For more than four years, the Pullman Alliance for Responsible Development (PARD) has waged all-out war in attempting to stop the development of a Wal-Mart Supercenter in Pullman. Like many residents, I have followed this debacle with some interest and with some disgust, but have largely limited my discussions on the process to friends, family and acquaintances. However, as I am now a candidate for Pullman City Council, I believe it's time to get on the record with a formal position on the matter.

Samuel Adams once wrote "It does not require a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority keen to set brush fires in people's minds." In effect, this quote should be the mission statement of PARD; this small yet vocal group has done itself proud in halting needed economic development in our city.

Proud, that is, by their own standards - not the standards of the average citizen. A study conducted by the Community Land Use and Economics (CLUE) Group, LLC 

determined that the Walmart Supercenter in Pullman would generate $100 million a year in sales, which combined with property taxes, would result in a net increase of over $700,000 to Pullman's annual operating budget.

Since the store's originally scheduled 2005 opening was delayed by PARD appeals, the City of Pullman has already lost some $2.7 million in revenue. Considering the fact that residents and businesses alike are now facing overall increases of up to 40% for water and up to 80% for sewer over a five year period, from a strictly financial standpoint to fund needed projects and improvements - those are dollars our community desperately needs.

What, exactly, got the panties of PARD in such a twist about Wal-Mart? And why do PARD and other similar groups oppose Wal-Mart with such vitriol and hate? It seems that the answer lies in the fact that Wal-Mart is simply the biggest kid on the block, and these groups believe that if you somehow neuter that corporation, that their competition will simply acquiesce, and modify their business models to support the new paradigm. However, I believe the opposite is the case. If groups like PARD make it more difficult for Wal-Mart to do business, competition like Target will step up and do everything they have to - in order to take advantage of the situation.

If you don't think Target (or other major corporate retail entity, insert name HERE) wouldn't LOVE to sweep in and become the next corporate super giant after the failure of Wal-Mart and run itself with a business model similar in every way, then you living in a fantasy.

Let's just take a step back and look at the PARD mission statement, keeping in mind that while they may oppose many big-box projects, they save the best of the best for Wal-Mart. Let's see what they stand for, and how these goals mesh with ALL business interests, not just those of the late Sam Walton.

PARD objective #1: Help ensure that development decisions in this region reflect and respect the rights of working people to a living wage

The last time I checked, If a developer meets all city, state and federal codes - and the planning department and city council signs off on the project, then said developer has every right to proceed with their project. Now, in all fairness to PARD, they have the constitutional right to actively pursue their own agenda, even if the majority of Pullman residents DISAGREE with that position. But the bottom line is, there is an established process for local and regional (city/county) development. The opinion of PARD, through their aggressive tactics has been amplified far above and beyond the representation of their members, and has gone from the representation of a minority group to the oppression of the majority of residents, who would like to see this development proceed.

As far as "the rights of working people to a living wage" go, that's not for the city to decide, that's up to the Washington State Department of Labor and Industries and the U.S. Department of Labor.

So long as the United States is a free country, Wal-Mart has the right to pay what the market will bear. If they can get away with "only" paying the obscenely high Washington State hourly standard of $8.55, more power to them. However, the fact is that the average Wal-Mart already pays more than minimum wage, and the disparity between the Pullman and Moscow ($6.55) minimum wages has already cost us dozens of opportunities for development and hundreds of good jobs.

But rather than recognize how short sighted their utopian ideals are for making sure every person can raise a family working part-time and stocking shelves at a retail supercenter, PARD and their associate groups would rather advocate tactics which target and specifically discriminate against Wal-Mart by requiring them to pay one entry-level employee the equivalent of the federal poverty level for a family of four.

That's not going to happen because no corporation can charge their customers the amount of money needed to sustain such a business model. And, in my opinion, any municipality who chooses to impose such so-called "living wage ordinances" deserves to face economic ruin and a hefty legal judgement for operating outside of the state and federal constitutions, which were designed to provide equal opportunities, not equal results. The very idea is ludicrous and un-American at its' core.

PARD objective #2: Protect and encourage local businesses

Like it or not, Pullman has no constitutional grounds to favor local business over large national corporations. In fact, its' exactly the opposite. In order to build long-term economic sustainability for our community, we need national retail outlets. Like everything else, retail has evolved dramatically over the past 50 years. "Mom & Pop" retail, unless we're talking about a locally-owned national franchisee, is a thing of the past, regardless of whether we like that fact or not.

But let's meet this particular argument head on. If Wal-Mart was going to damage our local business community, it would have done so when the Moscow store opened, which to the best of my recollection was 17 years ago. 

When the Pullman Wal-Mart opens, the Moscow Wal-Mart will close – and the main competitors that could or will be impacted are other large corporate entities. Shopko, Rite-Aid, Safeway, Dissmores IGA; these are all corporate (not locally-owned) entities. And why again should these businesses be favored?

If encouraging business development is what you're all about, there are literally dozens of projects up and down Bishop Boulevard that have been put on indefinite hold because of the PARD-engineered Wal-Mart stall. 

Duane Brelsford is arguably Pullman's most successful developer (in the history of the town) and love him or hate him the fact is, he's a damn sharp businessman. Even PARD goes out of its' way to praise Brelsford: "We also want to applaud local developer Duane Brelsford, Jr. whom we see as a model of responsible development. Brelsford is providing both housing and businesses that are needed locally, while maintaining the character of Pullman. He is also finding ways to link the campus and the downtown to the benefit of both." (Source: PARD website home page)

But what does Brelsford say about Wal Mart? "I'm not a pro-Wal-Mart person and I'm not an anti-Wal-Mart person," said Brelsford. "What I am for is what Wal-Mart will bring, and it's other national tenants, and that's what Pullman needs. "Everybody wants to be by Wal-Mart. It's like fly paper."

Bottom line -- the construction of Wal-Mart will encourage new business. Including the locally-owned, 140,000-square-foot expansion of Pullman Building Supply. If you read their own mission statement, it sounds like the Wal-Mart development is something PARD should encourage, not discourage.

PARD objective #3: Maintain unique qualities of the town and the region

Commercially-zoned development on commercially-zoned property is, quite frankly, a fact of life. No, growth and development don't always look as nice as the original landscape may have, but the possibilities for jobs and revenue and retail conveniences for our citizens outweigh any perceived negatives. Quite frankly, the only "unique qualities of the town and/or the region that will be affected by the construction of Wal-Mart will be the hill they are going to excavate to build it. I've been looking at that hill since 1987, and bluntly, I won't miss it.

PARD objective #4: Improve the quality of life for residential neighborhoods

Again, the proposed Wal-Mart will be built on commercially zoned property. If you own a home in that neighborhood and don't want to look at the gleaming new supercenter, it's time to sell and move. But then again you have been looking at Shopko, Safeway, the Edison Center and the Wheatland Mall for some time, so this will be nothing new. Next time, don't buy a house so close to commercially zoned property.

PARD objective #5: Seek environmental and economic sustainability and uphold principles of fairness and social justice for all the diverse members of the citizenry

Come again?

Fairness and "social justice" for whom? The hundreds, if not thousands of people PARD would deny employment in the construction and operation of a Pullman Wal-Mart? Double standards applied based on the name of your corporation and where the ownership group is located? Environmental and economic sustainability by whose standards? Who is best to make these decisions, those publicly tasked with the challenge in city government or a local extremist group who sound like they would be happiest if we all lived in huts made from native grasses and bought and sold only items either made or grown in our local area. How amazingly utopian. I'll pass.

So there are the five reasons that PARD has given for their opposition to Wal-Mart in Pullman. Unfortunately, there are others… the so-called "fine print…" from statements made in the public record.

The first: we don't want to buy any Chinese-made crap!

On more than one occasion, PARD Legal Liaison T.V. Reed has referred to the propensity of Wal-Mart to sell so-called "shoddy sweatshop-made goods."

Reed is the Lewis E. and Stella G. Buchanan Distinguished Professor of English and American Studies at Washington State University, and in his most recent book, "The Art of Protest" (Univ. of Minnesota Press, 2005) he retells the history of key U.S. social movements from the Civil Rights era to the current movement against corporate globalization. A movement he is clearly involved with, firsthand.

Does Reed just want to skip over the fact that a huge percentage of consumer goods in the United States are produced in the third world under what we might consider less than optimal conditions? Does he fight this fact with the aforementioned Pullman Building Supply when precious few of the tools they sell are U.S. manufactured? Or raise similar issues with mega-retailers Target and/or Costco?

Probably not.

Sounds more like he fashions himself as Don Quixote and Wal-Mart as his personal windmill. Either way, it's an intellectually dishonest reason for him to oppose Wal-Mart in Pullman. Chances are that many of the items he owns (for example, the computer he used to author his latest book) are made in China or elsewhere in the third world.

Not everything Wal-Mart sells is made in China. Is some of it made under less than ideal conditions? Possibly. There are horror stories that come out of many nations, including (and especially) China where labor is often exploited. Perhaps this is a scenario that should have been considered when over-regulation and over-taxation of industry and oppressive organized labor practices in our own nation helped move some, if not many of these manufacturing jobs abroad. But singling out Wal-Mart for these practices is absurd. 

While a large percentage of the products Wal-Mart sells are made in China, only a fraction of those are contracted for production by Wal-Mart. And therefore, by common sense deduction, if Wal-Mart carries a microwave by the "ABC Widgets" company, and the Chinese plant where that microwave is made is exposed for unsafe labor practices, then Reed's complaint should be directed at the "ABC Widgets" company, not Wal-Mart.

That's a form of consumer protest I can endorse and support, especially when those standards are applied equally, against all corporations.

The products I personally buy at Wal-Mart that are made in China or elsewhere, are the same products in any retailer. And for what it's worth… I seem to find as many (if not more) "Made in the USA" identified products on the shelves of Wal-Mart as anywhere else. I really detest the double standard. 

The Second: Outright Classism and the "Not in my Backyard" Mentality

Deirdre Rogers, Assistant Professor of "Justice Studies" at U of I probably uttered the most accurate reason as to why some in their movement oppose Wal-Mart.

She indicated in clear and unambiguous terms that because of Wal-Mart's low prices, they attract "people from the lower end of the socioeconomic scale" and it's been proven time and again "that those low income people are usually criminals."

You have got to be pulling my leg.

So much for "justice" for folks from the lower end of the socioeconomic scale. But who cares, they probably can't even read well enough to understand this article, and in fact - they’re probably busy committing some kind of crime right now.

While PARD (to an extent) has attempted to disassociate themselves from this statement, consider this. The annual average income of a Wal-Mart shopper is $35,000. 

The annual average income of a Target shopper is $55,000 – and the annual average income of a Costco shopper is $70,000. So is there much surprise when you learn that PARD has spoken quite positively of both Costco and Target?  What about the annual average income of a WSU Professor? About $65,000

Let’s illustrate this point with a little concocted humor: 4 out of 5 elitist professors surveyed stated that NASCAR, anything having to do with the sporting goods department, beef jerky, balding middle aged men with mullets who love country music and fat women in spandex make them VERY uncomfortable. AND THEY WANT NO PART OF IT.

The educated literati are historically the first defenders of the so-called "lower social classes," but let's face it – they don't always like to mingle. Now, I'm not saying all professors, by any means. I wouldn't want to be as openly and narcissistically judgmental as some of the PARD folks have been. But come on – really. Google his online profile photo. Can you imagine the aforementioned T.V. Reed and his crystal glass of 1982 Château Pétrus rubbing elbows with bubba in the screwtop section? I don't think so.

The statement of Rogers that those low income Wal-Mart shoppers "are usually criminals" is disgusting and reprehensible language best saved for the snooty wine and cheese parties of the well-to-do, not displayed as part of the public record. She also went a step further, when she stated that Wal-Mart allows RV's to park overnight in their lot. It was her contention that when RV's get together, drinking is the result. Also, after the bars close 18-to-24 year olds always come to "hang-out" at Wal-Mart. They will cause "extra" crime in the well lit parking lot, and unless we have some way to stop this behavior we are doomed. Stop already! Who sounds ignorant now, Ms. Rogers?

And the vitriolic and personal attacks continue, such as when PARD spokesman Christopher Lupke called Walmart "assholes" in a 2006 interview with The Inlander magazine." My, how literate that word sounds when you pronounce it just right. Perhaps with a faux French accent or something. Asss-hewls… Sacre bleu!

According to Businesses & Residents for Economic Opportunity (BREO) co-founder Tom Forbes "PARD's objections are not really about traffic or economic impact, but rather personal prejudices and political ideology." That sounds about right to me.

The bottom line is that some – a small handful of intellectual elites, have had a ton of fun at our expense battling the world's largest company. These anti-corporate elitists have had their day in the sun, and with their pro-bono attorney associates, made as many well planned appeals as the law would allow. They don't want "that" or "those people" in their backyard. And their elitism has cost us nearly 3 million dollars in lost revenue, possibly more.

In a nutshell, they simply don't LIKE Wal-Mart. That's their right. I don't much like brie or caviar, but the difference is you don't see me trying to deprive them of those things. What happened to the "right to choose?" Or – let me guess, is that only if those groups who promote that right agree with your choices? They have heaved every argument they could muster, both original and anything they could pick from any of a dozen anti-Wal-Mart websites, and none of it stuck. They lost.

So why is all of this an issue, again?

On June 12th, Wal-Mart announced that the company will submit an amendment to the site plan application with the City of Pullman for the future Supercenter on SE Bishop Boulevard. The amendment will reflect a reduction in size from 223,000 square feet to 155,000 square feet. The city of Pullman has already approved the 223,000 square foot store. However footprint changes that increase or decrease location size by more than 20% are required to submit for site plan approval.

A perfect time for PARD to have another crack at this.

Or is it?

Karianne Fallow, Senior Public Affairs Manger for Washington State Wal-Mart stores is on the record as stating if PARD decides to appeal, Wal-Mart will go forward with the already-approved, larger footprint.

T.V. Reed scoffed that any discussion that they might appeal is "pure speculation," and his group would prefer to see plans for the smaller store move ahead. "PARD has made no announcement to appeal," Reed said. "Given that the new plans for Wal-Mart are more environmentally friendly, it would be a shame to go back to the larger store."

But in the meantime, the chattering classes of the local media are sniping away, secretly hoping it would seem, for the next Don Quixote to saddle up and aim his newly sharpened lance at the corporate giant, and attempt to delay the process even further.

Which plan should be built? Honestly, with the pros as presented by Wal-Mart, including reduced traffic, reduced parking lot space, increased landscaping and natural green cover, decreased impact on area wetlands, and a reduction in usage of energy sources, power and natural gas… I think if Wal-Mart wants to move forward with the smaller footprint, regardless of what Forbes and BREO would prefer, I think they should be allowed to make the call. After all, it's their investment.

But the indisputable fact is that the needs or wishes of the many outweigh the needs or wishes of the few. "Just because" isn't a good enough reason to postpone this development any further, when we have already been deprived of the conveniences and financial benefits this development will bring for too long.

Brelsford has it right. And in this economy, we need to hang as much fly paper as we can purchase. Bring on the bulldozers, and let's get to work building Pullman's Wal-Mart. And for those of you still diametrically opposed to this project, I respect your opinion and your right to choose. Don’t shop there.

(Full disclosure: I am currently a candidate for Pullman City Council, Ward 1 Position 7)