Letters to the Editor, San Gabriel Valley Tribune

     Speaking of Letters to the Editor, back in August, the San Gabriel Valley Tribune published one of my letters. The print version of the paper included my full letter, and I was pretty pleased about that. However, on the on-line version [and, thus, the “permanent" version that you would find if you did an archive search of the SGV Tribune on the Internet, or if you used Lexis-Nexis to search old news stories], only the part from "By contrast, the CAL-Card. . . ."  If that's all you have to read, the letter doesn't make any sense.

     This is the second time that I had a letter of mine appear in the print version of the paper fine, but get mangled in the on-line version. If I were the paranoid-type, I’d think that the editor of the San Gabriel Valley Tribune was trying to minimize the dissemination of anti-Wal-Mart information.

     In any event, here is the letter as it appeared in the print version. Marlene actually handed out copies of this letter at an SOC meeting back in August, but in case you weren’t there, here it is, again. Typos and syntax errors are preserved.

SGV Tribune, 22 August 2005

     Well, it looks like the hardworking band of volunteers centered around Walnut Grove and Rush Streets in Rosemead have got the world’s largest retailer worried. Wal-Mart has funneled tens of thousands of dollars through their front groups to pay for at least three mailers to every household n town, and now they’re paying thousands of dollars more to take a public opinion survey of Rosemead residents that they will use to further hone their veracity-challenged message. All three of the mailers sent to Rosemead residents contain a similar set of distortions and falsehoods, some of which were repeated in a letter printed July 21 in the San Gabriel Valley Tribune. As space constraints prevent me from addressing all of these falsehoods, I will respond to only two of the most egregious.

     First, the mailers and letter to the editor claimed that Councilmen Tran and Nunez “want to do away with the Temple City Sheriff’s Station." False. Councilman Tran proposed a study of the feasibility of Rosemead either creating its own municipal police force, contracting with another police force, or renegotiating our contract with the Sheriff’s Department. Any final decision would, of course, await the results of the feasibility study. Such a study hardly seems unreasonable, given that most of our neighboring cities have their own municipal police forces.

     Second, the mailers and letter speak ominously of a “$5,000 monthly credit card," as though Councilmen Tran and Nunez were proposing a new perk for themselves. Again, false. The CAL-Card they would like the city to adopt for its employees would replace the city’s current credit card. Currently, numerous city employees share several cards that carry $20,000 credit limits. Because the account is shared, it is difficult to track which purchases were made by which authorized user.

     By contrast, the CAL-Card has no annual fee, regardless of the number of cards requested. No interest is charged when balances are paid within 45 days. And, by giving each authorized user his or her own card, there would no longer be any ambiguity as to who charged what.

     So why did the three most senior members of the Rosemead City Council vote against the CAL-Card? What do they have against increased accountability and reduced city expenditures?

     Considering that Jay Imperial and Gary Taylor combine for nearly 60 years of incumbency on the Rosemead City Council, one really must ask themselves why these bogus “charges" are the best reasons they can give us for letting them stay in office an additional two years.

 *****

     Addendum–After I wrote this letter, I received two additional so-called Rosemead PRIDE (or, as I prefer, Rosemead LIES) flyers in the mail. There are about 15,000 households in Rosemead. Conservatively estimating that each mailer/flyer cost 33.3 cents to print and mail, that’s $5,000 for each mailer, times five mailers, or a minimum of $25,000 spent on mailers. From those mailers, figure about 1,000 postage-paid card were returned to LIES, for an additional $500 or so in costs [the cost of postage-paid card was one reason why I would encourage you all, the next time they try this, to go ahead and fill out the card. You don’t necessarily need to use your own name and address, of course ;-)].

     Wal-Mart also needs to pay Mike Lewis to write and design these mailers, as well as pay for the rest of his “consulting." Figure that this is another $25,000 since the recall campaign started. Also, Rosemead LIES claims 10,000 yard signs were made. Those cost at least 50 cents each, so add another $5,000 to the tab. Then there’s the public opinion survey. You know, the one that they claim shows 61 percent of Rosemead residents support the Wal-Mart. That’s another $10,000 or so. Grand total for the recall so far: At least $65,000. Probably closer to $100,000.

     Keep in mind Wal-Mart spent just under $75,000 ("officially") on the March 2005 election, and over $1 million on their campaign in Inglewood. So, folks, the mud they’ve slung so far? It’s just the beginning.

[last edited 1/22/2006]

The link to the Gentry letter above is dead. I'm just going to paste the two letters below:

Letters to the Editor, San Gabriel Valley Tribune

13 October 2005
A good decision
Councilmen Jay Imperial, Gary Taylor and the rest of the Rosemead City Council made the correct decision to approve a Wal-Mart Supercenter in Rosemead.
Wal-Mart's business model is similar to that of Trader Joe's, Target and McDonalds; in other words, it provides low cost goods to consumers.
These three companies also have something else in common none of them are unionized. Yet the unions would have you think Wal-Mart is out of step in its business practices.
The UFCW and certain members of the Teamsters campaign to stop Wal-Mart. But you have to wonder just how many goods Wal-Mart purchases from unionized food manufacturers and producers. So, the IFCW and other unions are saying that 500 jobs are more important than the multimillion-dollar construction project that the trade unions can be a part of.
Looking at the overall picture, Wal-Mart may actually be unions' biggest customer! Yet, unions want to remove Jay Imperial and Gary Taylor for supporting one of the unions' biggest customers? How ironic.
Julie Gentry
Rosemead

28 September 2005
Unions' missteps
One of the biggest sticking points about the Wal-Mart Supercenter that Rosemead wants to build is Wal-Mart's treatment of employees (read unionization).
This is the main reason why certain outside groups want to recall Mayor Jay Imperial and City Councilman Gary Taylor. In the end, Imperial, Taylor and the rest of council made the correct decision to approve Wal-Mart because the union argument against is so feeble.
Wal-Mart's business model is similar to that of Trader Joe's, Target and McDonald's; in other words, provide low cost goods for their consumers. These three companies also have something else in common; none of them are unionized.
Yet the union machine that's trying to prevent the Wal-Mart Supercenter in Rosemead would have you think Wal-Mart is out of step with its business practices with any other businesses around here.
These union outsiders might be shooting themselves in their feet. The store-clerks association and certain members of Teamsters campaign to remove Wal-Mart. But you have to wonder just how many goods Wal-Mart purchases from unionized food manufacturers and producers.
The store clerks and Teamsters campaign will also hurt the trades unions as well. Since California is a pro-union state, Wal-Mart will more likely than not have to pay union, or prevailing, wages as well as hire unions like the IBEW. So the store clerks and Teamsters are saying that 500 jobs are more important than the multi-million dollar construction project that the trades unions can be apart of.
I am willing to bet that if you look at the overall picture, Wal-Mart may actually be union's biggest customer even if the store clerks and Teamsters tell you otherwise.
And yet union wants to remove Imperial and Taylor for supporting possibly one of union's biggest customer? How ironic.
Ken Pike
Rosemead