« House Democrats about to Set New Fundraising Record! | Home Page | Jean Cowan Campaign Launches Website. »

Larry Galizio to Wal-Mart: Come Clean with Tigard Citizens.

The top story in the March 23rd edition of the Tigard Times reported that Rep. Larry Galizio recently sent a letter to Wal-Mart demanding that they come clean with the Tigard residents regarding their plans to build a new mega store in the city.

Here is an excerpt from Rep. Galizio's letter:

“The people of Tigard have legitimate concerns about this massive facility. They want to know what it will do to our traffic and our environment. They have serious worries about the impact on small businesses and local retailers, quality jobs with decent benefits and the overall quality of life in our community.

“The people of Tigard deserve to know whether or not Wal-Mart seeks to occupy this prominent area within our city. They don’t want to be shoved off on a PR person or a development company. They want a straight answer from you.”

The Oregonian reported on it on March 24th as well.

Rep. Galizo's announced that he is starting a group called "Tigard First" to create a forum for a community discussion about the possible Wal-Mart. The first meeting will be hosted by Rep. Galizio and State Labor Commissioner Dan Gardner on Wednesday, April 12, at 6 p.m. at the Tigard Library. All concerned residents of Tigard and the surrounding area are encouraged to attend.

To get involved or contact Rep. Galizio call 503-646-0441 or visit his website at www.larrygalizio.com.

March 24, 2006
TrackBacks (0) | Comments (16 so far)
Permalink: Larry Galizio to Wal-Mart: Come Clean with Tigard Citizens.


It amazes me the Demoncrats, cyr and bemon that the freaken poor dont have jobs and they dont have health care, The Demoncrats want to have the taxpayers pay for the healthcare and give welfare ot the laziest people in our communities. Wal mart is providing jobs it is paying the same wages and benefits that Target, Home Depot and Lowes are paying, but by God the demoncrats hate WalMArt they dont throw a fit when the others want to build a store in thier communities. They pander to the loudest mouths in the community. They dont give a damn about the poor if they did they would be fighting to get more jobs into the community they live in. Instead of fighting to get rid of jobs. The plan of the demoncrats is to raise taxes on those that do work so the lazy ones can sit on thier fat asses and pump out kids and get money from those of us that do work.. And the demoncrats are all for giving those who break out nations laws free money and services because they dont want to offend. It is time we stop givng those who break our nations laws anything., Round them up and send them back were they came from and stop wasting taxpayer money to teach them in our schools. If you dont speak english you better lean on your own time before you waste taxpayer money in our public schools that taxpayers fund.

Posted by: Joe Ping | Mar 25, 2006 5:26:30 AM


You way off base with your statement that WalMart provides pay and benefits similar to Home Depot and other major chains. Senator Alan Bates (another Democrat) and I have both worked hard to bring a Home Depot to our home area of Jackson County for the reason that Home Depot averages wages of $10 per hour and also provides health care. We both oppose the proposed WalMart for Medford because that company pays a much lower wage, offers poor benefits, and cost taxpayers like you and me money when we have to pay for the health care of WalMart employees.

If you want to support WalMart with your tax dollars, please just go ahead and say so. I want good jobs in my community.

Posted by: Rep. Peter Buckley | Mar 25, 2006 8:20:16 AM

Nice to see that Galizio has joined Buckley and others feeding at the trough of the UFCW in their ongoing year corporate campaign against WalMart. Wake up you sheeple, Big Unions are using you in their battle against Big Retail

Posted by: Kurt | Mar 25, 2006 9:32:26 AM


I find it interesting that both you and Joe just fling out baseless accusations and seem to think you are actually making valid points about anything at all. I have opposed WalMart in my region long before I became a candidate or office holder for a very basic fact that neither you or Joe seem to have the will to face: WalMart pays such a low wage, offers such poor benefits and undercuts decent employers on such a massive scale that taxpayers end up paying for WalMart employees' health care and communities find that for every low paying job we subsidize WalMart to create, one to one and a half good paying jobs are lost.

Local stores can't compete with WalMart's predatory practices.

Local downtowns are devestated.

And the best you can offer is some kind of BS about Democrats not caring about the poor or some kind of vast conspiracy against retail outlets.

Right wing radio sound bites might make you feel just fine, but they are bogus. Try a fact every now and then. You will find them to be useful in the effort to actually get something done to help your communities and our state as a whole.

Posted by: Rep. Peter Buckley | Mar 25, 2006 7:54:50 PM

Here's an idea Joe and Kurt. Why don't you guys do some research. Here's a definition just in case you think that getting talking points from LarsRushBill is adequate:

re·search Pronunciation (r-sûrch, rsûrch)
1. Scholarly or scientific investigation or inquiry. See Synonyms at inquiry.
2. Close, careful study.
v. re·searched, re·search·ing, re·search·es
To engage in or perform research.
1. To study (something) thoroughly so as to present in a detailed, accurate manner: researching the effects of acid rain.

Hint: try looking at some oppostion viewpoints and arguments. It's really fun. It's not that painful. And hey, you might wind up contributing something useful to the debate.

Posted by: Pat Ryan | Mar 27, 2006 11:44:06 AM

I whole heartedly agree with keeping Walmart out. I live in Portland because of it's vast collection of small specialized retail stores. It would be a shame to let happen here what has happened in so may other communities when Walmart sweeps in to save the day, and ends up closing half the town...

Posted by: KWard | Mar 27, 2006 12:21:25 PM

Anyone interested in the Wal-Mart issue needs to understand that this is really about the UFCW is losing membership, union dues and influence left and right. The UFCW has tried to organize Wal-Mart for 15 years and they have failed. Now, they either want the dues from Wal-Mart's 1.5 million employees (best case scanerio) or their fallback plan is to hurt Wal-Mart enough to protect jobs at union store chains.

They find support from thinly veiled classism, with affluent progressives finding an ability to demonstrate their moral superiority while denying their hired help a low cost place to shop.

Posted by: Beelzebub | Mar 30, 2006 1:26:55 PM


An appropriate screen name you are using, it seems. To say that the UFCW is the issue, and that there is some kind of problem with fighting for union-wage jobs, is pretty amazing to me. My colleagues and I have a very simple belief: that if you work hard for a living, you should make enough money to live a decent life, and that you should have access to affordable health care as well. Is that a belief that you oppose for some reason? If so, please let me know what it is.

It has nothing to do with moral superiority, but it does have to do with morality, and Wal Mart is on the wrong side of the equation. As the largest employer in America now, they set the clearest example of the need for change.

Again: anybody who works hard should be able to have a decent life. That goes for Wal Mart employees and every other work in America.

Posted by: Rep. Peter Buckley | Mar 31, 2006 6:24:08 PM

The UFCW provides most of the financial support for groups such as wakeupwalmart.com, as well as substantial contributions to representatives such as Larry Galizio. What I oppose is the demonization of a particular firm to score cheap political points. A recent study completed by MIT shows that Wal Mart is responsible for a substantial reduction in out of pocket expenditures, particularly for lower income households. It is available at the following url:


I applaud your desire for everyone who works hard to have a decent life, but it seems to be a substantial burden to place on a single firm.

Posted by: Beelzebub | Mar 31, 2006 9:25:35 PM


Thanks for the post back. If WalMart was simply another company, this debate would not be taking place. But WalMart is the largest employer in the U.S. now, and its business practices, including the way it treats employees have the extremely negative consequence of driving other businesses into bankruptcy, devestating downtowns, and replacing decent paying jobs with jobs that workers can't survive on.

Yes, the lower prices they charge do benefit consumers in everyday purchases. But the cost of those low prices includes taxpayer money, yours and mine, going to provide health care for WalMart employees.

Contrast WalMart with Costco, another large company. Costco pays a decent wage and offers good health care so you and I don't have to pay for their employees' care. They also make excellent profits and have good prices. There is a good way to do business, and a negative way.

Posted by: Rep. Peter Buckley | Apr 1, 2006 9:24:19 AM

Representative Buckley,

Like Beelzebub, I applaud your desire for hard working employees to earn a decent life.

However, I would urge you to look at the situation from a business owners perspective. I have a very simple belief as well; that is, an individual should be compensated according to the skills, abilities, and value he/she brings to the company. In economic terms this would be described by a wage roughly consistent with the employee’s marginal product of labor. Having worked as a union member associate at Fred Meyer while in college, I don’t believe the typical Fred Meyer or Wal-Mart associate position to be particularly “hard work”.

There is a very simple reason that Wal-Mart employs millions of individuals in this country. Millions of individuals in this country are willing to accept the wage they offer for the work they are asked to perform. Another economic term, Rational Expectations, would suggest that if the level/difficulty/”hardness” of work exceeds the compensation the employee is willing to accept, the employee would choose to seek employment elsewhere.

A situation that exemplifies this concept is the Agricultural industry in the United States. The common misconception is that farm work is “too hard” for American workers who will not accept those types of jobs. This of course, is rubbish. The real situation is that American workers are not willing to accept the compensation farmers are willing and able to pay. This disconnect, or failure of the labor market is what creates the need for immigration in certain areas of our country. That is, finding workers who are willing to accept a given level of compensation for a particular job. This is not the case for Wal-Mart. Employees are not forced to work there and consumers are not forced to shop there.

Consider this example, if farmers were forced to pay a wage of say, $15 per hour, many “hard working” Americans would likely flock to the fields. Of course in this scenario the farmers would all be forced out of business, or even better, it would drive the price of domestic produce through the roof, thus placing an adverse burden on millions of consumers around the country.

Forcing Wal-Mart or any other retailer to establish artificially high compensation levels will only hurt consumers. Moreover, as Screwtape had previously argued on this blog (his posts were subsequently removed by the blog administrator) anybody would be hard pressed to find this “devastation” of downtown areas in Oregon where Wal-Mart operates and has operated for many years.

Posted by: Wormwood | Apr 1, 2006 2:48:24 PM


Another interesting screen name! Thanks for your post.

Where we see things differently is in the concept of employers of being "forced" to do things. I am a strong supporter of the minimum wage, for instance, and that does indeed "force" employers to adhere to at least a minimum payment for labor.

There will never be a time, in my view, that we say that everything is exactly as it needs to be, we can just all continue as is. We will need to continuously adjust what employers are "forced" to do and what employees are "forced" to do to make our system work. My point, and the point that the WalMart opponent push, is that the system is out of balance in the way that WalMart operates. Consumers benefit, as you state, and the WalMart owners benefit hugely, but employees struggle and the community at large is impacted negatively by having to provide social services for WalMart employees at a level far above any other major employer.

What is the balance in grocery and retail that works for ALL concerned? I point to Costco as an example--low prices, good profit, good wages, good benefits.

There is a way we can all prosper. The WalMart model moves us in the absolute wrong direction.

Posted by: Rep. Peter Buckley | Apr 2, 2006 7:54:19 PM

As a consumer alone, just having another shopping option in Tigard is extremly attractive. I live in the center of town and have to drive to King city for groceries, Winco, which is not a great choice or over priced Fred Meyer. We once had a Safeway on 99/Hall and that is yet another Craft store. My family needs groceries, not scrap booking supplies. We also had Haggens, and that has closed and sits empty in the middle of town. In fact there are a lot of empty business these days in Tigard. Why not bring in something affordable, and contributes to the community? I would like to see Trader Joes in town. When I saw that Jo-anns was going in the space of the old Safeway, I was upset. How does that searve the greater communities needs? If our planning commitie or whoever approves these things had a clue about what would benefit everyone, you wouldnt have confused and angry consumers like me. At this point, I would welcome Walmart just because it would serve the needs of the greater population and not just the knitters and scrapbookers in town.

Posted by: Paige | Jul 2, 2006 5:47:00 PM

Anyone who thinks Wal-Mart "positively" contributes to the community has their head in the sand.
Please, I beg you all to rent (or even buy!) the movie "Wal-Mart: The High Cost of Low Price".
The company and the Walton family act in completely immoral ways and as though they are above the law. The lie to all of their customers, employees, the government agencies in place to keep U.S. citizens safe, etc.

Did you know Wal-Mart actually TEACHES their employees how to fill out the paperwork to receive government aid? If you think they provide people with adequate living wages, you are quite mistaken. Please, DO NOT support a Wal-Mart coming into the community.
Wanting a grocery store and supporting Wal-Mart are two very different things. Know the reality of what consequences our community would suffer if a Wal-Mart were to move in.

Posted by: Katie | Jul 15, 2007 10:59:47 PM

Good information: i will definitely visit again!!

Posted by: goondunioff | May 20, 2009 3:31:21 AM

Wonderful post:) Hope to come back again soon:)

Posted by: SCADSEKTRIETS | May 21, 2009 3:14:52 AM

The comments to this entry are closed.