Reader comments
Wal-Mart zone change opposed in Sugar House

Page:
1
2
Next >

lovesaltlake | 3:44 a.m. Feb. 20, 2008

The kmart at that location has struggled for years and years. In my view, it is a somewhat difficult location for retail. Even the restaurants there have struggled.
And the movie theatre certainly didn't make it.
I think Walmart is one of the few chains that could possibly make it work. I suggest you strongly consider a zoning change so that a new store can be build, one that is energy effecient, one that will increase the value to the area.

good luck | 6:52 a.m. Feb. 20, 2008

It is hard to keep Walmart out of the area, but it can be good for the community. I have lived in many places where the store has had a present and no one seem to care. I grow up in SLC, but have not lived there for years, I think Walmart would add to your community, no one in Scottdale, AZ care that there is a walmart, so why do you?????

uncannygunman | 7:34 a.m. Feb. 20, 2008

I hate to say it, but I sort of agree with lovesaltlake. Why couldn't it be a SuperTarget though? I bet that a lot of people who would fight WalMart to the death would actually welcome a SuperTarget. Face it, ST is just more appealing to the snooty set than WalMart!

Comments continue below

Hey Wal-Mart... | 7:36 a.m. Feb. 20, 2008

...if you pay me what you payed Mr. Perrin, I will say that Parley's way is under-used too!!!

sodiedog | 7:43 a.m. Feb. 20, 2008

Increased traffic on Parleys Way...speeds already 50 mph plus; increased traffic on Foothill...the heaviest traveled surface street in Salt Lake. There is nearby retail at Smith's Marketplace, 23rd & 21st, Foothill Village and Sugarhouse a few blocks away. Yes, I can see why Wal-Mart is needed in that location since area residents are so deprived.

anne | 7:43 a.m. Feb. 20, 2008

We don't want it because it is a multinational corporation with unethical practices that homogenizes communities.

hp | 8:11 a.m. Feb. 20, 2008

We can make the property greener and more walkable without rezoning. In fact rezoning will defeat the purpose of improving the area. The incredible amount of increased traffic would be a disaster. this is a residential area with a few businesses. It is not the Fort Union business area, or 1300 south 300 west that are business districts. We must preserve our successful neighborhoods and not succumb to the bullying of corporate outsiders who wish to change the dynamics of our communities with rezoning whenenver the current zoning does not provide instant gratification.

Hog wash (snob wash) | 8:41 a.m. Feb. 20, 2008

WHat a bunch of idiots with little brains and to much snobbery. Wal Mart is going to have a store there either way, they have the right and you are making a mistake to not leverage for better things than to fight them. They can use the present building and just expand or other things to the footprint. You won't get more green space if you don't look at the new plan and negotiate. Traffice won't increase that much over what it already is except on parley's and most of that increase would be local.

patrick c | 8:48 a.m. Feb. 20, 2008

Target! Target! Target!

prototype Wal-mart is great | 8:57 a.m. Feb. 20, 2008

There is a new prototype Wal-mart in Highland Village, Texas that just opened. It is a high-efficiency uperscale, upperclass Walmart which puts the other Walmarts to shame. It is much nicer, has a pizza bar, sushi bar, upper-class bakery, etc. The whole store looks much nicer than regular and there is never ever long lines. This is a totally new standard for Wal-mart. Just thought you might want to know about it. You can google it to get the picture. The outside of it has great landscaping and doesn't looks too classy for Wal-mart except for the name. It gets great business for this very upscale suburban neighborhood.

Elaine Brown | 9:02 a.m. Feb. 20, 2008

Wal-Mart's proposed rezoning plan is environmentally sound and esthetically pleasing. Yes, there are other retail establishments in the area including grocery stores and Foothill Village, which favors boutique and high-end speciality shops. However, there is a market for a variety/discount store. K-Mart has failed to fulfill that need due to poor management practices, not lack of potential customers.

The area has been commercially zoned for over forty years now and remains so. A balance of commercial, residential and recreational space already exists; a new Wal-Mart will not upset that balance. Considerable public funding has been expended to create bike and pedestrian paths along Foothill and Wasatch Boulevards and very recently a bike/pedestrian bridge was built to span the areas above and below those streets.

A successful Wal-Mart will increase the tax base needed to fund projects such as those cited above. It will also provide entry-level jobs for area residents, including our teenagers.

Yes, I fully support Wal-Mart's rezoning plans and encourage opposing residents to rethink their objections. As pointed out in last night's Sugarhouse Community Council Meeting, a variety of retailers or a strip-mall situation could very well be worse than what Wal-Mart has proposed.

jmdspk | 9:31 a.m. Feb. 20, 2008

While Wal-Mart will bring in more tax dollars, it is well established that they cost more in tax dollars than they bring in. From increased infrastructure cost, fire cost, police cost and so on.

Question | 9:38 a.m. Feb. 20, 2008

Why is it that everyone hates Wal-Mart so much. As stated in an earlier post, If it was a Super target, or some other Big Box store there wouldn't be this uproar over "homogenization of the town", "unethical" etc. It is a company based on making money. That is what a business' do. A company that loses money closes, which is why all the former business in that location closed.

As to unlimited money. Why should a company have to pay twice as much to remodel an old ill-fitting store, when it can tear it down and rebuild a store to their own specifications. Just because you have money, doesn't mean you should spend it foolishly.

Zacko | 9:45 a.m. Feb. 20, 2008

Resistance is futile, you will be assimilated.

Walmart does not generate anything but money for the mothership, eyesore storefronts and endless expanses of parking lot.

All because as Americans we are unwilling to pay a fair price for products made in this country.

The allure of being a piece or garbage shirt made in Sri Lanka or Nicaragua is just to great.

Frank | 10:00 a.m. Feb. 20, 2008

(sarcasam)You have no choice, Walmart will get there either way. It gets what it wants, so you should just accept that. Don't you know that everything good and decent needs to be forced on people, Walmart knows that.(end sarcasam)

On the serious side, shed a tear for the many people who are going to have to work forced part time on slave pay to keep that Mart running so soup can be 10c cheaper.

Superman | 10:00 a.m. Feb. 20, 2008

I don't think Target is an option. Wal-Mart owns the property.... not Target. Like it or not, people tend to flock to Wal-Mart. A perfect example of this is the Wal-Mart on 9th E and 47th So. That Wal-Mart is always packed while the K-Mart across the street has an empty parking lot.

Wal-Mart will bring a great deal more traffic to the Parley's area..... not to mention Foothill Blvd. Have you ever tried to get get out of the K Mart parking lot and go Northbound on Foothill? It's nearly impossible. Therefore, traffic will go down Parleys and through the neighborhoods directly west of the existing K Mart property.

I vote that they turn the property into a park and call it good.

Just say NO | 10:01 a.m. Feb. 20, 2008

just watch the documentary about WalMart on HBO - or perhaps do any amount of research on how walmart is a horrible corporate citizen...

I would welcome any store but walmart - target, a super blue boutique...anything but walmart.

I live in the area and we don't need a walmart at all.

Answer your own ignorance by doing a little research - Target treats their employee base like gold compared to walmart.

Wal-Mart Junk | 10:02 a.m. Feb. 20, 2008

The only difference between something bought at Wal-Mart and DI... two weeks!

Sugar House Resident | 10:32 a.m. Feb. 20, 2008

Walmart owns the property and can develope it for their store within the current zoning. The zoning was put in place years ago for a reason, the current Kmart store no longer fits that zoning. The city has adopted the masterplan and zoning for that area years ago, which has had public input at that time. This is not about keeping a Walmart from existing at this location or being anti-Walmart, it is about working within community designed standards.

uncannygunman | 10:40 a.m. Feb. 20, 2008

To Superman: I fear you are right. However, it seems just possible that determined community resistance to Walmart, combined with community welcoming of Target, might just make it more attractive for Walmart to sell the location to Target, and more attractive for Target to buy it.

I doubt it, but it's possible.

Wanda | 10:41 a.m. Feb. 20, 2008

Glad someone brought up the Blue Boutique. If they lose their lease down the street, they could be the 15,000 square foot addition to the property that the residents want. Or, they can open a smaller, more "intimate" store as just one of many new tenants the neighbors seem to feel more desirable.

Re: Target - bring it on, but as someone already pointed out, Wal-Mart owns the property and will be building or remodeling whether the Development Watch/Wilshire whiners like it or not!

porky | 10:51 a.m. Feb. 20, 2008

final score will be...
Wal-Mart: 1
Foothill Village: 0

Arguments | 10:51 a.m. Feb. 20, 2008

The citizens can complain all they want, but the bottom line is the city council will cave as they did in Sandy, Centerville, Heber and many other places despite the majority opposing the development. It all boils down to the city thinking the revenue is more important than citizen satisfaction. Remember Wal Mart got its start by forcing small business to close in rural communities. The only way people make a difference is to support the little guy--keep going to Foothill and Sugar House businesses.

RE:Wal Mart Junk | 11:07 a.m. Feb. 20, 2008

I gotta admit...that's funny. I don't care who you are, that's funny!! Thanks for the laugh.

Why? | 11:12 a.m. Feb. 20, 2008

Someone please explain why SugarHouse needs a Wal-Mart? It's bad enough that someone has razed the Granite block and is going to ruin the community feel of that area which was once dotted with nice ecclectic LOCALLY OWNED businesses.

Small business has a hard enough time thriving as it is. Don't ruin your community by allowing Wal-Mart to run the rest of the moms and pops out of town.

Wal-Mart...there goes the neighborhood.

$1 peso | 11:37 a.m. Feb. 20, 2008

People complain they can't afford to have another Walmart. Walmart is the only store I can afford to shop at. When other places start to lower their prices than you will have the right to complain. Otherwise you sound foolish and stupid to the public with your badmouth remarks.

jmdspk | 11:45 a.m. Feb. 20, 2008

RE: $1 peso, all I can say is that I feel sorry for you. Actually Wal-Mart does not have lower prices. Oh they may have on a few items but overall the prices are not that low but the people are already brain washed into thinking so.
Then you take into account they offer a lower value for the dollar. The products they sell are not the same quality as other stores. They go to their suppliers and demand that they reduce the quality of parts (electronics for example).
In the long run you end up paying more for inferior products that is the Wal-Mart way.
Oh and Target is just as bad if not worse than Wal-Mart and treats their employees worse.

Mom and Pop Stores? | 11:48 a.m. Feb. 20, 2008

I used to shop at mom and pops, until i found that i can go to almost any kmart, target/ wal-mart and buy the same things for a lot cheaper. I understand that it is your business, but by selling things that i can buy for 1/3 less somewhere else isn't going to keep me shopping your store.
Yes the store is owned else where, but the employees work and shop in town and will spend there money in town. That mean big increase in all the other shops income as well.

Good Move... | 12:01 p.m. Feb. 20, 2008

Wal Mart, especially an upscale version will only bring savings to the people of the neighborhood, and elsewhere who come there to shop. The old K Mart has been a scourge on the area for years. Go for it folks, I save about 30% on my off the shelf food items at Wal Mart where I live, that is tax free income for me. Surely you could use some of that too. Of course, there are always those who ignore this advantage and shop the quaint little neighborhood stores...go to Sugar House, it is not that far away if you want to blow money away. No, I do not work at Wal Mart, I am retired.

Local Chap | 12:05 p.m. Feb. 20, 2008

This would be sweet; I'm tired of driving all the way to 300 West. I do save almost $100 a month just by shopping at Walmart, though, so I'm all for it.

By the Way | 12:09 p.m. Feb. 20, 2008

in my other blog, where I say savings are to had at Wal Mart, up to 30% on off the shelf foods, etc. I know, I have shopped them many times against their leading competitors, I am not just blowing off steam and I appreciate the extra income.
And, by the way, I had my career at the Sugar House Location which is now gone, the upgrade is a blessing to the area to have some of those 100+ year old fire traps torn down. Get over it Sugar House dwellers, you are living in the modern age.

sodiedog | 12:36 p.m. Feb. 20, 2008

Wow, the Wal-Mart employees and family members are out in force.

citygrrrl | 12:56 p.m. Feb. 20, 2008

As a resident in the vicinity of the proposed Wal-Mart, I am concerned about the possibility that Wal-Mart will allow RV drivers to park overnight in the parking lot. This is not an urban legend. Wal-Mart representatives have told city officials that this is a store-by-store decision, so you don't see it everywhere. I don't like the idea of Wal-Mart at the proposed location but they own the property and can move in tomorrow in the soon-to-be former K-Mart. But I draw the line at having a de facto giant RV camp in my neighborhood. It's interesting that nothing has been reported about this possibility in the articles or public comment. If approved, the re-zoning needs to be conditioned on not allowing overnight RV parking.

jmdspk | 12:51 p.m. Feb. 20, 2008

To Mom and Pop Stores? Maybe if the mom and pop stores received a Billion dollars is subsidies plus maybe they could survive too. Oh and there is other benefits to the stores: they are safer, they contribute more to the community, and the quality is better.

A little Reason | 2:02 p.m. Feb. 20, 2008

If you don't want Wal-Mart, band together with other anti-Walmarters and buy the land/building. Then you can do what you want with it. Stop whining, complaining, and claiming that the sky is going to fall. If you believe so strongly in what you say, put your money where your mouth is.

If you don't think WalMart should be able to build a nice energy efficient building, then talk with city council and keep the zoning the same.

As to the jobs at WalMart...nobody is forced to work there. Everybody has FREEDOM and can choose where they work and who they work for. Everybody who works for WalMart has independently decided that it is the best use of their time.

Same with shopping. Nobody is forced to shop at WalMart. I don't. WalMart is building there because they believe enough people will shop there. If they're wrong, they'll close the store and ST can go in. If they're profitable, it's because the will of enough individual people was to have the WalMart there.

WalMart will win | 2:56 p.m. Feb. 20, 2008

Sam Walton must be churning in his grave to see what has become of his way of doing business. No community has ever won once WalMart decided they were going to build. Sam's idea of merchandising was to sell only US made products at a reasonable price & to pay fare wages.

WalMart hires very few full time workers, therefore never having to pay benefits to any of them. And have you seen anything that WalMart sells that's "Made In The USA"?

Of course they run the little guys out of town. They do have cheaper prices and cheaper products. The little guy has to charge a higher price because of having fewer customers. (chicken vs. egg effect & basic economics) And most people aren't willing or able to pay those higher prices.

Good luck in your fight. Ask the residents of Centerville how successful you will be. They MIGHT change the exterior of the store to meet community demands or standards, but there WILL be a WalMart there!

Camper | 3:08 p.m. Feb. 20, 2008

To prohibit overnight camping, the city has to pass an ordinance and then pay for city police to patrol it. On the other hand, Wal-Mart has said that the store manager will tow the park and ride vehicles. If it's their bottom line, they're all over it. If it's a benefit to the community, they're not interested.

I heard about the $2.69 each green peppers at the 3rd West Wal-Mart. Were they gold plated?

Garrett | 3:28 p.m. Feb. 20, 2008

Traffic on foothill is a joke...adding a Wal-Mart would definitely make things worse.

Bad Move | 3:31 p.m. Feb. 20, 2008

Wal-Mart is big business and doesn't fit with the SugarHouse area...SugarHouse is all about supporting local business. If saving $100 a month is something that makes you smile, move to Sandy and live by a Wal-Mart. NIMBY!

What about the OLD | 4:25 p.m. Feb. 20, 2008

Go ahead and give them the zoning change but make them commit to keeping the present location open for the same amount of time as the new location. Too often these super stores (Albertsons,Smiths, Walmart, Shopko and others) decide to move to a new location and then conviently kill the area they just left by abandoning the building. It appears that Walmart has met it obligation under previous agreements to keep the present location and now that obligation is over its move to what they and others call Super stores, the next generation of super store will be called a MALL, gee sound familiar, and look at the malls that are now closing. Again give them what they want but lets not sacrafice the other parts of SugarHouse for a larger venue, after all look what happened to the rest of the area when a greedy individual found it better to destroy businesses and close well established business all for more money, this is no different than what happend on 21st south (Granite Block). Bigger store = more money, close small store = disaster and dead area for all. We loose and Walmart gains.

Sugar House Rocks | 4:35 p.m. Feb. 20, 2008

Sugar House is a nice area. This is why people are concerned about having this evil corporation move in. We pay to live in a nice area. Wal-Mart will destroy the traffic on Parleys, and I'm sorry, but it will bring in people that wouldn't normally be shopping in Sugar House. I know that sounds judgemental, but come on, if you have ever been in a Wal-Mart you know what I'm talking about. I love the local feel of Sugar House and Wal-Mart will destroy it. I will never step foot in it and personally think a Target would be awesome.

Hipe Otheticle | 4:45 p.m. Feb. 20, 2008

I save quite a bit shopping at walmart, $100 a month! That was until the retailer I worked for went out of buisness, our supplier makes us pay $50 for our product. Walmart tells the same supplier that they will pay $40 for that same item or they will drive the supplier out of buisness.

Thankfully I could still get a job in my area, at walmart. Now I have to save $100 on my groceries at Walmart because I earn several hundred less a month and lost my insurance.

Capitalism Is Terrible! | 6:07 p.m. Feb. 20, 2008

Here's an idea: Because Walmart is apparently so unpopular with the resididents in this area, they should get the last laugh by letting Walmart build a really big store and then everybody goes and shops at Target instead. That would be awesome! A great way to show Walmart that they aren't wanted here. Oh, wait, I guess that won't work because every time people protest when a Walmart is built, they end up being the first ones in line to buy stuff that isn't overpriced like it is at most other stores...especially Target.

norezone | 6:31 p.m. Feb. 20, 2008

As a resident of the Parley's Way/Foothill neighborhood, I am opposed to Wal-Mart's rezone request. Wal-Mart owns the property and has the right to put a store in. We, as the community members and neighbors, have a right to keep the zoning as is. Please don't let Wal-Mart change the zoning.

Been there | 7:12 p.m. Feb. 20, 2008

Having lived in that area at one time in my life, I am not against Wal Mart being there, but something needs to be done about wintertime access to the location. I used to live in Married student housing at the U of U, and shopped at that K Mart. Getting into and out of the parking lot is a night mare if the roads are snowy. Either way to access the lot, you have a good hill to travel and many times trafic at the top or the bottom. Now when WalMart goes in, the trafic will increase and so will problems, acidents, and tempers. City planners need to look at this in deciding.

Larry | 7:46 p.m. Feb. 20, 2008

Wal-Mart sells really cheap milk and bread. I love bread and milk.

norezoneinbackyard | 9:40 p.m. Feb. 20, 2008

The current zoning allows Walmart to have their supercenter without opening the area up to other possibilities in the future. Therefore, I oppose any rezone. Furthermore, if Walmart truly wants to be a good neighbor, they can still do the improved landscaping and lighting.
As for me, I still want to shop at Dan's, Albertsons, and Smiths, which are local or regional. I want to keep them in business. In fact I want to keep as many local stores in business, so that's where I'll shop.

Lucy Hawes | 9:53 p.m. Feb. 20, 2008

I am opposed to the proposed zoning change. I have lived in the Foothill area for thirty-one years of my life and enjoy it because it does not have supercenters like the store Wal-Mart proposes to build. I do not want to see the Foothill area become a Fort Union, State Street or any other main artery full of super stores -- we have those and I am happy to drive on I-80 or I-215 to visit any of them. Foothill has great character and I hope the City Council maintains that character.
Moreover, I live just off Parley's Way and Parley's is busy enough. My children have to cross Parley's to get to their elementary and junior high schools and any more traffic would further damage the neighborhoods we are trying to maintain.

hostile | 10:14 p.m. Feb. 20, 2008

As I see it, the proposed Wal-Mart will only bring low prices to this area. The problems created with traffic, uninsured employees, and potential negative impact on the local, established businesses (who have proven themselves as community-invested neighbors) is not worth this small benefit of penny pinching. Besides, what is Blue Boutique going to do when Wal-Mart starts slashing prices on lingerie and sex toys?

No Way | 2:55 p.m. Feb. 24, 2008

We can win against Walmart, it happens everyday around this country. More and more people and communities are saying NO. While we may not be able to stop them, if they do not get the zoning change they may re-think their plans. They know a old store will not present the attraction. Store traffic will be low and in 2 years they will move on. I understand that Walmart also has a number of smaller 25,000 Sf operations they might chose to build instead. I say stand firm and make them play their hand.

Page:
1
2
Next >

Add your comment

Comments are monitored. Any comments found to be abusive, offensive, off-topic, misrepresentative, more than 200 words or containing URLs will not be posted.

Words Remaining

E-mail address: For internal use only. We may want to contact you to publish your comment (not your e-mail address) in the newspaper or for a separate story idea.