mart astroroots group brought to you by the dues-paying members of the Service Employees International Union (SEIU).

Technorati Tags: wal-mart walmart

Food for Thought

Check out some of the points raised in this Seattle Times article from last Saturday.

She said the group raised money from local business owners and the United Food and Commercial Workers union to wage a regulatory battle against Wal-Mart on the grounds that it posed significant environmental risks.

Okay, first of all, why would a labor union care about environmental regulations? We all know the answer to that question. And let's not forget that it was Claudia Newman, one of PARD's attorneys, that represented the anti-Wal-Mart group in Mill Creek:

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)."

In fact, A December 23, 2005 Everett Herald story reported:

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.

Instead of the PARDners calling me a "liar," I think everyone knows who the real liars are by denying their union support. Now that we are at the bitter end, can they just tell the truth for a change?

Then there was this:

But a county hearing examiner ordered Wal-Mart to study the store's potential environmental effects — ensuring a delay of up to three years, Spall said.

Now do you see why PARD was so hot to get an environmental impact study ordered by the Hearing Examiner?

And lastly, more reason to be confident:

She added that if Wal-Mart had owned the land, "it would have been a different story," meaning it would have kept up the fight.

Wal-Mart purchased the land on Bishop Blvd. back in April 2006. Yet another PARD miscalculation.

Technorati Tags: wal-mart walmart

"Union betrays its own members"

Dynamite column by Froma Harrop today:

The American working class has few friends, and that sad situation is never more apparent than when the issue is immigration. The fat cats want unlimited supplies of cheap labor. It makes sense. That a giant union purportedly serving low-skilled workers would further that end does not.

The Service Employees International Union is backing a proposal to greatly expand the supply of low-cost labor pouring into the United States. The reason why is close to crazy.

Under the Senate immigration compromise, at least 400,000 two-year visas would be issued a year to unskilled foreigners. The visas could be renewed two times, but to ensure that the guest labor is truly temporary, workers would have to leave the country for a year between each stint. The SEIU apparently has a problem with the part about the workers being temporary.

First off, any self-respecting union would blow its top at the very suggestion of a massive new guest-worker program. The AFL-CIO adamantly opposes the idea. Its president, John Sweeney, complains that the program gives employers "a ready pool of labor they can exploit to drive down wages, benefits, health and safety protections, and other workplace standards."

There are temporary jobs – for example, harvesting crops. But these new visas are designed to provide cut-rate labor to fill permanent positions in such businesses as meat processing, restaurants and motels.

The SEIU covers many of the very people who take these jobs. It seems curious that the union does not mind adding another half million workers a year to compete with its own members. Its Web site contends that America has a shortage of 10 million workers and that "nearly half of all jobs created from now until 2012 will be held by workers with a high school diploma or less."

Duh – but don't worker shortages cause wages to rise? The wages of "workers with a high school diploma or less" have been crashing through the floor. Or hasn't the SEIU noticed that its contract "victories" are not that fabulous?

It's hard to believe that the SEIU's leaders are dumb. Rather, they ignore the law of supply and demand to cover another agenda. Thus, one can't be sure whether the SEIU aspires to be a union representing workers or an arm of the National Council of La Raza, a group that claims to further the interests of Hispanics – and does a lousy job of it.

Democrats who think they can get away with throwing blue-collar America to the wolves in return for new immigrants' votes should think again. Many Latinos who are native-born or legal immigrants – however sympathetic to fellow Hispanics who want to come here – do understand how the labor market has been rigged against them. The open border is why median wages are higher in Alabama than they are in Texas.

And there are other low-income groups who fancy their interests matter. T. William Fair, head of the Miami Urban League, appears in ads calling amnesty for illegal workers "a slap in the face to black Americans" and "an economic disaster." Some predict a new coalition of working-class blacks, whites and not a few Latinos questioning certain Democrats' loyalty to their cause. (Cheap-labor Republicans are already on notice.)

Controlled immigration is a good thing, and a little wage competition is an acceptable price for bringing new blood and energy into the country. But the numbers really do matter. If some unions and Democrats choose to deny the economic realities, they should at least be open about their motives. It would be highly risky to assume that everyone else is stupid.

The SEIU, as you may or may not know, is the force behind Wal-Mart Watch. Wal-Mart watch has had the temerity to attack Wal-Mart over undocumented workers and outsourcing American jobs.

This hypocrisy proves that union thugs are only interested in more dues, not the workers, to maintain their lavish lifestyles and buy power and inlfuence in D.C.

Technorati Tags: wal-mart walmart

"Dr. Sam"

This is dedicated to Pullman Chamber Guy and his comments earlier about Wal-Mart and free market health care.

From Investor's Business Daily, April 25, 2007 :

Health Care: Medical costs got you down? Prescriptions too expensive? So fed up with our "system" that universal care is starting to look good by comparison? Before going that far, check what Wal-Mart's (NYSE:WMT) up to.

The retail colossus announced this week that it will open as many as 400 in-store medical clinics in the next two to three years. By 2014, it said, clinics could be in as many as half its 4,000 stores.

The announcement followed deep price cuts on prescription drugs introduced by the company last fall at 65 Tampa, Fla.-area outlets. That program, which was not beaten back like Wal-Mart's attempt to enter banking, has since spread across the country.

Wal-Mart's advance into health care is a testament to private-sector industriousness. While others whine about America's health care "crisis," and back monstrous government programs to solve it, Wal-Mart is actually making care more affordable.

Yes, the same Wal-Mart that politicians and activists demonize because its pay and benefits supposedly are insufficient.

The clinics will be operated by local hospitals or other independent professionals, and will particularly help the poor. Company executives say prices for medical care in the clinics will mirror the low prices in Wal-Mart stores.

Already, Wal-Mart has brought low-cost health care by selling 30-day supplies of more than 300 generic prescription drugs at some stores for $4. Almost a third of those $4 prescriptions are bought by the uninsured. Customers have saved $290 million through the program just since September

Cynics will say clinics and low-price drugs are a ploy to lure more shoppers into Wal-Mart. So? Is that wrong? The essential truth missing from their tirades about Wal-Mart's rapacity is that it's a company, not a charity. It must make a profit to stay in business, provide jobs and keep prices low.

If Wal-Mart thinks this latest plan will win the plaudits of its foes, it's mistaken. Just Tuesday, the United Food and Commercial Workers union, which runs a nonstop anti-Wal Mart campaign via the Web, derided the company's "disturbing" record on health care -- a laughable assertion, given Wal-Mart's record.

Opening clinics also will likely create new enemies: physicians and their staffs who fear that their practices will be harmed by the presence of price-cutting Wal-Mart clinics in their communities.

But the issue shouldn't be about saving local medical practices any more than saving local retailers who always complain when Wal-Mart moves in. It should be about quality health care -- and prescriptions, groceries, clothing and essential household items -- at prices all Americans can afford. Wal-Mart does that.

Technorati Tags: wal-mart walmart