Open Letter to Members of the City Council and City Administration

As a citizen of Pullman I have deep concerns about the proposed construction of a 223,000sf Wal-Mart “Supercenter” on Bishop Boulevard. My concerns are both with the process of decision making surrounding the project, and with the substance of the project itself.

I have been dismayed, to say the least, by public statements made by city supervisor John Sherman and public works director Mark Workman regarding the Wal-Mart siting proposal. While we certainly must follow all city codes and legal procedures, there is a great deal of room for discretionary action that has not been acknowledged by our city officials.

To begin with, Mr. Sherman’s announcement in the Daily News (Dec. 3, 2004) that there is no place for the city council in the process of evaluating the Wal-Mart plans suggests that he does not believe Pullman has a city government. Rather it suggests that we only have a city management. If the single most potentially high impact proposal ever before the city does not need to involve the city council, then heaven help us if we think of Pullman as part of a democratic system.

In addition, in their public statements neither Mr. Sherman nor Mr. Workman have mentioned the fact that the Director of Public Works can make a simple recommendation that the matter be referred to the Board of Adjustment (17.135.050). As you know, this one step would allow at least a modicum of public discussion of the project. If ever there was a project of sufficient complexity to justify such a referral, this project is it.

Mr. Sherman has suggested that the State Environmental Protection Act (SEPA) process constitutes a sufficient place for public input; this is difficult to take seriously. As you well know, the SEPA process, as narrowly interpreted by some city managers, often entails only a narrow spectrum of relevant response to a select set of environmental issues. Case studies like the one in Bakersfield cited below suggest that the fiscal impact of empty stores and decimated downtowns in the wake of Wal-Mart can have adverse environmental as well as social impacts.

Most important, the SEPA process, narrowly construed, does not allow room for serious discussion of the "fiscal impact" of the proposed "supercenter." Such an analysis is critical to what may well be that greatest economic impact the city will ever see from a single project.

As you know another local provision, Section 17.135.070 Review Criteria #11, not only allows but requires consideration of the "fiscal impact of the proposed development on the city." Public Works Director Mark Workman's public statements seem to indicate he is determined to take the narrowest possible reading of this clause. Instead I urge the council to take the perfectly reasonable step of insisting that the clause be interpreted to call for an analysis of the full-scale, long-range possible impact of a proposal of the scale of Wal-Mart’s. Given the extreme, often very negative, impact of such stores on rural towns such a study is absolutely necessary to avoid potential fiscal disaster and future lawsuits. A request to extend and deepen this part of the site plan in no way imposes a new burden on Wal-Mart, any more than requiring them to address other deficiencies does.

Regardless of the outcome of this particular proposal, it is clear that Pullman zoning laws and city codes are inadequate as presently written. The largest commercial project ever proposed in Pullman could be approved with absolutely no significant role for the city’s elected officials or the wider citizenry. This is clearly unacceptable. Routine, administrative or ministerial decision-making makes sense for smaller, “routine” proposals. But surely any projects approaching the magnitude and potential impact of the Wal-Mart plan must be open to public discussion and decision-making input from our elected City Council.

We must do everything that can be done legally to open up the current process, and then begin to work on future changes that will give the citizens greater power in such momentous decisions.

To oppose the building of a Wal-Mart Supercenter in Pullman is not to be anti-business, but pro-business, especially pro-local. Every dollar spent at a locally owned store circulates through the local economy five times; every dollar spent at Wal-Mart makes a hasty retreat to Bentonville, Arkansas. Dozens of independent analyses have demonstrated great negative economic impact on cities and towns where supercenters have located. Let me cite just a few such reports as examples. The Rodino Report commissioned by the city council of Los Angeles found that supercenters drive down wages in the local retail industry, place a strain on social services, and damage small businesses. A similar study by the non-profit, non-partisan San Diego Taxpayers Association found that an influx of big box stores in San Diego would result in an annual decline in wages and benefits to local employees of between $105 and $221 million, and a $9 million increase in public health costs.

Studies have found that a typical Wal-Mart store with 200 employees cost the taxpayers $420,750 a year. I understand the fiscal difficulties faced by the city given the numerous initiative driven tax cuts in the state in recent years. But Wal-Mart pays a smaller percentage of local taxes than any remotely comparable entity. A more mixed economy, involving a mix of less comprehensive “big box” stores, and local small business is a much healthier and more sustainable base. If the city believes a supercenter will add significantly to the tax base, they simply have not been doing their homework or been calculating the wider costs.

Kenneth Stone of Iowa State has addressed the issue with more specific reference to rural towns and found an even more devastating impact. Wal-Mart’s arrival typically means the loss of three jobs for every two they create, a failure of two local grocery stories, and devastation to local hardware, tire, retail clothing stores, and pharmacies. In a relatively short time, often less than three years, this process has led to a declining, not an increasing, tax base for such communities. As a state with an economic base similar to that of eastern Washington, the figures on Wal-Mart’s impact on Iowa are especially illuminating, and chilling. In Iowa the “Wal-Mart effect” has lead to the loss of 555 grocery stores, 298 hardware stores, 293 building supply stores, 161 variety stores, 158 women's apparel stores, 153 shoe stores, 116 drugstores, and 111 men's and boys' apparel stores.

If one multiplies this impact across rural America it is clear that it is not those of us who oppose Wal-Matt who are “anti-business,” but Wal-Mart itself. Wal-Mart has driven thousands of small and medium (and some large) businesses out of business. Wal-Mart does not believe in good old American competition; it seeks and in many places has achieved, good old American monopolies.

In 2004, Penn State University researchers added further evidence of this trend. Their study showed that during the economic boom of the mid-1990s rural communities with Wal-Marts had significantly less progress against poverty than did towns without Wal-Marts. A key factor in this process was the decline in local business leadership as many prominent individuals lost their businesses due to Wal-Mart’s practices of underpricing key goods.

If we move beyond the local business and labor impacts, the costs of Wal-Mart quickly mount much higher. The Institute for Labor and Employment found that California taxpayers subsidized $86 million worth of medical care and other social service costs for Wal-Mart workers in that state alone. The report estimated that if other retailers adopted Wal-Mart’s labor model, the cost to taxpayers would be $410 million a year in public assistance. The state of Washington reports that Wal-Mart employees make up by far the largest number of state residents applying for coverage under the Washington Basic Health Care Plan. In 2000 the state was forced to take over management of Wal-Mart’s worker insurance claims due to failure of the company to adequately benefit its workers.

Just as economic impacts will hit all citizens of Pullman, so to will potential health and safety issues related to the location of the massive Wal-Mart proposal. Based on the Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) prepared by Wal-Mart (CLC Associates, October 15, 2004), we believe that the traffic to and from the Wal-Mart site will drastically increase congestion; interfere with access to the new hospital on Bishop Blvd.; decrease public safety for motorists, pedestrians, and cyclists; increase public expenditures for infrastructure and public safety; and increase air, noise, and light pollution. The TIA estimates that “the expected additional average daily traffic…associated with the project is 11,727 trips, with half entering and half exiting the site” (p. 1). The study analyzed five intersections (Grand Ave./Crestview St., Grand Ave./Bishop Blvd., Bishop Blvd./Harvest Dr., Bishop Blvd./Fairmont Dr., and Bishop Blvd./Professional Mall Blvd.), but excludes several important intersections (see below).

The TIA estimates that in 2006, with the Wal-Mart Supercenter in place, “all of the study intersections except for the Grand/Crestview intersection will drop to unacceptable levels of services” (p. 25). “Unacceptable” refers to level F, “which indicates significant vehicle delay and traffic congestion which may lead to system breakdown due to volumes which may far exceed capacity” (p. 10). Excluding Grand/Crestview and Bishop/Harvest (where Wal-Mart will install a light), the wait time will be 55 to 110 seconds per vehicle. These levels are unacceptable, and it is doubtful that the recommended mitigations will solve the traffic problems. Furthermore, the City not indicated whether or not it will follow the recommended mitigations (p. 25), nor has it stated who would pay for the improvements.

Since Wal-Mart has only agreed to install a signal at Bishop/Harvest, we can only assume that taxpayers will have to pay for additional traffic mitigations. We believe that Bishop Blvd. and Grand Ave. (two-lane roads with a center lane for left-hand turns) will have to be widened to accommodate the additional traffic. However, the City will have to use eminent domain procedures to widen Bishop Blvd. This will greatly impact property owners who have no interest in a Wal-Mart Supercenter. They should not have to subsidize Wal-Mart’s profits.

Importantly, the traffic study excludes several busy intersections such as the entrances to/from the hospital, Safeway, professional buildings, and the Holiday Inn on Bishop Blvd., the Klemgard/Bishop Blvd. intersection, and the downtown intersections with Grand (north of Crestview). This is a concern for several reasons. First, the heavy traffic flow will make it dangerously difficult to access the hospital, threatening citizens’ health and safety. Second, the downtown area is already congested during peak hours; with the Wal-Mart, the level of service will undoubtedly fall to unacceptable levels. Third, cars will have extreme difficulty turning left onto Bishop from Safeway and the shopping center across the street. Finally, since the estimated wait time at Bishop/Professional Mall Blvd. will be 70.3 seconds without mitigations, we can expect similar wait times at the Bishop Blvd. intersections not included in the study. The City has not indicated how it will ensure access to the hospital and mitigate congestion downtown and along Bishop Blvd.

The Review Comments prepared by Christopher Brown & Associates (Nov. 17, 2004) show that Wal-Mart’s traffic study includes several critical errors and invalid computations. The most important are listed below.

1. Wal-Mart’s study did not mention how current or future developments near the proposed site (e.g., Sundance Ridge at Wadleigh and Jones, the Meyer and Bishop properties south of Sundance Ridge) will affect the Grand/Crestview intersection (p. 2).
2. Because the study’s analysis is based on 15-minute rather than 1-hour intervals, it “show[s] a better LOS [level of service at intersections] than found in actual fact” (p. 3). That is, traffic conditions will be much worse than the Wal-Mart study estimates.
3. Wal-Mart’s analysis of Professional Mall Blvd./Bishop “has three apparent errors leading to the assumed enhanced operation” (p. 3). This means that Wal-Mart’s proposed mitigations will not improve traffic congestion at this intersection. Using a 1-hour interval, Brown & Associates estimate a 110 second delay per vehicle at this intersection (Exhibit D), compared Wal-Mart’s estimate of 70.3 seconds, based on a 15-minute interval (CLC Associates, p. 25). Brown & Associates conclude that because the Professional Mall Blvd./Bishop intersection “cannot function with an LOS better than F [the worst level of service], and this will induce traffic accidents, it must be signalized with a 2-phase actuated signal and include a separate southbound right turn only lane” (p. 5).
4. Brown & Associates recommends that the City “investigate potential traffic calming projects,” since “there may be unwanted intrusion of commercial-site related traffic into the Harvest Drive/Crestview Street/Spring Street neighborhoods” (p. 5).
5. Brown & Associates recommend studying the Klemgard/Bishop intersection, which was not included in the Wal-Mart study.
6. Wal-Mart’s study includes no analysis of traffic accidents and hazards.

We believe that the City must thoroughly investigate each of these errors and recommendations.

The traffic congestion related to the Wal-Mart site will compromise public safety.

1. Traffic accidents: Brown & Associates predict that more traffic accidents will occur if Wal-Mart is built (especially at Pro Mall Blvd./Bishop). Accidents will not only injure motorists and pedestrians, but also burden the Fire and Police Departments and the taxpayers who pay for these services. Thousands of cars will also enter Pullman from the Moscow-Pullman Highway (Main Street). There is currently a six- car capacity in the left turn lane at the corner of Main Street where cars will stop at the light and then turn left onto Bishop. Cars will approach around a blind curve blocked by a cliff. The only way to widen the road is to remove the cliff at great expense. If this is not done, there is a high probability for lethal accidents as cars approach around the blind curve to encounter stopped traffic.
2. Public safety on Pioneer Hill: According to the Wal-Mart study, at least 5% of the 11,727 daily trips (586+) will pass through Harvest/Crestview/Spring, a residential neighborhood on Pioneer Hill that includes an elementary and a middle school. This will endanger the many children who walk to and from school, and also increase the risk of abduction or abuse.
3. Senior citizens’ safety: Traffic congestion will endanger the senior citizens who live in the retirement communities on Bishop Blvd., communities scheduled to grow in the near future with the planned addition of an Alzheimer’s unit and other facilities.
4. Access to the hospital: The location of the Wal-Mart site will severely limit access to the hospital and make it difficult for ambulances to make a left-hand turn onto Bishop Blvd. This delay could mean the difference between life and death.
5. There is no discussion of the impact on Stadium way as traffic backs up from the Bishop Blvd turnoff from the Main/Moscow highway intersection.
6. Cyclist’s safety: The increased traffic places cyclists at risk. Neither Bishop Blvd. nor Grand Ave. have a wide shoulder or bike lane, yet cyclists regularly use these roads. These unsafe conditions will force people to drive rather than bike, exacerbating traffic congestion.

The increased traffic flow will contribute to air, noise and light pollution. Air pollution from cars will dramatically increase and adversely affect the hospital and retirement area nearby—the population that is most susceptible to air pollution. Both the hospital and retirement areas were built in part because of the low levels of pollution. A Seattle study released last year showed that increased air pollution leads to more hospital admissions. Air pollution also leads to asthma, which disproportionately affects children and the elderly. The traffic will also generate noise pollution, especially for residents on the southeast and southwest hills. Finally, the 1000 space parking lot will create light pollution. Wal-Mart will be built on a raised area, making the light from the parking lot visible for miles around.

Traffic congestion will slow down the bus routes, which already run at least 5 to 20 minutes late (or more) during peak times. Unreliable bus service will discourage people from using public transportation, which will exacerbate traffic congestion, and so forth. We urge the City to conduct an analysis of Wal-Mart’s impact on public transportation schedules and usage.

In short, traffic congestion will significantly decrease the quality of life in Pullman, severely compromise public health and safety, and increase taxpayers’ expenditures for infrastructure and public safety.

The history of negative economic and social impacts, and increasing public awareness of WalMart’s horrendous labor and business practices has led to a great deal of successful resistance to Wal-Mart in recent years. Wal-Mart is currently running a multimillion-dollar advertising campaign to improve its image. But a few smiley faces cannot cover over the reality of Wal-Mart’s business and labor practices.

All across America communities have recognized that Wal-Mart supercenters are a bad deal and have found a variety of ways to stop them. In March 2004, voters in Scottsdale rejected a proposed sales tax break for a Wal-Mart super center, which would have cost $183 million over 40 years. In Flagstaff, a citizen's organization called Friends of Flagstaff's Future got the city council to limit big box stores to 125,000 square feet - half the size of a Wal-Mart supercenter - to protect existing retailers and city jobs. In August 2004 the Los Angeles city council passed an ordinance requiring big box companies to pay for independent studies of their economic impact on existing local retailers and retail employees because study after study has suggested that impact is primarily negative.

This December, a California appeals court overturned the city of Bakersfield's zoning approval for two shopping center developments, each of which includes a partially constructed Wal-Mart supercenter. The court cited the failure of environmental impact statements to consider ecological stress if the big box developments caused Bakersfield's core urban areas to lose stores and become dilapidated. In Austin, Texas, where Wal-Mart plans to build eleven supercenters, a report sponsored by the Austin Business Alliance recommended that independent economic impact analyses be conducted for all proposed big-box stores, especially analyses of increased costs from new infrastructure and
increased social service demands from workers with inadequate wages and benefits.

Closer to home, Gig Harbor and Port Townsend forced Wal-Mart to withdraw its supercenter plans in the wake of a massively successful petition campaign. Lacy Washington also successfully kept out a Wal-Mart. And Lakewood Washington has used litigation to prevent construction of a supercenter first proposed there in 1999. Tumwater and Hayden Lake are also in the midst of campaigns to keep Wal-Mart from building in their communities.

In total, some 250 towns and cities have prevented the siting of “big box” stores, and another 250 are currently fighting such proposals. The sense that Wal-Mart’s arrival is inevitable that I have heard from some in the city government and elsewhere is thus wholly unjustified.

As testified to the more than 4,000 signatures gathered in the past three weeks against the Wal-Mart project, it is clear that the vast majority of Pullman citizens oppose the plan to locate a Wal-Mart “supercenter” in town. And 100% of those who know the true story of Wal-Mart’s business practices oppose it.

Pullman business owners oppose the plan because across small town America they know of this clear pattern of supercenters devastating local businesses. Given its size, Pullman is more vulnerable to this process than most towns. And in Pullman this would likely mean destroying much of the recent revitalization of Main Street and the downtown.

Working people oppose Wal-Mart because this impact on local business means an overall loss, not a gain, of jobs when supercenters enter a town. In addition, Wal-Mart’s practice of hiring mostly temp workers means they pay below the minimum wage, and tend to depress wages for all working people in the areas they locate their stores.

Because of its poor wages and failure to offer decent the benefits, Wal-Mart has in the past routinely handed out memos telling its workers how to apply for welfare, food stamps and other public programs. About forty percent of Wal-Mart workers, according to surveys, are forced to avail themselves of public assistance – just one of many ways Wal-Mart receives “corporate welfare,” passing their business costs onto workers and other taxpayers.

People looking beyond Wal-Mart’s impact on US workers oppose the corporation because of its long history of using sweatshop labor, including child labor, in the developing world. Contrary to its “red, white and blue” self-promotion, these practices further hurt US workers while lowering wages for already poor people outside the country.

In the last few years, some progress had been made in decreasing the amount of sweatshop and child labor through highly publicized anti-sweatshop campaigns against Nike and other guilty parties. But more recently Wal-Mart’s practices have reversed this trend, forcing other companies to resort to sweatshop labor in order compete with Wal-Mart’s cutthroat labor policies

People who care about gender and racial justice also oppose Wal-Mart because of its long history of discrimination. Wal-Mart women workers have documented all manner of gender discrimination, leading to the largest class action suit ever filed. Similar cases have been filed on the basis of racial and other forms of discrimination. Wal-Mart was also recently fined for knowingly employing undocumented immigrants, at exploitative wages.

Indeed, Wal-Mart has the distinction of being the single most sued private entity in the world, with more than 9,000 lawsuits against them. Many lawsuits have been successful, despite the overwhelming legal resources the corporation has on its side. Is Wal-Mart the only corporation to engage in shady practices? Of course not, but it does more of it on a wider scale than any other retailer, and is thus an important target if we wish to improve conditions for all hard working folks.

Documentation for the portrait I offer above comes primarily from such the Wall Street Journal, the Christian Science Monitor, and the Congressional Office of Rep. George Miller, in addition to other cited reports.

Wal-Mart’s one desirable feature, its much-vaunted “always low prices,” must be taken seriously because poverty and low income is a major problem in our current economy. But analyses have shown that Wal-Mart’s uses a plan of “selective low-pricing” to undercut local businesses, and to give the illusion of across the board lower prices. Wal-Mart is currently being sued in Florida and Wisconsin for selling illegally below wholesale to drive out competitors. More important, even those prices that are low are only low when one leaves out the larger picture of the true costs, especially to working people and all taxpayers, of Wal-Mart’s ways of doing business.

Most residents of Pullman do not want this project because the real story of Wal-Mart's “low prices" is that they cost too much: lower wages, discrimination, sweatshop labor, lost U.S. jobs, destruction of smaller local businesses, “corporate welfare” tax breaks, and lower community living standards overall.

The city must of course follow all legal guidelines in the process of evaluating the Wal-Mart proposal, but as all citizens know, much depends upon on how those guidelines are interpreted. Thus far the city managers seem to be much more concerned about being fair to Wal-Mart than to the citizens of Pullman and the Palouse. We urge the council to become involved in assuring that this very serious issue receives the broadest possible consideration and the widest feasible citizen input.

Yours truly,

XXXX

On behalf of the Pullman Alliance for Responsible Development