UPDATED: A letter against the proposed Wal-Mart
Sam Adams
Update: Last night I attended a meeting of the the Sellwood-Mooreland Improvement League Board of Directors with the developer of the site. I learned that although the proposed Wal-Mart will likely contain a grocery store, it does not constitute a Supercenter. My apologies for the misspeak; I've changed the title of the post to reflect this new info. I also learned that the proposed 155,000 square-foot, two-level store would feature 500 parking spaces on two levels. The protection of Johnson Creek, I was assured, would be a requirement of development. I remain opposed to the proposed Wal-Mart.
Update: Roland in my office posted some of the major concerns I have with Wal-Mart in general. Thanks, Roland.
June 9, 2005
Mr. Lee Scott
President and CEO
Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.
Bentonville, Arkansas 72716-8611
Dear Mr. Scott:
It has come to my attention that Wal-Mart is planning its first Supercenter in Portland, to be located at SE McLoughlin Boulevard and Tacoma Street. I write to express my strong opposition.
I have spent much of my time as a city commissioner advocating for the benefits of strong and successful businesses in our community. I have met with corporations and shopkeepers—businesses large and small—to hear their concerns. I have turned those concerns into action. I am no enemy of expansion, growth or profitable business—including “big box” stores appropriately located. However, I cannot and will not support this proposed store.
A successful local economy depends on a synergy created by small and large businesses. They are complimentary, supporting a diversity of jobs and incomes, prospering because of each other.
Yet, a Wal-Mart Supercenter decimates this balance. As experience has shown, a Supercenter has drastic effects on a community: area grocery, clothing and merchandise stores close or scale back their operations; local newspapers—in which Wal-Mart does not advertise—decline due to lost ad revenue; increased traffic impacts neighborhoods; net jobs and income are lost. Wal-Mart prospers in spite of local and existing business—not in concert with them.
Portland strives for a diverse economy, living wage jobs, safe neighborhoods, prosperous schools and a clean environment. These are the goals for which I was elected to pursue. I have seen little evidence that a Supercenter contributes to these goals.
I appreciate the opportunity to comment. I look forward to the dialogue our community will have as a result of Wal-Mart’s plans.
Sincerely,
Sam Adams
Commissioner of Public Utilities
City of Portland
Posted by Sam Adams on June 16, 2005
(60) Comments | Permalink | TrackBack (3)
Filed Under Front Page, Livability & Environment, Southeast Portland (inner), Speeches & Testimony
Comments by site visitors
Paul, I fear that the Sellwood-Moreland business district and the City of Milwaukie's downtown will feel the brunt of this proposed Wal-Mart. Sam
Posted by: Sam Adams | Jun 15, 2005 9:47:25 PM
Sam- You're right on the target with this letter. I'm glad to have you, as the "pro-business" commissioner, be standing up against out-of-state businesses that will only undermine Portland's existing businesses and higher-quality jobs.
Most Wal-Mart proposals, as you know, are perfect situations for unions, small businesses, local businesses, anti-tax advocates, and environmentalists to get along.
Thanks.
Posted by: Evan Manvel | Jun 16, 2005 4:26:35 PM
When you're considering the impact Wal-Mart will have on area business, don't forget to include anyone that manufactures anything that is sold at Wal-Mart or its competitors. Wal-Mart is obsessed with mark-up, not rollback. They use an "opening price point" item that is heavily discounted to attract the shopper to the department. Higher end items are not discounted more than other stores. Shoppers take their impression from the OPP and assume that all their merchandise is lower priced.
Wal-Mart dictates to their suppliers, to the point that they will give them a number they have to match. In most cases, these suppliers have opened their books to Wal-Mart which has told them- point blank- that they need to relocate to SE Asia to make the margins. If you would like a case study, check out Rubbermaid in Acron, OH. Competitors often adopt the same strategy to compete.
Wal-Mart also has one of the worse records concerning employer-employee relations. Locals that would work there would learn to tolerate labor abuses, and ethically challenged local employers would be more likely to try the same tactics with a beaten down workforce.
Finally, PLEASE, PLEASE make damned sure that if they do get their fat arse into the site that they are tapped to help pay for the rebuild/retrofit of the Sellwood bridge. Wal-Mart draws from a larger geographical area than the surrounding businesses and that corner does not need more traffic until the existing problems are remedied.
Posted by: Harold Cade | Jun 16, 2005 7:47:41 PM
Sam, thank you for your quick and practical response to the proposed Wal Mart in Sellwood. Your interest (and opposition) has drawn attention to this idiocy before it's to late!
Posted by: keepoblu | Jun 16, 2005 9:15:16 PM
Oh please! So Wal-Mart will just happen if you don't voice your opposition? Give me a break; your making a tough pose on a soft issue. I don't give a "fat frog's ass" if it's your dying wish to have a Wal-Mart at McLoughlin Boulevard and Tacoma Street, it's not going to happen. How do I know this?
I know Portland.
Posted by: glenlivid | Jun 16, 2005 11:25:37 PM
Could the city place a moratorium on retail-only structures over a certain square-footage? Subject the plans to rigorous and costly scrutiny before approval? When i think of Sellwood, i think of potstickers and antique stores, not eight dollar faux-levis jeans and parking lots.
Posted by: oregone | Jun 17, 2005 6:56:49 AM
Sam,
Sellwood/Moreland is primarily populated with antique stores, coffee shops, bakeries, restaurants, and specialty groceries. I see little there (other than the hardware store north on Milwaukie and the QFC) that might be harmed by WalMart.
A WalMart occupying a space about a mile from this zone would just as likely increase as it would decrease customer traffic.
Downtown Milwaukie? What retail currently exists in this area? A bowling alley, a pizzeria, a few card shops and bars.
What is Milwaukie's position on the WalMart, by the way?
Posted by: paul gronke | Jun 17, 2005 10:42:41 AM
Paul,
There is a very busy downtown neighborhood area nearby that would be very hurt by a Walmart. The whole Milwaukie strip(near Bybee) has tons of businesses less than a mile away.
Sam is definitely making the right call on this. Not to mention the increase in traffic and resulting environmental impacts. It is extremely close to Johnson Creek that is still being restored.
And the low paying jobs that it brings. The list of negatives goes on and on. I think they have an issue where their female employees too.
I have trouble finding benefits to having these guys around anywhere.
Matt
Posted by: Matt | Jun 17, 2005 11:12:47 AM
I appologize for my last post. This is my first time blogging and I was reading from the top down. I was refering to an earlier post.
I don't know the specific businesses in the area, but Walmart seems to have every product ever created, so I think it would badly affect any business (from restaurants to specialty stores). I do know that my wife bought her wedding dress at a store in Sellwood. And to think she could've bought it at a Walmart and saved $100!
As far as grocery stores, there is a New Seasons on Tacoma, but that would probably not be too affected.
Matt Harding
Posted by: Matt Harding | Jun 17, 2005 11:40:36 AM
Dear Sam,
Congrats on opposing Wal-Mart!
As you know, I oppose
ALL "Big Box" stores. They destroy the local economy, do not proivide living wage jobs and homogonize the retail environment.
For those of you out there in 'blog land' check out www.wakeupwalmart.com to find out all about what this organization does to communities, local economies and their employees.
In the state of Arkansas, home of Wal-Mart, 1/2 of all the people on the state's welfare are Wal-Mart employees.
YES! it is true.
Anne Kilkenny
Posted by: Anne Kilkenny | Jun 17, 2005 12:42:11 PM
Let me get this straight: you are willing to loan M & F $13 million to remodel and keep the downtown store (plus a hotel). Perhaps willing to raise the cost even more by requiring 15% higher wages ("prevailing wage")but prevent WalMart from building a store with no subsidy.
Tell me the logic: make sure M & F's costs are higher to keep them, and then keep out competition so they can charge more? Sounds like a tax, through higher prices, on all those who might save money by shopping at WalMart. And to some of the comments about WalMart's prices really not being low, if that is the case smart Portlanders will not buy their stuff and they would fail.
No, the only reason to keep out WalMart is to protect smaller merchants who do not want to compete!
Posted by: Richard L. | Jun 17, 2005 2:01:59 PM
There are a lot more businesses than that in Milwaukie. Right along 224 there are several stores that would be affected (the shopping center with the Shari's, McDonalds, and Taco Bell in the front).
Studies show that time and time again when Wal-Mart goes into areas such as these, the stores around them end up out of business. I wish I could remember off hand where I read those one studies. It showed that businesses you wouldn't even think of were put out of business by Wal-Mart.
I'm glad to see Sam opposing this-- I wish our leaders in Gresham would do the same with ours.
The Supercenter they want to build here is right along the Johnson Creek Watershed. The only thing that would separate the Supercenter (built on just over 11 acres of property with 2 underground levels of parking) is the Springwater Trail.
And it doesn't matter that Portland would oppose it even is Sam didn't. Sam is a representative for this city. He should show a strong stand against something the residents of the city are against. It is what he was elected to do. More elected officials should do the same.
Posted by: Jenni Simonis | Jun 17, 2005 2:25:53 PM
Sam,
Thank you for taking a stand against the proposed Wal-Mart. As a resident of Sellwood it seems obvious that a Wal-Mart would negatively impact many places that make the neighborhood a great place to live, from KISS Books to Khan's Furniture, from Moreland Hardware to Sellwood Cycle Repair, and on and on. It might save a 10 minute drive to SE 82nd, but it will hurt many local shops.
Small businesses are the heart of this community and I appreciate the pro-business stance you've taken.
Posted by: John Hines | Jun 19, 2005 6:00:37 PM
If Jenni Simonis is saying that the proposed Gresham Wal-Mart would be on the Johnson Creek Watershed, it seems worth pointing out that the same is true of the proposed Sellwood one. But maybe Jenni S. was speaking of the Sellwood proposal . . .
In addition to the businesses on Milwaukie that have been mentioned as likely affected, there are others along SE 17th Street south of Tacoma and others up around the intersection of SE Tacoma and SE 13th.
The fate of the QFC on Milwaukie is not a small thing for many local residents, particularly elders, if responses to the closing of the Kienow's that used to be on that site are an indication, before it was known that QFC would come in. Given what happened to the Kienow's, I expect its margin and clientele is smaller than the Woodstock Safeway. How small a percentage shift would be sufficient to deprive the majority of their local store I am not sure.
The Woodstock Safeway raises interesting questions. One reason for its profitability is that it is relatively overpriced. My guess is that if there were a way to document its local geographical draw, you would find that it is more heavily to the west of the store. The Woodstock business district used to support three supermarkets, a slightly smaller Safeway where Bi-Mart is now, the late lamented Disco-Mart where Safeway is now, and a bad-smelling Albertson's where Trader Joe and Limbo are now. The expansion of the Fred Meyers' on SE 82nd drew significant business out of the area. Safeway was the last one standing and part of their current profitability if it is as Paul Gronke says is because they are relatively high-priced (just as is the one gas station remaining in the area a couple of blocks away).
Possibly Paul G. is right about Woodstock Safeway if it has in essence already lost/given up on more price-conscious potential local customers to SE 82nd. But it may also be that they draw more of their clientele from the west side of the store, particularly Eastmoreland, Reed Neighborhood and Sellwood areas where people might be able to pay some premium for convenience. A Wal-Mart nearly as close or closer might siphon some of that off. If it forced the Safeway into more price competition local consumers might benefit. On the other hand, it would be pitting a unionized store against a non-union one, and weakening the bargaining power of local grocery workers.
The Woodstock Bi-Mart certainly would be facing significant new competition.
So might the SE 82nd and Johnson Creek Fred Meyer. SE Tacoma and McLoughlin west of 99E becomes SE Johnson Creek Blvd near McLoughlin not very far on the other side. It's not too clear to me what the supermarket situation on the north side of Milwaukie is like. There is a former Safeway near the Milwaukie Library & the Transit Center that is empty now -- I don't know what happened to it. But I'd suppose that the J. Creek F.M. draws a fair amount of Milwaukie traffic, some of which might shift west. Not an inherently bad or good thing, perhaps.
However, I think the location if a bad one trafficwise, and in ways that connect to the corporate citizenship issues. On the one hand, there is SE Tacoma itself. The Sellwood Moreland Improvement League has been working hard to try to make SE Tacoma more pedestrian friendly, and to move it away from a previous tendency toward being a mini-highway connection SE McLoughlin and the Sellwood Bridge. A Wal-Mart at SE McLoughlin and Tacoma would work counter to those efforts. It probably would increase traffic on the already overburdened bridge. Rush-hour congestion in that section of McLoughlin would probably last longer each day. Traffic on the very narrow stretch of Johnson Creek Blvd. in Milwaukie between the weird little juncture with SE Harney & SE 46th/45th where J. Creek Blvd takes a dogleg, and the T-intersection with SE 33rd (? I think) where there's a little bridge to the right over the creek, that becomes SE Tacoma, could get quite hellish pretty quickly. SE 17th in Sellwood, which like SE Tacoma has been the focus of significant traffic calming efforts, and which unlike SE Tacoma is almost completely residential north of Tacoma, would likely see increased traffic, especially since it would be the most direct return route for any draw from Eastmoreland/Reed neighborhood because there is no eastbound egress from McLoughlin northbound at Bybee, due to the railroad and the golf course (& maybe Eastmoreland political influence?). The intersection where SE Milwaukie merges into SE 17th a little north of SE Tacoma is already a mess of a bottleneck during rush hours and would only get worse.
Pressure to facilitate traffic to a Wal-Mart at that location clearly would cut against well-established and considerably advanced neighborhood aims for local development and particularly the aim of reconnecting the areas south of SE Tacoma to the rest of Sellwood & Westmoreland. It also would seem likely to have some sort of effect on continuing debates over inner-east side mass transit and over the general problems of commuting into the city from the south, debates over bridges etc. What exactly that effect would be I'm not sure, but again it seems likely to cut against years of neighborhood efforts.
A comment and a question about the Sellwood bridge. Comment: although it can be strengthened and made more pedestrian and bike friendly, it cannot readily be widened enough to accommodate more auto traffic, because of the condominiums/apartments built close to the river and very close to the bridge on the east side in the last 15 or so years.
Question: Could this Wal-Mart proposal be connected in someway to the unsolicited bid from Bechtel to Multnomah County to rebuild the bridge?
Posted by: Chris Lowe | Jun 19, 2005 11:17:21 PM
This is rich:
Portland police, schools and basic services are suffering while tax dollars are given to Homer Williams and Hoffman construction to build shotty condos in the Pearl and South Waterfront.
Meanwhile, a legitimate company (Walmart) wants to build a store with no tax subsidy and Sam Adams want to block them.
There's something seriously wrong here.
Is there anyone on the Portland city council who beleives in the free market? Walmart would provide contruction jobs and employment with no tax dollars used.
Meanwhile, most of the city council is perfectly sanguine in lining Homer William's pocket so the PDC/Metro version of a utopian society might emerge.
It's time to start thinking logically, folks.
Posted by: Chris McMullen | Jun 21, 2005 1:39:56 PM
Chris, it isn't so simple a matter as that. While the construction of a Wal Mart there will provide a short-term boost of captial to the community, the long-term effects, both from the individual Wal Mart and the continuing Wal Martization of America are a different story. The free market you're praising is susceptible to problems of collective action, and there's no denying that the long-term effects of many Wal Marts are pretty scary. Most of the evidence I've encountered suggests the jobs produced by Wal Marts tend to be (a) taken by individuals whose business was damaged or closed by the introduction of a Wal Mart into the community or by members of those families, (b) pay extremely low wages, low enough that the employees are resigned to shopping only at Wal Mart, and (c) because of the anti-labor and anti-health coverage method of employing almost all workers for fewer than 40 hours per week and denying them union power, Wal Mart is able to fundamentally undermine the heterogeneity and long-term economic health of its communities. While Wal Mart has provided a valuable service in keeping inflation in check, it has done so at a tremendous cost. The subsidization of businesses less ruthless and more labor-friendly than Wal Mart pays off in the long run because they produce a working class that is healthier and a marketplace that is more heterogeneous, both of which are economic and social goods.
Wal Marts have a smaller effect on major cities than they do small towns, there's no doubt of that, but the effect is definitely growing as the ratio of Wal Marts to residents continues to climb and residents increasingly pledge their allegiance to Wal Mart. There's a lot more to economic and social health than the total number of dollars moving around, and those low, low prices come with a tremendously high long term cost, one that may be far worse than we could have possibly foreseen.
Posted by: Vincent Vecera | Jun 21, 2005 7:44:34 PM
Sorry Vincent, but you're going to have to do a much better job of convincing me WalMart is a bad idea.
This is (or was, at least) a capitalist society. Businesses compete for customers by lowering prices, increasing selection, improving service, etc. etc. Originally, Walmart started as a small store and was able to become as big as it is by implementing a successful business model. If other businesses are 'run out' by Walmart, it's their own fault they didn't alter their business model in order to stay competitive.
Basically, by keeping Walmart out of Portland, you're saying people shouldn't have a choice of where they shop. People like to shop at Walmart, period. Who is the City of Portland to say people will be denied the opportunity to decide with whom they shop?
BTW, how are public subsidies to the Pearl district and South Waterfront beneficial to low-income workers? Other than the initial construction, building maintenance and custodial jobs are the only opportunities I can think of.
And your assertion Walmart is somehow unfair to it's workers is patently false. No one is forced to work for them. And the fact they employ 1.5 million people nationwide is a testament to their attractiveness. If Walmart really pays too little, no one would want to work there.
Moreover, if Walmart is anti-union, I say Bravo!!
Posted by: Chris McMullen | Jun 22, 2005 10:36:14 AM
FYI _ This is a copy of an email I sent to my colleagues on the Portland City Commission.
I find the discussionyou all are having on this issue very interesting.
-----Original Message-----
From: Adams, Sam
Sent: Wednesday, June 22, 2005 11:09 AM
To: City Elected Officials
Cc: City Bureau Directors
Subject: My Recusal on Potential Wal-Mart Land Use Decisions
June 22, 2005
Portland City Commission:
As you know, my opposition to a proposed Wal-Mart on SE Tacoma & McLoughlin publicly known. In fact, as a candidate for the City Commissioner I spoke out strong against Wal-Mart building additional stores in Portland. As the City Attorney’s office has confirmed, this places me in a clear position of bias should council be required to weigh in on any action associated with this proposal in a quasi-judicial or judicial hearing. To prevent any potential council action on this proposal being questioned as sound and impartial, I plan on recusing myself from any hearing this proposal may require of council.
I am relying on the legal counsel of Pete Kasting in the City Attorney’s office to ensure my continued compliance with the rules guiding my public stance. You all will be getting legal advise from a different City Attorney than Pete Kasting.
Sam
Posted by: Sam Adams | Jun 22, 2005 11:11:40 AM
Mr. Adams, although I believe we come from opposite sides of the political spectrum, I applaud your honest and forthright character regarding your position on the council.
Your declining to accept a pay raise was a class act, and something commissioner Leonard should pay attention to.
Thanks for your approach, it's very refreshing.
Posted by: Chris McMullen | Jun 22, 2005 12:53:58 PM
Also, just today, the state of Connecticut fined Wal-Mart for child labor violations. The state found eleven violations in three stores, namely minors lacking proper paperwork, and illegally being put to work operating hazardous equipment.
http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-rup22.3jun22,1,1080616.story
Posted by: Roland Chlapowski | Jun 22, 2005 1:38:33 PM
There's a difference between being a "capitalist society" and the state/government advancing corporate interests over citizen interests. Benito Mussolini, when asked to define "fascism", declared, "Fascism is the union of corporate and state interest". Where does that leave us today?
Posted by: Harold Cade | Jun 22, 2005 6:09:51 PM
Yes, many people do like to shop at Wal Mart. But the entire point of regulation is that people often make suboptimal choices, and that the market often creates subotpimal outcomes, particularly in problems of collective action, such as the Wal Mart problem. Each individual may benefit from shopping at Wal Mart, while producing a negative total outcome.
Revitalizing the Pearl has been a long-term project, and one that has been a part of a longer-term project at revitalizing the entire city. The gentrification there is themost extreme example of this, but an attitude of spending our money to improve our neighborhoods benefits us all.
As for people working for Wal Mart, no, no one is putting a gun to their head (at least in Oregon). However, part of the Wal Martization of America has been the deterioration of small-business infustructure which previously supported hundreds of thousands of workers and millions of individuals who depended on those workers' earnings. Wal Mart moves in, destroys all the local businesses putting their workers out of jobs, and those workers are forced to take jobs at the new Wal Mart. But at Wal Mart they make less, have less job security, fewer benefits, and no health care. (And, of course, they are selling homogenized crap.) No one wants to work for Wal Mart, but in the communities they destroy (such as the one where I was born, hence my anti-Wal Mart feelings) have little choice.
As for your comment on unions... I didn't know there was anyone left in America who was still genuinely anti-union. I'm not sure I understand what kind of problem you have with organized labor, since they're responsible for immeasurable numbers of vital market regulations we take for granted today.
It's going to be a sad day when Wal Mart is the last private employer in the United States. A sad, and very possible day.
Kudos, Sam, on your stance.
Posted by: Vincent Vecera | Jun 22, 2005 9:35:28 PM
The following is from www.nosellwoodwalmart.com, but it speaks to the costs of having Wal-mart as a local employer. The original report, from the Labor Center at UC Berkley, can be accessed here:
http://tinyurl.com/bh26g
Main Findings:
• Reliance by Wal-Mart workers on public assistance programs in California comes at a cost to the taxpayers of an estimated $86 million annually; this is comprised of $32 million in health related expenses and $54 million in other assistance.
• The families of Wal-Mart employees in
California utilize an estimated 40 percent more in taxpayer-funded health
care than the average for families of all large retail employees.
• The families of Wal-Mart employees use an estimated 38 percent more in other (non-health care) public assistance programs(such as food stamps, Earned Income Tax Credit, subsidized school lunches, and subsidized housing) than the average for families of all large retail employees.
• If other large California retailers adopted Wal-Mart’s wage and benefits standards, it would cost taxpayers an additional $410 million a year in public assistance to employees.
Posted by: Lea | Jun 23, 2005 11:07:00 AM
Sam:
The easiest thing to do is write a knee-jerk anti-Wal Mart letter supported by "data" produced by not-so-objective sources such as SprawlBusters.
A strong leader would visit Portland's existing Wal Marts (try Eastgate or Johnson Creek) and talk to customers and employees.
Q: Why do customers shop there?
A: Price, selection, and convenience. Try buying a jumbo pack of diapers at Zupan's or a Star Wars toy at Finnegan's. Try stopping by Winks on a Saturday to buy a box of deck nails. Ask the customers if they are shopping there because Wal Mart drove their previous supplier out of business. I'd be shocked if anyone said yes. Remember, Sam, nobody is forced to shop at Wal Mart.
Q: Why do employees work there?
A: Wages, benefits, and scheduling. Talk to one of the greeters. I'll bet there is a good chance that they were unemployed or retired before working at Wal Mart. Talk to one of the recent immigrants stocking the shelves. Talk to the 20-something cashier who is eight month's pregnant. I'll bet Zupan's, Finnegan's, or Winks would not have hired them. Ask any of these employees if they are working at there because Wal Mart's presence took away their previous jobs. I'd be shocked if anyone said yes. As part of your research, go to some "local" stores (such as Zupan's, Finnegans, or Winks) and try to find someone working there who is over 50, under 21, pregnant, or recently immigrated. Remember, Sam, nobody is forced to work a Wal Mart.
One other point. I have yet to see a study that indicates that Wal Mart has damaged an otherwise vibrant urban community such as Portland or Milwaukie.
Posted by: Garage Wine | Jun 23, 2005 1:50:44 PM
Exactly Garage, great post.
WalMart provides low-skill jobs to the unskilled masses. At what point did the anti-Walmart crowd think stocking shelves is deserving of $50,000 a year?
And Vincent, the Pearl is nothing but a money-grab for developers and the wealthy. How does subsidies to the already well-off and cookie-cutter condo towers equate to 'gentrification' much less serve as a benefit to us all? The Pearl is more crowded and more sanitized than ever before -- devoid of the character and diversity it once had.
Moreover, I wonder how many local stores in the Pearl were put out of business by the subsidized arrival of Adidas, REI, Patagonia, Sur La Tab, Cargo, Storables, Bedmart and Whole Foods?
Also Vincent, the days of the purely altruistic labor union are long since gone. The NEA is the *world's* largest, most powerful union in the world. Their agenda for 2004 included a national universal health care system, reparations to African Americans, statehood for the District of Columbia, taxpayer funding of federal elections and a national holiday for Cesar Chavez.
Although many in this forum probably agree with those goals, they hardly have anything to do with protecting teachers in the work place.
Posted by: chris mcmullen | Jun 23, 2005 4:14:50 PM
Give Commissioner Adams credit for understanding the fact that the majority of his constituents agree with the anti-Walmart position, no matter how mind-numbingly lazy they are with critical thinking skills regarding the "evil Wal-Mart" meme.
I suppose that if more low-income residents comprised his constituency (home prices are sending them in droves to the 'burbs), their need to shop at a discount retailer like Wal-Mart would be heeded.
Zupans, Ikea, and Crate & Barrel do absolutely nothing for someone who can only afford to shop at Wal-Mart.
Posted by: Bill | Jun 24, 2005 10:51:52 AM
Another factor to consider here is what will happen to this store in 5-7 years if climbing oil prices continue? Wal-Mart was built on a giant supply chain that is primarily focused on Chinese manufacturers. The majority of their goods travel 8,000 or more miles from their point of manufacture to their point of sale. Increasing fuel costs are going to make this very uneconomical. Right now, Wal-Mart looks attractive because it is the largest retailer in the world, and has the lowest prices. These are not guarantees of financial security - look at K-Mart now, the former #1 retailer. How many dead K-Marts are there in metro Portland? Sears, the #1 retailer before K-Mart, is also in decline. Montgomery Ward is now long gone as well. Traditionally, each discount chain is forced to add services, damaging their bottom line and allowing cheaper chains to move in and take over. Look at Target, rapidly gaining ground on Wal-Mart in recent years.
Do we really need another 150,000+ square foot building that becomes unrentable if the anchoring store collapses? If a shopping center really needs to be built on that site (a debatable proposition at best), I'd rather see a series of small stores rather than a few small stores anchored by Megalo-Maniacal-Mart. (generic term - not necessarily referring to Wal-Mart here)
Regardless, that site cannot handle the increased traffic load that will result from the development - Sellwood will be flooded with traffic, as will northern Milwaukie. Then again, Milwaukie is in *Clackamas* County, so maybe that's not as big of a concern to the City of Portland. If the site were at Bybee road, you'd better believe Eastmoreland would be fighting this.
Thanks for your time.
Posted by: Matt P. | Jun 24, 2005 1:29:12 PM
I take umbrage with the "poor need Wal Mart" mentality. I make 16,000$/year and live in Woodstock, and do fine never setting foot inside Wal Mart. It's not because they don't offer good prices, they do, but I'm willing to pay an additional thirty cents for my chicken because I don't think the way Wal Mart treats people is morally acceptable, and I think hetereogeneity is worth paying for.
Wal Mart destroyed the town I grew up. After the Super Wal Mart came in, all the shops (including my favorite bicycle shop) closed up. Photo labs, grocers, even the farmers' market only sets up rarely now. Talking to my mother who still lives there, I found out that even the major retailers are now leaving. Even the Target and a big supermarket are leaving, as Wal Mart expands.
The town I grew up in is small. That's why Wal Mart has been able to enact the savage retail destruction it has in the decade since it came in. Streets that had been covered by small shops for a century are now vacant. This can happen to Portland. It will take longer, but it can happen. Keeping Wal Mart out will protect a diverse marketplace that Portland should be proud of.
Posted by: Vincent Vecera | Jun 26, 2005 4:55:03 PM
I am very much opposed to a Wal-Mart going in on Tacoma and McLoughlin. There are 2 Wal-marts on 82nd ave for shopper's convenience. Only 2 short, 5 minute trips - one to SE Holgate and one to SE Otto St. We do not need to be surrounded by Wal-Marts.
Plus Wal Mart has demonstrated poor business practices, they continually discriminate against women, and abuse the use of immigrant labor.
Wal- Mart is bad news for Sellwood, Westmoreland, Eastmoreland, and Ardenwald. These are neighborhoods that utilize and support local small businesses and established, long time grocery stores.
Placing a Wal-Mart at the proposed location would also cause more traffic headaches off of Tacoma and McLoughlin. We do not need that increased congestion and safety risk to our residents.
NO MORE WAL-MARTS!!!!
Posted by: Deborah Reiersgaard | Jun 27, 2005 10:31:41 AM
Susidies come in many forms it's just that some are a little more direct than others. If major infrastructure improvements are needed to handle traffic generated by a new "economic attractor", that is every bit as much a subsidy as deferred property taxes.
Of more immediate concern to me as a lifelong resident of Sellwood are the traffic issues and attendant impacts on the quality of life as well as property values that would accompany a siting of the proposed Wal-Mart store.
If Wal-Mart chooses to build this store, they and the current developer are probably within their rights to do so. As their neighbors we are within our rights to demand that there be no net increase in traffic counts on the main thoroughfares which are already at or near their capacity. I really don't care how they get their customers to and from their store. They can bus them in, use the adjacent rail tracks or canoe them in on Johnson Creek for all I care. One of the fundamental rights as a property owner is the quiet enjoyment of said property and that right should not be usurped by any individual or corporation simply because thay have the money, clout or whatever to do so.
Posted by: Pat Hainley | Jun 27, 2005 10:37:56 AM
Sam,
Good work! Let's give new business opportunities to local small businesses.
Posted by: Bonnie Tinker | Jun 27, 2005 12:12:58 PM
Please no Wal-Mart in Sellwood. It would completely change wonderful neighborhood in which we work and have small businesses.
And the traffic along Tacoma is bad now. I know. My office is on Tacoma.
Check out the traffic at New Seasons and QFC if you don't believe me.
Posted by: Helen | Jun 27, 2005 4:19:10 PM
A couple of responses.
I am not advocating for WalMart in that location. I am suspicious, though, of the almost automatic visceral reaction that I've noticed in Portland to particular retailers (Starbucks comes to mind, as does WalMart) without a complete accounting of the costs and benefits. I look at Roland's posting, for instance, and I note that *all* of his focus is on the cost side--WalMart's impact on wages--with little to no consideration on the benefit side--lower prices and inflation. I think Vincent's evaluation is far more balanced. I'll take credit--Ben is my student and Roland is not! Ha ha.
I apologize for neglecting the shopping area on 224. I am less familiar with that area.
I stand by my claim, however, that except for the QFC and hardware store on 17th, I think the arrival of WarMart will not negatively impact the stores in Milwaukie (there are few if any direct competitors--in fact little retail at all) nor in Sellwood (I think the increased traffic will help the stores and most of these stores are highly specialized niche outlets). These were the areas that Cmmr. Sam originally posted about.
Traffic is bad on Tacoma...but remember that Tacoma was converted from four lane to two lane due to neighborhood pressure from SMILE and the desire to convert Tacoma into a walkable, retail friendly street. I'm not sure why a large anchor tenant on the east end is necessarily incompatible with that vision.
I do find it ironic that some posters advocate traveling relatively long distances to WalMarts on 82nd, while simultaneously celebrating density and accessibility. It seems contradictory to me--providing a new large retail outlet at a location that is well-served by public transportation and is currently an empty shell would seem to be a good, not a bad thing.
I say pressure WalMart to the end to pay good wages, to provide health care to their employees, and to stop hiring illegal labor. But along with others, that what is sometimes Portland's knee jerk reaction against certain kinds of development, and a longing for a past era of a non-globalized economy, we are shutting ourselves off from vital economic growth, particularly on the fringes of our community that benefits little from the Pearl, from South Waterfront, and other downtown development.
Posted by: Paul Gronke | Jun 27, 2005 4:46:11 PM
As a resident of Sellwood, I too applaud Sam's efforts at preventing Wal-Mart from placing a store in this location.
Traffic is horrible along Tacoma street and the neighborhood has taken great strides to increase pedestrian use and decrease auto traffic. The Sellwood bridge is in bad shape. The infrastructure simply cannot handle a store of this size.
Furthermore, as someone else pointed out, Wal-mart has stores only a short distance away. Going a little further for your economy size diapers isn't going to cause any undue hardship on the shoppers. Its not like they walked to the store.
Talk to the folks at the Tru Value in Westmoreland and ask them how the Home Depot on 82nd affected their business. Now, consider that this Home Depot is further away then the proposed Wal-Mart. To argue that these local businesses will not be affected is ludicrous.
When it comes down to it, what we are really arguing for is the livability of our neighborhood. I do not want to see the increased auto and heavy truck traffic that will surely follow this development, and I do not want to lose the character of our home. Sellwood/Moreland is like a small community unto itself.
Rob
Posted by: Rob | Jun 27, 2005 5:02:53 PM
I'm grateful for your opposition the plan to build a Walmart store on McLoughlin Blvd. at the end of the Tacoma Street overpass. Problems associated with Walmart are well documented:
1) local small businesses can not survive the competition;
2) wages paid to Walmart employees are so low that those employees have
a greater demand for publicly funded services than others do;
3) wages are driven down in competing grocery store chains;
4) manufacturing is sent overseas, contributing to what is already the
largest trade deficit in our country's history;
5) Walmart has no regard for local conditions, frequently abandoning its
facilities only to move a mile or two away when the company thinks sales
might be marginally better, leaving behind a useless, empty, unrentable
big box.
Of equal consideration for the proposed site, the amount of traffic generated by a store at that location will necessitate changes in traffic control along McLoughlin. Who will pay for that, for the associated delays, and for the increased accidents?
Walmart means cheap shopping, but the trade-offs are too great for this
community to endure. If anybody wants to shop at Walmart, they ought to be able to drive the relatively short distance up to SE 82nd Ave., where they are now located.
Posted by: Jim Wygant | Jun 27, 2005 5:41:34 PM
Everyone is talking about low prices.
What I understand is that WalMart promotes a few very low prices, on inferior goods (like a $29 microwave), which the shopper often rejects after examination and buys a better item, often at a price higher than available at WalMart competitors.
Here's a post from a web site called "dailykos.com".
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2005/4/13/14408/3985
Myth 1. Wal-Mart has low prices throughout the store. They focus on about 100 items known as "opening price points." The idea is to get you to believe that they have low prices because they discount things you know are cheaper than at other stores. Then you go and purchase a bunch of normal and higher-price things while you there.
But you say you've done the price comparisons yourself? You have seen it with your own eyes. Do you purchase over 100 different items at Wal-Mart regularly? If most people can't memorize anything longer than a 7 digit number, how can you expect to know the prices of even a significant fraction of all the goods available at a giant discount store? Shoot, most Wal-Marts won't even let you write prices down while you shop for fear that you might learn the truth.
People who believe that Wal-Mart always has the lowest prices are not stupid. They are simply falling victim to clever marketing and a gigantic television advertising campaign. Seriously, Terri Schiavo looked very much alert in the clips her family sent to the networks, yet you were willing to side with the army of doctors who said she was brain dead even though it contradicted what you saw with your own eyes. Why is this any different?
Myth 2. Wal-Mart's prices are always the lowest.. In fact, Wal-Mart's prices are often beat by other stores. That's why Wal-Mart sends out managers to price the opening price point items mentioned in point number 1. Sometimes Wal-Mart beats another Wal-Mart's prices in the same community; therefore, they can't always be the lowest. If one Wal-Mart has too much of a certain good, it's price on it will be lower than one where the good is selling at a normal pace. Stores that are close to competitors like Target and K-Mart have lower prices than those where Wal-Mart is the only game in town. They can't let anything get in the way of keeping this myth alive because otherwise nobody would have any reason to shop there.
Myth 3. Wal-Mart's low prices help millions of Americans make ends meet. Wal-Mart's low prices are not some kind of service to humanity. If there are instances where a Wal-Mart's broad range of prices are particularly cheap, this is part of their strategy to drive its competition out of business. This is why you get Wal-Mart overload in places like the San Diego suburbs. Once Wal-Mart is the only game in town, the sky's the limit.
In other words, by shopping at Wal-Mart now, you are killing yourself in the longrun and condemning your community to a future of limited commercial choices. If you can think long-term with regard to the deficit and Social Security, why can't you think long-term with regard to your own economic future?
I hate to get all Ari Fleischer on you here, but Wal-Mart shopping Kossacks, you need to understand that when you make statements like "I hate Wal-Mart but they sure do have low prices," you are helping the enemy. You are perpetuating a myth and by virtue of the fact that you are progressive enough to inhabit this web site your word has higher credibility than the average pro-Wal-Mart shopper. It's like saying "I hate George Bush's policies, but I admire him for his straight-forwardness and his determination to stick to his guns." You are playing right into Wal-Mart's strong suit. In fact, it's pretty much the only suit they have. Wal-Mart couldn't buy better word of mouth.
Indeed, the importance of this dispute is that prices are Wal-Mart's achilles heel. If they didn't have low prices, the vast majority of Americans wouldn't shop there. Yet, as I've explained here repeatedly, their prices aren't all that low. Therefore, the most effective way to force Wal-Mart to reform is tell the truth about them, and that's what me and a few others on this site have started doing.
I hope you'll consider joining the club. Wal-Mart has its hands in so much that is wrong with America today, there's more than enough room for everybody.
Posted by: Peter | Jun 27, 2005 9:58:37 PM
I have been a resident of Westmoreland since 1983. I do not believe we need a Walmart. It is not needed.
Traffic will increase in an area that is already terrible at rush hour. The area should be used for a TriMet station for the planned extension of the light rail.
Walmart will be in direct competition with our local Westmoreland businesses. We have a local hardware store, Tru-Value; two local grocery stores: QFC and New Seasons. We have a larger discount store, Bi-Mart on Woodstock and other larger discount stores within 10 minutes of driving; the Oak Grove Fred Meyers and Hawthorne Fred Meyers. We do not need another store.
I like living in a Westmoreland with small businesses; businesses that I can walk to; ride my bicycle to. If Walmart builds in the proposed area; it may cause the local businesses in my immediate neighborhood to close. I am 56 years old; I plan to live in our house as a senior citizen. I want live in a neighborhood that I can access necessary services and businesses by walking and not polluting.
The store will not create enough jobs to matter.
I am totally against a Wal-Mart in my neighborhood.
Please work against this project!
Thank you,
Eileen
Posted by: Eileen | Jun 27, 2005 10:27:05 PM
If ever anyone ever wants to scare off a Walmart, just start talking:
"Union! Union! Union!"
Posted by: David Fredrickson | Jun 27, 2005 10:36:29 PM
Thank you for articulating some of the many reasons for opposing a new massive WalMart on McLoughlin Blvd., already an overburdened traffic artery for the Portland Metro area. I am not the Richard L. who wrote you several days ago in favor of the wonderful things that the new Walmart store would bring to the area. I am, however, a commercial real estate broker who is very much in favor of new businesses and saving existing and especially our locally owned-businesses, but the point of the name of our firm, Community Commercial reflects my honest and sincere opinion that building a community of neighbors and business is more important than just finding the lowest price on an item. Now, maybe when I am retired I will look forward to becoming a minimum wage greeter, as I doubt George W. Bush will have left much in the kitty for our Social Security, but as long as we can, we should try to keep WalMart out of Portland. It buys nothing locally and from what I have read is just beginning to see any reason for contributing back to the community---thus their position of "not further damaging" the Johnson Creek watershed. How sweet of them.
Every small town where they have located in New England has been impacted by loss of local business leadership and loss of local jobs leading to management and income building positions.In Oregon, the Lebanon store has caused considerable hardship for struggling local business, from what I have read. Even Southern towns are starting to realize that there is more to life than "Always low prices". Keep up the fight.
Posted by: Richard Levy | Jun 28, 2005 9:19:44 PM
Commissioner Adams,
Congratulations on keeping the Portland Office of Transportation. As a group formed to oppose a Wal-Mart development in SW Gresham, our
organization is especially happy for the win and eager for your assistance
with current traffic congestion on Powell Blvd. near the Portland/Gresham
border.
As you may know, Wal-Mart has submitted a permit application for a 222,000sf Supercenter with underground parking for 1,000 vehicles at 182nd & Powell Blvd., a footprint over 5 times the size of the vacant QFC on the property, which borders Springwater Trail and Johnson Creek. Gresham First is a non-profit group organized to advocate responsible development and growth, who believe that residents can make a difference in shaping our community. Our mission is to raise awareness of the proposed development, analyze the impacts and protection laws, and organize appropriate action by concerned citizens. Our community is greatly concerned about Wal-Mart’s impact on local business, existing traffic problems, nearby schools, water and air quality, plant & wildlife habitat, noise pollution and pedestrian safety.
Wal-Mart has submitted a Type II Development Application and Gresham residents now have only 14 days (June 22 - July 6) to submit comments to the Gresham City Planner.
Should anyone reading this choose to comment, comments should address relevant concerns and also your intent to appeal if the application is approved. The agency review/comment time period runs independently of the public comment period, closing on July 12.
TRANSPORTATION ISSUES ALLOW FOR CITY OF PORTLAND RECOMMENDATIONS.
Traffic scoping requirements for the proposed development included the
intersection of 174th & Powell Blvd. which is located in the City of
Portland. This intersection is of particular concern to City of Gresham
officials, and those fighting the Wal-Mart development.
An independent review of the Wal-Mart Traffic Impact Analysis was commissioned by Gresham First
and is being conducted by Greenlight Engineering. A summary of Greenlight’s findings and recommendations will be sent to the City of Gresham during the review period, and include concerns regarding the CITY OF PORTLAND INTERSECTION. A draft copy of the engineer's comments is available from Gresham First which can be contacted through www.greshamfirst.org. Based on site visits and on the information provided by Wal-Mart's traffic consultant, the intersection of Powell/174th is not operating safely. There's a current crash rate of 2.48, which will only get worse if the Wal-Mart is developed. This is an unacceptable level of accident activity that should be already be addressed, let alone after a new development.
Our understanding is that Powell Blvd. remains a County Road in this area,
but Portland controls the intersections. ODOT has already submitted comments to the City of Gresham, finding no problem with traffic impacts from the proposed development.
Time is short. Assistance is needed from the City of Portland and we hope that the proposal will be reviewed carefully. Gresham First's traffic engineer at Greenlight is available for discussion with City staff.
The time is now!
Posted by: Tony Mounts | Jun 29, 2005 1:44:47 PM
Sam,
I applaud the level with which you are addressing this issue. I am highly opposed to WalMart on many grounds. Perhaps many of the people that speak in favor do not live in the area that is being sought for development, its easy to support something that isn't in your own neighborhood even if overall it is bad.
I haven't lived in the area as long as others, but I believe that a WalMart would destroy the principles that the citizens in the immediate communities believe in. I highly oppose the construction of WalMart in my neighborhood and ANY neighborhood. I have seen the WalMartization of small towns around the western US, leading to higher unemployment rates and fewer job options for young or underskilled individuals. It is up to cities and communities like ours to start forcing WalMart to either go away (not likely to happen for ever) or to become a fair player in the community.
The location that is being discussed would also have a very significant impact on the community. The traffic flow would destroy many of the reasons that people move to the Sellwood/Moreland area. We like our sidewalks, we like walking, biking and enjoying our neighborhood. We do not need a mega-store that gives nothing back to the community, just takes and takes and overburdens the transportation arteries that supply it.
Perhaps WalMart isn't recieving the direct subsidies that are pointed out as being provided to the developers of downtown and the Pearl, but that doesn't mean there isn't subsidy that would be required with the presence of WalMart. As others pointed out, WalMart employees are not provided healthcare, that means our tax dollars cover those expenses. WalMart has very poor (non-existent?) ethics, other than for profit at all cost to the consumer and supplier.
Please continue your efforts, I am glad to see that you have your finger on the pulse of your constituents who in a majority would strongly oppose the presence of WalMart.
Thanks.
Posted by: Russel | Jun 29, 2005 4:02:02 PM
I've seen some really great points brought up about the long term damage a Wal-mart can cause, and I’d really like to thank Peter for pointing out the myths about Wal-Mart’s low prices. The one thing I haven’t noticed anyone bring up is the most obvious point against Wal-Mart: It is the ugliest thing you can put into your community. Just look at it. Would you really want something that unappealing in Sellwood? Sellwood is a beautiful community, and plopping that giant box with a star on it into such a unique area would be a blight that couldn’t be overstated.
I’ve seen the areas that have Wal-Marts, and they are some of the worst looking “neighborhoods” I’ve ever seen. Portland prides itself on steering clear of becoming a society dominated by the automobile and the anti-neighborhood corporate chain, and because of this, we have fostered a beautiful, livable and unique city. This is one of the things that make Portland great: smart and involved planning.
Once Wal-Mart gets into a community, they are there to stay, and neighborhoods are forced to watch the gradual decline of the beauty and economy they once enjoyed. It is vitally important to keep Wal-Mart out from the beginning.
Posted by: glenlivid | Jun 30, 2005 9:48:23 AM
Thank you Commissioner Adams for taking a stand against Wall Mart.
Anyone who believes Wall Mart is providing value to workers needs to pick up a copy of "Nickeled and Dimed." Get the facts. Wall Mart is destroying the American economy -- an economy built on small business.
Cheap imported goods and cheap labor are not a sustainable, successful model for economic health. It's the model for short term gains at the expense of our local economy.
Brian Jamison
Entrepreneur
Posted by: Brian Jamison | Jul 1, 2005 10:29:46 AM
glen,
you need to look at the location. it is not in sellwood -- it is physically across 99E--out of Sellwood limits. It is actually bordered on three sides, on the north by the Tacoma Bridge, on the west by 99E, and on the east by a hill that rises up into the Johnson Creek valley. Only to the south is there continguous land, and right now, these are mainly empty warehouses, a defunct theater, etc.
While you may not want a WalMart there, surely we want *something* there (rather than waiting what, 10 years for a TriMet transportation center?).
Posted by: a user | Jul 1, 2005 4:04:55 PM
My background: in Sellwood neighborhood since 1972; mass transit activist since 1970; recently active in South Waterfront and Sellwood Bridge discussions.
The South Portland Metro area needs a comprehensive plan. Where we are headed now is: a much too short Mlwaukie MAX line traveling through UP rail yards; increasing traffic to McLoughlin and Johnson Creek Blvds. and Sellwood Bridge; uncoordinated commercial development, such as Wal Mart store; wastage of land such as the Johnson Creek frontage at the Tacoma Street Interchange.
I am favorable to rail transit since it is a tremendous boost to community improvement but would rather see a streetcar system of several lines rather than the short and expensive (5 mi. at $515 million) Milwaukie LRT. As far as the old Goodwill site, a high rise condo project, above street level retail, would have excellent views, could link to mini-parks along the creek, have a streetcar station and provide an appropriate centerpiece as the area between Moreland and Milwaukie redevelops. It inevitably will, when whatever rail line we get goes in.
I am in favor of a streetcar link over the Sellwood Bridge, also.
Posted by: Ron Swaren | Jul 2, 2005 9:30:59 AM
Readers of the Sellwood Bee (http://www.readthebee.com/) know that there is opposition to Wal-Mart coming from Milwaukie representatives. Milwaukie City Councilperson and former Chair of the Ardenwald-Johnson Creek Neighborhood Association Carlotta Collette stated in the july Bee that "[s]ince the boulevard is already at nearly double its planned traffic capacity, I think it would be easy to fail the [wal-mart] proposal on that basis alone.”
The July Bee also features a depiction of the proposed big box storefront which provides more evidence that a Wal-Mart would not be a healthy addition to that intersection. While more attractive to pedestrians than a vacant lot, this hunk of new urbanism architecture does not provide the walkable, retail friendly environment that would be created by spaces built for a variety of smaller storefronts and living spaces. A big box store design as described in the Bee is not the best decision if SMILE wants to realize its vision for a vibrant shopping area.
Posted by: Sabrina Gogol | Jul 12, 2005 11:38:49 AM
Sabrina,
There will *never* be a vibrant shopping area at that end of Westmoreland, and SMILE has no plans for one!
Nor will it ever be a walking destination. The walk over the Tacoma bridge is too long and noisy. There aren't enough closeby residences to support small retail in that space. Back when it was Mills End, it was always a destination that people got to by car and it will remain so.
SMILE is focussing on connecting the commercial areas of 13th and 17th using Tacoma. I don't understand why, for the purposes of Sellwood business, a big box in that location would not be a good thing.
The traffic problems are the main issue here. But the impact on Sellwood businesses is a smokescreen.
Posted by: a user | Jul 13, 2005 4:13:23 PM
I live at the corner of SE 22nd Ave and Rex Street, right across from Westmoreland Park. My objections to Walmart being sited at 8300 SE McLoughlin are three-fold:
1. I lived in Globe-Miami, Arizona when Walmart came to town. Within three years, most of the locally owned and run stores on the mainstreets in the two picturesque mining communities were closed, unable to compete with Walmart's cutthroat pricing. Walmart said that "fair competition" demanded its presence. Not so. Walmart was not lured there; it arbitrarily decided to plop down there. No town demands a predatory Bully without social morality. Walmart cares about profits, not about disrupting and deteriorating towns and neighborhoods. Dump a Walmart in our midst and just watch the locally owned and run stores board up their doors. And watch their tax contributions to the City of Portland disappear.
2. Our traffic infrastructure is overburdened even without adding any high-traffic entity to the 8300 SE McLoughlin site. True, the site can be easily accessed from the south using McLoughlin. But how are those cars going to go back? Over the already overburdened
two-lane Tacoma-McLoughlin overpass? From the north, traffic would have to come through the Westmoreland neighborhoods, turn east on Tacoma over the McLoughlin overpass, and then abruptly turn south down a narrow ramp to the site. From the east, on curvy two-laned Johnson Creek? From the west, down already overburdened Tacoma and the Sellwood Bridge? Our neighborhoods can't take this hit. On my street, a potential "feeder" to the site, I already see daily near-misses between cars and the children who frequent Westmoreland park.
3. My third objection has nothing to do with this particular site, but it bears being said: the owners of Walmart appear several times on the list of the Ten Richest Americans. At the same time, Walmart minimally compensates and severely under-benefits its employees. Unlike other mega-corporations, Walmart shoves its social responsibility off onto the tax payers. This is morally outrageous ! Walmart deserves every single rock that can be thrown in its path.
Posted by: Roddy Cox | Jul 13, 2005 7:32:34 PM
Currently Im stationed in Germany with the United States Army. However, the day will come when I return home to Oregon. I can only hope it's the same wonderfull place I remember. We have all seen what Wal-Mart does to communities and I wont waste your time restating everyting already posted. Just know there's a soldier out there hoping you keep up the fight at home to keep this store out of our community.
Posted by: Brandon | Jul 17, 2005 12:30:24 PM
I too would like to commend Commissioner Adams on his position concerning the WalMart invasion into the Sellwood area. I only wish more politicians would publicly state their positions on such matters. I (we) may not always agree, but it is refreshing to have an elected official take a "public" position. Gives me a better idea as to whom I should support, and Sam, you have my support.
Posted by: Gene | Jul 20, 2005 3:51:03 PM
Sam,
I again applaud your oppposition letter to the proposed Sellwood Walmart. For so many reasons already stated, they are can quickly move in and destroy healthy communities.
But I was wondering if there are better ways to plan and avoid this problem in the future. I've heard of other cities passing laws restricting new retail developments to say 50,000 sq. ft. (I believe the Sellood Walmart is tagged for upwards fo 150,000 sq. ft.). Another idea would be capping total acrage to be developed (10 acres?).
I believe zoning laws such as these would deter these big businesses from moving in and promote a plentiful and diverse small business base. It sounds like Walmart has big plans to expand in Oregon, and Portland specifically. This might help nip the problem in the bud.
Is this something you would support? I believe our quality of life and Portland's livability are at stake.
I'd be interested to hear your ideas. I would also be happy to research more on what other places are doing.
Matt Harding
Posted by: Matt Harding | Jul 21, 2005 12:20:21 PM
I have to say that I am very disappointed by the people here in Oregon. I came here from a VERY small farming community in Nebraska. And I have got to tell you, they were not only HAPPY to have Wal-Mart in, the small "Mom and Pop" stores have NOT suffered from having this Supercenter in town.
Why do people want to turn away a company that will bring jobs to the area?
Is it perhaps because of the "lies given to you all by the Union Bosses". Wal-Mart is not a awful monster to be treated with disrespect. Shame on you, people in Oregon, for turning away employement that is needed in this town.
Thank You (from a person wishing she was back in Nebraska)
Vereena Kasten
Posted by: Vereena Kasten | Dec 24, 2005 8:33:41 AM
If Jenni Simonis is saying that the proposed Gresham Wal-Mart would be on the Johnson Creek Watershed, it seems worth pointing out that the same is true of the proposed Sellwood one. But maybe Jenni S. was speaking of the Sellwood proposal.
This may be true of the Sellwood location-- I don't know a lot about that area, having only been over there once and driven through it maybe 5 or 6 times.
But I was talking about the Gresham location. It would be right alongside a creek within the Johnson Creek Watershed (Butler Creek, if I read the map correctly).
Posted by: Jenni Simonis | Jan 5, 2006 4:16:45 PM
Vereena--
That may be true of your location (although I doubt it), but the facts show that is not typical of towns that get a Wal-Mart.
I'm from Texas, which is practically the Wal-Mart capitol of the U.S. Pretty much the only places to buy school supplies each year are Wal-Mart, Target (if you have one in the area), or the Dollar Store (which only carries the absolute basics). Growing up, we had plenty of "mom and pop" stores to buy these items.
Same goes for school clothes-- unless you can afford the department stores in the mall, your choices are Wal-Mart or Target. In the area where I lived, there wasn't a Target and K-Mart has closed down.
With toys you also ran into the same problem-- although you could add KBee toys onto that list (you'd have to drive into Houston for a Toys R Us).
And no, these facts don't come from the "Union Bosses," they come studies done by towns, universities, etc. If you look at the web sites that have many of these facts, the sites may be run by a union but much of their info comes from independent studies that they were not involved with or fund.
Posted by: Jenni Simonis | Jan 5, 2006 4:23:30 PM
Why do we believe that Wal Mart's impact on a small rural community in Texas or Arkansas will be the same as on a vital urban community like Portland?
Where *anywhere* in the USA are there "mom and pop" stores that sell school supplies? Isn't this just a Norman Rockwell vision of America that vanished long ago?
Posted by: user | Jan 6, 2006 4:03:50 PM
I have an idea. How about widening the roads in the Portland area to normal city standards? That would make JCB and Tacoma 3 lanes in each direction, and 99E a full freeway 4 lanes in each direction. Then we wouldn't need to worry about the traffic problems as much.
Another idea: Lets stop forcing every neighborhood to re-develop into a mini-downtown and let the market decide the best zoning for each neighborhood.
One more idea: How about the government worry about things like public safety and education and let the PEOPLE decide what kind of businesses they will shop at.
Posted by: anthony | Jan 6, 2006 6:29:01 PM
Actually, until I started high school (in 1992) we could buy all of our school supplies, gym clothes, etc. at a store in town that was locally owned. It had been there for years and years. It finally went out of business sometime while I was in h.s. because it just couldn't survive with a Wal-Mart nearby. And I know that's the reason, as my sister worked there for quite some time as a manager and she heard it straight from the owner.
While the area may have been small and somewhat rural, we weren't that far outside of Houston. It's not like we were out in the middle of nowhere. We were about as far away from Houston as Boring/Sandy is from Portland. The town is actually in the next "ring" around Houston and is growing quickly.
Posted by: Jenni Simonis | Jan 23, 2006 3:16:45 AM
I agree with the person who posted above that Wal-Mart is actually only cheaper on about 100 items. Many of these are specifically made for them, with less features.
Read the signs behind the customer service desk sometime. They actually have in print that you cannot write down prices to compare and that you can removed from the store for doing so.
As my family is low income, I have to watch our money very closely. I've price matched and found that there are very few items I have to get at Wal-Mart.
Groceries are almost always cheaper at WinCo.
I can get the big pack of diapers for the same price (or often times less) at Target. Same with formula.
Cat food and litter is much, much cheaper at Petco or Petsmart.
The only place they get me is in clothes-- specifically plus sized clothing.
It is hard to find a store that has a decent stock of plus sized clothing that isn't just workout or dresses that make you look like a tent. The only other places are in the mall and cost considerably more.
Target has a tiny selection and K-Mart's are mostly jeans, t-shirts, and work out stuff. They also have a small, but nice, collection of professional-looking work clothes. But nothing in-between the coat/shirt/skirt combos and the workout clothes.
There are a lot of us out there in that 16-22 size range that have very little clothing choices other than Wal-Mart, the mall, or see what you can find used at a thrift store.
Posted by: Jenni Simonis | Jan 23, 2006 3:28:54 AM
Jenni,
What is your point? I seriously don't get it.
My question was not about mom and pop stores in rural Texas. I asked about them in Gresham, Sellwood, Forest Hills. The "mom and pop" stores where you describe buying your school supplies 13 years ago don't exist in those areas.
As your own post makes clear, you get your supplies at Target, Petco, and Petsmart are just the sort of big box retailers. But wait! I thought we didn't like big box retailers and are opposing them because they kill small mom and pop stores. Stores that you don't shop at anyway.
So I presume a Target or WinCo or KMart in Gresham would get your support. just not WalMart?
Are you saying we should oppose WalMart because their prices "really" aren't cheaper? So we are now deciding on retailers based on their pricing strategy?
Posted by: user | Jan 23, 2006 10:27:46 AM
Post your comment
Please note: your email address, although required to post, will not be visible. We remove inappropriate or offensive content, and content deemed improper by State and City election and ethics law. The comments posted do not necessarily reflect the views of the office or the City of Portland.
Sam,
What area stores will be impacted by the WalMart at that location?
The nearest grocery stores are Safeway (Woodstock) and QFC (Sellwood). I don't know how the QFC does, but a Safeway manager I know told me the Woodstock store is the highest revenue producer in the area. Do you think either, which service a local clientele, are likely to lose business to WalMart?
The closest retail outlets (clothing, merchandise) I guess are on 82nd (already has two WalMarts) and ... ?? The Freddie's down on McLoughlin?
That seems like a good place for a WalMart unless you're opposed to WalMarts in principle. The nearby area (northern Milwaukie) is underserved with both grocery and retail, and right now, ever since Goodwill moved, the land bordered by McLoughlin and Tacoma is sitting empty.
Posted by: paul gronke | Jun 15, 2005 1:59:18 PM