Not another Sprawlmart, please!

By Albert Kaufman of Portland, Oregon, a political activist and outreach specialist with OnwardOregon.org. Previously, Albert contributed "Freecycle. The gift of giving... and receiving."

Walmart_2I received the bad news from GreshamFirst yesterday that Wal-Mart's application to build a store in Gresham is complete. The public now has until July 6th to comment on this proposal. The man to contact in this case is Jim Wheeler at [email protected]. And, if you plan to appeal Mr. Wheeler's decision, let him know that. Mr. Wheeler had this to say today when I e-mailed him about the process:

The application process for this development is called a Type II. Type II procedures are outlined in the Development Code. Basically, it is a staff-level decision. In this case, I am the "staff" making the decision. Public comments and comments from other departments and agencies are received and considered in writing the findings for the decision. The decision is made in regards to compliance with the standards located in the Development Code. Elected officials may submit comments as citizens.

I am against any further Wal-martization of this planet. Portland's local businesses are having a hard enough time as it is without the shark-like activity of the world's biggest retailer coming into the pool. I want to live in a world where workers are treated well, wages are fair and businesses act morally - this is a goal, and the biggest obstacle I see is companies like Wal-Mart.

Here is a list of what GreshamFirst, the local group that formed to fight Wal-Mart, recommends you talk about when you write to Jim Wheeler.

The development of a Supercenter at 182nd & Powell is directly contrary to the goals of the Community Development Plan for reasons including: * Increased traffic in an already congested area * Safety risks from increased traffic, with special regard to student pedestrians and emergency vehicle access * Pollution of Johnson Creek and Fairview Creek Headwater Restoration Project * Noise pollution caused by an increase in traffic, including semi-trucks * Storm water & sewage impact on water quality & aquifers * Incompatibility with adjacent wildlife habitat and residential neighborhoods * Loss of open space, destruction of trees and impact on natural areas like historic Springwater Trail * Expense of costly new infrastructure * Impact on locally owned businesses and historic commercial centers * Devaluation of property in surrounding neighborhoods.

This is not a done deal. Wal-Marts have been stopped in Hood River, Hillsboro and other places around the country and the movement is growing. Groups like PurpleOcean.org and Walmartwatch.org have national, funded campaigns to get Wal-Mart to clean up their act. Locally, we've got GreshamFirst.org, Save Cedar Mill and in Bend, notanotherwalmart.org

But first things first. We must all come together and stop Wal-Mart from getting any further footholds in this region. If there's any local business you like in Portland, they will be hurt by a Wal-Mart coming in. If traffic is your concern, Wal-Mart will make things ten times worse. Don't feel right about buying things that cost less but are made in sweat-shops or groceries that are filled with GMOs? Then, write to Mr. Jim Wheeler right now.

Here is a paragraph from Gresham First's e-mail action alert which explains their take on things:

Many American communities have found that the costs associated with a Wal-Mart far out weigh the benefits. I am greatly concerned about Wal-Mart's impact on local business, existing traffic problems, nearby schools, and environmental quality. Wal-Mart's history of destroying communities across America is documented by ongoing class action lawsuits over the illegal treatment of employees, inadequate health benefits and sexual discrimination. The loss of quality jobs are not balanced by those created by Wal-Mart, and tax revenues will not cover the expense of traffic control, public safety, lost property value, and social welfare. Wal-Mart's plans are a major threat to Gresham's economy, workers and natural resources and we CANNOT AFFORD these costs.

Once you've written to Mr. Wheeler, it's just a quick flick of the wrist to send your missive to the local papers (Gresham Outlook, Oregonian), local officials and your friends and neighbors because this should be everyones' decision. This information can be found on Greshamfirst.org's website.

The Oregonian's take on this issue has so far been non-committal. They have been a bit slanted towards the business side of things, but the interesting thing in this case is that if you're a defender of local businesses, you don't want a Wal-Mart. The Oregonian which claims it supports the local business community should get behind local groups in cases like this - perhaps there's a first time and that first time is now.

Thanks for taking the time to keep Portland livable.

  • Gregor04 (unverified)
    (Show?)

    ALBERT!!! Right on! I appreciate the concise intention, "I want to live in a world where workers are treated well, wages are fair and businesses act morally - this is a goal, and the biggest obstacle I see is companies like Wal-Mart."

    While there is the impact on local businesses, the most voices around this intrusion is that Wal-Mart has not shown itself to be a responsible employer. Workers will be hurt economically, and if they are injured physically, we only need look across the Columbia to see how they treat those unfortunate workers. Wal-Mart is the ONLY employer to have lost their self-administered worker's compensation program put on probation. They were penalized due to their numerous and pervasive exploitation of the privilege to handle their own program. Wal-Mart even kicks people when they are down.

    To me, the harm to the workers is the most critical aspect of the social deterioration they promote with their corporate practices. I'm not opposed to corporations making money, even gobs of money, but when act as if they are "above the laws" and fail to provide the clearest of benefits mandated by the law, such as getting paid for the time worked, i.e. the worker's that they demanded clock out and continue working rather then get overtime. They got NO time.

    There should be no "Welcome Mat" for companies with these atrocious practices. They are not the only game in town. Put in a KMart. Cheap stuff and low wages without the corruption.

  • (Show?)

    Albert,

    Good on you mate!! I'm sure that you've read Slam Dunking Walmart by Al Norman, but maybe some of your fellow warriors haven't. It's a great blueprint for the fight.

    Then there're the more recent allegations that Walmart actually directs employees to taxpayer funded social services, and the recent successful gender discrimination lawsuits........

  • Patrick Allen (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Gregor04 wrote:

    "There should be no "Welcome Mat" for companies with these atrocious practices. They are not the only game in town. Put in a KMart. Cheap stuff and low wages without the corruption."

    Here's the thing: if you're going to use land use law to say Walmart is bad but Kmart is good, YOU. WILL. LOSE.

    While I appreciate and generally agree with everything Albert says about Walmart, land use laws are about the use, not the company. It's like trying to say "we'd really like a coffee shop on this corner, but not another Starbucks." It just doesn't work that way.

    If the site in question is zoned for high-intensity commercial use, you will have your work cut out for you. But my main advice would be that you should dwell on a large commercial business being inappropriate, NOT the fact that it's Walmart.

  • Kent (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Exactly Patrick:

    How exactly is Wal-Mart different from Fred Meyer? They both create sprawl, have huge parking lots and are run by out-of-state corporations.

    If the issue is land use planning then frankly I fail to see how Wal-Mart is any different from a Fred Meyer, Target, Costco, or Home Depot. They all have the same footprint.

    If the issue is corporate responsibility then it seems to me that the more effective line of attack is the Maryland approach where they just passed a new law requiring minimum health insurance standards for corporations with a certain number of employees (Wal-Mart was the only one not already meeting the standard).

    If the issue is wages, then perhaps another minimum wage initiative directed at larger corporations.

    I think the more effective approach is to say to Wal-Mart, you want to come play in Oregon? Fine, welcome to Oregon. But these are the rules of the game here and if you don't like it you can leave.

  • McBain (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Kent -

    Before we go too far down the line of "Wal-Mart is just like any other big box corporation," let's remember that they are the biggest. Wal-Mart sets the standard for the market, and has a dominance that hasn't been seen since the days of the robber barons.

    Every year, Wal-Mart turns over more employees than most fortune 500 companies employ. Their annual profits exceed $25 Billion. For them playing the land use game is like throwing quarters in a slot machine.

    So, to change the market you have to first change Wal-Mart.

    On the Maryland side of things, I agree with you 100% we need to expect that companies like WM help with our health insurance crisis, not exacerbate it.

    One more thing, on the footprint - Wal-Mart typically has a bigger footprint due to their sheer size, and ability to force others out of the market. Their goal is to build at such a scale as to dominate a local retail market share. In many communities Wal-Mart has built until they acheived dominance in that market, then closed a store. Vancant Wal-Mart sites are hardly a hot seller, so they compound their footprint with the drive to overrun a local market.

    If you want to change retail market practices you have to start at the top.

  • Sven (unverified)
    (Show?)

    So, are any of the anti-Wal Mart people on this board excited to shop at the supposed new IKEA coming to town? Some people love IKEA, yet many others assign the same problems to them that they do to Wal Mart.

    And the IKEA owner/founder Ingvar Kamprad is one of the richest guys in the world, worth about $40-50 billion, depending on exchange rates of the day. So he's clearly profited off lots of people in his day.

    Why not throw some acrimony his way? Hey Ingvar, quit profiting off the backs of the workers with your cheap disposable crap!

    No IKEA in Portland!

  • (Show?)

    So, are any of the anti-Wal Mart people on this board excited to shop at the supposed new IKEA coming to town? Some people love IKEA, yet many others assign the same problems to them that they do to Wal Mart.

    Hey Sven, thanks for pointing that out. How far along is the deal? Somehow I think Ikea's practices are a lot different than Wal-Mart's or they would have been raising lots of red flags by now. On the other hand, I do agree with McBain that it makes sense to start at the top with Sprawlmart.

    btw, GreshamFirst! posted another action alert today, I posted it on Portland IndyMedia

  • Kent (unverified)
    (Show?)

    McBain:

    I'm currently living near Waco Texas while my wife finishes her residency. So I see sprawl at its worst on a daily basis. This is TEXAS-sized sprawl, not the puny Oregon variety. And when it comes to development, I frankly see absolutely no difference between Wal-Mart and the other big box chains. Here in Waco the local Super-Target is distinctly larger than any of the three local Wal-Mart stores. The two abandoned big box stores I see are a closed K-Mart and an abandoned Target. No abandoned Wal-Mart stores around here.

    Look, I'm not trying to defend Wal-Mart in the least. I despise the chain and even long for a local Fred Meyer where I can buy groceries and hardware on the same trip without feeling quite so slimy. But I think you are seriously off-track if you want to argue that Wal-Mart's development footprint is any different than any other big box store. I'm talking about physical development not social and economic development. Most of the big Fred Meyer stores are larger than the average Wal-Mart. Big box retail is big box retail.

    The social and economic effects of Wal-Mart are obviously more severe than with many of the other chains like Costco and Target which pay better wages and benefits. But those are problems that really should be regulated directly at the state level. If all the energy that goes into opposing various Wal-Mart stores around the state went into an initiative to reform the labor practices of Wal-Mart and its clones the effect would be a lot more dramatic.

  • McBain (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Kent -

    I don't think we have a major disagreement, and sorry that you are in the midst of srawl texas style. But, here is my main point - Wal-Mart is in the drivers seat on retail development. They hold they keys to the car, so I don't see any problem with going after them with great vigor.

    In terms of the hollowed out K-Marts, etc. why do you think they are now out of business - did a predatory retailer with 25 billion dollars in annual profits perhaps come into the market and destroy them? That is the other side to the point of Wal-Mart's abandoning stores, they oversaturate a market with their stores, drive out competition, then contract after securing a large market share. (check out Al Norman's book if you get a chance)

    Also, I don't think that Fred Meyer stores are generally larger than Wal-Mart's. I just think that no retail chain will come around until their main competition (Wal-Mart) does as well.

    Hope your stay in Houston is at best short, your lungs probably can't take too much of that great texas sized polution in the air.

  • McBain (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Sorry, I just re-read Kent's post. Apparently he is in Waco. I have nothing to say about Waco, so if previous comments about Houston apply, insert Waco in the above post. If not, whoops.

  • Kent (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Brian:

    Waco is about the size of Salem. It's midway between Dallas/Fort Worth and Austin, about 1.5 hours from each of those three major metro areas. My wife and I live in a suburb called China Spring about 10 miles NW of Waco. A few crazed souls in our neighborhood actually commute all the way to Fort Worth each day. Not out of choice, but because their spouses work at Baylor University in Waco.

    Around here the abandoned stores are not due to competition but rather to the expanding ring of development that surrounds Texas cities. It's like a shock wave from a nuclear explosion. The development just expands outwards in all directions to newer and bigger areas leaving the developed land inside the city standing vacant. There are whole blocks of abandoned strip mall and big box development in Waco that are standing vacant only because those same corporations built bigger boxes a mile or two further out along the most recent highway project. Texas highway taxes must be double what they are in Oregon and they spend the money grandly here on giant highways that suck up all the new development.

    Maybe the Wal-Mart stores are smaller here in Texas because they are older, but the ones I see are not remotely as large as the big Fred Meyer stores I remember in Portland and Anchorage. They also aren't as large as the big Super Target stores I see around Texas.

  • (Show?)

    Those of us out here in Gresham would be against a Target, KMart, etc. going in at this location as well. It is not suited for a large business at all.

    As a former resident of Texas, I can tell you that many of their Supercenters are HUGE. The one in Texas City is quite large. I'm getting my family to shoot pics of the old store (which is basically across the freeway) to send into the guys making the documentary on Wal-Mart.

    I don't know about the Waco area (it's been years since I visited Waco), but the Houston area is filled with gigantic Wal-Mart Supercenters. Wal-Mart has been there so long that you basically have no other options unless you have a Target nearby. Both K-Mart and Venture went out of business in that area. If you live in the Galveston side of the metro area, there are two Targets-- one on Galveston island and the other up by Baybrook Mall (outskirts of Houston). So unless you want to drive to the island (and deal with that traffic) or up to Houston (and deal with even heavier traffic), you don't have many options.

    At least they recently got an HEB Superstore in that area. My husband used to work for HEB and they treated their employees well. He made good money (he was making more than double minimum wage when we left in 2000) and he had excellent benefits. His insurance was even better than the insurance I had working for a U.S. Congressman-- and they were both through the same company.

    I've had two family members work for Wal-Mart. Both made it into supervisory/management positions, yet both made under $10/hour. Neither could afford Wal-Mart's insurance.

    I have a good amount of info on the proposed location in Gresham-- http://walmart.nu-look.net

    I've been trying to keep it up-to-date with news stories, alerts from Gresham First, etc. I am hoping to make it to tonight's SW Neighborhood meeting, but as of right now I don't have a babysitter. I want to make it so that I can pick up a copy of Wal-Mart's application and traffic study. It should be an interesting read.

    It'd be great if some of you guys could come out and rally with us at 182nd/Powell in Gresham on Saturday. Details are on my website.

  • Bill (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Can someone please explain to me exactly how Wal-Mart causes sprawl in Oregon when it must abide by Oregon's land-use planning regs, including urban growth boundaries which restrict expansion, among other things.

    Since technically you can't have sprawl when there's literally a line drawn around what can be developed and keeping everything else off-limits, what exactly does the unhinged opposition mean by sprawl? Traffic? Development in general?

    It seems to me that if individuals support a UGB and all related planning to make a place more "liveable" (whatever the hell that means), one needs to get used to the idea that things are going to be crammed in more densely - including Wal-Mart.

  • (Show?)

    One way they can cause "sprawl" is by going around all of our land use policies, thanks to M37.

    I kept warning people that Wal-Mart would use Measuer 37 to their advantage, and I was told I was crazy and wrong.

    Well guess what? If Wal-Mart is turned down in Sellwood they plan to use Measuer 37 to fight the city. How can they do that, you ask?

    Well, they are going to lease the property from the owner, rather than buying it. The property has been in the same family since the early 1900s, if I remember correctly. That means they owned the property before most of our land use laws went into effect. So if the Wal-Mart is turned down, the property owner can fight the city for not being able to develop the property.

    I wouldn't be surprised to see the same thing happen in Cedar Hills. Wal-Mart is doing the same thing there-- leasing property from a family that has owned the land for quite some time.

    That's just one way they can cause sprawl. I'm sure others here that are more knowledgeable on sprawl can tell you more. My area of knowledge in this area is more on how it affects the area, treatment of employees, etc.

  • (Show?)

    Funny, it just occured to me that this could be www.bluetexas.com :)

  • Bill (unverified)
    (Show?)

    But how exactly is that sprawl?

    Here's the second definition of sprawl at Websters.com:

    "To spread out in a straggling or disordered fashion: untidy tenements sprawling toward the river."

    Every Wal-Mart site you bring up is well within the Urban Growth Boundary. They might not be the use exactly consistent with current zoning or overlays and thus a Measure 37 issue potentially, but they do nothing to cause "sprawl".

    Don't you really mean that you don't like Wal-Mart personally and that you subjectively oppose Wal-Mart, even though they are exercising their legal rights to pursue development?

  • Bill (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Even better, here's Websters.com's second definition for sprawl as a noun:

    "Haphazard growth or extension outward, especially that resulting from real estate development on the outskirts of a city: urban sprawl."

    ??

  • (Show?)

    Just because something is within the "urban growth boundary" doesn't mean it can't contribute towards sprawl.

    The Wood Village Wal-Mart is right near the outskirts of the city. Before it went in there wasn't much development in that area-- mainly a gas station and an auto auction. Now there is a Jack in the Box, variety of strip center shops, and a soon-to-be Supercenter. Just a few years ago the property was an empty field alongside I-84.

    The Cedar Hills property was outside the city of Beaverton before the family that owned the property asked the city to annex the area. Shortly after the annexation it was announced that Wal-Mart has leased property in the newly annexed area. The majority of the people affected by the property are outside the city limits.

  • (Show?)

    But my main issue in regards to this proposed Wal-Mart location, as well as other locations, isn't sprawl. My main issues are how the community would be affected, the environment, traffic, etc.

  • ben (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Of course, Oregonians aren't the only ones feeling uneasy.

  • (Show?)

    I'd love to see a Blue Texas. ; )

    Which reminds me, did you hear about Gov. Perry putting his foot in his mouth (again)?

  • Jesse (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Wal-Mart is also working with developers on a plan for a new Wal-Mart in Portland, in the Sellwood area. For disclosure, I ought to mention I work for the commissioner who's been quite vocal against this proposal.

  • (Show?)

    Somehow I think Ikea's practices are a lot different than Wal-Mart's or they would have been raising lots of red flags by now.

    You got that right. Ikea provides American workers with some of the most generous benefits available in the retail sector, even for those who work part-time.

  • activist kaza (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Thanks Leslie, for pointing that out...IKEA is a Swedish-based entity. If you want a textbook for benevolent socialism, it has to be Sweden (but with an unfortunately high tax rate of almost 70% too). Gut instinct said that IKEA couldn't be compared to WalMart in this sense. Thanks for the facts to back it up.

    And Albert, thanks for writing this original post - so good I am afraid I have to link to it from my blog now, my man!

  • (Show?)

    And please don't forget, my missive was an action alert - here's the action to take and get your friends to take (you can just forward them to Gresham First! to get the latest updates.)

    The man to contact in this case is Jim Wheeler at [email protected]. And, if you plan to appeal Mr. Wheeler's decision, let him know that.

  • Bill (unverified)
    (Show?)

    So the point here is that you don't like retail development in general, like Wal-Mart, Jack in the Box and others you mention.

    Wood Village sits along I-84 and is one of the primary freeway exits for getting to Mount Hood. Wal-Mart didn't create the traffic; Eisenhower did by signing the bill that began the Interstate highway system. Where there's traffic, there's opportunity to sell to that traffic as it passes by.

    What's the problem with that? If you call the City of Wood Village, I guarantee you (I've consulted for them) they have no qualms whatsoever about retail locating to their community. They're even pushing for a local sales tax to take advantage of it. That's how they fund their city costs.. tax revenue on commercial development.

    And what's wrong with Wal-Mart leasing land to develop? It's a very common and perfectly legal approach to siting development when the property owner would rather not sell, but doesn't intend to use it other than letting it go fallow.

    It seems to me that since a municipality can now take your property when the beneficiary is a private entity, thanks to SCOTUS, folks living in trailer parks and other low-income individuals are even more at risk of losing their largest asset - their home. Mobile home parks, as documented in this morning's Oregonian, are being sold and developed and leaving low-income individuals with no choices.

    So tell me, which community impact is worse: more traffic, though empirically no more than any other big box retailer of that size OR low-income individuals having their largest assets jeopardized and risking homelessness because land availability, restricted by the UGB, has driven home prices high enough that redevelopment of mobile home parks makes financial sense?

    Liveable for whom did you say?

  • Gregor04 (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Clearly the legal eagles see that the court battles will be coming. And they are right. However, I do feel that the PR battle is another front on which to attack Wal-Mart. I do not believe Wal-Mart is just like any other Big Box. Not at all. Their methods are particularly disrespectful of the laws. I don't think we should assume that because Wal-Mart has been caught, everyone else does it. If anyone knows of another Big Box under this level of scrutiny, my years are open. I suggest that Wal-Mart is particularly brutal with their labor practices like none other. Nor should we perpetuate Wal-Marts malicious practices toward labor by giving a nod to any other organization found to practice similar techiniques. That makes as much sense as turning our heads toward the torture in Gitmo because the terrorists behead their hostages, neither is right.

  • (Show?)

    Last time I checked, this item wasn't about the UGB or low-income individuals not being able to buy property for a home. It was about a Wal-Mart going in at 182nd/Powell in Gresham-- within walking distance of where I live.

    I never said there was anything wrong with Wal-Mart leasing property, although it is a rarity that they do. The reason why these two properties are being leased, as opposed to bought, are to take advantage of M37.

    Actually, Wal-Mart did create a lot of traffic in the Wood Village area. To get to Wal-Mart you have to turn off of the freeway, go down a street, and then make a left to get there. So much traffic has come that way that they had to install new traffic lights as so many people were turning left. Most people that go to that Wal-Mart aren't coming from the freeway, though, they are coming up Hogan/242nd (I believe that's the number of the street... all those streets change names too many times).

    That exit isn't used that much for people going to Mt. Hood-- they are much more likely to take the Fairview exit or the main Gresham exit. The Wood Village exit leads to a sharp curve just up the street. Many people try to avoid the area because of that. It also has a lot more traffic than the Fairview exit.

    But as I said, this posting is about Wal-Mart going in at 182nd/Powell. Do you have any idea how ridiculous that is? They want to put a huge Supercenter on a piece of property that is odd shaped and currently gives them about 10 acres (although they say 11.5, that would require the city selling them property). The property is right in the middle of an area filled with single-family homes and wildlife areas. The Springwater Trail, Johnson Creek Watershed, and Gresham woods are directly to the property's south.

    This area is filled with deer, coyote, raccoons, and other wildlife. It is not out of the ordinary to see a family of deer, or the occasional buck, at dusk or early dawn in this area.

    The intersection is already well over capacity. So are many of the roads around it. People already cut through the neighborhoods to avoid the intersection.

    There is a fire station just up the street, and during the busy times of day they already have difficulty getting through the area. The trucks routinely come up Pleasant View to Powell Ct., rather than Highland, in order to easily get out onto Powell. The Wal-Mart's entrances would be off Highland and Powell Ct.-- the two routes available to the fire trucks.

    The fact is the property is zone as community commercial. The definition of that is:

    "This district designation is applied to larger nodes of primarily commercial development clustered around the intersections of arterial streets. This district will accommodate a wide range of community-scale commercial uses, including retail, services, and offices. This district also permits housing as a secondary use, with attached dwellings being developed in conjunction with commercial construction. New buildings will be pedestrian-oriented with parking placed behind or beside buildings."

    A Wal-Mart Supercenter is anything but pedestrian-oriented. The fact that they are willing to pay $10K/parking spot for 1000 underground parking spaces proves it.

    <h2>I don't see this as being an issue of that if you're against Wal-Mart than you must also be for low-income people losing land for their homes. Plus, as I have stated before, we don't want ANY big box store at this location. It is not appropriate for such development. It is much more appropriate for small stores, offices, etc. It would be a great location for a city park or community center; however, people out here aren't willing to pay for parks whatsoever. They want them there, but won't pay for them (as evidenced by several "no" votes to fund the parks).</h2>
guest column

connect with blueoregon