UPDATED: Yes, Wal-Mart is Eyeing Hayden Island for New Store Location: Our Fight Begins
Sam Adams
Bad news, it is confirmed that Wal-Mart is on the march into Portland with a new location on Hayden Island. Soon, we will announce an organizing meeting to fight their proposal. Stay tuned.
Thanks for all the blog posts and emails. To keep the dialog going, here are my thoughts on some of the more "disagreeable" blog posts:
BLOG COMMENT: Yellow Line construction, I was dismayed that a solution to light rail to Jantzen Beach/Hayden Island was not reached
ME: I agree. I will push consideration of an extension to Hayden Island in the next Lightrail expansion package to Milwaukie.
BLOG COMMENT: I love Wal-Mart !!! Bring them in. All it can do is help everyone. Don't discriminate just because they aren't unionized !!!!
ME: Costco and Winco are not unionized but they pay the workers well, offer good health care coverage and low prices.
BLOG COMMENT: …it's discrimination towards the lower and middle class folks that benefit from Wal-Marts lower prices.
ME: The SoCal study shows that Wal-Mart’s low wages erode wages of all grocery workers. Another independent study showed Wal-Mart had the highest level (40%) workers eligible for government subsidized benefits.
BLOG COMMENT: I look at all those studies from the links you've posted but at the end of the day it's all biased.
ME: No study is perfect, but I am satisfied the studies we’ve linked to are reasonable.
BLOG COMMENT: Maybe it's because you don't want lower income or lower class Oregonians to have a chance.
ME: I grew up as one of those “lower class Oregonians.” Again, I’m tired of one of the largest most profitable companies in the world – Wal-Mart – being such a bad company. Costco (nonunion), Fred Meyer, Safeway, Winco (nonunion) and many other retailers treat their employees well, offer low prices and make profits.
BLOG COMMENT: If you are going to attack one specific business for low pay and what you view as less than favorable employee practices, then go after all of them, large or small, mom and pop, all that have the same characteristics.
ME: Wal-Mart is one of the largest most profitable companies in the world. I believe that from those that have more, more is expected.
BLOG COMMENT: Not bad Sam - letting personal bias take over for facts.
ME: My opposition to Wal-Mart is based on facts. I am not alone in my perspective.
BLOG COMMENT: This town is SO anti-business…
I believe in ethical capitalism. No business is perfect. But the businesses I support are making the effort to treat their employees well, be good civic partners and seek to limit their impacts on the environment. The facts demonstrate to me that Wal-Mart fails the basic test of ethical capitalism.
I have visited or helped over 160 businesses so far as City Commissioner. My priority for Portland is to improve its business climate for small locally owned businesses.
BLOG COMMENT: Mom and pop businesses. In Jantzen Beach? It is already filled with big boxes.
ME: There are 100s of small businesses in Hayden Island, Vancouver, and North Portland that will be affected. I live in North Portland so I know the neighborhoods well.
BLOG COMMENT: If the roads at Hayden Island are not sufficient to handle the traffic generated by a large shopping mall, what have we been doing for thirty years?
ME: As bad as it is, it can get worse if Wal-Mart is allowed to go ahead. This Wal-Mart would replace a lower traffic-generator hotel with a new massive traffic-generator big box retailer.
BLOG COMMENT: Jantzen Beach needs help, and I think WalMart is well positioned to draw shoppers, provide jobs, and attract other businesses who will benefit from their relocation.
ME: I fear just the opposition will happen.
BLOG COMMENT: …why don't you and Sam coerce Portland-area restaurants into providing bennies and a "living wage" for all their employees?
ME: Wal-Mart is not a small local company trying to make ends meet.
BLOG COMMENT: You want to impress me Sam...name 5 stores in Jantzen Mall that AREN'T big box stores...bet ya can't.
ME: Over 13 Jantzen Mall stores (not including businesses on the Island outside the Mall) that would face Wal-Mart competition: Island Hobbies; Magic Fest; Boater's World; Tickets & More; On The Spot Engraving; Knotty Wood; Highlander; H. & B. Trading Post; Blankets & More; Oriental Gifts; GM & M Wireless; Casual Male; Catherine's; D'Lightful Candles & Gifts…
BLOG COMMENT: What support of economics? He has now said he doesn't want WalMart without any consideration of the collateral damage by discouraging other employers.
ME: I have considered this issue carefully. Wal-Mart has hundreds of millions of supporters just with its customer base. However, I am doing want believe to be in the best interest of Portland and Portlanders. Many Portland business owners do not consider Wal-Mart a fair competitor and do not support Wal-Mart's move into Portland.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
Original Post May 29, 2006
Is Wal-Mart seeking to open a new store on Hayden Island?
We have reason to believe that Wal-Mart is gunning for a new 80,000 square foot big-box store on N. Hayden Island Drive at the old Red Lion Hotel property. That would make Wal-Mart, along with Hooter's Restaurant, one of the first things you'd see coming into the state from Washington. Welcome to Oregon!
I've made no secret of my opposition to new Wal-Marts in Portland. Yes, Wal-Mart can save consumers a few cents on most items. But the price of those few cents entails paying employees sub-standard wages, providing poor benefits, and draining the social services of the municipalities they move into. They drive out many small business owners and entrepreneurs we need to ensure Portland has a bright economic future. This is to say nothing of their undermining of U.S. businesses and manufacturers as they pressure their suppliers to outsource to China, or of their dismal environmental record.
On balance, there is no question Wal-mart is a bad neighbor.
In the last few years, this has become increasingly obvious to many communities across the nation. To cite only the very latest example, Hercules, a small town in California, took the unprecedented step of voting to use eminent domain to prevent a Wal-Mart in its town. To combat this trend, Wal-Mart predictably has spent a lot of money on a public relations campaign to purchase itself a new public image. It is a shame they wouldn't just pay their workers better and make sure they had health insurance with that same money.
(You can read more studies backing up these claims here.)
Aside from my personal view, I have an obligation as your Commissioner-in-Charge of the Portland Office of Transportation to evaluate the potential impacts on the city’s road and sewer infrastructure of a potential Wal-Mart. While a complete, professional analysis has not been done, I believe it is evident that problems lie ahead for Hayden Island should Wal-Mart force itself into the site of the former Red Lion Hotel. 
Getting to and from Hayden Island is not easy. Island residents and visitors alike constantly remind me of the deplorable bicycle and pedestrian access both south to North Portland and north to Vancouver. As a practical matter, many feel driving a car is the only way to get home. Unfortunately, congestion on Interstate 5 in both directions is a very real daily burden for islanders. Had I been transportation commissioner when the Interstate Light Rail plan was finalized, I would have pushed for its extension to Hayden Island. For now, however, that’s not an option in the near term. So auto congestion is a daily fact of life for Hayden Island residents and businesses.
Now add Wal-Mart.
As your city commissioner, I spend time every day working to retain and create living wage jobs for Portlanders. A healthy local economy is essential to our city’s renowned quality of life. I wish I could support Wal-Mart’s expansion in Portland. Regrettably, their track record tells me loud and clear that I have to do the opposite. Wal-Mart needs to mature into a responsible corporate citizen. Until that happens, I will continue to fight their expansion in Portland.
Posted by Sam Adams on May 31, 2006
(106) Comments | Permalink | TrackBack (0)
Filed Under Front Page, Jobs & Economy, Livability & Environment, News, North Portland, Transportation, Wal-Mart
Comments by site visitors
I love Wal-Mart !!!
Bring them in. All it can do is help everyone. Don't discriminate just because they aren't unionized !!!! This is the reason why you don't want them in Portland. Isn't it !!!! You give false statements about Wal-Mart, but look at the cities they are going in such as Salt Lake. These places are booming. But look at Portland and Oregon in general. WE ARE LAGGING BEHIND. Come on and quit being business unfriendly !!!!
Posted by: Jon | May 30, 2006 2:18:34 PM
Hooters gooooood.
Wal-Mart Baaaaaaad.
Is it the government's role to decide where consumers get to shop?
If Wal-Mart is able to meet all the applicable zoning, labor, and business regulations, why would Commissioner Adams call them a "bad neighbor"? It sounds like discrimination to me. And not just towards Wal-Mart: it's discrimination towards the lower and middle class folks that benefit from Wal-Marts lower prices.
Posted by: Gecko | May 30, 2006 3:09:11 PM
Please do all that you can to stop Walmart from opening a big box store at Hayden Island. The traffic congestion already exceeds the highway's capacity. The I-5 bridge is the largest single bottlneck to interstate commerce on the West coast and any solutions to this are years and billions of dollars away.
In addition, Walmart is the best example of the worst business partner that a community could have. They make no investments in the local community (except minimum wage jobs with low benefits). They make no investments in schools, arts, local charities, or anything else of value. All profits are sucked out of the local economy and go right back to Bentonville, Arkansas and corporate shareholders.
And, WHY IN THE WORLD, doesn't the Yellow Line go to Jantzen Beach?? What were the commissioners thinking?
Posted by: Scott | May 30, 2006 3:34:00 PM
I think you are discriminating against Walmart. Most of your comments against it could be applied to any large box store. Costco is not unionized, are they bad? No, they are not. They have brought much needed cost savings to large families.
You say we would save a few pennies. I think we would save alot more than a few pennies.
For all you anti-Walmart people, the best thing you can do is not patronize them if they do come in. If that happens enough times, they will shut down and never come back.
Posted by: Pat | May 30, 2006 3:43:16 PM
This again? Walmart is the epitome of corporate greed and exclusion. Yay! Low prices. Yay! Low paying jobs for unskilled/educated workers. Yay! for products manufactured with child labor.
In the land of instant gratification and one-stop shopping, it doesn't surpise me to hear people backing up this conglomerate that doesn't care about their shoppers, workers or the towns they are located in. At what cost to the hundreds of LOCAL retailers that feed THEIR families and survive on small business does ANOTHER Walmart indicate. Should we just discourage small businesses and rely on the giant corporations to decide what products are available to us?
Wake up people, and just try to look beyond the complacency.
Fight it Sam.
Posted by: Stef Pinniger | May 30, 2006 3:52:25 PM
I urge people to take a look at studies outlining the issues via the link posted above.
There, you will find that Costco, Target, and other stores actually pay higher and give better benefits than Wal-Mart.
Big box stores -while I am personally not a huge fan of them (admission: I have shopped at Target) - are not the same in their business and labor practices. Wal-mart ranks poorly to the average big box retailer in terms of pay and benefits.
Also, Wal-Mart has a well documented history of flouting labor laws. They hire illegals (which rightwingers should take issue with), don't allow people to unionize (which is a right of every American), and have lost court cases for forcing off-the-clock work and tampering with timecards.
They aren't like all other bigbox stores.
They don't follow the law.
They cost taxpayers money.
They are a bad neighbor.
Posted by: Roland Chlapowski | May 30, 2006 3:55:59 PM
Iam the chair of Hayden Island Neighborhood Network. Please keep me informed of any thing concerning Wall Mart on Hayden Island as we will be fightinh this to the end. The Jantzen Beach Super Center is having problems keeping small bussines occupied now and a Wall Mart would ruin what is left of it.
Eugene Rogers, Chair: HINooN
Posted by: Eugene Rogers | May 30, 2006 3:57:51 PM
If Walmart were the average citizen, it would be in prison. Since it enjoys the super-human status of being a corporation it can behave in a sociopathic and illicit way with virtual impunity, and in actuality does so with greater frequency and degree than its peer retailers.
If an employer can discriminate against an applicant for having a criminal record, can't we similarly adopt laws and/or policy that prevent wayward, law-breaking corporations from widening their influence on our communities?
Posted by: Clay Fouts | May 30, 2006 4:19:30 PM
Welcome to Oregon... Home of we don't care!
Comparing Wal-mart to Hooters? When was the last time you had to actually explain to your 8 year old why Wal-mart was named Wal-mart? On our frequent trips to Jantzen Beach my daughter is curious as to why it's called Hooters. Then I have to explain to her about the degradation women face with businesses such as this one. Where were all of you when places like Hooters, the Fat Cobra and Dancing Bare were going up?
I have family who work at Wal-mart and they depend on Wal-mart to help feed their families. Why would you want to fight against something that enables them to support their families? When they were employed at Wal-mart they were paid more than the minimum wage, which is more than I can say about places like McDonald's or other retail businesses.
I look at all those studies from the links you've posted but at the end of the day it's all biased. I could probably find studies to refute the information. I think you just don't want it here, period. Maybe it's because you don't want lower income or lower class Oregonians to have a chance. Some of us never got the opportunities because our parents weren't rich, we never qualified for any kind of assistance. We have had to fight hard to get what we have. And even if it's not much, it's still ours.
You claim to care about the citizens of Oregon, but do you really? You want small town in a big city, it's not going to happen. Wal-mart is going to be beneficial to allot of us here in North Portland.
Posted by: Pamela | May 30, 2006 4:35:28 PM
I live on Hayden Island. No way could the island handle Walmart traffic. It would be like Christmas, year round, when it takes up to two hours to move a hundred feet in a car. Interstate 5 from Lombard up to and over the bridge is done--over cooked. The city would really have to out-dumb themselves to allow Walmart to build here. The only thing that would console me if Walmart lands here is if Walmart paid to expand MAX to Vancouver now--paid for all of it. Because it will be mostly tax-saving Vancouver shoppers clogging up I-5 worse than it already is. And it's intolerable now because of Vancouver commuters. The problem is I don't see Walmart shoppers using Max. How would they transport all their super-saver items? I give up. Never mind.
Posted by: Jim Hoff | May 30, 2006 5:17:49 PM
Sam,
On May 1st of this year, Wal-Mart stores in the Portland area saw a huge drop in business. Some, if not all the stores were almost empty. That was because the majority of the Wal-Mart customer base is Hispanic. On May 1st, a large number of Hispanics were attending demonstrations for immigration reform and vowed not to do any business transactions that day. A former cashier at the Eastport Plaza Wal-Mart store told me that on average, less than ten customers a day that went through his register were White. He also told me that clothing makes up Wal-Mart’s largest volume of sales. Having an opposition policy towards Wal-Mart for whatever reason reduces options for low income people who can not afford to shop at New Seasons, Whole Foods, Zupans, upscale boutiques and high-end downtown department stores that tend to be on the receiving end of PDC development subsidies. Opposition to Wal-Mart can be viewed as racial discrimination even though that is not the primary intent. Do you see Hispanic people at the meetings opposing Wal-Mart? Using increased traffic congestion to oppose Wal-Mart is just a convenient excuse. Increased traffic congestion would come with any new retail development. If it did not, the retail development probably would not be successful.
Furthermore, I have a friend who’s wife works at Wal-Mart and likes it. If you think Wal-Mart’s business practices are bad, take a look at contract call centers. They are far worse. Yet PDC has negotiated subsidy deals with some of these “meat in the seat“ employers. If you are going to attack one specific business for low pay and what you view as less than favorable employee practices, then go after all of them, large or small, mom and pop, all that have the same characteristics. In a free market and democratic society, personally I think your opposition to Wal-Mart is misguided. Additionally, it is not the government’s role to decide or socially engineer where people choose to shop.
Posted by: Terry Parker | May 30, 2006 6:42:44 PM
Go Sam. I back you 100%
WalMart is a bad idea on many fronts. As a Hayden Island resident, I can testify to our inadequate meandering road system to and from all parts of the Island. Traffic is often at a frustrating standstill when someone wants to make a left turn on a side street. We're packed in here, there isn't room for redoing our road network as it is, and now condo contruction is underway to add 400 more cars. Besides cars, WalMart will add an increased stream of large trucks--our old roads are simply not designed or maintained well enough for this type of use.
There is indeed a threat to remaining businesses in the Center if WalMart comes in. Many of the storefronts within the Jantzen Beach Mall are empty, as are several free standing buildings in the Center area like the old REI and a family restaurant. What people report about WalMart's impact on existing business is true for many other communities in the U.S. and has been happening for years.
Across Oregon as across the nation, communities are fighting WalMart for a well-deserved bad reputation. As in this blog, people in other communities have differeing views about WalMart, yet the overall threat is often deemed high enough to block new WalMarts over and over again. (Note that the many other "big boxes" here on the Island are not considered bad neighbors.)
This debate is not about a single issues of fairness, such as the affordability of goods for lower income people, or decent wages and benefits for low income people. It's about the many problems they've created combined. WalMart is so fantastically huge that its negative actions create ripples that start in a community like ours and reach out to other nations.
Remember, its not the box that's bad, it's people who run it.
Posted by: Margaret | May 30, 2006 6:55:19 PM
Bad location. Bad location. Bad location. It's difficult enough navigating the Interstate Bridge on a good day. A much better location would be out by the airport.
Posted by: Chris Snethen | May 30, 2006 9:21:16 PM
Fight these bastards Sam. Let's support local businesses where we can and keep that dying business model from polluting our landscape.
Posted by: Ron Sporseen | May 30, 2006 10:06:09 PM
Not bad Sam - letting personal bias take over for facts. This town is SO anti-business that the funny part of the statement is gone. Folks, government doesn't run and exist on it's own, it needs taxes, they are paid by people who work for those evil corporations. If we don't have businesses, we don't have taxes and without them we don't have your savior government.
I LOVE Wal-Mart and have always been a supporter. As for the fellow that claimed if they (Wal-Mart) were a citizen it would be in prison - funny, I feel that same way about Portland city government.
Posted by: mmmarvel | May 31, 2006 5:56:55 AM
Sam,
I have lived on Hayden Island since 1994. The traffic has gotten worse every year. Getting onto the island from I-5 northbound after 2 p.m. is a real deterrent to even trying. Getting off the island northbound is the same. Weekend traffic on the island is becoming very difficult. The traffic associated with a WalMart would be a disaster. Emergency services have great difficulty responding with the present volume of traffic.
The Port of Portland wanted to put a grain terminal on the west end of the island and initially promised a new bridge to handle the truck traffic. In later studies, they began to renig on the bridge. There was a revolt in HiNoon because the old leadership began to go along with the port's plans to install the terminal without the bridge. If WalMart were to even consider going onto the island, there will be a revolt you wouldn't believe.
We won't have additional traffic capacity for many years to come judging from all the studies proposed to examine the island and I-5 traffic problems.
Posted by: Alison Mazon | May 31, 2006 7:30:17 AM
Why not suggest Wal-Mart locate out at Cascade Station next to the upcoming Ikea and Costco Home.
With Cascade Station becoming the very BIG BOX cluster is was designed, spent and built to prohibit, Wal-Mart will be the perfect fit.
"Smart Growth" failed there but it could be Smart BIG BOX.
And as the airport employees do, the BIG BOX workers can use MAX to get to work. Well, some of them.
TriMet can hand out free or reduced passess to all the BIG BOXES then pad their ridership numbers by assuming they all get used.
Posted by: Steve Schopp | May 31, 2006 7:42:36 AM
Sam: this looks like an example of good politics, bad public policy.
Just because you can get more votes from being anti Wal-Mart doesn't make it good public policy.
Posted by: Gecko | May 31, 2006 7:52:26 AM
OK, let me get this straight:
- We subsidize Pearl condos that cost a $1M, Theaters (The Armory) that cannot pay the mortgage and basically any project between the river and I405 where coincidentally the largest employers are government.
- We demonize WalMart and other businesses that the poor frequent.
There is something wrong with this picture. Those small businesses you think are so great don't pay benefits and are usually min wage jobs. At least WalMart gives opps for promotions and some medical benefits.
As far as traffic, then be consistent and tell Costco, IKEA and WholeFoods to not build in Portland also. I also believe these are all non-union employers.
I assure you driving out businesses that the poor frequent and subsidizing rich people projects won't get rid of the poor. It will just make life harder for the lower income earner.
Posted by: Steve | May 31, 2006 7:52:42 AM
The Port, Metro, TriMet and PDC spent upwards of $200 million on Airport Max and Cascade Station in an effort create a "ped/bike/transit mini-city".
With the specific intent that it NOT include ANY BIG BOX.
Now that it is becoming a BIG BOX cluster Wal-Mart should be encouraged to locate there.
If Wal-Mart's good enough for Woodburn
it's good enough for Cascade Station.
Posted by: Steve Schopp | May 31, 2006 8:25:29 AM
Sam,
Using the power of an elected City Council position is not the proper place to advance a personal vendetta against Wal-Mart, or the people who shop and drive there. A City Council person should be representing all constituents. Opposition to new Wal-Mart stores primarily come from the affluent and White upper middle class. As I have already stated, Hispanics make up the majority of Wal-Mart’s customer base in Portland, and opposition to Wal-Mart building additional Portland stores can be viewed as racist.
Opposing Wal-Mart on Hayden Island also presents a double standard. With other big box retailers like Home Depot, Target, Old Navy, Staples, and Circuit City already located there and generating traffic, opposition to Wal-Mart coming in and doing reconstruction on an already developed but empty piece property demonstrates bias and the anti-business climate Portland already has a famous platinum reputation for. Furthermore, another double standard exists in that one of your objections is that Wal-Mart does not pay family wage jobs. Yet PDC under City Council control has been allowed to pay less than a prevailing wage on some public-private development partnership projects, and has even gone to court to protect the language in their contracts. Shame on you and the rest of the council for not speaking up and ordering the PDC to pay the prevailing wage on all their deals.
Finally, I agree with Steve Schopp, Wal-Mart would be a good fit at Cascade Station as a companion to the big box retailers already locating there. With all the business traffic Wal-Mart generates, a new store located next to or within walking distance of a Max station would make sense.
Posted by: Terry Parker | May 31, 2006 8:40:31 AM
Shut them down. They've broken the law enough. Kick WalMart to the curb.
Do what they did in Hercules, CA.
'Vote goes against Wal-Mart - Council OKs using eminent domain to block retailer'
http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2006/05/24/BAGM8J15531.DTL&hw=hercules&sn=001&sc=1000
Use the same tools WalMart uses to push into communities to get rid of them.
Posted by: Aaron | May 31, 2006 9:20:21 AM
I sure hope all you anti-WalMart folks don't go out to eat, buy groceries anywhere or frequent any businesses with landscaping or janitorial services. Most of the aforementioned industries don't pay a 'living wage,' provide no benefits and aren't unionized. And I'll just bet you'll find all kinds of labor law violations as well.
Of course, demonstrating against Nature's wouldn't fit ya'lls agenda...
Posted by: CHris McMullen | May 31, 2006 10:33:32 AM
Sam,
Wal-Mart just isn't Portland. It's more Phoenix. But you'll have to admit, Jantzen Beach is already an anomaly, a dumping ground for un-Portland-like business establishments. When was the last time you walked around in Janzen Beach/Hayden Meadows and said, "ah, now THIS is Portland..."
In fact, can you think of even ONE J.B. business that you associate with Portland? Here's a list of choices: Staples, Old Navy, Circuit City, Video Only, Target, Starbucks, Barnes and Noble, Comp USA, Home Depot, Taco Bell.
Let's just hand Janzen Beach over to the state of Washington, and then move the "Welcome to Oregon" sign to the Interstate Avenue exit.
Thanks for your consideration,
Chris
Posted by: Chris | May 31, 2006 10:45:08 AM
"Staples, Old Navy, Circuit City, Video Only, Target, Starbucks, Barnes and Noble, Comp USA, Home Depot, Taco Bell."
Oh Lord NO!!! You mean Jantzen Beach houses business in which people frequently shop and enjoy?!? How dare they!!
Damn capitalists!
Posted by: Chris McMullen | May 31, 2006 10:50:43 AM
Why don't you and the rest of the city planners and regulators let the consumers decide whether third world rights and "living wages" are important to them? If they are, Wal-Mart on Jantzen Beach and elsewhere will be history. If they are not important, then stop preaching to everyone about the "right" or "moral" thing to do. That's easy to say when you're white, upper middle-class, and make reservations at bistros in the Pearl District.
Posted by: Mike M | May 31, 2006 11:24:24 AM
Sam,
I respect you for being true to your principles on Wal Mart, but we differ on this issue.
I'll stand with you when you pressure WalMart to pay living wages, provide health care, and follow the law. If you want to propose a bill like recently passed in Maryland, I'll write a letter supporting it.
But to oppose all WalMarts in Portland is farther than I can go, not in a community that is hurting for jobs and for inexpensive retail outlets. I particularly cannot understand opposition to a WalMart in what seems to me an obvious location, a low cost shopping mall filled with big box retailers.
I think most of the points you make here, similar to ones you've made opposing a WalMart in Sellwood, simply don't wash.
1) Traffic. Forgive me, but Jantzen Beach has been a large shopping mall for what, thirty years? Your point here seems to be this: large, successful retailers that will attract large amounts of traffic are not welcome at Jantzen Beach. Huh? I don't get it. If the roads at Hayden Island are not sufficient to handle the traffic generated by a large shopping mall, what have we been doing for thirty years?
2) Mom and pop businesses. In Jantzen Beach? It is already filled with big boxes. And we have to consider whether the dramatic increase in traffic would actually benefit local retailers. I point you again to the example of the center at 82nd and Holgate, where, far from destroying local retail, the WalMart has sparked new growth in that area.
3) WalMart taxes social services only to the degree they displace businesses, thereby replacing jobs with benefits with jobs with no benefits. Do we think that will happen here? Or do we think WalMart will create jobs where they do not currently exist, in what is a struggling, declining mall? You can't blindly oppose WalMart without doing the homework on what you think it's impact will be in this specific location.
Essentially, your argument against WalMart comes fundamentally down to this: you oppose any WalMart in Portland due to their business practices and corporate reputation.
I worry about the City choosing winners and losers in this way, since I can identify many businesses that pay substandard wages, don't provide benefits, and hire illegals. The restaurant and nursery industry come to mind, but I don't see you opposing those tooth and nail.
Jantzen Beach needs help, and I think WalMart is well positioned to draw shoppers, provide jobs, and attract other businesses who will benefit from their relocation.
Do you have other plans in mind for this declining mall (really, it is an eyesore now, and WalMart can only improve the current situation)? What do the other retailers (CarToys, HomeDepot, REI, CompUSA, Target, Old Navy, etc) feel about a WalMart?
Posted by: paul | May 31, 2006 11:27:26 AM
Sam, find a reasonable and workable solution for the people and the businesses in our area. That’s what you get paid the big bucks for!
I live in Mariner’s Loop off of Marine Drive and regularly shop on Hayden’s Island. Well, what that really means is when I can get across the bridge before a major accident occurs. That means going at strategic times of the day on certain days. Let’s put the names Hooters and Wal-mart aside and first find a way to relieve the traffic congestion. As it stands today, the traffic congestion to get to the Island is a big problem. Given the insufficient transportation structure, it’s unfortunate that the area is unable to sustain new businesses and jobs. Last but not least, can the Island itself sustain the proposed growth?
We need a real solution!
Posted by: Bonnie Gariety | May 31, 2006 11:41:56 AM
""Staples, Old Navy, Circuit City, Video Only, Target, Starbucks, Barnes and Noble, Comp USA, Home Depot, Taco Bell."
Oh Lord NO!!! You mean Jantzen Beach houses business in which people frequently shop and enjoy?!? How dare they!!"
I have a hankering suspicion that you live closer to Washington Square Mall than to Powell's Bookstore. Am I right?
Posted by: Chris | May 31, 2006 11:47:08 AM
Fighting for local small business is not "anti-business!"
Fighting for workers is not elitist or anti-poor!
This is the most mixed-up rhetoric I've heard in a while.
If you want to fight for the wealthy corporations and fat cat CEOs that run them, fine - but don't pretend you are a populist!
Being pro-Wal-Mart means you are against US manufacturers and their workers, you are against small businesses and their owners, you are against taxpayers who pay for the healthcare they shirk their employees of, and that you are anti-worker, since Wal-Mart depresses wages.
Posted by: Roland Chlapowski | May 31, 2006 12:04:49 PM
People might work there and have jobs,
and pay taxes.....?
Consumers who desire to shop there might have more convenience and save gas.
Oh no, the city might gain more tax revenue for their pet projects and wasteful spending?
Stop this before it's to late.
Posted by: Ted Doe | May 31, 2006 12:05:45 PM
Chris, what does location have to do with anything? Or are you one of those elitist urban snobs with an illogical disdain for all things suburban?
And Roland, WalMart isn't holding a gun to the heads of potential employees and forcing them to apply. Furthermore, why don't you and Sam coerce Portland-area restaurants into providing bennies and a "living wage" for all their employees?
Posted by: Chris McMullen | May 31, 2006 12:21:25 PM
Mr. McMullen,
You didn't answer my question. Do you live closer to Washington Square Mall or Powell's Bookstore? It's really just for curiosity's sake.
And also, a follow-up question: Are you happy where you are?
Chris
Posted by: Chris | May 31, 2006 12:41:55 PM
Closer to Powell's.
Yeah, I love where I am. I have a big, beautiful house and a huge backyard filled with birds, wildlife and plants. It's a quiet, serene paradise. I have a 10-minute commute by car and I can (and do) commute by bike 2-3 times a week. I have parks, grocery stores and restaurants all within walking distance from my home.
And I don't live in Portland.
I hope you can use this oh-so important information for a coherent argument against WalMart.
Posted by: Chris McMullen | May 31, 2006 1:00:24 PM
Amazing. I see people prattle on about the evil that is Wal-Mart and how THIS particular retailer, and this one alone, coming to the "retail ghetto" that is Jantzen Beach would devastate the pristine community that is the "island." Nice that you live there and all...but you realize no one else cares right? To most of the people I know, and have discussed this with...it's a giant shopping mall, not a residential community with a shopping area.
I work right across the I-5 bridge and frequent Target, Circuit City, Home Depot and Old Navy on a regular basis. I could absolutely shop in Washington and support MY local businesses, but I choose to shop at Jantzen because it's close, they have all the big box stores I need AND yes because I don't have to pay MY state tax. What amazes me is that one elected city official is more concerned that a run down, barely filled shopping area not get ANOTHER retailer similar to the ones it already has. You want to earn your pay Sam. FIX THE ROADS. Spend more of your time "commissioning studies" on the impact of making the stretch from Delta Park to Portland Blvd a constant 3 Lanes instead of the stupid 3, down to 2 for no reason, and then back to 3. That poorly designed bottleneck kills the Vancouver commute. Did no one SEE growth to the area coming? Weren't there studies on THAT 10 years ago? How hard can it REALLY be to get a new bridge, fix the stupid road planning and get traffic flowing instead of worrying if low-income families should have the opportunity to shop at a store they can afford. You want to impress me Sam...name 5 stores in Jantzen Mall that AREN'T big box stores...bet ya can't.
Posted by: Rich H | May 31, 2006 1:07:43 PM
You right wingers and your "nobody is holding a gun to their heads" argument!
If you have bills to pay, and you are unemployed, you are desperate! You take whatever you can! No, there is no gun to your head, but you don't have good options! Why are you against making sure even the weakest among us have a good choice and a shot at a decent life?
You chose to invoke personal responsibility and freedom of choice when it benefits you or the business interests you are so fond of, but when the president lies his way into war, when his administration's neglect allowed two of the major cities in the country to be severly compromised (in one case almost wiped from the map), or when all of your Republican leaders get caught in lobbying scandals and power manipulation, that "Personal Responsibilty" stuff seems to fly right out the window.
Not only is it hypocritical, its disgusting. Hold the powerful accountable, and give the common guy a chance! What is so bad about that?!?!?!
Posted by: truth hurts | May 31, 2006 1:12:44 PM
All this rubbish about low prices at Wal-Mart helping the poor is well...rubbish. Purchase 15 of the same grocery items at Wal-Mart, Freddies, and WinCo. Freddies and Wal-Mart almost ALWAYS equal out on food prices, WinCo is by far cheaper. WinCo, an employee owned, living wage paying, Northwest company...as a 'poor' person (my life is very rich thank you) WinCo serves my needs more than Wal-Mart ever could.
Posted by: MarkDaMan | May 31, 2006 1:30:34 PM
Thanks for your answer. I didn't intend to form an argument against Wal-Mart from your reply. Think of it more as a demographic study of the pro-Wal-Mart segment.
Would you consider yourself a religious man?
Chris
Posted by: Chris | May 31, 2006 1:32:47 PM
Hey 'truth'... Spare us all the 'common man' rhetoric.
The President that you hate so much is largely responsible for the county's sub 5% unemployment rate. There's no lack of jobs. Those tax cuts to the "evil rich" has attributed to more jobs and more tax revenues.
Why do you think poor asian and hispanic immigrants come here? Free wi-fi?
Furthermore, scandals and corruption is not limited only to Republicans. Ever heard of William Jefferson? Sandy Berger? Robert Torecelli? Dan Rostenkowski? Jim Traficant?
Maybe it's time to quit reading the daily kos and really get edmucated.
Posted by: Chris McMullen | May 31, 2006 1:34:31 PM
to see the differences between a semi-local, employee owned chain and WalMart, visit their websites. An incredible difference in philosophy, just from two web pages.
wincofoods.com and walmart.com
Posted by: MarkDaMan | May 31, 2006 1:34:44 PM
"...Would you consider yourself a religious man?"
Nope, totally agnostic.
And I'm not pro-WalMart. I'm pro freedom and individual responsibility.
Posted by: Chris McMullen | May 31, 2006 1:37:16 PM
No one is arguing that WinCo isn't great, heck, my father-in-law has worked there (and the companies that were Winco prior) for almost 30 years...but last time I checked, WinCo wasn't trying to open a new store on Hayden Island.
Posted by: Rich H | May 31, 2006 1:38:23 PM
^no Rich, I was responding to all those that are glorifying WalMart for the poor. It's offensive that anyone seems to think we people of lesser financial means need or even want WalMart.
As for WalMart in Jantzen, well, if WalMart will pay for the traffic improvements required, and there is no cheap solution there, than let them build. If they don't want to fork over some dough for a new bridge, MAX, new freeway lanes, and a rebuilt off ramps, than screw em.
Posted by: MarkDaMan | May 31, 2006 1:54:20 PM
Very interesting! So you are an agnostic but generally happy Libertarian who dislikes liberals, living outside of Portland, yet willing to defend the freedom of big business to exist inside of Portland.
Are you currently employed?
Chris
Posted by: Chris | May 31, 2006 1:57:40 PM
GO WAL - MART. WE SUPPORT YOU ON HAYDEN ISLAND !!!!!
AS FOR YOU WAL - MART HATERS, PACK UP AND MOVE TO RUSSIA !!!! OH, I FORGOT, THERE ARE WAL - MARTS THERE ALSO !!!
WAL - MART, JUST ANOTHER SUCCESSFUL AMERICAN BUSINESS THAT BEGAN AS ONE STORE.
WAL - MART IS THE AMERICAN DREAM !!!!
NOW STOP YOUR ANTI BUSINESS ATTITUDE SAM AND MAYOR POTTER !!!!!
Posted by: Pete | May 31, 2006 2:04:09 PM
I retract that question. I see from your previous response that you commute by bike to work 2-3 times per week. Very commendable. Please excuse my mistake.
So, what do you have against Nature's? Did a granola do you wrong at some point in your life?
Chris
Posted by: Chris | May 31, 2006 2:06:40 PM
You sure make a lot of assumptions, Chris.
Fortunately for me, I'm finished with our conversation.
Posted by: Chris McMullen | May 31, 2006 2:21:29 PM
I'd hate to infringe on your "freedom" to exit the conversation, my good man! Then, I guess it's my "individual responsibility" to let you be on your way then...
Chris
Posted by: Chris | May 31, 2006 2:33:21 PM
I find it humorous that so many of these nay-sayers criticizing Commissioner Adams' support of healthy economics and development don't even live in Portland. In Rich's case, he doesn't even live in Oregon, yet he demands that Portlanders run things the way he wants so he can skirt his state's sales tax! Get real.
Posted by: Clay Fouts | May 31, 2006 3:19:49 PM
Actually I don't "demand" that anyone run anything my way. I just think it's insane that one elected official's opinion of a particular business and the way they do business is cause for prohibiting them from legally purchasing property and providing services. Just like ALL the other businesses in the US. Why don't you moral objectors go picket Fantasy Video or one of the 400 strip clubs in the greater Portland area...do THEY have that "Portland Feel" as someone mentioned earlier? I don't like the idea of strip clubs or what they promote...so I DON'T GO. Wow. Simple. I don't scream for them to be closed. If others like them...so be it. But they won't get MY dollars. The same thing applies here. This is a business decision, and not a very difficult one, in my opinion. You have a shopping area 1/2 full of businesses that are barely keeping their heads above water INSIDE the "mall" and big box retailers outside (or attached like Target) doing very well. So are you better served, as proud Oregonians letting empty, run down area set un-used or filling them with stores that provide much needed jobs? Again...doesn't seem that difficult. Jantzen will be crowded no matter what...better with shoppers than the crackheads currently hanging out in and near the abandoned buildings.
Posted by: Rich H | May 31, 2006 3:51:48 PM
Rich,
As to whether strip clubs have that "Portland Feel", I guess I'd like to go out on a limb here and answer that question by saying: yes, I'd rather be over at the Acropolis watching boobs than shopping for plastic at Wal-Mart.
I hope my Grandma doesn't read this.
Chris
Posted by: Chris | May 31, 2006 4:17:52 PM
Unless Walmart manages to increase market demand by decanting new humans and then giving them money to buy their cheap plastic crap, they are not going to create much-needed jobs. Walmart will *move* existing jobs from competitors (who on average have less despicable business practices).
Walmart will not magically create new demand and fill out unused retail space... it simply moves the holes so that they coalesce around it.
Posted by: Clay Fouts | May 31, 2006 5:28:34 PM
Commissioner Adams' support of healthy economics and development don't even live in Portland.
What support of economics? He has now sadi he doesn't want WalMart without any consideration of the collateral damage by discouraging other employers. For creating new jobs, we need to walk before we run and right now we are not even crawling WRT job creation. Turning down employers because Sam and his friends think it is cool is without logic.
I know a lot of Bay Area people who would like to move here to afford a house, but outside of Intel there are no well-paying jobs, creative-class or not.
Posted by: Steve | May 31, 2006 6:29:42 PM
Hayden Island is a horrible location for a Wal Mart. As an Island resident I can tell you that the local streets cannot support another several thousand cars a day. Congestion is already horrible, traffic from the I-5 southbound exit already backs up nearly to the freeway creating a hazardous condition and further slowing freeway speeds. During the holidays, it can take me well over a half hour to make it the several hundred yards from my home to the freeway. If you want to shop at Wal Mart, there is one only a few miles north in Hazel Dell.
Posted by: Tom Ryan | May 31, 2006 8:54:01 PM
Actually, 18% of Costco's workforce is unionized, so to the poster above, you need to research the facts before trumpeting Walmart's case.
Walmart is NOT a provider of economic strength, if so, then Clark County, with its four Walmart's, would be booming with jobs, instead of >60,000 Clark County residents that cross into Oregon for work.
Additionally, Walmart is a sell-out to the manufacturing base of this country, actively extorting domestic manufacturers to offshore their production. This Fordism-in-reverse plan of Walmart is truly the seed of demise in our overall national economic picture.
If Walmart was such a fantastic company, then why hasn't their stock increased in value over the past five years? Why do their employee benefits simply dump their workers on to the state health insurance plan? Why do they lock their workers in at night?
Posted by: ChrisB | Jun 1, 2006 12:28:11 AM
Sam,
Are people saying that small merchants can get made in USA DVD players, name brand clothes, TVs, refrigerators, cameras etc while Wall Mart refuses to? Do small merchants really pay more than Wal-Mart and have better benefits?
Terry Parker : Having an opposition policy towards Wal-Mart for whatever reason reduces options for low income people who can not afford to shop at New Seasons, Whole Foods, Zupans, upscale boutiques and high-end downtown department stores that tend to be on the receiving end of PDC development subsidies. Opposition to Wal-Mart can be viewed as racial discrimination even though that is not the primary intent.
JK: Income, not race: I heard an interesting comment at the last American Dream Conference: one city looked at who used more in city services than they consumed by income level and decided to discourage housing affordable to people who earned less than whatever that level turned out to be. While Portland pays lip service to low income housing (sten has made a carrier of it) we just never seem to be able to keep what we have as PDC rips up one affordable neighborhood after another. And we propose paying developers more, to include affordable housing in their mega towers, than it would cost to build houses. I really believe this city discriminates against the low income. Oh, did I forget to mention that they are intentionally driving up the cost of driving so that fewer people (IE: the poor) will be able to afford a car? If you don’t have a car, you can’t, on average, get as good a job because your choices are fewer for a given commute time. This is one case where they are actually admitting to a program that will hurt the poor!
Bonnie Gariety : ...Let’s put the names Hooters and Wal-mart aside and first find a way to relieve the traffic congestion...We need a real solution!
JK: Of course the city’s and metro’s plan is to spend over a BILLION DOLLARS on extending the toy train through Vancouver, to I205 then back down to Oregon. Government projections expect it to remove LESS THAN one lane of traffic worth of cars from the grid locked freeways. (Rex Burkholder and Sam are both on the committee that is selecting which options to pursue. Rex, of course, would ban cars if he could - he actually believes we are running out of oil and that we won’t be able to find a substitute. I hope Sam is smarter than Rex.)
Thanks
JK
Posted by: jim karlock | Jun 1, 2006 6:37:43 AM
Actually, Clark County's economy is doing better than the City of Portland for job growth.
Anyways, one last comment, for all the opponents of WalMart, I only ask 2 questions:
1) If these people don't work at WalMart, then where?
2) What kind of benefits and pay and opportunity for advancement would those jobs have?
The only way I can even get close to justifying this attitude against WalMart is if we were creating a lot of living-wage jobs and I just don't see that.
Posted by: Steve | Jun 1, 2006 8:01:26 AM
I will keep my comments short as possible.
I shop at Walmart about once a month.
I live on a floating home on jantzen Beach.
I do not want Walmart here.
But if they win------- they should be required to build a PARK ON THE RIVER SIDE WITH REST ROOMS, PLAYGROUND, PARKING AND THEIR FOOD SERVICE. the island could use a place like this so we canenjoy the river. They should also provide a fund for lonf term upkeep of the park. at least 3 or 4 acreas of the available space shouls becme a park
Posted by: Barbara Nelson | Jun 1, 2006 10:05:12 AM
I disagree with Tom Ryan’s comments that Hayden Island is a horrible location for a Wal-Mart store given the number of big box retailers that already are located at the Jantzen Beach Shopping Center. If Wal-Mart brings more customers to the island, it should help the other struggling retailers too. Tom's comments do however demonstrate the immediate need for a local connector bridge to an island that is currently only served by Interstate 5. Building local connector bridges to both Oregon and Washington should take precedence over any other Columbia crossing alternative.
JK: I agree with your comments related to income, however, because a large portion of Wal-Mart’s customer base in Portland is Hispanic, opposing a new Wal-Mart store in the Portland Metro Area is also about race, even if that is not the intent of the opposition.
Posted by: Terry Parker | Jun 1, 2006 11:05:21 AM
Now that Wall-Mart on Hayden Island has become a reality lets stop bickering and get to work. HINooN members please come to our June 8, 2006 meeting at 12050 N Jantzen Ave. 7:00 pm and put your wants and ideas on record.
so the Land use Committee will have something to work with.
Eugene Rogers Chair: HINooN
Posted by: Eugene Rogers | Jun 1, 2006 11:09:45 AM
"This again? Walmart is the epitome of corporate greed and exclusion. Yay! Low prices. Yay! Low paying jobs for unskilled/educated workers. Yay! for products manufactured with child labor."
Which the majority of Americans have supported over and over and over again.
I digress though.
Let em' build on Hayden Island/Jantzen beach, but with the following criteria.
1. They have to build the remainder of the yellow line to the island and then hand it over to Tri-Met to operate. (Of course they could do it for less but I doubt the Union would allow it. :( )
2. State simply that if they come into the area they need to meet basic employment standards. i.e. Minimum wage, basic health care coverage. If PDX peepz ask Wal-Mart will likely do it.
The sad thing about all this is Wal-Mart has garnered such a bad rep among lefties that no matter what they do it won't be right. They've been condemned and no matter their proposals I'm worried that they're the next target of being destroyed by this cry of not fair.
Even though they don't meet these arbritrary requirements they do employ more people than any company (in the world I believe) in America.
But I digress, like I said, lay out specs, tell em' they have to build a certain way, play (employ) a certain way, and tell em' they have to build the logistical infrastructure to their store or they don't get to come into the playground. I don't see why it is so hard to lay out some simple ground rules like that.
Posted by: adron | Jun 1, 2006 11:15:20 AM
It's funny. After reading all of the comments this is basically the socialist approach to things. They create an environment where the poor are pushed farther and farther out without creating an environment where they can increase their standard of living (like suburban development does) and at the same time the inner city begins to Gentrify.
Personally, if I have to choose between suburban wasteland where those poor people can increase their standard of living and Portland gentrified inner city with desolate and poor suburbs I'll choose the gentrified Portland.
I'd prefer free-market capitalism run it's course, but it's long been dead in America. Then you'd end up with suburbs where people can fight to increase their standard of living AND a genrified inner core!! :o imagine that!
Posted by: adron | Jun 1, 2006 11:22:30 AM
First off, to Barbara Nelson: A park? Did you make Target build you a park? Cricuit City? Toys R Us? Is it a business' responsibility to provide you with recreation simply because of their location? Gee...there is a Safeway near my house...so I guess I should ask them to fence my backyard and add a swingset for my kids.
Second, if you are going to "make" them pay for the stupid MAX to go to Jantzen and on to Vancouver, then everyone that benefits from that should have to pay also. Ring up Target, Circuit City and all the retailers there. Not just Wal-Mart.
Finally...for Sam, when I said name 5 retailers in Jantzen Beach "mall" i meant off the top of your head. Not go out to the webiste and cut and paste the list. I am in that "mall" for the food court once a week and with the exception of Radio Shack and Knotty Wood I couldn't name another. Don't make this fight about them, make it about the best possible utilization for un-used property.
Posted by: Rich H | Jun 1, 2006 1:25:08 PM
Roland,
Cool down the rhetoric. If you want to fight for the wealthy corporations and fat cat CEOs that run them, fine - but don't pretend you are a populist! Ok, but don't pretend you are using careful economic analysis when you post such a statement, because large corporations (as a category) provide good jobs, good benefits, and a career path for workers, something that many small businesses do not. A vibrant Portland economy needs both small businesses and large corporations, but i see little progress in attracting the latter.
But we have no lack of anti-corporate rhetoric. Anyone up for fire bombing a Starbucks?
Anti US worker? You know as well as I do that the products that WalMart purchases in China are not now, nor will ever again, be manufactured in the US. Cheap textiles, electronics, and other consumer goods are going to shift to low wage, low cost countries. Our future is in financial services, higher education, and high skill/high wage industries.
Sam,
Your definition of North Portland is apparently a whole lot larger than my own. You are willing to include all of North Portland in your discussion of the economic impact of a WalMart? I don't find that credible.
Yes, we disagree on the impact that increased traffic would have on other Hayden Island businesses. I'd like to hear from THOSE business men and women. Boaters World? They don't sell competing products and would benefit. A specialized hobby store? Same thing.
I think we have to look at what sort of mix of retail we have in Jantzen Beach,and what the future holds for that area. But I don't see you doing that, Sam, what I see is an immediate opposition to one particular retailer, based on what selective reading of the evidence.
I've read thru the studies that Roland has posted previously, and as I noted, virtually all of them studied the impact of a large WalMart in small rural communities. Very few studies focus on the retailer's impact in an already vibrant urban area (except those that study wage and social services).
And I ask again: what about the Walmart at 82nd and Holgate? Good or bad? Because everything I have heard about the area before WalMart arrived indicates that Walmart had a positive impact on the surrounding area.
Posted by: paul | Jun 1, 2006 2:34:33 PM
MarkDeMan: It is amazing that you subscribe to the notion that WalMart can move to Hayden Island if they pay for all the traffic improvements, but you don't apply this same logic to North Macadam and it's needed traffic improvements.
The cost figures for NM for traffic improvements to accommodate Homer and Co. is over $300M. But there are no fed/state funds and of course the developers are not paying for the improvements to handle the extra 48,000 vehicle trips per day-far exceeding WalMart traffic.
Lets be consistent, and play the PDC/City of Portland game fairly.
Posted by: Jerry | Jun 1, 2006 2:54:52 PM
It was a sad day when Hooters took over the Waddles site, but we weren't given the chance to protest that one. I will join you on the street to protest a Wal-Mart at Hayden Island, or anywhere else in Multnomah County. Thanks.
Posted by: JAS | Jun 1, 2006 3:26:57 PM
Let's make Wal-Mart give an electric lawnmower to every Portland Homeowner!
That way, we can all breathe easier knowing that Wal-Mart was singled out and forced to do something that benefits the entire city.
In lieu of property taxes, let's make Hooters give buffalo wing coupons to all Portland Citizens.
Taco Bell? FREE CHALUPAS!
Posted by: Gecko | Jun 1, 2006 4:28:26 PM
Sam,
In respones to your comment: “I will push consideration of an extension to Hayden Island in the next Lightrail expansion package to Milwaukie.”
Milwaukie aside, the greater need for Hayden Island is a pair of connector bridges to both Oregon and Washington that motorists can use. If you think Max light rail alone will resolve the issue, then so can the City providing everybody a jet pack to cross over the slough.
The sensible and most cost effective solution would by to build a four lane local connector motor vehicle bridge across the slough with one lane in each direction shared with light rail. The shared construction cost efficiencies of combining a light rail project and a road improvement project such as took place when the first light rail line was built at the same time the Banfield Freeway was widened has not since been duplicated in the Portland area. Building a combined and shared right-of way bridge would be setting a renewed example that government can occasionally do things both right and efficiently. However, as JK noted, both you and Rex sit on the committee that select which options to pursue. Therefore, it is highly unlikely any sensible option would come out of the committee that would include a major improvement for motorists, even if it does save taxpayers money over the long haul. Most of so-called local street and road improvement projects funded by motorist paid gas taxes only create more congestion. One of the best examples of that being the proliferation and expense of construction curb extensions. Cars are here to stay, and with new and dense development, more are coming. It is long overdue that stakeholder motorists have representation within the selection process.
Posted by: Terry Parker | Jun 1, 2006 8:02:56 PM
Terry -
You make a good argument for a multi-modal bridge connecting Hayden Island to mainland Oregon, but then you torpedo yourself with the quote "Therefore, it is highly unlikely any sensible option would come out of the committee that would include a major improvement for motorists, even if it does save taxpayers money over the long haul."
It may be true that this is your belief, but it doesn't do any good to push your positive argument with stakeholders while simultaneously declaring you don't trust them at all to do the right thing. (You could have declared, for example, that you do not agree with their past decisions but that such a project would restore your confidence in their priorities. This is both straightforward and positive.)
For what it is worth, almost all of the persons who have discussed Hayden Island issues over at the Portland Transport blog have done so in the context of a bridge that accommodates auto trips... It does not make sense to force local trips to the island to use the freeway, and adds unnecessary freeway congestion for what is basically a one or two exit trip.
- Bob R.
Posted by: Bob R. | Jun 1, 2006 9:09:50 PM
All these "friends of the poor" and "friends of Wal-Mart labor" are missing the fact that Wal-Mart's decimation of American comercial viability over the last several decades is the cause of a lot of that poverty!
Shopping at Wal-Mart doesn't help anybody but the Walton family -- the richest family in the world, while their employees are on food stamps. They won't stop until nobody in America can afford *not* to shop there.
BTW, you've probably noticed that Wal-Mart now pays spin-control consultants to pose as concerned citizens in forums like these ... part of their new charm offensive. That whole fighting-walmart-equals-racism post smacks of that sort of subterfuge. Don't let 'em fool you. Go Sam!
Posted by: mykle | Jun 1, 2006 9:09:53 PM
Hey Sam!
My wife and I are also behind you completely in the fight against WalMart!
We're in agreement with everyone that the Island just can't take the increased traffic on a daily basis. There's no need to do something stupid by letting WalMart come here and create endless traffic jams getting to and from the Island. We all love living out here on Hayden Island, so much that we put up with the traffic at Christmas time, but WalMart traffic on the Island year round would kill this place.
Don't let WalMart come to Hayden Island!!
I'll do what I can to help.
Posted by: Nelson | Jun 1, 2006 11:07:21 PM
Hey Sam!
My wife and I are also behind you completely in the fight against Metro!
We're in agreement with everyone that the region just can't take the increased traffic on a daily basis. There's no need to do something stupid by letting Metro continue creating endless traffic jams getting to and from everywhere in the region. We all love living here, so much that we put up with the worsening traffic for years, but Metro planning will kill this place.
Don't let Metro plan any more!
I'll do what I can to help.
Posted by: Carl B. | Jun 1, 2006 11:15:43 PM
We have a beautiful location in the middle of the Columbia River. Anyone who wants to build here and has riverfront land should be required to allow public access.If walmart is allowd to build here, the river side should be beautiful and usefull to the public. A park would be good trade off, if we are stuck with the thing
It should not be the ugly solid wall of a big box building facing the river
Posted by: love the island | Jun 2, 2006 8:10:24 AM
Bob R,
I accept your comments as constructive criticism. I made the statement because I have too often seen JPAC and associated committees “torpedo” projects (using your word) that would benefit motorists and reduce congestion, while approving projects that do the opposite. An example of this would be narrowing motor vehicle travel lanes to a less than safe width for the purpose of accommodating wider sidewalks or bike lanes.
I also will look at the Portland Transport blog. This is the first I have heard of it. Thanks for your comments.
Posted by: Terry Parker | Jun 2, 2006 8:38:59 AM
Terry, thank you for taking my remarks in the spirit in which they were intended.
- Bob R.
Posted by: Bob R. | Jun 2, 2006 9:13:44 AM
"...I also will look at the Portland Transport blog"
Don't bother posting there Terry, they ban anyone with a dissenting opinion.
It is fun to laugh at how clueless Rex Burkolder is, though.
Posted by: Chris McMullen | Jun 2, 2006 10:17:26 AM
Chris McMullen wrote: "Don't bother posting there Terry, they ban anyone with a dissenting opinion."
That is demonstrably untrue. There is a strict policy against personal attacks and uncivil discourse, but there are a number of people with dissenting opinions who post there, several of whom you would recognize from here.
- Bob R.
Posted by: Bob R. | Jun 2, 2006 10:34:46 AM
Wrong Bob. Myself and other were permanently banned and it was -not- for "personal attacks and uncivil discourse."
Here's the actual post from Chris Smith, Bob:
July 26, 2005
"While my democratic (small 'd') instincts have held sway to date and comments have been completing unregulated, it has become clear to me that the persistent and vocal participation of anti-transit folks has come to dominate the site, despite polite requests to respect the purpose of the site.
I fear that this is driving away the very people that Portland Transport was constructed to bring together. Accordingly, for at least the next several weeks I am banning the most vocal of the critics, not because I don't want criticism, but because I want the community to have a chance to come together as was intended."
Chris Smith couldn't stand the heat, so he banned those who disagreed with him. And I'm still unable to post there.
Quit trying to justify Portland Transport's exclusionary nature, Bob.
Posted by: Chris McMullen | Jun 2, 2006 10:50:40 AM
Waah, Waah, Waah!
"People won't let us dominate their blogs! That's censorship!"
If you guys just got a life and stopped posting your redundant and inane posts OVER AND OVER AND OVER AGAIN, you wouldn't be barred from the discussion.
Find a little humility and listen to what other people have to say. Don't squeeze others out of the conversation. Don't dominate the discussion. Don't be jerks.
Surely, you must have some better things to do that sit around and post your same comments 5 times a day!
Get over it. Blogs are supposed to be a forum for a broad-based and democratic discussion. When it is not broad-based, I think that those who run the blogs have the right and obligation to keep the discourse flowing by filtering the redundancy and vitriol out.
Stop your crying. And your posting. We get your stupid points.
Posted by: truth hurts | Jun 2, 2006 11:11:29 AM
I think everyone misses the point here. We are overconsuming this planet to death. How many more items of clothing, pairs of shoes, knick knacks for the house, etc. do any of us really need? Most every item sold in all of these gigantious stores is made overseas - thus requiring carbon-based fuels to bring them to the US, then ferry them to a distribution center, then truck them to a store. Then we all hop in our cars to buy something. Then the purchased item sits in our closets for most of its remaining life.
If we purchased less stuff that we will rarely wear or use, we could afford to shop American-made, though likely more expensive items. We would not contribute to massive trade deficits, pay more interest on our credit cards (with more and more financing done by Middle Eastern countries and thier billions of oil profits), and spend every waking hour working to pay for all of this crap. It's time people started to make connections about their purchasing.
Posted by: umpire | Jun 2, 2006 11:44:39 AM
I can see it now... Driving down I-5 from Washington to Oregon... Then a big sign to the right reads "Wal-Mart Welcomes You to Oregon!".
I really hope this never happens.
Posted by: Josh - Kenton Resident | Jun 2, 2006 11:51:19 AM
Josh,
You CAN see it now. "Hooters: welcome to Oregon." "Home Depot: Welcome to Oregon". "Crappy mall: welcome to Oregon."
Yes, a busy WalMart sure would be worse.
Posted by: john prentice | Jun 2, 2006 2:32:48 PM
^so instead of making a bad situation worse, why doesn't the city come up with a comprehensive plan for the island? Or for the dog track area for that matter, tons of boxes going up over there too!
Posted by: MarkDaMan | Jun 2, 2006 3:47:21 PM
It's time for our lawmakers to come up with progressive ideas that really make sense.
In the spirit of Boston's tunnel project, the Big Dig, along with Portland's current water project, the Big Pipe, I'd like to propose:
The Big Hole
As you may have guessed, the depth of the Big Hole would be roughly equivalent to the height of proposed WalMart. The massive excavation would lead to new jobs and since most poor people know how to dig, the Big Hole would help mitigate poverty. Public works projects like these would certainly have FDR twitching around in his grave with unbridled enthusiasm.
Go to it, Sam!
Chris
Posted by: Chris | Jun 2, 2006 4:41:39 PM
How about:
WHY HAS THIS HOTEL HAS BEEN VACANT FOR YEARS? WELCOME TO OREGON!
Posted by: Gecko | Jun 2, 2006 6:25:09 PM
How can we/or who will bring on the apposal for the Cedar Mills Wal-Mart. We need to nip this one in the bud.
Posted by: PamS | Jun 2, 2006 9:00:15 PM
I thought I heard that one of the locations being considered for a new bridge adjacent to the Interstate Bridge was just west of it, from one abandoned hotel site to another underused one. How does the Walmart proposal affect this? Will it be another Deitrich vs. transportation battle?
Posted by: Doug K | Jun 3, 2006 12:24:45 AM
How do bloggers feel about a public officials, Commissioner Sam Adams and his aid Roland lobbying for an outcome on a landuse issue before they are the ones to decide the fate of the landuse issue before Portland's city council. From my understanding it doesn't meet city and state laws. The evidence needs to be heard on a case basis.
Posted by: lw | Jun 3, 2006 12:34:40 AM
As a resident of Hayden Island, I strongly oppose siting a Wal-Mart at the Doubletree location. The Island's roads already exceed capacity at rush hour and weekends, causing lengthy delays getting to or from home. Portland and Oregon would be stuck with paying for the road improvements as well as additional law enforcement. As the Orgonian reported earlier this month, the Wal-Marts in the 'Couv are Magnets for Criminal Activity which will spill over into our neighborhoods. We would need a permanent police presence on the Island to maintain an acceptable response time to the crimes that Wal-Mart will generate. Island residents and Portanders in general would get little or no benefit from this store(we have no sales tax, rember)while they end up paying the costs. I see mainly Washington residents who want to evade their own state taxes shopping there. Its not just about Wal-Mart, either. A Costco, WinCo, or Best Buy would be equally unacceptable at this location.
Posted by: Rick | Jun 3, 2006 12:39:16 AM
LW:
Those old fashioned ideas like "compliance with the law" or "make up our minds based on the facts" don't matter here. We're Portland. We know what's good for you.
In this case, Sam knows Wal-Mart is bad. It's bad so long as it's within the City Limits of Portland. Sam is going to protect you from things that are bad, and make you do things that are good (like riding Tri-Met, and using your tax dollars to subsidize the Tram and Luxury Condos).
Say it out loud with me: Tram GOOD....Wal-Mart BAD.
LUXURY CONDOS GOOOOD....Wal-Mart BAAAAD.
Light Rail GOOOOD....Wal-Mart Baaaaad.
Bad, Wal-Mart, BAD! BAD! BAD!
BAD, Low-Prices....BAD! BAD! BAD!
Posted by: Gecko | Jun 3, 2006 7:22:48 AM
I appreciate your comments on ethical capitalism - very well stated.
Posted by: Brett Miller | Jun 3, 2006 9:32:00 AM
Commissioner Adams,
I am 100% in agreement with you on Walmart. I am not sure what property is planned for the Walmart, but the hotel there is prime waterfront land, with a beautiful river view, a perfect spot for condos, especially if there was a marina there. Keep up the good work conecting with local businesses.
Posted by: Rob W | Jun 5, 2006 10:50:10 AM
If Wal-Mart does not move in and build on the former Red Lion Hotel property, rather than ripping it down PDC style and zoning the property for high end condos with a private marina, maybe the now empty hotel could be converted into low income housing that would include a public riverfront park with some discount shopping opportunities nearby. Why should rich people have all the views and the only access to the river? JK said it all when he said: “I really believe this city discriminates against the low income.”
Posted by: Terry Parker | Jun 5, 2006 3:14:53 PM
I actually agree with Terry up until he tries to indict the city. I think affordable housing would be awesome at that former hotel. With a waterfront park, additional bus service, and a reconfiguration of the guest rooms into apartments, that site could offer Portland families excellent housing options for an affordable price. Possibly part of the hotel could be used to help Commissioner Sten's '10 years to end homelessness plan' too.
Posted by: MarkDaMan | Jun 6, 2006 11:42:07 AM
paul,
While I will accede to some of the issues you raised in your last post, I have to call BS on a few of your points.
First, I will admit to using rhetoric, but this is a political debate, and frankly, I think that liberals have let the rightwingers spew their misinformation and inflamatory vitriol unchallenged for far too long. If someone calls me elitist or anti-poor, I will call them on that, because that's a lie. And since the people who benefit the most are in Bentonville, Arkansas, not the low-wage workers who get squeezed by Wal-mart, feel justified in my statements.
Second, talking about firebombing a Starbucks is unfair because it implicitly links my talk about using legal avenues to keep a bad corporate citizen from moving into Portland with the violent and illegal destruction of property. Talk about rhetoric devises!
Third, while it is true that many corporations do pay well and provide career opportunities, surely you are not implying that is the case with Wal-Mart. Because if you are, you and I disagree about what "career opportunities" are and what "good pay" is.
Fourth, yes, all of the goods Wal-Mart buys in China aren't produced in America anymore. WHY? Because Wal-Mart PRESSURED AMERICAN SUPPLIERS TO MOVE PRODUCTION TO CHINA! Give me a break! They single-handedly gutted a large part of America's industrial manufacturing base. And just because they might be done gutting it does not mean that they should not be held responsible for doing so.
Fifth, your characterization of the studies I've posted as being all rural is just untrue. The include Chicago, LA, Santa Ana, Metro-Boston, and other urban places. I have some more that are not posted, if you'd like me to email them to you.
Lastly, your contention that America's future is in high-wage, high-skill work is an outdated and largely discredited notion. I remember when everyone was going to be a computer programmer, but that was before we sent those jobs to India. I remember when higher skill medical jobs were the future for American workers, but now we send out X-rays and blood tests and other things for analysis in India and other low-wage countries who, due to massive population alone, are due to produce far more educated workers than America has any chance of creating.
White collar jobs are increasingly being exported, so the much vaunted mantra of "education is the key" doesn't hold true. Anything that can be sent through a wire can be outsourced. And a lot of services, high-skill services, fit that description. You should read an article in last month's Foreign Affairs by respected economist Alan S. Blinder called "Offshoring: The Next Industrial Revolution?" - in it, he outlines how "constant improvements in technology and global communications virtually guarantee that the future will bring much more offshoring of 'impersonal services' -- that is, services that can be delivered electronically over long distances with little or no degradation in quality." The "America will just get the better jobs" mantra is totally hollow.
And, it also worth mentioning that America is losing its edge in higher education as foreign enrollment decreases in American universities (as it has steadily after 9/11) and more top-notch higher ed institutions open abroad in China and elsewhere with the support of developing country governments itching to move up the ladder in the global economy.
Posted by: Roland Chlapowski | Jun 6, 2006 11:47:29 AM
Roland,
As you're aware, the Starbucks reference was quite specific. Misinformed anti-corporate rhetoric was used to justify such action against the Starbucks at 20th and Division. Is Starbucks a better corporate citizen that WalMart? Of course they are. But your posted statement made no such distinction; you simply demonized all corporate CEOs as "fat cats."
I don't know what the economic alternatives are for WalMart employees nor what sort of upwards mobility is experienced by WalMart employees, so I cannot comment on that. I simply wanted to make the general point that blindly celebrating "small business" over corporations is short-sighted.
I don't agree with your fourth and "lastly" points. What precisely are you claiming? That America's economic future lies in the manufacture of cheap textiles? Cheap plastic toys? Cheap electronics?
The decline of much of America's manufacturing base preceded the emergence of WalMart. It is a consequence of a globalized economy and the fall of trade barriers as a result of NAFTA, GATT, etc. Perhaps you are an opponent of neo-liberalism and free trade policies. But you cannot place the blame on WalMart for what has constituted the core of American foreign economic policy for the past half century. WalMart is just the most efficient (some would say cutthroat) at taking advantage of these changes.
It seems to me the clear implication of your last posting is that there is no such thing as comparative advantage. True?
Finally, on the postings. What I said is that most of the urban studies deal with social services, not with the impact on local businesses. If I recall (I reviewed these six months ago), most of the latter were based on rural areas. I could be wrong, but I don't want to base my economic projections about WalMart in Portland based on studies of WalMart in rural Pennsylvania.
Posted by: paul | Jun 6, 2006 12:07:20 PM
Roland
"since the people who benefit the most are in Bentonville, Arkansas" - You forget to mention the thousands of people who freely choose to shop at WalMart because it is cheaper.
"many corporations do pay well and provide career opportunities" - WalMart offers entry-level jobs and they promote people who are good workers. If these people were not working at WalMart they would either be unemployed or at a mom-n-pop with the same wages and a lot less opportunity for advancement.
all of the goods Wal-Mart buys in China - OK, let's walk thru CostCo, FredMeyers and a lot of other retailers and tell me that the origin of their goods is not Chinese.
Sorry, people in City Hall do not work in the real world and realize what it takes to survive. You will go out of your way to keep a WalMart out, but cannot bring in a family-wage job as an alternative.
This is what I meant by Mr Adams collateral damage with his campaign. I know people in the retail space who are afraid to come to Portland because the can't offer high wage and benefit jobs.
Posted by: Steve | Jun 6, 2006 5:17:27 PM
FYI: About 20 percent of Costco workers are union.
Here's something from Business Week in 2005. I can't imagine any Wal-Mart executive saying anything like this:
"Strong union representation isn’t the only reason Costco jobs are so well compensated; the company itself has an unusually forward-looking corporate philosophy.
Costco CEO Jim Senegal has said: “We pay much better than Wal-Mart. That’s not altruism. It’s good business.”
Chief Financial Officer Richard Galanti explained: “From day one, we’ve run the company with the philosophy that if we pay better than average, provide a salary people can live on, have a positive environment and good benefits, we’ll be able to hire better people, they’ll stay longer and be more efficient.”"
Posted by: Eric Berg | Jun 6, 2006 6:43:03 PM
mykle
Nobody I have seen on this blog, and I've seen them all over the place are these "paid cronies" of Wal-Mart that you talk about. These are people that are simply calling reality like it is.
Wal-Mart isn't going away and they have far more supporters than dissenters. Most people realize what they do and do not bring to a community. The market will dictate whether they need to change not a few whiney and petty fusses from a few people here and there. Portland is about the only place that has a change against Wal-Mart, and it's still a long shot because what they do is generally LEGAL.
Chris McMullen
Wow Chris, that is freaking harsh. Censorship. :| I read it because Chris does a fairly decent job of keeping up with the transportation news of the area. I however dissent with MANY of his stances on things. Such as I love the streetcar, light rail, and a few other things, but I detest the socialist attitude behind their funding and backing. But alas the direction of America is slowly to shun it's own greatness in favor of European style meanderings.
truth hurts
What you wrote was rather trite. Chris made his point rather well. Yours however is wrothy of not much more than a glance.
umpire
We're doing that because that is how we must to provide for humanity. You wanna be the bloke to kill off about 3 billion people so we can all be agrarian again?
Chris
...and in all humor I must reply, Chris excellent idea. We should start on the big hole immediately!!
Roland
"Fourth, yes, all of the goods Wal-Mart buys in China aren't produced in America anymore. WHY? Because Wal-Mart PRESSURED AMERICAN SUPPLIERS TO MOVE PRODUCTION TO CHINA! Give me a break!"
This is pure stupidity. Wal-Mart didn't do it, our high standard of living made us producing the junk that is sold at Wal-Mart impossible in economic terms. Thank your unions, thank your "I won't do that nasty job" people, thank your Government, thank all those people. Businesses attempt to do one thing, stay in business and do well. That means staying competitive. When it costs $10.00 in labor to build a toy that has a sell point of $5.00 bucks you HAVE to look for other places to build it.
Duh. Don't blame Wal-Mart, that's like saying we need to cut our oil and then walking out and getting in an SUV to go home. stupid stupid stupid stupid.
Posted by: Adron | Jun 6, 2006 9:35:42 PM
Wal-Mart led the way in outsourcing production to China, and quickly set up a business model that other franchises had to follow or choose to go out of business.
Blaming the unions is simply laughable. Not only did they fight to keep jobs in America, but they basically rolled over to management demands on pay and benefit stagnation in an effort to keep their jobs when outsourcing became the dominant business model. Employers, despite being quite profitable, saw even larger profit margins over the horizon and gutted the social contract that bound America together since the New Deal and WWII.
The federal government, Clinton, Bush, and congressional Republicans do all deserve a measure of the blame, I will accede. But what the government did was unlock the door to China. They set up the potential opportunity to move production overseas. Wal-Mart ran through it, and dragged the rest of the US economy there with it.
Posted by: Roland | Jun 7, 2006 2:55:36 PM
China's export driven industrialization was necessary because of inadequate domestic demand, a labor glut, and the potential for a peasant uprising if they failed to produce economic growth and job creation. Blame Nixon if you must, but don't blame Wal-Mart.
This mercantilist growth strategy was orchestrated by Chinese Bureaucrats and the People's Liberation Army, NOT by Wal-Mart.
The United States recognized early that constructive engagement of the Chinese (aka: show them the benefits of mercantilism) would succeed where diplomacy had failed.
"It is to the advantage, and not to the disadvantage of other nations when any nation becomes stable and prosperous, able to keep the peace within its own borders, and strong enough not to invite aggression from without. We heartily hope for the progress of China, and so far as by peaceable and legitimate means we are able we will do our part toward furthering that progress."
U.S. President Theodore Roosevelt speaking to Chinese representative Tong Shaoyi, December 1908
We import lots of inexpensive manufactured goods, and export increasing quantities of our expensive capital goods (ask Boeing!), with the trade imbalance being increased by grey market knock-offs (Chinese pirating of intellectual property) and decreased by their purchase of Treasury Bonds. In the new mercantilism, they buy our bonds instead of Gold. That could change.
Target, Costco, May Company, and REI all have plenty of products Made in China, Vietnam, Sri Lanka, the Dominican Republic, and Honduras. None of which are bastions of environmental regulations, the "rights" of organized labor, or guaranteed career tracks for their highest performing laborers.
Wal-Mart imports more than their competitors because they are so much bigger than their competitors, and because they (like Costco) won't carry a product if they can't be the low cost retailer of that product.
Your bias against Wal-Mart is uninformed and misguided.
Posted by: Gecko | Jun 7, 2006 10:35:01 PM
Wal-Mart is the unfriendliest of neighbors. They put smaller retailers out of business using low quality, low cost products and pay empoloyees low wages. In addition, they develop real estate in a unsustainable manner.
I don't want Wal-Mart in my city and am glad to see a city commissioner stand for the values I hold.
Posted by: kevin | Jun 8, 2006 9:39:10 AM
I have lived on Hayden Island on and off since 1974. Each year the traffic problem has increasingly become unbearable. I am not against businesses coming to Hayden Island, but what about the increase of traffic it will bring? We have 1 way on and 1 way off? What about the crime element? We are now serviced by NE Precinct and during rush hours, there is a delay in response time. How is this going to be addressed when the "crime element" is raised? Is there support for a sub station on Hayden Island? I just cannot help feel that the value of our homes is going to decrease with this element being in our area. Hayden Island used to be a very desireable location, we used to have all the amenities to not have to leave the island for other services if we chose to, that is not the case now. We are already dealing with long waits on 1-5 just to be able to get on and off the island, I cannot see WalMart being a "benefit" to us at all!
Posted by: Valerie Godfrey | Jun 8, 2006 12:22:43 PM
I-5 problems are not the fault of walmart
I-5 problems are the fault of Portland smart growth politics.
If I-5 was WIDENED to 8 or 10 lanes like most modern freeways there wouldn't be much of a problem.
Posted by: Anthony | Jun 8, 2006 6:33:34 PM
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,
I agree with you on Wal-Mart and its business practices. Of course, the same thing can be said for Target and many other retailers -- Target, of course, is already on Hayden Island. Hayden Island, in fact, is already in bed with so many of the chains and larger shopping conglomerates (Ross, Target, Comp US, Barnes & Noble), that keeping Wal-Mart out may smack of prejudice. It will be intersting to see how the City positions itself for that particular battle.
Having lived in NoPo at the time of the Yellow Line construction, I was dismayed that a solution to light rail to Jantzen Beach/Hayden Island was not reached at that time. I would argue that fewer people have reason to visit the Expo Center than they do to go to Zupans and Target on a daily or weekly basis. I hope you are able to work with Metro to alleviate some of the transportation woes and deliver light rail to the island. I think Vancouver missed out on an opportunity to use Trimet to solve its own transportation and funding woes - maybe new partnerships can help get past that.
Good luck!
Posted by: Rowan | May 30, 2006 12:34:38 PM