As I listen to a song on KMUN called The Tall Trees They Cut Down, I write to inform you of the impending opening of a Walmart Supercenter next to Costco, along Highway 101 in Warrenton. This post follows the recent letter to the editor in the Daily Astorian by Sara Meyer, who among many other activities, chairs the Clatsop Residents Against Walmart (CRAW).
I attended a meeting of that group last night, and found out the latest on the Walmart story. As you can see from the photo above, the new location for the biggest of big box stores is along 101 in the southernmost regions of the North Coast Business Park. By the way, this photo is the only evidence in print (or electrons) that there really is a Walmart being proposed for this location. It was distributed to local businesses in a pitch to get them to relocate to the Warrenton Highlands development across the highway from the retail business park. I got a copy at the CRAW meeting last night. The photo also shows some more chain stores and even a bank going into the business park.
Drawing for HIPFiSH cover, November 2009, by Joal Morris.
I’m struck by the similarity of the photo above to the cover drawing done by Joal Morris for an article I wrote in HIPFiSH in November 2009 called Paradise Lost? (see right). I wonder if some of the chain stores depicted in that 2009 drawing, which were rumored to be coming to the 101 corridor then, might show up soon in the real lineup. Looking at the For Sale signs along 101 in Warrenton, it certainly seems like some of the transactions I talked about in the 2009 article might come to pass.
As for Walmart, rumors have been circulating since at least 2009 that the retail giant would be locating in Warrenton somewhere, sometime soon. The bet then, and until recently, was the area along 101 behind the Les Schwab auto row at the intersection of Business 101 and the main line. That property is now bare and almost flat, drying out after recently being clear-cut, “just getting it ready to sell” according to Martin Nygaard, the property’s owner. No potential buyer has been identified, but Walmart and Nygaard have stated that it’s not going to be the long-rumored supercenter. Evidently, permits were too hard to get, the property wasn’t big enough, or some such technicality.
A company called Peaksview LLC (a front company for Ken Leahy, owner of the property, and also infamously owner of the property on which the Bradwood Landing LNG terminal was to be built) is applying for a wetland fill permit for the North Coast Business Park property indicated in the top photo. They got the Warrenton City Commission to agree that the wetlands there should be deemed “insignificant” in preparation for their permit application to the Oregon Department of State Lands (DSL). That application is currently up for public comment until 5:00 PM this Sunday – Mother’s Day, May 13. A decision by DSL that the wetlands cannot be filled, if upheld, would effectively stop the Walmart project, at least for now, at least in this place.
The good people of CRAW are asking that as many people as possible voice their opposition to the permit application to fill the wetlands on the affected property. Information about the application is available on DSL’s website, including to whom to send your comments. If you read this on Friday, May 11, then you can get more information about the permit from DSL’s Dan Cary, by calling him at 503-986-5302. I’ve spoken to Cary before on another issue, and he is very helpful and honest. You can also get some ideas for your comments from Cameron La Follette of Oregon Coast Alliance (ORCA) at 503-391-0210. ORCA submitted detailed comments on the permit application today.
No matter what DSL decides to do with the wetland fill permit application, the fight to keep Walmart out of our region will continue. And the saga of Paradise Lost on the 101 corridor through Warrenton continues as well. I encourage you to get and stay involved, and keep our elected leaders and the(ir?) corporate bosses accountable not only to you and other local residents and visitors, but also to the wildlife and beautiful landscape that we are blessed to call home, and, arguably, paradise still.
Editors Note: The original version of this post listed the deadline for comments as midnight on May 13, 2012 (as was understood by the author). The deadline is in fact 5:00 PM on May 13, 2012.
Thanks, rabbi Bob, for bringing this up. These were my comments to DSL: Any wetlands close to a river mouth are critical for wildlife. This area is in the middle of the bird migration routes, and placing large complexes here are bound to adversely effect water quality from the parking lot runoff, etc.
We are a tourist community, and our lifeblood depends our lovely views, wildlife, and charming little stores. Paradoxically, many of the supporters who want the low prices are the very ones who will eventually lose their jobs& livelihoods if Walmart & more big boxes are allowed here.
We’re already seeing the adverse economic fallout for small businesses from the other big boxes. Please write DSL and ask to deny the permit.
Good work, web-reb!! This is what grassroots media is all about.
My comment to DSL:
— Expect adverse impact to water resources.
— Project will unreasonably interfere with navigation, fishing and/or public recreation.
— Compensatory mitigation insufficient to compensate for adverse impacts.
— Recommend permit denial.
Loss of wetlands in this area is taking a toll on the scenic, recreational, and wildlife resources that support quality of life for residents and drive our tourist economy. As the owner of a 22-year-old bookstore I am concerned by the appearance of government catering to outside corporate interests over longstanding local businesses. I am also worried about additional drain on water resources that will increase utility costs. Ultimately those costs will adversely impact the whole area, not just Warrenton.
At a minimum, I ask you to extend the comment period on this application for at least two weeks. In my view the public has not been informed in a way that upholds the spirit of the law. The application merits notification by area media beyond those with a small audience in Warrenton. Transparency in the planning process is critical, and it is not upheld by minimal notice and a Sunday (Mother’s Day) deadline.
My comments got in just before the wire. Let’s hope that DSL extends the comment period, as requested by several of us. For the record, here are my comments:
DSL cannot take into consideration any information from the applicant on the basis of the suitability of the site to their profit margin, or any impacts due to other agencies demanding certain criteria, or convenience, or any other consideration not related to the impact of the development on the wetland and associated wildlife. The applicant’s introduction, talking about how driveways need to line up, or how the big box needs to be along the highway, or the impact on the adjacent lot’s utility, and other such factors should not be taken into consideration by DSL. These are economic factors, and have nothing to do with the statute that DSL is ruling on for impact to wetlands.
The alternative sites considered are even worse than the proposed site. Other alternatives that were not considered are in areas that are already developed and have no wetland issues, or to not build on any site in this area. The information given in the opening paragraph of the application is completely absurd. The service area of this retail center in Warrenton is nowhere near 100,000 people (Pacific, Clatsop and Tillamook county populations combined). Many people in Astoria, for instance, accomplish all their shopping in Astoria (like I do). Many people in Tillamook would not travel such a long distance to shave a few pennies off their shopping experience. Traveling a little more distance to Portland affords them an infinitely better shopping experience. For Raymond residents, a trip to Longview affords a better experience (though the sales tax is a problem). Finally, to say that there are no retailers in the area is to obviate the diverse stores and shops, including major retailers like J.C. Penney and Sears, in Astoria. To sum up, the people around here need another big box like a hole in the head. Without a demonstrable public need, the application obviously should be denied.
The mitigation site chosen is not as functional a wetland as the one that would be filled. The subject wetland is adjacent to the Skipanon River, which is a salmon-carrying tributary to the Columbia River which has had enormous pressure put on it by development in Warrenton. Recreation would be impacted, as the North Coast Business Park was supposed to have bicycle trails through it, and walking trails, which would have mitigated the increased congestion on the highway. In addition, the area is well known around here for elk and other wildlife corridor activity, and provision for impact to this activity is not even suggested in the application.
The applicant’s project doesn’t fulfill a public need, it doesn’t look at alternative sites that would better serve public need, it impacts the major river system in Warrenton, it precludes public recreation opportunities, and it impacts wildlife. It won’t increase jobs overall in the area, as many studies have shown that big boxes take away more jobs than they create. Most of the money made would be flowing outside the region. The mitigation site chosen isn’t comparable to the subject wetland. The applicant’s claims about service population are ludicrous, and their claims about retail shopping opportunities already present in the area are even more so. The permit should be denied.
The public process for this application is flawed, as the impacts of this kind of development would be felt by the entire region, and the call for comments, besides the DSL website, was only made known in the local Warrenton newspaper. Yes, the whole process follows the letter of the law, but not the intent. At the very least, the comment period for this application should be extended, with advertising in the daily regional paper, and other newspapers and periodicals in the area, so that those affected by this potential development would be allowed comment and feedback.
Thanks for your consideration of my comments. Bottom line — deny this permit on the grounds presented above.
Well, the comment period has come and gone, and will not be extended, according to Dan Cary, the DSL staffer whose territory includes Clatsop County, and who is reviewing this permit application. According to Cary, if 1000 people submit comments that all say about the same thing, DSL counts them all as one comment. And Cary, backed up by Julie Curtis, communication manager at DSL (who I just got off the phone with), also said that comments that don’t directly deal with the wetland fill permit rule are discarded. So, if a comment said something like “I hate Walmart, so you shouldn’t approve this permit”, they can’t consider it.
Cary said that there were only a few comments, and all of them were in the last 2 days of the official 30-day comment period. He seemed to think that maybe he would ask the applicant for some more information based on the comments he read so far, but it’s unlikely he’ll deny the permit. This application seemed pretty routine from my reading of it, and happens all the time in the Portland suburbs, so it’s really a slam dunk, unless there’s something I don’t know about.
Curtis is getting me some information about the rule and law on which the rule is based, so I can follow up and find out more about the public process, why the law was initially passed, and whether it makes sense to look into changing the statute or rule so that public input is more important in the process. I feel that most of the land use laws we have, which are supposedly the “best” in the country, are heavily slanted to the developers, and make it really difficult for activists to challenge development without hiring lawyers and spending a lot of money. Look at the LNG wars we’ve been having, as well as countless other battles.
It would be great if ULE readers and others would keep up the pressure on the local agencies, and think about the public process, and their willingness to engage in it. I find it disheartening that we have mounted a somewhat successful campaign against giant LNG companies, but haven’t really put much energy into stopping the paving of Warrenton adjacent to Highway 101. In overall impact, I think the retail juggernaut in Warrenton could have greater consequences for the region than LNG. Call me a crazy Jew… Oy!