Skip navigation.
Home

Letters to the Editor

Letters to the Editor on the proposed Wal-Mart

Gresham Outlook, October 14, 2006

Wal-Mart would make gridlock nightmare out of Powell

When you see a documentary about Wal-Mart on TV, the concerned citizens, traffic engineers and environmentalists all prove it is a bad decision.

How can Gresham choose to side with Wal-Mart when a small store was proved a traffic hazard and an environmentalist nightmare. Now with the $14 million narrowing of Powell to a one-lane highway, it is even more a traffic hazard.

Please don’t turn Gresham into gridlock and Powell into a parking lot.

JO ANN TIERNEY
Gresham

Gresham Outlook, October 4, 2006

Poor planning is paving way for Wal-Mart

There seems to be a lot of activity of roads being built up on Powell. Are you telling me none of that money has come from Wal-mart? Right around the future store, all these poor rentals are being built – customers for Wal-mart? One more interesting thing I see on Powell, you cannot get to local businesses easily because of all the supposed cement dividers with planters being put in. Looks like another way for Wal-mart to have more customers. People don’t want the hassle of having to turn around to get to, say, the local paint store.

I am ready to move out of Gresham. I have a decent house right in West Gresham with a decent neighborhood, yet it appears Gresham does not care about good neighborhoods. The planning just does not seem to look at that. You can see it with Rockwood as well. It’s getting worse and worse.

The decisions that are being made here in this town will be looked at with disdain in years to come. Whatever happened to pursuing a Trader Joes?

SHERRY CONNER
Gresham

Gresham Outlook, September 27, 2006

Wal-Mart isn’t the best fit for area

Alas, poor Matthew Vantress can’t seem to get beyond his own bias, for if he had read the entire government report on Wal-Mart, he wouldn’t still be in denial. Mr. Vantress’s continued diatribe about the subject in question leads me to believe he did not assimilate or comprehend the contents, or he wouldn’t continue to harp on the subject. He rambles on and on about the alleged propaganda and unions in his statements. And yes, many employees are subsidized, and that is fact.

If Wal-Mart is so aboveboard with its wages and benefits, how come there are so many lawsuits pending against it? How come it is continually under fire for its business practices?

There are many retailers out there that are now employee-owned and others that give their part-time employees liveable wages and benefits. Some of the retailers Mr. Vantress has mentioned pay very well, not to mention their benefit packages. And those are the facts.

Many of the retailers that Mr. Vantress has brought to light in his statement have locations that can indeed handle the additional traffic.

Yes, the site in question is looking rather grim right now, but a big-box store is not the answer. Again, the much anticipated traffic it would bring would be a detriment to the area. Maybe something more conducive to the area would be the answer, such as a park that everyone could benefit from, since there is the Springwater Trail nearby. Or some smaller retailer(s) tailored to the area and that everyone would benefit from, including the employees.

My comments have not in any way been whiny but have been statements and facts. He still fails to grasp the real issue here. There will be too much traffic for the small site in question. My comments are in no way meant to be insulting to Mr. Vantress’ intelligence.

Alyson Huntting
Gresham

Gresham Outlook, September 13, 2006

Wal-Mart will cost residents in the long run

I would suggest Matthew Vantress, letter in the Saturday, Sept. 9, edition of The Outlook, still has his head in the clouds, as he is the biased one, still choosing not to read the real facts behind the big-box corporation.

If he had gotten beyond his bias towards Wal-Mart and read other Web sites, he would understand. The government isn't trying to tell anyone of us where to shop, but is just stating real, hard facts about the consequences of the invasive big-box store. Statistics don't lie. They have no reason to do so. As for the recent accidents at that intersection, Mr. Vantress apparently didn't read enough of the article to understand that the fire truck had problems negotiating the intersection. Yes, the traffic at that area has been handled, but it is getting more congested with more home building in the area, and I think our residents deserve safety as a top priority. Adding any more traffic to that area is not safe.

Mr. Vantress also goes on to state he speaks with the employees and that they seem happy. Did it ever occur to him that they might not be telling the truth? They might be apprehensive to speak the truth to a stranger, not knowing if they are a Wal-Mart management employee or a secret shopper. I have, indeed, spoken to employees of the store in question, and they are not as happy as Mr. Vantress might think.

I encourage Mr. Vantress to do his shopping at whatever store he chooses. His lower prices will cost him in the long run.

ALYSON HUNTTING
Gresham

Gresham Outlook, September 9, 2006

Writer wrong about traffic, Wal-Mart’s impact

I think Ms. Riggs is a bit confused about her facts regarding Wal-Mart and her letter to the editor in the Aug. 26 edition of The Gresham Outlook. First of all, the recent decision regarding Wal-Mart was not made by city staffers, but by the hearings officer. Secondly, providing employment isn’t beneficial to the employees, but to corporate Wal-Mart.

The wages and benefits aren’t livable and many end up on our county tax rolls for additional assistance and at who’s cost? Ours, out of the taxes we now pay.

Ms. Riggs also goes on to mention that the traffic is growing all the time due to normal population expansion, and yes, we need to be prepared for it but additional traffic that this store tends to generate will be beyond safety factors for all in this area. The site is not a good fit for this residential neighborhood, and if Ms. Riggs would like to see the area cleaned up, having a Wal-Mart isn’t the solution. This isn’t a low-income neighborhood, so that won’t help them out much. But I would like to suggest to Ms. Riggs that she feel free to shop at the Wood Village Wal-Mart, as it is only about 5 miles from the site in question. I would also suggest a better site for its stores would be in areas more conducive to higher volume traffic, such as the two existing stores that are 5 miles from the proposed site. I travel down Southeast 182nd often, and it merges into Northeast Airport Way. Now that would be a better fit for Wal-Mart. It can handle the traffic better and has lots of vacant land in the area besides many businesses.

I hope that the decision made is made in the best interest for all of our residents, especially those living in the area in question. More traffic and less safety is not in our best interest.

Alyson Huntting
Gresham

Gresham Outlook, August 22, 2006

Letter writer needs a reality check about Wal-Mart

In response to Matthew Vantress letter of Aug. 12 (“Stop Complaining about Wal-Mart”): I was sorely disappointed in Vantress’ lack of knowledge regarding Wal-Mart’s business practices and their socio-economic impact on communities.

They may sell some of their products at a lower price than other retail stores but like everything else, it comes with strings attached. In this case, the lower prices mean more profit for corporate Wal-Mart as the employees aren’t benefiting.

Yes, I agree, other retailers could stand to lower their prices, but for the most part, they are all competitive. The reason Oregon has one of the higher unemployment rates in the nation isn’t because we don’t have a Wal-Mart on every corner.

Obviously Vantress hasn’t read the government report by Rep. George Miller of California or he would understand what kind of impact this box chain has on a community.

The main issue here isn’t just having a store that doesn’t fit in this residential neighborhood, but the impact of the traffic. This intersection cannot handle anymore traffic than is expected by having this retailer here and remain safe. For example, I doubt Vantress has witnessed the road rage going up Southwest Highland Road. It isn’t a pretty sight. We have a number of schools nearby plus neighborhoods. The safety of those living and going to school should be our first priority.

We already have two Wal-Marts within five miles of the intersection in question and both are in more business-like settings where the traffic seems to be handled more adequately. Granted, we may be the fourth largest city in Oregon, but we still have the ambiance of a close-knit community, and we would like to have it remain a safe one. And that means we need to consider the needs of our residents and their families.

Remember, at one time there were beautiful trees there before they were destroyed for a retailer that didn’t last.

ALYSON HUNTTING
Gresham

Gresham Outlook, August 9, 2006

Wal-Mart decision will not end well for Gresham

I’d like to, yet again, express my extreme displeasure with even the thought of another Wal-Mart in our area. There is an enormous Wal- Mart 15 minutes away off Interstate 84 and another on 82nd Avenue. Is the city of Gresham so unconcerned about its citizens and small businesses that it truly believes that THIS Wal-Mart can possibly be good for the city? Sure, it will create jobs – jobs that continue to leave families in poverty – or will Gresham be like Chicago and mandate that Wal-Mart pay a living wage – something in the range of $10 an hour plus benefits for a grand total of $13/hour. If not, why not?

I teach impoverished students and I’ve seen the effects of families struggling to live on minimum wage without benefits. Is that really the future we want for Gresham? How can we support a company that has been accused of withholding higher paying jobs from women? How can our wonderful little downtown area compete with a mass retailer that sells junk for very little money? We’ve already lost the Toy Bear – good for us that someone else wants to give it a go, but will this happen every time Wal-Mart drives a business out?

And what about safety? I notice that Wal-Mart has to work on traffic problems around Pleasant View Drive, 182nd/Powell, Powell/Powell Loop and 11th/ Highland. What about my neighborhood? I live on Battaglia Avenue, and unless I can be guaranteed that the city will continue to do construction at Battaglia and Division, how will my child be safe from speeders wanting to cut through from Division to Powell without waiting for any traffic lights?

The construction at Division has made this the quietest summer we’ve had since we’ve moved here.

For the most part, cars have not come flying through the neighborhood because it isn’t worth the time or effort to follow the detour around the construction. EVERY OTHER summer (and most springtime, fall and winter) drivers fly by my house, shaving those few precious minutes off their route.

Once that construction goes away, how will the city keep my neighborhood safe from Wal-Mart traffic that doesn’t want to wait at traffic lights at 182nd/Powell?

Will the death or injury of a child be the first time this neighborhood is considered? What about shopping carts? Will Wal-Mart be required to recover its carts that wander away from their store? Will it be fined for littering if it doesn’t?

What about the Springwater Trail? How can it truly do anything to keep that area safe and beautiful? Will it be policing the area? What real interest does it have in maintaining the beauty of our precious Springwater Trail?

Money is obviously no object to them (they don’t pay it out in wages, so they must have plenty in their own coffers), so will fines really make a difference when it doesn’t follow through with protecting this wonderful area? What about home values? Home values of those living close busy roads are often reduced. Now that road will become even busier – is it not the city’s responsibility to protect its current homeowners?

I can’t believe that the city has agreed to this miserable excuse for a business. Please, for the good of our children, our future and our land, reconsider this approval.

I know I am not alone. This will not come to a good end.

Denise Wilson-McBride, Casey McBride and Brenna McBride
Gresham

Gresham Outlook, August 2, 2006

Community said no to Wal-Mart, must continue to oppose it

As a person who works close to the proposed Wal-Mart and who lives in the southwest Gresham neighborhood, I was appalled when I received by letter news that the city of Gresham planners had approved the site for 182nd Avenue and Powell Boulevard.

I have a question for the planners; Do you think the residents are soft and will just let this go by? More than 6,000 neighbors said no, we are not going to just let Wal-Mart slip in and not fight it. We are not naive enough to realize what the bottom line here is money. I am sure the whole Powell project was funded by Wal-Mart. What a disaster that has been. Let’s put in sidewalks, so everyone can have fun walking to Wal-Mart!

As a concerned citizen of the community, I have advice for you, start saving the almighty Wal-Mart dollar. We are going to need it for added police officers for the increased crime rate and the multiple traffic crashes this intersection is sure to get.

But don’t bank your money just yet, we are like any other city in America, Wal-Mart, we just say no!

Sherry Anderson
Gresham

(Outlook Editor’s note: Funding for the $14 million Powell Boulevard project – nearly $11.6 million of which pays for road improvements – comes from a combination of $5.25 million in Oregon Transportation Investment Act dollars, $6 million in developer-paid transportation impact fees and $2.6 million in city capital improvement funds for new water, stormwater and sewer pipes.)

Maybe horrible traffic will close Wal-Mart

The 11 p.m. news reported that Gresham finally caved in and is letting Wal-Mart build its store at 182nd Avenue and Powell Boulevard. I’m not totally surprised. I knew Wal-Mart’s lawyers would eventually figure out how to use the system to beat Gresham into submission.

I heard one of the conditions imposed as part of the approval were traffic studies before and after the store is built. So my question is, when they complete the traffic study after the store is built and figure out the road system can’t handle the increased traffic, is Gresham going to make them tear down the store?

I guess the only thing we can hope for now is that the traffic gridlock that will most certainly occur once the new store opens will be bad enough to discourage anyone from trying to travel Powell Boulevard to get there. And if enough people can’t get there, Wal-Mart will close due to an unprofitable operation.

Oh well, I guess I can get used to traveling to and from Gresham using Division or Stark streets in the future. Powell will someday soon become a linear parking lot for the folks wanting those great low prices. Maybe they should consider letting them build a Sam’s Club just to the east of the new Wal-Mart and then they could close Powell permanently between 174th and Birdsdale.

Craig W. Hovey
Portland

It’s sad that Gresham isn’t listening to the people

We got transferred to California for seven years and I was so glad to get back to God’s country. I can’t believe that Gresham accepted Wal-Mart’s new store. Powell is so congested now that it is narrowed, that cars backed up from 182nd Avenue to Eastman Parkway. Pure gridlock! Then add Wal-Mart traffic to this, and we will be worse than California.

Whoever granted this should purchase a house on 182nd Avenue to see how they have ruined Gresham. They should have to put up with the noisy trucks, traffic and crime. How a few speed bumps and bushes along Springwater Trail can make it right is ridiculous. It is so sad Gresham is getting so congested and not listening to the people.

JoAnn Tierney
Gresham

Gresham Outlook, May 18, 2005

Gresham code doesn't consider economic impact

I hope most of Gresham's residents are aware of the many reasons we should prevent Wal-Mart from developing a superstore on 182nd and Powell Boulevard.

What many people may not be aware of is the lack of city code protecting our community.

Currently Gresham does not require any consideration of the economic impact new development has on our city.

This serious lack of protection could be costly and nearly impossibly to repair if a business like Wal-Mart is allowed to develop here. As informed citizens, it is our responsibility to take action and ask our City Council members to protect Gresham's interests.

This is our city, not Wal-Mart's; we should be able to decide that if a business is bad for our local economy, it is not welcome.

MATTHEW NIGHTENGALE
Gresham

Gresham Outlook, May 02, 2005

Wal-Mart concerns are more than NIMBY

In response to George Schneider's letter, Wal-Mart NIMBYs in The Outlook on April 16.

First, keeping Wal-Mart from going in at this location is not going to keep people from being able to shop at Wal-Mart. Less than five miles from the proposed location is another Wal-Mart -- one that is currently being turned into a Supercenter. There are also other grocery stores to shop at other than Fred Meyer and QFC -- WinCo Foods is quite reasonable in its prices and affordable for those families on a tight budget.

Second, Wal-Mart's business practices are our business as long as it hurts the communities it moves into. When a city considers whether or not to approve a business coming in, it isn't doing its job if it doesn't consider whether or not it will hurt the community. Wal-Mart means small businesses will close and people who are earning family-wage jobs will be out of work. I guess they could always go work at Wal-Mart for several dollars less per hour, get no benefits, and instead rely on food stamps, the Oregon Health Plan and other taxpayer-funded programs. And all the women should also give up any hopes of ever getting a promotion, as the facts show Wal-Mart discriminates against women.

Third, you are absolutely wrong about most of the traffic approaching using 182nd Avenue. Much of the traffic will cut through side streets, such as through the subdivision on the northeast corner of the intersection, or will come off surrounding streets such as Pleasant View, Highland, 14th Street, and Powell Boulevard. And 182nd Avenue already backs up during the busy times of the day. I regularly sit through four-plus lights while waiting to make a left onto Powell. It will only get worse.

It will also make an already huge right-of-way problem a nightmare for firetrucks and ambulances in the area.

Fourth, you are also wrong about us wanting some "EnviroGreenCo" coming into the space. We want a business, or businesses, that fit the area. The property is zoned community commercial, which is supposed to be geared towards pedestrian traffic. A smaller grocery store, such as Trader Joe's, community center, park, mix of various smaller businesses would all be welcome at the location. A 200,000-plus square foot building plus 1,000 parking spaces on less than 10 acres, which is what it is when you don't count McDonalds and the Brake Shop, does not fit into an area that is more than 90 percent residential.

Loss of tax revenue? Go take a look at cities where Wal-Mart has gone in. Wal-Mart costs the city more than it pays in taxes. First, it gets tax breaks for bringing in new business. Then it forces other places out of business, which is a loss of taxes for the city. And let's not forget the decrease in taxes because home values in the area drop.

Unlike you, I live in this area. I drive these streets every day. I watch kids walk to the nearby schools. I see the traffic nightmare we already have on our local streets. Having lived in Texas for 22 years, one of the Wal-Mart capitols of the country, I know exactly what happens when a Wal-Mart moves in. We are fighting for what is best for this city and its residents, no matter what you may think.

JENNI SIMONIS
Southwest neighborhood resident
Gresham

Gresham Outlook, April 20, 2005

If you want a Wal-Mart, try living near one

I can't believe how uninformed George Schneider is in his comments on Wal-Mart (Letters, April 16). George, since it's obvious you've been living in a cave, let me give you my list on the Wal-Mart issue.

1. I live and work in the neighborhood for the proposed Wal-Mart, and no, the roads will not be able to handle the traffic.

There is a fire station up the road, and the fire trucks have trouble negotiating the already congested intersection. Also there are several rest homes in which ambulances are constantly going in and out of, not to mention the nearby schools.

2. Arguments about the wages and benefits of Wal-Mart are everyone's business. Oregon is in a deep recession, and living wages matter. Wal-Mart just plays dirty. They don't treat their employees well, and a lot of employees have to use state services to make ends meet. Not to mention the competition of the surrounding businesses that have to compete with their low-priced junk.

3. I just came back from Flagstaff, Ariz., where their big issue was putting a Wal-Mart in. If it's no big deal, then why is the entire country opposed to this? I don't know what you do for a living, but you obviously don't care about your fellow man.

Everyone deserves a decent living wage. Corporate America should not rule; the little man does matter.

4. Finally, it's funny how it's no big deal for you, and you sign your address as Kelly Creek, several miles away. Come and sit at the McDonald's near us for a couple of hours and see how congested this site is. I could say build it near your home, but I wouldn't wish that store on any neighborhood.

SHERRY ANDERSON
Southwest Gresham

Gresham Outlook, April 18, 2005

Wal-Mart NIMBYs: Put your money where your mouths are

Here is my 2 cents' worth on the Wal-Mart issue.

1. Wal-Mart is the exact place our Gresham citizens need to be able to shop in. When you earn just over minimum wage, as many area residents do, you can't shop at QFC (which is why that chain failed here), and sometimes even Fred Meyer is a bit spendy.

2. Arguments about Wal-Mart's wages, product lines and other company policies are none of our business, they are Wal-Mart's business.

3. Traffic management is an issue, but since most store traffic will be approaching the store on Southeast 182nd Avenue, a wide, five-lane boulevard, into the well-signaled Powell Boulevard intersection, I don't see any issue with traffic impact that can't be resolved.

4. The NIMBYs that raise this fuss won't be happy until some EnviroGreenCo comes in, pays too much for the site, and puts in a Center to Study Global Warming which employs $150,000/year scientists. That's not going to happen. The coffee you folks need to wake up and smell sells for $3.69 for 3 pounds at Wal-Mart, not $3.50 for one cup at Starbucks.

I call for the question. These NIMBYs should not be allowed to crush this valuable deal with their delaying tactics. Let's get a ballot question going to demonstrate the city's resolve here.

Up or down. Do we want the Wal-Mart? If we do, I suggest requiring the NIMBYs to post a bond equal to the amount of loss of tax revenue from the completed store for any more delaying actions. When we know that they are putting their wallets where their mouths are, we will then, and only then, know that they are sincere.
By the way, I don't work for Wal-Mart, own any of their stock, or even shop there.

GEORGE SCHNEIDER
Kelly Creek Neighborhood

Gresham Outlook, April 12, 2005

Dear Mayor Becker and City Council Members

I am writing to express just a few of my concerns about what would happen to our community should Wal-Mart be allowed to proceed with its plans to build at the 182nd Avenue and Powell Boulevard site in Gresham.

Studies have shown that for every two jobs Wal-Mart brings to a community, three family-wage jobs are lost. I witnessed this firsthand as I watched my brother and his wife close their clothing store in Hermiston a year or so after Wal-Mart came to their town. Their story is a prime example of what Wal-Mart does to decimate communities.

The Chamber of Commerce tried many marketing programs to keep shoppers patronizing the home town stores, but ultimately the super chain took its toll on small, locally owned retailers. We should not do that to local businesses here that have contributed so much to the fabric of our community, some of them for many, many years.

Wal-Mart employees, with the exception of a few managers, qualify for the Oregon Health Plan, the Oregon Trail food stamp card, food boxes, Toy and Joy at Christmas and the children of these employees qualify for free or reduced price lunches at our schools. It is patently unfair for the state and federal government, as well as local charitable groups, to have to subsidize a low-wage work force for Wal-Mart. We can demand better than this.

We need to be bringing in companies that pay their employees a living wage with real benefits, and that will add to the livability of our community. Our city could demand that all new businesses of a certain size (yearly gross receipts) have wage parity, so that workers could be assured that they would be able to make ends meet without charity.

The costs associated with a Wal-Mart are not limited to government gimme programs. Local homeowners are scared to death that property values will drop, or, at best, stay stagnant. This will cause many quality families to sell and leave the area. It is already being talked about in many circles.

Having a Wal-mart, with the associated noise, trucks, pollution, and traffic problems will not add to our neighborhood's quality, it will deteriorate it. What we gain in increased property taxes collected from them will not offset the costs of decreased property values, nor will it pay to recoup lost jobs when locally owned businesses close their doors.

The proposed 7,000 extra cars a day will create much noise and pollution, right in a corridor where hundreds of children walk to and from school each day. The noise and danger cannot be mitigated with fine architectural design or landscaping.

Yes, the site has already been developed, and someone needs to fill that space, but Wal-Mart is not the proper tenant. With an abysmal record of human rights violations, and shameful policy about which birth control products can be sold through its pharmacies, Wal-Mart has proven it is no friend to women and minorities. It is not a good match for the values we appreciate and encourage.

I would ask that the planners broaden their scope of what is taken into consideration for the traffic infrastructure. Powell is a bottleneck for several miles to the west. Since Powell is a state highway, and the state does not have money to buy easements and widen the road, it will remain a bottleneck. Having a Wal-Mart attracting east Portlanders will only exacerbate traffic problems there. The site is too small. The infrastructure is not adequate. There are many reasons this will be bad for Gresham.

Please consider the residents who have to live in the area. You are our elected officials. We depend on you to protect us. If after all the public testimony and traffic impact studies, you allow Wal-Mart to build on the proposed site, you will show us that you are not impartial. It is not worth it. If Wal-Mart comes to this site, we will all lose.

CARMEN LOHKAMP
Gresham

Gresham Outlook, March 21, 2005

Thanks for article about Wal-Mart concerns
Thank you for the article in the March 9 issue about Gresham First and our concerns about the proposed Wal-Mart store at 182nd and Powell.

The traffic problem will be nothing less than a monster in our city of Gresham. The store will add 7,000 vehicles per day visiting the site. Even if Powell were two lanes in each direction it would not begin to handle the congestion.
I hope you can address these issues again in more follow-up articles in The Outlook.

Thanks for a great paper.

JIM BRISCHLER
Gresham

Citizens will pay for misplaced Wal-Mart
I am 81 years old and am finally writing a protest about an issue that concerns so many Gresham residents.
My residence is located one block south and two blocks east of Powell Boulevard. The number of cars traveling both east and west on Powell is unreal.

Birdsdale is a favorite route for commuters to use when heading south or east. Trying to make a left turn onto Powell from the south is almost taking your life in your hands. And the wait to turn is too long, sometimes it takes two lights.
Traffic on the corner of 181st Avenue and Powell is almost dangerously congested already. Regular pedestrian traffic is unsafe as well as school children who would be affected.

Oregon is known to be environmentally friendly and this would be a danger to the trees, Springwater Trail, Johnson Creek and Fairview Creek and the wildlife habitat near there.

People may save some money shopping at Wal-Mart, but they should come to realize that it would involve more than a lifetime to compensate for their property value depreciation.

If Gresham City Hall's decision is in favor of Wal-Mart in order to gain financially, residents and citizens, as usual, will pay the cost.

Please consider the many areas that have refused to allow Wal-Mart to locate there and follow their example.

MARY K. SHARLSON
Gresham

Gresham Outlook, March 14, 2005

Proposed Wal-Mart raises safety concerns
I am writing today to share my concerns regarding the proposed Wal-Mart shopping center on 182nd and Powell. As a member of the surrounding neighborhood, I am fearful of the impact that this store may have on my community and the safety of the children who reside there.

There are many reasons why I don't think the proposed site is appropriate, such as the negative impact on the environment, but I am very concerned about the safety issues caused by an increase in traffic.

Construction is currently being done in that intersection, and even this change is making travel in that area dangerous and very time-consuming. I can't image how bad traffic and congestion would be in that area if we added 1,000 extra vehicles from the proposed Wal-Mart. Three schools are located near that area, and many students walk to and from school. My son walks home from Centennial Middle School, and occasionally he also will walk from our home to businesses or to the Springwater Trail which is located in that area. If the traffic in that area is increased, I no longer may allow him to walk to and from these sites.

Oregon has one of the highest childhood obesity rates in the nation, so planning for Gresham should focus on increasing pedestrian and bicycle travel, not discourage these forms of transportation and exercise. The proposed site for Wal-Mart with space for 1,000 vehicles definitely would discourage pedestrian and bicycle travel and would greatly interfere with accessing and enjoying the Springwater Trail.

I hope the mayor and City Council will look at the Wal-Mart proposal and decide that the site is not appropriate for our community.

Let's put Gresham and the safety of our children first!

BARBARA ZEAL
Gresham

Gresham Outlook, March 7, 2005

Traffic already nightmare at proposed Wal-Mart site
I can only conclude that Sharon Petri, who says Gresham should be grateful for a Wal-Mart, does not live anywhere near Powell and Highland, the proposed site for the new Wal-Mart.

I live just down 11th Street and have noticed a drastic difference in the traffic just since the Safeway gas station.
Every morning and every evening during rush hour, you put your life at risk trying to navigate the daily chaos at the two intersections of Powell and 182nd/Highland and 11th and Highland.

If we throw in a Wal-Mart SuperCenter with an expected 7,000 additional vehicles trying to get in or out of the area, we might as well put up a sign that says "demolition derby."

I would like to invite Sharon Petri to come down to the intersection from about 4 p.m. until 6:30 p.m. so she could witness the chaos firsthand.

I'll even let her hold a flag for all the drag races that occur as cars go from north to south on Highland. Not only do they speed, but they are also playing "chicken" as Highland goes from two lanes to one. That will really get your heart started.

MIKE MATTINGLY
Gresham

Gresham Outlook, March 1, 2005

Gresham should be grateful for Wal-Mart
Bring on a Gresham Wal-Mart. How many other stores can employ 300 to 400 people? There will be no problem filling those positions. Those who cite traffic to oppose this store are throwing a smokescreen on their real agenda, which is to dismiss a Wal-Mart because of their own union agendas. If no one likes a big store, why is its parking lots full of shoppers? Everyone loves a bargain, and there are those who really need those bargains to live well.

Thanks Wal-Mart for even considering Gresham as your next stop. The city officials should do everything possible to get the store here. They lost Albertsons on Orient Drive, so Albertsons jumped to Troutdale and now has a thriving shopping center on Stark Street. Go Wal-Mart!

SHARON PETRI
Gresham

Please note: The Albertson's on Stark Street in Troutdale actually replaced an Albertson's already in that city. They moved from the corner of Stark and Hogan to a location a few blocks east on Stark Street. This gave them a larger location, which they wanted for their newly designed store. This store did not replace a grocery store in Gresham.

Gresham Outlook, February 9, 2005

Couple appreciated the column on Wal-Mart
Dear Flint Carlton, My husband and I were delighted to read your article in The Outlook. Three cheers for you.

We don't understand (either) why there is such a controversy about Wal-Mart wanting that spot. Yes, it is amazing how no one complained when QFC went in there -- at least not that I remember. I would think the only one to complain would be Safeway. We do hope Wal-Mart gets the clearance it needs to build. We love the store over in Wood Village, but this one would be more convenient. And we like Wal-Mart.

Traffic, traffic -- big deal. We already have too much in Gresham, what's a bit more?

KEN and MARTHA DEGRAZIA
Gresham

Who'll shop at Wal-Mart? Not this writer
Regarding your letter to the editor "Who'll shop at Wal-Mart ?" by Pam Benjamin (Gresham Outlook Feb. 2, 2005):
I was one of those people at that meeting not wanting the store in my neighborhood, and I will venture to guess Ms. Benjamin is incorrect in her statement that 375 of those same people will shop there if it is built in the site suggested. These people at the meeting mean what they state -- we don't need it, we don't want it and we won't shop there if it is eventually built.

We all work hard for our money, but that doesn't mean we condone unfair labor practices or unfair treatment of employees.
Lower prices don't necessarily mean a store will have employees who will be there to help you or cut down on the unsupervised children running around, or the safety factor (or lack of) in underground parking. We already have that big box store in the area near the freeway, and that is more than is needed now.

We are already a nice, rural, upscale neighborhood and wish to keep it that way. If Ms. Benjamin wishes to shop the big box store with the "allegedly lower prices," let her get on the road to the freeway to her store where it belongs, away from nice neighborhoods like ours.

ALYSON HUNTTING
Gresham

Gresham Outlook, February 7, 2005

Wal-Mart isn't good fit for Gresham site
I am Kevin Allmaras, I was misquoted about Wal-mart losing a discrimination lawsuit. They haven't lost, (yet) the case is still pending. While it is true that I don't want a Wal-Mart anywhere, this is truly a bad site. We already have major traffic problems and Johnson and Fairview creeks are both nearby. The added pollution and trash would surely have an effect on these creeks. I am wary of the city planners doing what is best for the community in both the short and long term. Just look at all of the apartments, causing major traffic congestion and huge fluctuations in school class size. We also have traffic problems on Powell and Division now. Wal-Mart will only make matters worse. The city also needs to look at the effect on small businesses. Look at other Wal-Marts in neighborhood locations and see what effect it has had on local businesses. For me personally, the economic, labor, legal and health insurance reasons are enough, not to mention the traffic and pollution. I urge everyone to do their homework on this one, government and citizens.

KEVIN ALLMARAS
Gresham

Writer shows "good sense' in Wal-Mart column
Well, Flint Carlton is not only an exceptional photographer; we find he is also an intelligent, insightful, good-sense writer. His column on Wal-Mart applies the wisdom of classical economics.

Merchandising that gives the consumer the best price for the buck leaves more money in the hands of the consumer. She, then, has more to spend in support of other local businesses.

Also, Carlton doesn't fall for the "big box" strawman. The purpose of such a phrase is to emotionally prejudice. Would Wal-Mart be acceptable in a small box? In a barrel?

Another irony: If Wal-Mart creates traffic and parking problems, it is because many, many wise shoppers choose to shop there. The public always "votes" with its pocketbooks.

A sensible community will seek businesses that have proven success. They, then, will do all they can do to help that business achieve maximum success.

FRANK MAGUIRE
Fairview

Gresham Outlook, January 31, 2005

Full Wal-Mart meeting good for community
Thursday night's informational meeting put on by Wal-Mart with the assistance of the Southwest and Centennial neighborhood associations and the city's Neighborhood Involvement Office was one of the largest gatherings on a land-use issue in the city's recent history.

As part of the city's required Early Neighborhood Notification Process, more than 16,000 notices were sent out and more than 400 residents came out to give their views on Wal-Mart's proposal to site on commercially zoned property at 182nd Avenue and Powell Boulevard. The interest in the planning and development of our community is high and is very good for the long-term growth of Gresham.

Now a word on the process and where the proposal for a Wal-Mart goes from here. Wal-Mart representatives met with the city staff as part of a routine pre-application conference on Nov. 10, 2004. The city requirements, including the Early Neighborhood Notification Process, were described.

Although Wal-Mart has not filed an application as of this date, it is expected that it will file for a Design Review, Type II permit. While the current zoning on the site is consistent with commercial uses, the applicant has to demonstrate compliance with a number of regulations, including parking, building heights, traffic impacts, landscaping, etc. This review generally takes 90 days from when a complete application is filed. Appeals to a Type II staff decision are made to the city's hearing officer. Further appeals would go to the state Land Use Board of Appeals.

Working with neighborhood associations and interested citizens, we will keep people informed about this process as it may move forward. In anticipation of the need for analysis on traffic issues, the city has already arranged to have an independent traffic consultant review the work of Wal-Mart and city staff members if an application is filed as we expect.

ED GALLAGHER
director of Community and Economic Development Department

Gresham Outlook, January 19, 2005

Bring Trader Joe's, not Wal-Mart, to old QFC site
I am glad to hear at least one Gresham resident will be walking to Wal-Mart if/when it comes to the old QFC location at 182nd and Powell, because the roads leading to it were not designed for the great increase in traffic that is sure to occur when the large store comes in (Pam Benjamin, Letters, Jan. 12).

Trying to get through that intersection at rush hour is already a test of patience. Add the traffic that Wal-Mart generates and it will be sheer chaos. Perhaps a smaller-scale store is in order for that location. We already have a Wal-Mart nearby.
How about a Trader Joe's instead? It would serve the needs of the community better, and the traffic generated would not be such a burden to the nearby residential zones. Trader Joe's has medical and dental benefits for their employees. Many Gresham residents, myself included, drive across town to "hop TJ's" already. They have great products at reasonable prices.

CARMEN LOHKAMP
Gresham

Gresham Outlook, January 12, 2005

Some neighbors happy about shopping options
Reading the headline in Saturday's (Jan. 8) Outlook, "Neighbors quiet" in regard to the proposed new Wal-Mart at 181st Avenue and Powell Boulevard, I have opted to speak up. As a "neighbor" living near the intersection of Northwest Birdsdale Avenue and West Powell, I am equally located between historic downtown Gresham and the proposed new Wal-Mart store.

My reaction to the news of the proposed Wal-Mart was to call all my friends and brag that I might soon have one of my favorite discount stores within a mile's walking distance of my home. Their reaction was one of envy.

Much as I love shopping and browsing through historic downtown Gresham, if I want a good deal on paper towels or light bulbs, give me my Wal-Mart! If I want fine dining, my shoes repaired, the best bagels in town or quality jewelry, I will head straight for downtown Gresham just like I've always done. Come on Gresham business owners, let the "new kid" in the neighborhood "play," too. There are enough of us with different kinds of shopping needs to go around.

PAM BENJAMIN
Gresham

Gresham Outlook, December 20, 2004

Thoughts on schools, Wal-Mart and skate park
As I compose this letter, I think back to my early years within the Centennial School District from elementary through high school and then watching my sons graduate from there also. During a larger portion of that time period our district was able to stem the budget woes by "borrowing from Peter to pay Paul."

Unfortunately, as the district grew, Peter finally ran out of funds and with very little tax base in the district, many programs have suffered. After many tries and hard work, a bond levy for improvements and a new elementary school was finally passed. In some ways, the recent bond levy was just a Band-Aid to help meet enrollment and high education standards in our district go forward.

Needless to say, the average community member does not see the hidden costs and needs required to keep our district on a positive path in assisting our youth in bettering their education. Even though my sons have long graduated, I still keep my nose in the "district door" and try to stay informed.

In regards to the potential of a new Wal-Mart located on Southeast Powell Boulevard, I say bring it on. It is my understanding that prior to QFC, another high-profile retailer had wanted to build on the site in question, but because of pressure from various groups within the district, they said forget it and moved to another site here in East County. They settled on QFC, which reneged on various promises and finally vacated the property. Naysayers focus the conversations about Wal-Mart on its reputation for low wages and discriminatory history, but it is important to take a larger look at the entire picture.

At times, Centennial is portrayed as an elite school district or middle class, but the reality is that Centennial is diverse and the percentage of low-income families and families where English is the second language within our school district boundaries grows at a high rate. Ask yourself how many of these folks would welcome the opportunity to earn $9 or $10 an hour at a place of business close to their home and school?

Take a moment and think about the tax base from businesses in the district. There are virtually none, and land is a premium, which makes building new businesses difficult. So do we keep discouraging large businesses which are interested in moving into our district? You would think we could learn from Portland's mistakes as business after business is looking to leave the city core and go either across the river or to the suburbs.

One needs to get realistic, as businesses don't need us as much as need them. When the opportunity arises, we need to reach out and grab that "proverbial straw." Ask yourself, how long do we want to sit on an empty eyesore (QFC), or are we willing to see another unfilled strip mall go into our neighborhood?

Last but not least, someone also mentioned the possibility of a skate park in that same location, funded by Wal-Mart. It is an interesting idea, and if Gresham were willing to donate an area that is accessible to mass transit for such a park, maybe a business like Wal-Mart would be willing to donate toward such a venture. Our east county youth are worth it.
STAN CIOETA
Southeast Portland

Gresham Outlook, December 10, 2004

We do not need another Wal-Mart in area
Wal-Mart, Wal-Mart. That's just what we need -- another Wal-Mart.

Some say that it will bring hundreds of jobs to Gresham if they open a new store. I have to ask, just how is that to be done? To employ people, any retailer must sell products. To sell products requires customer dollars. Where will all those new dollars come from? New Wal-Mart employees? No, from dollars now spent at Bi-Mart, Safeway, Albertsons, Target, and dozens of smaller businesses, some of which have been around for many decades. These make up the business community we call Gresham. There are only so many customer dollars in Gresham. More retail outlets won't generate more customer dollars. QFC found that out when they abandoned the site Wal-Mart is planning to use.

Unlike the smaller businesses that are locally owned, Wal-Mart is managed by Eastern executives and owned by big stockholders with far more money than 99 percent of us that live in Gresham. Do we want more business profits to stay in our communities or to leave Oregon?

Wal-Mart has a reputation in many parts of the country that is not good. Let's take a moment and look at this company's record.

Sued by the government for unfair and illegal pay and employment practices .
Reputation in the trucking industry for underpaying its bills.
Reputation among suppliers for being slow to pay bills.
Shuns USA products in favor of Chinese and other imported products.
Drives out established businesses, costing long-term employees their jobs.

If this is what Gresham needs, heaven help us.

STEVE JONES
Gresham

Don't stop Wal-Mart, widen Powell
Regarding the editorial (Nov. 17) about Wal-Mart wishing to have a store on Powell Boulevard in the area formerly occupied by the QFC, it may be remembered by some oldtime residents when Fred Meyer wanted to build in the heart of Gresham and the drug store on Powell Boulevard stopped the plan.

The plan to have a Wal-Mart store in the area would be good for taxpayers.

The main thing wrong is that the city of Gresham has failed to solve the traffic problem years ago. I think it was in the late 1960s or early '70s, Powell Boulevard was going to be widened to help with the heavy traffic we were getting in Gresham. All landowners on the proposed route had to sell their property under the law of eminent domain and one of my friends was given five weeks to move.

The proposed Mount Hood Freeway was stopped by Gov. Robert Straub, Mel Gordon, city commissioner, and Neil Goldschmidt. The highway still needs widening so that traffic can flow more easily. Neil Goldschmidt was the main one who stopped this improvement and about the same time he stopped the plan to build Interstate 205.

He said that that freeway was not necessary, and when it was finally built, it cost many extra millions of dollars per mile to construct. We rewarded Mr. Goldschmidt by making him mayor and governor, and he was paid millions for his advice.

A few weeks ago, you had a picture of a man taking pictures of the area that would have sidewalks installed along Powell. Powell needs to be straightened and widened instead of having sidewalks. Who is in charge of the budgeting and why are the authorities saying we don't have money for policemen and firemen?

We need to fix the traffic problem instead of stopping Wal-Mart from building. Sooner or later the traffic problem will need to be addressed. Wal-Mart in this area will create hundreds of jobs.

CLAIRE STICKEL
Gresham

Gresham Outlook, December 01, 2004

Proposed Wal-Mart site will not work
What has Gresham done this time to get the stage set for a Wal-Mart at the corner of Southeast 182nd Avenue and Powell Boulevard in West Gresham? I read in the paper and watch on television news about Hillsboro and Tualatin getting new upscale developments.

This new plan to replace the abandoned broken-window QFC store will not work. First the traffic on this two-lane Highway 26 is already close to capacity.

The most limiting factor is building a two-story underground parking structure in an area with a high water table. The Western red cedars removed from the site had wet feet and that is natural for them. Just south of the planned structure is the "protected" Springwater Trail and Johnson Creek.

Why not use the land for its best use. One suggestion is to put in a skateboard park since no other site seems available. There is bus service, plenty of space for parking and fast food restaurants nearby.

RON GOODWIN
East Portland

We don't need a Wal-Mart on 181st
Gresham is such a beautiful city with its historic downtown and classic homes I really worry about Wal-Mart opening a store on 181st. There is a traffic problem on Powell and 181st already. Neighbors protested QFC because of this. Gresham definitely doesn't need a megastore that pays minimum wages, sells mostly imported merchandise and has expensive health coverage which their employees can't afford. We end up paying this with higher taxes and lost jobs. I'm praying that Wal-Mart isn't allowed to build on 181st .

It will ruin Gresham, increase our taxes, increase traffic, noise and be a bad investment. There is one on Sandy Boulevard for anyone who wants to shop there.

JoANN LESLIE
Gresham

Gresham Outlook, November 24, 2004

Wal-Mart devastating to small businesses
Your recent editorial concerning a new Wal-Mart store at 182nd Avenue and Powell Boulevard points out the traffic problems it could create but says nothing about the impact it would have on the community.

Earlier in the week I watched a documentary of the history of Wal-Mart on TV Channel 10. This only verified what is common knowledge to those who follow Wal-Mart and its method of doing business.

Its motive is profits. Whether it's putting suppliers out of business for not meeting its demands, encouraging them to move abroad to take advantage of low-cost labor or failing to compensate its workers for overtime wages, it's just not the way to do business. The results are always the same -- putting small competitors out of business.

I just can't believe that a Wal-Mart store is what we need or want in this area. There is no way a small business can compete with this giant.

What will happen to our Bi-Mart stores? Kmart? Appliance stores, TV and electronic outlets and many more, which will all be affected by such competition? When those stores close, will all the out-of-work employees be hired by Wal-Mart? Probably not.
Rather than anticipating a few savings, we should be thinking about ways to encourage our good merchants to stay in business.
Please ignore the sales pitch of Wal-Mart and encourage our leaders to support our local merchants.

LEO. E. LARSEN
Gresham

»