Walmart gives oil workers 24 hours clear out of Williston parking lot

2012-02-07T23:15:00Z Walmart gives oil workers 24 hours clear out of Williston parking lotBy LAUREN DONOVAN | Bismarck Tribune Bismarck Tribune

After months of accommodating oil workers living in campers in its big asphalt parking lot, the Williston Walmart started getting tough this week.

The store posted notices Monday that any campers not gone within 24 hours would be towed and impounded at the owners' expense. Some were towed Tuesday morning, said Walmart spokeswoman Kayla Whaling.

The bright yellow notices said the camping was causing safety, noise, litter and property problems and would no longer be tolerated.

Dozens and sometimes more campers filled the lot for weeks or months before moving on, even though there were no water or sewer hookups. Some were living four or more to a small camper without heat or electricity.

Women expressed fear of walking through the parking lot with the men living there and others said they simply quit shopping at the store because of the situation.

Whaling said the store sympathizes with the workers, who are facing a housing shortage, but said the situation reached a turning point based on complaints from the community.

"It's just not appropriate for people to be living in our parking lot. We want to be good neighbors during challenging times," she said. On the other hand, Walmart needs to provide safe, clean and comfortable shopping for its customers and environment for its own employees, she said.

Whaling said the store was teaming up with the Williston Police Department to get the vehicles removed and impounded.

No one from the Williston police was available for comment.

Reach reporter Lauren Donovan at 220-5511 or lauren@westriv.com.

Copyright 2015 Bismarck Tribune. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

(36) Comments

  1. mdngal
    Report Abuse
    mdngal - February 14, 2012 9:49 pm
    Gee, Rancher444, I hope you are kidding, because that is not what I read in the article.


    "Women expressed fear of walking through the parking lot with the men living there and others said they simply quit shopping at the store because of the situation.

    Whaling said the store sympathizes with the workers, who are facing a housing shortage, but said the situation reached a turning point based on complaints from the community.

    "It's just not appropriate for people to be living in our parking lot. We want to be good neighbors during challenging times," she said. On the other hand, Walmart needs to provide safe, clean and comfortable shopping for its customers and environment for its own employees, she said."



  2. rancher444
    Report Abuse
    rancher444 - February 14, 2012 1:09 pm
    Walmart didnt kick them out because they were staying too long, Its just that they are renovating to add showers and bathrooms to accomadate the extra people. kinda like a truck stop. They are going to add permanent camper parking and charge 10.59 a day to park. They are also gonna add an eating place out there to feed hungry campers. Somewhat like a catering place or a food stand. It will sell hamburgers and sloppy joes on a daily basis and beer.
  3. Michael R
    Report Abuse
    Michael R - February 11, 2012 9:09 pm
    Poetic_Justice said: ""


    ljfrommin said: ". . . shut the hell up already."



    What the heck PJ - You already quoted that and it still appears in print just a few comments down, yet you see fit to quote the exact same comment again? No response - just quoting the statement that you apparently find offensive. If it is so offensive, why do you keep quoting it over and over again? No wonder no one on this website takes you seriously anymore - its crazy BS like that.
  4. Poetic_Justice
    Report Abuse
    Poetic_Justice - February 11, 2012 4:30 pm
    ljfrommin said: ". . . shut the hell up already."

  5. Michael R
    Report Abuse
    Michael R - February 10, 2012 8:38 pm
    6redline3 said: "Michael, this was obviously more than you can fathom... You can lead a horse to water..."

    OK - so I googled your information - and I found it VERY interesting. Do you want to know why? Because is supports everything I have said so far. The information I got talks all about weight - it is weight this and load that all over the place on every page. So it would assume that weight is an issue. I didn't find ANYTHING stating that cars have more weight on the road than truck like you claim. I did find some onfo about speed - but that was only in reference to heavy trucks how lower speed is actually worse because it leaves the heavy (here we go with weight again) load in contact with the road surface for a longer period of time. It isn't like you were stating that speed is what does the damage - implying that cars whizzing by at high speed is what does the damage. The information I found by googling the information you asked me to showed quite the opposite. Here are a few sections that I found very interesting.

    "Loads, along with the environment, damage pavement over time. The simplest pavement structural model asserts that each individual load inflicts a certain amount of unrecoverable damage. This damage is cumulative over the life of the pavement and when it reaches some maximum value the pavement is considered to have reached the end of its useful service life." Notice how they are talking about loads - as in WEIGHT which you claim is a non issue.

    "While the tire contact pressure and area is of vital concern in pavement performance, the number of contact points per vehicle and their spacing is also critical. As tire loads get closer together their influence areas on the pavement begin to overlap, at which point the design characteristic of concern is no longer the single isolated tire load but rather the combined effect of all the interacting tire loads. Therefore, axle and tire arrangements are quite important." Notice how it talks about greater damage the closer the tire loads are - like you would find on the rear of your typical semi-trailer?

    "Federal and State laws establish maximum axle and gross vehicle weights to limit pavement damage." Here we go with the wieght thing again. You keep saying how weight is a total non issue but the information you asked me to look at seems pretty concerned with weight.

    "Although it is not too difficult to determine the wheel and axle loads for an individual vehicle, it becomes quite complicated to determine the number and types of wheel/axle loads that a particular pavement will be subject to over its entire design life. Furthermore, it is not the wheel load but rather the damage to the pavement caused by the wheel load that is of primary concern." Sounds to me like they are very concerned with weight and wheel loads and they openly state that wheel loads will damage the pavement.

    "Along with load type and repetitions, the load distributions across a particular pavement must be estimated. For instance, on a 6-lane interstate highway (3 lanes in each direction) the total number of loads is probably not distributed exactly equally in both directions. Often one direction carries more loads than the other. Furthermore, within that one direction, not all lanes carry the same loading. Typically, the outer most lane carries the most trucks and therefore is subjected to the heaviest loading. Therefore, pavement structural design should account for these types of unequal load distribution." See how it says that the lane which carries the most truck carries the heaviest loading? Weren't you trying to tell me that this site would prove how truck tires actually carry less weight than cars do? Sure doesn't sound that way to me.

    "Although current design practices do not necessarily account for vehicle speed, it does influence pavement loading. In general, slower speeds and stop conditions allow a particular load to be applied to a given pavement area for a longer period of time resulting in greater damage. For HMA pavements this behavior is sometimes evident at bus stops (where heavy buses stop and sit while loading/unloading passengers) and intersection approaches (where traffic stops and waits to pass through the intersection)." This pretty much says the exact opposite of what you were trying to say about speed. This says that slower speeds do more damage where heavy vehicles are required to stop. Once again, they talk about heavy vehicles and not car traffic.

    "Pavement damage caused by a particular load is roughly related to the load by about a power of four (for reasonably strong surfaces). This means that, generally speaking, a vehicle weighing twice as much as another (and having the same axle/tire arrangement) will cause 16 times as much damage to the pavement." Here we go with the weight thing again. Have you noticed a pattern yet? Everything I am finding when I search the information you wanted me to search talks about weight as being the big issue.

    How are you going to spin this now??





  6. Michael R
    Report Abuse
    Michael R - February 10, 2012 8:15 pm
    6redline3 said: "Michael, this was obviously more than you can fathom... You can lead a horse to water..."

    And my example of the semi in the parking lot was more than you could spin. You can give me links all you want. I SAW WITH MY OWN EYES something that you just CANNOT dispute. You can't even try.
  7. 6redline3
    Report Abuse
    6redline3 - February 10, 2012 7:35 pm
    6redline3 said: "Michael, Google: 4.3 design parameters-loads"

    Michael, this was obviously more than you can fathom... You can lead a horse to water...
  8. Michael R
    Report Abuse
    Michael R - February 10, 2012 3:36 pm
    Poetic_Justice said: ""

    Yes. PJ can quote bits and pieces of other people's comments - we are so very proud of him for learning this skill.
  9. Poetic_Justice
    Report Abuse
    Poetic_Justice - February 10, 2012 12:52 pm
    ljfrommin said: "shut the hell up already"

  10. Michael R
    Report Abuse
    Michael R - February 10, 2012 6:34 am
    6redline3 said: "And that formula is supposed to explain your "research" You didnt Compute square inches ( a car tire leaves less foot print Than say a 10-22 truck tire witch is Wider and longer at the point of contact on the surface) What air pressures did you use in your "research"/ Did you also factor in bridgelength, or the distance the axles are apart? Didnt think so. I have tried to put the link up here for the website,but the trib hasnt allowed it so far. I have also worked in the construction industry for the last 35 years building Highways from operator to supevisory positions as well as working on design and engineering. Weight doesnt kill roadways, speed does."

    One last comment for you. Yes, truck tires are wider than a car tire - but are they wide enough to spread out an extra 4,000 pounds? I don't think so. And I will agree with you that speed can damge roads - but speed is not the only enemy. Weight is just as bad or dare I say - worse. If it was all about speed and nothing else, then why do states put load restrictions on the higways instead of speed restrictions? If you know that weight is nothing and speed is everything, wouldn't you think that some engineer is one of the 50 states would know it also???? Which do you think is going to do more damage to a road - a motorcycle going 160 or a truck going 40 loaded to 150,000 pounds?? Just so you know, I am not voting on the motorcycle to do the most damage. Weight matters.

    And one last bit of insight (I would love to see you spin this one) A few years ago on a VERY hot day in July, I watched a loaded truck pull into an asphalt parking lot to turn around. This parking lot was not neccisarily designed for trucks but hundreds of cars use this lot every day and the lot is totally undamaged from the cars. As the truck rolls through the parking lot at a snails pace (no speed what-so-ever) it leaves 3 to 4 inch wheel track depressions in the asphalt that are still there to this day. The parking lot is in great shape otherwise with the cars doing no damge to the surface. If trucks are light as a feather and weight doesn't matter and speed was not involved here, please explain what happened. This should be good.
  11. ljfrommin
    Report Abuse
    ljfrommin - February 10, 2012 12:32 am
    Seriously Poetic_Justice, unless everything you own (or in your case, borrow)is made in America by union people (including your PC), shut the hell up already. You're incessant whining even has the Liberals here eating lead paint chips. ala Animal House..."fat, drunk and stupid is no way to go through life".
  12. Michael R
    Report Abuse
    Michael R - February 09, 2012 11:40 pm
    6redline3 said: "And that formula is supposed to explain your "research" You didnt Compute square inches ( a car tire leaves less foot print Than say a 10-22 truck tire witch is Wider and longer at the point of contact on the surface) What air pressures did you use in your "research"/ Did you also factor in bridgelength, or the distance the axles are apart? Didnt think so. I have tried to put the link up here for the website,but the trib hasnt allowed it so far. I have also worked in the construction industry for the last 35 years building Highways from operator to supevisory positions as well as working on design and engineering. Weight doesnt kill roadways, speed does. "

    You are correct - I did NOT take into consideration distance between axles - because it makes no difference. The weight on each tire is what I am worried about. The long space between tires where there is no contact with the road doesn't matter. What matters is the actual contact points with the road where the weight rests.

    And you say that weight doesn't destroy roads? So let me guess - all the highway engineers in all 50 states are wrong and only you know the real answers? Trust me - I am going to go with the VAST majority on this one.
  13. ljfrommin
    Report Abuse
    ljfrommin - February 09, 2012 10:44 pm
    Holy smoke Poetic_Justice, you have issues! I think a warmer climate may be just the ticket. Say...Cuba!
  14. 6redline3
    Report Abuse
    6redline3 - February 09, 2012 9:32 pm
    Michael, Google: 4.3 design parameters-loads
  15. 6redline3
    Report Abuse
    6redline3 - February 09, 2012 8:56 pm
    Michael R said: "I took you advice. I did some research. I got some figures put together and then I did some math. Here is what I found. You average car (I used a - one of the most common cars on the road today) weighs 3,316 pounds. Add a couple of people and some luggage and you got roughly 4,000 pounds - spread between 4 tires and you have 1,000 pounds on each tire.According to the ND DOT website, trucks in this state can be licensed for up to 105,500 pounds (and that doesn't even include the overweight permits that are quite common in this state. Spreat that weight between 18 wheels and you get 5,861 pounds per wheel. That is almost 6 times as much as your average loaded car.Regardless of total weight, in ND you can't have more than 34,000 pounds per tandem axle (4 tires). That is 8,500 pounds per tire for a tandem axle truck.If you have 3 axles on the trailer - which is your typical semi truck configuration, you can have a max weight of 17,000 pounds resting on each axle. Each axle has 4 tires which means you can have 4,250 pounds on each tire on a semi trailer.On an average semi truck with 3 axles on the trailer, all 3 axles cover about the same amount of surface area as that Ford Taurus. The total weight for that Taurus was 4,000 pounds. The total weight for the 3 axles of a semi trailer is 51,000 pounds on the same ground surface area as that Taurus.I also copied this from the ND DOT website to prove to you that it really is all about weight: •NDDOT utilizes load restrictions to reduce damage to roadways caused by heavy loads at a time of year when highway pavements are most vulnerable. That sounds like they are IN FACT concerned with the weight of the trucks and not just interstate commerce regulations. I look forward to hearing your rebuttal - which I assume will be loaded with facts and math just like you asked me to do."

    And that formula is supposed to explain your "research" You didnt Compute square inches ( a car tire leaves less foot print Than say a 10-22 truck tire witch is Wider and longer at the point of contact on the surface) What air pressures did you use in your "research"/ Did you also factor in bridgelength, or the distance the axles are apart? Didnt think so. I have tried to put the link up here for the website,but the trib hasnt allowed it so far. I have also worked in the construction industry for the last 35 years building Highways from operator to supevisory positions as well as working on design and engineering. Weight doesnt kill roadways, speed does.
  16. Michael R
    Report Abuse
    Michael R - February 09, 2012 4:21 pm
    6redline3 said: "A semi exerts less pounds per square inch on a surface than an averaged sized car...do the math and figure it out before you report fiction... The reason barriers were set was because of the SPACE trucks take up... Get it?"

    I took you advice. I did some research. I got some figures put together and then I did some math. Here is what I found. You average car (I used a Ford Taurus - one of the most common cars on the road today) weighs 3,316 pounds. Add a couple of people and some luggage and you got roughly 4,000 pounds - spread between 4 tires and you have 1,000 pounds on each tire.

    According to the ND DOT website, trucks in this state can be licensed for up to 105,500 pounds (and that doesn't even include the overweight permits that are quite common in this state. Spreat that weight between 18 wheels and you get 5,861 pounds per wheel. That is almost 6 times as much as your average loaded car.

    Regardless of total vehicle weight, in ND you can't have more than 34,000 pounds per tandem axle (4 tires). That is 8,500 pounds per tire for a tandem axle truck.

    If you have 3 axles on the trailer - which is your typical semi truck configuration, you can have a max weight of 17,000 pounds resting on each axle. Each axle has 4 tires which means you can have 4,250 pounds on each tire on a semi trailer.

    On an average semi truck with 3 axles on the trailer, all 3 axles cover about the same amount of surface area as that Ford Taurus. The total weight for that Taurus was 4,000 pounds. The total weight for the 3 axles of a semi trailer is 51,000 pounds on the same ground surface area as that Taurus.

    I also copied this from the ND DOT website to prove to you that it really is all about weight: •NDDOT utilizes load restrictions to reduce damage to roadways caused by heavy loads at a time of year when highway pavements are most vulnerable.

    That sounds like they are IN FACT concerned with the weight of the trucks and not just interstate commerce regulations. I look forward to hearing your rebuttal - which I assume will be loaded with facts and math just like you asked me to do.
  17. Michael R
    Report Abuse
    Michael R - February 09, 2012 3:02 pm
    6redline3 said: "Oh, and by the way, The majority of trucks on the road are COMMERCIAL witch are REGULATED by DOT to insure SHIPPING COMMERCE is followed on a state by state basis. Thats why trucks and not cars are weighed... Got any more of-the-wall delusions?"

    NO - they are weighed because overweight trucks damage the road surface. That's why load restrictions are removed or placed at different times of the year based on when the road can handle the extra weight. It is ALL about weight. Ask someone with the DOT truck regulatory - see what they have to say - but then again I am sure you know more than they do as well.
  18. 6redline3
    Report Abuse
    6redline3 - February 09, 2012 1:10 pm
    Michael R said: "REALLY? That is why they have trucks go through the scales and not cars - because all the cars would be overweight - right? You are so far off the mark, it isn't even funny. You couldn't be more wrong if you tried."

    Oh, and by the way, The majority of trucks on the road are COMMERCIAL witch are REGULATED by DOT to insure SHIPPING COMMERCE is followed on a state by state basis. Thats why trucks and not cars are weighed... Got any more of-the-wall delusions?
  19. can't buy it
    Report Abuse
    can't buy it - February 09, 2012 1:01 pm
    FINALLY!! Took Walmart long enough to wake up...but again FINALLY! For those who decided to live there in the parking "good bye". Those who seriously came to ND for work ARE working and they have places to stay, as most companies are getting them places or proper spots to park, not a public parking lot. I agree with some others on this page, those in this parking lot really amounted to no experience and just flocked here on a whim with no Knowledge either. THANKS again Rock Center TV show! Time to clean up Walmart in Williston as it has turned into a terrible pit hole. Lots of residential peole wont even go there anymore they are traveling to other Walmarts around the state instead, sad, very sad. so clean it up and let's not let the "trash" of this oil field not wreck up completely! Way to Walmart, time to get a back bone!
  20. NDresident
    Report Abuse
    NDresident - February 09, 2012 12:28 pm
    Poetic_Justice said: Since we're in such tough economic times . . . do you really need key chains, dog toys and fancy toilet paper roll holders from China?"

    Really Poetic_Justice??? Who in Williston, let alone, ND is having tough economic times? If a person wants to buy key chains, dog toys, etc... from China, what business is it of yours?

  21. ignoringthehaters
    Report Abuse
    ignoringthehaters - February 09, 2012 11:53 am
    First of all, it's not only "oil workers" that are camped out there. Most of them actually don't have a job. They saw some stupid story on the news about how they could make 6 figures with no experience and rushed here only to find out there is nowhere to live and no jobs for inexperienced workers. Second, it's not like there is an alternative to Walmart, we have to shop there unless you want to order shampoo and light bulbs from the internet. I don't buy my groceries there, but shopping there is unavoidable. Third, I am thrilled they finally kicked these people out. The parking lot is absolutely disgusting with all the garbage left there, the bathrooms are nasty because people shave, sponge bath, and brush their teeth in them. Good riddance. Now if they will just leave town altogether I will really be happy. Williston needs a sign that instead of saying welcome says no vacancy.
  22. Michael R
    Report Abuse
    Michael R - February 09, 2012 6:31 am
    6redline3 said: "A semi exerts less pounds per square inch on a surface than an averaged sized car...do the math and figure it out before you report fiction... The reason barriers were set was because of the SPACE trucks take up... Get it?"

    REALLY? That is why they have trucks go through the scales and not cars - because all the cars would be overweight - right? You are so far off the mark, it isn't even funny. You couldn't be more wrong if you tried.
  23. 6redline3
    Report Abuse
    6redline3 - February 08, 2012 9:35 pm
    niwrad said: "NDresident is correct... Walmart didn't have time to stock the shelves yet alone direct traffic in their parking lots. Sometime they would 200 or more trucks parked in the lot, people are still amazed that the asphalt is still holding up to all the traffic and weight of the trucks. They since have set overhead barriers up to keep most of the trucks out, but yes, they try to accomodate people coming to town. Thanks Walmart, people from outside the Bakken don't realize what it takes to make it work. "

    A semi exerts less pounds per square inch on a surface than an averaged sized car...do the math and figure it out before you report fiction... The reason barriers were set was because of the SPACE trucks take up... Get it?
  24. Poetic_Justice
    Report Abuse
    Poetic_Justice - February 08, 2012 2:06 pm
    Tim308 said: "I believe for a long time walmart has encouraged truckers/campers/rv's to park in their lots just about everywhere in order to gain their business. After all if your RV is in the walmart parking lot already you're going to buy your stuff there. In most cases it's probably a great business move for them."





    Yep, this is all about business. Wal-Mart doesn't care about the community. Wal-Mart cares about taking your money.

    The shocking thing is how many people willingly -- even gladly -- give their money to Wal-Mart to ruin their neighborhoods.

    We should be telling Wal-Mart THEY have 2 days to clear out the parking lot. They can hire their own police and security guards with all the tax breaks we give them.


    Since we're in such tough economic times . . . do you really need key chains, dog toys and fancy toilet paper roll holders from China?



  25. mdngal
    Report Abuse
    mdngal - February 08, 2012 12:15 pm
    It was nice of Walmart to allow some campers who had no place else to go, and give them time to get settled someplace, but, like a lot of good deeds, it was taken advantage of and got carried away to an unmanageable and unreasonable point. None of these people should have traveled here expecting the city to put them up wherever and whenever for an extended period of time. Pretty sure everyone knew the housing situation. The comfort level and safety of the city itself shouldn't be ignored.
  26. DickinsonMother2
    Report Abuse
    DickinsonMother2 - February 08, 2012 10:48 am
    I think Walmart should allow camper in the parking lots for a few days. It rediculous to allow camper to stay any longer then 3 day minimum. Walmart in Dickinson is gettng just as bad with campers. I understand the living conditions are hard because of no housing. If you are working and are living in camper in the Walmart parking lot. You shouldnt be living at Walmart. You should be living in a RV park and pay rent that is why they are there. We need to keep the trash out of our parking lots. It give a negative ideas about our communities.
  27. ABC123DEF
    Report Abuse
    ABC123DEF - February 08, 2012 8:25 am
    It is about time! One or two nights as a tourist is ok but to live in your camper with fellow co-workers - come on!! Go back to your home town and get out of ND.
  28. niwrad
    Report Abuse
    niwrad - February 07, 2012 7:51 pm
    NDresident is correct... Walmart didn't have time to stock the shelves yet alone direct traffic in their parking lots. Sometime they would 200 or more trucks parked in the lot, people are still amazed that the asphalt is still holding up to all the traffic and weight of the trucks. They since have set overhead barriers up to keep most of the trucks out, but yes, they try to accomodate people coming to town. Thanks Walmart, people from outside the Bakken don't realize what it takes to make it work.
  29. Michael R
    Report Abuse
    Michael R - February 07, 2012 7:48 pm
    NDresident said: "Williston Wal-mart allowing campers wasn't about greed. They attempted to clear the campers out on a daily basis. They had the cops try as well by posting warnings. The campers would pull out for a day or 2 but only to be replaced by the same ones again or new ones. Wal-mart was only trying to accomodate the homeless workers who had no place to park. I admire Wal-mart in Williston for at least trying to accomodate and give these people a place to park for a day or 2, but it just got to the breaking point of enough is enough. I say Thanks Wal-mart for being accomodating while you could, and Thanks for making them move on. You did what you had to do."

    AMEN.
  30. Artist1
    Report Abuse
    Artist1 - February 07, 2012 7:38 pm
    NDresident said: "Williston Wal-mart allowing campers wasn't about greed. They attempted to clear the campers out on a daily basis. They had the cops try as well by posting warnings. The campers would pull out for a day or 2 but only to be replaced by the same ones again or new ones. Wal-mart was only trying to accomodate the homeless workers who had no place to park. I admire Wal-mart in Williston for at least trying to accomodate and give these people a place to park for a day or 2, but it just got to the breaking point of enough is enough. I say Thanks Wal-mart for being accomodating while you could, and Thanks for making them move on. You did what you had to do."

    Thank you for your post. You gave me a better perspective on this reality.
  31. Tim308
    Report Abuse
    Tim308 - February 07, 2012 7:25 pm
    I believe for a long time walmart has encouraged truckers/campers/rv's to park in their lots just about everywhere in order to gain their business. After all if your RV is in the walmart parking lot already you're going to buy your stuff there. In most cases it's probably a great business move for them.

    They just probably never figured it would turn into what it has in Williston with the oil boom. They probably should have taken care of this a long time ago, but better late than never. I did see a couple articles that in other places more and more walmarts are putting up signs that they no longer allow overnight camping in their lots.
  32. NDresident
    Report Abuse
    NDresident - February 07, 2012 7:24 pm
    as far as why they were allowed to park there in the first place? Wal-mart's across the country allow overnight campers. You even see them here in Bismarck. But the situation in Williston became one night...two nights...one week, 2 months... it was obvious, these were not tourists passing through.
  33. NDresident
    Report Abuse
    NDresident - February 07, 2012 7:21 pm
    Williston Wal-mart allowing campers wasn't about greed. They attempted to clear the campers out on a daily basis. They had the cops try as well by posting warnings. The campers would pull out for a day or 2 but only to be replaced by the same ones again or new ones. Wal-mart was only trying to accomodate the homeless workers who had no place to park. I admire Wal-mart in Williston for at least trying to accomodate and give these people a place to park for a day or 2, but it just got to the breaking point of enough is enough. I say Thanks Wal-mart for being accomodating while you could, and Thanks for making them move on. You did what you had to do.
  34. DustOff3
    Report Abuse
    DustOff3 - February 07, 2012 7:16 pm
    Heck, People, look how long it has taken our law enforcement/city fathers to clear out Occupy Wall Streeters? San Francisco has how many law men? So Williston should lead the nation in clearing a parking lot?
  35. Artist1
    Report Abuse
    Artist1 - February 07, 2012 7:05 pm
    Why the heck were people allowed to camp there in the first place!? Even employees are restricted to certain areas to park. This greed is sickening, dangerous and sad. Walmart, it is questionable that you took your sweet time putting your foot down. The only reason was because people complained about safety. Shame on you Walmart!
  36. Prairie Dweller
    Report Abuse
    Prairie Dweller - February 07, 2012 6:58 pm
    This should have been done long ago. Camper fires in Williston have become far too commonplace. The Walmart campground finally started hurting business enough for the management to eventually take action to clear the lot of all the trash. It was a hazard to the public.
Add Comment
You must Login to comment.

Click here to get an account it's free and quick

Featured Ads

View All Ads