Shilling for Wal-Mart
Originally published 11-16-06
Not many things cause my jaw to drop. Stepping on the scale, the play of the Oakland Raiders offense, some of the things in the Borat movie come to mind.
But when I read that the Fairfield Planning Commission rejected the proposed Wal-Mart Supercenter at Mission Village, I felt my chin touch the floor.
While I'm not going to question the integrity of the members who voted against the project, I do think they owed the community a fuller explanation of why they voted no.
But the ball is in the Fairfield City Council's court now and hopefully they'll do the right thing for Fairfield.
To be honest, I was a bit concerned when I read that the commission received 40 replies about the supercenter and they were mostly negative.
Whenever public input is requested for any project in town, the response is anemic.
Most of us can't be bothered to write a letter, make a call or show up for a meeting. And I'm as guilty as the rest of you.
Who can be bothered?
Well, you can bank on naysayers and the NIMBY people showing up.
People are by nature more motivated to respond when they feel aggrieved than to offer a compliment or praise.
I feel there's a silent majority of Fairfielders out there who want a new supercenter whose jaws hit the floor right along with mine when they read about the Planning Commission's vote.
There's been a steady stream of letters to the editor supporting a Wal-Mart since the decision.
And all but one person who has contacted me has supported a new store.
My out-of-town friends often ask me what's wrong with Fairfield in that it's been seemingly surpassed by Vacaville in terms of economic growth. They see the explosion of commerce along I-80 in Vacaville.
Fairfield residents have noted it in recent letters to the editor. Why must Fairfield continually relegate itself to also-ran status?
There are tradeoffs that communities make in development. When we built the mall here, it hurt downtown businesses. But when businesses closed shop, others opened.
Now, when you look at the newly renovated mall today, who argues that it was a poor decision to build the mall here?
I hope City Council members have read the environmental and economic impact reports and traffic studies pertaining to the new Wal-Mart.
I hope they're mindful that there's an entrenched vocal anti-Wal-Mart lobby dedicated to finding a reason to oppose supercenters.
And I hope they keep in mind Fairfield's economic interests as well as the importance of infill development. Think of the residents who will benefit from this addition.
I'm pleased that Wal-Mart decided to go to the City Council when they could've dropped it and moved forward with the Suisun City store.
It may not be fair but Fairfield needs Wal-Mart more than they need Fairfield. Wal-Mart just posted an unexpected 11.5 percent rise in quarterly profits.
They could easily make money off a Suisun City store and that would drain money from Fairfield.
If Fairfield passes up this opportunity, there will be long lasting repercussions. Since Wal-Mart owns the Mission Village property, it will continue to be blighted.
Tax revenues will go to neighboring communities with more vision.
City Council members might find it hard to get re-elected.
And Fairfield will continue being an also-ran community.
Fairfield a loser without supercenter
By Kelvin Wade
Not many things cause my jaw to drop. Stepping on the scale, the play of the Oakland Raiders offense, some of the things in the Borat movie come to mind.
But when I read that the Fairfield Planning Commission rejected the proposed Wal-Mart Supercenter at Mission Village, I felt my chin touch the floor.
While I'm not going to question the integrity of the members who voted against the project, I do think they owed the community a fuller explanation of why they voted no.
But the ball is in the Fairfield City Council's court now and hopefully they'll do the right thing for Fairfield.
To be honest, I was a bit concerned when I read that the commission received 40 replies about the supercenter and they were mostly negative.
Whenever public input is requested for any project in town, the response is anemic.
Most of us can't be bothered to write a letter, make a call or show up for a meeting. And I'm as guilty as the rest of you.
Who can be bothered?
Well, you can bank on naysayers and the NIMBY people showing up.
People are by nature more motivated to respond when they feel aggrieved than to offer a compliment or praise.
I feel there's a silent majority of Fairfielders out there who want a new supercenter whose jaws hit the floor right along with mine when they read about the Planning Commission's vote.
There's been a steady stream of letters to the editor supporting a Wal-Mart since the decision.
And all but one person who has contacted me has supported a new store.
My out-of-town friends often ask me what's wrong with Fairfield in that it's been seemingly surpassed by Vacaville in terms of economic growth. They see the explosion of commerce along I-80 in Vacaville.
Fairfield residents have noted it in recent letters to the editor. Why must Fairfield continually relegate itself to also-ran status?
There are tradeoffs that communities make in development. When we built the mall here, it hurt downtown businesses. But when businesses closed shop, others opened.
Now, when you look at the newly renovated mall today, who argues that it was a poor decision to build the mall here?
I hope City Council members have read the environmental and economic impact reports and traffic studies pertaining to the new Wal-Mart.
I hope they're mindful that there's an entrenched vocal anti-Wal-Mart lobby dedicated to finding a reason to oppose supercenters.
And I hope they keep in mind Fairfield's economic interests as well as the importance of infill development. Think of the residents who will benefit from this addition.
I'm pleased that Wal-Mart decided to go to the City Council when they could've dropped it and moved forward with the Suisun City store.
It may not be fair but Fairfield needs Wal-Mart more than they need Fairfield. Wal-Mart just posted an unexpected 11.5 percent rise in quarterly profits.
They could easily make money off a Suisun City store and that would drain money from Fairfield.
If Fairfield passes up this opportunity, there will be long lasting repercussions. Since Wal-Mart owns the Mission Village property, it will continue to be blighted.
Tax revenues will go to neighboring communities with more vision.
City Council members might find it hard to get re-elected.
And Fairfield will continue being an also-ran community.
Comments