|
Other communities recognize the ill-effects of supercenters, so why can't we?
EDITOR,
On July 1, the Tracy City Council refused to approve Wal-Mart’s application to build a supercenter at the Interstate 205 retail area and told Wal-Mart to come back with plans for a better store in August. Had this been a game of Monopoly, Wal-Mart would have drawn the "Go directly to jail. Do not collect $200" card.
As a member of Tracy First, I applaud the council for this decision. Our town does not need a supercenter. Period.
A supercenter will be bad for our downtown, bad for our traffic and bad for our image.
Livermore and Stockton have both banned these types of stores. What do they know that Tracy should? Probably that these types of stores cause more harm than good. After all, even the environmental impact report prepared for the Tracy supercenter concludes that constructing this store will likely cause one or more existing supermarkets to fail. Trust me, boarded-up shopping centers are not good for our town.
What galls me the most, however, is Wal-Mart’s blatant disrespect for our city. During the City Council meeting, several speakers discussed alternatives to this project design that have been implemented by Wal-Mart in other cities, such as smaller (and lower impact) supercenters in Arizona and even Modesto, energy-efficient supercenters in Las Vegas and Colorado, and even architecturally superior stores in the Bay Area.
Amazingly, Wal-Mart’s only response to these alternatives is that Tracy doesn’t deserve stores of that caliber.
If Wal-Mart is unwilling to put its best foot forward in Tracy, the City Council should not allow it to build a supercenter here.
Trackback(0)
|