Reader comments
Commission says no to Wal-Mart rezone
29 comments | Read story
Get today's headlines via email
Afternoon edition
Deseret News Family Deals
In News
Across Site
- Salt Lake County opposes property...
- Las Vegas revises request for rights...
- Prepare so an earthquake doesn't...
- Is technology making us stupid?
- Crews searching recycling center in...
- West Valley City leaders to join call...
- Colliding causes: Gay rights and...
- Woman charged in Rasmussen death...
- Photos: Salt Lake Main Library...
- Powells, Coxes put differences aside...
In News
Across Site
- Powells, Coxes put differences aside...
- Colliding causes: Gay rights and...
- Crews searching recycling center in...
- Despite data, Lyme disease sufferers...
- View live stream of services for...
- LDS bishop ordered to stand trial for...
- Father-in-law dragged deeper into...
- Battling misconceptions: Faced with...
- Focus returns to Powell children today
- Josh Powell had 'incestuous' images...
In News
Across Site
- Gay rights and religious liberty
93 - Families at odds over Powell's actions
54 - LDS bishop ordered to stand trial
41 - Utah House blocks Sandstrom bill
39 - Powell call:'I'm afraid for their lives'
33 - Photos: Year of the Dragon
26 - Bill would cut auto safety checks
24 - DEA deal blow to Mexican cartel
24 - Should SLC bid again for Olympics?
23 - Utah takes $171M in settlement
19







congrats to all you really stuck it to the evil company.
WalMart bought the property aware of this restriction, but is trying to "give us" a 120,000 square foot building.
The 2005 zoning amendment that passed after WalMart purchased the property simply defined the allowable uses for each zone, and disallowed "supercenters." WalMart (or anyone else) was already prevented from opening a supercenter because of the earlier size restriction, so the 2005 zoning action is irrelevant, but WalMart is trying to convince us otherwise.
Lets face it, the people who came and complained at the commission meeting are the sort of people who want to keep WM out at any cost. They wont shop there regardless of how nice the building is, because they have political reasons against it. Which means, why bother to humor them?
Due to WM's prices, there would be enough people who will shop there to keep it profitable, even if they built it out of bare cinderblock.
Interesting how the locals decided to be asinflexible as they are, and then accuse WM of being a bad neighbor.
In Centerville, they negotiated, and got a nice store, donations to the police department for traffic enforcement, and contributions for freeway interchange improvements.
Enjoy your traffic woes and lovely views, boneheads. If you think you're keeping the po'folks out of your posh neighborhoods, think again.
And frankly, thats really what this is, isn't it? You just really don't like "those sort" of people who shop at WM up in your neck of the woods. Only Mexicans and white trash shop there, right?
Just admit it, guys.
An American Company wants to invest millions of dollars into a new brand new energy efficient nice looking building and site, and the residnets would rather have a run down piece of junk?
A less-green development makes zero sense.
Way to go, guys.
Our appetite for risk is not that high. We would much rather live with the ills we have then the ills we not of. We would much rather live with an ugly building for a few more years with the hope that eventually Wal-Mart will leave and we might be able to get something in that space that is conducive to the neighborhood.
But then again, this is a win win. The 100 vocals can now go around saying we won! we won! To Wal-Mart, most likely this was not a lose situation. They get their store regardless. Now they will save thousands of dollars in community improvments and still have a booming business as soon as they open the door.
The comments above from "the risks" are really sad. The store will be there for years. Perhaps your chance for the neighborhood upgrade it shounds like you want has now been lost.
Note: They will do a lot of business initially. A lot of people will travel great distances to go to that store to make a point. But 12 months down the road, they will not. So we bank on the idea that in 5-10 years, Wal-Mart will leave (which statistically is highly likely) and then we have a chance of getting something we want.
We are not impulsive we understand and know how to balance long term desires with short term gains.
Those in the community who bothered to take the time to attend the meetings have generally made cohesive
and obviously persuasive arguments for rejecting the rezone.
It's not going to happen, at least not for that reason.
If Walamart produces an ugly building (new or remodel)
It will be because that is what Walmart does best.