“In pursuit of cheaper stuff, Vermonters need to be especially careful not to overload their winding roads and covered bridges, not to ruin their green rolling landscapes and not to empty out their small historic downtowns. More than a quarter of the state’s income comes from tourism, and nobody’s going to mail home a postcard of Wal-Mart.”

“Of all races in an advanced stage of civilization,
the American is the least accessible to long views…
Always and everywhere in a hurry to get rich,
he does not give a thought to remote consequences;
he sees only present advantages…
He does not remember,
he does not feel,
he lives in a materialist dream.”
—Moiseide Ostrogorski (1902)

June 7, 2007
Dear Senator Lyons,

The Northwest Citizens for Responsible Growth wish to express their support for your position on the wording of the rules governing Act 250 with regard to preservation of prime agricultural soils. The distinction between "and" and "or" is profoundly significant to the long-term viability of Vermont, both in terms of it's economic prospects and the simple ability to feed the population locally should that become essential. We live in an uncertain world where food security issues, fuel prices and political upheaval elsewhere could easily interrupt our food supply from distant sources.

Here in Franklin County, the NWCRG is struggling against efforts to convert some of the largest concentrations of prime-agricultural soils in the state to large-scale retail and residential development. Successful organic farms on the perimeters of these soils will be threatened. We cannot allow this to happen, as high quality Vermont farm products and the countryside in which they are grown represent the two most promising industries for Franklin County, as we embark on the twenty-first century.

Please let us know if there is anything we can do to help you in your efforts to preserve prime agricultural soils in Vermont.

Thank you.

Sue Prent, Spokesperson
Northwest Citizens for Responsible Growth
St. Albans, Vermont
(802) 524-5814

June 7, 2007
Dear Friends of Responsible Land-use and Local Economies,

This is a plea for support. We in the NWCRG find ourselves at a critical crossroads. If we are to continue our efforts to oppose the irresponsible conversion of prime agricultural soils and wetlands at Exit 19 of I-89, to large-scale retail, we must immediately come-up with some money to hire an attorney.

We have very little time in which to respond to the developer's Motion to Dismiss. We have filed for an extension in order to raise some funds to pay for legal representation. If we do not respond to the Motion to Dismiss, the judge will grant the motion, and we will no longer have a voice in the the Act 250 process for this development. If our arguments can't be heard at Act 250, that will pretty well guarantee that the developer wins and you'll soon see the southern entrance to St. Albans off of I-89 resembling Tafts Corners with all the traffic, pollution, environmental, aesthetic and economic impacts that goes with it.

We know that many of you are primarily focussed on the threat of sprawl at Exit 20. Our efforts at Exit 20 continue to frustrate the developer-driven sprawl that threatens that junction, but that battle is far from over. Already the developers and short-sighted St. Albans Town and Swanton administrators are trying to DOUBLE the overall area available for big box locations.

Unless we demonstrate our resolve and resources to oppose all highway-centric sprawl in Franklin County, we may win the battle against this Wal-mart, but lose the war against sprawl in the long run. We cannot afford to remain a one-project opposition force. We have been fortunate to have the support of the VNRC for our legal efforts against the JL Davis Wal-mart project; but we have no resources to direct our efforts anywhere else. Recognizing the importance of taking a stand against sprawl at Exit 19, we are appealing to you.

Many of us have had the pleasure of being quietly congratulated by some of our neighbors for the great job we are doing on behalf of the entire community. It's time to put that goodwill to the test and ask for some participation in the form of monetary contributions. Even better would be pro bono representation by one of the sympathetic legal professionals in Franklin County. We love all those words of support, but right now, we need HELP!

What's really at stake, you ask?

Disappearance of prime agricultural soils. The areas in St. Albans Town and Swanton that have been designated for large-scale retail development have some of the highest concentrations of prime agricultural soils in Vermont. The only other remaining area where concentrations are similar is around Bennington. Developers love to locate their projects on prime agricultural soils because they yield most readily to excavation. Of course, this means the permanent loss of the area to agriculture. It is shameful and outright folly to continue to allow the degradation of Vermont's principal economic resource to satisfy the short-term interests of a few developers and unimaginative administrators. Our economic future lies in our ability to exploit the cache that Vermont has in quality food marketing. Which brings me to our second point:

Food Security. Recent events should serve as cautionary tales for anyone doubting the necessity of protecting local lands for their eventual use to feed local populations. Not only is the cost of transporting our food over hundreds or thousands of miles in danger of becoming cost-prohibitive due to fuel cost pressures; but we can no longer ignore the fact that, by freely outsourcing our food production and passing it through so many hands before it reaches our tables, we are courting disaster in terms of food safety and availability.

Traffic. If we allow these mushrooms of sprawl at the Interstate exits in Franklin County, we will see worse traffic problems than they have in Williston. Rte. 104 doesn't have the capacity for this kind of load. It will turn a pretty nice rural drive into a polluted crawl through disappearing countryside. Bear in mind that, when the developer applied to the DRB to permit his large scale project at Exit 19, he maintained that his prime ag soils were "no longer farmable" due to the traffic! The DRB apparently agreed with this reasoning, as they issued the permit, despite our objections; but when the same argument had been raised by Hudak Farms in objecting to the Wal-mart proposal three-tenths of a mile from their organic farm, the DRB chose to ignore their plight and permit the project! V-Trans has raised serious concerns about the state of Rte. 104. even without considering the proposed development at Exit 19.

Aesthetics. Is this really what we want to be the gateway to Franklin County...a sea of concrete and big box retailers? How many tourists are going to find that attractive? Next Vermont grown and raised foods, tourism is our biggest business. Is the best future we can conceive of for Franklin County to be a retail quick-stop?

Degradation of the air, the watershed and natural environment in general.

Local Economy. The pressures that big box retailers can place on small local businesses will cause many to close with no opportunity for new local retailers to start-up in the community. The end result will be an overall decline in the tax base as increasing services are required to accommodate the "drive-through" traffic generated by national chains who are not invested in the community.

Please take this opportunity to contribute to the ongoing work we are doing to preserve a valuable way of life and the precious resources that we have here in Franklin County.

Northwest Citizens for Responsible Growth
P.O. Box 750
St. Albans, Vermont 05478
(802) 324-4139

May 8, 2007
Nuns a Security Threat to Wal-Mart

April 4, 2007
 Wal*Mart Takes Over the World 
 A Fatal Mistake by Wal*Mart 
 Children in India 
 Wal*Mart - Just Plain Evil 

April 4, 2007

Wal-Mart Dumped from one of the World's Largest Pension Funds

The Norwegian Government's pension fund, with $285 billion in holdings, is dropping Wal-Mart--the world's largest retailer--from its fund due to the use of child labor and systematic sweatshop abuses in its huge global supply chain.

In its 2006 Annual Report, released on March 20, 2007, the Council on Ethics for the Government Pension Fund-Global reached the following conclusion:

"There is no doubt...that Wal-Mart purchases a number of products that are manufactured under unacceptable conditions. There are numerous reports of child labor, serious violations of working hour regulations, wages below the local minimum, health-hazardous working conditions, unreasonable punishment, prohibition of unionization and extensive use of a production system that fosters working conditions bordering on forced labor, and employees being locked into production premises, etc. in Wal-Mart's supply chain. All the above examples represent violations of internationally recognized standards for labor rights and human rights." (page 27)

"The Petroleum Fund's Council on Ethics considers that there is an unacceptable risk that the fund, through its investments in Wal-Mart Stores Inc., and Wal-Mart de Mexico SA, may be complicit in serious or systematic violations of human rights.

"The Council recommends that Wal-Mart Stores Inc. and Wal-Mart de Mexico SA be excluded from the Petroleum Fund's portfolio." (page 3)

On the U.S. front, the fund found Wal-Mart guilty of "discrimination of female employees," "active obstruction of employees' right to unionize," "violations dealing with the employment of minors," "mandatory overtime without compensation" and the "use of illegal labor."

In the section of the report dealing with Wal-Mart's abusive offshore sweatshop practices, the Norwegian Government's Council on Ethics largely relied upon the National Labor Committee's research in Honduras, El Salvador, Nicaragua, Bangladesh and China. The NLC's research was corroborated by other independent human and worker rights organizations.

Points which emerge in the Fund's report:

* "Wal-Mart imports products from 70 countries around the world."

* "In 2003, Wal-Mart imported goods valuing more than $15 billion from China and is the world's largest importer from China."

* In 2004, Wal-Mart had 5,300 direct suppliers, but overall depends upon "our 68,000 suppliers worldwide."

* Wal-Mart's annual sales exceed the Gross Domestic Product of 161 countries in the world.

THE FULL REPORT: "Annual Report 2006 / Council on Ethics for the Government Pension Fund-Global"

March 22, 2007
 DEATH TO DIVERSITY  Rats in the Doughnuts 

February 26, 2007
 WOMEN OF WAL-MART FIGHT DISCRIMINATION  Sprawl! Does it make people fat?  Bad Wal-Mart Photoshop 

February 13, 2007
A Toll Entrance to Wal-Mart?

~