Ontario, CA. City Loyalty Should Be To Ontario, Not Wal-Mart

City Council’s loyalty should be to Ontario, not Wal-Mart [Ontario Daily Bulletin]

Our city is for sale.

This is the message the Ontario Planning Commission sent on Aug. 30 when, in a special meeting in regarding the proposed construction of a Wal-Mart Supercenter at Mountain Avenue and Fifth Street, the commission unanimously voted to go ahead with the project, despite the abundant problems inherent in the project, including several highlighted by its own Environmental Impact Report.

According to the EIR, “traffic, noise and air quality impacts from vehicle trips and emissions associated with the proposed project would remain significant and unavoidable, even after mitigation ...”

And yet, the city chose to adopt a Statement of Overriding Considerations.

This is not simply a matter of convenience, although the traffic will inevitably, as noted, worsen significantly. At its core, this is a matter of public health, safety and fiscal responsibility.

The ultimate adoption of this project is a vote for more traffic, pollution and the attendant traffic and health hazards that will ensue, such as an increase in the noise level, decreased air quality, the likely increase of respiratory problems such as asthma, and an increase in the severity of those conditions that already exist.

In addition, when asked by concerned citizens if they had even read the EIR, the commission members simply sat, stone-faced and silent, without comment.

Mayor Leon, while refusing to confirm if he had read it, did attempt to create the impression that he had by holding up a copy, waving it around for a moment and smiling. It was a valiant effort, and one which strongly suggests how little he thinks of the citizens and their intelligence, to say nothing of the truth.

The city has made no legitimate attempt to address the concerns of local citizens as to the rationale behind placing a Super Wal-Mart in the middle of a residential area.

As it stands, both Wal-Mart and the city are attempting to pose the situation as a choice between a renewed and “vibrant” shopping center and one of lingering “blight.”

What they’re not telling you is that there have been, and remain, more appropriate and viable options.

Over 10 years ago, the city began working with local residents to revitalize the area, the results of which are the new Edwards movie theater and the shopping center on the northeast side of Mountain and Sixth Street.

On the currently proposed plan site, a mixed-use commercial and residential area, much like that of Old Town Upland, had been planned.

Once the city began to court Wal-Mart, these plans came to a halt.

Interestingly, several years ago the city refused a Home Depot project, at Sixth Street and Mountain, similar to the one currently proposed, indicating that it did not meet the criteria set forth for the community’s needs and refusing the project on the same grounds it now chooses to ignore.

Suddenly, however, the city seems eager to overlook this discrepancy. Why?

It would seem, perhaps, that this willingness to change tunes is at least partially the result of the fact that Alan Wapner, in addition to his position as a City Council member, has worked as a paid consultant for Wal-Mart for the last several years.

Although he has recused himself from the hearings, and rightly so, as a member of the City Council he has been able to wield his influence, promote his agenda and set the table for such a project for the past many years. And, as a member of the City Council, he is afforded the role of choosing one of the members of the Planning Commission. Any guesses on which way his appointee voted?

Yes, it certainly does seem the bed is getting rather crowded.

And messy, which leads to my final point.

In the summer of 2004, the city was approached by, or more likely approached, Wal-Mart about building a store in Ontario. Shortly thereafter, beginning in January 2005, the city began purchasing what amounts to $5 million worth of bonds in Wal-Mart.

For anyone willing to see, it’s not too difficult to connect the dots. A vote for Wal-Mart is money for the city and increased bond revenue. A vote against, while ethically sound, would result in lost revenue.

How can the Planning Commission be an impartial judge in a case when its own fiscal concerns are at stake?

And so it goes.

The city’s own Financial Impact Report indicated that Albertsons, the anchor store of the Ontario Plaza on Fourth Street and Mountain, would be out of business within five years, thus moving the “blight” one block south.

Also, the loading dock for the proposed site is a mere 20 feet from an apartment complex. Eighty to 94 diesel trucks will be arriving weekly.

The city will have an opportunity to rectify the situation at Tuesday night’s meeting.

- Matt Clark is a resident of Ontario.