Riverton City

Riverton City, Utah

Correcting the South Valley Journal

The South Valley Journal recently ran a misleading article (May 1, 2008) regarding the Riverton Wal-Mart.  Although the purpose of the SVJ article was to announce the new Wal-Mart, the writer chose to address the petition while leaving out pertinent facts. Let's set the record straight!

The article leads the reader to believe that the dispute was over Wal-Mart and that the Supreme Court ended the dispute. In reality, the bulk of the dispute was over the density of the housing and how far down 13400 that the business district would extend.

---

Truth: The issue was still very much alive in the courts.  A few days before Judge Kennedy was to make a decision, the developers approached Riverton United asking for a compromise.

The result was a compromise that reduced the housing density and moved Wal-Mart (and the business district) up to its current location. In fact, the developers agreed to pay legal expenses for the Riverton United group that led the petition. 

---

Summary: The fact that Wal-Mart is currently opening at its current location is the result of a compromise, not a court decision. Housing density was reduced. The size of the business district was also reduced. Wal-Mart was not at the heart of the dispute, was never listed on the petition, and never became a central topic in Riverton United meetings. Yes, there were many that opposed the big box store and signed the petition for this purpose. However, housing density and the size of the business district were the intended targets of the petition and town hall meetings. Both were reduced with the compromise between developers and Riverton United.

---

I understand that the SVJ article was meant to focus on Wal-Mart’s grand opening. However, if a writer chooses to address the petition that was signed by over 5,000 residents, then the facts should be complete. To do otherwise is to discount the successful efforts of petitioners and those who worked hard to create a satisfactory compromise.