Old Walmart site will turn into a wasteland
Editor, Ceres Courier,
The letter to the editor last week in the Ceres Courier regarding the proposed new Wal-Mart Supercenter was excellent. Sherri Jacobson hit the nail on the head. Put simply, why would we allow a second Walmart when the company has basically not been very good stewards with the location they are at now? The parking lot is always totally littered and looks like they have not repaved or sealed it in years. It's dimly lit and god forbid if you go there at night you better follow the security guard to your car. There is a reason for all those security guys in their parking lot.
So here is the question: Have they really done the best they can do at their existing site? Is this really what we want another one of? If they (Wal-Mart) want a Supercenter they have plenty of room to do it at their existing location. Clean it up/fix it up do whatever they have to do to make it work at their existing location. Let the City Council hold the Service/Mitchell location for someone more deserving (maybe a Target or Costco).
The economics to Wal-Mart is simple-the existing site is already fully depreciated on their books, which means they have already fully expensed it. Wal-Mart's cost to close this location or walk away from it is zero. Can they promise to put someone in that location; no, of course not. Why would they? Can we as a community really think in our heart of hearts that our town and the sounding community can support a Supercenter on Mitchell and Service and some other large retailer at their old location? No. The time is simply not right for this.
I like to pride myself on being pro-growth and all for free markets but the history of Wal-Mart's "cut and run" policies does not jive with what is best for Ceres. They have not treated their existing site with respect and if they move down the street are we as a community prepared to let the Mitchell-Hatch store site turn into a wasteland. Answer: I would hope not.
Unless there is an iron clad answer and/or solution to the use of the existing site - the answer to their request for a new site must be no! Elected officials are entrusted with seeing the long-term vision or what we want this community to look like five to 10 years from now. The reality is there is not another place in the Valley Walmart can get away with the proposal they are making to Ceres. Let's not have your legacy read that we settle for a second Walmart in 2011 only to drive by a wasteland at Hatch and Mitchell for the next 20 years.
David Yonan,
Ceres
* * * * * * *
LETTERS TO THE EDITOR POLICY
Letters to the editor will be considered for publication but must be signed with the author's name, address and telephone number. Letters should contain 250 words or less and be void of libelous statements. Letters may be sent to The Ceres Courier, P.O. Box 7, Ceres, CA 95307, or emailed to jeffb@cerescourier.com
Editor, Ceres Courier,
The letter to the editor last week in the Ceres Courier regarding the proposed new Wal-Mart Supercenter was excellent. Sherri Jacobson hit the nail on the head. Put simply, why would we allow a second Walmart when the company has basically not been very good stewards with the location they are at now? The parking lot is always totally littered and looks like they have not repaved or sealed it in years. It's dimly lit and god forbid if you go there at night you better follow the security guard to your car. There is a reason for all those security guys in their parking lot.
So here is the question: Have they really done the best they can do at their existing site? Is this really what we want another one of? If they (Wal-Mart) want a Supercenter they have plenty of room to do it at their existing location. Clean it up/fix it up do whatever they have to do to make it work at their existing location. Let the City Council hold the Service/Mitchell location for someone more deserving (maybe a Target or Costco).
The economics to Wal-Mart is simple-the existing site is already fully depreciated on their books, which means they have already fully expensed it. Wal-Mart's cost to close this location or walk away from it is zero. Can they promise to put someone in that location; no, of course not. Why would they? Can we as a community really think in our heart of hearts that our town and the sounding community can support a Supercenter on Mitchell and Service and some other large retailer at their old location? No. The time is simply not right for this.
I like to pride myself on being pro-growth and all for free markets but the history of Wal-Mart's "cut and run" policies does not jive with what is best for Ceres. They have not treated their existing site with respect and if they move down the street are we as a community prepared to let the Mitchell-Hatch store site turn into a wasteland. Answer: I would hope not.
Unless there is an iron clad answer and/or solution to the use of the existing site - the answer to their request for a new site must be no! Elected officials are entrusted with seeing the long-term vision or what we want this community to look like five to 10 years from now. The reality is there is not another place in the Valley Walmart can get away with the proposal they are making to Ceres. Let's not have your legacy read that we settle for a second Walmart in 2011 only to drive by a wasteland at Hatch and Mitchell for the next 20 years.
David Yonan,
Ceres
* * * * * * *
LETTERS TO THE EDITOR POLICY
Letters to the editor will be considered for publication but must be signed with the author's name, address and telephone number. Letters should contain 250 words or less and be void of libelous statements. Letters may be sent to The Ceres Courier, P.O. Box 7, Ceres, CA 95307, or emailed to jeffb@cerescourier.com
